Heathrow Plans (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Economics have changed quite dramatically in the last 18 months
BAA certainly couldnt afford it, Government borrowing is out of control, PFI is discredited. Some major expenditure cuts are going to be needed and when someone gets up and says - 'We cant be shutting hospitals to build a runway' go figure what might happen.
BAA certainly couldnt afford it, Government borrowing is out of control, PFI is discredited. Some major expenditure cuts are going to be needed and when someone gets up and says - 'We cant be shutting hospitals to build a runway' go figure what might happen.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knocking down 700+ houses in a Labour constituency is also not going to be very popular in the current political climate. I have a hunch that Ruth Kellys resignation today as transport minister is in some way conected??
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fife.UK.married,2 kids
Age: 75
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about; sell Gatwick, invest the proceeds into 3rd runway, oppose planning for 2nd runway at Gatwick and so outcompete the competition the politicians seem so keen on?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tainboe
Good heavens! It's only taken them about 20 years to do the right thing then. Allow another 10 years for planning enquiries, and we might even double the T5 gestation period.
Meanwhile, traffic will be moving to the vastly better non-BAA airports across the channel. Too little, too late.
Meanwhile, traffic will be moving to the vastly better non-BAA airports across the channel. Too little, too late.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would it be such a bad thing for traffic to move across the channel? Let Schiphol and Frankfurt deal with the noise and pollution;
I have a hunch that Ruth Kellys resignation today as transport minister is in some way conected??
How about; sell Gatwick, invest the proceeds into 3rd runway, oppose planning for 2nd runway at Gatwick and so outcompete the competition the politicians seem so keen on?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bucks, England
Age: 56
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would it be such a bad thing for traffic to move across the channel? Let Schiphol and Frankfurt deal with the noise and pollution; the last thing we in London need is yet more countryside disappearing beneath tonnes of concrete and tarmac. It's time to move the focus onto the quality of our airports, not the size.
Hell ye lets get rid of Heathrows 72000 direct jobs and over 100000 more jobs in it's ancillary industries.28 International companies have there head quarters here in London, all require an international hub, 2007 stock exchange turnover was $9.14 Trillion, it's nearest European competitor was Frankfurt whose turnover was $3.64 Trillion. I haven't even gone into the freight figures. Whether you like it or not if we were to scale down Heathrow and chase the competition to Europe we would suffer economically.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Live at LGW & Work in LHR .... Doh!
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with you Diedtrying.
At the same time, let's get the boys at McAlpine to run the 3rd runway right next to the M4, make a link road that I can then drive down taking me into my new office under Europier . . . . .
At the same time, let's get the boys at McAlpine to run the 3rd runway right next to the M4, make a link road that I can then drive down taking me into my new office under Europier . . . . .
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR27C, as you are obviously advocating a centre rinway at LHR, the answer to your question is, Yes.
It is purely political. The money is not there and nor will it be in the forseeable future. Just where do you think they will raise the Ł20 billion it will cost?
Would you lend money to Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling or Ferrovial and hope to get it back in the next ten years?
No, I thought not.
Forget the whole expensive waste of time and money.
It is purely political. The money is not there and nor will it be in the forseeable future. Just where do you think they will raise the Ł20 billion it will cost?
Would you lend money to Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling or Ferrovial and hope to get it back in the next ten years?
No, I thought not.
Forget the whole expensive waste of time and money.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although, it's my understanding that the contractual agreement that West Sussex/Mid Sussex District Councils hold with Gatwick regarding no development of a second runway there is with BAA - and would therefore be null and void in the event of a sale,
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Quote:
I have a hunch that Ruth Kellys resignation today as transport minister is in some way conected??
I had not made that connection until I read that. Potentially an excellent point, but I doubt we'll ever know..."
Speculation in press is that she wanted to go as far back as May. The above article is highly speculative too, but for once might I suggest that this link isn't that strong?
manintheback,
Wasn't this agreement in the form of a pre-cursor to a Section 106 agreement, in which case it relates to the approval for the North Terminal, and is therefore applicable to whoever owns the airport. There was a big fuss over this deal with the 2003 White Paper, but afaik, current government policy still favours runways @ LHR & STN, not LGW. Of course, Parliament can change that, but I don't see either the current lot or the next lot doing so.
