New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDF - wrong to say that Tokyo has just one terminal. It has many - Shinjuku (a massive interchange), Ikebukuro, Ueno (where all the Shinkansens from the north used to terminate until the connector to Tokyo was built, many years later) for example.
What Japan does have is effectively a multitude of Crossrails as tube lines link up with private suburban railways.
Also Tokyo is double the size of London, japan double the size of UK.
And most people on HS2 would be heading for London and not beyond. That's where the bulk of the market has always been.
What Japan does have is effectively a multitude of Crossrails as tube lines link up with private suburban railways.
Also Tokyo is double the size of London, japan double the size of UK.
And most people on HS2 would be heading for London and not beyond. That's where the bulk of the market has always been.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "FDF - wrong to say that Tokyo has just one terminal. It has many - Shinjuku (a massive interchange), Ikebukuro, Ueno (where all the Shinkansens from the north used to terminate until the connector to Tokyo was built, many years later) for example.
What Japan does have is effectively a multitude of Crossrails as tube lines link up with private suburban railways."
Point taken about Tokyo, doesn't mean that we should also wait many years before linked up HS1/2 in London, none of us will live that long!
You didn't mention the excellent circular line that links up the terminals you listed!
What Japan does have is effectively a multitude of Crossrails as tube lines link up with private suburban railways."
Point taken about Tokyo, doesn't mean that we should also wait many years before linked up HS1/2 in London, none of us will live that long!
You didn't mention the excellent circular line that links up the terminals you listed!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really hope this whole concept fades away. LHR is one of the most desirable airports in the world that airlines want and will continue to fly to regardless of how many pointless alternatives are created. Millions of private sector money has been ploughed in and BAA are proving not to rest on their laurels in terms of updating terminals, infrastructure etc yet the runways are at capacity. Are we really as a country going to throw all that to waste, ignore countless independent research proving that we stand to lose £8.5bn and embark on a massively complicated and long winded jolly to create an airport on a river bank all because of some nimby's?
If this was any other country in the world nevermind Europe the 3rd runway at LHR would be being paved as we speak day and night! Instead we have a nasty piece of work masquerading as a harmless buffoon coming to the conclusion Tracey Island is the solution to our problems
If this was any other country in the world nevermind Europe the 3rd runway at LHR would be being paved as we speak day and night! Instead we have a nasty piece of work masquerading as a harmless buffoon coming to the conclusion Tracey Island is the solution to our problems
Paxing All Over The World
Also with CrossRail now being dug (at long, long last!) how about taking LHR out of that? One of the (many) justifications was that CrossRail would get more pax into the airport underground, rather than by surface.
Of course, they could just not build the spur but - really? Successive UK govts have no idea on the topic of railways and airports (probably ports as well but I don't know anything about them!)
As is often said, all the folks who will have a problem with an expanded LHR get to protest but the folks who will benefit have no support group. because the promoters are those who will benefit financially, they are derided as being only in it for the money. It's Catch 22 every time in the UK.
Of course, they could just not build the spur but - really? Successive UK govts have no idea on the topic of railways and airports (probably ports as well but I don't know anything about them!)
As is often said, all the folks who will have a problem with an expanded LHR get to protest but the folks who will benefit have no support group. because the promoters are those who will benefit financially, they are derided as being only in it for the money. It's Catch 22 every time in the UK.
If this was any other country in the world never mind Europe the 3rd runway at LHR would be being paved as we speak day and night!
From a BBC report a couple of days ago:
"But one Tory Minister has told me that the Government should lay the groundwork now for building a third runway here at Heathrow after the next election, and that the next Conservative manifesto shouldn't include any promises that would rule out future airport expansion"
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "If this was any other country in the world nevermind Europe the 3rd runway at LHR would be being paved as we speak day and night! Instead we have a nasty piece of work masquerading as a harmless buffoon coming to the conclusion Tracey Island is the solution to our problems"
As was the case in both AMS and FRA!
Quote: "As is often said, all the folks who will have a problem with an expanded LHR get to protest but the folks who will benefit have no support group. because the promoters are those who will benefit financially, they are derided as being only in it for the money. It's Catch 22 every time in the UK."
