Heathrow

[SkippyBing]

So they are going to build another runway which means the pint pot wil get filled quicker

The major issue with Heathrow is that the runways are running at ~98% capacity which means as soon as anything goes wrong, an aircraft slow to clear the active, minor tech delay, fog, everyone has to start stacking. No other comparable airport is running that hot. By adding an extra runway you're basically going to ~65% capacity, that improves the situation and is better for the environment as you don't have aircraft waiting in the air or on the ground burning fuel. Plus you spread the noise pollution out over a wider area reducing the impact at any one location. You can also obviously increase the number of aircraft using the airport but there are plenty of restrictions the government can apply that prevent the situation getting as bad as it is now.
Gatwick could, and probably should, get a second runway, but is harder to get to from the rest of the country. so wouldn't have as big an effect without a big spend on transport infrastructure.
Expanding Birmingham etc. would make sense if the demand was there, but it isn't and there's not a lot of point building capacity where no one will use it. Like it or not Heathrow is the most popular airport in the UK for a variety of reasons.

[dodger]

http://www.heathrowhub.com/our-proposal.aspx

Well after reading this it just goes to show something we have all know for years that these people in Goverment do not listen and do their own thing no matter what.

I have not heard so much sense in my life in that video, it's a bloody shame that Capt William Lowe is not out Transport Minister!

Roger.

[cstorey]

I would like to hear from experienced ATCOs on Lowe's idea. Not once did he mention the hazard of go-arounds from the landing runway and the possibility of conflict with departing aircraft. It is still an attempt to funnel yet more aircraft into a relatively small area , and I cannot accept that this does not increase the risks. Nor does he mention Northolt . The Indian Air Force Constellation airprox with a Boeing 727 now seems to be long forgotten, but should it be ?

[SkippyBing]

Well after reading this it just goes to show something we have all know for years that these people in Goverment do not listen and do their own thing no matter what.

I'd disagree with that, the Airports commission was set up by the government to consider the options. It then came to the same conclusion as all the previous enquiries that Heathrow was the logical choice. I suspect the government would quite like it to have recommended a different option, otherwise the last PM wouldn't have bothered setting it up.

[Paul K]

I thought Boris Island was a good idea.

[SkippyBing]

I thought Boris Island was a good idea.

I did too, I think the issue was you'd not only have the cost of building a whole new airport but for it to be any use you'd have to build a lot of new transport infrastructure to get people there.
The other issue is that Heathrow isn't owned by the government so there'd be all kinds of legal issues involved in building a new airport. E.g. can the government force you to close down a succesful business and move it to a new location? If they did who'd be liable for the costs? I suspect the government. Alternatively is it legal for the government to use state funding to establish a new business in direct comptition with an establised one? Not totally sure but I think it's banned by EU regulation, plus having seen how succesful the government is at running anything it'd probably be a massive failure.
And then there's the SS Richard Montgomery which makes building the thing 'tricky'...

[Paul K]

All very true, of course. And a sunken ammunition ship on short finals isn't something you really want.