I have a hunch that Ruth Kellys resignation today as transport minister is in some way conected??
I had not made that connection until I read that. Potentially an excellent point, but I doubt we'll ever know..."
Speculation in press is that she wanted to go as far back as May. The above article is highly speculative too, but for once might I suggest that this link isn't that strong?
manintheback,
Wasn't this agreement in the form of a pre-cursor to a Section 106 agreement, in which case it relates to the approval for the North Terminal, and is therefore applicable to whoever owns the airport. There was a big fuss over this deal with the 2003 White Paper, but afaik, current government policy still favours runways @ LHR & STN, not LGW. Of course, Parliament can change that, but I don't see either the current lot or the next lot doing so.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nebpor... Dear oh dear...
What really is your point. Ok, you might have JUST managed to aquire a GOLD Card from Birdseed Airways (via the company paying for it...), but come on, ONE AIRPORT, fully serviced and catering for the Central Belt of Scotland... IT ISNT A BAD IDEA.
Its 'people' like you, who are pigeon-holed in thinking what we have currently will suffice for ever and a day...
ONE, yes... ONE single airport with International status - For Scotland.
YES - There would need to be massive investment all round with excellent transport links - local authorities as well as the Scottish Govt and possibly private investors would need to dig deep, but without investment, Scotland will and IS falling behind.
MAN has a second runway. Do you really think Scotland is currently competing - I think NOT. We cant. We dont have the facilities at any of our 3!!! airports in the central belt..........................
Having said my piece yet again, a single airport will never happen. My point is that it wouldnt be such a bad idea if it did happen...
Nebpor, chill and just TRY to take on my point... I do take yours...
What really is your point. Ok, you might have JUST managed to aquire a GOLD Card from Birdseed Airways (via the company paying for it...), but come on, ONE AIRPORT, fully serviced and catering for the Central Belt of Scotland... IT ISNT A BAD IDEA.
Its 'people' like you, who are pigeon-holed in thinking what we have currently will suffice for ever and a day...
ONE, yes... ONE single airport with International status - For Scotland.
YES - There would need to be massive investment all round with excellent transport links - local authorities as well as the Scottish Govt and possibly private investors would need to dig deep, but without investment, Scotland will and IS falling behind.
MAN has a second runway. Do you really think Scotland is currently competing - I think NOT. We cant. We dont have the facilities at any of our 3!!! airports in the central belt..........................
Having said my piece yet again, a single airport will never happen. My point is that it wouldnt be such a bad idea if it did happen...
Nebpor, chill and just TRY to take on my point... I do take yours...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad you have a sense of humour as well - it didn't come out in your previous reply to me 
I totally take on board what having a single airport could offer in terms of international links etc .... but I still maintain that the actual buggery of just GETTING there would prove extremely difficult to a significant proportion of the passengers - we are "blessed" with a crappy little transport corridor up here ... I mean who the hell needs a satnav in dear old Ecosse? There's only ever one route anywhere and it's busted at the seams virtually constantly
Anyway, tis the joy of Internet arguments ... plus the investment you're talking about seems, sadly, fanciful in this day and age - we can barely get property developers to spend a penny outside of Edinburgh (unlike with Manchester for example, where cash pours into the area), never mind spend the amount of infrastructure that would be required....
Take it easy
I totally take on board what having a single airport could offer in terms of international links etc .... but I still maintain that the actual buggery of just GETTING there would prove extremely difficult to a significant proportion of the passengers - we are "blessed" with a crappy little transport corridor up here ... I mean who the hell needs a satnav in dear old Ecosse? There's only ever one route anywhere and it's busted at the seams virtually constantly
Anyway, tis the joy of Internet arguments ... plus the investment you're talking about seems, sadly, fanciful in this day and age - we can barely get property developers to spend a penny outside of Edinburgh (unlike with Manchester for example, where cash pours into the area), never mind spend the amount of infrastructure that would be required....
Take it easy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tories would scrap plans for third runway at Heathrow...