Exactly right, Rivet Joint and PAXboy you are both spot-on!
Many of the protesters do not live close to the airport and, more than likely, do not benefit directly or indirectly. As is often the case, it's a case of posturing and gesture politics (e.g. Boris "dying in a ditch", and Zac Goldsmith MP suggesting that he will not stand for election as a Conservative if Call-Me-Dave does a U-turn on LHR expansion).
Quote: "From a BBC report a couple of days ago:
"But one Tory Minister has told me that the Government should lay the groundwork now for building a third runway here at Heathrow after the next election, and that the next Conservative manifesto shouldn't include any promises that would rule out future airport expansion"
Interestingly, DaveReidUK, at Prime Ministers Questions today, Zac Goldsmith (Con, Richmond Park) asked the first question. Predictably, he enquired if the government was back-tracking on its opposition to LHR expansion. Tellingly, Call-Me-Dave did not rule it out. As his his wont, he didn't answer the question directly "yes" or "no", but left the door wide open.
As was the case in both AMS and FRA!
Quote: "As is often said, all the folks who will have a problem with an expanded LHR get to protest but the folks who will benefit have no support group. because the promoters are those who will benefit financially, they are derided as being only in it for the money. It's Catch 22 every time in the UK."
Exactly right, Rivet Joint and PAXboy you are both spot-on!
Many of the protesters do not live close to the airport and, more than likely, do not benefit directly or indirectly. As is often the case, it's a case of posturing and gesture politics (e.g. Boris "dying in a ditch", and Zac Goldsmith MP suggesting that he will not stand for election as a Conservative if Call-Me-Dave does a U-turn on LHR expansion).
Quote: "From a BBC report a couple of days ago:
"But one Tory Minister has told me that the Government should lay the groundwork now for building a third runway here at Heathrow after the next election, and that the next Conservative manifesto shouldn't include any promises that would rule out future airport expansion"
Interestingly, DaveReidUK, at Prime Ministers Questions today, Zac Goldsmith (Con, Richmond Park) asked the first question. Predictably, he enquired if the government was back-tracking on its opposition to LHR expansion. Tellingly, Call-Me-Dave did not rule it out. As his his wont, he didn't answer the question directly "yes" or "no", but left the door wide open.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 13th Jun 2012 at 20:50.
Paxing All Over The World
"But one Tory Minister has told me that the Government should lay the groundwork now for building a third runway here at Heathrow after the next election, and that the next Conservative manifesto shouldn't include any promises that would rule out future airport expansion"
On a related not to this thread - and sorry if it's already been flagged - I see this on the BBC and presumed that with the title is was about the Thames estury: BBC News - Jobs or birds: Turning Rio rhetoric into reality
Lydd expansion anyone??????
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way you can really do joined-up transport policy is to create a brand new capital somewhere...
OK, not exactly new, second time around at the job, but they did managed to create the stunning new Central Station.
London already has too many terminii as it is. We can't expect to bring them into one, but it was shockingly poor thinking to use the old shed of St Pancras for the terminus of European services, instead of a through station.
A real case of style (it is beautiful) over substance, and now we get the totally botched thread of a link between HS1 and HS2, which will no doubt get quietly dropped when they realise it can't work. Ditto for LHR HS2 link.
Now Boris wants to extend Xrail out to STN and have another runway there. How many schemes has he backed now?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He pays with our money and takes the credit for the hard work of others, like all financially incontinent fools who go into politics with no track record of real world or commercial delivery. Speaking of which :
Zac Goldsmith on Cameron
A man from a family of billionaires doesn't want planes over his posh constituency. Should he not get his way, he's going to throw all his toys from the pram.
Zac Goldsmith on Cameron
A man from a family of billionaires doesn't want planes over his posh constituency. Should he not get his way, he's going to throw all his toys from the pram.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 19th Jun 2012 at 22:39.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A man from a family of billionaires doesn't want planes over his posh constituency. Should he not get his way, he's going to throw all his toys from the pram.
So where does Zac go on his hols? If LHR is beneath him, does he get a private jet from FAB?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would love know how Zac Goldsmith (and Justine Greening and some others) will justify to their constituents' the ending of their daily half-day of no aircraft noise when "mixed mode" operations become a reality and permanent and "alternation" is ended!
