HEATHROW
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The survey was basically questioning residents about the future of a hub in Britain and whether this should be at Heathrow or Boris Island, suggesting there are two options (for that survey at least). The fact that Boris has used this to big up his idea of a Thames Estuary airport also links back to this point. While the participants could say to 'change nothing' the way in which the survey has been talked about suggests all of the participants are either for one or the other, which of course is not the case.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cheating, lying, two-timing and serially dishonest Mayor of London asked the electorate :
"I say, do you agree that it would be jolly spiffing if there was less noise and pollution and all this bally aircraft noise was out to sea?"
Not surprisingly the electorate thought this was just spiffing.
Note : Boris has admitted all of the above character flaws, they're a matter of public record.
In other news, it seems the Church of Rome has elected a Catholic to lead it....
"I say, do you agree that it would be jolly spiffing if there was less noise and pollution and all this bally aircraft noise was out to sea?"
Not surprisingly the electorate thought this was just spiffing.
Note : Boris has admitted all of the above character flaws, they're a matter of public record.
In other news, it seems the Church of Rome has elected a Catholic to lead it....
The survey was basically questioning residents about the future of a hub in Britain and whether this should be at Heathrow or Boris Island
The Hillingdon and Richmond surveys only asked 2 questions:
1. Should a third runway be built at Heathrow? Yes/no
2. Are you in favour of more flights into and out of Heathrow? Yes/no
The Hounslow survey asked the same two questions, plus another 9 covering topics including runway alternation, night flights, noise insulation and the importance of LHR to the local economy.
I don't think the aim was to get the public to do the work of the DfT, Commons Transport Select Committee and Airports Commission in determining the UK's hub strategy.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "I would like to hear the views of Aviation People, rather than people who move into the area, then complain about aircraft noise. Knowing full well they were moving near a flight path."
.....and as house prices are so expensive in the area, paying one hell of a lot of money for the "priviledge"! If it's so bad, why would they do that?
Quote: "They should include a question in the questionnaire that asks how long you have lived in the Borough, and if it is any less than 15 years then your opinion is null and void as you knew full well what you were getting into!"
Make that 60 years, then they'll have experienced the really noisy jets of the 1960s/1970s and will know how much quieter today's aircraft are.
Quote: " My guess is that there WILL be a third runway, and possibly a fourth !"
Hope you're right and hope it's soon!
Quote: "Terminals 6 & 7 are already planned. The steel and concrete was ordered years ago."
Good, they should have got the steel and concrete cheap back then.
Quote: "Cublington could have solved everything years ago"
Not really relevant, Cublington was intended (like Foulness) to be a third London airport not a replacement for Heathrow, so it would probably have been a bit like Stansted had it gone ahead.
Quote:"The Hillingdon and Richmond surveys only asked 2 questions:
1. Should a third runway be built at Heathrow? Yes/no
2. Are you in favour of more flights into and out of Heathrow? Yes/no
The Hounslow survey asked the same two questions, plus another 9 covering topics including runway alternation, night flights, noise insulation and the importance of LHR to the local economy.
I don't think the aim was to get the public to do the work of the DfT, Commons Transport Select Committee and Airports Commission in determining the UK's hub strategy."
Hounslow's aked more questions because it has residents under the flightpath, Hillingdon doesn't. Hounslow also asked if they wanted Heathrow to close, and guess what, the answer was no, what a surprise!
Does anyone know the turnout of these referendums? This critical but apparently unreported. Perhaps it tells a different story, who can say?
These referendums are not a particularly good use of ratepayers' money, we are dealing with proposed improvments to infrastructure of national significance, not a little local difficulty.
.....and as house prices are so expensive in the area, paying one hell of a lot of money for the "priviledge"! If it's so bad, why would they do that?
Quote: "They should include a question in the questionnaire that asks how long you have lived in the Borough, and if it is any less than 15 years then your opinion is null and void as you knew full well what you were getting into!"
Make that 60 years, then they'll have experienced the really noisy jets of the 1960s/1970s and will know how much quieter today's aircraft are.
Quote: " My guess is that there WILL be a third runway, and possibly a fourth !"
Hope you're right and hope it's soon!
Quote: "Terminals 6 & 7 are already planned. The steel and concrete was ordered years ago."
Good, they should have got the steel and concrete cheap back then.
Quote: "Cublington could have solved everything years ago"
Not really relevant, Cublington was intended (like Foulness) to be a third London airport not a replacement for Heathrow, so it would probably have been a bit like Stansted had it gone ahead.
Quote:"The Hillingdon and Richmond surveys only asked 2 questions:
1. Should a third runway be built at Heathrow? Yes/no
2. Are you in favour of more flights into and out of Heathrow? Yes/no
The Hounslow survey asked the same two questions, plus another 9 covering topics including runway alternation, night flights, noise insulation and the importance of LHR to the local economy.
I don't think the aim was to get the public to do the work of the DfT, Commons Transport Select Committee and Airports Commission in determining the UK's hub strategy."
Hounslow's aked more questions because it has residents under the flightpath, Hillingdon doesn't. Hounslow also asked if they wanted Heathrow to close, and guess what, the answer was no, what a surprise!
Does anyone know the turnout of these referendums? This critical but apparently unreported. Perhaps it tells a different story, who can say?
These referendums are not a particularly good use of ratepayers' money, we are dealing with proposed improvments to infrastructure of national significance, not a little local difficulty.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 22nd May 2013 at 18:05.
Hounslow also asked if they wanted Heathrow to close, and guess what, the answer was no, what a surprise!
Those sound like two perfectly valid points of view to me, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be held simultaneously.
Or am I missing something?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're making the classic mistake of thinking everyone can be a winner. In the real world, for the greater good, there must be losers and they will have to endure pain. We're in a fantasy bubble at the moment.
We nearly ran out of gas over the winter and we're heading straight for an energy crisis. Do we build new nuclear powered stations or give money to millionaires to build pretty windfarms?
It's not about what people *want* it's about what the country *needs* to start paying off the frankly enormous debts that our forerunnners have wracked up and left to us. That means more flights, tourists, trade and frankly more controlled pollution.
Look at France electing Hollande on a fantasy he could never deliver, reality is catching up with these numpties.
We nearly ran out of gas over the winter and we're heading straight for an energy crisis. Do we build new nuclear powered stations or give money to millionaires to build pretty windfarms?
It's not about what people *want* it's about what the country *needs* to start paying off the frankly enormous debts that our forerunnners have wracked up and left to us. That means more flights, tourists, trade and frankly more controlled pollution.
Look at France electing Hollande on a fantasy he could never deliver, reality is catching up with these numpties.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Live at LGW & Work in LHR .... Doh!
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow’s Runways Closed as Smoke Seen Coming From Plane: Sky News
Both runways at Heathrow airport are reportedly closed as smoke is seen coming from the rear of a plane on the Northern runway......
More here..... Heathrow?s Runways Closed as Smoke Seen Coming From Plane: Sky New | The Airport Informer
More here..... Heathrow?s Runways Closed as Smoke Seen Coming From Plane: Sky New | The Airport Informer
Extensive thread here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...-heathrow.html
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow will never close, with all the recent investment plus there are too many local jobs at stake if it ever did and the majority of those are unskilled and would never be able to relocate, it would cause a major headache for the local politicians and Goverment far more then building the 3rd runway.
The only REAL outcome to all this is to build the third runway that was origionally planned at Heathrow plus an upgrade to the rail link between Liverpool St Stn and Stansted Airport offering a faster service making the airport more attractive to future airline growth there.
A second runway at Gatwick would also be an advantage to the airport for lots of reasons but as your always bashing LGW I would assume you would think otherwise (Skipness)
The only REAL outcome to all this is to build the third runway that was origionally planned at Heathrow plus an upgrade to the rail link between Liverpool St Stn and Stansted Airport offering a faster service making the airport more attractive to future airline growth there.
A second runway at Gatwick would also be an advantage to the airport for lots of reasons but as your always bashing LGW I would assume you would think otherwise (Skipness)
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always feel that people should clarify the "Heathrow is in the wrong place" argument as well.
It's only in the wrong place in terms of approaches flying over the centre of London, which adversely affects a large amount of the populace with noise and is inherently dangerous if there were to be an 'incident'.
However, in terms of accessibility it's pretty much spot on, having our nation's only hub airport readily accessible by a huge number of the general population. The road access could certainly be improved, but if the rail infrastructure is improved (which is it being with Crossrail and the direct mainline access from Reading) then that wouldn't be so much of an issue. In addition, with an extra couple of runways the short haul connectivity to the regions will become much better.
In an ideal world I suppose Heathrow would probably be repositioned something like 5 - 10 miles due West of where it is now, something which the Dr Tim Leunig Policy Exchange proposal certainly tries to make an effort at (although 2.7km falls somewhere short...!)
It's only in the wrong place in terms of approaches flying over the centre of London, which adversely affects a large amount of the populace with noise and is inherently dangerous if there were to be an 'incident'.
However, in terms of accessibility it's pretty much spot on, having our nation's only hub airport readily accessible by a huge number of the general population. The road access could certainly be improved, but if the rail infrastructure is improved (which is it being with Crossrail and the direct mainline access from Reading) then that wouldn't be so much of an issue. In addition, with an extra couple of runways the short haul connectivity to the regions will become much better.
In an ideal world I suppose Heathrow would probably be repositioned something like 5 - 10 miles due West of where it is now, something which the Dr Tim Leunig Policy Exchange proposal certainly tries to make an effort at (although 2.7km falls somewhere short...!)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow: The new Terminal 2
With the coutdown to opening well and truly underway this is worth a read. One thing I did notice was the claim that T2B will have open gates like T4 and T5 (Page 28). Currently they are closed off gate rooms on T2B so I assume they are going to refurb them before the grand opening?
With the coutdown to opening well and truly underway this is worth a read. One thing I did notice was the claim that T2B will have open gates like T4 and T5 (Page 28). Currently they are closed off gate rooms on T2B so I assume they are going to refurb them before the grand opening?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh no!
The PR people are in charge - 1 year to go so let's start building up the "excitement" with press releases
Surprised they haven't put a count down clock in Trafalgar Square
At least we have a date - make sure you plan to avoid the place like the plague for June & July 2014........................
The PR people are in charge - 1 year to go so let's start building up the "excitement" with press releases
Surprised they haven't put a count down clock in Trafalgar Square
At least we have a date - make sure you plan to avoid the place like the plague for June & July 2014........................
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His sculpture is the size of an A400 jumbo jet set inside a cavernous
space on the scale of the Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall.
space on the scale of the Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key take out is that it will be a stepped opening as opposed to the farce that was T5 Day One, only a subset of the intended tennants will be in the door on day one.
It would be pretty dumb not to have PR involved though wouldn't it? Spend billions on CapEx and forget to tell anyone? Hmmmmm
It would be pretty dumb not to have PR involved though wouldn't it? Spend billions on CapEx and forget to tell anyone? Hmmmmm
Reprieve for Sipson, Stanwell to disappear instead
The latest lunatic proposal is to try to shoe-horn a runway in the space south of 09R/27L and north of the Staines/KGVI reservoirs.
The fact that this would appear to necessitate pulling down both Terminal 4 and the Cargocentre seems to have escaped the planners' attention.
EXCLUSIVE: New Heathrow runway plan is revealed - Transport - News - London Evening Standard
The fact that this would appear to necessitate pulling down both Terminal 4 and the Cargocentre seems to have escaped the planners' attention.
EXCLUSIVE: New Heathrow runway plan is revealed - Transport - News - London Evening Standard
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 6th Jun 2013 at 17:41.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely there must come a point where it is economically viable for Heathrow to offer to purchase all the houses in the surrounding area (at 20% premium on the market rate, say) meaning that there will be no further objections from residents, because all the ones who don't like it will have sold up, and those who have chosen to stay obviously aren't bothered enough by the increase in noise another couple of runways would bring?!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VS are to suspend its Accra flights from September, citing high fuel costs in Ghana and limited slots in LHR.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 7th Jun 2013 at 12:18.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reprieve for Sipson, Stanwell to disappear instead
Another example of sloppy journalism!
The article mentions the demolition of Stanwellmoor, but in reality, Stanwell village would also have to go as well as some of the estates to the south of Stanwell village, an area where the majority work on the airport.
The article states that fewer houses would be demolished than at Sipson. Not so, this scheme could involve demolition of up to 5,000 houses depending on how far south of 09R/27L the new rwy would have to be to allow simultaneous operations.
The number of houses to be demolished at Sipson is considerably less, and that area is already blighted.
This plan has nothing to do with house demolition.
Going as far south 09R/27L as possible without reservoir demolition, a rwy a little under 2 mi. long could be fitted in from the River Colne at Hithermoor Farm in the west to just short of the oil terminal at West Bedfont in the east. This would not take out the cargo areas and LHR-4, although the oil terminal may have to move and much of Stanwell would be lost. On the other hand some LHR-4 and LHR-5 movements could be taken off the existing rwys.
The reality is that 2 more rwys are needed, and in the end it is likely that land north and north west of LHR will have to be used, with both the M25 and the A4 tunnelised in part, and relatively little house demolition.
The article mentions the demolition of Stanwellmoor, but in reality, Stanwell village would also have to go as well as some of the estates to the south of Stanwell village, an area where the majority work on the airport.
The article states that fewer houses would be demolished than at Sipson. Not so, this scheme could involve demolition of up to 5,000 houses depending on how far south of 09R/27L the new rwy would have to be to allow simultaneous operations.
The number of houses to be demolished at Sipson is considerably less, and that area is already blighted.
This plan has nothing to do with house demolition.
Going as far south 09R/27L as possible without reservoir demolition, a rwy a little under 2 mi. long could be fitted in from the River Colne at Hithermoor Farm in the west to just short of the oil terminal at West Bedfont in the east. This would not take out the cargo areas and LHR-4, although the oil terminal may have to move and much of Stanwell would be lost. On the other hand some LHR-4 and LHR-5 movements could be taken off the existing rwys.
The reality is that 2 more rwys are needed, and in the end it is likely that land north and north west of LHR will have to be used, with both the M25 and the A4 tunnelised in part, and relatively little house demolition.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 7th Jun 2013 at 15:56.