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).
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 22nd Jun 2012 at 00:24.
Reason: clarity and correcting typos