

Well we're fugged then.camroc1 wrote:The motorway tunnel will only affect the existing M25 at the tie-ins, and that will probably be only a week either end if they do it properly.
Gatwick will also get another runway before those Northern oiks.They've a lot of property to purchase, and will have to go down the compulsory purchase route against people who won't want to sell. Some of them will go to court as will some of the objectors, so there'll be a long hiatus before construction.
Bar building a new airport south of Birmingham, or investing in a proper second runway for Manchester, probably the correct decision.
Plans I have seen involve a whole new terminal complex on the other side of the existing Terminal 5.Sandstorm wrote:Are they planning to build another Terminal beside the 3rd runway or will the planes have to taxi for 20 minutes back to the main site?
Don't forget the snails, there is always a rare endangered snail that holds up these kind of infrastructure projects.Saint wrote:It's going to be 5+ years before they break ground on this at this rate.
12-18 months of consultation
Commons vote
The inevitable Judicial review due to local protests; probably taking over another hotel for 3-4 years and using the swimming pool as the file storage
Between T5 and this, we are the laughing stock of the world when it comes to airport expansion
Probably, but it would make more sense to serve that portion of the UK population that lives north of Watford Gap with their own hub airport. As it stands Dublin is becoming a hub for TA travellers from the north of England and Scotland, which whilst great for Dublin is actually money leaving the UK economy.Sandstorm wrote:Well we're fugged then.camroc1 wrote:The motorway tunnel will only affect the existing M25 at the tie-ins, and that will probably be only a week either end if they do it properly.![]()
Gatwick will also get another runway before those Northern oiks.They've a lot of property to purchase, and will have to go down the compulsory purchase route against people who won't want to sell. Some of them will go to court as will some of the objectors, so there'll be a long hiatus before construction.
Bar building a new airport south of Birmingham, or investing in a proper second runway for Manchester, probably the correct decision.
They're talking about T6, an addition T5 hub, and a T2 hub.danny_fitz wrote:Plans I have seen involve a whole new terminal complex on the other side of the existing Terminal 5.Sandstorm wrote:Are they planning to build another Terminal beside the 3rd runway or will the planes have to taxi for 20 minutes back to the main site?
With any luck a few hundred protesting middle class crusties will be added to the foundations.
Also, I wonder if Zac Goldsmith will resign and run as an independent.
It's up to BAA/Ferrovial to fund thiscamroc1 wrote:A question for any Brits in the know.
Heathrow is privately owned by Ferrovial/BAA. Are they making the £ 18bn (or whatever) investment themselves ? Or is it UK government money ? And will Heathrow lease the development from the UK government ? Or get to own the development on the chirpy chirpy cheap cheap.
One of my problems with the UK mo of privatisation of state assets, is that they sold the actual infrastructure, instead of just privatising operation and management whilst keeping ownership of the infrastructure itself in state hands.
by-election in Richmond Upon Thames then, I reckon he could probably win back his seat as an independent. He is quite well liked in the borough.tc27 wrote:Zac Goldsmith gooooone
Way more than 5 years.Saint wrote:It's going to be 5+ years before they break ground on this at this rate.
12-18 months of consultation
Commons vote
The inevitable Judicial review due to local protests; probably taking over another hotel for 3-4 years and using the swimming pool as the file storage
Between T5 and this, we are the laughing stock of the world when it comes to airport expansion
Time flies (pun intended)RoseGarden wrote:Way more than 5 years.Saint wrote:It's going to be 5+ years before they break ground on this at this rate.
12-18 months of consultation
Commons vote
The inevitable Judicial review due to local protests; probably taking over another hotel for 3-4 years and using the swimming pool as the file storage
Between T5 and this, we are the laughing stock of the world when it comes to airport expansion
tabascoboy wrote:And we can look forward to Boris Johnson being run over by bulldozers, if he is actually good with his promise.
Don't forget the Trustafarians protesting on behalf of Black Lives Matter.Saint wrote:It's going to be 5+ years before they break ground on this at this rate.
12-18 months of consultation
Commons vote
The inevitable Judicial review due to local protests; probably taking over another hotel for 3-4 years and using the swimming pool as the file storage
Between T5 and this, we are the laughing stock of the world when it comes to airport expansion
Azlan Roar wrote:tabascoboy wrote:And we can look forward to Boris Johnson being run over by bulldozers, if he is actually good with his promise.
They've offered to chip in £1bn towards the £10-20bn cost of the necessary transport links. They've paid £32m in corporation tax and £486m in dividends year-to-date. Cnuts.Saint wrote:It's up to BAA/Ferrovial to fund thiscamroc1 wrote:A question for any Brits in the know.
