Heathrow expansion won't happen
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, before any of this could happen, there is one tiny detail that is always overlooked by supporters of the Fantasy Island idea: airlines would have to be persuaded to move, and that could prove difficult.
This is one of the many reasons why this is not a good business investment.
This is one of the many reasons why this is not a good business investment.
and then designate Heathrow as a freight hub and Maintenance base
Heathrow currently gets around 24 main-deck freighter movements per week. Even if carriers moved other freight services from Stansted, Luton and Gatwick, that wouldn't cover the direct cost of running Heathrow, let alone the opportunity cost.
Heathrow is a dump. It is not, and never will be a modern airport.
It is in the wrong place, is badly designed, and is useless in a modern world.
It is a 3rd world airport.
Anyone who thinks lhr is any good should go to Dubai and Hong Kong to see a modern airport.
So, it needs to go. Build Boris Island, or some other place out to the east, and convert lhr in to a business park and a housing estate.
If it is just money that is the issue, nothing that a little bit of Quantitative easing cannot fix.
It is in the wrong place, is badly designed, and is useless in a modern world.
It is a 3rd world airport.
Anyone who thinks lhr is any good should go to Dubai and Hong Kong to see a modern airport.
So, it needs to go. Build Boris Island, or some other place out to the east, and convert lhr in to a business park and a housing estate.
If it is just money that is the issue, nothing that a little bit of Quantitative easing cannot fix.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Ancient Observer, IF a new short r/w is built, which is only usable to S/H a/c, then it is not going to give the flexability a modern hub airport eg HKG DXB SIN etc offers. All movements from the short r/w will have to cross 27R/09L unless they are restricted to the NEW 6th terminal.
This new terminal in itself adds a further complexity, with further ground links to other parts of the a/p. Only by starting afresh with one large terminal are you going to cut down on the ground movement chaos which will ensure. Even now LHR is a bewildering place for the occasional traveller. So yes lets start again,, most other countries manage it why can't the UK?
This new terminal in itself adds a further complexity, with further ground links to other parts of the a/p. Only by starting afresh with one large terminal are you going to cut down on the ground movement chaos which will ensure. Even now LHR is a bewildering place for the occasional traveller. So yes lets start again,, most other countries manage it why can't the UK?
Last edited by Walnut; 19th Sep 2012 at 14:40.
Paxing All Over The World
fireflybob
And went bust, having to be rescued by the public purse.
It does not (and as far as I know, never has) run at full capacity because the LCCs arrived and changed the game for the whole world. What if the LCCs had already existed? Would it have been built?
Torguelink
And went bust, having to be rescued by the public purse.
to repeat myself I agree that LHR is very poor and that R3 will not improve it. But it will remain the UK hub airport for the next 50 years for reasons already stated by myself and others.
The Channel Tunnel was a huge investment but it was built.
It does not (and as far as I know, never has) run at full capacity because the LCCs arrived and changed the game for the whole world. What if the LCCs had already existed? Would it have been built?
Torguelink
When the Vitctorian's built the UK's railways they were building for the distant future - we need to do the same now.
to repeat myself I agree that LHR is very poor and that R3 will not improve it. But it will remain the UK hub airport for the next 50 years for reasons already stated by myself and others.
And went bust, having to be rescued by the public purse.
Also assuming we are still in the United States of Europe, I mean the EU, some of the funding would surely come from the EU purse, after all we have paid enough into the kitty?
Last edited by fireflybob; 19th Sep 2012 at 17:22.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Driffield
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason the Government (tory and liberals) don't want Heathrow expansion is simple, votes! Politicians want one thing to get elected, and fulfill their ambition for power. They are not interested in the long term economy of the country, just getting elected! There are a lot of marginal constituencies around Heathrow, so if you tell the voters no 3rd runway vote for me........The fact that Frankfurt has 4 runways never mind 3 says it all. That's why U.K. is falling behind in terms of hub growth, and most other long term economic plans, because of useless politicians. So the jobs go elsewhere, they trash everything then blame something else e.g. last Government, global downturn etc etc.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Driffield
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not expand Stansted to a 4 runway airport? It's close to London, geographically t
Why not expand Stansted to a 4 runway airport? It's close to London, geographically the right side of the city (i.e. accessible from the Midlands as well as the South East), not constrained by urban sprawl and already has links to the motorway and railway networks.
It's called NIMBY ism, too many tory voters would object, see me reply re getting votes.
It's called NIMBY ism, too many tory voters would object, see me reply re getting votes.
