Heathrow Plans (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, it's easy to add a third runway to Heathrow, don't even need to bulldoze a village.
Convert Northolt into a SH terminal, extend the runway a bit and add a high speed underground passenger and baggage link to Heathrow. Link will be cheaper than a new runway, airspace is there and the runway is far enough away to allow full parallel approaches. Couple of hangars for the night stoppers and some off pier parking and Bob's yer uncle. PS, right next to the A4 so the road infrastructure is there already!
Bloody politicians, never think outside of the box
Convert Northolt into a SH terminal, extend the runway a bit and add a high speed underground passenger and baggage link to Heathrow. Link will be cheaper than a new runway, airspace is there and the runway is far enough away to allow full parallel approaches. Couple of hangars for the night stoppers and some off pier parking and Bob's yer uncle. PS, right next to the A4 so the road infrastructure is there already!
Bloody politicians, never think outside of the box
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wobble2plank
PS, right next to the A4 so the road infrastructure is there already!
The last thing we need is more capacity at Heathrow, and I will even vote Conservative if they promise in their manifesto not to allow it. After all, they're likely to be in power for 8 years or more, which will effectively push any new runway back to 2030.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo,
So we couldn't have LH approaches to 27R and SH approaches to 25 (or 27 if it was dug up and relaid)? Pray tell why not? Oddly enough I've been in and out of Northolt many, many times in a Jetstream in my past life and didn't seem to suffer from any vortex snags from LHR and the controllers were quite happy for me to blunder in on my PAR!
AN-Conf/11-IP/3
Appendix A-12
Not unfeasible in todays technological wonder world.
Ironically, as long as structures exist to stop the BAA cramming an extended Heathrow to the gills again, a third runway will benefit all airlines at LHR. The airborne holding times, burning all that nasty kerosene stuff, would be reduced, LH would have the two long runways to themselves reducing the holding times on the ground. Everyone delights in kicking Heathrow until a proposal is given to fix it, then we can give that a good kicking as well. Oh, and don't buy a house next to an airport and then moan about it, the airports have been there a bloody long time.
Quick, find the next band wagon.....
Err, no it isn't.
AN-Conf/11-IP/3
Appendix A-12
2.2.1.1 Independent parallel approaches may be conducted to parallel runways provided that:
3) where runway centre lines are spaced by 1 525 m or more, suitable surveillance
radar with a minimum azimuth accuracy of 0.3 degrees (one sigma) or better and
update period of 5 seconds or less is available;
3) where runway centre lines are spaced by 1 525 m or more, suitable surveillance
radar with a minimum azimuth accuracy of 0.3 degrees (one sigma) or better and
update period of 5 seconds or less is available;
Ironically, as long as structures exist to stop the BAA cramming an extended Heathrow to the gills again, a third runway will benefit all airlines at LHR. The airborne holding times, burning all that nasty kerosene stuff, would be reduced, LH would have the two long runways to themselves reducing the holding times on the ground. Everyone delights in kicking Heathrow until a proposal is given to fix it, then we can give that a good kicking as well. Oh, and don't buy a house next to an airport and then moan about it, the airports have been there a bloody long time.
Quick, find the next band wagon.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems the Tories would bin the 3rd runway, even if construction has already started when they get to power...
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Tories would scrap Heathrow plan
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Tories would scrap Heathrow plan
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the Telegraph seems confused on this:
Tories are right to think green on Heathrow - Telegraph
earlier:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/patrick...ainst_heathrow
Personally, I think our politicians collectively are going to screw our transport for the next 25 years, again.
Build the runway and the rail link, citing National interest. To suggest they are mutually exclusive is specious. Whilst we're at it, best we crack on with the new nuclear power generators before the lights go out.
Watching the mess the present lot have made unfold, it's all futile anyway.
