You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So the Airports Commission has backed a third runway at Heathrow. Personally I'm strongly in favour of a third runway at Heathrow, but it's going to be politically interesting.
Cameron ruled out a third runway in 2010 saying “no ifs, no buts”.
Boris Johnson has long campaigned against the third runway.
I hope that they do what I believe is right for the country and build the third runway as recommended.
The only sensible option was the one which was never considered; no expansion in airport capacity and a planned reduction over the long term.
perhaps the not putting all the UK's capacity in London might not be a bad idea.
I will avoid flying through London at all costs, as a transit airport it's just annoying.
Last time I came back flying in and out of Manchester was much better.
It's a weak choice for sure. I'd much rather have seen a bolder, long-term solution.
The voters round Datchet must be Labour, is all I can think!
Have you ever been to Datchet? It's awash with retired colonels and flagpoles in gardens.
They're obviously not bothered about the residents of the grandest house nearby.
[img] .jpg)
[/img]
Boris Island FTW.
The problem with Boris Island being:
it would be no bloody use at all for the rest of the country.
Getting to Heathrow is a pain in the arse. Getting to an island in the Thames estuary, the wrong side of London would be considerably more painful.
(anyone not living in London may as well fly to Frankfurt, than travel to Boris Island)
Heathrow is better placed and better connected than any of the alternatives. To those saying build capacity further north: Are Manchester etc full at the moment?
The ideal solution IMO would be a new massive hub airport soemwhere close to, but NW of london with a link into the HS2 line for fast acess to London and Birmingham and easy connections to M40 and M1.
Given that is not going to happen a 3rd runway at heathrow is the only solution. Boris islands is only any good for London, it is so out of the way and alkward to get to even for the rest of the south let alone the rest of the country. Ditto Gatwick and that does not solve the international hub probelem. Ditto expanding manchester for example, unless you mega expaned it to be bigger than heathrow as it would have to be a interantional hub but then you still need to get most of the pssengers down to London. As nice as manchester is it is not one of the most important international cities in the world.
So build more at heathrow and continue to push capacity through there or push the capacity onto other places, Manchester is well situated and could take more if the London central model got sacked off. With all of this a build it and they will come thing exits just most of the population doesn't exist in London.
I appreciate it isn't good for everyone but Heathrow has good access for a pretty high proportion of the country.Getting to Heathrow is a pain in the arse.
Manchester is not full to capacity however it's due to have its Terminals realigned to improve capacity. Then it should be able to handle 50 million passengers per year and hopefully overtake Gatwick as the second busiest Airport in the UK.
It also doesn't use both it's runways all day as Runway 2 is shut between 1030 and 1430 and 2000-0500 unless needed for emergencies or if it starts to get busy.
It currently handles 23 million passengers a year and has good connections. Dubai, Hong Kong, and Singapore for the far east and middle east. And Chicago, New York, Philidelphia, Orlando and Miami for the west. Plus the majority of the major European hubs.
Would much rather fly through Manchester than Heathrow, a much nicer experience.
borris island would be a nightmare to get to, can you imagine the effect on the M25!!
weve just moved from brentford, not directly underthe flightpath but still very intrusive noise wise, from 5-30am til midnight, 24/7
the effects of noise pollution on mental health, school attainment etc are well doccumented
and air pollution shortens 1000s of lives and costs the NHS millions every year
and yet we build spangly new accademies next to A roads and motorways and funnel millions of planes over the most densely populated parts of the country
a blow for the inhabitants of hounslow, kew, richmond, datchet etc (and yes those areas are as Tory as they come (well except hounslow!)
Birmingham, as ever, is the real answer. Expand that, add in a requirement for a fast, non-stop train service into Euston and you're sorted.
But given that wasn't going to happen, ever, Heathrow is the least bad solution. It's not great to get to but it's the easiest of all the London airports for the majority of the rest of the country. But, as [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33285659 ]this [/url]very interesting article from the BBC shows, I doubt this will happen either.
soemwhere close to, but NW of london
There's still a small "memorial" at Cublington Spinney, near Leighton Buzzard, that commemorates success in defeating the plans for a new airport there years ago; they went for expansion of Stansted instead. This time I believe they looked at a site near Thame. Both of these would meet your criteria and link in with HS2/E-W rail link but the draw of Heathrow seems to be inexorable.
nickjb - MemberI appreciate it isn't good for everyone but Heathrow has good access for a pretty high proportion of the country.
that's my point.
Heathrow can be a pain, Boris Island? 2 hours more travelling each way, if not more.
I appreciate it isn't good for everyone but Heathrow has good access for a pretty high proportion of the country.
It's at the other end of the country to the rest of the population
It's on a really busy motorway
If you want to go on the train you have to get to reading the south coast or London
It's probably easier to go to your local airport and fly there.
Last time I did heathrow it took about 30 mins to get from the hotel to the terminal as it was on the other side. It's not that easy to get to.
I still don't understand [i]why[/i] we need to increase our airport capacity. There's just no real reason.
Rachel
Because it makes rich people richer.
A lot of the heathrow expantion is to do with keeping a internation airport hub in the uk. If you are gogin to have a international hub, it needs to be easily excessable to a a international city. I'd personaly love to seee more focus put into the rest of the country and away from London but when it comes to something like this the airport need to be lonon based, but with the best possible conections possible to the rest of the country. Given that there would not be a new airport Heathrow is the only option.
"least bad" option sure.
But the M25 can't cope between 0700-1100 and 1600-1900 every day as is. You can't force '000's of passengers heading to Heathrow to catch a Bus or Train, most travel there by car/taxi. So if you want a 3rd runway expand the M25 too.
Trains in/out of London are frequent yes, but a large % of passengers come in from all over the country, whats the solution then?
I'm of the opinion that folks living West of Town are increasingly forced upon to accept it's them that gets the brunt of any small increase, never mind large. It's oppressive the amount of planes dropping in over Windsor, the height and noise is unacceptable IMO.
An increase in economic growth is a poor argument for expansion, I don't think shifting the expansion to B'ham or Manc is the answer either as you just move the problem elsewhere. Short term it might be ok to do that, but then they will be asked to increase capacity again and again and they'll be in the situation Heathrow finds itself now.
Tough one.
And I still don't understand why folks live out West 😐
50million passengers a year, each paying what? £20 taxes?
that's a billion quid in tax, from 1 airport.
nice little earner that.
more passengers = more tax.
I still don't understand why we need to increase our airport capacity. There's just no real reason.
Agreed. Aviation fuel is going to become an increasingly scarce resource with no plausible alternative available and we should be working harder to justify the use of it not increasing its use.
convert - Member
Aviation fuel is going to become an increasingly scarce resource with no plausible alternative available and we should be working harder to justify the use of it not increasing its use.
i keep banging on about this, because no-one's listening:
There is plenty of oil in the World, enough for centuries, we're not going to run out.
the next few decades will see the meaningful end of the easy stuff, that squirts out of the ground when an Arab drills a hole.
We're already extracting oil from tar-sands, for less than $100/barrel.
i'll let you google the total amount of oil available in tar-sands.
I still don't understand why we need to increase our airport capacity
Demand basically. More people are flying and a lot of airports are close to capacity in their existing form. Some are restricted by runway space, others by apron space, other but terminal space but most are restricted in some way.
Off the back of this, the London airports are already big and already at capacity. You can, and should, argue that therefore we can take the pressure off them by flying from somewhere else but right now people want to fly to/from London so that's where the capacity will be put.
There is plenty of oil in the World, enough for centuries.
Yeah you just need to get it out the ground for a price that it's worth burning it for.
You can, and should, argue that therefore we can take the pressure off them by flying from somewhere else but right now people want to fly to/from London so that's where the capacity will be put.
Chicken and egg, build it there and people will have to go there. As I said I pick flights that don't go through Heathrow, the middle eastern hubs and all pick up from other airports and have a lot of cheap space and capacity.
There is plenty of oil in the World, enough for centuries.
Did George Dubya tell you that?
This debate will only be meaningful on our deathbeds and by then if you are wrong it will be too late. Not for us clearly, we can spunk the stuff away without a care, but future generations mights be a bit peeved that we used it flying businessmen around the world to have face to face conversations that could have been done virtually and so holidaymakers could get a nice tan.
With a 3rd runway, presumably the currently good access to Heathrow would have 50% more traffic on it, making it less good.
Just flew to/from South America for work. Based in Newcastle my options were Heathrow, Paris or Amsterdam. So flew to/from heathrow. Would you prefer the large amount of airport tax and long distance international tourism (which was most of the flight) was dissuaded from coming to the UK.
No-one other than Mancunians want to fly to/from Manchester as it's not where tourists want to visit, the choice of flights is limited and for a large amount of non-charter flights you can just fly from your local airport to a major hub and get a larger choice of flights.
convert - MemberThis debate will only be meaningful on our deathbeds
wrong.
it's a meaningful debate now.
This is what we're doing to Alberta to get at the oil-sand:
[img] 
[/img]
(you basically have to dig it up, and then boil it - it's a disaster, and that's before we consider the impact on climate change of a world with 'too much' oil)
for years we've been told that we're going to run out of oil in our lifetimes. and that's been seen as a limit to the amount of damage we can do.
"it's ok, we'll have no choice, we'll stop acting like comedy bad guys from a poor episode of captain-planet because we'll run out of oil"
We had-slash-have hundreds of billions of barrels of easy oil. But when we go looking for difficult oil, we find trillions of barrels. Trillions.
We have to [u]choose[/u] to stop ****ing the planet, or not...
it matters now, not on our deathbeds.
Strange - haven't got time now to 'google' properly but what I've found so far does not back up your theory.
Conventional estimates are we have 1.3 trillion barrels of 'provable' reserves. That is estimated to last 40-55 years on current consumption predictions. The latest estimates are that the total reserves which now include the recently added tar sands estimates (200 billion) and the as yet undiscovered reserves is 2 trillion. Not the 1.3 plus an extra 2 trillion - 2 trillion all up. That is not centuries and centuries of use at current levels.
Your argument is a bit bipolar though. My original post was that I don't think we should be encouraging more aviation as it's a waste of a finite resource; you respond with don't be daft it'll last for centuries; and now you are saying that dragging up the last of the reserves will trash the planet. Which side of the fence are you - encourage or discourage use of petrochemicals with gay abandon?
Strange - haven't got time now to 'google' properly but what I've found so far does not back up your theory.
It's probably the 3 gazillion barrels from the Scottish election
We have to choose to stop ****ing the planet, or not...
This.
Rather than wasting load of money on HS2 or increasing airport capacity and destroying thousands of acres of countryside and adversely affecting the lives of millions, invest in technology. There are a great many parts of the country where network provision is pitiful and / or very expensive. Improve that and reduce the costs and you open up the possibility of virtual meeting via video conferencing etc. There are occasions when physical attendance at a meeting can add value but embracing alternatives has to be the way forward.
Or we can keep destroying the planet to move more people from A - B needlessly and back again.
discourage.
but we all have a role to play in that. if you think this matters, then you have to choose to fly less (among other things)
i don't know your working, but we use about 70million barrels per day. if there's 2 trillion barrels left before the world runs dry, then that's 80 years.
2 Trillion is probably an under-estimate, As you've said, it's based on the trillion or so barrels of easy stuff we have left*, plus 1 more trillion if we include the much more abundant difficult stuff.
(*Saudi Arabia + Venezuela add up to at least 500 billion barrels)
that's 80 years assuming we take no steps away from oil, but we already have. Our consumption of those '80 years worth' will not be a straight line down to zero in 80 years time.
Both Heathrow and Gatwick are privately owned so why does the government need to get involved. Let them both apply for planning permission in the normal way and see what happens. Each should be looked at individually and allowed to go ahead if it passes the planning rules. Granted the government might be needed to approve planning permission but I don't see why it should be one or the other.
Personally I think they should allow the building of a brand new airport somewhere in the same region as Heathrow but where the main flight path in right across the centre of London and the associated air pollution. I agree that more flights should be from airports further north and not all centred around London but we do have to accept that this country and establishment are all completely London centric and just don't think realises anyone (the majority of the population) actual live outside of the M25!!
What I find more annoying is that we never seem to have a long term, say 20yr, fully integrated plan for the country and how we might want it changed or structured. For the life of me I don't understand why we don't have along term plan to move business and people out of the south east, especially as the population is constantly increasing.
I'd imagine that the planning application for a third runway at Heathrow might put a bit of pressure on the planning department at Hounslow Council, or wherever, and get referred up to the Secretary of State for a decision...
Both Heathrow and Gatwick are privately owned so why does the government need to get involved.
As a country a strategy of airport capacity is very important. Making sure that you don't end up with over capacity in the wrong place or miss a chance to do the right thing is important.
Personally I think they should allow the building of a brand new airport somewhere in the same region as Heathrow
Why? Crowded air space, same problem with connectivity and why would you choose Diet Heathrow over Full Fat Heathrow.
What I find more annoying is that we never seem to have a long term, say 20yr, fully integrated plan for the country and how we might want it changed or structured.
exactly why the government should be involved - see your first point
Any makor infrastructure plan shirley MUST go through the Gov't approval system.
As for the Oil revenue, I agree with ahwiles, easy oil is running out, difficult oil is there in barrel loads. The question is/should be .. do we start decimating the Earth to get hold of it.
HS2 should be scrapped pronto..
difficult oil is there in barrel loads
and the point being it's not in the barrels
As a frequency business flyer I'm in favour of Heathrow getting a 3rd runway, it's the only well run airport in the country. Gatwick seems to be run by amateurs who can't cope with the single runway they already have.
From my experience Footflaps Gatwick is in an 80's timewarp, heathrow is basically death by busses.
that's 80 years assuming we take no steps away from oil, but we already have. Our consumption of those '80 years worth' will not be a straight line down to zero in 80 years time.
yes and no.
We have more technologies available to either make use more efficient or find an alternative but there are a lot more folk wanting to use it than there were.
[img] 
?00cfb7[/img]
EU and even the US reducing but developing nations use going through the roof. Globally our consumption rates will continue to rise before it drops.
bikebouy - Membereasy oil is running out, difficult oil is there in barrel loads. The question is/should be .. do we start decimating the Earth to get hold of it.
thankyou for summarising in 2 sentences that which i struggled to condense into half a dozen posts.
'running out' isn't the problem we face. We'll be ****ed long before we run out.
They should find a way to power passenger jets with stinky rotten farts. I swear I did enough of them on a recent flight back from JFK to power at least one of the engines myself.
The plan's genius really; totally **** up the south east with M25 traffic at a standstill all day long due to everybody having to head there for their holiday flights and then you have justification for a HS2 link just to get anyone out of there
2 massive sets of contracts to offer to the highest briber
More feet on the ground - fewer planes in the air...
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/26/heathrow-gatwick-expansion-davies-report-frequent-flyers-aviation
So I take it now that STW is taking the moral highground on this then there'll be no more threads about taking bikes to Morzine for a jolly weekend?
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/26/heathrow-gatwick-expansion-davies-report-frequent-flyers-aviation
Interesting read, by video conferencing is no replacement for 'pressing the flesh'.
and then you have justification for a HS2 link just to get anyone out of there
If only HS2 were going anywhere near Heathrow directly....
My argument is that there should be a long term government plan on how the country should look be structured in 5/10/20yrs but if the government wants to have private companies owning and running the airports then they should deb allowed to get on with it. If they put in the planning applications and build too many runways and then have over capacity then it is their problem. Like the railways, why the hell does the government allow private firms and then we the tax payer pays for the rolling stock. If it is going to be private have a regulator but then let the companies get on with it and take full responsibility. If National Grid can be a private company then why can't Railtrack. We just seem to have a dogs dinner of a setup and too many things being caught up in party politics and not sensible long term thinking and planning
[i]Demand basically. More people are flying [/i]
50% of the population fly less than once a year, 15% of the population fly multiple times, they should be paying a frequent flyer tax.
However, we're told that this expansion is required for "business" growth, not rich people flying off to their villas in the sun.
The "there" in that sentence was the south east generally, not heathrow specifically. IME people prefer to take their cases to the airport in a car, not piss about with public transport - hence the SE being ****ed up by congestionbreatheeasy - Memberand then you have justification for a HS2 link just to get anyone out of there
If only HS2 were going anywhere near Heathrow directly....
I beg to differ. I was forced, through work, to go through Heathrow for years. Lost luggage and missed connections (even with 2 hrs to connect) were routine. Then I switched to going through Frankfurt or Amsterdam and never had another problem.As a frequency business flyer I'm in favour of Heathrow getting a 3rd runway, it's the only well run airport in the country
If Heathrow's the best answer then we're asking the wrong question.
15% of the population fly multiple times, they should be paying a frequent flyer tax.
I think they call it departure tax, paid on every departure.
Thankfully here in Oz where I can't work without planes we don't have one.
I'm assuming the desire to expand heathrow is mostly a social experiment- build the world's biggest maze and release tens of thousands of stressed[s] mice[/s] people into it and see what happens.
breatheeasy - MemberSo I take it now that STW is taking the moral highground on this then there'll be no more threads about taking bikes to Morzine for a jolly weekend?
As soon as I can telecommute a bike ride, I'm in.
It's yet another example of how politicians are unable to deliver a long term plan; although to be fair, the way that they're elected doesn't encourage it.
We have a 'departure tax' which encourages people to fly to other European countries before starting a long haul flight; more flights, more miles, how's that 'green'?
And people wonder why Heathrow struggles with only two runways, when it handles more people than either Paris or Frankfurt with four each.
I don't know what the answer is, but the 'solution' is more than likely to be politically expedient rather than what's best for the future.
The voters round Datchet must be Labour, is all I can think!
Not in my road they aren't!
To be honest, living under the flight path is not so bad and LHR is very convenient (I cycle round it every morning).
But really I think the solution should be the same as that taken elsewhere - new infrastructure rather than "make and mend". Twas always the UK way and it has not served the country well compared with its peers (see HS2 for example).
I'd build a second runway at LGW to cope with immediate (read 10-year) needs, AND a third hub airport aka Boris Island for a 50-year plan, with proper high speed rail links to the main network (not hub and spoke nonsense). Then phase down LHR and LGW.
Gatwick seems to be run by amateurs who can't cope with the single runway they already have.
Have you wondered whether the fact that they only have one runway (at full capacity) may be the source of their problems? See any mildly foggy day at LHR for short-haul chaos as the landing interval widens.
I live 20 mins south of Gatwick but haven't been through there in 3 years. I reckon 90% of our flights over the past 10 years have been out of Heathrow.
Have done trains and tubes to LHR in the past and then the coach from LHR to LGW. All of these public transport options were a complete bolx to deal with so now we get taxis. More expensive overall but a darn sight more convenient, even taking the M25 into account.
A 2nd runway at Gatwick would make more sense [i]if there was a direct rail link and better roads between there and [b]Stansted.[/b][/i]
However that's far too joined up and long term an option and would never happen.
Luton is geographically much better suited to the rest of the country but never seems to feature in these discussions. I've never been there but I gather it's not a great experience?
They couldn't bulldoze Sipson, West Drayton and Harmondsworth quick enough IMHO total dumps.
i keep banging on about this, because no-one's listening:There is plenty of oil in the World, enough for centuries, we're not going to run out.
the next few decades will see the meaningful end of the easy stuff, that squirts out of the ground when an Arab drills a hole.
We're already extracting oil from tar-sands, for less than $100/barrel.
i'll let you google the total amount of oil available in tar-sands.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/may/28/carbon-bomb-canada-tar-sands-fort-mckay-town-sold-itself ]TAR SANDS ARE NOT THE WAY TO GO WHEN THE COST IS THIS HIGH[/url]
As for the runway....?
I'm unconvinced by the economics for, but understand the upheaval relocation would entail. I think whatever we do it's a short term fix at best - fundamentally LHR is in the WRONG place..
If pushed for an option I 'd go for expansion at LGW - more space & less people affected by the increase in air traffic.
and LGW is in a better place tucked round the bottom of london?
If there was an expanstion of LGW ther would need to be a regular high speed train link between all other london airports so they couls act as park and rides / fly and rides.
LGW is the only place that has the space - whether it's in the right place? That's a different matter.
The BEST solution would be Birmingham, but since that idea never got really off the ground it became a toss up between LGW & LHR - rightly or wrongly..
@ TheBrick
LGW is served by the Brighton Main(railway)line, which is very nearly at full capacity already. East Croydon is the busiest non junction station on the network.
This goes back to a more cohesive countrywide transport plan for the trains, roads and airports.
(A new rail link between LGW and LHR is never going to happen as it'd probably cost 5 times HS2)
The customers, i.e. the airlines, don't want airport capacity scattered around - they want to fly large numbers of passengers from as few airports as possible - its more efficient and cost effective for them to have fewer, larger aircraft and its better for the environment - a full A380 burns a lower amount of fuel per seat mile than a smaller aircraft. Splitting airport capacity across more airports mean a larger fleets of smaller aircraft and ultimately more environmental impact. If you think getting to Heathrow to catch your flight is a PITA, try having to get over to Schipol, Charles DeGaulle or Frankfurt, because without Heathrow expansion that's where were heading - they'll happily expand to take Heathrow's traffic. It was the only option and the whole report has just been a public exercise charade so the politicians can make a decision without committing political suicide. I liked the idea of Boris Island in theory, but in practice it is totally impractical, ridiculously expensive, too late and would have even more of an environmental impact, and airlines didn't want it, and neither do passengers (unless you live near Heathrow of course). Anyway with the growth of air travel over the next 20 years and more, there is enough room for expansion at all of the UK's major airports.
This country needs more transport infrastructure for planes, trains and cars, last time I checked the population of the country was growing and people WANT to move around for social, domestic, pleasure and business purposes and don't want to be told by anyone that they shouldn't travel anywhere and instead Skype friends, family and business associates. Last time I checked a builder can't build a skyscraper over video conference, a salesman can't sell his wares via You Tube and you can't attend someones wedding over FaceTime.
Anyway, the vast majority of passengers travelling through Heathrow are not British holiday makers and business people, its foreign people passing through to get to somewhere else, so we could all lock ourselves in our houses like hermits and live on the internet, but air travel demand will still rise and Heathrow expansion still needed.
video conferencing is no replacement for 'pressing the flesh'
It bloody well needs to be and there's absoutely no reason why it can't be.
'Oh it's just not the same.. you don't get the same feel' is absolutely not a good reason to squander natural resources and bollocks up the planet. It's bloody ridiculous.
LGW is served by the Brighton Main(railway)line, which is very nearly at full capacity already. East Croydon is the busiest non junction station on the network.
That supports my point. LGW is a in a awful place to expand.
This expansion is not for the Uk population as such. Heathrow is a hub, this is about throughput, getting passengers off one interconnecting flight and onto another. The airlines would prefer their aircraft to all land at one airport for such connectivity. This is why airports such as Gatwick, stanstead, lootin etc, won't get a look in.
This is once again one private buisiness(heathrow) implying economic disaster for all if it is not allowed to grow to "compete" with other European hubs. Naturally, they wouldn't want to move airports to lets say one built in the Thames Estuary(the one issue I agree with Johnson on) because the owners of Heathrow may not own the new site.
Instead, we will get a third runway that will further blight the west of London and surrounding counties. Wait until Heathrow comes back and wants a fourth runway. This is purely another reminder that only economics matter, and you and your opinions are worthless.
It bloody well needs to be and there's absoutely no reason why it can't be.
We can't manage it between three sites 10 miles apart.
Ok I missed the point - Why are we going after this biggest hub scenario? Why do we want flatten the homes of thousands of people on a piece of land in one of the country's mostly densely populated and expensive areas only to turn it into a glorified bus depot for the rest of the world?
London will likely always be big enough to attract it's own direct flightpaths so I don't see the reason (other than someone thinks they can trouser a massive pile of cash out of the deal) why you would do such a thing.
Heathrow's not a hub, though. There aren't that many other UK airports it serves. Nor is Gatwick.
They are built to serve London, not the whole country.
See this article written from the true northern perspective:
[url= http://www.citymetric.com/transport/uks-hub-airport-isnt-london-heathrow-its-amsterdam-schiphol-1190 ]It's Amsterdam for the win[/url]
Good article that, certainly inline with our experience- my office flies people to every part of the developed world and amsterdam's the most common stopoff by a country mile.
I fly out of Heathrow weekly with work, its far better now that it was.
People who want Gatwick extended ask yourself this, why did Delta and Continental not hang around when slots at Heathrow became available? Do you really think a extended Gatwick would be popular? It would end up been a white elephant.
Likewise any thoughts of Boris Island are pretty unworkable too. It would cost billions pounds of taxpayers money to close Heathrow and then you would have tens of thousands of people out of work in the local area.
Where are all these emerging economic powerhouse cities we need to fly to/from to compete on the world stage and if they're that good, why do we still want to fly to the old/waning economic powerhouse cities (apparently there are two flights a day from Heathrow to Detroit). I guess they're these cities in China we've never even heard of or possibly South American cities that are traditionally served from Madrid.
As a non-Londoner I avoid Heathrow like the plague. When I used to travel a lot Manchester served all my US and European needs with the odd transfer preferably at Schiphol.
Personally I think the whole thing's bollocks, the M25's a mess, and getting across London to Heathrow is a pain. Tourists will always come here via whatever is the most convenient/cheapest but are there really plane loads of biznissmen dying to get to Wenzhou (popn 9,122,100) in which case you only have to wait 1h 45m in Guangzhou which doesn't occur to me as a major hardship. And you can't get there directly from Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris or Dubai.
Actually both LGW and LHR need extra runways.
Like it or not we live in the modern world. Planes are getting quieter and more economical. And we expect to be able to fly, and to compete with markets in Europe.
LHR has good rail links to London but nowhere else. But this could be fixed.
LGW has better rail connectivity, but it is at capacity, and small problems screw it up.
And how can LHR shut at night and still get flights from Hong Kong?
I really don't envy Cameron and co in making the decision. But we have to grow up and ensure it is taken.
El-bent - Member
This expansion is not for the Uk population as such. Heathrow is a hub, this is about throughput, getting passengers off one interconnecting flight and onto another. The airlines would prefer their aircraft to all land at one airport for such connectivity. This is why airports such as Gatwick, stanstead, lootin etc, won't get a look in.
So apart from it's size already why Heaathrow?
There are 2 reasons going on and I suspect the answer is more in the middle.
The night ban is ridiculous and just as much of a penalty to current markets as a third runway would be a benefit to emerging markets.
I thought that there was a housing crisis? Destroying thousands of homes to make way for a runway sounds like a clear winner. No worries, we can build new homes. Flatten a few thousand acres of countryside along with the thousands that have been flattened for the runway and job done.
No one is saying people shouldn't travel, I love traveling but there are alternatives that should be explored to help reduce the need to travel so much.
No one is saying people shouldn't travel, I love traveling but there are alternatives that should be explored to help reduce the need to travel so much.
Certainly not one to talk on travel but I try and limit it, use video/teleconferences as much as possible and save the flying for when it's really needed and make the most of the trips. Every flight wipes out 3-4 hours out of my useful time before flying time.
The night ban is ridiculous and just as much of a penalty to current markets as a third runway would be a benefit to emerging markets.
Try telling that to the 1,000,000 or so poor souls who live under the flight path.....
Have a bit of consideration!