A few years ago, plans for a 3rd runway at Heathrow were put to the ground as a new administration came to power that would not favour it being built. Even a year ago, the political powers that be were saying that a 3rd runway at Heathrow plans were “dead and buried”.
Yet here we are again, with Heathrow fighting for a 3rd runway, with Gatwick also wanting for a 2nd runway, whilst some want a new airport built nowhere near the current airports
Heathrow Aiport have released its plans at mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/Heathrow-unveils-a-new-approach-to-third-runway-5e2.aspx – this suggests 3 possible sites:
– North (original proposal)
– North West (new)
– South West (new)
Heathrow’s preferred option would be to place a new runway to the north-west or the south-west of the airport. This would allow for a full length runway. The North runway would be quicker to build, but it would also be the nosiest and have the biggest impact on residential property.
Whilst other options exist into the capital, International airlines (more the full service carriers) want to serve Heathrow as opposed to Gatwick or Stansted; thus creating the massive capacity crunch at Heathrow.
The idea of a new airport is questionable – with a lot of businesses located west of Heathrow. Whilst building it east of London would allow near 24 operation, it would require a massive capital infrastructure to support the airport – in terms of rail and road connections, as well as the time involved to build such an airport.
The inquiry will make its recommendations after the next General Election in 2015 – and thus – passing the buck onto the next government who will probably walk away from this like a hot potato it is.
There are those who think this is still just all talk, and no matter what is discussed today, there will still be two runways at Heathrow, with the airport rammed to capacity – whilst airlines ignore other options avaiblble to them.
There is another issue, whilst Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick position themselves as London hubs… they’re not doing a great job promoting themselves as UK hubs. This has had an effect already, with those beyond the London boundary considering different hubs.
They’re called Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt-Main and Dubai International Airports, with Air France-KLM, Lufthansa and Emirates hoovering up regional traffic like its going out of fashion.
So, if they decide to build an airport east of the current location, it will marginalise traffic to just the south East of England, and not an airport for the United Kingdom…
An easy resolution to the London airport dilemma would be quite simple. Drop the outrageous UK entry fee at MAN, BIR, GLW and EDI and I assure you millions of visitors to the UK would take flights to those regional airports and continue on their vacations to the country by rail or bus. Any lost revenue to the Treasury would be miniscule compared to the costs of expanding LHR or LGW or building a fourth London airport and its infrastructure!
I’ve only visited the UK twice in the past two decades because I refuse to pay such outrageous levies for the “privilege” of facing the indignities of LHR, the overpriced beer, mediocre food, and vastly overrated/expensive hotels. As a result, cities in the rest of the world have benefited from my travel expenditures that give me top tier status in two airline and two hotel programs. UK’s loss is the rest of the world’s gain.