Airport expansions

[BrianW]

Interestingly, Rachel Reeves has reversed her opposition to the expansion of her local airport, Leeds Bradford:

Chancellor changes mind over Leeds Bradford Airport expansion - BBC News

Rachel Reeves has said she would now support any expansion, despite previously opposing the plans.

www.bbc.co.uk

She must see that supporting expansion of Heathrow and being against expansion of her local airport comes across as very hypocritical.

There must be an expression for what might have been described as a 'volte face' before we 'left Europe'- situational speech; seeing the light; changing one's mind when 'the facts' change; maybe there's something more 'Yorkshire'?

The Chancellor really deserves to have better advisors than may have been adequate for the MP for Leeds West & Pudsey. Astra Zeneca 'a great Company ... delivering jobs and investment' on Monday, putting the knife in on Friday.

This speaks to advice on the question of subsidy at Doncaster Sheffield Airport, and generally to support, in finance and/or strategy, investment decisions and market 'interventions' aka 'subsidy'.

 

[Class15]

And MAN is undergoing massive expansion anyway.

You know what else is ‘massive’?

In all seriousness, that’s good to hear. If Heathrow is going to be expanded, then Manchester could also do with that too. Maybe could open the door for more long-haul flights from Manchester too, which would be good to see, if not the most profitable.

This is hardly "green", and given the government's reticence to support further high speed rail, is a snub to the north of England. It is also likely to contribute to further over-heating of the economy of SE England at the expense of the rest of the country.

I disagree that it is a snub to the north of England. Many people at Heathrow are changing from flights from the rest of England to international flights, and this is the most effective way of running it, because long-haul flights from non-London airports have never been particularly prolific. Do any of the Northern airports (apart from the already mentioned Manchester) need expanding?

I agree that it’s not green though. A thousand transport projects in London that are more useful and green than this.

 

[Cross City]

A thousand transport projects in London that are more... green than this.

Very arguable. The amount of time that landing aircraft will have to hold, if they even will have to at all, before landing will be drastically reduced. Take a look at any flight into Heathrow on FR24 and see how much time it spends circling. That will mostly be eradicated with a big capacity increase such as this plan.

That time at low altitude with higher thrust output from the engines is by far the most polluting part of a flight.

 

[BrianW]

You know what else is ‘massive’?

In all seriousness, that’s good to hear. If Heathrow is going to be expanded, then Manchester could also do with that too. Maybe could open the door for more long-haul flights from Manchester too, which would be good to see, if not the most profitable.

I disagree that it is a snub to the north of England. Many people at Heathrow are changing from flights from the rest of England to international flights, and this is the most effective way of running it, because long-haul flights from non-London airports have never been particularly prolific. Do any of the Northern airports (apart from the already mentioned Manchester) need expanding?

I agree that it’s not green though. A thousand transport projects in London that are more useful and green than this.

Is there useful data on the number of passengers changing into or out of UK 'internal' flights at Heathrow? And any assessment (guess?) of how many might swap to eg HS2 via Old Oak Common? My perception (please correct) is that internal flights carry fewer passengers per slot than international ones? I imagine that Heathrow's owners will always want to maximise slot use and income per slot. Heathrow's neighbours will want to maximise air quality and limit noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion both in the air and on the ground, while also offering job and travel opportunities for themselves and their kids.

I thought (naively) that was what Royal Commisions etc were for, not an overnight conversion of a Chancellor in need of an announcement as it might seem.

 

[Class15]

Very arguable. The amount of time that landing aircraft will have to hold, if they even will have to at all, before landing will be drastically reduced. Take a look at any flight into Heathrow on FR24 and see how much time it spends circling. That will mostly be eradicated with a big capacity increase such as this plan.

That time at low altitude with higher thrust output from the engines is by far the most polluting part of a flight.

But wouldn’t a new runway encourage more flights to come in? I would argue that Crossrail 2, West London Orbital, Bakerloo line extension and Crossrail to Tring/MKC would IMO be better from an environmental standpoint, to give a few examples. Appreciate the point about holding patterns, but typically it isn’t that bad.

 

[Indigo Soup]

But wouldn’t a new runway encourage more flights to come in?

Indeed, the economic case for a new runway relies on more people on more aircraft using the airport.

