New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the maps of LHR, there is space for 2 full length runnways nearby, but the real problem is aircraft noise in the flightpath area, hence why I feel at a new airport (either by the thames or at the Aylesbury region) is the best solution
We have kicked the can for several decades, we cannot wait much longer
We have kicked the can for several decades, we cannot wait much longer
If you look at the maps of LHR, there is space for 2 full length runnways nearby, but the real problem is aircraft noise in the flightpath area, hence why I feel at a new airport (either by the thames or at the Aylesbury region) is the best solution
We have kicked the can for several decades, we cannot wait much longer
We have kicked the can for several decades, we cannot wait much longer
Alternatively, you might want to consider a different user name without the delusions of grandeur.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "If you look at the maps of LHR, there is space for 2 full length runnways nearby, but the real problem is aircraft noise in the flightpath area, hence why I feel at a new airport (either by the thames or at the Aylesbury region) is the best solution"
Aylesbury is much too far out! Let's face it, "London-Aylesbury" would get as much flak and derision as "London-Oxford" (Kidlington).
No need to mention the Thames again.
Quote: "We have kicked the can for several decades, we cannot wait much longer"
Agreed, that's why it has to be LHR expansion: it can be done relatively quickly, the infrastructure is in place, the hub is already established.
Aylesbury is much too far out! Let's face it, "London-Aylesbury" would get as much flak and derision as "London-Oxford" (Kidlington).
No need to mention the Thames again.
Quote: "We have kicked the can for several decades, we cannot wait much longer"
Agreed, that's why it has to be LHR expansion: it can be done relatively quickly, the infrastructure is in place, the hub is already established.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 9th Nov 2012 at 22:44.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, Howard Davies. A total muffin who has lead a
very charmed existence. Hardly ever done a real day's work in his life.
He's just the man you need to sort this one out.
very charmed existence. Hardly ever done a real day's work in his life.
He's just the man you need to sort this one out.
Having listened to Lord Adonis on Tuesday, I think the kicking the can is the only option, because opposition to R3 was part of the coalition document.
The point he made was that if we'd got a Tory govt outright, they could have overturned more manifesto pledges, but there were certain things they have to stick to, because that was what was agreed with the Lib Dems.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternatively, you might want to consider a different user name without the delusions of grandeur.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I have nothing to do with BA (or Sliver)
Anyway, my point is I prefer expansion to Heathrow, but if it cannot be done poltically, then the only choice is to build a new one in an area that has a small population density yet as good transport links
A location by the thames or lets say Bucks, Bedfordshire etc can work as long as LHR (and other airports) are shut down as long as there are decent transport links
Anyway, my point is I prefer expansion to Heathrow, but if it cannot be done poltically, then the only choice is to build a new one in an area that has a small population density yet as good transport links
A location by the thames or lets say Bucks, Bedfordshire etc can work as long as LHR (and other airports) are shut down as long as there are decent transport links
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Having listened to Lord Adonis on Tuesday, I think the kicking the can is the only option, because opposition to R3 was part of the coalition document.
The point he made was that if we'd got a Tory govt outright, they could have overturned more manifesto pledges, but there were certain things they have to stick to, because that was what was agreed with the Lib Dems."
Dave needs to show some leadership here and prove that he has a backbone, in the national interest, of course.
He holds all the cards. Say he breaks this particular item of the coalition agreement, what are the Libdems going to do? Walk out?
Even if they did, Dave is more than capable of running a minority government. Neither Labour nor the Libdems would bring it down: neither wants an early election.
Unfortunately Dave is scared of his own party's Eurosceptic wing so won't risk upsetting the Libdems. This is why it often appears that the Libdem tail is wagging the Conservative dog.
Quote: "Well Silver is certainly not short of the odd delusion or two, maybe he's taken a break, then realised Fantasy Island is a non runner and come back in a new guise? Just make sure Windsorian isn't posting at the same time"
Silver and Windsorian are the same person, completely convinced now that jabird has picked up on it!
If it's delusional on this thread, it's Silver, if it's delusional on the Heathrow thread, it's Windsorian.
