HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "If LHR did not need “permission” to do it from dithering politicians"
terrible thing democracy eh Frank???"
That was in response to a poster, onyxcrowle, who stated that LHR should already be building.
It's not about "democracy", it's about "dithering".
There are many countries with "democracy" that are able to build and/or extend large hub airports.
Three examples are within a few hundred miles of LHR: France, Germany, Netherlands.
Hope this helps.
terrible thing democracy eh Frank???"
That was in response to a poster, onyxcrowle, who stated that LHR should already be building.
It's not about "democracy", it's about "dithering".
There are many countries with "democracy" that are able to build and/or extend large hub airports.
Three examples are within a few hundred miles of LHR: France, Germany, Netherlands.
Hope this helps.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank: Great post. The groups you listed as people against a 3rd runway were the same ones I came up with. Having a clear, totally unbiased viewpoint I guess I stupidly overlooked the possibility such wannabes/bureaucrats would be given sufficient time of day when the issue of stimulating a national economy on its knees was up for debate.
As I have stated before, no where else would this preposterous situation arise. If it were Japan, USA or wherever workers would be working day and night to get that 3rd runway constructed ASAP. The fact that our country's hub airport handles more international passengers than any other airport around the globe should be heralded and of national pride. We should certainly not want all the hard work to be thrown away. I know for a fact BAA have/are in the process of buying property to the north of the airport so it really does just seem a case of a politician giving it the green light but of course with an election round the corner this is not going to happen any time soon
.
For the record, personally, I do not think LHR should be concerned with domestic routes, serving the emerging economies is of far more critical importance to the country as a whole.
As I have stated before, no where else would this preposterous situation arise. If it were Japan, USA or wherever workers would be working day and night to get that 3rd runway constructed ASAP. The fact that our country's hub airport handles more international passengers than any other airport around the globe should be heralded and of national pride. We should certainly not want all the hard work to be thrown away. I know for a fact BAA have/are in the process of buying property to the north of the airport so it really does just seem a case of a politician giving it the green light but of course with an election round the corner this is not going to happen any time soon
.For the record, personally, I do not think LHR should be concerned with domestic routes, serving the emerging economies is of far more critical importance to the country as a whole.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Israel, Kazakhstan, Spain
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not lived in the UK for a long time, but there did used to be something called compulsory purchase, whilst I realise this would no go down well with local residents... Mind you looking at all the problems Cuadrilla are having to drill a hole in the ground in the the southern parts of suburbia, god knows what the local loons would do?
Last edited by Aksai Oiler; 2nd Aug 2013 at 10:42. Reason: Grammar, getting senile
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dodging Flybe at EHASC
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "If LHR did not need “permission” to do it from dithering politicians"
terrible thing democracy eh Frank???"
That was in response to a poster, onyxcrowle, who stated that LHR should already be building.
It's not about "democracy", it's about "dithering".
There are many countries with "democracy" that are able to build and/or extend large hub airports.
Three examples are within a few hundred miles of LHR: France, Germany, Netherlands.
Hope this helps.
Those countries had politicans who were in favour of extending, rebuilding and increasing airport capacity at specific loactions. This country does not at present. Therefore there is no increase in capacity at Heathrow. This is called the democratic process as they were elected on that (and are holding to it). I hope the above easy to understand guide helps you tell the difference between dithering and democracy.
If you want a bigger heathrow vote for a party which promises one, if more people vote the opposite way then it will not get built. Very easy concept to understand even for patronising keyboard warriors who bemoan that others cannot understand their grand concept.
terrible thing democracy eh Frank???"
That was in response to a poster, onyxcrowle, who stated that LHR should already be building.
It's not about "democracy", it's about "dithering".
There are many countries with "democracy" that are able to build and/or extend large hub airports.
Three examples are within a few hundred miles of LHR: France, Germany, Netherlands.
Hope this helps.