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
I waited my entire career for Stansted to get going. Finally, I was flying from there, but too old to enjoy it.
The thing is, the runways suggested would really have to be pointing the same way as the existing . . . wouldn't they? The continuous requirement to avoid annoying the residents of Bishops Stortford means one can never realign the runways in a veering kind of way, and SID turns would be severely limited immediately after takeoff to the west.
Runway heading has us seeing Harlow on the port side in about 7 st miles - closely followed by Greater London. Luton ahead at 23 miles-ish if a turn onto west is made after Bishops Stortford. The trouble with the south of England, is that there is not a heck of a lot of true open space.
Then again, the issue of dragging more and more hardware over the city is something I've always been uncomfortable with. London is one of those places that doesn't offer many areas thump a double engine failure into.
Let's face it, the last one making the grass was a combination of skilled use of flaps, and a lot of luck.
Still, we've been saying it has its dangers for over 40 years, always with fingers tightly crossed, but should we just assume we can fill the skies with yet more metal over millions of people's heads, and just assume that's okay?
The thing is, the runways suggested would really have to be pointing the same way as the existing . . . wouldn't they? The continuous requirement to avoid annoying the residents of Bishops Stortford means one can never realign the runways in a veering kind of way, and SID turns would be severely limited immediately after takeoff to the west.
Runway heading has us seeing Harlow on the port side in about 7 st miles - closely followed by Greater London. Luton ahead at 23 miles-ish if a turn onto west is made after Bishops Stortford. The trouble with the south of England, is that there is not a heck of a lot of true open space.
Then again, the issue of dragging more and more hardware over the city is something I've always been uncomfortable with. London is one of those places that doesn't offer many areas thump a double engine failure into.
Let's face it, the last one making the grass was a combination of skilled use of flaps, and a lot of luck.
Still, we've been saying it has its dangers for over 40 years, always with fingers tightly crossed, but should we just assume we can fill the skies with yet more metal over millions of people's heads, and just assume that's okay?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "they are not leaving LHR. You don't say.
No carrier will voluntarily move its operations from an operational LHR to a Thames Estuary airport, given a choice. But that's not what this is about."
Exactly, and they cannot be forced to.
Quote: "Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is proposing a scenario where both airports will continue to operate in parallel - so we're not talking about a Mirabel/Dorval situation."
Dorval continued as a domestic only airport until the government conceded defeat on Mirabel and allowed international flights back to Dorval.
If as you state "Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is proposing a scenario where both airports will continue to operate in parallel", then reality has gone out of the window!
Quote: "You state, at every opportunity, your view that the Government will not be able to bring about the closure of Heathrow and its replacement by an estuary airport."
Because it is true, unless you are seriously suggesting some sort of compulsory purchase? Such action would cost millions of taxpayers' money in compensation for BAA and millions in litigation. The government won't go down that road, at least half it actually favours LHR expansion!
Don't think for a minute that a compulsory purchase order would not be challenged in the courts.
Quote: "Others, myself included, take the view that, while BAA/Ferrovial will undoubtedly have to be dragged, screaming, through the courts, there are ways and means available to any government to make strategic changes like this happen."
Other way around in the unlikely event that the government were to adopt this course of action (see above).
This is not the 1950s/1960s/1970s: the government no longer owns the aviation industry. You can argue the pros and cons of the policy of privatisation and deregulation, but it is not about to change.
It is for this reason that the government cannot just close Heathrow at a stroke.
Quote: "The parallel with the Chunnel is a good one. As has been stated, there were plenty of ferries and unlike LHR they weren't reaching capacity. The Chunnel was seen to be a political necessity and got built at a price way over budget. Original investors were practically wiped out but, today, no-one would suggest that it was not a good idea, that it is not a vital part of the transport infrastructure and will last a 100+ years. And, in this case, the ferries continue to run."
Isn't that a good reason for potential investors to stay away, Torquelink, to learn from others' bad experiences?
Quote: "Heathrow is a dump. It is not, and never will be a modern airport.
It is in the wrong place, is badly designed, and is useless in a modern world.
It is a 3rd world airport."
Yes, a lot of people say that, on the other hand 70,000,000 pax use it each year, and let's face it, there's plenty of choice.
Quote: "Anyone who thinks lhr is any good should go to Dubai and Hong Kong to see a modern airport.
So, it needs to go. Build Boris Island, or some other place out to the east, and convert lhr in to a business park and a housing estate.
