HEATHROW
Demomonkey hit it on the head. Claiming not to build additional infrastructure is a green decision is a red herring. A well crafted, believable argument could be made for or against building the runway.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Baron buzz
Building a third runway but capping movements would allow the airport to significantly reduce both airborne and ground aircraft holding. And from an aircraft pollution point of view, would be much more environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, that plan involves thinking outside of the box which historically, governments are not very capable of.
I challenge any pro-expansion contributor on this forum to state, honestly, that they would be in favour of expansion if it were their village that were going to be destroyed or blighted.
Originally Posted by Spadhampton
I think Briton has long lost it’s competitive attraction as an international air transfer point... We actively seek Frankfurt, or, Amsterdam when ticketing our people. London is just a big pain in the rear.
Transit passengers add vitually nothing to the UK economy, but increase the number of aircraft in our skies.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runways by Major European Air Traffic Hubs:
* Heathrow: 2
* Amsterdam: 6
* Charles de Gaulle: 4
* Frankfurt: 3 (plus one in building)
* Rome: 3
* Heathrow: 2
* Amsterdam: 6
* Charles de Gaulle: 4
* Frankfurt: 3 (plus one in building)
* Rome: 3
How about figures on utilisation of those runways, and cost to private and public sectors. It is not all about the number, and I can assure you that each side can prove it any way that it wants.
Sure, infrastructure reaps long-term benefits, but it certainly suits every airline that presently operates there to have just the present 2, and it also suits every present employee to perpetuate the crowded, monopoly-characteristic of the airport.
More scandelous is the complete lack of integrated transport-thinking in every sphere in the UK.
PS - I am actually pro-expansion, but I would support more an airport away from metropolitan areas, linked to HS1, linked to ports, linked to motorways, and with ring-fenced areas outside to prevent residential development, objections and noise complaints. Tough one though, as the Thames Estuary is one of the largest bird migration sites in the world...thinking caps on...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst there may not be dire need for extra runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted today, there certainly will be in years to come. It is better to build now to be prepared for future growth, than trying to play catch up when it's too late.
It will take a decade to build! (It took 7 years or so to approve T5 through the planning processes for heavens sake).
We are already playing catch up (and have been for years).
Heathrow expansion should be a immediate approval or it should be rellocated as an early decision in this Parliament and construction commenced this year, imho.
The greens and nimby's should be told where to go.
Having had my rant, I realise that the current political situation prevents any sensible pro-business / pro UK being taken.
Time to emigrate possibly.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: london
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gobonastick..
[QUOTE]People on this site have wanted Labour out and the Tories in for ages - now they've got it. Suck it up./QUOTE]
Not sure we would have been in a better state if there was a Lib/Lab coalition. 3rd runway was one of the first things old Gordie offered up to the Libs to try and wangle a deal.
At least the Tories came out and said they would scrap OFCOM'S plans to charge users for use of Spectrum to make it more efficient (not that most aviation has a choice about using it). That was one of Mr G Browns plans from when he was in Number 11.
However i am resigned to the fact that aviation is going to be the big fat cash cow that gets milked to earn back some money for the deficit in the forseable future. I also predict within the next 12 months, a mandatory airline volcanic ash insurance that the airlines have to buy, which will be offset by an ash/acts of god surcharge charged to the passengers, much like fuel surcharge/PSC etc.
Not sure we would have been in a better state if there was a Lib/Lab coalition. 3rd runway was one of the first things old Gordie offered up to the Libs to try and wangle a deal.
At least the Tories came out and said they would scrap OFCOM'S plans to charge users for use of Spectrum to make it more efficient (not that most aviation has a choice about using it). That was one of Mr G Browns plans from when he was in Number 11.
However i am resigned to the fact that aviation is going to be the big fat cash cow that gets milked to earn back some money for the deficit in the forseable future. I also predict within the next 12 months, a mandatory airline volcanic ash insurance that the airlines have to buy, which will be offset by an ash/acts of god surcharge charged to the passengers, much like fuel surcharge/PSC etc.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London....Heathrow.....is that all that your minds can expand to..........If you contain the ideas in a box then nothing will move forward...Start thinking outside of it and a third runway is not really needed at Heathrow....
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I will be shot down in flames for this and I know one particular person will say there is no demand from the regions. However there are plenty of runways outside the south east and plenty of passengers who dont live in the south east. More direct flights from the regions maybe????
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A long-term kick in the teeth for the UK aviation industry and its suppliers, but what an opportunity for Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam and their respective nation carriers...
...er we could always use a major airport located in the middle of the UK, which already HAS 2 runways, 3 terminals.............
...er we could always use a major airport located in the middle of the UK, which already HAS 2 runways, 3 terminals.............
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally feel this is a major kick in the teeth for LHR and the UK economy as a whole, especially that of the SE.
HOWEVER, as a Northerner, I have a hunch that this can only be beneficial to MAN. In the short term it will make little if any difference, but over time as it becomes apparent that we don't have the resources to maintain London's air traffic demand (which one day will come) then airlines down south with have to look at other ways to transfer passengers and as Bagso says, there is an airport about 200m north which has 2 runways, plenty of slots and 3 terminals...
As I say, this is in the long term. It could turn out that in 5 years time we see this decision turned around if Milliband and co. can get back into the driving seat!
HOWEVER, as a Northerner, I have a hunch that this can only be beneficial to MAN. In the short term it will make little if any difference, but over time as it becomes apparent that we don't have the resources to maintain London's air traffic demand (which one day will come) then airlines down south with have to look at other ways to transfer passengers and as Bagso says, there is an airport about 200m north which has 2 runways, plenty of slots and 3 terminals...