Those countries had politicans who were in favour of extending, rebuilding and increasing airport capacity at specific loactions. This country does not at present. Therefore there is no increase in capacity at Heathrow. This is called the democratic process as they were elected on that (and are holding to it). I hope the above easy to understand guide helps you tell the difference between dithering and democracy.
If you want a bigger heathrow vote for a party which promises one, if more people vote the opposite way then it will not get built. Very easy concept to understand even for patronising keyboard warriors who bemoan that others cannot understand their grand concept.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want a bigger heathrow vote for a party which promises one, if more people vote the opposite way then it will not get built. Very easy concept to understand even for patronising keyboard warriors who bemoan that others cannot understand their grand concept.
People being people, they would like all the benefits of LHR with none of the costs, hence they vote for growth "elsewhere" and some blonde idiot suggests a floating island offshore costing billions outside his electoral area. Hence a democratic system slowly over time destroys a strategic national asset for the sake of NIMBYs.
No one can vote for an expanded LHR because people won't vote for it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done ASAP, it just means localism is put before national interest in order to get elected at all.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 2nd Aug 2013 at 12:26.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm... FRA and AMS both have a fraction of the population of London living close to the airport so far fewer people to upset. Even at FRA they blocked night flights. They are much more similar to MAN in that respect. The local population have only one airport to rely on. London is very different.
CDG is a dump - awful for transfer etc in a notoriously centralised country that is hardly a beacon for economic liberalism.
Comparisons are facile. The coalition would fall if it supported LHR expansion. Airport expansion is only one policy area. There is clearly going to be expansion in the southeast. The question remains where.
CDG is a dump - awful for transfer etc in a notoriously centralised country that is hardly a beacon for economic liberalism.
Comparisons are facile. The coalition would fall if it supported LHR expansion. Airport expansion is only one policy area. There is clearly going to be expansion in the southeast. The question remains where.
Last edited by jdcg; 2nd Aug 2013 at 12:33.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
I don't think politics needs to be made such an issue especially on an aviation forum. While yes it looks like the stumbling block seems to stem from politicians I don't think dithering full stop from these people is anything but surprising. Indeed on every issue it seems to be the case. Look at the situation with Trident and the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. This proves that if an issue is of significant national importance it will be pushed through by the people who matter (Not the hairbrained blonde one) regardless of the outcry. I think we could all agree that a 3rd runway at LHR, being the quickest/cheapest option for growth, is of a similar case to Trident and no where near as controversial surely than anything involving the word nuclear!
I also believe people are making too much of an issue of a local outcry. People will campaign against anything usually because they have too much time on their hands and it gives them a purpose, this should not effect our national economy. Asking people who stand to lose their house or business is obviously a bit bias but I bet most of the people have at least one friend or family member who depends on LHR for employment. It is clear also that the 3rd runway would run parallel with the existing ones so in theory the noise should effect relatively the same area. Surely after all this time most the people under the flightpath bought their properties with the knowledge that this noise existed and on balance still chose to buy. I guess you could hypothetically say they are therefore LHR's guests not the other way round
I also believe people are making too much of an issue of a local outcry. People will campaign against anything usually because they have too much time on their hands and it gives them a purpose, this should not effect our national economy. Asking people who stand to lose their house or business is obviously a bit bias but I bet most of the people have at least one friend or family member who depends on LHR for employment. It is clear also that the 3rd runway would run parallel with the existing ones so in theory the noise should effect relatively the same area. Surely after all this time most the people under the flightpath bought their properties with the knowledge that this noise existed and on balance still chose to buy. I guess you could hypothetically say they are therefore LHR's guests not the other way round
People will campaign against anything usually because they have too much time on their hands and it gives them a purpose, this should not effect our national economy.
Bottom line; it's a mistake to think that all, or even most, of the opposition is local.
Do I think that a third, and fourth, runway should go ahead? Yes. Is there anything I can do to help it go ahead? Not really apart from emailing my MP (Lib Dem 
).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Frank: Great post.”
Thanks, Rivet Joint, appreciated!
