Gatwick in two-horse race for expansion after Boris Island ruled out

Gatwick in two-horse race for expansion after Boris Island ruled out

Gatwick in two-horse race for expansion after Boris Island ruled out

First published in News
Last updated
by , Business editor

The race to secure backing for airport expansion is down to two after “Boris Island” was ruled out.

Gatwick Airport is now competing with Heathrow to win over the Airports Commission for a new runway.

The commission, which will make a recommendation to government in the next parliament, was not shortlisted Boris Johnson’s Thames Estuary airport option.

Gatwick bosses said the expansion in Sussex would mean lower fares and greater passenger choice.

Chief executive Stewart Wingate said: “This is an important juncture in the aviation debate because now Britain’s choice is clear; expand Gatwick and support genuine competition, lower fares and greater choice for passengers or expand Heathrow and return to the stale monopoly of the past and watch the cost of going on holiday, travelling for business and exporting goods and service go up.

“We believe Gatwick has the strongest case. It is the only option left on the table that can be delivered with more certainty than either of the Heathrow options, and it can be delivered without the significant environmental impacts expansion at Heathrow would inflict on London. It can be delivered faster than any other option, and at low cost and low risk.

“Furthermore, expanding Gatwick will ensure the UK is served by two successful world class airports. It can liberate hub capacity at Heathrow and open up the opportunities for affordable long haul travel to emerging markets for the benefit of everyone, made possible by new generation of aircraft such as the Dreamliner.”

Gatwick says it will secure £7.8 billion funding for the new runway, whereas Heathrow’s will cost £15.6 billion and require public funding.

The airport also says it will deliver around £90 billion of economic benefits and create around 120,000 jobs.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:59am Tue 2 Sep 14

Fred'smate says...

I cannot see the need for extra runways, but I hope that Heathrow gets it.

The surrounding area is no longer part of England.
I cannot see the need for extra runways, but I hope that Heathrow gets it. The surrounding area is no longer part of England. Fred'smate
  • Score: -15

10:54am Tue 2 Sep 14

G Wiley says...

My personal preference would be Gatwick to support the south east - as Heathrow area is a terrible place to get to - the M25 from the A3 to the M40 seems an almost perpetual traffic jam, so IMHO any further expansion is pointless.

To catch a flight from Heathrow from the south-east you have to allow 2-3 hours to reach Heathrow (in case of delays) followed by another 2 hours to board - it is almost quicker to catch a flight to a different European Hub from Gatwick and then fly from their.

Perhaps if they went for Gatwick with a high speed transit link (HST or Maglev?) between Heathrow and Gatwick then they could treat both airports as one 'logical' hub - after all Heathrow T4 and T5 and not really the same as T1, T2 and T3 other than that they share the same runways. It would also allow for load balancing if there are weather (or any other issues) at either location.

Of course our ideological environmental activist water melons don't want ANY expansion of ANY airports and instead just want more trains, buses and cycle lanes, and to strangle business expansion in the UK and give it all to other, more progressive, environmentally pragmatic European countries.
My personal preference would be Gatwick to support the south east - as Heathrow area is a terrible place to get to - the M25 from the A3 to the M40 seems an almost perpetual traffic jam, so IMHO any further expansion is pointless. To catch a flight from Heathrow from the south-east you have to allow 2-3 hours to reach Heathrow (in case of delays) followed by another 2 hours to board - it is almost quicker to catch a flight to a different European Hub from Gatwick and then fly from their. Perhaps if they went for Gatwick with a high speed transit link (HST or Maglev?) between Heathrow and Gatwick then they could treat both airports as one 'logical' hub - after all Heathrow T4 and T5 and not really the same as T1, T2 and T3 other than that they share the same runways. It would also allow for load balancing if there are weather (or any other issues) at either location. Of course our ideological environmental activist water melons don't want ANY expansion of ANY airports and instead just want more trains, buses and cycle lanes, and to strangle business expansion in the UK and give it all to other, more progressive, environmentally pragmatic European countries. G Wiley
  • Score: 17

11:03am Tue 2 Sep 14

Fred'smate says...

G Wiley wrote:
My personal preference would be Gatwick to support the south east - as Heathrow area is a terrible place to get to - the M25 from the A3 to the M40 seems an almost perpetual traffic jam, so IMHO any further expansion is pointless.

To catch a flight from Heathrow from the south-east you have to allow 2-3 hours to reach Heathrow (in case of delays) followed by another 2 hours to board - it is almost quicker to catch a flight to a different European Hub from Gatwick and then fly from their.

