New Thames Airport for London

[Skipness One Echo]

Murad Qureshi is obviously not bright enough to understand that if you close one airport down, and build a replacement elsewhere, you are not actually destroying any jobs.

Silverstrata your wish to be seen as "direct" is ahead of good judgement again. Someone with a low paid job working in West London will be in no position to move, given the many thousands of jobs involved, many would be in effect, lost. The fact that someone elae comes along and works for minimum wage in East London is no help to the population of West London C2s, Ds and Es.Quite simply, the Asian people who worked for decades at LHR from nearby Hounslow and Southall are not going to be in any position to be popping off to Fantasy Island some fifty miles away.

There will be mass redundancies if LHR closes and there is no business case for a new airport if LHR remains.

[Bagso]

The STANSTED OPTION O.M.G

Correct me if I'm wrong but expanding Stansted was supposed to be the answer to capacity in the South East 15 years ago.

NOT ONE airline has moved from LHR to STN in all that time !

Had the lo cost boom not occurred its is a glaring fact that the place would be empty, it only became an attraction when it was cross subsidised under BAA ownership, ironically by LHR.

...as soon as the subsidies stopped , the landing fees went up and the routes have since dropped away !

[Dannyboy39]

Something has to fundamentally change at Stansted anyway, because the airport is haemorrhaging airlines and routes. They've recently lost their last long haul route.

Its probably the least progressive airport in London at the moment. Is it really deserving of a new runway considering there is a vast amount of capacity not utilised at the moment.

[compton3bravo]

It just goes to show that most politicians - especially Boris Johnson - do not have a clue about aviation and how it works. I know he is playing politics - he wants to be leader of the Tory Party and subsequently Prime Minister of the UK heaven forbid - get more sense out of Orville - YES I CAN!

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal:

Come on Silver, you can do better than that: of course 100,000 (on- airport) jobs plus many more in related and ancilliary industries would be lost and the area blighted. Surprisingly perhaps, it actually does mean jobs destroyed. The fact that similar jobs may or may not be created elsewhere is not the point.

C'mon Frankie - are you in the aviation industry or not? Have you never heard of 'changing base'? Jeesss, if I had refused to change base, I would have been unemployed for the last 25 years.

Nobody is losing their jobs, they are just 'changing base' - standard industry practice, just ask O'Leary.

Skippy:

Come on Silver, you can do better than that: of course 100,000 (on- airport) jobs plus many more in related and ancilliary industries would be lost and the area blighted. Surprisingly perhaps, it actually does mean jobs destroyed. The fact that similar jobs may or may not be created elsewhere is not the point.

C'mon Skip, if a stewardess can afford to change base to the other end of the country, I am sure the baggage-loaders and refuellers (who used to earn more than me when I was an f/o) can likewise change base. And we did this at our own expence, unlike I imagine the base-change to Silver-Boris will be organised.

What you mean is that we have 150,000 'government employees' who think that have a right to a job and a base for life. Sorry, Skip, aviation is not like that. I could be unemployed and sitting on my bum in the UK right now, but like hundreds of other European pilots I have 'got on my Cessna' and changed my base (yet again).

Bagso:

NOT ONE airline has moved from LHR to STN in all that time !

Precisely.

Our politicians need to be told loud and clear that they haven't got a f*@ing clue about aviation, nor the service it provides for both London in particular and the nation in general. Expanding Stanstead will have naff-all effect on LHR's overcrowding, and naff-all effect on improving UK trade or the UK economy.

Unless they were proposing to build 6 new runways and three new terminals at Stanstead, of course, plus closing LHR. But I don't think that is what they had in mind.

Compton:

It just goes to show that most politicians - especially Boris Johnson - do not have a clue about aviation and how it works.

Possibly. But he may also be 'politicking', in proposing something unworkable in order to get something more useful. We shall see later if he is deviously artful, or terminally stupid.

Compton:

let me tell you something sunshine it was far better organised than some ´´western´´ countries

And let me tell you something, pratt-arse. Having spent a lot of time there myself, it was the most chaotic, dirty, disorganized, divided, poverty-stricken, class-ridden, racist and corrupt place I have ever visited - and I have been to a lot of places, my friend. I know your type, liberal dreamers who will tell any lie, to back up your narrow-minded point of view.