By the way, where is Silver.......
The point he made was that if we'd got a Tory govt outright, they could have overturned more manifesto pledges, but there were certain things they have to stick to, because that was what was agreed with the Lib Dems."
Dave needs to show some leadership here and prove that he has a backbone, in the national interest, of course.
He holds all the cards. Say he breaks this particular item of the coalition agreement, what are the Libdems going to do? Walk out?
Even if they did, Dave is more than capable of running a minority government. Neither Labour nor the Libdems would bring it down: neither wants an early election.
Unfortunately Dave is scared of his own party's Eurosceptic wing so won't risk upsetting the Libdems. This is why it often appears that the Libdem tail is wagging the Conservative dog.
Quote: "Well Silver is certainly not short of the odd delusion or two, maybe he's taken a break, then realised Fantasy Island is a non runner and come back in a new guise? Just make sure Windsorian isn't posting at the same time"
Silver and Windsorian are the same person, completely convinced now that jabird has picked up on it!
If it's delusional on this thread, it's Silver, if it's delusional on the Heathrow thread, it's Windsorian.
By the way, where is Silver.......
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 10th Nov 2012 at 17:45.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a new airport by the Thames is built, then this is how it will be funded (if I was deciding this):
A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government
When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project
As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)
As for if it will be profitable, well if we were looking for the most profitable solution, then we would be expanding our airports ASAP, but we cannot, because of all the political related s**t and the fact there has been no proper planning and co-ordination for London (and the South East) regions aviation infrastructure, in other words, if you want to see some returns on a new Thames Airport project, it will be in the long-term
Plus a new airport will be a massive boost for the economy, since it will create jobs and improve our airport capacity (however this project can only be done if the government cannot have the balls to approve a 3rd, 4th and maybe even 5th and 6th runway at LHR)
A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government
When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project
As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)
As for if it will be profitable, well if we were looking for the most profitable solution, then we would be expanding our airports ASAP, but we cannot, because of all the political related s**t and the fact there has been no proper planning and co-ordination for London (and the South East) regions aviation infrastructure, in other words, if you want to see some returns on a new Thames Airport project, it will be in the long-term
Plus a new airport will be a massive boost for the economy, since it will create jobs and improve our airport capacity (however this project can only be done if the government cannot have the balls to approve a 3rd, 4th and maybe even 5th and 6th runway at LHR)
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are going to make Heathrow work effectively (and work for the UK as a whole), its needs a 3rd and 4th runway and those 4 runways must be able to work simultaneously, only then will it be able to cope with the demands of the UK economy, in return (to please local residents) LHR should put further restrictions on nosier and older aircraft
This will allow over 1 million flight movements and expand LHR maximum capacity to around 150 million passengers a year. If work started shortly after 2015, then it can be finished in the early 2020s
Remember, if LHR expands it will free up space at LGW, because all the Non-LCC/Charter traffic will want to move to LHR, starting with BA and VS, this in turn means that LCCs and Charter carriers can move services from Luton and Stansted (because there are higher yields at LGW), which in turn frees up space at those airports. Overall a bigger Heathrow will benefit all of London’s airports
That’s if it can ever be done (my prospects are very low on that regard…)
This will allow over 1 million flight movements and expand LHR maximum capacity to around 150 million passengers a year. If work started shortly after 2015, then it can be finished in the early 2020s
Remember, if LHR expands it will free up space at LGW, because all the Non-LCC/Charter traffic will want to move to LHR, starting with BA and VS, this in turn means that LCCs and Charter carriers can move services from Luton and Stansted (because there are higher yields at LGW), which in turn frees up space at those airports. Overall a bigger Heathrow will benefit all of London’s airports
That’s if it can ever be done (my prospects are very low on that regard…)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote: "If a new airport by the Thames is built, then this is how it will be funded (if I was deciding this):
A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government
When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project
As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)
As for if it will be profitable, well if we were looking for the most profitable solution, then we would be expanding our airports ASAP, but we cannot, because of all the political related s**t and the fact there has been no proper planning and co-ordination for London (and the South East) regions aviation infrastructure, in other words, if you want to see some returns on a new Thames Airport project, it will be in the long-term
Plus a new airport will be a massive boost for the economy, since it will create jobs and improve our airport capacity (however this project can only be done if the government cannot have the balls to approve a 3rd, 4th and maybe even 5th and 6th runway at LHR)"
Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me, apologies if this sounds negative. You appear to suggesting a massive nationalisation/public ownership programme. No political party capable of being in government favours such a course of action.
