New Thames Airport for London
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank:
Dear oh dear, you appear to be allowing your hatred of Blair cloud your judgement.
Malta: 3,424 people/sq mi.
Netherlands: 1,046 people/sq mi.
Belgium: 919 people/sq mi.
UK: 660 people/sq mi.
Germany: 593 people/sq mi.
Dear oh dear, you appear to be allowing your hatred of Blair cloud your judgement.
Malta: 3,424 people/sq mi.
Netherlands: 1,046 people/sq mi.
Belgium: 919 people/sq mi.
UK: 660 people/sq mi.
Germany: 593 people/sq mi.
Your data is way off. Apologist New Labour data - anything to deflect attention from the truth.
The D.M. says England is second densest, after Malta.
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online
The D.T. did say England was the densest in Europe after Malta, but now says we are third densest, after Malta and Holland.
England is most crowded country in Europe - Telegraph
Census 2011: population surges by 3.7 million in a decade - Telegraph
It looks like we are neck-a-neck with Holland in density, unlike your data. And since the S.E. of England is the most crowded part of the nation, I think England owes it to itself and its people to free up some land by putting land-wasteful projects in the Thames Estuary.
Or would you rather just deport all the recent immigrants? is that your preferred strategy for freeing up land-space? Or would you prefer that England just starves to death instead?
.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair to Fairdealfrank, Silverstrata's initial post said the UK was the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside), now he's limiting himself to England. Surely you don't believe what the Daily Mail says, Silver.......? 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Your data is way off. Apologist New Labour data - anything to deflect attention from the truth.
The D.M. says England is second densest, after Malta.
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online
The D.T. did say England was the densest in Europe after Malta, but now says we are third densest, after Malta and Holland.
England is most crowded country in Europe - Telegraph
Census 2011: population surges by 3.7 million in a decade - Telegraph
It looks like we are neck-a-neck with Holland in density, unlike your data. And since the S.E. of England is the most crowded part of the nation, I think England owes it to itself and its people to free up some land by putting land-wasteful projects in the Thames Estuary.
Or would you rather just deport all the recent immigrants? is that your preferred strategy for freeing up land-space? Or would you prefer that England just starves to death instead?"
Correct me if this is wrong, but it does appear to be the classic rantings of someone on the wrong side of an argument.
Re-read my posts in this thread, have never mentioned immigration or starvation, nor apologised for "New Labour", although Blair ought to.
Quote: "To be fair to Fairdealfrank, Silverstrata's initial post said the UK was the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside), now he's limiting himself to England. Surely you don't believe what the Daily Mail says, Silver.......?"
Indeed, Barling Magna,maybe Silver's moved the goal posts to avoid being on the wrong side of yet another argument. Who can say?
Still, it's makes for a good debate!
The D.M. says England is second densest, after Malta.
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online
The D.T. did say England was the densest in Europe after Malta, but now says we are third densest, after Malta and Holland.
England is most crowded country in Europe - Telegraph
Census 2011: population surges by 3.7 million in a decade - Telegraph
It looks like we are neck-a-neck with Holland in density, unlike your data. And since the S.E. of England is the most crowded part of the nation, I think England owes it to itself and its people to free up some land by putting land-wasteful projects in the Thames Estuary.
Or would you rather just deport all the recent immigrants? is that your preferred strategy for freeing up land-space? Or would you prefer that England just starves to death instead?"
Correct me if this is wrong, but it does appear to be the classic rantings of someone on the wrong side of an argument.
Re-read my posts in this thread, have never mentioned immigration or starvation, nor apologised for "New Labour", although Blair ought to.
Quote: "To be fair to Fairdealfrank, Silverstrata's initial post said the UK was the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside), now he's limiting himself to England. Surely you don't believe what the Daily Mail says, Silver.......?"
Indeed, Barling Magna,maybe Silver's moved the goal posts to avoid being on the wrong side of yet another argument. Who can say?
Still, it's makes for a good debate!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could the recent announcements on rail electrification be a way of "softening up" the Libdems?
Except of course that the "electric spine" will prop up "Mr Spineless" by running to his Sheffield stomping ground.
I still haven't worked out how the existing routes (eg the XC route which starts at Bournemouth, but the wires aren't there until Southampton) will operate, but that's another one for PTDRUNe.
I think most people can see that the 3rd runway at Heathrow is a done deal and probably has been for some time.
Cameron must be aware that having such a biased transport secretary of state is unacceptable.
the UK is now the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside).
