Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Forums Other London life Heathrow third runway and Gatwick second to be approved

  • memesweeper 1,550 posts
    NorthernLass 10,518 posts

    She’s always a good read.

    I have a suggestion. IAG could take on one of Spain’s “ghost” airports and repurpose it as a new OW hub, with lots and lots of connections to the UK regions. Hurrah!

    https://www.rfae.org/the-astonishing-abandoned-airports-in-spain/

    (Incidentally, a lot of EU money was poured into these mothballed facilities …)

    tootsci 184 posts

    She’s always a good read.

    I have a suggestion. IAG could take on one of Spain’s “ghost” airports and repurpose it as a new OW hub, with lots and lots of connections to the UK regions. Hurrah!

    https://www.rfae.org/the-astonishing-abandoned-airports-in-spain/

    (Incidentally, a lot of EU money was poured into these mothballed facilities …)

    I’ve never heard of those before, crikey! OT but sort of adjacent, I’m fascinated by abandoned buildings and I’ve wanted to visit Pau Canfranc train station in the Spanish Pyrenees for ages
    https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/abandoned-train-station-of-canfranc
    I found out recently that it’s been refurbished as a hotel and reopened since 2023 after nearly 50 years abandoned. So there may be hope for those airports yet!!

    NorthernLass 10,518 posts

    @tootsci, that does look interesting. I don’t suppose you’ve ever visited the abandoned leper colony in Tenerife? It was built but never actually used for that purpose, and now looks like a set from a zombie apocalypse film!

    https://www.mewithmysuitcase.com/2021/11/leper-sanatorium-of-abades.html

    tootsci 184 posts

    No but that looks right up my street (if that’s not an odd thing to say about a leper colony 😆) I’ll have to check it out if I head there

    P.S. best of health to kitty

    BBbetter 1,253 posts

    LCY doesn’t want to miss the action. Applying for permission for A320 to fly to LCY.

    Richie 1,271 posts

    LCY doesn’t want to miss the action. Applying for permission for A320 to fly to LCY.

    BTW the Sky news story is referring to A320neo, not A320ceo.

    Alex G 578 posts

    The runway at LCY is only 1500 metres. Notwithstanding the requirement for a steep approach, an A320 would need to be lightly loaded to take off.

    memesweeper 1,550 posts
    George K 337 posts

    I wonder whether Heathrow will massively alter the current proposals for the redevelopment of the airport layout on the back of a third runway. What they came up with pre-pandemic (with the creation of T5X, another satellite terminal north, etc), would make the airport an even bigger overbloated mess than it’s currently possible.

    can2 816 posts

    A country that cannot even complete HS2 within reasonable budget and time-line without sad and pathetic excuses should not aim at expanding the largest airport in Europe.

    BBbetter 1,253 posts

    I wonder whether Heathrow will massively alter the current proposals for the redevelopment of the airport layout on the back of a third runway. What they came up with pre-pandemic (with the creation of T5X, another satellite terminal north, etc), would make the airport an even bigger overbloated mess than it’s currently possible.

    If they can’t push ahead with a good plan in this favourable environment now, it’s never going to happen.

    Not sure Farage, our next PM will approve.

    Pangolin 194 posts

    I hope they are going to build a bat tunnel for the third runway.

    Those bats must be protected at all costs!

    strickers 1,023 posts

    When do we reckon the third runway at Heathrow will be complete?

    A. 2030
    B. 2040
    C. It will get started, only half will get built, costs will triple and £200m will be spent on a bat cave.
    D. Never.

    AndrewT 564 posts

    Forget 2030!

    In a blast from the past, BBC are running an interview with Wilie Walsh (in his current role of Director General of the International Air Transport Association).

    BA Flyer IHG Stayer 3,103 posts

    I wonder whether Heathrow will massively alter the current proposals for the redevelopment of the airport layout on the back of a third runway. What they came up with pre-pandemic (with the creation of T5X, another satellite terminal north, etc), would make the airport an even bigger overbloated mess than it’s currently possible.