 

[TravelDream]

But wouldn’t a new runway encourage more flights to come in? I would argue that Crossrail 2, West London Orbital, Bakerloo line extension and Crossrail to Tring/MKC would IMO be better from an environmental standpoint, to give a few examples. Appreciate the point about holding patterns, but typically it isn’t that bad.

You're comparing things which would require primarily public investment of many billions of pounds to private investment. Not comparable.

It's why what you say about a 'snub' to the north of England is just plain wrong. Private companies have the right to invest where they think they will get a profit, not where people who don't understand capitalism think they should.

 

[Class15]

You're comparing things which would require primarily public investment of many billions of pounds to private investment. Not comparable.

Okay, if it’s private then that’s fine, apologies.

It's why what you say about a 'snub' to the north of England is just plain wrong. Private companies have the right to invest where they think they will get a profit, not where people who don't understand capitalism think they should.

Wasn’t me who said that, in fact I also disputed that claim.

 

[Cross City]

But wouldn’t a new runway encourage more flights to come in?

Yes, but it's imminently possible that more flights which don't have to circle London for half an hour is afar better for the environment than fewer flights which do have to hold.

I don't know for sure but it wouldn't surprise me. Constant decent approaches, from cruising altitude to runway without having to hold, use almost zero throttle until the very final part of the approach before landing.

 

[Snow1964]

Yes, but it's imminently possible that more flights which don't have to circle London for half an hour is afar better for the environment than fewer flights which do have to hold.

I don't know for sure but it wouldn't surprise me. Constant decent approaches, from cruising altitude to runway without having to hold, use almost zero throttle until the very final part of the approach before landing.

There is another element that also assists and it is size segregation. At the moment a single aisle plane cannot follow a large plane within certain time (due to turbulence). This results in more holding whilst they are grouped into size batches.

Having a third runway allows smaller planes to use separate runway. Obviously would need one doing mixed mode (take off and landings), although there are times of the day eg first thing in morning when lots of overnight Transatlantic flights arrive that two landing runways are needed at same time.

 

[TravelDream]

Wasn’t me who said that, in fact I also disputed that claim.

Apologies.

It's one of the things that really grinds my gears when people talk about London airport investment complaining it forgets the north or is London bias etc.

The vast majority of airports in this country are privately owned (Though MAG (owner of Manchester, Stansted, and East Midlands airports) is primarily owned by the Manchester local authorities, it's run as a private for-profit company) and private companies invest when they think they will get a good return.
Of course that means Heathrow can get many billions more investment than Liverpool or Glasgow.

 

[Indigo Soup]

The vast majority of airports in this country are privately owned (Though MAG (owner of Manchester, Stansted, and East Midlands airports) is primarily owned by the Manchester local authorities, it's run as a private for-profit company) and private companies invest when they think they will get a good return.

I'd point out that Heathrow Airport is 56% state owned... just not the British state. Distinction without a difference, of course.

 

[Meerkat]

You're comparing things which would require primarily public investment of many billions of pounds to private investment. Not comparable.

It's why what you say about a 'snub' to the north of England is just plain wrong. Private companies have the right to invest where they think they will get a profit, not where people who don't understand capitalism think they should.

Except of course for the billions the state will have to cough up for supporting infrastructure.
No one has replied yet to explain how the M25 is going to absorb all the extra traffic.

 

[TravelDream]

Except of course for the billions the state will have to cough up for supporting infrastructure.
No one has replied yet to explain how the M25 is going to absorb all the extra traffic.

Not totally unfair points.

But it's pure speculation right now as we don't know the costs or how external costs such as the M25/M4 will be dealt with.

Also note that airport traffic tends to be spread over the whole day and the bigger peaks tend not to allign with normal rush hours. It's not like a business park with morning and evening peaks. Plus there's no reason why there would be significantly more traffic as any third runway would likely see infrastructure development like a Western spur onto the GWML allowing trains from Reading to run to Heathrow.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Also note that airport traffic tends to be spread over the whole day and the bigger peaks tend not to allign with normal rush hours.

I'm not entirely sure that's the case. Heathrow has a big arrivals rush at 6am-7am, which coincides with everyone off those planes hitting the transport network in the middle of the morning peak. Similarly it has a big departures rush about 8pm-9pm which, again, coincides with everyone heading for those planes hitting the transport network in the middle of the evening peak.