If it is just money that is the issue, nothing that a little bit of Quantitative easing cannot fix.
LHR is as good/bad as CDG and FRA, in fact it's a whole lot better than CDG, now that really is a dump - a busy one admitedly!
No more QE thank you, enough already!
Quote: "The reason the Government (tory and liberals) don't want Heathrow expansion is simple, votes! Politicians want one thing to get elected, and fulfill their ambition for power. They are not interested in the long term economy of the country, just getting elected! There are a lot of marginal constituencies around Heathrow, so if you tell the voters no 3rd runway vote for me........The fact that Frankfurt has 4 runways never mind 3 says it all. That's why U.K. is falling behind in terms of hub growth, and most other long term economic plans, because of useless politicians. So the jobs go elsewhere, they trash everything then blame something else e.g. last Government, global downturn etc etc."
To suggest that the fate of marginal constituencies under the Heathrow flightpath will be determined on a decison (or not) about Heathrow expansion is risable, and reveals an ignorance of voting patterns.
People rarely vote on single issues which is why the Greens, BNP and UKIP and various independents do badly in elections.
There are exceptions, of course, but they are few, Martin Bell on an anti-sleaze platform in Tatton and an anti-hospital closures candidate (forget his name) in Kidderminster are two examples, plus Caroline Lucas in Brighton. Perhaps this is why the anti airport lobby have never put up candidates(?).
No, like the rest of the country, electors will vote on issues such as the economy, whether they think that they and the country will be better off, how useless the present opposition is, etc., etc..
Quote: "Why not expand Stansted to a 4 runway airport? It's close to London, geographically the right side of the city (i.e. accessible from the Midlands as well as the South East), not constrained by urban sprawl and already has links to the motorway and railway networks.
It's called NIMBY ism, too many tory voters would object, see me reply re getting votes."
Because
(1) it's no where near its capacity, in fact it's contracting;
(2) like Fantasy Island, airlines and pax cannot be persuaded to use it;
(3) location, location, location!
No carrier will voluntarily move its operations from an operational LHR to a Thames Estuary airport, given a choice. But that's not what this is about."
Exactly, and they cannot be forced to.
Quote: "Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is proposing a scenario where both airports will continue to operate in parallel - so we're not talking about a Mirabel/Dorval situation."
Dorval continued as a domestic only airport until the government conceded defeat on Mirabel and allowed international flights back to Dorval.
If as you state "Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is proposing a scenario where both airports will continue to operate in parallel", then reality has gone out of the window!
Quote: "You state, at every opportunity, your view that the Government will not be able to bring about the closure of Heathrow and its replacement by an estuary airport."
Because it is true, unless you are seriously suggesting some sort of compulsory purchase? Such action would cost millions of taxpayers' money in compensation for BAA and millions in litigation. The government won't go down that road, at least half it actually favours LHR expansion!
Don't think for a minute that a compulsory purchase order would not be challenged in the courts.
Quote: "Others, myself included, take the view that, while BAA/Ferrovial will undoubtedly have to be dragged, screaming, through the courts, there are ways and means available to any government to make strategic changes like this happen."
Other way around in the unlikely event that the government were to adopt this course of action (see above).
This is not the 1950s/1960s/1970s: the government no longer owns the aviation industry. You can argue the pros and cons of the policy of privatisation and deregulation, but it is not about to change.
It is for this reason that the government cannot just close Heathrow at a stroke.
Quote: "The parallel with the Chunnel is a good one. As has been stated, there were plenty of ferries and unlike LHR they weren't reaching capacity. The Chunnel was seen to be a political necessity and got built at a price way over budget. Original investors were practically wiped out but, today, no-one would suggest that it was not a good idea, that it is not a vital part of the transport infrastructure and will last a 100+ years. And, in this case, the ferries continue to run."
Isn't that a good reason for potential investors to stay away, Torquelink, to learn from others' bad experiences?
Quote: "Heathrow is a dump. It is not, and never will be a modern airport.
It is in the wrong place, is badly designed, and is useless in a modern world.
It is a 3rd world airport."
Yes, a lot of people say that, on the other hand 70,000,000 pax use it each year, and let's face it, there's plenty of choice.
Quote: "Anyone who thinks lhr is any good should go to Dubai and Hong Kong to see a modern airport.
So, it needs to go. Build Boris Island, or some other place out to the east, and convert lhr in to a business park and a housing estate.
If it is just money that is the issue, nothing that a little bit of Quantitative easing cannot fix.
