I don't really understand why the "Environmental Campaigners" called this a win, since the judges said...
"The judges said that in future, a third runway could go ahead, as long as it fits with the UK's climate policy."
given that a policy can be changed fairly easily. In either direction, I guess.
But perhaps I simply don't know enough about it.
However, I do think that this comment is significant;
"Airport expansion is core to boosting global connectivity. We also take seriously our commitment to the environment. This Govt won't appeal today's judgement given our manifesto makes clear any Heathrow expansion will be industry led.
— Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (@grantshapps) February 27, 2020"
As with future agreements with the EU, various campaigning groups are going to find life a lot more difficult when they try to change or impact what private industry does just because they don't like it.
I can think of numerous times they've tried, but none where they've succeeded spring to mind, though no doubt there were some.
It also means the Government escapes most of the 'blame'.
www.bbc.com/news/business-51658693
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 27 Feb 20 at 14:08
|
I've only read the summary of the (several) judgments given today but it looks like the 'victory' is no more than the government being told to 'go back and do its homework properly'.
What is also interesting in the current UK political climate is extent to which the judges make clear that there's is an interpretation of the relevant law around the decision to go ahead and that they have no bearing on the policy itself.
I also gagged a bit at hearing a senior officer of Heathrow Airport Ltd on the radio talking about this in what I can only describe blatantly as Brexiteer language. Words used were pretty much that of this didn't go ahead we were handing control to the French as Paris Charles de Gaulle would become pre-eminent hub in NW Europe.
I don't know what happened to Schipol which always used to be the threat or whether he just thought the French look more threatening to the British pysche than the Dutch......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 27 Feb 20 at 15:18
|
>>it looks like the 'victory' is no more than the government being told to 'go back and do its homework properly'.
Kind of how it looked to me too.
>>What is also interesting in the current UK political climate is extent to which the judges make clear that there's is an interpretation of the relevant law around the decision to go ahead and that they have no bearing on the policy itself.
Sorry, run that past me again, I'm not getting your point.
|
>> Sorry, run that past me again, I'm not getting your point.
The government, following the prorogation ruling is threatening to 'clip the wings' of the courts. Our new Attorney General has spoken of 'unelected' judges intruding into what she says are political decisions. Some sort of commission is to be appointed to look into the whole thing.
In light of that I thought paragraph 7 of the court's summary interesting.
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Heathrow-summary-of-judgments-26-February-2020-online-version.pdf
I am not alone. If you can access BBC radio listen to the segment on this evening's PM programme from around 17:33 (33 minutes into programme) where a legal commentator makes similar point.
|
Ah, got you now, thanks.
I have mixed feelings. I dislike endless pernickety legal challenges, but a Government without legal checks is a scary thought.
|
>> Ah, got you now, thanks.
>>
>> I have mixed feelings. I dislike endless pernickety legal challenges, but a Government without legal
>> checks is a scary thought.
If the legal challenge is weak it can be chucked out pretty quickly at directions stage. The courts need to be empowered to do that. A variety of processes such as 'Early Neutral Evaluation' can be put in place.
Or you can create a hoo hah about meritless cases and use it to make the whole process prohibitive - see fees in the Employment Tribunal.
|
>>I also gagged a bit at hearing a senior officer of Heathrow Airport Ltd on the radio talking
Get used to it. The more we move power from Government agreements to private industry agreements the more that will become prevalent.
To take a trivial example;
For as long as the EU was dictating how a sausage should be made, everybody could blame the EU and campaign against it. What will they do when Walls, or whoever, agree to the EU policy because it suits them commercially? Who will they protest to then?
|
>> I don't know what happened to Schipol which always used to be the threat or
>> whether he just thought the French look more threatening to the British pysche than the
>> Dutch......
Perhaps he just thinks Paris airport is a greater commercial threat?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 28 Feb 20 at 10:19
|
>> I also gagged a bit at hearing a senior officer of Heathrow Airport Ltd on
>> the radio talking about this in what I can only describe blatantly as Brexiteer language.
>> Words used were pretty much that of this didn't go ahead we were handing control
>> to the French as Paris Charles de Gaulle would become pre-eminent hub in NW Europe.
Why gag, he speak da troof, who is going to want to land in the UK if they cant easily move to the rest of europe now that freedom of movement has finished?
>>
>> I don't know what happened to Schipol which always used to be the threat or
>> whether he just thought the French look more threatening to the British pysche than the
>> Dutch......
>
Nope CDG is outgrowing AMS, last year by 5% Its a bigger threat, and easier to go with better air corridors
Strangely tho, having only two runways is not currently hampering LHR, which has continued to grow passenger numbers, but it will in the future as the industry phase out jumbos and super jumbos for more modern quieter aircraft, which makes a mockery of the noise arguments
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Feb 20 at 18:09
|
|
Is there not a move to smaller aircraft flying point to point? If that is the case the concept of a hub aitrport becomes to a degree redundant.
|
And how would one get the passengers from the large international aircraft on to the small national aircraft to be distributed?
Of course, you could always use a hub. I'm just trying to think of an alternative.
|
>> Is there not a move to smaller aircraft flying point to point? If that is
>> the case the concept of a hub aitrport becomes to a degree redundant.
"smaller" aircraft is a concept that needs to be explained. longhaul wise that means loss of jumbos 747 & A380 to two engined widebody, 787 or A350 XWB It also mean more airport movements for the same no pax. Which means more runways.
Now as for point to point, can you book me a flight from LHR or LGW to Guadeloupe please
|
|
No but if you need to get from New York to Edinburgh would you prefer a direct flight or two flights changing aircraft at Heathrow? Passengers, especially commercial passengers on whom airlines depend will always elect for the direct flight. “Smaller” more efficient long range aircraft make this a possibility and the concept of hubs is not quite as important as it once was.
|
1,200 international airports. Genius idea, do away with hubs and have point to point flights.
Now, about all those extra runways we're going to need...............
|
>> No but if you need to get from New York to Edinburgh
I dont want to go to Edinburgh, I want a holiday in Guadeloupe.
|
|
Guadeloupe is one of France's overseas territories so inevitably served from Paris. What's the service from Paris to Bermuda like?
|
|
Exactly, isnt one, you use a hub.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Feb 20 at 20:43
|
|
I think cgn means that point to point will become more popular and hub less so. Not that hubs will disappear or that every airport will have direct flights.
|
|
And for point to point you need more runways, more flight movements.
|
|
Depends on what capacity the runways you intend to use are used at.
|
>> And for point to point you need more runways, more flight movements.
Or make more use of under utilised runways. Cannot locate it now but when we were planning NYC trip in 2018 there were services to a smaller airport that was neither JFK nor EWR. Possibly Norwegian using 737 MAX kit.
|
>> I think cgn means that point to point will become more popular and hub less
>> so. Not that hubs will disappear or that every airport will have direct flights.
So what is better for the environment? hubs or more point to points?
As far as I know, your chances of buying flight slots at Heathrow are zero
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Feb 20 at 21:53
|
> So what is better for the environment? hubs or more point to points?
>>
I don't know, I guess it's quite a complex thing to work out,so many variables. Load, mass of the aircraft, distance, fuel burn etc etc.
>> As far as I know, your chances of buying flight slots at Heathrow are zero
>>
I don't doubt that, however I was talking more generally in global terms rather than just Heathrow specifically.
|
Heathrow Expansion - Bromptonaut