Quote: “For the record, personally, I do not think LHR should be concerned with domestic routes, serving the emerging economies is of far more critical importance to the country as a whole.”
To all intents and purposes it isn’t: LHR has links to just 7 UK airports compared to over 20 in the case of AMS and DUB. Longhaul routes to the emerging economies are critical, but the thinner routes especially need feed from pax connecting from other UK (and Ireland/Europe) airports to be viable.
Quote: “Those countries had politicans who were in favour of extending, rebuilding and increasing airport capacity at specific loactions. This country does not at present. Therefore there is no increase in capacity at Heathrow. This is called the democratic process as they were elected on that (and are holding to it). I hope the above easy to understand guide helps you tell the difference between dithering and democracy.”
So do we in the UK, the previous government eventually granted the expansion, but took so long to do so, because of the dithering.
Quote: “If you want a bigger heathrow vote for a party which promises one, if more people vote the opposite way then it will not get built."
Not so, with the exception of the Greens, we don’t have single-issue parties in the UK, single issue candidates are independents and tend to be defeated. Moreover, people do not vote for governments on the basis of the number of new rwys at LHR.
It certainly isn’t an election issue: no anti-LHR organisation has ever put up candidates for election for precisely this reason.
Quote: “Very easy concept to understand even for patronising keyboard warriors who bemoan that others cannot understand their grand concept.”
Love the insult, brilliant!
Quote: “…swing seats decide elections. Given the number fo swing seats near LHR, parties come out with any old garbage just to get someone elected so they can form a government and do 25% of all the other stuff they think needs doing.”
There are just two marginal (swing) seats near LHR: Brentford and Isleworth (Con-Lab) and Richmond and Barnes (Con-Lib), both currently Conservative. The majority of electors in both constituecies will vote on issues other than the amount of rwys at LHR.
The fact that a tiny well-off vocal minority who live far from LHR (who think, wrongly, that their house prices will fall) can scare the hell out of politicians who want and need LHR expansion says more about the calibre of politicians than about democracy. The use of the word “dithering“ is both correct and accurate.
Regrettably, the majority of MPs have never had a proper job or “run anything” (to quote Ken Livingstone), and no longer come from business, the professions, the union movement, local government, or, heaven forbid, ordinary workers.
Consequently they have little experience of the real world, and in turn their advisors are all kids just out of university or a research institute. “Career politicians” is the disparaging (but accurate) term used.
Quote: “The coalition would fall if it supported LHR expansion. Airport expansion is only one policy area. There is clearly going to be expansion in the southeast. The question remains where.”
Wouldn’t that be great! A minority government would have served the country better and would have been just as stable.
Quote: “Nowadays in this country we have "professional" protesters backed up by people who know all the ins and outs of slowing down/increasing the costs/killing proposals even, or especially, when they are not directly affected. You only have to witness all the recent brouhaha about fracking for an example of this.”
Yes, the “swampy” effect, and toxic when put together with dithering politicians.
Quote: “Bottom line; it's a mistake to think that all, or even most, of the opposition is local. Do I think that a third, and fourth, runway should go ahead? Yes. Is there anything I can do to help it go ahead? Not really apart from emailing my MP (Lib Dem).”
You could write to him/her for a laugh.
The Lib Dems have been in the coalition for three years now but don’t appear to have matured into a party of government. They’re still as mad as march hares!
Thanks, Rivet Joint, appreciated!
Quote: “For the record, personally, I do not think LHR should be concerned with domestic routes, serving the emerging economies is of far more critical importance to the country as a whole.”
To all intents and purposes it isn’t: LHR has links to just 7 UK airports compared to over 20 in the case of AMS and DUB. Longhaul routes to the emerging economies are critical, but the thinner routes especially need feed from pax connecting from other UK (and Ireland/Europe) airports to be viable.
Quote: “Those countries had politicans who were in favour of extending, rebuilding and increasing airport capacity at specific loactions. This country does not at present. Therefore there is no increase in capacity at Heathrow. This is called the democratic process as they were elected on that (and are holding to it). I hope the above easy to understand guide helps you tell the difference between dithering and democracy.”