You are the same as our educationalists, who said we did not need excellence or competition in schools. Our economists who said we did not need any industry, and could rely on banking. Our industrialists, who said it would be ok to sell all our industry to overseas investors (to make a fast buck themselves). Our climatologist who still say the world is warming, when it has not warmed for 15 years. Our sociologists, who said all cultures were superior to ours. etc: etc:

Liberal dreamers whose views are as welcome as turd in a decanter.

Gonzo:

how expensive will property be to buy? And how much less will their current homes be worth due to the coming economic black hole?

Last time I looked, the estuary was the cheapest place in the southeast. And you seem to forget that the LHR site will become the southeasts largest business and technology park - the silicon airport. I would expect property values to rise there.

Besides, the nation cannot be held to ransom, simply because a few pampered employees say they might lose some money. Did anyone compensate me for any of my enforced base-changes? Why should LHR employees be any different?



.

[compton3bravo]

SILVERSTRATA - I have just recently been to the country where you say they transport rail passengers on the roof and let me tell you something sunshine it was far better organised than some ´´western´´ countries I have been too plus the staff were great. The airports and airlines were pretty good too. Just noticed you seem to reside in one of old colonies so how on earth would you know anything about running railways!

[Gonzo]

Not sure a Ryanair 'base change' can be compared to more than 100,000 people moving into a relatively rural part of the country. Where will they all live? And because of demand, how expensive will property be to buy? And how much less will their current homes be worth due to the coming economic black hole?

[Skipness One Echo]

What you mean is that we have 150,000 'government employees' who think that have a right to a job and a base for life. Sorry, Skip, aviation is not like that. I could be unemployed and sitting on my bum in the UK right now, but like hundreds of other European pilots I have 'got on my Cessna' and changed my base (yet again).

They're not government employees, they're on a basic wage with Servisair, Menzies, Plane Handling, Cobalt and BAA. All of whom are in a race to the bottom on term and conditions, much faster than flight deck. I think you're quite far out of the loop on what's going on here in the UK. It is financially unlikely that these people will be in any position to uproot with their families.

[Gonzo]

silverstrata,

Last time I looked, the estuary was the cheapest place in the southeast.

So you don't think that building the largest airport this side of the Middle East which will require over 100,000 employees (and that's only direct employees!), and thus the demand for property, won't push house prices up?

No?

Really?

And you seem to forget that the LHR site will become the southeasts largest business and technology park - the silicon airport. I would expect property values to rise there.

You take away the main transport hub of the UK, and you expect companies will flock to move in?

Please give us one good reason.

Especially given that all the commercial enterprises that depend on LHR will have to relocate too, there will be acres and acres of empty offices and warehouses in LHR area without building more!

[Fairdealfrank]

Ha ha, this is getting quite funny as there isn't a cat's chance in hell of an airport being built in the Thames estuary, at least in our lifetimes.

PS STN isn't getting a second rwy either.

[compton3bravo]

SILVERSTRATA - I say old boy there´s no need to use that sort of language, if you cannot have a discussion without resorting to crude discriptions forget it. I do hope you were not describing where you live when you talking about racist, rat infested, etc surely not!
Also you are so far off the mark regarding my political views etc but that is not for this forum.
Just a quick note how to spell STANSTED not Stanstead. Have a great day I know I will!

[silverstrata]

Gonzo:

So you don't think that building the largest airport this side of the Middle East which will require over 100,000 employees (and that's only direct employees!), and thus the demand for property, won't push house prices up?

Of course it will, but it will be the only employer in the region. Plus the estuary will never be Windsor, no matter how hard it tries, so it will always be cheaper.

As to the old LHR, I think you underestimate its position for attracting business. It is on the Thames corridor; next to Windsor and the leafy Home Counties; good motorway routes; direct line to Paddington; Cross-rail link direct to central London and the Silver-Boris airport - and no aircraft noise.

Got to be a winner, I would say. Companies would be mad not to move there.

Skip:

It is financially unlikely that these people will be in any position to uproot with their families.

You are jumping on the 'hard done by, cannot help themselves' bandwagon, promoted by the likes of the Lib Dems and the BBC. Anyone can move, even if it means walking there and finding one room in a shared house, you can move. And before you ask, been there, done that. And before you say these days are different, most of our cabin staff still do the same.

