PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - New Thames Airport for London
View Single Post
Old 27th Jul 2012, 19:31
  #708 (permalink)  
Fairdealfrank
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote: “Then it has to come down to shifting some destinations to other airports “

Been done! Back in the day, in the 1960s and 1970s, the government directed LGW-based BUA and BCAL to operate flights to/from South America and West Africa, excluding LHR-based BOAC from these destinations. This was a spectacular failure: both BUA and BCAL went bust, partly becasuse of the insufficient connectivity at LGW.

This could not be done now as we live in a privatised, deregulated and open skies environment, and of course, the EU would doubtless interfere.

Route swapping between airports still happens, but for commercial reasons decided by the carriers, for example BA moving flights to some places between LHR, LCY and LGW.

 
 
Quote: “FDF - the good people of the SE have heard all the stories from BAA and BA for years about how a little more expansion will cut the impact of aircraft noise on their lives and TBH it's all been lies

No third runaway forces the airline business to do something a bit harder than yelling for more of the same - and these are the VOTERS we're talking about - a democracy at work no?”

Not sure of the point being made here. Those of us under the flight path are well aware that if there isn’t a third rwy, then a little more capacity will have squeezed out of the system, by switching to permanent mixed mode. This will mean the end of segregated mode and the ending of alternation, which means the end of the daily half a day of quiet.

Quote: “If BAA want a fourth runway lets see them run for public office”

There's no need for them to do this, and no point.



Quote: “Are you suggesting that there are circumstances under which a third runway/T6 could go ahead without a public enquiry, or have I misunderstood ?”

Correct me if this is wrong, but aren’t large infrastructure plans now dealt with by the “nationally significant infrastructure projects” procedure? AFAIK this speeds up the planning procedure to avoid planning inquiry like that of Heathrow-5 and others dragging on forever. AFAIK rail infrastructure improvements are also dealt with this way.
Fairdealfrank is offline