This may prove helpful:
Moving Abroad With Ease at Emigration Expert (UK)
Tories are right to think green on Heathrow - Telegraph
earlier:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/patrick...ainst_heathrow
Personally, I think our politicians collectively are going to screw our transport for the next 25 years, again.
Build the runway and the rail link, citing National interest. To suggest they are mutually exclusive is specious. Whilst we're at it, best we crack on with the new nuclear power generators before the lights go out.
Watching the mess the present lot have made unfold, it's all futile anyway.
This may prove helpful:
Moving Abroad With Ease at Emigration Expert (UK)
Last edited by indie cent; 29th Sep 2008 at 13:23.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All jolly well thought out.
Trains of course do not disturb anyone.
And will be replaced by bigger noisier longhaul A/C ?
It is assumed this plan will ease LHR traffic? Dream on.
Nowt will happen for at least 8-20 years so Labour will be back and so will the third runway plan.
Trains of course do not disturb anyone.
Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said the party wanted to cut more than 66,000 flights a year at the west London airport.
Rather than building a third runway, they would install an entirely new railway line running at speeds of up to 180mph between St Pancras, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
It is hoped that the new line would encourage travellers to take the train rather than fly.
As well as reducing demand for domestic flights the Conservatives believe it would entice people to use the Eurostar, now based at St Pancras, to get to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam.
It would also allow more commuter journeys between smaller towns on the West Coast Mainline.
Miss Villiers told The Guardian: "This is a seriously green decision.
"A few years ago it would have been inconceivable for the leader of the Conservative Party to say 'no' to a third runway and putting the brakes on Heathrow expansion."
The announcement on Monday, the second day of the Tory conference in Birmingham, is designed to show that the party has not abandoned its "Vote Blue, Go Green" agenda in difficult economic times.
The Conservatives would spend £15.6 billion between 2015 and 2027, around £1.3 billion a year for 12 years, to build the new high speed rail link. A further £4.4 billion would be paid by the private sector.
Rather than building a third runway, they would install an entirely new railway line running at speeds of up to 180mph between St Pancras, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
It is hoped that the new line would encourage travellers to take the train rather than fly.
As well as reducing demand for domestic flights the Conservatives believe it would entice people to use the Eurostar, now based at St Pancras, to get to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam.
It would also allow more commuter journeys between smaller towns on the West Coast Mainline.
Miss Villiers told The Guardian: "This is a seriously green decision.
"A few years ago it would have been inconceivable for the leader of the Conservative Party to say 'no' to a third runway and putting the brakes on Heathrow expansion."
The announcement on Monday, the second day of the Tory conference in Birmingham, is designed to show that the party has not abandoned its "Vote Blue, Go Green" agenda in difficult economic times.
The Conservatives would spend £15.6 billion between 2015 and 2027, around £1.3 billion a year for 12 years, to build the new high speed rail link. A further £4.4 billion would be paid by the private sector.
And will be replaced by bigger noisier longhaul A/C ?
It is assumed this plan will ease LHR traffic? Dream on.
Nowt will happen for at least 8-20 years so Labour will be back and so will the third runway plan.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should just be honest with ourselves and recognise that no UK government is going to be in power for more than a dozen years so none of them will commit to a project which will only pay dividends after they've left office. They'll continue with a piecemeal transport policy which relies on tweaking small capacity improvements out of the inadequate existing airports, roads and rail lines rather than take the hard, unpopular but correct decision to replace whole chunks of the system. This will then all be hidden behind some green excuse whilst the reality is that cost and NIMBYism will stimy Britains progress.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM - excellent post - the Tories are just jumping on the vote-grabbing bandwagon and haven't thought it through at all. The only thing I'd add is by cutting out domestic flights you are also unfairly disadvantaging an airline like BA that relies on feed from connecting passengers.
No doubt if/when the Tories get elected they will rather rapidly back LHR's 3rd runway with the huge pressure from businesses.