The truth is that these MPs cannot have it both ways: it's either a third rwy and the continuation of "alternation" on the existing rwys and a daily half-day of no aircraft noise or remaining at only 2 rwys and having mixed mode operations to squeeze in an extra 10% more movements.
The second option is "kicking the can down the road", because it doesn't end the congestion, and because the rwy issue will resurface again in the future.
The current status quo of 2 rwys with "alternation" is untenable: at Heathrow we currently put a quart into a pint pot, a gallon into a pint pot is not possible.
So, build two more rwys, keep "alternation", do it now.
The truth is that these MPs cannot have it both ways: it's either a third rwy and the continuation of "alternation" on the existing rwys and a daily half-day of no aircraft noise or remaining at only 2 rwys and having mixed mode operations to squeeze in an extra 10% more movements.
The second option is "kicking the can down the road", because it doesn't end the congestion, and because the rwy issue will resurface again in the future.
The current status quo of 2 rwys with "alternation" is untenable: at Heathrow we currently put a quart into a pint pot, a gallon into a pint pot is not possible.
So, build two more rwys, keep "alternation", do it now.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 21st Jun 2012 at 00:47.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can we expect to make sensible decisions in the whole nation's interest when people like Zac Goldsmith and Boris Johnson have influence on how the country is run? Whatever happened to needing talent to get to the top...... ?
I once thought the old order had been swept away by Wilson, Callaghan and Thatcher (with a little help from Lennon & McCartney, Jagger & Richards), but the posh boys are back in full control, and they still don't understand much about how a modern economy works - so swallow your foolish comments made earlier and build that extra runway at LHR. Please.
I once thought the old order had been swept away by Wilson, Callaghan and Thatcher (with a little help from Lennon & McCartney, Jagger & Richards), but the posh boys are back in full control, and they still don't understand much about how a modern economy works - so swallow your foolish comments made earlier and build that extra runway at LHR. Please.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Durham
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote [FairdealFrank]: "So, build two more rwys, keep "alternation", do it now."
Probably the right move if you mean 3rd & 4th Runways, (& Terminals?) to develop a true International Hub airport with excellent short haul & regional interlining on a par with the competition from Europe. At least, if proposals for a 3rd and 4th runway were promoted, building a 3rd runway would just become a compromise. No sympathy for argument from residents under the flightpath - They knew, when the bought their houses they were near the busiest International Airport - What do they expect?!
Probably the right move if you mean 3rd & 4th Runways, (& Terminals?) to develop a true International Hub airport with excellent short haul & regional interlining on a par with the competition from Europe. At least, if proposals for a 3rd and 4th runway were promoted, building a 3rd runway would just become a compromise. No sympathy for argument from residents under the flightpath - They knew, when the bought their houses they were near the busiest International Airport - What do they expect?!
Last edited by VentureGo; 21st Jun 2012 at 08:26.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting debate, but the siren cries of "build a new runway are made without clear thought or indeed susbstance".
Two points;
Still no news on how we expand the airspace .......?
It isn't just Heathrow which is at capacity it is the London TMA so unless there is a mechanism to increase throughput simply building another runway will make no difference anyway !
Slots are at a premium at all the major London Airports, each airport has its own vested interests so unless one airport gives slots away to the other nothing will change !
On a second point even if the traffic throughput issue is fixed a new runway would only make a marginal difference. Assuming it will take 10 years to build capacity will still be capped at a rate well below demand based on current growth rates !
Ideally LHR needs 2 possibly 3 more runways to keep pace with demand over the longer term.
I appreciate its absurd but but the ideal situation is actually to close LGW and STN , build the 2 extra runways at LHR (WHICH is after all where people really want to go), and then give those slots to LHR.
Two points;
Still no news on how we expand the airspace .......?
It isn't just Heathrow which is at capacity it is the London TMA so unless there is a mechanism to increase throughput simply building another runway will make no difference anyway !
Slots are at a premium at all the major London Airports, each airport has its own vested interests so unless one airport gives slots away to the other nothing will change !