So do we in the UK, the previous government eventually granted the expansion, but took so long to do so, because of the dithering.
Quote: “If you want a bigger heathrow vote for a party which promises one, if more people vote the opposite way then it will not get built."
Not so, with the exception of the Greens, we don’t have single-issue parties in the UK, single issue candidates are independents and tend to be defeated. Moreover, people do not vote for governments on the basis of the number of new rwys at LHR.
It certainly isn’t an election issue: no anti-LHR organisation has ever put up candidates for election for precisely this reason.
Quote: “Very easy concept to understand even for patronising keyboard warriors who bemoan that others cannot understand their grand concept.”
Love the insult, brilliant!
Quote: “…swing seats decide elections. Given the number fo swing seats near LHR, parties come out with any old garbage just to get someone elected so they can form a government and do 25% of all the other stuff they think needs doing.”
There are just two marginal (swing) seats near LHR: Brentford and Isleworth (Con-Lab) and Richmond and Barnes (Con-Lib), both currently Conservative. The majority of electors in both constituecies will vote on issues other than the amount of rwys at LHR.
The fact that a tiny well-off vocal minority who live far from LHR (who think, wrongly, that their house prices will fall) can scare the hell out of politicians who want and need LHR expansion says more about the calibre of politicians than about democracy. The use of the word “dithering“ is both correct and accurate.
Regrettably, the majority of MPs have never had a proper job or “run anything” (to quote Ken Livingstone), and no longer come from business, the professions, the union movement, local government, or, heaven forbid, ordinary workers.
Consequently they have little experience of the real world, and in turn their advisors are all kids just out of university or a research institute. “Career politicians” is the disparaging (but accurate) term used.
Quote: “The coalition would fall if it supported LHR expansion. Airport expansion is only one policy area. There is clearly going to be expansion in the southeast. The question remains where.”
Wouldn’t that be great! A minority government would have served the country better and would have been just as stable.
Quote: “Nowadays in this country we have "professional" protesters backed up by people who know all the ins and outs of slowing down/increasing the costs/killing proposals even, or especially, when they are not directly affected. You only have to witness all the recent brouhaha about fracking for an example of this.”
Yes, the “swampy” effect, and toxic when put together with dithering politicians.
Quote: “Bottom line; it's a mistake to think that all, or even most, of the opposition is local. Do I think that a third, and fourth, runway should go ahead? Yes. Is there anything I can do to help it go ahead? Not really apart from emailing my MP (Lib Dem).”
You could write to him/her for a laugh.
The Lib Dems have been in the coalition for three years now but don’t appear to have matured into a party of government. They’re still as mad as march hares!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 3rd Aug 2013 at 00:30.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dodging Flybe at EHASC
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am going totally off topic here but if you are to posit an opinion Fair deal Frank, better to get your facts right. There is no parliamentary seat of Richmond and Barnes, it is called Richmond Park and strangely enough anti Heathrow opposition did play an awfully large part in the last campaign; a small reading of google may reveal this fact and hint, look at the profile of the man who is currently MP for Richmond Park.
A minority government would not be as stable, especially one which is 20 seats short. The vote on reducing the House of Commons reflected this rather clearly, as those on the Tory backbenchers who advocated a minority government found a beloved piece of legislation disappear down the gurgler by 50 votes. So it shut them up. And minority governments will have to do deals with opposition parties on legislation, so if any other parties oppose airport expansion it will be shelved. Which is the situation now.
The previous government took so long to grant permission, not because of dithering, but because there is no cast Iron case. And parliamentary opposition from politicans reflecting the views of their constituents. Democracy..innit. And come to think of it, not sure where you got single issue parties from. As non exists in the UK (even UKIP, occasionally), I am more than well aware that there are other platforms. Strangely enough, neither of the three major parties in the last GE ran on a platform of expanding Heathrow. Dont think it cost them votes either.