I am not endorsing the 'race to the bottom' of course. But that was the predictable result of New Labour allowing in a flood of cheap immigrants. New Labour deliberately betrayed their own voters, the blue-collar worker, by deliberately undercutting their wages with immigrants who would happily work for £2 and hour or less. If the working man and woman in Britain was too stupid to work this out for themselves, and continued to vote Labour as millions did, well sorry, I cannot help them. They made their cheap immigrant-labour bed, and they can sleep in it - shared houses and shared beds and all.

Again, we cannot shackle the entire UK economy with a non-fuctioning transport system, just because someone says they cannot move house. Tough. They should have voted for a party that liked this nation and its workers.


.

[Skipness One Echo]

LOL!!! I did actually laugh. The businesses are there BECAUSE of the airport, that you want to shut. It would be nowhere as desirable should it cease to be plugged directly into the world economy. Those companies aren't in Reading for the ambience and night life. Good heavens.

[jabird]

Ideally LHR needs 2 possibly 3 more runways to keep pace with demand over the longer term.

No we're just proposing the same fantasy, just on the existing airport site.

We are just about moving into a political environment where a 3rd runway at LHR may be on the agenda once more. That is it - forget about 4 and 5, just as we should also forget about fantasy island.

I appreciate its absurd but but the ideal situation is actually to close LGW and STN , build the 2 extra runways at LHR (WHICH is after all where people really want to go), and then give those slots to LHR.

Why should we be closing airports which do well out of loco and holiday traffic? These airlines don't want to be at LHR, and LHR doesn't want them. Leave them as they are.

As a local, and under the flightpath, quite agree with that! Have to say that house prices in my area do not reflect any disadvantages for being under a flightpath. People effectively pay a premium to live under an LHR flightpath. That says it all!

Not quite. The premium is due to being close to the airport, the blight is being under the flightpath.

They are not the same thing - you can be very close to the airport and hear next to nothing. Other regional airports employ NPR to keep aircraft away from more sensitive built up areas. That option just doesn't exist to the east of LHR because it is all built up.

NOT ONE airline has moved from LHR to STN in all that time !

No-one has moved, but AA and TK have opened routes in the past, have they not? Cyprus there until September?

So why do they dip their toe in the water and then go, EVEN if STN must offer PSCs around half of LHR?

No connecting traffic, pure and simple. Oh, and STN is well out the way in deepest Essex - just like Fantasy Island will be out of the way too.

Except of course - Fantasy Island WILL have connecting traffic, won't it? As EVERYONE is going to move from LHR - aren't they?

Or is Fantasy Island going to be the competing hub mentioned above now? If you want a competing hub, handling - say 50m pa against 90m at LHR, fine, you can have it. Would just be a great deal cheaper to do that at LGW.

[silverstrata]

Skip:

Those companies aren't in Reading for the ambience and night life. Good heavens.

Oh, yes they are.

It looks like you have been imbued with this 'race to the bottom' in the jobs market for too long.

When I started out, the prospectus (yes, companies would try to attract people with a glossy brochure) was all about the locality. The marvelous housing, villages, tourist attractions, pubs, shopping facilities, the great outdoors - all the comforts of life.

At the back of the prospectus, it might add that the company made widgets for the aerospace industry. That, was life, work, and a career, before the self-destructive unions and then New Labour immigration destroyed it all. (edited to add - Thatcher's open-borders trade policy did not help. A British worker cannot compete with a Chinaman working at 10p an hour for 100 hours a week.)

In the high tech jobs market, a glimmer of that old and more genteel world still survives. But only just, because it is about to be killed by the continuing open market with China.


.

[jabird]

In the high tech jobs market, a glimmer of that old and more genteel world still survives. But only just, because it is about to be killed by the continuing open market with China.

Silver, you can't have it both ways.

Either you want the wonderful free markets which will deliver you the £50bn investment you will need for your new airport, and all the trade that comes with it.

Or you want protectionism, trade union bullies and the 3 day week. You need this to close Heathrow.

Which one is it?

[Fairdealfrank]

　
　
Quote: “As to the old LHR, I think you underestimate its position for attracting business. It is on the Thames corridor; next to Windsor and the leafy Home Counties; good motorway routes; direct line to Paddington; Cross-rail link direct to central London and the Silver-Boris airport - and no aircraft noise.”

Good site for an airport!

Quote: “New Labour deliberately betrayed their own voters, the blue-collar worker, by deliberately undercutting their wages with immigrants who would happily work for £2 and hour or less. If the working man and woman in Britain was too stupid to work this out for themselves, and continued to vote Labour as millions did, well sorry, I cannot help them. They made their cheap immigrant-labour bed, and they can sleep in it - shared houses and shared beds and all.”

Silverstrata, you betray an ignorance of the modern party political system. Look at their record over 13 years, clearly New Labour is the party of the metropolitan elite, the “chattering classes” of Hampstead and Islington and a few token armchair “Gucci socialists”, no more no less. In no way do they represent the “blue-collar worker” as you naively suggest.
Whether Miliband will change this or not is another matter.

Quote: "No-one has moved, but AA and TK have opened routes in the past, have they not? Cyprus there until September?"

Correct, they were in addition to those at LHR, not a move from LHR to STN.

They're not there now!








　
　

[Skipness One Echo]

Silver, just for the sake of credibility, have you ever been to Reading, Slough or thereabouts? You are being serious????

[silverstrata]

Jabird:


Either you want the wonderful free markets which will deliver you the £50bn investment you will need for your new airport, and all the trade that comes with it.

That is not 'inward investment', that is 'selling the family silver'.

I have campaigned agains selling the UK's assets for 30 years, and I have been proven right, for we are now bankrupt and there is nothing left to sell. All the businesses, all the major real-estate and all of our utilities are now foreign owned, and all the profits go back to foreign nations.

This simply makes the modern Briton slaves to the rest of the world, who cream off our profits; instead of the Victorian era where we were masters of the world. The Chinese, who decided to produce instead of selling their assets, have gone from abject slaves to masters of the world in just 20 years.


So, to answer your question - we should use the £300 bn of newly printed money the government has just announced, and use it to build assets and infrastructure, instead of giving it to the banks, who will scatter it to the four winds.

Banks are parasitic - they produce nothing. Thus the government's present policy is like rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic - it may look productive, but it is ultimately useless. Instead, we need to plug the hole in the sinking ship. That means new investment in industry, new investment in technology, and new investment in infrastructure - including the Silver-Boris airport. And with £300 bn to play with, that is easily done from our own resources.



.

[silverstrata]

Frank:

Good site for an airport!

Yes, except that it is too small; it cannot expand; none of the inter-city or inter-European trains go there; and it is disastrously arranged so that all aircraft fly over the capital.

Frank:

Silverstrata, you betray an ignorance of the modern party political system. Look at their record over 13 years, clearly New Labour is the party of the metropolitan elite, the “chattering classes” of Hampstead and Islington and a few token armchair “Gucci socialists”, no more no less. In no way do they represent the “blue-collar worker” as you naively suggest.

You failed to see my point. Yes, New Labour became the daaarrrling of the hopelessly out of touch chattering classes, who needed a pet-political party to implement their dreamland policies, but it was not the chattering classes who kept Blair and co in power.

The 'liberal intelligentsia' ** represent 0.005% of the voting public. Thus New Labour was kept in power by blue collar workers, who were too thick to understand that Blair was selling them down the river by flooding the country with cheap workers who would undercut every working man in the nation.

Note that is was not the jobs of the 'intelligentsia' that were threatened through rampant immigration. It was not the politicians, senior civil servants, senior social workers, headmasters, BBC reporters, Guardian editors or any of the many other hand-wringling liberals who supported immigration, who's jobs were on the line. No, it was the plumbers, brickies, cleaners, porters, factory workers, shop assistants, drivers, and hospitality workers who lost their jobs or took savage pay cuts.

And you did not see the liberal 'intelligentsia' or the BBC mentioning the 'savage cuts' to blue-collar salaries once. But now the cuts are biting into once sacrosanct BBC and civil service jobs, you hear 'savage cuts' every two minutes on the BBC. The BBC is the ultimate government-funded pressure group, whose clientele are anyone and everyone who has never done a day's work in their life...



** an oxymoron if ever their was one.




.