Billions, it
is the economy of the entire Thames Valley.
And why move near an airport (with your children) then complain about the noise?
Indeed, and/or near a pub and complain about the noise!
Has anyone observed that current aircraft are quieter than the pre-stage three machines that used to be my wake-up call when I was lodging at The Heston Hilton, circa 1982? Ah, didn't think so...
Of course they are, ask anyone who is old enough and who has lived under the flightpath since the 1960s.
The question has to be asked: if it so bad living under the flightpath why are house prices amongst the highest in the country?
Bet the NIMBYs and the Libdems can't answer it (correctly).
Silver-Boris Thames airport.
This has already been debated ad-nauseum on the following thread. This is an interesting thread, because it covers every topic of this debate, from every angle. There is something there for everyone.
New Thames Airport for London
The bottom line of my argument, is that LHR does not have the flight or ground infrastructure to be a world-hub airport. This is not about runways in the S.E., this is about an international hub airport, and LHR cannot provide that capacity. We need a 2- or 3-runway international airport-terminal, linked to a 2- or 3-runway regional terminal, which provides the regional feeder traffic to and from the international flights. And because LHR cannot accommodate lo-co carriers, I always travel to AMS for my international flights. It is quicker than travelling to LHR by train, especially since there is no overnight train to get me into LHR for 06:00. Thus LHR is not, and never can be, a world hub airport.
What we need is a 6-runway worldhub airport, with no city overflights, no noise problems, and no night ban. A true 24/7 airport. And it would be nice if it had motorway links north and south, train links to London and the west via Crossrail, TGV links to Paris and Brussels, plus HS2 links to the north and northwest. Only a Silver-Boris Thames airport can provide all of this. And in addition, the Silver-Boris Thames airport will form a part of a Thames barrage, which is long overdue and expensive in its own right.
Another runway at LHR will merely kick this can another 5 years down the road. It will not solve anything.
Ah Silver, you're back! Brilliant, about time too,
but you're still wrong!
Forget about Silver Island, you'll never live long enough to see it, none of us will. That particular ship sailed in 1946 when RAF Heathrow became a civil airport.
In 1968, Harold Wilson's government first mooted the idea of another rwy in the south east, nothing has happened.
If it takes 50 years to
NOT get another rwy at Heathrow, how long do you think it would take to get an entire airport built in the middle of nowhere and all the accompanying required infrastructure? Seriously how long?
Do you think the NIMBYs and Libdems would not peddle their nonsense in the estuary?
Do you not realise that it also cannot be built because no business will touch it, and government (any government) involvement in facilitating, as opposed to blocking, aviation improvements is non existant?
Do you seriously believe that any carrier, especially those who have paid millions for slot pairs, would ever leave Heathrow?
Importantly, home owners around Heathrow including those under the flight paths should be able to breathe a sigh of relief that this much needed development will help support property prices for sometime to come. Heathrow generates direct wealth for these very fortunate people. Pity some fail to appreciate what it is worth to them having such easy access to Heathrow and the direct and indirect jobs generated. If they don't like the thought of a third runway - sell out and move somewhere else but don't stop the much needed third runway. Now let's get on and let's try and build it as quickly as possible. It needs a Kennedy "we'll put men on the moon by the end of the decade" focus, especially post-Brexit.
Bit harder to fake a third rwy in 2016 than a moon landing in 1969!
jonnymac
Are the authorities aware that a new Airport is planned for the central belt in Scotland," closing and/or downgrading Glasgow and Edinburgh where expansion is impossible" with excellent road and rail links already in place, two of the longest runways in Europe, and backing from some of the largest airlines in the world, this will alter the whole economy of Scotland, and just maybe eliminate the need for any expansion in the South.
No disrespect, but have just seen a massive flock of pigs fly over that proposed site!
Of course LHR isn't ideal but it is the only realistic choice -the reason it is there in the first place is because its on the only bit of flat ground anywhere near London and with usual lack of foresight (perhaps pardonable at the time) was not to leave all the area north of LHR as open land rather than just half of it and developed the airport with that area shown from the start as provision for a third parallel runway.
Actually some of it might have been safeguarded in the early days. It is still less urbanised than equivelant areas on other sides of the airport.
Now its on to HS2 - 2050 anyone?
Waste of time and public money, let's have the M25 tunnel.
Why not somewhere like Upper Heyford ? Excellent transport links (M40 and a railway are very close), decent length of runway .... I expect to be shot down though :-)
Same problems and impracticalities as Silver Island (see above).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rivet Joint 
By the way, I wouldn't be surprised to see EZY move all if not the majority of their LGW operation to LHR. You heard it here first.
No you didn't. Other's have speculated the same for several weeks. Although personally I'm not convinced.
It's on record. Easyjet stated in its submision to the Airports Commission that it supported a third rwy and in the event would open a large base at Heathrow.
Think of the positive news from this decision - Zac Goldsmith is going to resign as an MP!
That's the good news, now the bad: he's going to stand again, what a waste of public money. How can it be a referendum on Heathrow when his only serious (Libdem) opponent will agree with him? Gesture politics at its worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Council Van
What purpose would a rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick serve?
No way would I fly part way around the World to Heathrow to collect my baggage, get on a train, check in at Gatwick, go through security to get on another aircraft to fly to my final destination.
If you have a 20 minute link, it's not much different to changing terminals.
Actually it is: border control (maybe visa needed), baggage reclaim, customs, walk with luggage to the train, train journey, walk to check in, drop baggage, security.
That's why "Heathwick" was rejected out of hand.
There's a lovely big runway sitting at Manston that has all it's approaches from over water. Just build decent road/rail links. Kent will welcome the extra revenue.
See above, "Heathston" is the same as "Heathwick".
A fast link that allowed terminal to terminal connections between LGW and LHR could actually work quite well for transit passengers. If it was an airside transit link then it would work for passengers from domestic flights transiting to international flights.
A 30 minute frequent airside link wouldn't be so much worse than the inter-terminal transfers at LHR over the years where a 150 or 180 minute connection time could easily be consumed by the queues and congestion.
My bet is another runway at Gatwick linked by a high speed transit. Probably built around 2030 when we eventually get a decisive government.
Paid for by who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
msjh
I want some of what you're smoking ...
If you think aircraft noise is bad, try living next to a high speed rail line...
.....or a main road.
Seeing these poor things on the news complaining about noise from the almost silent A380's it does make me wonder how I ever coped living in Slough in the 80's with the Tridents and Concorde. I really don't remember it being a problem or anybody complaining. This was probably long before many of these people chose to move near a major airport.
Me too, but from the other side of the airport.