Talk:Expansion of Heathrow Airport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split from Heathrow article[edit]

This article is an edited spin-off from the main Heathrow article:

  • The main Heathrow article is already at 94kb, and is growing rapidly as information is added about the planned expansion. Attention is already drawn on the edit page to the possible (likely) need for splitting the article.
  • The expansion of Heathrow (3rd runway, 6th terminal) describes something that has not yet happened and may never happen, whereas the rest of the Heathrow article describes what is and what has been.
  • Most of the material on Heathrow is relatively uncontroversial; the planned expansion of Heathrow is highly controversial.

This seems to be a good opportunity to split the article.Mitchelltd (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably completely wrong place to put this - the article says that the National Trust has 3.5 members. It made me giggle but its probably supposed to be 3.5m? - Jo 86.14.225.224 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

This article is heavily biased towards the anti-expansion viewpoint. It needs to be brought into line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I would do this myself, but have no time right now at work... just wanted to flag it up. EuroSong talk 20:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does anyone else think that it is 'heavily biased', and if so, would you like to suggest how to correct the bias? If not, the disputed neutrality tag ought to be dropped.Mitchelltd (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done some - probably needs more. --JCG33 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article would be better if it included more information about the expansion plans, and had less focus on arguments and alternatives. --Boivie (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is heavily biased but rarely has there been a more contraversial plan - the destruction of an entire village, school, pubs, restaurants and other businesses entirely for the financial gain of several companies e.g. BAA, BA, Virgin etc. If Sipson was a village in India, Bono would be all over it making representations to President Obama and the UN..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.128.2 (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment in itself is biased ;-) Yeah some incredibly heavy anti-expansionist bias, but I'm not surprised because that's all that was represented in the media. People never heard for example that most of the residents of the local communities were actually in favour (a few opposing votes in Sipson,Hayes etc. not withstanding)mainly because the 'far away' opposition to it was so incredibly vocal - It always irritated me that you only got one or two old biddies in Sipson on the news and then everyone from Wandsworth and even further afield putting in their two cents as if they lived here; when ordinarily they'd only visit to fly anyway. 86.180.88.162 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change[edit]

The thought of climate change as a result of human induced factors, such as the construction/expansion of airports such as Heathrow is extremely controversial. There is very little evidence to suggest that humans have increased global average temperatures, but huge amounts of evidence to show that climate change is only a natural phenonemon. The study of Ice Age periods show that after an almost instantaneous finish to the ice age (in geological terms) we are coming out of an ice age, with natural retreats of ice caps and increase in temperatures. Humans may be speeding up this cause, but only on a minute scale. And as previously stated in the article, the heathrow expansion page is heavily bias, and maybe the global warming effects section should be revised so that it shows that if Heathrow doesnt expand, Frankfurt, CDG and Schiphol will instead, resulting in no "environmental" gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.243.223 (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there are natural peaks and troughs of temperatures, and it is true that temperature has been rising for hundreds of years, there was a massive increase in the rate at which this temperature rose from 1850s onwards - just after the industrial revolution.


However, I am a staunch supporter of the expansion and I believe that the environmentalists have got it completely wrong. I am actually going to write a letter giving my arguments for the expansion to news corporations, political parties and environmental campaign groups.

Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third runway?[edit]

Why is it called the Third runway? Heathrow currently has four runways - 27L, 27R, 09L, 09R. In the 1960s it had no less than twelve - ye, twelve runways. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is called the "third runway" because Heathrow has only 2 runways, but 4 designations (Every runway in the world has two designations). This is because if you are approaching from the west, you would have a bearing of 090 degrees (or thereabouts) and if coming in from the east, it would be 270 degrees. Therefore runway 27R and 09L is the same runway (just different ends) and runway 27L and 09R is the same and parallel to runway 27R/09L. (In the 1960s it actually had 6 runways as all runways have two designations. They were arranged in a Star of David pattern). Hope that clarifies it, --Plane Person (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Priorities!?[edit]

This article has just one line on the actual subject matter, the current plans for expansion of LHR. This article is more suited to a newspaper than an encyclopaedia. Can an expert on the subject please expand the encyclopaedic information. Thanks! --ADtalk 14:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I completely support the addition of detail about what is planned however I don't see why the current content is not 'encyclopedic'? Personally I believe that it is all pretty well referenced and notably however that doesn't meant that it is balanced and possibly more 'pro' content would help achieve balance but lets not start chopping stuff out to achieve that balance. Details of the plans would be very good, and possibly a map of the scheme based on OpenStreetMap mapping of the area would be a good start. PeterEastern (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just felt that it read more like a discussion on the subject than a factual article, but I agree that the main point is just that more details on the expansion plans are needed. --ADtalk 11:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A bit more fairness is needed[edit]

A few months ago I posted my concerns on the bias towards halting the expansion in the article and it seems that my remarks have been deleted while the people who have posted things to back up the halt to expansion have their posts remain; sort of proves my point doesn't it. This is an encyclopedia, not a political debate in which the side which shouts the loudest wins.

My hope was that this bias could be corrected but unfortunately it seems to have gone the other way with the intorduction of the "Advocations" sections in which the wording is very bias towards halting the expansion while skipping over the illegal activities of the activists in the opposing Advocations section.

So please, for those of you who do read this before someone deems it "unsuitable" for a shouting match, help make this balanced and not one sided (and that includes my side, I don't want the page bias towards building the runway, I just want fairness and equality between the two sides of the argument). --Plane Person (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]


Reference problem for British Chambers of Commerce report[edit]

Flying Matters may be a pressure group but it doesn't take away from the fact that the actual £30 billion figure is from the BCC which is a very reliable source. The page on Flying Matters site gives links to reports by the BBC and the Telegraph which both confirm the report. I also have the reference directly from the BCC website which I will use instead if thats ok.