As for the LD comment; well if they are immature, I hate to think what the Tory backbenchers pass for. In the current coalition, all the frothing has come from one side, the whispers of leadership challenges, the mutinous backbenchers who appear on tv chuntering, the unattributed briefings...and it hasn't been from the yellow peril.
Back to planes and Heathrow, where I shall be enjoying the delights of Terminal 3 shortly. Perhaps we could also have a discussion on the merits of WrATH as well....
A minority government would not be as stable, especially one which is 20 seats short. The vote on reducing the House of Commons reflected this rather clearly, as those on the Tory backbenchers who advocated a minority government found a beloved piece of legislation disappear down the gurgler by 50 votes. So it shut them up. And minority governments will have to do deals with opposition parties on legislation, so if any other parties oppose airport expansion it will be shelved. Which is the situation now.
The previous government took so long to grant permission, not because of dithering, but because there is no cast Iron case. And parliamentary opposition from politicans reflecting the views of their constituents. Democracy..innit. And come to think of it, not sure where you got single issue parties from. As non exists in the UK (even UKIP, occasionally), I am more than well aware that there are other platforms. Strangely enough, neither of the three major parties in the last GE ran on a platform of expanding Heathrow. Dont think it cost them votes either.
As for the LD comment; well if they are immature, I hate to think what the Tory backbenchers pass for. In the current coalition, all the frothing has come from one side, the whispers of leadership challenges, the mutinous backbenchers who appear on tv chuntering, the unattributed briefings...and it hasn't been from the yellow peril.
Back to planes and Heathrow, where I shall be enjoying the delights of Terminal 3 shortly. Perhaps we could also have a discussion on the merits of WrATH as well....
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
willie walsh on heathrow
I thought his remarks as reported in the Guardian and Independent to the effect that Heathrow missed the boat some years ago and now it's all too politically sensitive came as a bit of a surprise.
Paxing All Over The World
I've said before so will say briefly:
- It's all waaaaaaaay too late to expand Heathrow.
- The time to do this was 20 years ago.
- The last set of expansion was CDG, FRA, AMS.
- The next set will ALL be in the Middle East.
- Ask BA, they know and have planned accordingly.
- THEN came the financial crash and the UK will not need anything like the capacity being touted.
- The politicians fillibustered and now the game is over.
- EGLL will never have any more runways.
- Nothing to see here, move along please.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy: -
It's all waaaaaaaay too late to expand Heathrow.
With that mentality we would all still be living in mud huts banging stones together.
The time to do this was 20 years ago.
Where is your supporting evidence for this claim? Regardless of whether true or not expansion is needed when ever anything is at full capacity and last time I checked LHR's runways are at 99.5% usage. Should Crossrail or H2 have been done 20 years ago as well? Great thing hindsight isn't it.
The last set of expansion was CDG, FRA, AMS.
And? Is that why LHR handles more international passengers than any other airport around the globe?
The next set will ALL be in the Middle East.
Sure they are going to throw the endless piles of money they have at it but it remains to be seen whether it will work. They have pretty substantial operations at the moment and LHR still remains the top dog. Anyway going on your last point (The last set of expansion was CDG, FRA, AMS) the Middle East should just roll over and surrender?
Ask BA, they know and have planned accordingly.
BA like any well run business will plan for all eventualities. If you asked WW what he wanted I think we both know what he would say.
THEN came the financial crash and the UK will not need anything like the capacity being touted.
This has effected the whole of Europe therefore everything is relative, this is a non-point.
The politicians fillibustered and now the game is over.
This is standard, and again if it had any real significance we would still be washing our clothes in a river.
EGLL will never have any more runways.
You may be right but lets hope not.
Nothing to see here, move along please.
Exactly, now run along.
It's all waaaaaaaay too late to expand Heathrow.
With that mentality we would all still be living in mud huts banging stones together.
The time to do this was 20 years ago.
