HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigger planes carrying more people is the obvious answer
So, not that obvious then?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 18th Jul 2013 at 13:09.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
answer is it doesn't - Leeds falls by the wayside as so many other UK destinations from LHR have done - I suspect NCL will be next t go after Leeds
Leeds may retain a service to City or Gatwick unless the runway is extended - same at ABZ tho th fares charged on the LHR-ABZ route and the interchanging will probably keep it going for a long time
Remember that the Japanese fly 747's on domestic routes due to shortage of capacity at Tokyo
Leeds may retain a service to City or Gatwick unless the runway is extended - same at ABZ tho th fares charged on the LHR-ABZ route and the interchanging will probably keep it going for a long time
Remember that the Japanese fly 747's on domestic routes due to shortage of capacity at Tokyo
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
answer is it doesn't - Leeds falls by the wayside as so many other UK destinations from LHR have done - I suspect NCL will be next t go after Leeds
There are only a handful of UK destinations left btw! GLA, EDI, NCL, MAN and recently the return of LBA. Five in all, it would barely make an impact if all UK connectivity was removed from LHR, the answer is not less frequency and bigger aircraft which would force flexible businessmen to use another London airport and damage LHR but more capacity.
We need to stop living in LA LA pretendy land and get the economic growth to pay the bills and debt our selfish and brain dead politicians allowed us all to vote for.
* laughs at the great clunking fist abolishing boom and bust
There is a slow realisation that the UK should not be held to ransom by a bunch of NIMBY's who own property and spend some time in West London.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 18th Jul 2013 at 16:56.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are only a handful of UK destinations left btw! GLA, EDI, NCL, MAN and
recently the return of LBA. Five in all
recently the return of LBA. Five in all
Don't forget about us... BHD
answer is it doesn't - Leeds falls by the wayside as so many other UK destinations from LHR have done - I suspect NCL will be next t go after Leeds
Then this is clearly not the answer to effective hub capacity then is it? The UK's regional airports unable to access the UK's main hub. Only in Britain.....
“This year we’ve had the benefit of the bigger aircraft from Emirates that just keeps breaking passenger records every month. That route has done so much for the region - business have been created as a result of it.
“At the moment the record is about 9,960 passengers in a month, but in July there’s a possibility that we could reach the 10,000 mark.”
“At the moment the record is about 9,960 passengers in a month, but in July there’s a possibility that we could reach the 10,000 mark.”
Last edited by SWBKCB; 18th Jul 2013 at 19:24.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “The legal process will take longer than the election/fiscal cycle and there are more votes in No LHR expansion than for it so it's a constant temptation to politicians to do a Boris -and we all know how politcians are proof against temptation.....…”
Is there not is a fast-track procedure for “infrastructure of strategic national significance”? If so, best use it!
There’s not enough votes on this issue. Airport expansion is the number one political issue for just a handful of people so there’s not enough of them to make a constituency change hands. It’s no co-incidence that the anti-airport lobbying groups have never fielded candidates for election either at local or Parliamentary level. Moreover, there are only two marginal seats around the airport: Brentford and Isleworth and Richmond and Barnes.
Quote: “I strongly suspect we will not build any new civil runways in this country and we will have to figure out how to make the best of what we have now
Bigger planes carrying more people is the obvious answer”
In theory, yes, but in practice, business demands frequency on shorthaul routes and therefore smaller aircraft. They pay the premium fares that make profits for the airlines, so their needs have to be met.
Quote: “get the break even point between air and high speed train out to 500 miles for business and S France, Barcelona etc for leisure”
It’s not "either/or", and if there’s to be planning delays and judicial reviews just for 1 or 2 more rwys at LHR, imagine what it will be like for high speed rail. Suspect that there are marginal seats on that route, and many more people affected.
Quote: “Remember that the Japanese fly 747's on domestic routes due to shortage of capacity at Tokyo”
Indeed, in a country that’s had high speed rail since 1964! As mentioned above, it’s not "either/or".
Quote: “* laughs at the great clunking fist abolishing boom and bust”
Be fair! The great clunking fist abolishing Tory (sic) boom and bust, Shame it couldn’t do the same for Labour boom and bust. Ho hum.
Quote: “There is a slow realisation that the UK should not be held to ransom by a bunch of NIMBY's who own property and spend some time in West London.”
Exactly right, and these people are nowhere near the rwy thresholds where it could be argued that there is a noise problem.
If Call-Me-Dave is correct about Labour being in the pocket of UNITE, can we assume that Labour will support LHR expansion, bearing in mind that. UNITE, (or in other words, the former T&GW), is very big on the airport.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 18th Jul 2013 at 19:51.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: .
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully, as Labour were the only party in the last election to support LHR expansion.
Cross party agreement is essential for expansion to proceed as all the legal, planning, NIMBY and environmental processes will comfortably take us into the next parliament if not the one after too.
Cross party agreement is essential for expansion to proceed as all the legal, planning, NIMBY and environmental processes will comfortably take us into the next parliament if not the one after too.
Last edited by Calmcavok; 18th Jul 2013 at 21:39.
Was rather hoping that the UK might get its act together about air transport capacity, but seems as if we've lost the desire as a society to make money any more. If you have more than about 10 years before you retirement, best make a start on this now
SOAS Language Centre in London - Chinese Language Courses & Activities - SOAS, University of London
SOAS Language Centre in London - Chinese Language Courses & Activities - SOAS, University of London
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 18th Jul 2013 at 22:36.
, the Belfast train service to London involves getting wet, but glad to see BA kept it on.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "The Courts will have the last word on LHR expansion. And it will almost certainly be a combination of the ECHR/ ECJ and the British Supreme Court."
Very depressing if this is the case, are we no longer an independent country? Are we now a "judocracy" (government by judicial review) rather than a democracy? Has one person one judge replaced one person one vote?
Quote: "Was rather hoping that the UK might get its act together about air transport capacity, but seems as if we've lost the desire as a society to make money any more."
The EU's to blame, it's sapped any entrepreneurial spirit out of us. Can't do a thing without permission from Brussels, it's pathetic. We should be trading with the world, not just the sclerotic eurozone.
Apart from the BRICs there are up and coming countries that we need to do business with and we need direct transport links to these, and these need feeder routes to be viable.
It's ludicrous that there are only 7 domestic airports linked to LHR and scandalous that only 2 UK carriers have access to it.
Very depressing if this is the case, are we no longer an independent country? Are we now a "judocracy" (government by judicial review) rather than a democracy? Has one person one judge replaced one person one vote?
Quote: "Was rather hoping that the UK might get its act together about air transport capacity, but seems as if we've lost the desire as a society to make money any more."
The EU's to blame, it's sapped any entrepreneurial spirit out of us. Can't do a thing without permission from Brussels, it's pathetic. We should be trading with the world, not just the sclerotic eurozone.
Apart from the BRICs there are up and coming countries that we need to do business with and we need direct transport links to these, and these need feeder routes to be viable.
It's ludicrous that there are only 7 domestic airports linked to LHR and scandalous that only 2 UK carriers have access to it.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 20th Jul 2013 at 00:54. Reason: factual correction
Now if Heathrow Airport Limited were making a case for both a third and a fourth rwy.......
"We believe Heathrow can accommodate four runways successfully if required to do so and that the impacts of such a plan can be successfully mitigated."
In fact the proposal illustrates three different four-runway options (plus the Policy Exchange proposal, which they dismiss):
A. north + southwest
B. northwest + southwest
and, you will be pleased to hear
C. dual northwest
Although HAL agree with my assessment that you can't fit two runways between the A4 and M4 - the northernmost runway runs along the line of the M4, which would now run in a tunnel underneath it.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Guys, about runway crossings; you've seen the maps, right?
There are ATETs."
Very good point!!
Quote: "Now if Heathrow Airport Limited were making a case for both a third and a fourth rwy....... " (apologies for quoting myself!)
Quote: “Actually they do, sort of:
"We believe Heathrow can accommodate four runways successfully if required to do so and that the impacts of such a plan can be successfully mitigated."
In fact the proposal illustrates three different four-runway options (plus the Policy Exchange proposal, which they dismiss):
A. north + southwest
B. northwest + southwest
and, you will be pleased to hear
C. dual northwest
Although HAL agree with my assessment that you can't fit two runways between the A4 and M4 - the northernmost runway runs along the line of the M4, which would now run in a tunnel underneath it."