Heathrow is privately owned by Ferrovial/BAA. Are they making the £ 18bn (or whatever) investment themselves ? Or is it UK government money ? And will Heathrow lease the development from the UK government ? Or get to own the development on the chirpy chirpy cheap cheap.
One of my problems with the UK mo of privatisation of state assets, is that they sold the actual infrastructure, instead of just privatising operation and management whilst keeping ownership of the infrastructure itself in state hands.
I'd love to see their rate of return calculations. At the end of the day, the passenger will pay, I suppose, or choose to hub somewhere else if Heathrow prices rise too much.Saint wrote:It's up to BAA/Ferrovial to fund thiscamroc1 wrote:A question for any Brits in the know.
Heathrow is privately owned by Ferrovial/BAA. Are they making the £ 18bn (or whatever) investment themselves ? Or is it UK government money ? And will Heathrow lease the development from the UK government ? Or get to own the development on the chirpy chirpy cheap cheap.
One of my problems with the UK mo of privatisation of state assets, is that they sold the actual infrastructure, instead of just privatising operation and management whilst keeping ownership of the infrastructure itself in state hands.
So it's essentially government funding for a private company. Are airports exempt from EU regulations ? If not, this decision will have to go to Madame Vestager for approval.Ramming Speed wrote:They've offered to chip in £1bn towards the £10-20bn cost of the necessary transport links. They've paid £32m in corporation tax and £486m in dividends year-to-date. Cnuts.Saint wrote:It's up to BAA/Ferrovial to fund thiscamroc1 wrote:A question for any Brits in the know.
Heathrow is privately owned by Ferrovial/BAA. Are they making the £ 18bn (or whatever) investment themselves ? Or is it UK government money ? And will Heathrow lease the development from the UK government ? Or get to own the development on the chirpy chirpy cheap cheap.
One of my problems with the UK mo of privatisation of state assets, is that they sold the actual infrastructure, instead of just privatising operation and management whilst keeping ownership of the infrastructure itself in state hands.
camroc1 wrote:So it's essentially government funding for a private company. Are airports exempt from EU regulations ? If not, this decision will have to go to Madame Vestager for approval.Ramming Speed wrote:They've offered to chip in £1bn towards the £10-20bn cost of the necessary transport links. They've paid £32m in corporation tax and £486m in dividends year-to-date. Cnuts.Saint wrote:It's up to BAA/Ferrovial to fund thiscamroc1 wrote:A question for any Brits in the know.
Heathrow is privately owned by Ferrovial/BAA. Are they making the £ 18bn (or whatever) investment themselves ? Or is it UK government money ? And will Heathrow lease the development from the UK government ? Or get to own the development on the chirpy chirpy cheap cheap.
One of my problems with the UK mo of privatisation of state assets, is that they sold the actual infrastructure, instead of just privatising operation and management whilst keeping ownership of the infrastructure itself in state hands.
Not sure why the transport links really should be part of their purview TBH. They are paying for their cost of contruction, including all the compulsory purchase stuff.camroc1 wrote:So it's essentially government funding for a private company. Are airports exempt from EU regulations ? If not, this decision will have to go to Madame Vestager for approval.Ramming Speed wrote:They've offered to chip in £1bn towards the £10-20bn cost of the necessary transport links. They've paid £32m in corporation tax and £486m in dividends year-to-date. Cnuts.Saint wrote:It's up to BAA/Ferrovial to fund thiscamroc1 wrote:A question for any Brits in the know.
Heathrow is privately owned by Ferrovial/BAA. Are they making the £ 18bn (or whatever) investment themselves ? Or is it UK government money ? And will Heathrow lease the development from the UK government ? Or get to own the development on the chirpy chirpy cheap cheap.
One of my problems with the UK mo of privatisation of state assets, is that they sold the actual infrastructure, instead of just privatising operation and management whilst keeping ownership of the infrastructure itself in state hands.
Although the borough voted 73% to Remain and he is an outer. He might struggle. However there is a very little competition as Susan Kramer is no longer running for the LD's and Labour are laughed at.danny_fitz wrote:by-election in Richmond Upon Thames then, I reckon he could probably win back his seat as an independent. He is quite well liked in the borough.tc27 wrote:Zac Goldsmith gooooone
as long as they leave the leeds/schiphol hopper, as I prefer to connect from there if I can.camroc1 wrote:I wouldn't f**k around with the EU on anything air travel related Merry, in case they push the UKs non membership of Euro open skies on Brexit.
Watch it buster!TB63 wrote:They should have used Greenham Common..