Perhaps if they went for Gatwick with a high speed transit link (HST or Maglev?) between Heathrow and Gatwick then they could treat both airports as one 'logical' hub - after all Heathrow T4 and T5 and not really the same as T1, T2 and T3 other than that they share the same runways. It would also allow for load balancing if there are weather (or any other issues) at either location.

Of course our ideological environmental activist water melons don't want ANY expansion of ANY airports and instead just want more trains, buses and cycle lanes, and to strangle business expansion in the UK and give it all to other, more progressive, environmentally pragmatic European countries.
Heathrow is served by four motorways.

Gatwick has just the one.

Are you seriously suggesting that expanding at Gatwick won't lead to congestion greater than Heathrow currently has?

We don't need extra runway to expand business in the UK. If we did, we should be looking at a totally different part of the country for extra runways.
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: My personal preference would be Gatwick to support the south east - as Heathrow area is a terrible place to get to - the M25 from the A3 to the M40 seems an almost perpetual traffic jam, so IMHO any further expansion is pointless. To catch a flight from Heathrow from the south-east you have to allow 2-3 hours to reach Heathrow (in case of delays) followed by another 2 hours to board - it is almost quicker to catch a flight to a different European Hub from Gatwick and then fly from their. Perhaps if they went for Gatwick with a high speed transit link (HST or Maglev?) between Heathrow and Gatwick then they could treat both airports as one 'logical' hub - after all Heathrow T4 and T5 and not really the same as T1, T2 and T3 other than that they share the same runways. It would also allow for load balancing if there are weather (or any other issues) at either location. Of course our ideological environmental activist water melons don't want ANY expansion of ANY airports and instead just want more trains, buses and cycle lanes, and to strangle business expansion in the UK and give it all to other, more progressive, environmentally pragmatic European countries.[/p][/quote]Heathrow is served by four motorways. Gatwick has just the one. Are you seriously suggesting that expanding at Gatwick won't lead to congestion greater than Heathrow currently has? We don't need extra runway to expand business in the UK. If we did, we should be looking at a totally different part of the country for extra runways. Fred'smate
  • Score: -13

1:44pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Nosfaratu says...

G Wiley wrote:
My personal preference would be Gatwick to support the south east - as Heathrow area is a terrible place to get to - the M25 from the A3 to the M40 seems an almost perpetual traffic jam, so IMHO any further expansion is pointless.

To catch a flight from Heathrow from the south-east you have to allow 2-3 hours to reach Heathrow (in case of delays) followed by another 2 hours to board - it is almost quicker to catch a flight to a different European Hub from Gatwick and then fly from their.

Perhaps if they went for Gatwick with a high speed transit link (HST or Maglev?) between Heathrow and Gatwick then they could treat both airports as one 'logical' hub - after all Heathrow T4 and T5 and not really the same as T1, T2 and T3 other than that they share the same runways. It would also allow for load balancing if there are weather (or any other issues) at either location.

Of course our ideological environmental activist water melons don't want ANY expansion of ANY airports and instead just want more trains, buses and cycle lanes, and to strangle business expansion in the UK and give it all to other, more progressive, environmentally pragmatic European countries.
If they do grant Gatwick the new runway, access will have to be upgraded. As we all know the Road/Transport systems here in Sussex are appalling.
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: My personal preference would be Gatwick to support the south east - as Heathrow area is a terrible place to get to - the M25 from the A3 to the M40 seems an almost perpetual traffic jam, so IMHO any further expansion is pointless. To catch a flight from Heathrow from the south-east you have to allow 2-3 hours to reach Heathrow (in case of delays) followed by another 2 hours to board - it is almost quicker to catch a flight to a different European Hub from Gatwick and then fly from their. Perhaps if they went for Gatwick with a high speed transit link (HST or Maglev?) between Heathrow and Gatwick then they could treat both airports as one 'logical' hub - after all Heathrow T4 and T5 and not really the same as T1, T2 and T3 other than that they share the same runways. It would also allow for load balancing if there are weather (or any other issues) at either location. Of course our ideological environmental activist water melons don't want ANY expansion of ANY airports and instead just want more trains, buses and cycle lanes, and to strangle business expansion in the UK and give it all to other, more progressive, environmentally pragmatic European countries.[/p][/quote]If they do grant Gatwick the new runway, access will have to be upgraded. As we all know the Road/Transport systems here in Sussex are appalling. Nosfaratu
  • Score: 3

2:05pm Tue 2 Sep 14

G Wiley says...

Nosfaratu wrote:
G Wiley wrote:
My personal preference would be Gatwick to support the south east - as Heathrow area is a terrible place to get to - the M25 from the A3 to the M40 seems an almost perpetual traffic jam, so IMHO any further expansion is pointless.

To catch a flight from Heathrow from the south-east you have to allow 2-3 hours to reach Heathrow (in case of delays) followed by another 2 hours to board - it is almost quicker to catch a flight to a different European Hub from Gatwick and then fly from their.

Perhaps if they went for Gatwick with a high speed transit link (HST or Maglev?) between Heathrow and Gatwick then they could treat both airports as one 'logical' hub - after all Heathrow T4 and T5 and not really the same as T1, T2 and T3 other than that they share the same runways. It would also allow for load balancing if there are weather (or any other issues) at either location.

Of course our ideological environmental activist water melons don't want ANY expansion of ANY airports and instead just want more trains, buses and cycle lanes, and to strangle business expansion in the UK and give it all to other, more progressive, environmentally pragmatic European countries.
If they do grant Gatwick the new runway, access will have to be upgraded. As we all know the Road/Transport systems here in Sussex are appalling.
Agreed - but I recall over 50% of passengers already travel by rail as they already have a proper mainline station which could limit the need for further road expansion in the area. Perhaps the M23 would need to expanded from the M25 to Gatwick to 4 lanes?

Perhaps further rail expansion, linking into HS1/2, as HJarrs has suggested (did I really say that!). If there was a decent rail link to remote, satellite parking then people wouldn't need to take their cars to the airport itself.

Heathrow, AFAIK, is not on any main rail links so you have to travel into London Paddington to change to the Heathrow Express which is a mess from the south-east. Heathrow was only ever really designed for road access - hence all the motorway links that end up going through the tunnel to T1,2,3 ending up with congestion inside the airport that Davey would be proud of.
[quote][p][bold]Nosfaratu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: My personal preference would be Gatwick to support the south east - as Heathrow area is a terrible place to get to - the M25 from the A3 to the M40 seems an almost perpetual traffic jam, so IMHO any further expansion is pointless. To catch a flight from Heathrow from the south-east you have to allow 2-3 hours to reach Heathrow (in case of delays) followed by another 2 hours to board - it is almost quicker to catch a flight to a different European Hub from Gatwick and then fly from their. Perhaps if they went for Gatwick with a high speed transit link (HST or Maglev?) between Heathrow and Gatwick then they could treat both airports as one 'logical' hub - after all Heathrow T4 and T5 and not really the same as T1, T2 and T3 other than that they share the same runways. It would also allow for load balancing if there are weather (or any other issues) at either location. Of course our ideological environmental activist water melons don't want ANY expansion of ANY airports and instead just want more trains, buses and cycle lanes, and to strangle business expansion in the UK and give it all to other, more progressive, environmentally pragmatic European countries.[/p][/quote]If they do grant Gatwick the new runway, access will have to be upgraded. As we all know the Road/Transport systems here in Sussex are appalling.[/p][/quote]Agreed - but I recall over 50% of passengers already travel by rail as they already have a proper mainline station which could limit the need for further road expansion in the area. Perhaps the M23 would need to expanded from the M25 to Gatwick to 4 lanes? Perhaps further rail expansion, linking into HS1/2, as HJarrs has suggested (did I really say that!). If there was a decent rail link to remote, satellite parking then people wouldn't need to take their cars to the airport itself. Heathrow, AFAIK, is not on any main rail links so you have to travel into London Paddington to change to the Heathrow Express which is a mess from the south-east. Heathrow was only ever really designed for road access - hence all the motorway links that end up going through the tunnel to T1,2,3 ending up with congestion inside the airport that Davey would be proud of. G Wiley
  • Score: 2

2:13pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Valentinian says...

Willie Walsh says.....

What will be the outcome? “My view is that the third runway at Heathrow is not going to happen.” Gatwick will be seen as less politically sensitive and emerge the winner, regardless of what Sir Howard suggests.

In which case, fumes Walsh, “We will be making a mistake we will live to regret. We will look back 20 years from now and ask, ‘How did we allow ourselves to get into this position?’ We will lose out in terms of economic growth. A lot of airlines want to fly to Heathrow: not the UK but Heathrow. If they can’t fly to Heathrow they will go somewhere else like Paris or Amsterdam.”

What isn’t widely understood, he says, is the importance of “business connectivity. The network we have here at Heathrow is westward facing – as you would expect, given our traditional economic partner is the US. But as the economies in the east grow we will struggle to provide the same level of connectivity”.
Willie Walsh says..... What will be the outcome? “My view is that the third runway at Heathrow is not going to happen.” Gatwick will be seen as less politically sensitive and emerge the winner, regardless of what Sir Howard suggests. In which case, fumes Walsh, “We will be making a mistake we will live to regret. We will look back 20 years from now and ask, ‘How did we allow ourselves to get into this position?’ We will lose out in terms of economic growth. A lot of airlines want to fly to Heathrow: not the UK but Heathrow. If they can’t fly to Heathrow they will go somewhere else like Paris or Amsterdam.” What isn’t widely understood, he says, is the importance of “business connectivity. The network we have here at Heathrow is westward facing – as you would expect, given our traditional economic partner is the US. But as the economies in the east grow we will struggle to provide the same level of connectivity”. Valentinian
  • Score: -1

3:03pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Fred'smate says...

I see that no-one can make the case for increased air capacity.
I see that no-one can make the case for increased air capacity. Fred'smate
  • Score: -2

3:35pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Nosfaratu says...

Valentinian wrote:
Willie Walsh says.....

What will be the outcome? “My view is that the third runway at Heathrow is not going to happen.” Gatwick will be seen as less politically sensitive and emerge the winner, regardless of what Sir Howard suggests.

In which case, fumes Walsh, “We will be making a mistake we will live to regret. We will look back 20 years from now and ask, ‘How did we allow ourselves to get into this position?’ We will lose out in terms of economic growth. A lot of airlines want to fly to Heathrow: not the UK but Heathrow. If they can’t fly to Heathrow they will go somewhere else like Paris or Amsterdam.”

What isn’t widely understood, he says, is the importance of “business connectivity. The network we have here at Heathrow is westward facing – as you would expect, given our traditional economic partner is the US. But as the economies in the east grow we will struggle to provide the same level of connectivity”.
You mean like the lack of Gas or Electricity provision.
Successive Govt's in this country have left us at the mercy of people like 'Putin', who is using our need for his gas to blackmail the Ukraine out of Europe and the 'Ludites' have rendered our Nuclear energy output minimal.
Its time the UK put the UK first, newts and trees second.
[quote][p][bold]Valentinian[/bold] wrote: Willie Walsh says..... What will be the outcome? “My view is that the third runway at Heathrow is not going to happen.” Gatwick will be seen as less politically sensitive and emerge the winner, regardless of what Sir Howard suggests. In which case, fumes Walsh, “We will be making a mistake we will live to regret. We will look back 20 years from now and ask, ‘How did we allow ourselves to get into this position?’ We will lose out in terms of economic growth. A lot of airlines want to fly to Heathrow: not the UK but Heathrow. If they can’t fly to Heathrow they will go somewhere else like Paris or Amsterdam.” What isn’t widely understood, he says, is the importance of “business connectivity. The network we have here at Heathrow is westward facing – as you would expect, given our traditional economic partner is the US. But as the economies in the east grow we will struggle to provide the same level of connectivity”.[/p][/quote]You mean like the lack of Gas or Electricity provision. Successive Govt's in this country have left us at the mercy of people like 'Putin', who is using our need for his gas to blackmail the Ukraine out of Europe and the 'Ludites' have rendered our Nuclear energy output minimal. Its time the UK put the UK first, newts and trees second. Nosfaratu
  • Score: 1

3:41pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Notters_Seagull says...

I think the expansion of Gatwick would be great for Sussex. BUT, it is essential that we have other improvements to go with it, as it will inevitably lead to even more people wanting to live in the area. We need road improvements, such as dualling of the A27, and Brighton Main Line 2.
I think the expansion of Gatwick would be great for Sussex. BUT, it is essential that we have other improvements to go with it, as it will inevitably lead to even more people wanting to live in the area. We need road improvements, such as dualling of the A27, and Brighton Main Line 2. Notters_Seagull
  • Score: 3

3:42pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Notters_Seagull says...

Fred'smate wrote:
I see that no-one can make the case for increased air capacity.
Funny that, given that none of the comments have even been about increased air capacity.
[quote][p][bold]Fred'smate[/bold] wrote: I see that no-one can make the case for increased air capacity.[/p][/quote]Funny that, given that none of the comments have even been about increased air capacity. Notters_Seagull
  • Score: -1

4:55pm Tue 2 Sep 14

In the sticks says...

If it's a two-horse race I hope Gatwick limps home in second place.
If it's a two-horse race I hope Gatwick limps home in second place. In the sticks
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree