Boris v Government: South East expansion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boris v Government: South East expansion
Boris slams ‘crazy’ Government block on South East runways : Heathrow Airport News Stories
London Mayor Boris Johnson called the Government ‘crazy’ over its unwillingness to discuss new airport capacity in the south east of England. Speaking at a People’s Question Time event this week, he warned that a lack of new runways is hindering London's long term competitiveness.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doris might be better occupied in sorting out the maximising the usage of existing south-east runways in such locations as Bishops Stortford, Biggin Hill, Southend, Cambridge, Dunsfold, Farnborough, Manston etc. etc. etc. than rather, potentially, being accused of taking backhanders from the building trade for new, and, at this time, unecessary developments!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ostrich mode?
As long as the govt is determined to be in ostrich mode about the need for new runway capacity at London airports, someone needs do/say something.
Boris Island may not be the right idea, but the govt's strategy on aviation appears to be to do absolutely nothing. Assuming the Tories are in power for the next ten years and any incoming alternative is slow to take on the need for new capacity, it could well be another twenty years before this issue is addressed. What will congestion be like then?
Boris Island may not be the right idea, but the govt's strategy on aviation appears to be to do absolutely nothing. Assuming the Tories are in power for the next ten years and any incoming alternative is slow to take on the need for new capacity, it could well be another twenty years before this issue is addressed. What will congestion be like then?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
akerosid,
Congestion?
There are airports, already, in the south east that would probably pay just to have a day of congestion!
Airports such as Bournemouth, Manston, Cambridge, Southend etc.
A government needs to better manage the resources already available rather than concrete over this green and pleasant land!
Congestion?
There are airports, already, in the south east that would probably pay just to have a day of congestion!
Airports such as Bournemouth, Manston, Cambridge, Southend etc.
A government needs to better manage the resources already available rather than concrete over this green and pleasant land!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines are already voting announcing in 2011
Qatar double daily
Etihad Double Daily
Emirates 3 a day
...all Manchester !
The Qatar flight is a switch from LGW !
Manchester has the fastest growing GDP in UK and is one of the largest economic blocks in Europe.
......at last we have a rebalancing of UK airport managment putting capacity where the demand exists !
Qatar double daily
Etihad Double Daily
Emirates 3 a day
...all Manchester !
The Qatar flight is a switch from LGW !
Manchester has the fastest growing GDP in UK and is one of the largest economic blocks in Europe.
......at last we have a rebalancing of UK airport managment putting capacity where the demand exists !
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are airports, already, in the south east that would probably pay just to have a day of congestion!
Airports such as Bournemouth, Manston, Cambridge, Southend etc.
A government needs to better manage the resources already available rather than concrete over this green and pleasant land!
Airports such as Bournemouth, Manston, Cambridge, Southend etc.
A government needs to better manage the resources already available rather than concrete over this green and pleasant land!
Look at a chart and see how close, straight line distance, the London major airports are to each other. Adding huge amounts of movements to KB,LF etc will create a nightmare and will increase delays to the other airports around
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing,
I don't consider this to involve too much rocket science!
When London roads became over congested with traffic they introduced a congestion charge ... "Yes, you are welcome to London, please pay at the door".
People travel from the south west, the west and the north to fly from London airports, en-route they're travelling past other airports that are crying out for a movement or few, many of these people do not need to travel from a London (south east) airport, much of this is ignorance on the part of the travelling public and much of this is the airlines funnelling their operations into a minority of the available airports.
All these taxes the government levies on air travel, perhaps a government should announce a long term plan, perhaps to take effect in 10 years from now, whereas taxes from congested airports shall increase which, in effect, shall subsidise a lowering of taxes for travel from other airports outside of the 'London circle'. Much alike the congestion charge ... "Yes, you are welcome to London Airport, please pay at the door"!
This, alone, might send the loco's running for the hills, to the outlying airports currently crying out for even a sniff of congestion, passengers would come to realise it is cheaper to fly from a non London airport, and it would give the airlines a 10 year opportunity to not, solely, concentrate on operations at these congested airports and to offer/market etc. operations from alternative airport(s).
I don't consider this to involve too much rocket science!
When London roads became over congested with traffic they introduced a congestion charge ... "Yes, you are welcome to London, please pay at the door".
People travel from the south west, the west and the north to fly from London airports, en-route they're travelling past other airports that are crying out for a movement or few, many of these people do not need to travel from a London (south east) airport, much of this is ignorance on the part of the travelling public and much of this is the airlines funnelling their operations into a minority of the available airports.
All these taxes the government levies on air travel, perhaps a government should announce a long term plan, perhaps to take effect in 10 years from now, whereas taxes from congested airports shall increase which, in effect, shall subsidise a lowering of taxes for travel from other airports outside of the 'London circle'. Much alike the congestion charge ... "Yes, you are welcome to London Airport, please pay at the door"!
This, alone, might send the loco's running for the hills, to the outlying airports currently crying out for even a sniff of congestion, passengers would come to realise it is cheaper to fly from a non London airport, and it would give the airlines a 10 year opportunity to not, solely, concentrate on operations at these congested airports and to offer/market etc. operations from alternative airport(s).
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Runway? Not likely!
Unfortunately for London, Britain's current crop of politicians (of all hues) are in thrall to the radical beliefs of the 'Global Warming' religion. OK, I know they've now rebranded it 'Climate Change' due to Earth's highly inconvenient refusal to heat up on cue, but the point remains. The beauty of the new title is that nobody can *deny* that 'climate change' happens, because it always has and always will! They don't have to be too specific about the nature of the change any more. Less snow? That's because humankind is destroying the planet! More snow? That's because humankind is destroying the planet!
For as long as Meddlesome Psychos (MP's) and associated wannabes compete on the hustings to convince voters that their party will be "the most radical" in "tackling the threat" of climate change, don't expect any sensible aviation policy to emerge. Higher travel taxes are a very good bet, though.
The prospects for London getting a new runway are as dead as the chances of real climate science being taken seriously again in Britain. Generous research grants available for "on message" scientists only, inconvenient climate statistics brushed under the carpet. Uncooperative graphs 'adjusted' to fit the message. Awkward e.mails deleted. Access to once impartial scientific journals reserved for the chosen few. Dirty tricks to smear those who dispute the science ... call them "deniers" ... the public will associate them with "holocaust deniers". And most of all, keep putting that essential slogan out there: "The science is settled! The time for debate is over!"
Keep in mind that there is a hardcore of MP's out there who will measure their "success" in saving the planet by how much they manage to REDUCE flying to and from this country. In their minds, a customer prevented from traveling by air is one more victory in the battle to save our "doomed" world. Some of them have genuinely come to believe that the essential trace gas carbon dioxide is a deadly threat. Apparently, we must act now "to combat carbon pollution" (eh?). Don't expect any new runways anywhere in the UK until publicly-funded politically-correct science goes out of fashion. And until genuine scientific excellence regains public respect and recognition - and access to the media with their findings.
SHED.
For as long as Meddlesome Psychos (MP's) and associated wannabes compete on the hustings to convince voters that their party will be "the most radical" in "tackling the threat" of climate change, don't expect any sensible aviation policy to emerge. Higher travel taxes are a very good bet, though.
The prospects for London getting a new runway are as dead as the chances of real climate science being taken seriously again in Britain. Generous research grants available for "on message" scientists only, inconvenient climate statistics brushed under the carpet. Uncooperative graphs 'adjusted' to fit the message. Awkward e.mails deleted. Access to once impartial scientific journals reserved for the chosen few. Dirty tricks to smear those who dispute the science ... call them "deniers" ... the public will associate them with "holocaust deniers". And most of all, keep putting that essential slogan out there: "The science is settled! The time for debate is over!"
Keep in mind that there is a hardcore of MP's out there who will measure their "success" in saving the planet by how much they manage to REDUCE flying to and from this country. In their minds, a customer prevented from traveling by air is one more victory in the battle to save our "doomed" world. Some of them have genuinely come to believe that the essential trace gas carbon dioxide is a deadly threat. Apparently, we must act now "to combat carbon pollution" (eh?). Don't expect any new runways anywhere in the UK until publicly-funded politically-correct science goes out of fashion. And until genuine scientific excellence regains public respect and recognition - and access to the media with their findings.
SHED.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orpington
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggin Hill
The local press in the London Borough of Bromley are saying that 75% of the people that replied to a consolation request over the extended opening hours at Biggin Hill for the Olympics, are against the idea.
Personalty I think this a very negative attitude. People need jobs, true most of the jobs that this would create would be temporary. However it is better that local people in the Biggin Hill area, get the opportunity to get some work experience.
It will be interesting if Bromley council say no to the extended opening hours, what the government may do about it. Will national prestige override local views.
Personalty I think this a very negative attitude. People need jobs, true most of the jobs that this would create would be temporary. However it is better that local people in the Biggin Hill area, get the opportunity to get some work experience.
It will be interesting if Bromley council say no to the extended opening hours, what the government may do about it. Will national prestige override local views.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Two visits to Gatwick in the last two weeks. In both cases, the stands at the North Terminal were virtually all empty and the entire airport was closing down at 8 pm. Didn't look like a capacity problem to me.
NS
NS
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DE74
Age: 49
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SHED - brilliant post, and fully agree with you. I believe the current hype is nomore than the hype of my childhood about CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer.
Conveniently, government subsidised rail plans benefit hugely from bashing the global aviation industry.
On capacity in the SE - note that STN's traffic is on a continual decline, with some carriers switching to a no where near full LGW.
STN has bags of capacity, and with SEN opening up in South Essex, there is def no shortage of runway and gates in the SE, though I understand the point about constraints in ATC capacity.
Conveniently, government subsidised rail plans benefit hugely from bashing the global aviation industry.
On capacity in the SE - note that STN's traffic is on a continual decline, with some carriers switching to a no where near full LGW.
STN has bags of capacity, and with SEN opening up in South Essex, there is def no shortage of runway and gates in the SE, though I understand the point about constraints in ATC capacity.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Urm.
Bad example. There is a whopping great big hole in the ozone layer above Antartica. The problem is only not a whole heap worse because international action all but banned the production and use of CFCs.
Bad example. There is a whopping great big hole in the ozone layer above Antartica. The problem is only not a whole heap worse because international action all but banned the production and use of CFCs.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derby
Age: 68
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, you climate change 'deniers' are missing the real issue (as I suspect the climate change believers are too, having to battle to prove their theories instead of getting on). The oil supply is not infinite, it will effectively run out in 50 years, and within 30 years (if the politicians have got the guts) there will be severe rationing to make sure that essential users have priority.
Air travel is not an essential, and governments will realise this as the years progress. Eventually aviation fuel will be taxed, and if this is done at the same rate as the diesel for my car, jet fuel prices will rise by a factor of three and air travel will go into a steep decline (which is why I want to retire in the next 5 years, so I can get RYR to fly me all around Europe).
Therefore unless the climate change arguments stop, and the scientists on both sides are gainfully employed in developing new fuel technology, then any new runway in the SE would be a white elephant by the time it's built.
Mike
Air travel is not an essential, and governments will realise this as the years progress. Eventually aviation fuel will be taxed, and if this is done at the same rate as the diesel for my car, jet fuel prices will rise by a factor of three and air travel will go into a steep decline (which is why I want to retire in the next 5 years, so I can get RYR to fly me all around Europe).
Therefore unless the climate change arguments stop, and the scientists on both sides are gainfully employed in developing new fuel technology, then any new runway in the SE would be a white elephant by the time it's built.
Mike
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether you believe CC will definately happen or not, there is significant scientific evidence to suggest it MIGHT happen.
As governments of the world they are responsible for reducing the possible risk to their nations well being - hence we produce nuclear power plants that it would seem can all but survive intact through a 9.0 on the ricther scale earth quake - we don't just throw them up with no care about the risks invovled.
As soon as governments start worrying about these risks, even if they are not certain to happen, they clearly have to consider these risks just as they do when giving planning permission for a nuclear power plant to be built.
So, even if you don't consider CC to be certain, you cannot deny that there is a risk in continuing as we have and as such practical solutions to reducing those risks will be taken just as those nuclear power plany designers around the world design their plants for circumstances that may well never occur.
As governments of the world they are responsible for reducing the possible risk to their nations well being - hence we produce nuclear power plants that it would seem can all but survive intact through a 9.0 on the ricther scale earth quake - we don't just throw them up with no care about the risks invovled.
As soon as governments start worrying about these risks, even if they are not certain to happen, they clearly have to consider these risks just as they do when giving planning permission for a nuclear power plant to be built.
So, even if you don't consider CC to be certain, you cannot deny that there is a risk in continuing as we have and as such practical solutions to reducing those risks will be taken just as those nuclear power plany designers around the world design their plants for circumstances that may well never occur.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should one, or a number of, country(s) start taxing aviation fuel all that is likely to happen is the aircraft will carry minimum fuel to the nearest (duty free) port of call to tech stop for the cheaper fuel and/or they will be tankering fuel in to the taxed country(s).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hence it will no doubt be an EU wide deal in several years.
Given the great high speed rail network across the continent the governments are fast developing a very good transport network that can compete against flights up to several hundred kms.
Given the great high speed rail network across the continent the governments are fast developing a very good transport network that can compete against flights up to several hundred kms.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kurt,
Each airline has a fuel cost index with a 100% fuel price based on their main operating base.
In the event fuel tax became EU wide then operators of such countries as Norway, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Switzerland, Turkey, N. Africa etc. would be fuelling up to MTOW before departing their home countries, you'd find all the EU flag carriers, and others, carrying minimum fuel out of EU to stock up with the cheap stuff in such locations outside of EU and as for the long haul carriers, they'd be tech stopping for fuel en-route in and out of the EU.
Each airline has a fuel cost index with a 100% fuel price based on their main operating base.
In the event fuel tax became EU wide then operators of such countries as Norway, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Switzerland, Turkey, N. Africa etc. would be fuelling up to MTOW before departing their home countries, you'd find all the EU flag carriers, and others, carrying minimum fuel out of EU to stock up with the cheap stuff in such locations outside of EU and as for the long haul carriers, they'd be tech stopping for fuel en-route in and out of the EU.