The Government are stumping up for the transport links, not the airport works. I'd suggest spending on publically owned transport infrastructure is outside of EU regs.camroc1 wrote:So it's essentially government funding for a private company. Are airports exempt from EU regulations ? If not, this decision will have to go to Madame Vestager for approval.Ramming Speed wrote:They've offered to chip in £1bn towards the £10-20bn cost of the necessary transport links. They've paid £32m in corporation tax and £486m in dividends year-to-date. Cnuts.Saint wrote:It's up to BAA/Ferrovial to fund thiscamroc1 wrote:A question for any Brits in the know.
Heathrow is privately owned by Ferrovial/BAA. Are they making the £ 18bn (or whatever) investment themselves ? Or is it UK government money ? And will Heathrow lease the development from the UK government ? Or get to own the development on the chirpy chirpy cheap cheap.
One of my problems with the UK mo of privatisation of state assets, is that they sold the actual infrastructure, instead of just privatising operation and management whilst keeping ownership of the infrastructure itself in state hands.
I expect the Lib Dems will try very hard to win this back. It used to be an LD seat, was strongly in favour of remaining in the EU, and the right wing vote is likely to be split between Goldsmith and whoever takes over as the Tory candidate. If the LDs pushes the remain and anti-Heathrow agenda strongly, it could be a good win for them.theo wrote:Although the borough voted 73% to Remain and he is an outer. He might struggle. However there is a very little competition as Susan Kramer is no longer running for the LD's and Labour are laughed at.danny_fitz wrote:by-election in Richmond Upon Thames then, I reckon he could probably win back his seat as an independent. He is quite well liked in the borough.tc27 wrote:Zac Goldsmith gooooone
All the land acquisition etc ? And the M25 tunnel cost ?Saint wrote:Not sure why the transport links really should be part of their purview TBH. They are paying for their cost of contruction, including all the compulsory purchase stuff.camroc1 wrote:So it's essentially government funding for a private company. Are airports exempt from EU regulations ? If not, this decision will have to go to Madame Vestager for approval.Ramming Speed wrote:They've offered to chip in £1bn towards the £10-20bn cost of the necessary transport links. They've paid £32m in corporation tax and £486m in dividends year-to-date. Cnuts.Saint wrote:It's up to BAA/Ferrovial to fund thiscamroc1 wrote:A question for any Brits in the know.
Heathrow is privately owned by Ferrovial/BAA. Are they making the £ 18bn (or whatever) investment themselves ? Or is it UK government money ? And will Heathrow lease the development from the UK government ? Or get to own the development on the chirpy chirpy cheap cheap.
One of my problems with the UK mo of privatisation of state assets, is that they sold the actual infrastructure, instead of just privatising operation and management whilst keeping ownership of the infrastructure itself in state hands.
Gatwick's f**king miles outside of London. It's in an awful locationPhredd wrote:Why didn't they choose the longer northern runway option? Cheaper to build, a lot less time to build, fewer residential properties to destroy.
In the meantime Gatwick has private funding to fully fund a new runway, and there is no reason why London couldn't have 2 hub airports.
No point pushing the anti-Heathrow stuff. It's a done deal and most in the borough are fine with it as it means the air traffic shifts further north, away from the constituency (we get the south runway traffic only).Lobby wrote:I expect the Lib Dems will try very hard to win this back. It used to be an LD seat, was strongly in favour of remaining in the EU, and the right wing vote is likely to be split between Goldsmith and whoever takes over as the Tory candidate. If the LDs pushes the remain and anti-Heathrow agenda strongly, it could be a good win for them.theo wrote:Although the borough voted 73% to Remain and he is an outer. He might struggle. However there is a very little competition as Susan Kramer is no longer running for the LD's and Labour are laughed at.danny_fitz wrote:by-election in Richmond Upon Thames then, I reckon he could probably win back his seat as an independent. He is quite well liked in the borough.tc27 wrote:Zac Goldsmith gooooone
Heathrow's costs include the land acquisition. And I have yet to see a cost for the M25 tunnel that isn't just part of a bigger bundle of transport enhancements that frankly are long overdue anyway.camroc1 wrote:All the land acquisition etc ? And the M25 tunnel cost ?Saint wrote:Not sure why the transport links really should be part of their purview TBH. They are paying for their cost of contruction, including all the compulsory purchase stuff.camroc1 wrote:So it's essentially government funding for a private company. Are airports exempt from EU regulations ? If not, this decision will have to go to Madame Vestager for approval.Ramming Speed wrote:They've offered to chip in £1bn towards the £10-20bn cost of the necessary transport links. They've paid £32m in corporation tax and £486m in dividends year-to-date. Cnuts.Saint wrote:
It's up to BAA/Ferrovial to fund this