While we are on this point, if no pressure group or protest group references are allowed then what about references 26, 60, 64 and 68? Just wondering what the policy is on this but thought that it is a bit unfair. Anyway, back to the original discussion, if it's alright with Cameron Scott, then I'll put up the report directly from the British Chambers of Commerce. Sorry for any problems, just didn't know pressure groups were not allowed as sources. Thanks again and best regards, -- Plane Person (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

citing the BCC would solve the problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the quick reply and I'll get right onto redoing the reference. Can I just ask why there is a difference between citing Flying Matters on the grounds it is a pressure group and HACAN ClearSkies, Plane Stupid and Greenpeace as in references 26, 60, 64 and 68? Thanks again, -- Plane Person (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've never looked at those references - there are only so many hours in the day, so I only deal with things that come to my attention after I watchlist an article. I'm a weeder rather than a complete landscape gardener! --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for pursuing this so much but I just need to know if pressure groups such as HACAN ClearSkies, Plane Stupid etc are allowed as references on the grounds that Flying Matters isn't allowed. If you don't want to check the references and replace them or get rid of the passage they are linked to, then I will so I just need an answer if they are allowed or not. As I've said before, this is about fairness and I'm trying to balance the article - I haven't actually read the references themselves or the content they apply to so it may be ok if it is linked to something such as events that they have organised. Many thanks, Plane Person (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
As a general rule, pressure groups can be used for sources as claims 'about themselves' but nothing wider. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plans[edit]

Is the PDF map appropriate for this section? To me it seems very WP:POV and potentially unnecessary as the Google overlay is linked to and contains the same relevant information, but impartially. --Wintonian (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

economic illiteracy of the left[edit]

"Eliminate hidden subsidies to flying by bringing the taxation of flying in line with other forms of transport."

the absence of a tax is not a subsidy. suggest deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.49.52 (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed[edit]

This article is seriously out of date. It stops in 2010, saying the expansion of Heathrow was 'cancelled' then, but that isn't really true - it's only been put on hold for the time being. Most obviously, this article makes no mention of the Airports Commission under Sir Howard Davies, which is due to report soon and likely to recommend further expansion of Heathrow. If it does, then it'll definitely be time for an update here. Robofish (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:London Heathrow Airport which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Expansion of Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Expansion of Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional expansion proposal[edit]

There are currently two proposals being considered by the Government to expand Heathrow Airport, of which the independent proposal by Heathrow Hub to extend the northern runway into two separate runways is one, Heathrow Airport's Third Runway being the other. As a representative of Heathrow Hub, I would like to propose that the below paragraph is added to the "Plans" section so that both current proposals for expansion of Heathrow Airport are represented on this page. I have ensured that all information included is properly referenced to either verifiable news sources or government-website documents.

Finally, given the above, I would also like to propose the very first sentence on this page be amended to reflect Heathrow Hub's proposal - i.e. "The expansion of Heathrow Airport has involved several proposals by Heathrow Airport Holdings in addition to an independent proposal by Heathrow Hub to increase capacity at Heathrow Airport."

Extended Northern Runway

Separate to Heathrow Airport’s proposal for a North-west runway is the independent proposal by Heathrow Hub to extend Heathrow’s existing northern runway to at least 6,800m, with a 640m safety zone in the middle, enabling the runway to be operated as two runways.[1] The proposal, led by Captain William ‘Jock’ Lowe, Concorde’s longest serving pilot, is currently being considered by the UK Government after it was shortlisted as one of the final three proposals by the Airports Commission in its interim report in December 2013.[2] The Commission estimates the cost of extending the northern runway to be around £13.5 billion, higher than Heathrow Hub's own estimate of £10.1 billion, but roughly £3bn cheaper than the cost estimated to implement a third North-west runway.[3] The Commission also stated that Heathrow Hub’s extended Northern Runway would require the loss of only 242 homes compared to 783 for the Northwest Runway option, and its impacts on community facilities such as schools and health centres would also be much more limited.[4]

Airports-user (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added info to the lede as you suggested, but didn't add the section about the extended northern runway to the article. It appears that the extension is already mentioned as one of the three options in the Northwest runway section. Instead, I intra-Wiki linked the sentence in the lede to the Heathrow Hub article, so interested readers can find more info there.Timtempleton (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Airports Commission Final Report: July 2015". Airports Commission. 1 July 2015. p. 100. Retrieved 25 February 2016.
  2. ^ Topham, Gwyn (13 November 2014). "Concorde captain believes Heathrow runway plan is cleared for take-off". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 February 2016.
  3. ^ "Airports Commission Final Report: July 2015". Airports Commission. 1 July 2015. p. 29. Retrieved 25 February 2016.
  4. ^ "Airports Commission Final Report: July 2015". Airports Commission. 1 July 2015. p. 29. Retrieved 25 February 2016.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Expansion of Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Expansion of Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial - just a bit[edit]

That's British understatement. This article doesn't even have "This is a highly controversial issue across London and the south east." in the opening section. I would put highly in bold italics if it were house style. --Elmeter (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Expansion of Heathrow Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cost[edit]

Can it be mentioned in the article why it would be so expensive to build a 3rd runway and a terminal? Do anyone know? It would according to the article cost £18.6 billion for a 2,200 m (7,218 ft) long runway with taxiway and a terminal with parking etc. To compare, a new airport is being built in Mo i Rana, Norway with 2400 m runway for £180 million, ok smaller terminal and cheaper land purchase, but can it cost £15 billion to purchase a 2200 x 200 meter (0.5 km²) area ? In that case the land value of Greater London with 1,569 km² would be £45 trillion, and a private house with a small garden would cost £30m just in land purchase.--BIL (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport&oldid=1219084246"