This is never going to work for a myriad of reasons. The runway is far too short, Northolt is surrounded by residential areas making any form of expansion very unfeasible, it is restricted and already congested, various ATC restrictions unless runways were realigned and the whole idea of a "connecting flight" that involve changing terminals located at different airports via some rail link.
So all the people in the catchment that LHR serves are expected to go to a regional airport like MAN that has spare capacity to catch their flight? 
As for the claim that BA are the only people who want it... what?? For a start how about all the other airlines at LHR? What about the thousands of businesses across London and the M4 corridor?
I take it you have a chip on your shoulder that BA don't serve the regions as much as they used to but that's no need to bash them - they're a highly profitable and successful airline who will operate routes where they can make money. Just be glad MAN got an extra runway when it did and is not so vulnerable to the congestion that LHR is lumbered with.
What is unfair for BA is that with their main hub at LHR they are incredibly vulnerable to any delays. Example: last weekend there was fog at LHR. Not a problem at a place like CDG/AMS, plenty of runways to cope with the increased spacing needed. At LHR that meant a reduced arrivals flow which, as it always does, forced BA as the largest carrier to start cancelling flights.
This problem is entirely down to the fact that LHR's runways are used to maximum capacity and it is not going to go away until another runway is built. Meanwhile its growth has completely stagnated while airports like CDG,MAD etc are experiencing very high growth. - CDG already handles far more movements than LHR and will very probably overtake it on passenger numbers within the next two or three years.
The 3rd runway at LHR is not going to be easy, but it is far and away the only sensible, practical solution to the desperate need for more runway capacity in SE England.
I couldn't disagree with you more. The very first thing we need is more capacity at LHR, as anyone with London's economic interests in mind, any airline operating/trying to get a slot there, or anyone who has tried to fly out of there when it gets hit by fog, or high winds, or a runway gets closed, will tell you.
The figure is £13 billion.
The economic benefits of the 3rd runway (and conversely the economic disadvantages to not doing it) to London and the UK as a whole are enormous, and far outweigh the costs of building it. I've no idea how the financing would work but to suggest the government would go through all the consultations and then decide to bin it on account of not being able to afford it, is ludicrous. No doubt BAA and the government have given more than a little thought to how to finance the expansion to be campaigning so hard.
If it's really such an expensive waste of time and money, what's your solution? Leave LHR and build a super new airport in the Thames Estuary? Goodness only knows how much more time and money that would waste before getting rejected, as similar proposals have time and again before it, usually on environmental grounds.
Agreed. Governmental policy especially in an area like this depends very little on individual ministers.
No doubt if/when the Tories get elected they will rather rapidly back LHR's 3rd runway with the huge pressure from businesses.
Convert Northolt into a SH terminal
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.....
As for the claim that BA are the only people who want it... what?? For a start how about all the other airlines at LHR? What about the thousands of businesses across London and the M4 corridor?
I take it you have a chip on your shoulder that BA don't serve the regions as much as they used to but that's no need to bash them - they're a highly profitable and successful airline who will operate routes where they can make money. Just be glad MAN got an extra runway when it did and is not so vulnerable to the congestion that LHR is lumbered with.
What is unfair for BA is that with their main hub at LHR they are incredibly vulnerable to any delays. Example: last weekend there was fog at LHR. Not a problem at a place like CDG/AMS, plenty of runways to cope with the increased spacing needed. At LHR that meant a reduced arrivals flow which, as it always does, forced BA as the largest carrier to start cancelling flights.
This problem is entirely down to the fact that LHR's runways are used to maximum capacity and it is not going to go away until another runway is built. Meanwhile its growth has completely stagnated while airports like CDG,MAD etc are experiencing very high growth. - CDG already handles far more movements than LHR and will very probably overtake it on passenger numbers within the next two or three years.
The 3rd runway at LHR is not going to be easy, but it is far and away the only sensible, practical solution to the desperate need for more runway capacity in SE England.