Who would buy these bonds? Can the government, at present, afford to pay 4% and put up 40%? What if interest rates rise (in the long term they can hardly fall)? How will 4% look if interest rates are higher?
Why would the government be inclined to do all this when the private sector will finance Heathrow expansion?
Quote: "If we are going to make Heathrow work effectively (and work for the UK as a whole), its needs a 3rd and 4th runway and those 4 runways must be able to work simultaneously, only then will it be able to cope with the demands of the UK economy, in return (to please local residents) LHR should put further restrictions on nosier and older aircraft"
A 4-rwy LHR would need to be on segregated mode: two rwys for takeoffs, two rwys for landings, using alternation with a changeover daily at 1500 to allow some quiet for those under the flightpath. Those with quiet in the morning, would have quiet in the afternoon the next day and vice versa and so on.
Quote: "This will allow over 1 million flight movements and expand LHR maximum capacity to around 150 million passengers a year. If work started shortly after 2015, then it can be finished in the early 2020s"
It doesn't take this long to construct two rwys.
Remember, if LHR expands it will free up space at LGW, because all the Non-LCC/Charter traffic will want to move to LHR, starting with BA and VS, this in turn means that LCCs and Charter carriers can move services from Luton and Stansted (because there are higher yields at LGW), which in turn frees up space at those airports. Overall a bigger Heathrow will benefit all of London’s airports"
Indeed, expanding hub capacity at LHR frees up point-to-point capacity at LGW with inturn frees up point-to-point capacity at other airports.
To quote Delboy Trotter: "Everyone's a winner, you know it makes sense".
A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government
When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project
As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)
As for if it will be profitable, well if we were looking for the most profitable solution, then we would be expanding our airports ASAP, but we cannot, because of all the political related s**t and the fact there has been no proper planning and co-ordination for London (and the South East) regions aviation infrastructure, in other words, if you want to see some returns on a new Thames Airport project, it will be in the long-term
Plus a new airport will be a massive boost for the economy, since it will create jobs and improve our airport capacity (however this project can only be done if the government cannot have the balls to approve a 3rd, 4th and maybe even 5th and 6th runway at LHR)"
Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me, apologies if this sounds negative. You appear to suggesting a massive nationalisation/public ownership programme. No political party capable of being in government favours such a course of action.
Who would buy these bonds? Can the government, at present, afford to pay 4% and put up 40%? What if interest rates rise (in the long term they can hardly fall)? How will 4% look if interest rates are higher?
Why would the government be inclined to do all this when the private sector will finance Heathrow expansion?
Quote: "If we are going to make Heathrow work effectively (and work for the UK as a whole), its needs a 3rd and 4th runway and those 4 runways must be able to work simultaneously, only then will it be able to cope with the demands of the UK economy, in return (to please local residents) LHR should put further restrictions on nosier and older aircraft"
A 4-rwy LHR would need to be on segregated mode: two rwys for takeoffs, two rwys for landings, using alternation with a changeover daily at 1500 to allow some quiet for those under the flightpath. Those with quiet in the morning, would have quiet in the afternoon the next day and vice versa and so on.
Quote: "This will allow over 1 million flight movements and expand LHR maximum capacity to around 150 million passengers a year. If work started shortly after 2015, then it can be finished in the early 2020s"
It doesn't take this long to construct two rwys.
Remember, if LHR expands it will free up space at LGW, because all the Non-LCC/Charter traffic will want to move to LHR, starting with BA and VS, this in turn means that LCCs and Charter carriers can move services from Luton and Stansted (because there are higher yields at LGW), which in turn frees up space at those airports. Overall a bigger Heathrow will benefit all of London’s airports"
Indeed, expanding hub capacity at LHR frees up point-to-point capacity at LGW with inturn frees up point-to-point capacity at other airports.
