lozgti

Does it mean more air traffic?

Are they going to increase my car tax again to offset any carbon footprints?

I thought we were cancelling all planes,cars,lightbulbs and heat so how come the jets are ok?

unclebuck

Terrible news.

Nu Labour strikes again. Why is it that whever they have to make a decision they always choose the worst possible option?

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

Just a bit more tarmac for some tree huggers to invade

Dieseldog

Great news.

Finally Labour recognise that the country needs an economy and is willing to put in place the infrastructure to support it.

FlightMan

Great news for UK PLC, avaition, and the 100,000 odd jobs at LHR. Once you've looked at the data, it had to happen, and if it wasn't here, Frankfurt, Schipol would take the extra flights and we would suffer the economic loss.

lozgti

Just read ten years to complete it.Is it me or is it just a long flat bit of tarmac?

EddScott

They debated this on radio 2.

One chap left a comment that he worked at LHR since the 50s and when he first started the area where runway 3 is going to be built was already earmarked for development way back then. Only a matter of time really.

Freak

havent you answered it in your post?

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

Well yes, tecnically we could knock it out in 4, but if the construction industry takes their time (and they will ), then it will secure jobs for 10 years

oh and there may be a bit of planning, protesting, litigation and removing a very small buff crested swallow time included in that

FlightMan

Agree it's a long time, but it's way more than a concrete strip.

Lighting, ILS systems, new stands, terminal 6, services, infrastructure, link to the existing LHR, Airtrak system, FOD radar.

It all has to be tendered for, purchased, project managed and installed.

Freak

And all the eco-loon swampy wannabees dragged out of the way

FlightMan

You get all types. I've been told that the 2nd runway at STN had already been built, it was "covered up by grass and one day you ( BAA ) will just roll the grass back and start using it "

Oh, and as for the anti-noise lobby, they lost credibility with me when I was told " Why can't you send the planes over the poor people houses? Mine is worth over £1,000,000 and I didn't pay to hear aircraft noise "

**** off!!

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

never going to happen anyway if labour lose at the next general election

finalzero

I honestly don't see what the problem is...

Given all the problems we have right now with jobs being lost at an alarming rate, we should be happy about the runway, at least it creates new jobs for people.

I normally agree with the hippies about air traffic being a pain in the bummers but in this case I feel they should be rounded up, tied to bottom of a jumbo jet and then taken on a 1 hour flight... at 35,000 feet.... and dropped.

Dedrater

Although I feel for the 700 or so homes that will be compulsory purchased and the increased are noise and pollution for people living in the area, I think this needs to happen and am glad it is going ahead.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Great news, why would it be bad?

If you live near Heathrow then perhaps not so good however you must have realized that it would continue to expand when you moved in

TX.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Only bad if you feel the overwhelming need to portray every decision the government takes as being a bad one. Ring any bells?

Jaybird-UK

A vote for common sense!

Virgin Atlantic's Paul Charles told BBC Radio 5 Live that if there was no third runway "Britain's economy will suffer. Investors will walk out, they won't invest here, jobs won't be created and people will go to Europe instead".

I do feel for the 700 homes that will be bulldozed but I strongly believe this is vital to international business success, well done

scoobynutta555

Thumbs up from me too.

Leslie

I feel sorry for the people who live in Sipson and round about, and I find it difficult to reconcile the authorities attitude towards the Global Warming they keep cracking on about and the vast increase in air traffic this will bring.

I am also surprised that the new runway will only be 7200 feet long, or so it has been reported. Bit limiting I would have thought.

Les

p1junkie

iTrader: (5)

do the tree huggers really believe what we do here make a jot of difference .all the while china/india etc spew out their stuff
and if they sat down and used their thick heads and understood business they would know that unless heathrow grows it will die and the shock to the economy will make this one look like a wet fart in this area
great to have clean air when no one can afford to buy the friggin food or pay their bills we need jobs and money and this will create 65000 new jobs tell the tree huggers to **** of to west wales if they want clean air
hows this for a radical idea insist all office blocks /building in cities have motion activated night lighting so instead of burning electricity for 16 hours between 5pm and 9am the lights will only come on if someone is there..how many thousand kgs of carbon ****e could we save there

Turbo2

As stated above: if Tories win next election it's dead in the water. Who's going to want to invest millions knowing that?

Also LHR sensibly currently uses one runway for landing and one runway for taking off. How would they operate this third one? I can't see it being very efficient if they try and share it with take-offs and landings. Would make more sense to stick a second one at STN to copy the existing set up at LHR. That would massively increase aircraft movements.

Dr.No

I'd be sorry to see Sipson Tandoori covered in 8 inches of tarmac...

FlightMan

The 3rd runway will be mixed mode, ala LGW. LHR's 2 existing runways will remain segregated. It's all been looked at, modelled by NATS, and proved to work.

As for a 2nd runway at STN, if you want to maximise capcity, both would be mixed mode, not a copy of LHR.

unclebuck

Vote Conservative then. That's the true vote for common sense.

Turbo2

FM: can you explain the logic in that? How can 2 mixed mode runways be more efficient than 2 dedicated take off and landing ones like the current LHR set-up? When I last used LHR in 2008 I was timing departures of the planes queueing in front of us at under 90 second intervals (sometimes as little as 60 seconds). I'm sorry but I just don't buy it that you can have planes taking off AND landing on the same strip of tarmac at a faster rate than that: we all know that the planes about to take off have to wait quite some time for incoming aircraft to approach, land and clear the runway. There's absolutely no way that can be safely achieved and the next plane get into start position within 60-90 seconds.

Sure a 3rd mixed mode runway at LHR will increase capacity, but no amount of NATS pandering to BAA will get me to believe that a second dedicated take-off or landing runway at somewhere like STN would free up less capacity than this LHR mixed mode plan.

FM: over to you Sir!

Flatcapdriver

Why? Have you ever seen the congestion over LAM/OCK with aircraft churning through tonnes of JET A1 whilst on hold? An additional RWY will alleviate congestion and reduce fuel burn, not that 2% of CO2 emissions emitted by aircraft is going to make that much difference to climate change. Notwithstanding that, most of the truly noisy aircraft will be decommissioned by then and we'll be left with the modern airframes that don't wreak as much havoc (noise wise) as some of the Classics as an example.

2200m is sufficient for most aircraft given current thrust/lift generation and its not as if they're going to be firing off A-380s at MTOW and at a stretch they may even make it at MLW. Either way, they're a rarity not the norm.

Anyway, a decent sized public works project such as this will take up the slack after the Olympics is over and will have a decent impact on the economy to help offset the general indebtedness of the public coffers.

ricardo

The discussion about mixed-mode versus segregation reminded me of this picture of parallel landings at San Francisco:

Photos: Boeing 757-222 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net