    There aren’t any current proposals from HAL on this – certainly there aren’t any in front of the Planning Inspectorate for consideration.

    This is more an approval in principle with the hope that HAL will bring something forward. This announcement isn’t any sort of approval of a detailed scheme.

    In any case it won’t be the Chancellor who gives it. It would be Heidi Alexander as Transport Secretary.

    So it’s upto HAL to bring something forward. Whether that’s the previous scheme or if the new owners have new ideas we don’t know but the ball is in their court.

    John 1,343 posts

    C

    Also the disruption to west London will be so bad that most adult residents who are currently alive will never see a net benefit

    memesweeper 1,550 posts

    The objectors shouldn’t talk about noise or air pollution or net zero. They should transplant some bat, otter and red squirrel communities in buildings currently sitting in the proposed route of the runway. Tunnel your way round that!

    Rui N. 1,021 posts

    Maybe lobby to make the BAEC gold member an endangered species?

    Richie 1,271 posts

    The objectors shouldn’t talk about noise or air pollution or net zero. They should transplant some bat, otter and red squirrel communities in buildings currently sitting in the proposed route of the runway. Tunnel your way round that!

    My guess is the objectors may have thought about your point along time ago and some of those communities may already exist.

    JDB 6,255 posts

    The objectors shouldn’t talk about noise or air pollution or net zero. They should transplant some bat, otter and red squirrel communities in buildings currently sitting in the proposed route of the runway. Tunnel your way round that!

    The government is already legislating to stop these types of objections blocking projects by allowing compensating projects elsewhere in the same way social housing can now be built on a separate site to the actual housing project. There is also legislation proposed to stop repeated judicial reviews and is the Supreme Court really going to be willing to hear the same tired arguments again? I wouldn’t underestimate the government’s wish and need to bulldozer this project through.

    If allowed, Heathrow is already committed to spending about £15bn on expansion and the third runway will more than double that, with any government contribution being minimal so this project is inestimably valuable to the current government.

    The biggest obstacles are 1) the regulator, but the government has fired the first warning shot to all regulators by the recent summary dismissal of the head of the CMA and 2) BA and perhaps more Virgin which objects to absolutely anything on principle. They don’t like the concept of the passenger paying say £10-£15 extra, but I’m not sure who they think will pay otherwise; they basically support expansion but only if it’s free…

    BBbetter 1,253 posts

    C

    Also the disruption to west London will be so bad that most adult residents who are currently alive will never see a net benefit

    Should we invest in something only if we can personally benefit from it? No wonder nothing gets done in this country. OAPs blocking everything everywhere.

    JDB 6,255 posts

    C

    Also the disruption to west London will be so bad that most adult residents who are currently alive will never see a net benefit

    Should we invest in something only if we can personally benefit from it? No wonder nothing gets done in this country. OAPs blocking everything everywhere.

    I’m also not sure what disruption is supposedly going to impact people in West London unless it’s referring to those already in the doorstep of the airport rather than residents of Kensington, Hammersmith or Chiswick.

    BBbetter 1,253 posts

    2) BA and perhaps more Virgin which objects to absolutely anything on principle.

    Govt should threaten to take control of slots and hand them to competitors if they don’t approve.

    I couldn’t believe Rob parroting BA’s claim that they wouldn’t be happy with expansion. Of course they wouldn’t! Which incumbent would?

    JDB 6,255 posts

    @BBbetter BA is happy with expansion if they get to keep the same proportion of slots as they currently hold, so a lot of their public comments are bluster. They maintain different positions depending on who is asking. BA badly needs expansion because it’s incredibly costly (cash and reputation) to operate out of such a congested hub and it limits the scope for growth. Their objection to the passenger charge bearing the cost is really just noise as well. They systematically object to every single project and create huge additional cost and delay in doing so (for themselves, HAL and the regulator). As for Virgin…. When one is talking of a current PSC of c. £50 long haul, it all seems quite odd in the face of the £300-£600 surcharges levied by both airlines and the £224 APD to be levied on long haul premium passengers from April and even £94 on economy.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.