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online
firstly, you still have an obsession with the semi-detach, which is hugely wasteful of space, and therefore not economic for land reclamation.
thirdly, every developer knows that the Greens will find a lesser-striped leach in the estuary somewhere, and the whole project will grind to a halt.
Would they really have approved a £500 million rail link from Wales and the Thames Valley to Heathrow yesterday to be ready in about 10 years if they were going for Boris Island ??
The left turn at "airport junction" should have been done yonks ago, and also makes far more sense with electrification through to Reading and beyond, rather than just Maidenhead, as per Crossrail.
The fact they are taking a line from Slough into Heathrow is interesting, but I'd like to see the full plans. £500m doesn't buy much tunnelling or new underground platforms.
Quote: "That, is why we need to save space, especially for something as wasteful of space as an airfield."
If there is any waste of land, it is in some of the sprawl that surrounds airports. This can be managed through effective planning.
Now if you do want a wasteful airfield, take a look at Montreal Mirabel. Now if Fantasy Island gets approved without closure of LHR, that is exactly what it will become.
In related news, the Government is supposedly to announce today that it will back £50bn worth of infrastructure
The D.T. did say England was the densest in Europe after Malta, but now says we are third densest, after Malta and Holland.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Oh come on! A "£9bn" announcement, which includes £5bn alread committed, do the maths! All of the other projects have been in the pipeline anyway, there is nothing new here."
It is common practice for government announcements to include "reheated" items. Most of this has Lord Adonis written all over it, so it's from the previous government.
Quote: "Except of course that the "electric spine" will prop up "Mr Spineless" by running to his Sheffield stomping ground."
The "electric spine" will probably be too late to prop up "Mr Spineless", on present form he'll be gone in 2015.
Quote: "I still haven't worked out how the existing routes (eg the XC route which starts at Bournemouth, but the wires aren't there until Southampton) will operate, but that's another one for PTDRUNe."
Maybe they'll do what should have been done for years, particularly on cross-country routes: use dual-mode trains.
Quote: "In which case, she shouldn't have been given the job! I had hoped she'd be shoved out the way, but my Tory contacts say she will be promoted UP! Speaking of bookies, they have her at 33/1 - still a long shot!"
It's standard industry practice to promote people beyond their capabilities, that's why standards of management are generally so appaling, or to promote them "out of the way".
If it happens to Greening, sideways or upwards is immaterial, she would be away from transport, and that's what matters.
Quote: "I'm afraid Silver is making the classic American mistake of confusing England with the UK. The addition of the huge, largely deserted, Scottish landmass has a rather significant impact on the figures."
Precisely, that is exactly the point.
Quote: "I'm afraid you are giving the government too much credit. For the time being, Heathrow is the main hub, therefore it gets the surface investment. This does not mean either (a) that they will approve a third runway, nor (b) that they have abandoned Fantasy Island."
It does however confirm what we already that know: that Heathrow cannot be closed, and consequently, there will be no estuary airport.
Quote: "The left turn at "airport junction" should have been done yonks ago, and also makes far more sense with electrification through to Reading and beyond, rather than just Maidenhead, as per Crossrail."
Agreed,and it's crazy that crossrail won't run between Maidenhead and Reading to provide access to the huge railway interchange there, and to cater for the increasing numbers of commuters who work in Reading.
Quote: "The fact they are taking a line from Slough into Heathrow is interesting, but I'd like to see the full plans. £500m doesn't buy much tunnelling or new underground platforms."
Best guess is that it will run from Slough to LHR-5, then on existing tracks to LHR-1/2/3 then to back on the main line at Airport Junction.
Quote: "Now if you do want a wasteful airfield, take a look at Montreal Mirabel. Now if Fantasy Island gets approved without closure of LHR, that is exactly what it will become."
Quite. Wasn't that one hell of a disaster!
Quote: "The D.T. would never say such a thing. If you want to talk hard stats, as opposed to tourism, there is no such country as Holland."
Indeed there isn't, but it's a common mistake. North Holland and South
Holland are two counties of the Netherlands.
It is common practice for government announcements to include "reheated" items. Most of this has Lord Adonis written all over it, so it's from the previous government.
Quote: "Except of course that the "electric spine" will prop up "Mr Spineless" by running to his Sheffield stomping ground."
The "electric spine" will probably be too late to prop up "Mr Spineless", on present form he'll be gone in 2015.
