Heathrow is to get a third runway...if the government gets its way.
Jack and Vera yesterday.
BBC News coverage is here. What do you think?
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
The blog for the afternoon news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
Subscribe to PM
You can stay up to date with PM via these feeds.
PM Feed(RSS)
PM Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Listen to PM
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~35~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
A third terminal? Erm, I think they have more than that already, Eddie....
Complain about this comment
Eddie, I think your fingers are runnning away with you (geddit?)
Complain about this comment
oops. Standby for a change!
Complain about this comment
Would that be yet another terminal, Eddie? ;o)
Complain about this comment
They decided years ago they were going to do it and all this is just fannying around. Unfortunately, I doubt anything will stop it, even Greenpeace's valiant efforts, eventually. Can't see why they bother to have consultations when they've already decided.
Complain about this comment
In other news, Russian tanks have entered Prague, PM Harold Wilson announces he's "Backing Britain" and the last steam passenger train is set to run in August...
More seriously, is anyone surprised by this? New labour have finally completed their journey into the pockets of big business, while the New Conservatives - saying that they'll reverse the decision if they achieve power* have gone in the other direction. Should they all swap seats in the commons?
* But then I seem to remember Labour saying the same when rail privatisation was first mooted.
Complain about this comment
Wow I sound really grumpy....
Complain about this comment
I see Jack and Vera are back.
Complain about this comment
ITYM A third runway and sixth terminal...
Hardly surprising, since they've backed it all the way. After all, the CBI and IoD have a bigger voice than locals or environmentalists...
What surprises me is that the Tories are opposed to it. I thought they were traditionally the party of free trade and deregulation...and it wouldn't surprise me if they'd rubber stamp the application if they won the next election...
If it does get through all the legal hurdles, will anyone have the foresight to build 700 new homes to replace Sipson (perhaps in the fields between Harlington and Cranford Park), or will they just be forced to move into whatever homes are available on the market? Additionally, what will the CPO valuation be based on? After all, the values of the homes will plummet rapidly once permission is granted...
Complain about this comment
Eric's gone back to 1961. wikipaedia says that when T3 was opened. (Stop playing with that TARDIS)
Having not been to Heathrow for a while is it still the Oceanic terminal?
Does that airline have any planes left? 'cos that the one that the folk from Lost flew on.
Complain about this comment
No surprise there then.
What was it this country was going to have its name changed to? Airstrip One, wasn't it?
Complain about this comment
Gossipmistress (7):
With very good reason and a *lot* of company I suspect.
mittfh (9):
I suspect if any new homes *are* built, they'll be in the way of the fourth runway which - at the (I think bogus) estimates of air travel growth - will probably be lobbied for within ten years, and they'll have to be demolished again.
Stewart M (10):
1961? Drat. I thought it was 1968. Oh well, I look forward to Eddie blogging about Yuri Gararin's space flight then...
Complain about this comment
Surprise, surprise, it's the old economy versus environment row again! With people losing their jobs left, right and centre and many people probably feeling very aggrieved at the moment there's only ever going to be one winner; a new runway means more jobs and more money into the economy; meaning more votes for Labour.
Economic prosperity and environmental preservation cannot go together as the new technology is either not there or is quite often not commercially viable, and, as a result, even if we can make improvements, we rarely find the impetus to implement them.
Has anyone noticed the temperature going down recently?
Complain about this comment
Nice picture.
Complain about this comment
I'm all in favour of it.
Complain about this comment
Basing the ability to meet polution targets on the development of greener aircraft is tenious at best. Yes, there are going to be improvements, but RnD on new fleets of aircraft is far from rapid. And unless a new miracle fuel is in the pipelines then planes will only get less heavily polluting, not green.
Does anyone remember the stories over the summer, of airlines employing actors to sit on planes so they weren't completely empty? 99% capacity use of the runways is not 99% use of planes.
Complain about this comment
I expect once it's built, they'll then demolish the bit of Harlington between Sipson Lane and the M4 in order to extend the runway.
As for a fourth runway, Stanwell would appear to be a logical target, together with Staines Reservoirs and possibly the King George VI Reservoir.
As for the loss of water, they'd presumably have to join up the Queen Mother Reservoir and Wraysbury Reservoir.
Alternatively, they could build a N-S runway and terminal a couple of miles West at Windsor - there's already a surfaced path in roughly the right direction (The Long Walk)...
Cynical? If this blog is still around in 50 years, come back and see how many of my (ever so slightly tongue in cheek) predictions have come true...
Complain about this comment
mittfh: The problem is, will WE be around in 50 years to check ;)
Complain about this comment
This never was an 'if', only a 'when'.
