In article ,
(CJB) wrote:

The letter sent to residents to confirm the end of BAA's buy-up,
also reveals that BAA is still considering applying for planning
permission for a third runway.

Why don't they just reinstate the third runway that currently exists?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:02 +0100 (BST), lid (Paul
Cummins) wrote:
In article ,
(CJB) wrote:

The letter sent to residents to confirm the end of BAA's buy-up,
also reveals that BAA is still considering applying for planning
permission for a third runway.

Why don't they just reinstate the third runway that currently exists?


Because its clearances have been infringed by new building. Because
it crosses the two east-west runways (09-27L and 09-27R) and using it
would mean that those two runways would have to be closed.

Next question?

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

*From:* Bruce
*Date:* Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:16:03 +0100

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:02 +0100 (BST), lid
(Paul
Cummins) wrote:
In article
,
(CJB) wrote:

The letter sent to residents to confirm the end of BAA's buy-up,
also reveals that BAA is still considering applying for planning
permission for a third runway.

Why don't they just reinstate the third runway that currently
exists?


Because its clearances have been infringed by new building. Because
it crosses the two east-west runways (09-27L and 09-27R) and using
it
would mean that those two runways would have to be closed.

Next question?

OK - why were the clearances on runways 3,4,5 and 6 (yes, Heathrow was designed for
6 runways!) been allowed to be either built on or infringed, without consideration
of the future implications.

And why have successive owners done this, when they must have had a clue of the
implications!


--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:48 +0100 (BST), lid (Paul
Cummins) wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:
*From:* Bruce
*Date:* Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:16:03 +0100

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:02 +0100 (BST), lid
(Paul
Cummins) wrote:
In article
,
(CJB) wrote:

The letter sent to residents to confirm the end of BAA's buy-up,
also reveals that BAA is still considering applying for planning
permission for a third runway.

Why don't they just reinstate the third runway that currently
exists?


Because its clearances have been infringed by new building. Because
it crosses the two east-west runways (09-27L and 09-27R) and using
it
would mean that those two runways would have to be closed.

Next question?

OK - why were the clearances on runways 3,4,5 and 6 (yes, Heathrow was designed for
6 runways!) been allowed to be either built on or infringed, without consideration
of the future implications.

Because those runways would have been too short for modern airliners.
The "future implication" was that they were not needed, and they still
aren't, and never will be, unless the Laws of Physics are changed.

Also, you are being deliberately misleading by suggesting that modern
Heathrow could have had six runways, because only a maximum of two
parallel runways could ever have been in use at any one time. So
whichever way the wind blew, the design allowed for only two runways
to operate.


And why have successive owners done this, when they must have had a clue of the
implications!


They did it precisely because they *did* understand the implications,
which is clearly not something that you could ever claim.

Please don't ask any more stupid questions. However, in the unlikely
event that you want to ask an intelligent question, go ahead.

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

Please don't ask any more stupid questions.

There is no such thing as a Stupid Question, just a Stupid Answer.

The problem with Heathrow is not that there are too few runways (whether 2 or 6)
but that there was never enough space for a large international airport in the
grounds of Heathrow, given the prevailing winds across the Capital.

It would have been far better to have accepted this in the 1960's and 70's and
reclaimed enough land in the Thames estuary to build a new London International
Airport, as indeed we did in Hong Kong to replace Kai Tak.

Instead BAA are trying to bulldoze through their plans for a third runway in an
entirely inappropriate location, and the people who own the property in this area,
already blighted by being in the vicinity of Heathrow, are also suffering the
stress of ongoing uncertainty.



--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

In message , at 14:57:39 on
Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Bruce remarked:
Also, you are being deliberately misleading by suggesting that modern
Heathrow could have had six runways, because only a maximum of two
parallel runways could ever have been in use at any one time. So
whichever way the wind blew, the design allowed for only two runways
to operate.

And the two they are left with are the pair best aligned with the
prevailing winds.
--
Roland Perry

In message
.homeip.net, at
16:08:00 on Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Paul Cummins
remarked:
It would have been far better to have accepted this in the 1960's and 70's and
reclaimed enough land in the Thames estuary to build a new London International
Airport, as indeed we did in Hong Kong to replace Kai Tak.

That sounds curiously like the plan to build Maplin Airport (whose only
tangible legacy seems to be an electronics company that latched on to
the name in case it became world famous). After much debate they moved
the concept to Stansted, which is in effect Heathrow's third runway and
doing quite nicely thank you.
--
Roland Perry

On 08/06/2010 19:16, Roland Perry wrote:

Stansted, which is in effect Heathrow's third runway

So what's Gatwick?

Basil Jet wrote on 09 June 2010
00:16:41 ...
On 08/06/2010 19:16, Roland Perry wrote:

Stansted, which is in effect Heathrow's third runway

So what's Gatwick?

Redhill Aerodrome's 4th runway.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message , at 00:16:41 on
Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Basil Jet remarked:
Stansted, which is in effect Heathrow's third runway

So what's Gatwick?

London's Second airport, which just grew there by accident. Stansted,
being the official "Third airport" was the result of extensive public
enquiries etc, to satisfy the need for more capacity for London.

Just like the third runway at Heathrow is/was at the moment.
--
Roland Perry