LHR 3rd runway - news just in...

[Westdene Seagull]

i stand to be corrected, but i believe its 800 homes "impacted", not destroyed. the site of the second runway largely replaces warehouses and office buildings. the impact count is a couple of orders of magnitude lower than those in London.

Directly from the report :

"
All of the three schemes would result in a loss of homes in the local community due
to the land take required to construct the expanded airport, as set out in the Place
module. These impacts would be largest for the Heathrow Airport Northwest
Runway scheme, which would require the loss of 783 homes, including the entire
community of Longford and much of Harmondsworth. The loss of housing required
for the other two schemes would be smaller, though still significant, with 242
houses estimated to be lost as a result of the Heathrow Airport Extended Northern
Runway scheme’s land-take and 167 lost due to the Gatwick Airport Second
Runway scheme. "

 

[Pavilionaire]

If the Tory Government is serious about creating a "Northern Powerhouse" then how is the building of a third runway at Heathrow / Gatwick going to help?

Surely this will suck in more investment into the south-east, or discourage businesses from relocating away from the south-east? And having thousands of new jobs as a result is only going to attract more economic migrants to Calais.

At what point does the government have the balls to say "enough already" for the south-east? It's stuff like this that divides the nation.

 

[RexCathedra]

At what point does the government have the balls to say "enough already" for the south-east? It's stuff like this that divides the nation.

Interesting article by Cory Doctorow on why he's leaving London for LA...

The short version is that we want to live in a city that's a livable place to work, where we can raise our family, and where we can run our respective small businesses. But London is a city whose two priorities are being a playground for corrupt global elites who turn neighbourhoods into soulless collections of empty safe-deposit boxes in the sky, and encouraging the feckless criminality of the finance industry. These two facts are not unrelated.

He also quotes extensively this 28 June piece from The Guardian, "London, The City That Ate Itself".

 

[Rugrat]

If the Tory Government is serious about creating a "Northern Powerhouse" then how is the building of a third runway at Heathrow / Gatwick going to help?

Surely this will suck in more investment into the south-east, or discourage businesses from relocating away from the south-east? And having thousands of new jobs as a result is only going to attract more economic migrants to Calais.

At what point does the government have the balls to say "enough already" for the south-east? It's stuff like this that divides the nation.

That fact is that business is here already and won't relocate North on a promise and even then it will be "build but they won't come".

Investing in the North is (I assumed) intended to stimulate the economy as far as domestic business is concerned, not internationally

The problem as I see it with Gatwick, and indeed any other non Heathrow location, is that flights are pretty well 100% point to point whereas Heathrow is a hub and has a vast network of European and international routes to transfer in from and on to. This really is what sets it apart and I just can't see Gatwick or anywhere else developing that kind of network ever.

Like pretty well every other major airport around the world "hub is king" and I'm not aware of any city that have been able to accomodate 2 .. JFK and Newark but not really

 

[Pavilionaire]

That fact is that business is here already and won't relocate North on a promise and even then it will be "build but they won't come".

Investing in the North is (I assumed) intended to stimulate the economy as far as domestic business is concerned, not internationally

The problem as I see it with Gatwick, and indeed any other non Heathrow location, is that flights are pretty well 100% point to point whereas Heathrow is a hub and has a vast network of European and international routes to transfer in from and on to. This really is what sets it apart and I just can't see Gatwick or anywhere else developing that kind of network ever.

Like pretty well every other major airport around the world "hub is king" and I'm not aware of any city that have been able to accomodate 2 .. JFK and Newark but not really

I understand the logic in what you say but on a national level it doesn't make sense. London is sucking in investment like a Black Hole, there are cranes all over the place yet there is a massive shortage of accommodation in the south-east. I live in Ashington, there are just over 1,000 properties but plans submitted to build another 125. First there was Terminal 5, now a third runway at Heathrow and the planned dualling the whole of the A27 so no doubt there'll be another 125 properties in the five years after that, and no doubt another runway at Heathrow / Gatwick, and so it will continue.

If we are serious about rebalancing our country then the planners have to be bold and incentivise the shift. The politicians posture about the Northern Powerhouse but are not doing nearly enough. Some progress is being made, but if London is progressing at twice the rate then, in reality, the North is falling even further behind.

 

[Red Side Of Sussex]

I used to be in favour of Gatwick expanding simply because it would create work for people in Crawley.I have since changed my mind.Over the years I have known hundreds of people who worked at the airport.Aircraft cleaners,baggage handlers,catering,engineers,etc etc all earned good money and were from Crawley.It was great that British workers could have a job locally and earn pretty good dough toh how it's changed.To many foreign workers have driven down wages and taken many of these jobs.If the airport expanded it would mean even more migrants making their way to Crawley and taking low paid work at the airport and putting huge pressure on my town.

 

[beorhthelm]

The problem as I see it with Gatwick, and indeed any other non Heathrow location, is that flights are pretty well 100% point to point whereas Heathrow is a hub and has a vast network of European and international routes to transfer in from and on to. This really is what sets it apart and I just can't see Gatwick or anywhere else developing that kind of network ever.