Complain about this comment
You see? Those affected by the Equitable Life business?
An apology? Another apology but that seems all. Except for a "hardship fund" for those "hardest hit"?
On "their uppers" perhaps? And who decides that? Yup, MoP of yesterday.
A public apology from another MoP.
Equitable Life investors and former investors may comment on its suitability in the circumstances.
As I am not one - I will resist further comment.
Complain about this comment
The Government has purchased "carbon offsets" to balance the extra pollution caused by a third runway. The methane produced in the House of Commons is being given to British Gas.
Complain about this comment
I'm ambivalent about this. I grew up under one of the Heathrow take off flight paths (the one that went on further to Wimbledon, so when the tennis was on, the planes would just about be out of our hearing, you could hear them on the TV). I didn't really think anything about the noise. I only noticed it when I was away for any length of time. More recently, my last job involved a fair amount of travel to Europe, so I've spent more early mornings & mid-evenings at Heathrow than I care to think about. There needs to be something done to reduce the impact of any delays to incoming & outgoing flights. All it takes is a 5 minute delay to a flight taking off in the morning to have an impact on the whole day's schedule. This can potentially mean people missing connections, losing luggage, etc. To operate any business at 99% capacity day in, day out, is crazy. Rightly or wrongly, Heathriow is NOT just a London airport, it's the primary airport for a lot of businesses in the South East, as well as along the M4 and M40 corridors. We need to ensure that it is up to the job of supporting the needs of business and personal travellers for the region.
That said, I am generally against any increase in noise or air pollution. Unless the overall environmental burden is lessened, there should be a halt on increasing the number of flights. It's a thorny issue that's not got any easy answers as far as I can tell...
Complain about this comment
It won't be built.
This rabble of business suits we call the government have little time left, during which it won't even get as far as an enquiry. Earliest estimates for building it are around 2010? By which time climate change will have convinced even these plodders that 'somat's up', environmentalists will have been accepted as having been right all along, air travel will have diminished hugely as a) many will be unable to afford it, and b) lots more will have decided they can no longer justify it.
Air travel globally will be reducing year on year, so the arguments that have convinced Geoff 'ThePlank' Hoon and Gordon 'TheMoron' Brown that a third runway is needed will have vanished in the mist, and they will be pontificating in the Lords. The country will be coping with so many problems caused by extreme weather events that building another runway will seem like the height of folly to all but the hard of thinking. It's a dead duck, simply won't happen.
Complain about this comment
(11) I think you'll find that was Asset Stripped One!!!
Complain about this comment
Catlady: Lol!
Complain about this comment
Yep I'm with you on this FF (22) - my "business" head can understand the need to expand. However the impact on noise, air pollution, road traffic etc will be immense. I feel sorry for anyone whose property won't be bought in order to accomodate the expansion but who will end up living right next door to it.
Complain about this comment
The Plane Truth
Complain about this comment
Face it. We can only save the planet if The Global Economy can afford to...
Peace and Consumption
ed
Complain about this comment
Have we landed yet?
Complain about this comment
FF I think you may be right. Can anyone tell me the economic and social impact of not having an extra runway in the London area? Isn't there an impact on the economy of the south east since heathrow is an international hub airport as well as a London airport? I appreciate the negative side of action - what's the negative of inaction. I'm sure since there are a lot of coments on the blog that this will have been considered carefully and many people will have useful information...
Complain about this comment
On the basis that the runway is needed for economic expansion, at what point do we stop? When we've filled the whole island with industry?
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile,.... Now where did I leave that violin?
lalalalalalalalaaaaa....
ed
Complain about this comment
Don't get me wrong. I think there's scope for moving some flights, especially short haul, onto other forms or transit. I found the Eurostar a great way to travel to Paris and Brussels. In fact, I pushed to have all my travel done that way, as the time (even getting the train to London and across to Waterloo,as it was when I was doing it) to be not that more than flying, and the travel was more comfortable. I'm even toying with the idea of using the train to go on holiday this year. That said, for longer distance travel, planes are the only realistic option for many. Regarding the "fact" that London has 5 airports, this is a bit of a red herring. For people to the West of London, the only realistic option is to fly from LHR. Gatwick, Luton, and Stanstead are a lot further to get to, and offer less flexibility for the business traveller. City is viable only for those who are in London to begin with. The idea of closing LHR and moving it to the Thames Estuary is no good for all the people west of London for whom LHR is the only realistic airport to use. You only have to think of the large number of international businesses along the M4 and M40 corridors who would suddenly find their travel costs sky-rocketing.