Yes, but it's imminently possible that more flights which don't have to circle London for half an hour is afar better for the environment than fewer flights which do have to hold.

Given that the maximum emissions come from aircraft in the take off and landing phases of flight, I'm really not convinced this would be the case at all. More flights landing and taking off means more emissions.

It seems a bit like the idea that synthetic biofuel will reduce emissions, wishful thinking/complete cobblers.

 

[camflyer]

You know what else is ‘massive’?

In all seriousness, that’s good to hear. If Heathrow is going to be expanded, then Manchester could also do with that too. Maybe could open the door for more long-haul flights from Manchester too, which would be good to see, if not the most profitable.

The difference is that the expansion that Manchester (and some other airports such as Stansted, Luton and Edinburgh) need is in terms of terminal capacity which is relatively cheap. They don't need new runways which are expensive as it typically means enlarging the footprint of the airport. Heathrow needs that additional runway in order that it can handle more passengers and so does Gatwick.

 

[Magdalia]

I thought (naively) that was what Royal Commisions etc were for, not an overnight conversion of a Chancellor in need of an announcement as it might seem.

Royal Commissions don't happen any more. They haven't been legislated out of existence, that's probably impossible because they are instigated by the Monarch. But it is unlikely that we will see another, because, once started, they can't be stopped. No modern government likes that, so it is unlikely that the current or any future government would ask the Monarch to establish a new Royal Commission.

The Commission on the London Third Airport (it wasn't a Royal Commission) is usually called the Roskill Commission. It was established by the first Wilson Labour government but reported in January 1971, under the Heath Conservative government. Roskill recommended Cublington, near Leighton Buzzard, but the Heath government proposed to go for Maplin Sands, one of the other final short list candidates, instead. The second Wilson Labour government then cancelled Maplin Sands.

Roskill is not a good precedent, and a good example of why governments no longer try to make decisions by setting up Commissions.

Heathrow Airport is already there, and further development is a planning matter. If the owners want to expand then they have to make a planning application.

The government can make a decision that the planning application is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. If that happened then the applicant would seek a Development Consent Order through the Planning Inspectorate.

All that's happened is that the Chancellor has indicated that, if the Heathrow owners wanted to make an application, then the current government would be supportive not obstructive. But the appropriate planning processes would still have to be followed.

 

[camflyer]

Yes, but it's imminently possible that more flights which don't have to circle London for half an hour is afar better for the environment than fewer flights which do have to hold.

I don't know for sure but it wouldn't surprise me. Constant decent approaches, from cruising altitude to runway without having to hold, use almost zero throttle until the very final part of the approach before landing.

The third runway will also be to the west of the current two which means incoming planes using it will be higher over neighbouring areas.

 

[Ediswan]

Given that the maximum emissions come from aircraft in the take off and landing phases of flight, I'm really not convinced this would be the case at all. More flights landing and taking off means more emissions.

Source for landing emissions being high please. Cruise is at substantial power and lasts a lot longer.

Also does 'emissions' mean per unit of time, or as a proportion of the total for the flight ?

 

[och aye]

We told them that we had an infrastructure scheme on the horizon that would be changing the way that public transport interacts with Edinburgh Airport, and perhaps, would they want to be involved?

There was no proposal, no plan, just a single meeting where we said "this is broadly what we are planning, and we can all agree that your current terminal at EDI is inadequate for the present, let alone future growth, so would you like to be involved in this project? We can tie in rail infrastructure with any plans you have for expansion, you get to tick boxes for public transport connectivity, you ease the pressure on the road access, and you don't even have to commit to spending any money."

They told us in no uncertain terms that they were happy with the current set up and they didn't want to be involved.

We went back with a developed EARL, and they weren't enthusiastic; from what we gathered, they make too much money off road vehicle access. We stopped trying after that.



While I for one would be comfortable demolishing half of Falkirk for such a plan, I'm not sure the citizens of that good town would share my sentiment.

Thanks for that info. It's interesting to know how these discussions that members of the general public aren't privy too. I wouldn't be surprised that they weren't too keen on EARL. I've heard on the grapevine that when the tram line was being built the airport management were ambivalent about the service, despite the positive PR in the press. No doubt today they are happy with the amount the get from their cut from the airport ticket fares.