Like pretty well every other major airport around the world "hub is king" and I'm not aware of any city that have been able to accomodate 2 .. JFK and Newark but not really

well there's the whole problem in the first place, the hub model suits a few major airlines and major airports, but it doesn't make a lot of sense itself. they say they need more capacity for international business flights, but use up slots on tourist charters. they argue they need to respond to demand for flights to China, but at the same time these flights need in bound passengers from other places to fill the plane. Theres no reason for Gatwick not to expand into a "hub" of its own if they want, but Heathrow and BA dont want that.

 

[RexCathedra]

It was great that British workers could have a job locally and earn pretty good dough toh how it's changed.To many foreign workers have driven down wages and taken many of these jobs.If the airport expanded it would mean even more migrants making their way to Crawley and taking low paid work at the airport and putting huge pressure on my town.

Gatwick was privatized 25 years ago. Its owners need to turn a profit.
Those low-paid migrants are making that possible.
This is what 'running government like a business' means.

 

[Red Side Of Sussex]

Gatwick was privatized 25 years ago. Its owners need to turn a profit.
Those low-paid migrants are making that possible.
This is what 'running government like a business' means.

Yep,and I don't like it.

 

[Captain Sensible]

If the Tory Government is serious about creating a "Northern Powerhouse" then how is the building of a third runway at Heathrow / Gatwick going to help?

Surely this will suck in more investment into the south-east, or discourage businesses from relocating away from the south-east? And having thousands of new jobs as a result is only going to attract more economic migrants to Calais.

At what point does the government have the balls to say "enough already" for the south-east? It's stuff like this that divides the nation.

By increasing flights to Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow etc from the capital. That's how.

 

[RexCathedra]

Yep,and I don't like it.

Uttering the correct incantations delivers Parliamentary majorities, though, doesn't it?
Politics-as-J.K. Rowling novel.

 

[sten_super]

I did some work on the evidence base for this (not directly for the Airports Commission mind). The case for Heathrow is all about the economic benefits, which are (more or less indisputably) bigger from a single large hub than from a dual 'small hub' approach (which is what you'd get from expanding Gatwick). This applies both in London/South East and the rest of the UK, as a number of slots will be dedicated to domestic connections - this will facilitate easier movement of goods/workers from regional airports into Heathrow and on to international markets (businesses are particularly interested in strengthening links into Asia). It's on this basis that Heathrow is the preferred option; the Airport Commission clearly believe that the design of the expansion (alongside other measures) can mitigate the worst of the environmental impacts (which I don't know enough about to comment).

For me, the decision was more or less made when the scope of the Commission was established. It was told to work out whether Gatwick or Heathrow was the best site for expansion - that was only ever likely to deliver one answer. If the remit had been wider they could have considered the necessity of increasing capacity, or whether alternative joined-up transport infrastructure could have lead to a better dual-hub approach (with Luton, Stansted or even Oxfordshire) - but they weren't allowed to look into that.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Nice to see that IDS is trying to bury the news about repealing legislation on child poverty measures and targets as the airport expansion plan is taking the headlines. Child poverty wont rise after the £12BN of welfare benefits cut due to be announced in the budget because a new set of figures will be issued.

 

[easynow]

It's embarrassing we only have 3 Runways for the two major South-East England airports. Good luck trying to convince all the non-eu airlines to fly anywhere else but Heathrow or Gatwick. Nimby central this country.

 

[ROSM]

To me it's a simple solution now. Say yes to Heathrow knowing it's atvleast 15 years away and also say yes to Gatwick knowing it could be delivered in 9.

Tbh all report writers want is for their work to not be put into the long grass. This report cleverly allows a way to avoid that

 

[Ernest]

Nice to see that IDS is trying to bury the news about repealing legislation on child poverty measures and targets as the airport expansion plan is taking the headlines. Child poverty wont rise after the £12BN of welfare benefits cut due to be announced in the budget because a new set of figures will be issued.

Or the fact he had his government credit card stopped

 

[yxee]

I'm sure your opinion on Nimbyism would be slightly different if one of the 800 homes that will be destroyed was yours.

800 Vs. 67,000,000

I rest my case

If your argument were followed by our greatest engineers throughout history, we would have no railways or motorways. I'm totally serious, they're going to be compensated, what is their loss versus a huge boost for the entire economy?

 

[easynow]

By increasing flights to Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow etc from the capital. That's how.

How would the government make those places more appealing for airlines? Tourist want to go to London. They think of the UK and they think of London. Perhaps a high-speed train that connects all the major cities direct from London? Maybe more runways at Gatwick or Heathrow so domestic flights are not so expensive? It's cheaper to fly to Scotland from Gatwick than to Newcastle!

 

[nicko31]

Another runway will mean more road traffic and probably a 5th lane on the M25, a 4th lane on the M23, M40 etc.

Keep the air capacity down and the fares up

 

[Captain Sensible]

How would the government make those places more appealing for airlines? Tourist want to go to London. They think of the UK and they think of London. Perhaps a high-speed train that connects all the major cities direct from London? Maybe more runways at Gatwick or Heathrow so domestic flights are not so expensive? It's cheaper to fly to Scotland from Gatwick than to Newcastle!

The 3rd runway is a short haul runway and BA have pledged to expand the domestic UK network after a 3rd runway. I flew Manchester to LHR for £42 last week. I was answering the how will a Heathrow runway help build a northern power house. I was just saying more connectivity and traffic to the north will help. Garrick will most likely use the 2nd runway to increase Thompson flights to Antigua.