The last thing we need is more capacity at Heathrow
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 £20 billion it will cost?...Forget the whole expensive waste of time and money.
The economic benefits of the 3rd runway (and conversely the economic disadvantages to not doing it) to London and the UK as a whole are enormous, and far outweigh the costs of building it. I've no idea how the financing would work but to suggest the government would go through all the consultations and then decide to bin it on account of not being able to afford it, is ludicrous. No doubt BAA and the government have given more than a little thought to how to finance the expansion to be campaigning so hard.
If it's really such an expensive waste of time and money, what's your solution? Leave LHR and build a super new airport in the Thames Estuary? Goodness only knows how much more time and money that would waste before getting rejected, as similar proposals have time and again before it, usually on environmental grounds.
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?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to have been missed that the Tories are proposing that HSR2 would have a spur to Heathrow, as such, it would be possible to get to the airport directly from Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does Heathrow need more runway capacity well the answer is yes of cause it does !
Do we need to utilise other airports around the country without a doubt!
Howerver these are differring issues of debate.
Regards Heathrow why are the considerations based on a reduced length runway.
The investment is needed so do it correctly build a 10,000+ feet strip and do it once ! Oh this is piecemeal Britain forgot!
Do we need to utilise other airports around the country without a doubt!
Howerver these are differring issues of debate.
Regards Heathrow why are the considerations based on a reduced length runway.
The investment is needed so do it correctly build a 10,000+ feet strip and do it once ! Oh this is piecemeal Britain forgot!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, Manchester Kurt !
I spotted that suggestion, too - and my jaw dropped.
Are the Conservative Party seriously suggesting that building a new Very High Speed Rail track from St Pancras through the house-packed suburbs of London to Heathrow will be acceptable on enviro and economic grounds to the Government, and the people of West London ?
Such a track would make a far larger impact on western London than Runway 3.
Have they ever stood within 200 yards of a VHST going at full speed ?
Or were they assuming that the VHST would trundle along existing tracks, slotting in between local commuter trains and freight services ?
Talk about leaping for a convenient bandwagon without exploring the logic, economics and environmental impact of the idea !
I spotted that suggestion, too - and my jaw dropped.
Are the Conservative Party seriously suggesting that building a new Very High Speed Rail track from St Pancras through the house-packed suburbs of London to Heathrow will be acceptable on enviro and economic grounds to the Government, and the people of West London ?
Such a track would make a far larger impact on western London than Runway 3.
Have they ever stood within 200 yards of a VHST going at full speed ?
Or were they assuming that the VHST would trundle along existing tracks, slotting in between local commuter trains and freight services ?
Talk about leaping for a convenient bandwagon without exploring the logic, economics and environmental impact of the idea !
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Third Runway Will Solve Nothing
Building a Third Runway at LHR will not ultimately solve the problem of congestion at the UK's busiest airport. When the runway is opened the new capacity will be rapidly taken up and we'll be back where we are today, with calls for a Fourth Runway.
Building another runway simply feeds the monster of the overheated South-East of England and keeps it at bay for a while. What happened to the White Paper of 1978 which identified Manchester as the second airport International Gateway for the UK? Since then most of the constraints on LHR's 2 runways and traffic distribution (bilaterals) have been abolished, and much of the long-haul which had begun to devlop at Manchester has trotted down the M6 to LHR. Hence the ludicrous situation whereby LHR has 4 daily QANTAS flights, Manchester now has none; LHR has 4 daily Cathay flights, Manchester now has none. The list of ex-Manchester flights relocated to LHR goes on - SAA, MAS, BA, AC, and more. SIAs need to fill the A380 now threatens the continuation of their Manchester service.
Airlines will always make more money at Heathrow than at MAN, simply because there are more fat cats and celebs living in the South-East than Up North. The flaw is the policy of allowing air transport strategy to be determined by the markets, which will always put capacity wherever it makes most money, propped up by the fallacy that this is 'good/essential for the UK economy'. We've seen recently what unrestrained markets have done to the financial system, and it's the taxpayer who has to rescue the system when it predictably overheats and collapses.