On a second point even if the traffic throughput issue is fixed a new runway would only make a marginal difference. Assuming it will take 10 years to build capacity will still be capped at a rate well below demand based on current growth rates !
Ideally LHR needs 2 possibly 3 more runways to keep pace with demand over the longer term.
I appreciate its absurd but but the ideal situation is actually to close LGW and STN , build the 2 extra runways at LHR (WHICH is after all where people really want to go), and then give those slots to LHR.
Last edited by Bagso; 21st Jun 2012 at 12:58.
Boris airport 'vanity project' slammed by Assembly
20 JUNE 2012
The London Assembly today called on the Mayor to abandon his plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary, describing them as a simplistic and ill-conceived vanity project.
A motion agreed by Assembly Members urges the Mayor to abandon proposals which they warned would have a devastating effect on the west London economy, with up to 100,000 jobs at risk should Heathrow be forced to close.
They also warned that a major new airport in the estuary would create huge environmental damage to a protected area used by thousands of migrating birds as well as increase noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in south east London.
Murad Qureshi AM, who proposed the motion, said:
"With up to 100,000 jobs on the line at Heathrow it is incredible that the Mayor persists in promoting plans for a rival hub airport in the Thames Estuary. Such an airport would have a devastating effect on the west London economy as well as a serious impact on local wildlife in the estuary and a legacy of noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in south-east London.
“The message from industry, the airlines and conservationists is simple – the Mayor must drop this ridiculous vanity project.”
The full text of the motion agreed at today’s meeting reads as follows:
“This Assembly believes that the Mayor's plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary are simplistic and ill-considered and calls upon him to abandon this vanity project.
For a new airport in the Thames Estuary to be a success, Heathrow would need to close, which would have a devastating effect on London's economy, costing over 100,000 jobs in west London. The proposed airport would cause huge environmental damage to a protected area which is used by many thousands of migrating birds, creating a high risk of bird strike. It would threaten a huge increase in noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in the east and south east of London, especially in Bromley, Bexley, Havering and Barking.”
Boris airport
The London Assembly today called on the Mayor to abandon his plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary, describing them as a simplistic and ill-conceived vanity project.
A motion agreed by Assembly Members urges the Mayor to abandon proposals which they warned would have a devastating effect on the west London economy, with up to 100,000 jobs at risk should Heathrow be forced to close.
They also warned that a major new airport in the estuary would create huge environmental damage to a protected area used by thousands of migrating birds as well as increase noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in south east London.
Murad Qureshi AM, who proposed the motion, said:
"With up to 100,000 jobs on the line at Heathrow it is incredible that the Mayor persists in promoting plans for a rival hub airport in the Thames Estuary. Such an airport would have a devastating effect on the west London economy as well as a serious impact on local wildlife in the estuary and a legacy of noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in south-east London.
“The message from industry, the airlines and conservationists is simple – the Mayor must drop this ridiculous vanity project.”
The full text of the motion agreed at today’s meeting reads as follows:
“This Assembly believes that the Mayor's plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary are simplistic and ill-considered and calls upon him to abandon this vanity project.
For a new airport in the Thames Estuary to be a success, Heathrow would need to close, which would have a devastating effect on London's economy, costing over 100,000 jobs in west London. The proposed airport would cause huge environmental damage to a protected area which is used by many thousands of migrating birds, creating a high risk of bird strike. It would threaten a huge increase in noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in the east and south east of London, especially in Bromley, Bexley, Havering and Barking.”
Boris airport
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Probably the right move if you mean 3rd & 4th Runways, (& Terminals?) to develop a true International Hub airport with excellent short haul & regional interlining on a par with the competition from Europe. At least, if proposals for a 3rd and 4th runway were promoted, building a 3rd runway would just become a compromise."
Excellent idea, VentureGo, they should have done that originally! However, 4 rwys are really needed now. We needed 3 rwys some 20 years ago! The case for 4 rwys should be made now to save going through this farcical nonsense again later. Also 4 rwys enables alternation to be retained.
Quote: "No sympathy for argument from residents under the flightpath - They knew, when the bought their houses they were near the busiest International Airport - What do they expect?!"