Quote: "I still haven't worked out how the existing routes (eg the XC route which starts at Bournemouth, but the wires aren't there until Southampton) will operate, but that's another one for PTDRUNe."
Maybe they'll do what should have been done for years, particularly on cross-country routes: use dual-mode trains.
Quote: "In which case, she shouldn't have been given the job! I had hoped she'd be shoved out the way, but my Tory contacts say she will be promoted UP! Speaking of bookies, they have her at 33/1 - still a long shot!"
It's standard industry practice to promote people beyond their capabilities, that's why standards of management are generally so appaling, or to promote them "out of the way".
If it happens to Greening, sideways or upwards is immaterial, she would be away from transport, and that's what matters.
Quote: "I'm afraid Silver is making the classic American mistake of confusing England with the UK. The addition of the huge, largely deserted, Scottish landmass has a rather significant impact on the figures."
Precisely, that is exactly the point.
Quote: "I'm afraid you are giving the government too much credit. For the time being, Heathrow is the main hub, therefore it gets the surface investment. This does not mean either (a) that they will approve a third runway, nor (b) that they have abandoned Fantasy Island."
It does however confirm what we already that know: that Heathrow cannot be closed, and consequently, there will be no estuary airport.
Quote: "The left turn at "airport junction" should have been done yonks ago, and also makes far more sense with electrification through to Reading and beyond, rather than just Maidenhead, as per Crossrail."
Agreed,and it's crazy that crossrail won't run between Maidenhead and Reading to provide access to the huge railway interchange there, and to cater for the increasing numbers of commuters who work in Reading.
Quote: "The fact they are taking a line from Slough into Heathrow is interesting, but I'd like to see the full plans. £500m doesn't buy much tunnelling or new underground platforms."
Best guess is that it will run from Slough to LHR-5, then on existing tracks to LHR-1/2/3 then to back on the main line at Airport Junction.
Quote: "Now if you do want a wasteful airfield, take a look at Montreal Mirabel. Now if Fantasy Island gets approved without closure of LHR, that is exactly what it will become."
Quite. Wasn't that one hell of a disaster!
Quote: "The D.T. would never say such a thing. If you want to talk hard stats, as opposed to tourism, there is no such country as Holland."
Indeed there isn't, but it's a common mistake. North Holland and South
Holland are two counties of the Netherlands.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 19th Jul 2012 at 01:58. Reason: typo
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they'll do what should have been done for years, particularly on cross-country routes: use dual-mode trains.
It does however confirm what we already that know: that Heathrow cannot be closed, and consequently, there will be no estuary airport.
there is no such country as Holland."
Indeed there isn't
Indeed there isn't
However, Silver was also using England for the UK, which is completely incorrect.
Then again, Greening thinks Birmingham is in "the north", so maybe there is a job for Silver in the government?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the weather of the first quarter of 2012 in south-east England is likely to be more typical than that of te second quarter (hosepipe bans rather than floods), can the hinterland of Heathrow support a large enough population to justify multiple new runways? Users of Boris Island would face the same parched future.
That argument aside, the additional flights are needed now, rather than in ten or fifteen years time when either of the south-east options would come on stream.
Heathrow, despite climate considerations, is likely to remain the major UK hub, and the best origin for UK flights to destinations that require no more than a couple of departures by UK airlines per day. Well before we rach a dozen flights per day it shoud be possible to fill 777 or 787 from somewhere like Brum or Manchester.
There are suggestions on another thread that there is already a growing amount of transfer traffic between trans-atlantic and middle-east flights at Manchester. Given the necessary delays in introducing more capacity in the London area, is a viable secondary hub likely to evolve before either Heathrow runway 3 or Birdstrike Central become operational?
That argument aside, the additional flights are needed now, rather than in ten or fifteen years time when either of the south-east options would come on stream.
Heathrow, despite climate considerations, is likely to remain the major UK hub, and the best origin for UK flights to destinations that require no more than a couple of departures by UK airlines per day. Well before we rach a dozen flights per day it shoud be possible to fill 777 or 787 from somewhere like Brum or Manchester.
There are suggestions on another thread that there is already a growing amount of transfer traffic between trans-atlantic and middle-east flights at Manchester. Given the necessary delays in introducing more capacity in the London area, is a viable secondary hub likely to evolve before either Heathrow runway 3 or Birdstrike Central become operational?
Well before we reach a dozen flights per day it shoud be possible to fill 777 or 787 from somewhere like Brum or Manchester.
