Quote: "Not so. You could easilt take Stanstead and give it six runways and a vast new terminal, turning it into the NW European hub.
An enlarged Stanstead would be much better than an enlarged Heathrow, but would it be as good as a Thames airport. Not in my view."
It would certainly be emptier! Does this make it better? Doubtful, unless you're a Libdem.
At present, Stansted, with just one rwy is haemorrhaging pax and carriers. There is no justification for more rwys.
Again you miss the point: it's a chronic shortage of hub capacity that is the problem, not capacity in general.
Quote: "Stanstead would not get rid of the noise problem, and nor would its location be as good for ground transportation. It may be closer to the Midlands, if you build new road and rail links, but its usefullness as a European hub, with rail links to northern Europe, would be severely diminished.
What noise problem? You should have lived under the flightpath in the 1960s to hear real aircraft noise! Todays aircraft are increasingly quieter, cleaner and fuel-efficient.
Stansted is also on the wrong side of London with less than adequate connections to the rest of the UK. Oh what a surprise, so is Boris Vanity Project White Elephant Island (BVPWEI).
Quote: "Stanstead is a possibility, but Silver-Boris would be more logical. In addition, Silver-Boris simultaneously solves the Thames Barage and the Thames Crossing problems too. These would still have to be constructed, if one opted for Stanstead as a hub."
For reasons well documented in this and other threads, neither Stansted or BVPWEI will ever be a hub, trust me.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 14th Oct 2012 at 00:21.