Conservative Party transport speaker doesn't appear to have a clue.
Firstly any new rail line the length of the country, starting to design it today, is on past form going to take 20-30 years to realise whereas the gross congestion at Heathrow is now.
Secondly there will be extreme opposition to it in all the areas it will pass through - which are by and large good Conservative-voting areas. So the Conservatives will never, ever approve it.
Thirdly the markets served by a rail service from Central London to Central Manchester, and an air service from Heathrow to Ringway, are quite different.
a) Many of the passengers are connecting at Heathrow and would certainly not welcome being forced to take the HEx to Paddington, then somehow get with all their bags to St Pancras, then go to Manchester.
b) Those who are not connecting are by and large those for whom the air service is more convenient than the train. If you live in the Thames Valley for example. Just try and take the train from there to Manchester for the day if you live there.
c) Other transport issues have already impacted on the rail service from London to Birmingham and Manchester. These have for a long time stopped at Watford Junction to pick up passengers from the Home Counties but the railway has noticed such a reduction in demand that they have reduced Watford stops significantly. A main part of this was attributed to gross peak hour congestion on the M25 for those driving from home, which has led to such unrelability of journey times that passengers were consistently missing trains, and have abandoned the train for road/air alternatives.
Fourthly the domestic flights at Heathrow are not the principal source of congestion there, they have been reduced substantially over the years, and the operators would doubtless like to get rid of them as unprofitable were it not for their direct feeder to Heathrow function. The demand at Heathrow is for international flights; look how the day they were permitted to do so all the US carriers walked out of Gatwick and across to Heathrow. Also demonstrated, inevitably, by the BBC TV footage this morning, which used as its main backdrop a Turkish Airlines 737 landing (doubtless after 20 minutes round the stack at Biggin). Quite how the new train route will handle passengers from Istanbul was not explained.
Firstly any new rail line the length of the country, starting to design it today, is on past form going to take 20-30 years to realise whereas the gross congestion at Heathrow is now.
Secondly there will be extreme opposition to it in all the areas it will pass through - which are by and large good Conservative-voting areas. So the Conservatives will never, ever approve it.
Thirdly the markets served by a rail service from Central London to Central Manchester, and an air service from Heathrow to Ringway, are quite different.
a) Many of the passengers are connecting at Heathrow and would certainly not welcome being forced to take the HEx to Paddington, then somehow get with all their bags to St Pancras, then go to Manchester.
b) Those who are not connecting are by and large those for whom the air service is more convenient than the train. If you live in the Thames Valley for example. Just try and take the train from there to Manchester for the day if you live there.
c) Other transport issues have already impacted on the rail service from London to Birmingham and Manchester. These have for a long time stopped at Watford Junction to pick up passengers from the Home Counties but the railway has noticed such a reduction in demand that they have reduced Watford stops significantly. A main part of this was attributed to gross peak hour congestion on the M25 for those driving from home, which has led to such unrelability of journey times that passengers were consistently missing trains, and have abandoned the train for road/air alternatives.
Fourthly the domestic flights at Heathrow are not the principal source of congestion there, they have been reduced substantially over the years, and the operators would doubtless like to get rid of them as unprofitable were it not for their direct feeder to Heathrow function. The demand at Heathrow is for international flights; look how the day they were permitted to do so all the US carriers walked out of Gatwick and across to Heathrow. Also demonstrated, inevitably, by the BBC TV footage this morning, which used as its main backdrop a Turkish Airlines 737 landing (doubtless after 20 minutes round the stack at Biggin). Quite how the new train route will handle passengers from Istanbul was not explained.
Last edited by WHBM; 29th Sep 2008 at 14:53. Reason: Typos
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is surplus capacity at all regional airports and adding a third runway to heathrow amd assuming all North of Watford will connect by train to Euston then accross to Paddington ......yeah right...
The simple fact is that London Airways aka British Airways want this but the Nation doesn't.....Witness the growth of many other airlines that don't operate there.....
The simple fact is that London Airways aka British Airways want this but the Nation doesn't.....Witness the growth of many other airlines that don't operate there.....