As a local, and under the flightpath, quite agree with that! Have to say that house prices in my area do not reflect any disadvantages for being under a flightpath. People effectively pay a premium to live under an LHR flightpath. That says it all!
Quote: "It isn't just Heathrow which is at capacity it is the London TMA so unless there is a mechanism to increase throughput simply building another runway will make no difference anyway !"
Quote: "Ideally LHR needs 2 possibly 3 more runways to keep pace with demand over the longer term.
I appreciate its absurd but but the ideal situation is actually to close LGW and STN , build the 2 extra runways at LHR (WHICH is after all where people really want to go), and then give those slots to LHR."
Hmmm, interesting points, Bagso, are you also implying that the London TMA could not cope with four runways in the Thames estuary? That being the case, more airports than just LHR would need to close, making the estuary airport plans even more of a non-starter.
In an ideal world you are probably right, and consolidation at an expanded LHR would not necessarily be a bad thing, but there is no need to be so drastic. STN is contracting anyway, there is no long haul now and it almost 100% no frills and charter. One would expect much of LGW traffic to migrate to LHR if the slot situation eased, as it would with 3/4 rwys. As you say LHR is where the pax want to be and so would the airlines. It's doubtful that BA and VS would remain at LGW if LHR could accomodate all their operations.
With a 4-rwy LHR, LTN remaining static(?), STN and LGW contracting (but perhaps not closing), and SEN, LCY and possibly NHT (eventually?) being small scale operations anyway, the situation may not be as bad as you describe.
Boris airport 'vanity project' slammed by Assembly
About time! pity they're powerless and like a toothless old bulldog.
Quite right though. "Vanity project" is actually a very good description for the estuary airport (sorry Silver).
Excellent idea, VentureGo, they should have done that originally! However, 4 rwys are really needed now. We needed 3 rwys some 20 years ago! The case for 4 rwys should be made now to save going through this farcical nonsense again later. Also 4 rwys enables alternation to be retained.
Quote: "No sympathy for argument from residents under the flightpath - They knew, when the bought their houses they were near the busiest International Airport - What do they expect?!"
As a local, and under the flightpath, quite agree with that! Have to say that house prices in my area do not reflect any disadvantages for being under a flightpath. People effectively pay a premium to live under an LHR flightpath. That says it all!
Quote: "It isn't just Heathrow which is at capacity it is the London TMA so unless there is a mechanism to increase throughput simply building another runway will make no difference anyway !"
Quote: "Ideally LHR needs 2 possibly 3 more runways to keep pace with demand over the longer term.
I appreciate its absurd but but the ideal situation is actually to close LGW and STN , build the 2 extra runways at LHR (WHICH is after all where people really want to go), and then give those slots to LHR."
Hmmm, interesting points, Bagso, are you also implying that the London TMA could not cope with four runways in the Thames estuary? That being the case, more airports than just LHR would need to close, making the estuary airport plans even more of a non-starter.
In an ideal world you are probably right, and consolidation at an expanded LHR would not necessarily be a bad thing, but there is no need to be so drastic. STN is contracting anyway, there is no long haul now and it almost 100% no frills and charter. One would expect much of LGW traffic to migrate to LHR if the slot situation eased, as it would with 3/4 rwys. As you say LHR is where the pax want to be and so would the airlines. It's doubtful that BA and VS would remain at LGW if LHR could accomodate all their operations.
With a 4-rwy LHR, LTN remaining static(?), STN and LGW contracting (but perhaps not closing), and SEN, LCY and possibly NHT (eventually?) being small scale operations anyway, the situation may not be as bad as you describe.
Boris airport 'vanity project' slammed by Assembly
About time! pity they're powerless and like a toothless old bulldog.
Quite right though. "Vanity project" is actually a very good description for the estuary airport (sorry Silver).
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 22nd Jun 2012 at 00:24. Reason: clarity and correcting typos
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Looks like Boris is going for the stop-gap solution, of a runway at Stanstead.
Boris Johnson backs second runway at Stansted Airport as stop-gap before creation of Thames 'hub' | Mail Online
While the London Assembly is not entirely in favor of the Silver-Boris airport in the Thames.