Yes, noticed that, and was very pleased to read it in the submission.
My original idea had the two new rwys staggered, with my third roughly along the line of the original third and therefore shorter than proposed by Heathrow Limited in this document. Their arguments for a longer third (and eventually fourth?) rwy(s) cannot be faulted!
A longer third rwy followed by a longer fourth rwy would require, as a minimum, diverting and/or tunnelising roads, the A4, M4, M4 spur and the M25 being the prime candidates. If they go south west of the airport, reservoir demolition will be needed as well.
So Heathrow Airport Limited need to start on a fourth rwy at the same time as a third if they reckon it will be needed in 2040. It's going to take longer to complete.
There are ATETs."
Very good point!!
Quote: "Now if Heathrow Airport Limited were making a case for both a third and a fourth rwy....... " (apologies for quoting myself!)
Quote: “Actually they do, sort of:
"We believe Heathrow can accommodate four runways successfully if required to do so and that the impacts of such a plan can be successfully mitigated."
In fact the proposal illustrates three different four-runway options (plus the Policy Exchange proposal, which they dismiss):
A. north + southwest
B. northwest + southwest
and, you will be pleased to hear
C. dual northwest
Although HAL agree with my assessment that you can't fit two runways between the A4 and M4 - the northernmost runway runs along the line of the M4, which would now run in a tunnel underneath it."
Yes, noticed that, and was very pleased to read it in the submission.
My original idea had the two new rwys staggered, with my third roughly along the line of the original third and therefore shorter than proposed by Heathrow Limited in this document. Their arguments for a longer third (and eventually fourth?) rwy(s) cannot be faulted!
A longer third rwy followed by a longer fourth rwy would require, as a minimum, diverting and/or tunnelising roads, the A4, M4, M4 spur and the M25 being the prime candidates. If they go south west of the airport, reservoir demolition will be needed as well.
So Heathrow Airport Limited need to start on a fourth rwy at the same time as a third if they reckon it will be needed in 2040. It's going to take longer to complete.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 20th Jul 2013 at 12:41.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEATHRHOOMDON
Anyone fancy a laugh?
Have a look at this:
Could Cardiff Airport form a new UK hub alongside Birmingham and Heathrow? - Wales Online
This is Heathwick writ large: HEATHRHOOMDON (Heathrow, Rhoose, Elmdon).
What are they on? Can I have some (man)?
It is apparently proposed by an "entrepreneur", an "economist" a "transport expert" and a "management consultant" - that says it all!
Why does no one appear to understand how a hub airport works?
Have a look at this:
Could Cardiff Airport form a new UK hub alongside Birmingham and Heathrow? - Wales Online
This is Heathwick writ large: HEATHRHOOMDON (Heathrow, Rhoose, Elmdon).
What are they on? Can I have some (man)?
It is apparently proposed by an "entrepreneur", an "economist" a "transport expert" and a "management consultant" - that says it all!
Why does no one appear to understand how a hub airport works?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 20th Jul 2013 at 19:26.
Why does no one appear to understand how a hub airport works?
"Whilst the development of the new Heathrow link into our soon to be electrified Great Western mainline will make the journey much smoother, it remains to be seen whether passengers would accept a transfer of 150 miles between terminals..."
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
soon to be electified
Yes, a brilliant quote. You couldn't make it up.
What they don't mention is that Rhoose does not have a railway station, nor is one soon to be built, so the question of electrification is irrelevant.
What they don't mention is that Rhoose does not have a railway station, nor is one soon to be built, so the question of electrification is irrelevant.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 20th Jul 2013 at 19:20.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Very depressing if this is the case, are we no longer an independent country? Are we now a "judocracy" (government by judicial review) rather than a democracy? Has one person one judge replaced one person one vote"
No - it's called a balanced constitution - the Yanks have had separation of powers for 250 years. In the past we elected a bunch of monkeys and then they give the one with the bluest (or reddest) bum all the power with no checks or balances
No - it's called a balanced constitution - the Yanks have had separation of powers for 250 years. In the past we elected a bunch of monkeys and then they give the one with the bluest (or reddest) bum all the power with no checks or balances
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is there not is a fast-track procedure for “infrastructure of strategic national significance”? If so, best use it!"