BA has 9 LHR/MAN rotations per day, 11 on LHR/EDI, for example, all with A319/A320/A321.
Don't you think they would have tried doubling the aircraft size and halving the frequency if they thought that would work ?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Dual mode means a lot of redundant weight. Better to be all electric or just diesel haulled. If it was just the last few miles, you could attach diesel loco, but that is untrendy these days.”
Agreed, but surely it’s better than spending millions on electrification then running diesels under the wires.
Apparently, dual mode is belatedly being considered.
Quote: “Not quite. It suggests that the mandarins want to invest in LHR, and that Boris will probably be ignored, but this is not certain just yet.”
It isn’t just the mandarins, it’s the majority of politicians (except, predictably, the Libdems), business, trade and industry, bisiness travellers, leisure travellers, aviation employees (especially those who work on the airport) and, yes, most local residents.
Those against tend to be a vocal minority who live miles from the airport.
Quote: “Then again, Greening thinks Birmingham is in "the north", so maybe there is a job for Silver in the government?”
That’s surprising, AFAIK, Greening is from the north (just), think it’s Sheffield(?).
Quote: “There are suggestions on another thread that there is already a growing amount of transfer traffic between trans-atlantic and middle-east flights at Manchester. Given the necessary delays in introducing more capacity in the London area, is a viable secondary hub likely to evolve before either Heathrow runway 3 or Birdstrike Central become operational?”
It would be fantastic if Ringway became the secondary UK hub, but that would not, in any way, affect Heathrow‘s need for two more runways. The sucessful development of the secondary hub at Munich had no bearing on the need for four runways at Frankfurt. It's not about alternatives!
Quote: “BA has 9 LHR/MAN rotations per day, 11 on LHR/EDI, for example, all with A319/A320/A321.
Don't you think they would have tried doubling the aircraft size and halving the frequency if they thought that would work ? “
No, the point is that most shorthaul routes, and a handful of longhaul (e.g. New York) ones need frequency. This is particularly important on the business-orientated ones.
Agreed, but surely it’s better than spending millions on electrification then running diesels under the wires.
Apparently, dual mode is belatedly being considered.
Quote: “Not quite. It suggests that the mandarins want to invest in LHR, and that Boris will probably be ignored, but this is not certain just yet.”
It isn’t just the mandarins, it’s the majority of politicians (except, predictably, the Libdems), business, trade and industry, bisiness travellers, leisure travellers, aviation employees (especially those who work on the airport) and, yes, most local residents.
Those against tend to be a vocal minority who live miles from the airport.
Quote: “Then again, Greening thinks Birmingham is in "the north", so maybe there is a job for Silver in the government?”
That’s surprising, AFAIK, Greening is from the north (just), think it’s Sheffield(?).
Quote: “There are suggestions on another thread that there is already a growing amount of transfer traffic between trans-atlantic and middle-east flights at Manchester. Given the necessary delays in introducing more capacity in the London area, is a viable secondary hub likely to evolve before either Heathrow runway 3 or Birdstrike Central become operational?”
It would be fantastic if Ringway became the secondary UK hub, but that would not, in any way, affect Heathrow‘s need for two more runways. The sucessful development of the secondary hub at Munich had no bearing on the need for four runways at Frankfurt. It's not about alternatives!
Quote: “BA has 9 LHR/MAN rotations per day, 11 on LHR/EDI, for example, all with A319/A320/A321.
Don't you think they would have tried doubling the aircraft size and halving the frequency if they thought that would work ? “
No, the point is that most shorthaul routes, and a handful of longhaul (e.g. New York) ones need frequency. This is particularly important on the business-orientated ones.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 21st Jul 2012 at 21:09. Reason: clarity
£500m doesn't buy much tunnelling or new underground platforms.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
I'm afraid Silver is making the classic American mistake of confusing England with the UK. The addition of the huge, largely deserted, Scottish landmass has a rather significant impact on the figures.
I'm afraid Silver is making the classic American mistake of confusing England with the UK. The addition of the huge, largely deserted, Scottish landmass has a rather significant impact on the figures.
And you are using the classic New Labour diversion tactic of countering a sound argument with irrelevant information. Just what do the Scottish Highlands have to do with the facts and requirements of siting a new London airport? I suppose you will also claim that Moscow is the least densely populated city in the whole world, by including Siberia in your calculations.
The crux of the matter is that the S.E. is woefully short of real estate, more so than any major country in Europe, and the siting of a large part of London out in the estuary can only help to ease the overcrowding that has been caused by New Labour.