It's a bit of a shame EARL wasn't built. It could have potentially provided direct links to the airport from the likes of Inverness and Aberdeen in the North, to Newcastle in the South and Glasgow in the West.

I think they should close both Edinburgh and Glasgow and build a new combined airport halfway between the two.

Any chance of such an airport have long bitten the dust.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Source for landing emissions being high please

Google is your friend.

---

Also does 'emissions' mean per unit of time, or as a proportion of the total for the flight ?

I’m not sure what you are asking. Short flights are much more environmentally destructive because of the frequent take off and landing phases.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m not sure what you are asking. Short flights are much more environmentally destructive because of the frequent take off and landing phases.

Being pedantic, a short flight has precisely the same number of take off and landing phases as a long flight.

However short flights have more take off and landing phases per km travelled which is I think what you mean

Also, more importantly, short flights are more likely to be cruising at lower altitude (if at all), which is less fuel efficient for the aircraft.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Very arguable. The amount of time that landing aircraft will have to hold, if they even will have to at all, before landing will be drastically reduced. Take a look at any flight into Heathrow on FR24 and see how much time it spends circling. That will mostly be eradicated with a big capacity increase such as this plan.

I would argue that this is exactly where aviation planning has gone completely wrong. The sensible thing to do would have been to cap flight numbers at Heathrow to eliminate this, and there are plenty of flights where there isn't much transit traffic. For example, I can't imagine there's much transit traffic from Derry or Istanbul, and these flights could easily be accommodated elsewhere. Likewise, KLM have quite a few flights into Heathrow, which will be catering for transit traffic through Schipol. There's really no reason why these flights couldn't depart from Southend or elsewhere.

 

[BrianW]

Royal Commissions don't happen any more. They haven't been legislated out of existence, that's probably impossible because they are instigated by the Monarch. But it is unlikely that we will see another, because, once started, they can't be stopped. No modern government likes that, so it is unlikely that the current or any future government would ask the Monarch to establish a new Royal Commission.

The Commission on the London Third Airport (it wasn't a Royal Commission) is usually called the Roskill Commission. It was established by the first Wilson Labour government but reported in January 1971, under the Heath Conservative government. Roskill recommended Cublington, near Leighton Buzzard, but the Heath government proposed to go for Maplin Sands, one of the other final short list candidates, instead. The second Wilson Labour government then cancelled Maplin Sands.

Roskill is not a good precedent, and a good example of why governments no longer try to make decisions by setting up Commissions.

Heathrow Airport is already there, and further development is a planning matter. If the owners want to expand then they have to make a planning application.

The government can make a decision that the planning application is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. If that happened then the applicant would seek a Development Consent Order through the Planning Inspectorate.

All that's happened is that the Chancellor has indicated that, if the Heathrow owners wanted to make an application, then the current government would be supportive not obstructive. But the appropriate planning processes would still have to be followed.

Governments have been 'surprised' when Commissions/ Committees/ Task Forces/ whatever have come up with unexpected/ 'unacceptable/ politically 'inconvenient' answer/conclusion/ recommendations.

Consultants, it might be suggested, take time to understand the context, i.e. the required recommendation.

No one government can tie the hands of another.

The Redcliffe-Maud report of 1973 (product of a Royal Commission) in relation to the Reorganisation of Local Government proposed a mix of unitary and two-tier arrangements. One member, Derek Senior, produced a Minority Report, proposing City Regions. So what? There have been changes, and changes on changes since. Steel has been nationalised, denationalised, renationalised, sold ... BR has come and gone, GBR is yet to come. Roskill came and went. Millions of words and pounds have been spent getting nowhere. Newts and bats and their supporters are the current scapegoats.

It's all politics, which is as it should be. What is needed is more decisive, quicker, implementation to deliver projects in the timespan of a single parliament

Airlines decide the services they want and compete with each other; airports compete for business. Planes can be moved around; runways (and the M25) less so!

 

[Bald Rick]

For example, I can't imagine there's much transit traffic from Derry or Istanbul, and these flights could easily be accommodated elsewhere.

Both Derry and Istanbul have a fair number of codeshare flight numbers, which implies decent transit traffic.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However short flights have more take off and landing phases per km travelled which is I think what you mean

Yep!

Ten one-hour flights are much worse environmentally than one ten-hour flight.