yeah - they were talking about it - then the Tory MP's (whose leaders thought the thing up) realised that it would be used to impose HS2, Gatwick Runway2, windfarms, new M ways right through their constituencies, the Green Belt and their homes in the country so it sort of hit a large brick wall called self-interest
besides it is so sweeping it will be tied up in the courts for donkey's years
yeah - they were talking about it - then the Tory MP's (whose leaders thought the thing up) realised that it would be used to impose HS2, Gatwick Runway2, windfarms, new M ways right through their constituencies, the Green Belt and their homes in the country so it sort of hit a large brick wall called self-interest
besides it is so sweeping it will be tied up in the courts for donkey's years
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “No - it's called a balanced constitution - the Yanks have had separation of powers for 250 years. In the past we elected a bunch of monkeys and then they give the one with the bluest (or reddest) bum all the power with no checks or balances”
The USA’s “separation of powers” is not as separate as many believe, for example:
the president (executive) appoints the supreme court (judicial);
the vice president (executive) is chairman of the senate (legislative);
presidential appointments (executive) have to approved by the senate (legislative);
if a senator becomes president, his/her seat is not filled by a by-election, the state governor (executive) appoints a senator (legislative) until the election is due (Obama was a case in point).
These are checks and balances up to a point, but to refer to them as separation of powers is an exageration.
It is true that members of the government (excutive) cannot be members of Congress (legislative) so that’s separate, but it also means that they’re not elected (apart from the president of course).
If comparing constitutions, it’s not true to say that their’s is better than ours, or vice versa, they are completely different systems.
Quote: “yeah - they were talking about it - then the Tory MP's (whose leaders thought the thing up) realised that it would be used to impose HS2, Gatwick Runway2, windfarms, new M ways right through their constituencies, the Green Belt and their homes in the country so it sort of hit a large brick wall called self-interest
besides it is so sweeping it will be tied up in the courts for donkey's years”
Suspect it’s not just LHR rwys that will be “tied up in the courts for donkey's years”.
It’s almost certain that HS2 will be too and for longer (if it isn’t scrapped), as it’s a much bigger project and likely to upset a whole lot more people, as many more people could lose their homes and/or businesses than in the case of LHR. Plus there‘s those who‘ll be adversely affected by HS2 (noise, house price falls, etc.), but just a little too far away to be compensated.
We can therefore forget about the nonsense that HS2 (with a spur to LHR) will remove the need for more rwys.
Excellent, now back on-thread.
The USA’s “separation of powers” is not as separate as many believe, for example:
the president (executive) appoints the supreme court (judicial);
the vice president (executive) is chairman of the senate (legislative);
presidential appointments (executive) have to approved by the senate (legislative);
if a senator becomes president, his/her seat is not filled by a by-election, the state governor (executive) appoints a senator (legislative) until the election is due (Obama was a case in point).
These are checks and balances up to a point, but to refer to them as separation of powers is an exageration.
It is true that members of the government (excutive) cannot be members of Congress (legislative) so that’s separate, but it also means that they’re not elected (apart from the president of course).
If comparing constitutions, it’s not true to say that their’s is better than ours, or vice versa, they are completely different systems.
Quote: “yeah - they were talking about it - then the Tory MP's (whose leaders thought the thing up) realised that it would be used to impose HS2, Gatwick Runway2, windfarms, new M ways right through their constituencies, the Green Belt and their homes in the country so it sort of hit a large brick wall called self-interest
besides it is so sweeping it will be tied up in the courts for donkey's years”
Suspect it’s not just LHR rwys that will be “tied up in the courts for donkey's years”.
It’s almost certain that HS2 will be too and for longer (if it isn’t scrapped), as it’s a much bigger project and likely to upset a whole lot more people, as many more people could lose their homes and/or businesses than in the case of LHR. Plus there‘s those who‘ll be adversely affected by HS2 (noise, house price falls, etc.), but just a little too far away to be compensated.
We can therefore forget about the nonsense that HS2 (with a spur to LHR) will remove the need for more rwys.
Excellent, now back on-thread.