Airport expansions

[renegademaster]

collapsing the M25

Now the dramatics are getting even worse. It think it'll survive

If it followed the M25/M23 as much as possible, with tunnels to and from the airport, then it wouldn't have a significant impact at all.

You'd never be able to pay for it private funding like Heathrow Expansion is

 

[Meerkat]

Now the dramatics are getting even worse. It think it'll survive

I meant collapsing traffic wise - still not seen anyone say how it’s supposed to deal with even more Heathrow traffic. It’s chaos round Heathrow now.

You'd never be able to pay for it private funding like Heathrow Expansion is

Apart from the billions the state will have to pay for supporting infrastructure??

 

[renegademaster]

Apart from the billions the state will have to pay for supporting infrastructure??

Heathrow should present it's infrastructure plan with it's planning application, and have that scrutinised . Rather than just having the whole idea of expansion blanket prohibited

 

[Meerkat]

Heathrow should present it's infrastructure plan with it's planning application, and have that scrutinised . Rather than just having the whole idea of expansion blanket prohibited

In which case they shouldn’t claim it’s privately funded until then.

 

[Wolfie]

The suggestions of connecting Heathrow to Gatwick by train (or tunnelling under London) are nuts - far more complex, costly and time consuming than laying a strip of concrete and putting up some new buildings to the west of London. The nay-sayers against Heathrow expansion can suggest what they like but the market has spoken and continues to do so - Heathrow is where it is and Heathrow is where its wanted. It just dismays me that these days so many people are happy to see this country try to develop and move forward in a globally connected world with one hand tied behind its back.

It dismays me to see 'greed is good' types worship the market and the mighty dollar and sod the ordinary people screwed in the process.

 

[renegademaster]

In which case they shouldn’t claim it’s privately funded until then.

Nobody is putting a gun to the governments head and forcing them to give Heathrow money. So far the government haven't commited any money and this government infamous for not wanting to spend any new money so I'll highly doubt they'll spend anything.
If the M25 issue is so insummountable Heathrow can just put a cap on parking or an increased entrance toll, and expect everyone new to get trains. While the Elizabeth line is busy(but not at capacity most of the day) the Heathrow Express paths could certainly be put to better use to unlock a lot of new capacity.

 

[Skymonster]

It dismays me to see 'greed is good' types worship the market and the mighty dollar and sod the ordinary people screwed in the process.

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Do you really believe the governments of countries in the Far East and Asia are putting the self-entitled interests of a few whingers who live near airports ahead of their nation’s development in the global marketplace?

And climate change? Really? What the UK does is irrelevant compared to those other counties. Sure, campaign all you like but here we are going to make no impact unless other countries come along too. And they won’t because they are more rational, more focused and maybe even more understand that the whole thing is an unachievable ideal (bordering on a scam).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Do you really believe the governments of countries in the Far East and Asia are putting the self-entitled interests of a few whingers who live near airports ahead of their nation’s development in the global marketplace?

No. In China if you complain they have you shot. Much more efficient!

Of course, even in China they’re not stupid enough to expand an airport in an urban setting. Rather than expand the existing airport they built a new airport for Beijing 30 miles outside the city.

 

[TravelDream]

Of course, even in China they’re not stupid enough to expand an airport in an urban setting. Rather than expand the existing airport they built a new airport for Beijing 30 miles outside the city.

This couldn't be more wrong.

The 'old' Beijing Capital airport is still open and is still very much in action with 67.4 million passengers in 2024.

The problem China had is Beijing Capital Airport was already (pre-Covid) at over 100 million passengers a year. The Chinese government, for all its faults, is actually very forward looking and builds based on future need, not current.

They realise a 200 million + passenger a year airport is a very difficult proposition logistically speaking.

They also know metro Beijing is a massive area with hundreds of square miles of urban area.

So they built a new airport to the south of the city (actually they are a pretty similar distance to the centre of Beijing). They idea being that both airports could serve up to 100 million passengers a year with Beijing retaining capacity for growth and wealth/ job creation (apologies if these words have triggered you).

China's economy suffered quite badly under Covid. 2024 domestic passenger numbers have just recovered to 2019 numbers whilst international passenger numbers are still down. Even so, the two Beijing airports saw 117 million passengers between them last year.
Let's see in 2030 how their forward looking leaders ensured that growth could continue unlike those in Britain would like to see us in the God's waiting room of economies.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This couldn't be more wrong.

The 'old' Beijing Capital airport is still open and is still very much in action with 67.4 million passengers in 2024.

So rather than expand the old one in the urban setting they built a new one?

Thank you, once again, for agreeing with me!

 

[Meerkat]

Do you really believe the governments of countries in the Far East and Asia are putting the self-entitled interests of a few whingers who live near airports ahead of their nation’s development in the global marketplace?

Dubious claims for growth over the interests of a large number of people in the area who will be affected by noise, pollution, traffic (that part of the M25 affects a huge number of people), and the social problems caused by throwing more jobs into an overheated area

 

[AlastairFraser]

AFAIK, a second runway at Gatwick serves an entirely different purpose to a third runway at Heathrow.

It does currently, but a redesigned Gatwick with relocated terminals could accommodate different traffic.

You mean the one that's already built and will just require some widening and some new ATC procedures? It's obvious I was on about any new build runway.

Making the 2nd runway more usable at Gatwick won't make their issues much better because the layout there is completely awful.

The layout you speak of, which can of course just be altered....

 

[TravelDream]

So rather than expand the old one in the urban setting they built a new one?

Thank you, once again, for agreeing with me!

You clearly can't read.

They have expanded the old airport. Many billions of pounds have been spent ensuring it can handle over 100 million passengers a year.

But Beijing needs passenger capacity over 200 million passengers per annum. No airport is the world currently handles anywhere near that volume and its questionable how viable it would be. So the government there decided on two 100+ million passenger airports. A totally valid decision IMO.

And the new airport in Daxing is not particularly less urban than the old Capital airport when you take out the industrial zones around the Capital Airport.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You clearly can't read.

And you clearly seem to have trouble with having a polite conversation.

China couldn’t expand one airport any further, so they built a second one. If only this philosophy could be applied to a capital city on an island in Western Europe that already has three major airports, one of which has loads of space and another of which only needs minor modifications to increase capacity.

Muted now, no need to be rude.

 

[Wolfie]

And you clearly seem to have trouble with having a polite conversation.

China couldn’t expand one airport any further, so they built a second one. If only this philosophy could be applied to a capital city on an island in Western Europe that already has three major airports, one of which has loads of space and another of which only needs minor modifications to increase capacity.

Muted now, no need to be rude.

Probably because China does centralised planning and doesn't just let random private owners destroy the quality of life of it's citizens for them to turn a quick buck. What it's own Government does is a whole different discussion.....

 

[camflyer]

Probably because China does centralised planning and doesn't just let random private owners destroy the quality of life of it's citizens for them to turn a quick buck. What it's own Government does is a whole different discussion.....

China doesn't have the cost of a huge welfare state to pay for so has money for ambitious national infrastructure projects - and doesn't have to worry about public opinion or ministers losing their seats in elections.

What would the reaction here be if the government announced it was spending £100bn (and the rest) of public money on a new airport in the south east?

 

[Tetchytyke]

China doesn't have the cost of a huge welfare state to pay for

Yes it does.

doesn't have to worry about public opinion or ministers losing their seats in elections.

That's more the point. That and they can just do what they want without any legal recourse.

And if you complain too loudly they just have you shot.

And that includes the workforce, who are left to work on sites which would be shut down in any western country for being too dangerous.

But it's just that China are "more efficient".

 

[TravelDream]

China couldn’t expand one airport any further, so they built a second one. If only this philosophy could be applied to a capital city on an island in Western Europe that already has three major airports, one of which has loads of space and another of which only needs minor modifications to increase capacity.

But the situations are totally incomparable. I know you think I am rude, but my mind just boggles that you can't see the difference.

Heathrow can be expanded easily to reach 100-120 million passengers a year with R3 and a new terminal/ terminal expansions.

Beijing Capital could have also been expanded to reach 120-140 million passengers a year. But the Chinese government wanted 200+ million capacity. Once you get to that size, any size scale efficiency goes out the window and you're better off with a second airport. Beijing also benefits from neither airport having the prime location as they are both pretty equal to downtown and serve two different sides of the city.

Note nobody is talking about Heathrow having that many passengers too.

China doesn't have the cost of a huge welfare state to pay for so has money for ambitious national infrastructure projects - and doesn't have to worry about public opinion or ministers losing their seats in elections.