I can't imagine there's much transit traffic from Derry

Derry will be mostly transit traffic, I’d expect. The Loganair from IOM, also BA’s domestic network, are all predominantly transit traffic. And even on top of the codeshare, Loganair have interline agreements with a decent number of other airlines, including Emirates and Qatar.

Istanbul? The TK stuff won’t have much transit traffic- Istanbul is their hub- but the BA stuff will.

The sensible thing to do would have been to cap flight numbers at Heathrow to eliminate this

Exactly.

If they build another runway but cap flight numbers at today’s level then the environmental argument that removing the stack is a good thing will follow. But if they add extra flights in then the argument falls apart very quickly.

 

[Magdalia]

Governments have been 'surprised' when Commissions/ Committees/ Task Forces/ whatever have come up with unexpected/ 'unacceptable/ politically 'inconvenient' answer/conclusion/ recommendations.

Consultants, it might be suggested, take time to understand the context, i.e. the required recommendation.

Consultants are more reliable at coming up with some justification for doing what the politicians thought they wanted anyway.

An interesting current exception is that the new government has set up a New Towns Taskforce, due to report in the summer.

The Redcliffe-Maud report of 1973 (product of a Royal Commission) in relation to the Reorganisation of Local Government proposed a mix of unitary and two-tier arrangements. One member, Derek Senior, produced a Minority Report, proposing City Regions. So what? There have been changes, and changes on changes since.

And so there should be. Solutions appropriate 50-60 years ago are unlikely to be appropriate now. The UK economy and population is very different now compared with 50-60 years ago.

Redcliffe-Maud is of historical interest because of the current government's devolution proposals, but it is not an "off the shelf" solution for 2025.

I think that this government's devolution proposals are particularly interesting because they have given the existing local authorities first dibs at devising a new structure.

No one government can tie the hands of another.

A foundation of the UK constitution, best illustrated by the fixed term parliament act.

What is needed is more decisive, quicker, implementation to deliver projects in the timespan of a single parliament

Which is why streamlining the planning process, including access to judicial review, are so important.

 

[43066]

Exactly.

If they build another runway but cap flight numbers at today’s level then the environmental argument that removing the stack is a good thing will follow. But if they add extra flights in then the argument falls apart very quickly.

So you are in favour of capping flights for environmental reasons, despite the UK accounting for a tiny fraction of carbon emissions internationally, and regardless of any impact on prosperity/future growth?

 

[TravelDream]

Istanbul? The TK stuff won’t have much transit traffic- Istanbul is their hub- but the BA stuff will.

Tuskish will have a lot of transit traffic on their Istanbul to UK flights. Connecting in IST of course - it's a major transit hub after all.

Turkey's government, a lot more sensible than ours, realised the old Ataturk airport (whilst very convenient for getting to downtown Istanbul) was far too small to allow Turkish to grow a super hub there. A super hub would improve connectivity and the whole nation's economy so it was obviously something even Erdogan would want. The new IST airport cost a lot, but no doubt is worth it and will be seen as worth it by future generations.
Heathrow isn't quite as constrained and a third runway would provide a significant capacity boost.

Which is why streamlining the planning process, including access to judicial review, are so important.

National infrastructure projects like Heathrow should be passed by primary legislation negating the need for costly disruptive vexatious judicial reviews. That's obvious.

The chances of 'boots on the ground' so to speak before the end of this parliament are very close to zero which negates any economic benefit Reeves thinks she's going to get by pushing for it.

 

[43066]

National infrastructure projects like Heathrow should be passed by primary legislation negating the need for costly disruptive vexatious judicial reviews. That's obvious.

Quite a good idea actually. Pass legislation mandating the building of the runway. Compulsorily purchase the relevant property for a fair market price, and just get it built!

If it had been done 20 years ago, as it should have been in my view, we’d have had the benefits for that entire period.

A super hub would improve connectivity and the whole nation's economy so it was obviously something even Erdogan would want. The new IST airport cost a lot, but no doubt is worth it and will be seen as worth it by future generations.

Indeed. And this more ambitious approach pays dividends all around the world. In this country we have a maddening tendency to focus on the immediate cost of these projects, and write them off as “too expensive”, while completely ignoring that they’re long term assets that will result in similarly long term benefits to the economy.