The bottom line is that we need to find a way to reduce short haul flights by moving them to alternative, less polluting means of transport, whilst keeping options for long haul travel for those around London.
Complain about this comment
FF - I agree entirely with you, I think. I too lived under the flightpath pretty much where you mention for 10 years. The flight noise that far out was mildly irritating, I suppose, but you got used to it - even the if you were still disturbed by the first flight in a 4.30am and drowned out by Concorde (at least that's gone!). And I can see that those who will lose their homes will be upset. But...I think I that the govt is broadly correct in its argument that the planes will fly anyway and that travellers want them to fly into Heathrow. And the long term health of the UK economy is best served by buidling the thing. If we can have the high speed rail links too then that would be great (though I fear that these will not materialise). And I think that when it comes to it, the Tories will proceed with the expansion, whatever they say now. Their business friends will talk them round, they will undertake a new consultation (thus delaying the project further) but in the end, it will be built.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand why anyone uses Heathrow at all. If there is a decent regional airport - one can generally fly to Schiphol (a very civilised and easily navigated airport) and then onwards. Fares may look a bit higher but when one adds to the Heathrow ticket the cost of getting there, parking, maybe staying overnight, and the sheer hell of the place...the answer is simple.
If there was a decent rail service from where I live, I'd take Eurostar anytime for trips to Paris. But there ain't.
Complain about this comment
EI 27, Are you Herbert W Armstrong with dyslexia?
Complain about this comment
Creating a third runway at Heathrow makes a mockery of all the palaver about cutting down on plastic bags and incandescent lightbulbs. It shows that we really don't give a stuff about the environment.
Complain about this comment
gm 5, Were you in The Thin Blue Line?
Complain about this comment
All this takes the "need" for travel and transport at the present (or growing) levels as unquestionable. Can we not recognise that spending such a large portion of our time budget on just scurrying around is silly?
AndIn the future, historians (if there are any) will refer to this as the Age of Scurrying
Scurry on!
ed
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile, Birmingham currently has a planning application lodged for a 405m extension to its runway, which Solihull Council is minded to approve (subject to noise/environmental conditions): 9yn3jh
East Midlands also wants a 190m extension: a88rf4
And of course Stansted has been granted permission to increase the number of planes using it: 4bkdps
(All codes are TinyURL references)
Complain about this comment
There we have, a nation divided!
I'm so bored.
Complain about this comment
Fearless 22!
"I'm ambivalent..."
Really! This IS a family show.
Complain about this comment
It will mean permanent gridlock on the roads of West London. The M4 is horrendous now. Has anybody who is supposed to be planning this thought it through? Or is it another bogstandard expensive government muddle?
Complain about this comment
What about the points that having a 3rd runway will reduce number of planes stacking around london which will reduce the emissions? And if there is no 3rd runway then planes will simply goto airports in france, germany, netherlands and spain?
Please address these arguments. Are they right or wrong.
Thank you PM.
Complain about this comment
Don't disappoint me Eddie. You should interrogate the anti-third-runway people as robustly as you do the BAA boss. He is the voice of the silent majority who believe a third runway is good for Britain.
Complain about this comment
In deciding to build a third runway, have the powers that be forgotten that we are an island and only have so much space to do things in. I used to live just around the M25 from Heathrow and was raised on the mean streets of Mitcham but now live "up North". When I venture "down South" I can't help noticing how crowded the area is, and this will not get any better with a 3rd runway and all the associated traffic and related infrastructure. For me this has nothing to do with climate change but all to do with the quality of life in a very crowded island. There are no advantages to be had from another runway.
Complain about this comment
Whatever happened to the London mayor's - Boris' - great idea to relocate Heathrow to the Thames estuary and the Isle of Sheppey ?
Not Labour and too simple was it ?
Another great idea that had its day long ago was the 'seaplane' . Remember the great Saunders Roe Princess flying boat of the early fifties ? Piston engined and therefore deemed unworthy then . Now , if only there were a modern equivalent today it would be winner, I feel .
The majority of the world's great cities were founded upon the fact that sheltered waters were near at hand and therefore welcoming to all crafts .
The UK doesn't have land enough to keep ploughing up for the wretchedness that is air travel today .
Complain about this comment
of course that town's a community - the way to unite a community has always been to threaten to drive a road, or a runway, through it. When that new terminal opened the chaos was a result of how busy Heathrow is, how many people need a new runway. We also see too many planes flying around London waiting to land. That's the need for a new runway, their MP just have to loose all those votes from his constituiency.
As for greenhouse gases, according to New Scientist magazine, more damage is done to the climate by methane given of by pigs, cows and other ruminants than by all transport put together. That's not, however, essential to their survival, it's due to a parasite in their rumin or pre-stomach. Aberystwyth University has shown that this can be reduced by 25-50% by adding allicin found in garlic.