To quote Delboy Trotter: "Everyone's a winner, you know it makes sense".
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 12th Nov 2012 at 20:08.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Crowle United Kingdom
Age: 50
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where could a theoretical fourth runway be built ?.
And isn't there an issue that if you had four runways operating then with the increase in traffic over central London plus London city , is there not a point where airspace capacity in the region is reached ?.
It keeps me in mind of that BBC docudrama back in 2003 " The day Britain stopped" , It dramatized the events after a meltdown of the transport network and the effects on over worked Atc .
Perhaps now is the time to review ALL of the British airports and how they can be used to help with easing capacity.
And isn't there an issue that if you had four runways operating then with the increase in traffic over central London plus London city , is there not a point where airspace capacity in the region is reached ?.
It keeps me in mind of that BBC docudrama back in 2003 " The day Britain stopped" , It dramatized the events after a meltdown of the transport network and the effects on over worked Atc .
Perhaps now is the time to review ALL of the British airports and how they can be used to help with easing capacity.
Paxing All Over The World
onyxcrowle You have read all of this thread and the linked pages to new suggestions, haven't you?
What about the thread about Heathrow expansion and all it's linked pages?
See you in a day or two.
What about the thread about Heathrow expansion and all it's linked pages?
See you in a day or two.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
As to the point, each of these private companies has a market value that would need to me matched should a purchase be necessary. The government has no business hoovering up private business in a free market, and even if they did, we sure as He(ck) don't have the money to do that!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me, apologies if this sounds negative. You appear to suggesting a massive nationalisation/public ownership programme. No political party capable of being in government favours such a course of action.
Who would buy these bonds? Can the government, at present, afford to pay 4% and put up 40%? What if interest rates rise (in the long term they can hardly fall)? How will 4% look if interest rates are higher?
Why would the government be inclined to do all this when the private sector will finance Heathrow expansion?
Who would buy these bonds? Can the government, at present, afford to pay 4% and put up 40%? What if interest rates rise (in the long term they can hardly fall)? How will 4% look if interest rates are higher?
Why would the government be inclined to do all this when the private sector will finance Heathrow expansion?
Also the government is effectively interfering in the running of our "private" airports by the actions they have done (like they do with the railways)
As for who would buy those bonds, well it could be savers (who suffering from the fact we have a low base rate) and maybe investors (if they are the sort who invest in long term projects)
Remember, the 4% figure I have given is a example, the final one will depend on many factors (I based it on the rate the government borrows)
As for if the government can afford the 40%, well they could, but only if they changed the way they run things (tax evasion and aviodance for a start, maybe issuing WW2-style "war" bonds to the general public)
Lastly, I am only suggesting taking this course of action, if they cannot find the political will to expand LHR
A 4-rwy LHR would need to be on segregated mode: two rwys for takeoffs, two rwys for landings, using alternation with a changeover daily at 1500 to allow some quiet for those under the flightpath. Those with quiet in the morning, would have quiet in the afternoon the next day and vice versa and so on.
It doesn't take this long to construct two rwys.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Well that can be done in the way they did with "Railtrack" in which it was a nationalization in all but name for a start, which we also did with 2 of our biggest banks, also you have to remember that we still have airports that are owned by government authorities in this country (remember most European states and even the USA have state owned airports).”
It had to be done for Railtrack because of the stupid arrangements for rail privatisation (which, incidentally requires more government subsidy than the old British Rail). It had to be done for the banks, because they went “belly up”. It does not have to be done for airports.
Agree that privately owned airports is unusual, maybe unique, but both Conservative and Labour governments are wedded to this policy.
Quote: “Also the government is effectively interfering in the running of our "private" airports by the actions they have done (like they do with the railways)”
Agreed.
Quote: “Its not just the runways though, you also need to build more terminals to cope with the extra traffic and those take around 5 years to build”
In the long term, maybe, but at present, terminal capacity is not an issue. Today, it is the lack of rwy capacity that is critical.
It had to be done for Railtrack because of the stupid arrangements for rail privatisation (which, incidentally requires more government subsidy than the old British Rail). It had to be done for the banks, because they went “belly up”. It does not have to be done for airports.
Agree that privately owned airports is unusual, maybe unique, but both Conservative and Labour governments are wedded to this policy.
Quote: “Also the government is effectively interfering in the running of our "private" airports by the actions they have done (like they do with the railways)”
Agreed.
Quote: “Its not just the runways though, you also need to build more terminals to cope with the extra traffic and those take around 5 years to build”
In the long term, maybe, but at present, terminal capacity is not an issue. Today, it is the lack of rwy capacity that is critical.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that can be done in the way they did with "Railtrack" in which it was a nationalization in all but name for a start, which we also did with 2 of our biggest banks, also you have to remember that we still have airports that are owned by government authorities in this country (remember most European states and even the USA have state owned airports).
The measures you are randomly throwing out there are emergency last ditch measures and not appropriate in this case. Read the thread(!)
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 13th Nov 2012 at 21:15.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It had to be done for Railtrack because of the stupid arrangements for rail privatisation (which, incidentally requires more government subsidy than the old British Rail). It had to be done for the banks, because they went “belly up”. It does not have to be done for airports.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Railtrack was a catastrophe and the banks crisis threw the whole economy into crisis, Airport strategy is most certainly not a national crisis where we need to throw what little money we have left at something. One thing about a lot of public airports in the US, I am thinking of Newark in particular, is they are quite poor by global standards. You really think the public sector can run airports better than the private sector?
The measures you are randomly throwing out there are emergency last ditch measures and not appropriate in this case. Read the thread(!)
The measures you are randomly throwing out there are emergency last ditch measures and not appropriate in this case. Read the thread(!)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Railtrack was a catastrophe and the banks crisis threw the whole economy into crisis, Airport strategy is most certainly not a national crisis where we need to throw what little money we have left at something. One thing about a lot of public airports in the US, I am thinking of Newark in particular, is they are quite poor by global standards. You really think the public sector can run airports better than the private sector?
The measures you are randomly throwing out there are emergency last ditch measures and not appropriate in this case. Read the thread(!)"
Regretably much of American infrastructure is crumbling, much of its population appears to be particularly averse to paying any taxes. You get what you pay for.
The USA is not a good example of airport public ownership, airports in some parts of Asia make better examples of well run publicly owned airports.
Then again, many countries have publicly owned but privately run airports, either on a concession, franchise or contract basis. There are many options.
Luckily nobody's suggested a PFI or PPP arrangement for Boris's folly!
The measures you are randomly throwing out there are emergency last ditch measures and not appropriate in this case. Read the thread(!)"
Regretably much of American infrastructure is crumbling, much of its population appears to be particularly averse to paying any taxes. You get what you pay for.
The USA is not a good example of airport public ownership, airports in some parts of Asia make better examples of well run publicly owned airports.
Then again, many countries have publicly owned but privately run airports, either on a concession, franchise or contract basis. There are many options.
Luckily nobody's suggested a PFI or PPP arrangement for Boris's folly!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regretably much of American infrastructure is crumbling, much of its population appears to be particularly averse to paying any taxes. You get what you pay for.
The USA is not a good example of airport public ownership, airports in some parts of Asia make better examples of well run publicly owned airports.
Then again, many countries have publicly owned but privately run airports, either on a concession, franchise or contract basis. There are many options.
Luckily nobody's suggested a PFI or PPP arrangement for Boris's folly!
The USA is not a good example of airport public ownership, airports in some parts of Asia make better examples of well run publicly owned airports.
Then again, many countries have publicly owned but privately run airports, either on a concession, franchise or contract basis. There are many options.
Luckily nobody's suggested a PFI or PPP arrangement for Boris's folly!
As for why much of American infrastructure is crumbling, its is because the GOP-Led Congress cannot agree on matters like those with the Democrat controled White House
I also agree that PFI/PPP was a massive mistake that needs to be fixed