Where is your supporting evidence for this claim? Regardless of whether true or not expansion is needed when ever anything is at full capacity and last time I checked LHR's runways are at 99.5% usage. Should Crossrail or H2 have been done 20 years ago as well? Great thing hindsight isn't it
.The last set of expansion was CDG, FRA, AMS.
And? Is that why LHR handles more international passengers than any other airport around the globe?
The next set will ALL be in the Middle East.
Sure they are going to throw the endless piles of money they have at it but it remains to be seen whether it will work. They have pretty substantial operations at the moment and LHR still remains the top dog. Anyway going on your last point (The last set of expansion was CDG, FRA, AMS) the Middle East should just roll over and surrender?
Ask BA, they know and have planned accordingly.
BA like any well run business will plan for all eventualities. If you asked WW what he wanted I think we both know what he would say.
THEN came the financial crash and the UK will not need anything like the capacity being touted.
This has effected the whole of Europe therefore everything is relative, this is a non-point.
The politicians fillibustered and now the game is over.
This is standard, and again if it had any real significance we would still be washing our clothes in a river.
EGLL will never have any more runways.
You may be right but lets hope not.
Nothing to see here, move along please.
Exactly, now run along.
Paxing All Over The World
Rivet Joint
It's all waaaaaaaay too late to expand Heathrow.
With that mentality we would all still be living in mud huts banging stones together.
No - someone will always push. Even when the time to push is past. That's why homo sapiens dominates the planet, even if we have not done the planet any favours in the process. So someone will keep pushing for this.
The time to do this was 20 years ago.
Where is your supporting evidence for this claim? Regardless of whether true or not expansion is needed when ever anything is at full capacity and last time I checked LHR's runways are at 99.5% usage. Should Crossrail or H2 have been done 20 years ago as well? Great thing hindsight isn't it.
Yes, Crossrail is 20 years too late but was always needed. HS2 is not needed in this form, at this time. Those are other topics.
The last set of expansion was CDG, FRA, AMS.
And? Is that why LHR handles more international passengers than any other airport around the globe?
The reason it handles so many int. pax is due to history and the good fortune to speak the same language as the Americans. Both of those factors are no longer in the ascendant.
The next set will ALL be in the Middle East.
Sure they are going to throw the endless piles of money they have at it but it remains to be seen whether it will work. They have pretty substantial operations at the moment and LHR still remains the top dog.
For the moment but the tipping point is upon us.
Anyway going on your last point (The last set of expansion was CDG, FRA, AMS) the Middle East should just roll over and surrender?
No, the M.E. has decided to take the game over and will do so. If the new LHR runways were approved today - I doubt they could arrest the decline. This is due to the shift in global power.
Ask BA, they know and have planned accordingly.
BA like any well run business will plan for all eventualities. If you asked WW what he wanted I think we both know what he would say.
Indeed but WW has said that he does not expect any more runways at LHR. I am sorry that I did not record the time and date of the interview where he said this.
THEN came the financial crash and the UK will not need anything like the capacity being touted.
This has effected the whole of Europe therefore everything is relative, this is a non-point.
Yes, it has affected the whole of Euope but that underlines why the expansion so devoutly wished for is unlikely to happen.
The politicians fillibustered and now the game is over.
This is standard, and again if it had any real significance we would still be washing our clothes in a river.
Again - No - because someone will always push it forward but the politicians (correctly) see no votes in it and the financial benefits to private companies cannot be used as persuasion. Since it needs political approval (and a lot of money) it will not happen.
EGLL will never have any more runways.
You may be right but lets hope not.
I certainly agree that EGLL needs two more runways and I would like to see them started today. But they won't get them.
Nothing to see here, move along please.
Exactly, now run along.
Play the ball little boy.
It's all waaaaaaaay too late to expand Heathrow.
With that mentality we would all still be living in mud huts banging stones together.
No - someone will always push. Even when the time to push is past. That's why homo sapiens dominates the planet, even if we have not done the planet any favours in the process. So someone will keep pushing for this.