A third runway at LHR is a nonsense, and I for one may be persuaded to vote Tory on this issue alone. We have to move away from fanning the fire of endless desire for more economic capacity in the South-East. It will not ultimately make the UK a better place and it will just hasten the day when the cries come for yet more of the same. It's just like building more lanes on overcrowded motorways instead of finding out why everyone is driving everywhere. We must fundamentally change the way we view the role of air transport in this country, and start to look at where we have capacity (i.e. Manchester's under-used second runway), and require airlines, including BA, to serve the UK via a proper distribution of traffic. Lufthansa has proved that a successful secondary hub can be established, as at Munich. Emirates now serves 5 cities in the UK direct from Dubai. The UK does not need a bigger Heathrow!
Building another runway simply feeds the monster of the overheated South-East of England and keeps it at bay for a while. What happened to the White Paper of 1978 which identified Manchester as the second airport International Gateway for the UK? Since then most of the constraints on LHR's 2 runways and traffic distribution (bilaterals) have been abolished, and much of the long-haul which had begun to devlop at Manchester has trotted down the M6 to LHR. Hence the ludicrous situation whereby LHR has 4 daily QANTAS flights, Manchester now has none; LHR has 4 daily Cathay flights, Manchester now has none. The list of ex-Manchester flights relocated to LHR goes on - SAA, MAS, BA, AC, and more. SIAs need to fill the A380 now threatens the continuation of their Manchester service.
Airlines will always make more money at Heathrow than at MAN, simply because there are more fat cats and celebs living in the South-East than Up North. The flaw is the policy of allowing air transport strategy to be determined by the markets, which will always put capacity wherever it makes most money, propped up by the fallacy that this is 'good/essential for the UK economy'. We've seen recently what unrestrained markets have done to the financial system, and it's the taxpayer who has to rescue the system when it predictably overheats and collapses.
A third runway at LHR is a nonsense, and I for one may be persuaded to vote Tory on this issue alone. We have to move away from fanning the fire of endless desire for more economic capacity in the South-East. It will not ultimately make the UK a better place and it will just hasten the day when the cries come for yet more of the same. It's just like building more lanes on overcrowded motorways instead of finding out why everyone is driving everywhere. We must fundamentally change the way we view the role of air transport in this country, and start to look at where we have capacity (i.e. Manchester's under-used second runway), and require airlines, including BA, to serve the UK via a proper distribution of traffic. Lufthansa has proved that a successful secondary hub can be established, as at Munich. Emirates now serves 5 cities in the UK direct from Dubai. The UK does not need a bigger Heathrow!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London is the cultural capital and financial centre of the country. Deal with it. It's where the business is and where the best theatre, tourism, jobs are. I'm sorry, but I'm from Scotland and tbh social engineering doesn't work, never has. Build the runway or lose the business. Anything else is just frankly blah.
Manchester is great, but tellingly no one came to fill the gap left by BA. The same in Birmingham. The economy is GLOBAL. On one level it sounds comic that you want the economy to come to you in this day and age. You have to go where the jobs and opportunity are, not vice versa. Politicians can mitigate and attract foreign investment, many do this well and pockets of prosperity spring up across the UK. However, there is always a core and a focus and that needs more runway capacity.
Sounds harsh and I have no axe to grind, not being a soft southerner. It's a wierd country is the UK.
Manchester is great, but tellingly no one came to fill the gap left by BA. The same in Birmingham. The economy is GLOBAL. On one level it sounds comic that you want the economy to come to you in this day and age. You have to go where the jobs and opportunity are, not vice versa. Politicians can mitigate and attract foreign investment, many do this well and pockets of prosperity spring up across the UK. However, there is always a core and a focus and that needs more runway capacity.
Sounds harsh and I have no axe to grind, not being a soft southerner. It's a wierd country is the UK.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 29th Sep 2008 at 18:14.
Maybe 50% of the UK resident population find Manchester more convenient than London but the percentage is diminishing every year as the South-East population increases and that in the North decreases.
However the number of overseas air trips generated per head in the South East is at least double that in the North, and the number of premium class trips generated per head in the South East is maybe 5 times or more that in the North, unless you have to give the premium tickets away to fill the seats. As carriers like Continental or Delta will tell you.
Furthermore that is only outgoing passengers. For inbound from overseas the number who want London, not Manchester is up at 80% plus of the total. You don't find this in some other countries (eg Germany) where demand is spread, but do find it in say Russia, where 90% of overseas demand is to/from Moscow.
Facts of life. Get used to them. Unlike the old Soviet Union we don't have central planners telling the airlines where to go in accordance with political posturing, we leave it to the travellers to decide where they want to go. And they have decided.
However the number of overseas air trips generated per head in the South East is at least double that in the North, and the number of premium class trips generated per head in the South East is maybe 5 times or more that in the North, unless you have to give the premium tickets away to fill the seats. As carriers like Continental or Delta will tell you.
Furthermore that is only outgoing passengers. For inbound from overseas the number who want London, not Manchester is up at 80% plus of the total. You don't find this in some other countries (eg Germany) where demand is spread, but do find it in say Russia, where 90% of overseas demand is to/from Moscow.
Facts of life. Get used to them. Unlike the old Soviet Union we don't have central planners telling the airlines where to go in accordance with political posturing, we leave it to the travellers to decide where they want to go. And they have decided.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile its growth has completely stagnated while airports like CDG,MAD etc are experiencing very high growth. - CDG already handles far more movements than LHR and will very probably overtake it on passenger numbers within the next two or three years.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway 3 @ £13, is it £20Bn. who knows...but this Tory position is worthy of discussion, where Boris' impetuous revival of Maplin-in-the-mud is not. The whole country would benefit from rail (and/or road) enhancement to bring Brum/Leeds/Man closer to London. LHR would benefit from bug-smasher 50-seat slots becoming heavy movements. If regional transit then appeared likely to migrate even more then now to SPL, then more DL, CO, even BA 757/767 LH schedules would emerge at EDI/GLA/MAN/BHX.
Wholly separate issues, please: 1: should Air Anyone offer more LH services from UK regional ports. Well, profit lures. Many have tried, most have retired hurt.
2. Will nice private risk-takers sink £NBn. into another piste at LHR (even if we taxpayers lay it down, we must charge well, to recover across 30 years' usage). Well, only if they see payoff.
Right now punters are migrating to CDG/FRA/SPL because the total LHR experience is abysmal...inc. being stuck on M4 or herded on the Piccadilly Line. Attend to that before compounding the problem by moving from 60Mn towards 100Mn. pax p.a.
Wholly separate issues, please: 1: should Air Anyone offer more LH services from UK regional ports. Well, profit lures. Many have tried, most have retired hurt.
2. Will nice private risk-takers sink £NBn. into another piste at LHR (even if we taxpayers lay it down, we must charge well, to recover across 30 years' usage). Well, only if they see payoff.
Right now punters are migrating to CDG/FRA/SPL because the total LHR experience is abysmal...inc. being stuck on M4 or herded on the Piccadilly Line. Attend to that before compounding the problem by moving from 60Mn towards 100Mn. pax p.a.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant understand the comparison to CDG as a better airport. Its terminals are horrendously overcrowded and just horrible - far worse than LHRs have ever been. Its land side terminal links are abysmal ( a strike ridden irregular bus service). Access via motorway near impossible during rush hours, a train link that you take your life in your hands if used late at night given its route and where it stops. And finally you get to deal with local customer relations on a regular basis. Give me LHR anytime.