The Communist Party worries a lot more about public opinion than any Western government and obviously a lot more than you think. In fact they have a great paranoia about public opinion as the main goal of the CCP is to retain power.
It's why so much effort goes in to controlling public opinion.
Grand national projects and a great China is one element of that.

 

[Meerkat]

Heathrow can be expanded easily to reach 100-120 million passengers a year with R3 and a new terminal/ terminal expansions.

i think you are stretching the concept of “easily” a very long way!

 

[Acfb]

I find airline economics/route planning etc really interesting.

I'm somewhere in the middle of this 'debate' in terms of Heathrow expansion but I've belatedly come round to it because Heathrow probably has the largest international O&D in the world ignoring connections. My concerns are more about the exorbitant cost of the runway, diverting the M25, cost of building new rail instructure and that additional capacity won't be used appropriately e.g. for BA/Virgin long haul ops etc and instead wasted on easyjet slots etc.

I haven't used Heathrow that much (and have more of a bias towards using Lufthansa group) although I've connected through it a few times since 2008 from Edinburgh and flown to Delhi/Hong Kong/Calgary/Tokyo on one world carriers.

The connection was surprisingly good going from T5 to T3 with the bus in September. The issue was with BA reducing a 4 hour connection to a 2 hour one.

I think a new greenfield airport is a complete non starter now TBH and even if there were room to build one, people in West London, Thames Valley etc would still use Heathrow.

To look at another international example, a new 'greenfield' airport is being built to serve Mumbai in Navi Mumbai to relieve the existing constrained predominantly single runway use airport (similar to Gatwick although Mumbai has 24/7 operation) but I doubt Air India and long haul carriers (at least initially) will shift their operations there and it will probably be be used mainly by low cost carriers such as Indigo.

 

[TravelDream]

To look at another international example, a new 'greenfield' airport is being built to serve Mumbai in Navi Mumbai to relieve the existing constrained predominantly single runway use airport (similar to Gatwick although Mumbai has 24/7 operation) but I doubt Air India and long haul carriers (at least initially) will shift their operations there and it will probably be be used mainly by low cost carriers such as Indigo.

You're right there. Only the Indian government forcing carriers' hands will cause the big airlines to move there.
But it would be bad for Mumbai in the sense the new airport is so far from the centre and the regions geography is not too helpful with this.

There are other examples of this.

When Montreal built the Mirabel airport in the early 70s, it opened to great fanfare as Montreal's new airport. In reality, it was too far from the centre, airlines/ passengers didn't want it and it hasn't seen a commercial passenger flight for two decades now. The 'old' airport OTOH has seen massive expansion and passenger growth

It would be the same with Maplin Sands or Boris Island. The only way to get airlines to go there would be by force.

London has a clear hierarchy.
First, Heathrow. Second, Gatwick. Third, London City (if applicable for the route). Joint fourth, Luton and Stansted. Fifth, Southend. There's no reason why a Thames Estuary Airport would beat Southend

i think you are stretching the concept of “easily” a very long way!

Obviously it's a massive undertaking, but I meant in terms of what's feasible with airspace management and the constraints of a single airport.

Up to 120. Maybe 140 million passengers per annum is doable.

The main question is will, not ability. You're right though it's not easy in any sense.

 

[Skymonster]

My concerns are more about… additional capacity won't be used appropriately e.g. for BA/Virgin long haul ops etc and instead wasted on easyjet slots etc.

You make an interesting point.

Budget carriers have largely eschewed Heathrow for a few reasons, including:

* It is costly to operate from and the sort of discounts demanded by LCCs aren’t offered
* Its airspace, taxiways and parking stands are congested, making quick turnrounds very challenging
* It is constrained by both runway and terminal capacity - a significant inroad would be difficult to establish, especially in one terminal
* The market is weighted towards business travel with passengers who tend to be less sensitive to pricing

However, once the airport is enlarged - the recently proposed terminal expansion and the additional runway - things might change. If I was a wily Irishman with a few 737s that I could redeploy, I might be tempted to take a punt on a few Heathrow slots. Allocation rules dictate a percentage of slots should be allocated to new entrants, so I could well get some. Worst case scenario if it doesn’t work out or becomes challenging, I draw down operations after a few years and make a tidy sum on slot trades in the process. Best case I make good money and have established another base serving a catchment area I wasn’t fully addressing.

