BA Calls for 3rd RWY at LHR

Profile picture for user martin_EGTK

Member for

16 years 10 months

Posts: 869

British Airways has called for a third runway to be built at the country's busiest airport, London Heathrow.

The airline's response to a government consultation on airport infrastructure will bring protests from environmental groups, but BA says the new runway would boost the UK economy by an estimated GBP£37 billion (USD$60 billion). It also says it can overcome environmental concerns.

BA also believes that a new short runway at Heathrow should be followed by addional runways at the capital's two other main airports, Gatwick and Stansted. Controversially, the airline says that Gatwick, where there are heavy restrictions on development, should be given priority.

BA claims its research shows that a third short runway at Heathrow would generate GBP£37 billion of economic benefits for the UK over a 50 year period. No other single runway option would create such wealth. The airline dismisses government proposals to move some Heathrow operations to a new airport or to Stansted as being too expensive.

Rod Eddington, British Airways chief executive, said: "We urge the government to build a new short runway at Heathrow as a first priority if Britain is to maximize the benefits that aviation brings to our economy. Ignoring Heathrow or trying to split its operations between two airports in the South East will dilute its economic benefits and undermine employment centers. It will also reduce the number of international routes served from London and deny access from the British regions to the country's aviation hub."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original post
Profile picture for user robc

Member for

16 years 8 months

Posts: 583

Along with T5 the combination might help Heathrow regain its spot as the worlds leading international hub. But also the short runway and additonal termianl capacity will make it more appealing for airlines, as they would be able to conduct more doemstic traffic.

Profile picture for user T5

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 6,503

I think they'll get it too! What with T5 being introduced over the coming years, it seems a wise move for BAA, like robc said, it also makes them a slightly more attractive airport.

Profile picture for user mongu

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 2,491

The thing that really has to happen is for LGW to be expanded significantly. No mucking about with Manston or Cliffe, it has to be LGW.

Expanding LHR is all well and good, but it is not a growth measure really - it merely protects LHR a bit from CDG et al for a while.

STN and LTN are lesser priorities but some expansion is probably warranted for them as well.

Profile picture for user T5

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 6,503

Something very similar to what you have said was mentioned not so long ago, Mongu.

I think that's the answer, too. Why have one ridiclously big airport when you could have several large ones instead? (A rhetorical question).

Profile picture for user mongu

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 2,491

It's not so much that - ideally LHR would expand for ever, as one big airport is more efficient than two medium ones.

But there is simply not the room! So under that condition, it is better to expand as much as possible at LHR and direct the extra capacity we need into one place - LGW. Again, that it is more efficient than spreading it around LTN, STN, LGW, Manston etc. as some people advoate.

Profile picture for user A330Crazy

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 6,072

Im going up to LHR on Sunday, I will try to get some shots of the Building work on T5. :)