LHR is as good/bad as CDG and FRA, in fact it's a whole lot better than CDG, now that really is a dump - a busy one admitedly!
No more QE thank you, enough already!
Quote: "The reason the Government (tory and liberals) don't want Heathrow expansion is simple, votes! Politicians want one thing to get elected, and fulfill their ambition for power. They are not interested in the long term economy of the country, just getting elected! There are a lot of marginal constituencies around Heathrow, so if you tell the voters no 3rd runway vote for me........The fact that Frankfurt has 4 runways never mind 3 says it all. That's why U.K. is falling behind in terms of hub growth, and most other long term economic plans, because of useless politicians. So the jobs go elsewhere, they trash everything then blame something else e.g. last Government, global downturn etc etc."
To suggest that the fate of marginal constituencies under the Heathrow flightpath will be determined on a decison (or not) about Heathrow expansion is risable, and reveals an ignorance of voting patterns.
People rarely vote on single issues which is why the Greens, BNP and UKIP and various independents do badly in elections.
There are exceptions, of course, but they are few, Martin Bell on an anti-sleaze platform in Tatton and an anti-hospital closures candidate (forget his name) in Kidderminster are two examples, plus Caroline Lucas in Brighton. Perhaps this is why the anti airport lobby have never put up candidates(?).
No, like the rest of the country, electors will vote on issues such as the economy, whether they think that they and the country will be better off, how useless the present opposition is, etc., etc..
Quote: "Why not expand Stansted to a 4 runway airport? It's close to London, geographically the right side of the city (i.e. accessible from the Midlands as well as the South East), not constrained by urban sprawl and already has links to the motorway and railway networks.
It's called NIMBY ism, too many tory voters would object, see me reply re getting votes."
Because
(1) it's no where near its capacity, in fact it's contracting;
(2) like Fantasy Island, airlines and pax cannot be persuaded to use it;
(3) location, location, location!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 19th Sep 2012 at 21:13.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's agree to disagree
However, I'm not one of them:
It would require very innovative thinking
legacy of names/projects such as <snip> Concorde, Channel Tunnel?
The latter is indeed a remarkable feat of engineering, but not a good investment.
Is building a fairly big floating concrete pontoon in the middle of nowhere really that much more expensive than laying an equivalent concrete slab between the A4 and M4?
We're talking four runways + foundations + terminal complexes, and you are comparing that with one short runway and one long taxiway?
it is the first and only Channel tunnel
we're not talking about a Mirabel/Dorval situation.
Also, Mirabel was just supposed to replace Dorval, LGW, LCY, STN & LTN would still be open.
no-one would suggest that it (Chunnel) was not a good idea
I will admit to being pro high speed rail in theory, but in reality, when I tried to book Eurostar to go to Paris in March and include a stop in Lille, it was just too complex. For most people in the Midlands, it is still easier to fly as the network is still not properly joined up.
will last a 100+ years
It does not (and as far as I know, never has) run at full capacity because the LCCs arrived and changed the game for the whole world.
However, the Locos may have decreased people's expectation of how much the train should cost, thus bringing down yields.
I suspect that the real reason why the whole Eurotunnel project has not been a financial success is that the projections of passenger numbers were over stated (as they are for modal shift from air to HS2), and the costs were under-stated - as they tend to be on major engineering projects, because there are always unquantifiable risks.
Can anybody seriously imagine what LHR would be like - even with a third runway - in 50 or even 20 years?
I don't think there is any reason to automatically assume the airline industry will keep growing exponentially anyway - just as there are reasons for growth, there are also significant negative factors beyond the economic ebbs and flows - cost of fuel, teleconferencing and environmental concerns for starters.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really. This airport has been proposed many times before, and rejected on each occassion. All that has happened now is that one of our leading architects has come up with a specific layout proposal, although on closer inspection, it looks far too much like a C&P job from HKG.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PaxBoy / Frank:
An estuary airport will never be built by private funds alone - way too much and way too long term for a commercial return. The public purse is going to get involved one way or another and for a nationally important infrastructure project so it should - especially if it's going to have to build a barrage anyway. Some projects just are not suited to commercial funds - railways, tunnels, airports, Olympic sites and, I suspect, nuclear power stations being among them. At some point, governments will have to recognise the fact.
Jabird: you may be right but if in 20 - 50 years time, LHR is still soldiering on:
it will mean that London and the City will be well on the way to becoming irrelevant backwaters. That is, of course, a valid option but I don't think it's what the majority of our descendents who will have to earn a crust in an increasingly competitive world will want.