Complain about this comment
reraberab
i think the new train line is meant to reduce car traffic on the M4 and there is talk of 250 million pounds for electric cars according to the PM report
Complain about this comment
Has anyone noticed that lately many airlines have ceased doing direct long haul flights from regional airports?
Many British travellers are now forced to go to Heathrow to get a connecting flight - is this a coincidence? Or were they trying to bump up business to make their case stronger?
Or am I being too, too cynical...
Complain about this comment
Allowing the third runway at Heathrow to go ahead is a betrayal of environmental ethics. It is simply not good enough to waffle about electric cars which may 'negate' the impact of the runway; we should not be aiming to negate but to reduce - or better.
I live nowhere near Heathrow but my heart goes out to those individuals and communities that will inevitably suffer as a result of this madness. In my earlier years I was a member of Greenpeace - it felt a little extreme and I allowed it to lapse, putting it down to youthful enthusiasm. Many years later, i now find myself wanting to renew that membership. Indeed I'll join any group that will put together a reasonable protest.
Complain about this comment
Happyhomeworker
You are right there are less direct flights from regional airports to longhaul destionations. This is mainly due to the new airlines servicing these routes going bankrupt. This suggests the business model is not working and it is not comercially viable.
Complain about this comment
There is only so much air traffic Heathrow can absorb.
Aircraft have to be a certain numbers of miles apart, both vertically and horizontally.
Another runway will not increase air traffic significantly as there is a limit on airspace above Heathrow, what it will do is ease congestion in the airport itself.
Complain about this comment
Good!Complain about this comment
Ed Iglehart
Good because? global warming / climate change is in fact not global but local?
Complain about this comment
"...the most environmentally friendly aircraft..."?
Isn't that like "a little bit pregnant"?
"I know which side I am on, and I know which side this government is on!"
We know too. The side of big business... the same big business that most government ministers work for when they're finally turfed out of their seats. I'm sickened. (But not surprised in the least.)
Complain about this comment
A few months ago a newspaper reported an airline was flying empty aircraft between London and Bristol in order to hang on to that particular slot. And the people who allow situations like that to obtain, are telling us they need more capacity? A prague on all their houses.
Complain about this comment
Two predictions, with the current proposals:
(i) Almost certainly the rail hub at Heathrow is destined not to happen.
(ii) Runway 3 and Terminal 6 will probably not happen.
To deal with the rail hub, forget it, it not part of the plans - merely a sop.
What is it about UK Government planning that it delivers too little, too late?
Or, as in this case - they build the facility in the wrong place, and keep expanding it?
So, you build terminals 1,2 and 3 - that's one big hole - and then keep digging; with increasing urgency, and matching hysteria!
The Heathrow facility is located on the wrong side of London - it always was on the wrong side of London - it always will be on the wrong side of London.
When London First, and other such pressure groups tell us "London needs this expansion", two million people whose lives are blighted in more or less measure by its existence will argue otherwise.
In normal circumstances planes will make their descent to Heathrow *over London* crossing outer London suburbs in an arc from the Thames Estuary to Croydon, funnelling to a narrow
sector over Richmond, Hammersmith and Chiswick. Every part of this approach and glide path is heavily populated.
Less frequently, planes will glide in over Staines and Windsor. If they do that and take off in the same mode, the danger of a catastrophic accident is increased.
Have a look on a map to see in what space Charles De Gaulle and Schipol are nested. They already have huge capacity, and huge space for expansion.
LHR Terminal 6 and Runway 3 are far too late to catch CDG and Schipol - and in the wrong place! Foolish, or what?
Here's a plan :
(i) keep Runways 1 and 2, and keep Terminals 4 and 5 (only!);
(ii) build the railway hub, recycling the space above and below ground from Terminals 1, 2 and 3, for the rail hub facilities; and supplement the reduced (yes, *reduced*) use of Heathrow with more capacity elsewhere -
*on the right side of London*
Do that - and we may have a contribution to a XXIst Century transport system.
Complain about this comment
52 Grandnico13
I'm sure you're right, some routes were not profitable. However when my Mum was trying to fly to Canada last year, we attempted to find a flight from Manchester. Regular travel companies said there were none. We did however find a Thomas Cook one (well hidden), could be found only if you knew about it.
I assume that the big players, who dominate the industry, don't want anyone to know about the direct flight!
Anyway, BA made a decision last year to fly long-haul only from London. Surely that gives the game away? Push up the Heathrow numbers in the run-up to the decision?