As I say, this is in the long term. It could turn out that in 5 years time we see this decision turned around if Milliband and co. can get back into the driving seat!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rusland - In the name of progress villages have had to be destroyed in this country in the last couple of centuries. The need of water for our increasing population meant resevoirs had to be constructed and valleys with villages in flooded.
It is the price of progress.
It is the price of progress.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by trafficnotsighted
Rusland - In the name of progress villages have had to be destroyed in this country in the last couple of centuries. The need of water for our increasing population meant resevoirs had to be constructed and valleys with villages in flooded.
It is the price of progress.
It is the price of progress.
These days, we measure progress differently. It's time to stop the destruction.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may and some others may measure progress differently but not WE , i think
you'll find the majority of people still measure it according to the old values, rightly or wrongly.
(its still beautiful where i live)
you'll find the majority of people still measure it according to the old values, rightly or wrongly.
(its still beautiful where i live)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And look what it's done to our once-beautiful country.
These days, we measure progress differently. It's time to stop the destruction.
These days, we measure progress differently. It's time to stop the destruction.
Internet
Revoltionary healthcare technology
Life-saving drugs
Just three of a long list of what economic development can bring - that is real progress.
For Britain to maintain it's economic development with that of the other leading nations, a world class transport infrastructure must be in place.
London has the busiest airspace in the world, it is the city with more passengers than any other in the world, it is the leading World City for a number of reasons and for the city to have no plans for expansion of it's international transport links - from ANY OF IT'S AIRPORTS is completely unacceptable.
Or should we let our European counterparts take the traffic instead? It isn't going to reduce air travel overall - just only that within the UK, London specifically.
The UK's green efforts:
"Like turning up after a Tsunami with a dustpan and brush." (Sean Lock)
I'm all for leading the way in new ways to be green but it has to be of economical benefit.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MUFC_fan
I would argue to my deathbed why economic development is beneficial. Just look at what it can produce:
Internet
Revoltionary healthcare technology
Life-saving drugs
Internet
Revoltionary healthcare technology
Life-saving drugs
I am not against economic and scientific development. I am arguing against the wanton destruction of our planet and the polluting of its atmosphere. Thankfully, our new government appears to agree with me on this one.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by trafficnotsighted
You may and some others may measure progress differently but not WE , i think
you'll find the majority of people still measure it according to the old values
you'll find the majority of people still measure it according to the old values
Originally Posted by trafficnotsighted
(its still beautiful where i live)
But it's academic now. The third runway will not be built (for now, at least).
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am arguing against the wanton destruction of our planet and the polluting of its atmosphere. Thankfully, our new government appears to agree with us on this one.
I agree with you, we are destroying our planet but we are only one small country when it comes to consumption. Obviously the other side of the coin is our influence politically is something very different - however, the Copenhagen talks clearly showed the major polluters simply not willing to make the cuts necessary.
Until our competing nations look to make similar decisions to that of our new government, we have to continue for the sake of our economy on the international stage.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again i think you will find you are in a minority, the government will be more interested in sorting out the economic mess we are in than green issues.
You will have to accept that we just cannot save every Green sandal wearing lesbian
whale.
You will have to accept that we just cannot save every Green sandal wearing lesbian
whale.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: over the hill
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And not to mention the destruction that will be caused by the proposed high speed rail link close to some of the most unspoilt villages between London & the Midlands. Somehow I doubt that those in charge of this little project will listen to those affected. But hey, it doesn't involve aircraft so no doubt it will be waved through. Notwithstanding the hysteria surrounding emissions, etc. I'd be more prepared to accept the additional noise from aircraft movements than be within a mile of a high speed rail track. As far as I can remember the noise of a modern train ain't any different from one of 30 years ago; The noise from any modern jetliner compared with the 1-11s and 707s of the '70s is almost non existent. (I lived under the flightpath for 20 yrs or so, so I should know)
We'll all be told that it's the price of progress; well, without any disrespect to the residents surrounding LHR, as time goes on what was everybody expecting? Was it a surprise that the bl**dy great airport up the road wasn't always going to want to stay a certain size? If the immediate environs of LHR is so precious, what chance have they of getting this rail project through if there is a level playing field? Sorry, but the "villages" that surround Heathrow can't be compared with those potentially affected by the rail project above- the dreaming spires of Oxford or the cotswolds they ain't. (by the way I'm not saying so because it affects me, which it doesn't)
It's obvious that if the government of the day has a pet project then there's little most of us can do to stop it. I don't see a little community halting the building of the Olympic stadium - there was real will to push that one through. One has to hope that this next lot wake up soon. (don't hold your breath)
We'll all be told that it's the price of progress; well, without any disrespect to the residents surrounding LHR, as time goes on what was everybody expecting? Was it a surprise that the bl**dy great airport up the road wasn't always going to want to stay a certain size? If the immediate environs of LHR is so precious, what chance have they of getting this rail project through if there is a level playing field? Sorry, but the "villages" that surround Heathrow can't be compared with those potentially affected by the rail project above- the dreaming spires of Oxford or the cotswolds they ain't. (by the way I'm not saying so because it affects me, which it doesn't)
It's obvious that if the government of the day has a pet project then there's little most of us can do to stop it. I don't see a little community halting the building of the Olympic stadium - there was real will to push that one through. One has to hope that this next lot wake up soon. (don't hold your breath)