Boris Airport 'Vanity Project' Slammed By Assembly : UK Construction News
All of which is going to do absolutely nothing for the interlining international passenger into Europe.
"Welcome to Heathrow, sir. Your flight to Geneva leaves in 45 minutes - from Stanstead....."
.
Looks like Boris is going for the stop-gap solution, of a runway at Stanstead.
Boris Johnson backs second runway at Stansted Airport as stop-gap before creation of Thames 'hub' | Mail Online
While the London Assembly is not entirely in favor of the Silver-Boris airport in the Thames.
Boris Airport 'Vanity Project' Slammed By Assembly : UK Construction News
All of which is going to do absolutely nothing for the interlining international passenger into Europe.
"Welcome to Heathrow, sir. Your flight to Geneva leaves in 45 minutes - from Stanstead....."
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 22nd Jun 2012 at 09:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Murad Qureshi AM, who proposed the motion, said:
"With up to 100,000 jobs on the line at Heathrow it is incredible that the Mayor persists in promoting plans for a rival hub airport in the Thames Estuary.
Murad Qureshi is obviously not bright enough to understand that if you close one airport down, and build a replacement elsewhere, you are not actually destroying any jobs.
Just where earth do we get these politicians from? Ah, yes, the land that transports its train passengers on the roof.....
.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey welcome back Silver! A bit of common ground?
Quote: "All of which is going to do absolutely nothing for the interlining international passenger into Europe.
"Welcome to Heathrow, sir. Your flight to Geneva leaves in 45 minutes - from Stanstead....." "
Agree 100%, but it isn't going to happen. Airlines wanting to use LHR, and find that they cannot, will not go to STN, trust me! At present they go to LGW or abroad (AMS).
An airport operating at half its capacity and contracting certainly cannot justify another rwy if the world's busiest international airport, and third busiest airport overall, is not allowed to expand. More bluff and bluster from Boris?
The "Mail Online" article posted by silverstrata revealed a subtle but significant change of emphasis of government policy:
“Mr Cameron last week repeated the position in the Coalition agreement of no Heathrow expansion until 2015. But he said MPs should not be 'blind' to the need to expand airport capacity”
Ha ha, Clegg still thinks it’s banned forever.
Doesn't “no expansion till 2015” mean that they should be building now if it’s needed in 3 years time?
Quote: "Murad Qureshi is obviously not bright enough to understand that if you close one airport down, and build a replacement elsewhere, you are not actually destroying any jobs."
Come on Silver, you can do better than that: of course 100,000 (on- airport) jobs plus many more in related and ancilliary industries would be lost and the area blighted. Surprisingly perhaps, it actually does mean jobs destroyed. The fact that similar jobs may or may not be created elsewhere is not the point.
Quote: "All of which is going to do absolutely nothing for the interlining international passenger into Europe.
"Welcome to Heathrow, sir. Your flight to Geneva leaves in 45 minutes - from Stanstead....." "
Agree 100%, but it isn't going to happen. Airlines wanting to use LHR, and find that they cannot, will not go to STN, trust me! At present they go to LGW or abroad (AMS).
An airport operating at half its capacity and contracting certainly cannot justify another rwy if the world's busiest international airport, and third busiest airport overall, is not allowed to expand. More bluff and bluster from Boris?
The "Mail Online" article posted by silverstrata revealed a subtle but significant change of emphasis of government policy:
“Mr Cameron last week repeated the position in the Coalition agreement of no Heathrow expansion until 2015. But he said MPs should not be 'blind' to the need to expand airport capacity”
Ha ha, Clegg still thinks it’s banned forever.
Doesn't “no expansion till 2015” mean that they should be building now if it’s needed in 3 years time?
Quote: "Murad Qureshi is obviously not bright enough to understand that if you close one airport down, and build a replacement elsewhere, you are not actually destroying any jobs."
Come on Silver, you can do better than that: of course 100,000 (on- airport) jobs plus many more in related and ancilliary industries would be lost and the area blighted. Surprisingly perhaps, it actually does mean jobs destroyed. The fact that similar jobs may or may not be created elsewhere is not the point.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 22nd Jun 2012 at 21:19.