 

[Snow1964]

The Government is supposed to publish a decision on Gatwick northern runway by 27th February (3 days time)

The Secretary of State is minded to approve this application, subject to further information from the Applicant on a number of specific issues. The following documents have been published:

Secretary of State's Letter dated 27 February 2025 (PDF, 529KB)

Examining Authority's Recommendation Report(PDF, 7MB) and Appendices (PDF, 4MB)

Post-Examination Submissions will be published shortly.

To allow time for the Applicant to submit further information by 24 April 2025 and to allow for consultation on the further information with Interested Parties, the Secretary of State has set a new deadline of 27 October 2025 for her decision on this application. For further information, please refer to the Written Ministerial Statement laid in Parliament.

Anyone want to take a punt, although Parliament decided that 3 months is maximum time to decide after recommendation was made, the dozy Secretary of State will request a time extension

Gatwick Airport Northern Runway - Project information

national-infrastructure-consenting.planninginspectorate.gov.uk

 

[nlogax]

The Government is supposed to publish a decision on Gatwick northern runway by 27th February (3 days time)

Anyone want to take a punt, although Parliament decided that 3 months is maximum time to decide after recommendation was made, the dozy Secretary of State will request a time extension

Gatwick Airport Northern Runway - Project information

national-infrastructure-consenting.planninginspectorate.gov.uk

Pretty sure this will get the nod. It's a relatively quick win to ease some pressure before any work on the third LHR runway can get going.

 

[TravelDream]

The decision has been delayed until October

The government is so useless it can't take these easy, 100% privately financed, wins.

 

[lachlan]

The decision has been delayed until October

The government is so useless it can't take these easy, 100% privately financed, wins.

News outlets are reporting that the government has greenlit the proposals, pending feedback from the airport on public transport improvements and noise mitigation. I'm not sure what else you can ask for really - I'm sure we both agree getting more people on public transport and reducing noise pollution are good things.

 

[Howardh]

News outlets are reporting that the government has greenlit the proposals, pending feedback from the airport on public transport improvements and noise mitigation. I'm not sure what else you can ask for really - I'm sure we both agree getting more people on public transport and reducing noise pollution are good things.

Will the Victoria > Gatwick > Brighton line be upgraded? A second runway will put added pressure on that line?

 

[Skymonster]

News outlets are reporting that the government has greenlit the proposals, pending feedback from the airport on public transport improvements

Will the Victoria > Gatwick > Brighton line be upgraded? A second runway will put added pressure on that line?

This is the sort of abject nonsense that blights development in this country. Gatwick is proposing a new runway, not additional terminal space. Therefore the passenger capacity of the airport will not increase. Airports do not have unnecessary terminal capacity just hanging around unused. Thus all of the terminal capacity could be used, with or without an additional full-time runway. Either way the Brighton Main Line will need to and should already be able to deal with Gatwick’s passenger throughput - and if it can’t then the railway needs to be expanded whether or not there is another runway.

 

[Magdalia]

The Government is supposed to publish a decision on Gatwick northern runway by 27th February (3 days time)

BBC report on the government announcement is here:

Gatwick Airport: Second runway backed by government

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander says she is "minded to approve" the expansion, which faces opposition.

www.bbc.co.uk

A second runway at Gatwick Airport has been backed by government, providing measures to reduce noise are put in place.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said she was "minded to approve" the expansion. Some MPs, local authorities and residents are strongly opposed.
The airport wants to move its northern runway, which is currently only used for taxiing or as a back up, and make it operational by the end of the decade.
The transport secretary's support does not guarantee the expansion will go ahead as it would still need planning permission.

Will the Victoria > Gatwick > Brighton line be upgraded? A second runway will put added pressure on that line?

The BBC report says this about public transport:

Gatwick has until 24 April to respond to demands for it to include measures, such as noise mitigation and having a proportion of passengers travelling to the airport via public transport, in its overall plans before a final decision will be made in October.

 

[ExRes]

News outlets are reporting that the government has greenlit the proposals, pending feedback from the airport on public transport improvements and noise mitigation. I'm not sure what else you can ask for really - I'm sure we both agree getting more people on public transport and reducing noise pollution are good things.

After a lifetime of living in the Gatwick area I'd love to know how the government intend to deal with 'noise mitigation', are all the residents of the area going to be issued with ear defenders?