Dairy:
That argument aside, the additional flights are needed now, rather than in ten or fifteen years time when either of the south-east options would come on stream.
That argument aside, the additional flights are needed now, rather than in ten or fifteen years time when either of the south-east options would come on stream.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 22nd Jul 2012 at 14:24.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “I still haven't worked out how the existing routes (eg the XC route which starts at Bournemouth, but the wires aren't there until Southampton) will operate, but that's another one for PTDRUNe.”
Bournemouth to Southampton (and up to London) is electrified, on the third rail (DC?) system. Cross country diesels run from Bournemouth to Basingstoke on it then branch off towards Reading.
Replacing the third rail with overhead wires on London-Bournemouth (and on to Weymouth) has been proposed, but is certainly not high on the priority list.
Quote: “Then again, Greening thinks Birmingham is in "the north", so maybe there is a job for Silver in the government?“
Typical, northern girl “gone native” on joining the metropolitan elite/establishment. “North of Watford Gap” and all that…..
Quote: “And you are using the classic New Labour diversion tactic of countering a sound argument with irrelevant information. Just what do the Scottish Highlands have to do with the facts and requirements of siting a new London airport? I suppose you will also claim that Moscow is the least densely populated city in the whole world, by including Siberia in your calculations.
The crux of the matter is that the S.E. is woefully short of real estate, more so than any major country in Europe, and the siting of a large part of London out in the estuary can only help to ease the overcrowding that has been caused by New Labour.”
None of this is relevant to whether an airport should, could, or would be built. The fact is that it won’t be. It really is not a difficult proposition to grasp!
Dear oh dear, you are obsessed with New Labour! Forget about them, they’re history!
Re-read your post of 13 July (#661), in it you mentioned the population density of the UK, not of England, not of the southeast, and not of the Thames Valley.
A reminder to save you scrolling back:
Quote: “You are rather forgetting that one of the MAIN attractions of Silver-Boris, is that it is NOT on dry land. The UK is, thanks to the efforts of New Labour to bury the UK under 500 million people, the most densely populated nation in Europe.”
Your argument was demolished. Now re-read your post of 18 July this (#682), in it you moved the goalposts from “UK” to “England”, having read some newspaper reports on census data.
Another reminder to save you scrolling back:
Quote: Your data is way off. Apologist New Labour data - anything to deflect attention from the truth.
The D.M. says England is second densest, after Malta.
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online
The D.T. did say England was the densest in Europe after Malta, but now says we are third densest, after Malta and Holland.
England is most crowded country in Europe - Telegraph
Census 2011: population surges by 3.7 million in a decade - Telegraph”
Oh well, you know what they say: never let the fact get in the way of a good story, or in your case, a good argument!
Still, it makes for a good debate.
Quote: “Yes, but some of us were saying this 15 years ago. Had our concerns been acted upon, we would now have a world-class airport in the estuary. As it is, we have a floundering whale that cannot cope with the olympics, and it is making the UK a laughing-stock of the developed world. Nearly every major trading nation has a decent capital airport and some decent TGV lines that run from it, except for the UK.”
Indeed the MP for Heston and Isleworth, Richard Reader Harris, suggested it back in 1958. Doesn’t make it the right course of action. In that time, we could also have had a world class airport at Heathrow. That is at least is still possible, if a few fingers are pulled out, and soon.
Bournemouth to Southampton (and up to London) is electrified, on the third rail (DC?) system. Cross country diesels run from Bournemouth to Basingstoke on it then branch off towards Reading.
Replacing the third rail with overhead wires on London-Bournemouth (and on to Weymouth) has been proposed, but is certainly not high on the priority list.
Quote: “Then again, Greening thinks Birmingham is in "the north", so maybe there is a job for Silver in the government?“
Typical, northern girl “gone native” on joining the metropolitan elite/establishment. “North of Watford Gap” and all that…..
Quote: “And you are using the classic New Labour diversion tactic of countering a sound argument with irrelevant information. Just what do the Scottish Highlands have to do with the facts and requirements of siting a new London airport? I suppose you will also claim that Moscow is the least densely populated city in the whole world, by including Siberia in your calculations.
The crux of the matter is that the S.E. is woefully short of real estate, more so than any major country in Europe, and the siting of a large part of London out in the estuary can only help to ease the overcrowding that has been caused by New Labour.”
None of this is relevant to whether an airport should, could, or would be built. The fact is that it won’t be. It really is not a difficult proposition to grasp!
Dear oh dear, you are obsessed with New Labour! Forget about them, they’re history!
Re-read your post of 13 July (#661), in it you mentioned the population density of the UK, not of England, not of the southeast, and not of the Thames Valley.
A reminder to save you scrolling back:
Quote: “You are rather forgetting that one of the MAIN attractions of Silver-Boris, is that it is NOT on dry land. The UK is, thanks to the efforts of New Labour to bury the UK under 500 million people, the most densely populated nation in Europe.”
Your argument was demolished. Now re-read your post of 18 July this (#682), in it you moved the goalposts from “UK” to “England”, having read some newspaper reports on census data.
Another reminder to save you scrolling back:
Quote: Your data is way off. Apologist New Labour data - anything to deflect attention from the truth.
The D.M. says England is second densest, after Malta.
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online
The D.T. did say England was the densest in Europe after Malta, but now says we are third densest, after Malta and Holland.
England is most crowded country in Europe - Telegraph
Census 2011: population surges by 3.7 million in a decade - Telegraph”
Oh well, you know what they say: never let the fact get in the way of a good story, or in your case, a good argument!
Still, it makes for a good debate.
Quote: “Yes, but some of us were saying this 15 years ago. Had our concerns been acted upon, we would now have a world-class airport in the estuary. As it is, we have a floundering whale that cannot cope with the olympics, and it is making the UK a laughing-stock of the developed world. Nearly every major trading nation has a decent capital airport and some decent TGV lines that run from it, except for the UK.”
Indeed the MP for Heston and Isleworth, Richard Reader Harris, suggested it back in 1958. Doesn’t make it the right course of action. In that time, we could also have had a world class airport at Heathrow. That is at least is still possible, if a few fingers are pulled out, and soon.
Paxing All Over The World
silverstrata
Eeh? Take that assumption to Jet Blast!
I have never supported Labour (old or new) but the concentration of people in SE England has been going on for a couple of hundred years and it happens in every country - folks gravitate to the capital. You cannot blame politicians for that one and, by attempting so, reduce the veracity of your other arguments.
The siting of a large part of London out in the estuary can only help to ease the overcrowding that has been caused by New Labour.
I have never supported Labour (old or new) but the concentration of people in SE England has been going on for a couple of hundred years and it happens in every country - folks gravitate to the capital. You cannot blame politicians for that one and, by attempting so, reduce the veracity of your other arguments.
Last edited by PAXboy; 24th Jul 2012 at 14:30. Reason: spelling
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good article on the issues facing European hub airports, if anyone is interested;
IN FOCUS: Heathrow proves a poisoned chalice for UK government
IN FOCUS: Heathrow proves a poisoned chalice for UK government
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and for the umpteenth of asking !
how do we expand the airspace in the South East which is at 100% capacity !
Please, please, please somebody answer the bloody the question !
how do we expand the airspace in the South East which is at 100% capacity !
Please, please, please somebody answer the bloody the question !
Last edited by Bagso; 24th Jul 2012 at 20:39.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not at 100% of capacity, that is patently not the case. There are projects underway to expand the capacity, most recently causing massive bother when it leaked out they were going to move some of the holding stacks. People got, cross.....
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Crowle United Kingdom
Age: 50
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Thames Airport for London
Not being an expert here but with cross rail coming , can't London city airport be better utilised for UK internal flights ?
Is it capable of taking an airbus 319 ? .
Surely it can manage more flights , So how about freeing up heathrow slots by shifting most of the man,ncl,edi,gla etc using the E190 types into City instead of Heathrow.
Will cross rail link that far ?
Is it capable of taking an airbus 319 ? .
Surely it can manage more flights , So how about freeing up heathrow slots by shifting most of the man,ncl,edi,gla etc using the E190 types into City instead of Heathrow.
Will cross rail link that far ?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossrail stops at Canary Wharf with a change to the DLR for City. Indeed BA have shifted capacity into LCY out of LGW and LHR on point to point, LCY-ABZ starts soon. However there is not much more space at peak times. The core issue is that we need space at a key hub. If LCY closed tomorrow, life would go on, it's a nice to have. LHR is a fundamental, national strategic asset.
Remember if you close off all domestics out of LHR to LCY, you cut off all those cities from connecting to the world. OUCH!
Remember if you close off all domestics out of LHR to LCY, you cut off all those cities from connecting to the world. OUCH!
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 24th Jul 2012 at 22:27.