Think about all the jobs lost in the regions as they pull out of direct flights, add together the ones as airlines went bust - I bet you all the "new" jobs in the South East will be roughly equivalent in the long run, putting aside any construction gains.
Complain about this comment
Well Mr. Madoff
You're safe. After all, I guess it's only money...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/4247756/Vatican-reveals-secrets-of-worst-sins.html
Complain about this comment
What happened to my comment. supaBsqare
Complain about this comment
@44: "having a 3rd runway will reduce number of planes stacking around london which will reduce the emissions?"
Only until the number of planes increases by a third, thus putting the airport back to 99% capacity...
Complain about this comment
As a matter of interest, why is the BBC ignoring the fact that there are already three runways at Heathrow, and what is proposed is building a fourth one?
Complain about this comment
supaBsquare - there's a comment from you in the Glass Box. Is that what you're looking for?
Complain about this comment
Runways...
Who needs them?
Not this Pilot featured in the article below for sure. Now, if we return to the days when planes had floats to enable take-offs and landings on water...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7832439.stm
Complain about this comment
Having spent some years working for a company with offices in London and the US I did my share of flying from Heathrow. Waiting for my flight I watched the planes coming in along the corridor from the west separated by about 90 seconds and marvelled at the ingenuity that (usually) kept everything working.
I also was involved with scenario planning for how to keep our business in business if a Heathrow bound plane landed on it rather than the runway.
What are the odds that by pushing up the numbers of flights sooner or later one of them ends up on the M25? And just what would be the economic (let alone the human) impact of that.
Plus my son-in-law's family graves are due to be bulldozed by it all - you will have gathered I am not in favour.
Complain about this comment
Charlie (5):
We have a regular float-plane service in Glasgow - it runs from the river Clyde up to Loch Lomond and the Isles. It's very civilised.
Complain about this comment
SSC 67, They apparently have a float-plane service in the Hudson River in NY.
Complain about this comment
Anne P: Probably something like this, but much worse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/8/newsid_2506000/2506665.stm
Complain about this comment
Actually, being pedantic, it's hard to say precisely what number the new runway will be, because although there are only two functional runways at present (the cross runway will be demolished sometime over the next few years to make way for Heathrow East - a replacement for T2 [due to be demolished this year] and T1 [due to be demolished sometime before 2012]), it has had several others in the past - all of which have since been swallowed up by terminal buildings.
And looking at the maps linked to from Wikipedia, Harmondsworth looks rather precarious - the NE end will be demolished, and it will be enveloped by the new development on it's NW, N, NE and E sides. Plus a cemetary N of the M4 will be bisected by a new link road.
Complain about this comment
DMcN @ 68, and yesterday somebody dropped a plane into the Hudson.
Ooops, butterfingers!
Nobody dead though, I think, so that's good at least.
Anne P @ 66, to use a quotation from someone who's been watching this with professional bias: "Quite apart from considerations of the desirability of adding to Heathrow's aircraft movement capacity, *the sky over London is full*. There is no possibility of adding the sort of number of extra slots that's being demanded; aircraft separation is already as low as it's allowed to be. It would make vastly more sense to put this extra capacity somewhere with more sparsely-used sky - Birmingham, say, or Manchester."
--
Complain about this comment
Typical! Blame the victims for being in your way!
Now that reminds me....Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
grandnico13,
Because somebody, somewhere has to start the process of refusing growth for its own sake."Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" -- Ed Abbey
Complain about this comment
Mercsport (47) Seaplane demonstrated in New York yesterday.
Heathrow is well worth avoiding now so why make it worse?
If Heathrow has a large "Hub" role why not build a "Hub" specifically for the purpose? It wouldn't need much access because all the passengers would arrive and leave by air.
Complain about this comment
Ed 73
""Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell""
Which interestingly, invariably leads to self-destruction, one way or another...
Complain about this comment
Charlie, Somehow, I think that's the point of the quotation...
Complain about this comment
Thinking of seaplanes...there are several large reservoirs near Heathrow. Join them together, add a dock at one end...
Unfortunately seaplanes / flying boats / amphibious aircraft are quite rare, and don't handle many passengers. Additionally, their shape means they're less aerodynamic than other aircraft, and some find it hard to take off / land in rough water (so lake shores would presumably make better ports than coastlines).
Complain about this comment
Flying boats were amazing.
Complain about this comment
C_G 71, What a coinkydinkle....or was that what I was referring to.
Complain about this comment
DMcN @ 79, I apologise: I missed the point because I thought you meant there was an actual seaplane service there, rather than that someone had managed to make a non-seaplane float in an emergency and get everyone off safely when it went *SPLOSH*.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS