ChatterBank4 mins ago
Report Back 3Rd Runway At Heathrow !
http://
It was always going to be this outcome. I wonder how many £millions have been wasted getting to the obvious solution ?
Who the hell wants to go to Gatwick ?
Heathrow is a major hub airport. Who in their right minds would want to change planes in London, and have to travel 1, 2 or even 3 hours between airports ?
It was always going to be this outcome. I wonder how many £millions have been wasted getting to the obvious solution ?
Who the hell wants to go to Gatwick ?
Heathrow is a major hub airport. Who in their right minds would want to change planes in London, and have to travel 1, 2 or even 3 hours between airports ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Every time Heathrow expansion is rejected the issue returns again. That's why money was spent trying to force the desired answer once more. IMO Heathrow is large enough. Hubs need not be any particular location. And I don't see why planners can't ensure everyone needs to get to the capital. Holiday makers need airports nearer to their home whilst business should be distributed throughout the country.
Just heard on the news that Boris doesn't want a 3rd runway at Heathrow
( I think he has given up on his barmy idea of a new airport in the Thames Estuary )
So, now that Boris, a future Tory Leader, and lots of other high-profile Tory MPs are against the new runway, perhaps it won't get built after all, and we shall have another 50 years of faffing about, while Schiphol steals all the new investment and trade from us.
( I think he has given up on his barmy idea of a new airport in the Thames Estuary )
So, now that Boris, a future Tory Leader, and lots of other high-profile Tory MPs are against the new runway, perhaps it won't get built after all, and we shall have another 50 years of faffing about, while Schiphol steals all the new investment and trade from us.
Riptide...the business case has been made for Heathrow. 99% of the homes under the flight path for Heathrow have been built since the Airport opened.
So I am not sure why people would deliberately buy a house near an airport, when they could buy one elsewhere. If they don't want aircraft noise, why live near an airport ?
The Estuary Airport might have been built in the 1960's and 1970's, but the cost would be eye-wateringly expensive and where is the money going to come from for that, when we are losing Policemen, libraries and all the other things that are being cut ?
Whether this 3rd runway will ever be built is probably doubtful, I am convinced about the outcome of the Report. If there is huge freight arrangements at Heathrow, why would any business want to go to Gatwick ?
We don't need extra runway capacity to take package holidays makers to Majorca...its needed for the expansion of trade and business.
Even if the Report said Gatwick was the best choice, it still surrounded by Tory constituencies, so that probably won't be built either !
So I am not sure why people would deliberately buy a house near an airport, when they could buy one elsewhere. If they don't want aircraft noise, why live near an airport ?
The Estuary Airport might have been built in the 1960's and 1970's, but the cost would be eye-wateringly expensive and where is the money going to come from for that, when we are losing Policemen, libraries and all the other things that are being cut ?
Whether this 3rd runway will ever be built is probably doubtful, I am convinced about the outcome of the Report. If there is huge freight arrangements at Heathrow, why would any business want to go to Gatwick ?
We don't need extra runway capacity to take package holidays makers to Majorca...its needed for the expansion of trade and business.
Even if the Report said Gatwick was the best choice, it still surrounded by Tory constituencies, so that probably won't be built either !
//when we are losing Policemen, libraries and all the other things that are being cut ?
//
No comparison whatsoever. If you want a new car you trim the fat and that is all the so called cuts are - trimming the unnecessary fat on the civil service put there by Blair trying to buy labour votes. A new runway, wherever it is will generate income. Paying spongers tons of benefits does the opposite.
You dont live near Heathrow so your comments are rather worthless. Gatwick does have a direct train to London and it can be made faster.
//
No comparison whatsoever. If you want a new car you trim the fat and that is all the so called cuts are - trimming the unnecessary fat on the civil service put there by Blair trying to buy labour votes. A new runway, wherever it is will generate income. Paying spongers tons of benefits does the opposite.
You dont live near Heathrow so your comments are rather worthless. Gatwick does have a direct train to London and it can be made faster.
Prudie, there were places round Heathrow that needed protecting, but they didn't protect them.
http://
Next to go I suppose will be Harmondsworth, a pretty village with a magnificent medieval great barn.
http://
Next to go I suppose will be Harmondsworth, a pretty village with a magnificent medieval great barn.
//Gatwick does have a direct train to London and it can be made faster.//
errr - how? gatwick is connected to london victoria and london bridge by 2 4 track railways that are saturated with traffic most of the day. all trains have to pass through east croydon which is a pinch-point with only 6 platforms and is positioned just north of junctions from tattenham corner, caterham and east grinstead. add to that the congestion caused by depot traffic to/from selhurst and the nightmare that is clapham junction.
if you're going to tear down thousands of houses to make getting to gatwick easier, you'd do better to do that for the long awaited northern extension of the M23.
errr - how? gatwick is connected to london victoria and london bridge by 2 4 track railways that are saturated with traffic most of the day. all trains have to pass through east croydon which is a pinch-point with only 6 platforms and is positioned just north of junctions from tattenham corner, caterham and east grinstead. add to that the congestion caused by depot traffic to/from selhurst and the nightmare that is clapham junction.
if you're going to tear down thousands of houses to make getting to gatwick easier, you'd do better to do that for the long awaited northern extension of the M23.
Either it is needed as a hub, in which case it need not be Heathrow or any existing airport for that matter, it can be anywhere.
Or it's for business expansion, in which case it needs to not all be in the capital and south east in fact encouraging it to go elsewhere in the country would be a good thing to create jobs elsewhere and ease the packing in of everything into one area.
Meanwhile tourists are still expected to trudge down to Heathrow & Gatwick, possibly because it makes the plane trip shorter, but it actually causes congestion getting there and back.
There ought to be little requirement for coaches to take folk from one airport to another. If both the incoming and outgoing plane isn't at the same airport then that's a management screw up. If they can't make the connections work properly with two airports then that implies they want a new hub somewhere which can take both incoming and outgoing flights.
I suspect this is a case of wanting it for it's own sake rather than having a clear case for it. And for sure it isn't just the local area that is affected. Flight paths will increase in number and flights more frequent causing noise and disruption to many more who thought they were far enough away, but are suddenly on flight paths.
Or it's for business expansion, in which case it needs to not all be in the capital and south east in fact encouraging it to go elsewhere in the country would be a good thing to create jobs elsewhere and ease the packing in of everything into one area.
Meanwhile tourists are still expected to trudge down to Heathrow & Gatwick, possibly because it makes the plane trip shorter, but it actually causes congestion getting there and back.
There ought to be little requirement for coaches to take folk from one airport to another. If both the incoming and outgoing plane isn't at the same airport then that's a management screw up. If they can't make the connections work properly with two airports then that implies they want a new hub somewhere which can take both incoming and outgoing flights.
I suspect this is a case of wanting it for it's own sake rather than having a clear case for it. And for sure it isn't just the local area that is affected. Flight paths will increase in number and flights more frequent causing noise and disruption to many more who thought they were far enough away, but are suddenly on flight paths.
On BBC R4 this morning mention was made about how many jobs this extra runway would provide by 2040 or 2050 due to increased traffic.
Yet we are constantly being told that oil production has peaked/is running out and we must use different fuels.
If the plans for the new runway - or any new runways - are based on 2040 or later use predictions someone is lying.
Trying to imagine what aircraft in twenty-five years will be powered by: mini nuclear reactors; big - very big - windmills; or, perhaps, solar panels? News of the recent solar powered plane seems to be rather sparse lately.
Yet we are constantly being told that oil production has peaked/is running out and we must use different fuels.
If the plans for the new runway - or any new runways - are based on 2040 or later use predictions someone is lying.
Trying to imagine what aircraft in twenty-five years will be powered by: mini nuclear reactors; big - very big - windmills; or, perhaps, solar panels? News of the recent solar powered plane seems to be rather sparse lately.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.