The time to do this was 20 years ago.
Where is your supporting evidence for this claim? Regardless of whether true or not expansion is needed when ever anything is at full capacity and last time I checked LHR's runways are at 99.5% usage. Should Crossrail or H2 have been done 20 years ago as well? Great thing hindsight isn't it
.Yes, Crossrail is 20 years too late but was always needed. HS2 is not needed in this form, at this time. Those are other topics.
The last set of expansion was CDG, FRA, AMS.
And? Is that why LHR handles more international passengers than any other airport around the globe?
The reason it handles so many int. pax is due to history and the good fortune to speak the same language as the Americans. Both of those factors are no longer in the ascendant.
The next set will ALL be in the Middle East.
Sure they are going to throw the endless piles of money they have at it but it remains to be seen whether it will work. They have pretty substantial operations at the moment and LHR still remains the top dog.
For the moment but the tipping point is upon us.
Anyway going on your last point (The last set of expansion was CDG, FRA, AMS) the Middle East should just roll over and surrender?
No, the M.E. has decided to take the game over and will do so. If the new LHR runways were approved today - I doubt they could arrest the decline. This is due to the shift in global power.
Ask BA, they know and have planned accordingly.
BA like any well run business will plan for all eventualities. If you asked WW what he wanted I think we both know what he would say.
Indeed but WW has said that he does not expect any more runways at LHR. I am sorry that I did not record the time and date of the interview where he said this.
THEN came the financial crash and the UK will not need anything like the capacity being touted.
This has effected the whole of Europe therefore everything is relative, this is a non-point.
Yes, it has affected the whole of Euope but that underlines why the expansion so devoutly wished for is unlikely to happen.
The politicians fillibustered and now the game is over.
This is standard, and again if it had any real significance we would still be washing our clothes in a river.
Again - No - because someone will always push it forward but the politicians (correctly) see no votes in it and the financial benefits to private companies cannot be used as persuasion. Since it needs political approval (and a lot of money) it will not happen.
EGLL will never have any more runways.
You may be right but lets hope not.
I certainly agree that EGLL needs two more runways and I would like to see them started today. But they won't get them.
Nothing to see here, move along please.
Exactly, now run along.
Play the ball little boy.
Indeed but WW has said that he does not expect any more runways at LHR. I am sorry that I did not record the time and date of the interview where he said this.
"I was clearly disappointed that the government then cancelled the third runway. I do, however, accept that position and we are planning our business therefore on the basis that there will be no third runway at Heathrow. For the future, therefore, all of our business plans that involve British Airways are based on a two-runway London Heathrow."
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-july-2013.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the M.E. has decided to take the game over and will do so. If the new LHR runways were approved today - I doubt they could arrest the decline. This is due to the shift in global power.
When you say "decline", you mean relative lack of growth in comparison to the likes of Dubai. LHR will continue to grow, not forever but in the short to medium term it's still got growth potential. There will come a day when the bullet of a new South East runway will be bitten, in the meantime I think we need to be careful when comparing apples and dates......
If LHR had four runways it still wouldn't be competing with Dubai. Incidentally Emirates is facing massive delays on it's key waves due to airspace restrictions and a runway being out of action quite soon at Dubai. They do however have a new airport at DWC the government wants them to use. Plus ca change?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 4th Aug 2013 at 12:08.
Paxing All Over The World
DaveReidUK Thank you for the citation, exactly as I recall it, although I had heard him say this earlier in the current process.
SOE I take your points. I think the ME is going to hold some balance of power - if only due to those old charms of oil and money!
Overall, I do not see the UK resuming the high octane Boom/Bust of the past 40 years. I think the growth will be less and I think the UKs influence in world affairs will continue to fall.
SOE I take your points. I think the ME is going to hold some balance of power - if only due to those old charms of oil and money!
Overall, I do not see the UK resuming the high octane Boom/Bust of the past 40 years. I think the growth will be less and I think the UKs influence in world affairs will continue to fall.