An estuary airport will never be built by private funds alone - way too much and way too long term for a commercial return. The public purse is going to get involved one way or another and for a nationally important infrastructure project so it should - especially if it's going to have to build a barrage anyway. Some projects just are not suited to commercial funds - railways, tunnels, airports, Olympic sites and, I suspect, nuclear power stations being among them. At some point, governments will have to recognise the fact.
Jabird: you may be right but if in 20 - 50 years time, LHR is still soldiering on:
a bit fatter, a bit busier
Last edited by Torquelink; 20th Sep 2012 at 10:23.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR is really about the future of BA. BA will not be able to expand with the constraints imposed by LHR's infrastructure. And when ever there is spare capacity, it always seems as if it goes to BA's competitors. LHR is not, and probably never will be, big enough to enable BA to be the airline would like to be. Its only solution is to move to somewhere else. Let the dinosaurs remain at LHR. The ideal location for anew airport would be on the north west coast of the UK, located on a through railway line or regional terminus. Run high speed trains to all points of the Britain and create an in-train check-in. Then allow LHR to come the airport it should be - a small regional one located in a pointless location or better than that, a housing estate full of people who keeping complaining about the lack of noise.
What will actually happen? Eventually (15 years?), maybe another runway will be built. But that still won't be enough - taxi and waiting times to cross active runways times between the new, third runway and parking positions will make it all but useless. By then, CDR, AMS, DUS, FRA and maybe even BRU will have left LHR in the dust.
What will actually happen? Eventually (15 years?), maybe another runway will be built. But that still won't be enough - taxi and waiting times to cross active runways times between the new, third runway and parking positions will make it all but useless. By then, CDR, AMS, DUS, FRA and maybe even BRU will have left LHR in the dust.
Wrong, there has only been one enquiry that looked building an airport in the Thames Estuary and that was the Roskill Committee. The more recent proposals have not been subject to any formal government investigation or consideration and have not therefore been rejected, they have just had a few words mumbled about them and then ignored which is not the same thing.
Cliffe
Maplin Sands
Boris Island
More than one scheme. And they've all been rejected for one reason - DOSH! And that's never going to change.
Even with Runways 3 and 4, lhr just will not do. Wrong place, bad design and etc.
People such as BA and their pax only use it because they have to.
Build Boris island.
People such as BA and their pax only use it because they have to.
Build Boris island.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am firmly in the Heathrow expansion corner as it is the hub that is the most important factor for the benefit of UK plc. I also believe that the UK needs to think strategically for the longer term, something which the politicians have failed in for decades.
My plan therefore would be to:
1. Build a third runway at Heathrow asap, to serve domestic (poss UK + Ireland) traffic. As I understand it, LHR has about 480,000 movements pa of which ~66,000 are UK+I.
If these were moved to Rwy 3/T6, then all arrivals and departures would be from/to the north and not need to involve routine runway crossings and minimise SID/STAR conflicts.
66,000 movements pa equates to about 180 per day (90 dep + 90 arr) or about 12 per hour spread evenly over 15 hours, allowing for increased domestic routes if desired, achieving better access to the regions.
The capacity released would facilitate massive expansion worldwide using the present runways.
2. Recognising that LHR is not viable indefinitely, in parallel a longterm solution for a 4,5 or 6 runway replacement hub airport should begin in the Thames estuary or wherever. When it is finally built, LHR should be closed, as was Kai Tak.
What is most important is for the politicians to think beyond the next election for a change and come up with a strategy that is best for UK plc as a whole. But for me, to preserve any chance of maintaining our role as a major world hub, we need to build rwy 3 soonest.
My plan therefore would be to:
1. Build a third runway at Heathrow asap, to serve domestic (poss UK + Ireland) traffic. As I understand it, LHR has about 480,000 movements pa of which ~66,000 are UK+I.
If these were moved to Rwy 3/T6, then all arrivals and departures would be from/to the north and not need to involve routine runway crossings and minimise SID/STAR conflicts.
66,000 movements pa equates to about 180 per day (90 dep + 90 arr) or about 12 per hour spread evenly over 15 hours, allowing for increased domestic routes if desired, achieving better access to the regions.
The capacity released would facilitate massive expansion worldwide using the present runways.
2. Recognising that LHR is not viable indefinitely, in parallel a longterm solution for a 4,5 or 6 runway replacement hub airport should begin in the Thames estuary or wherever. When it is finally built, LHR should be closed, as was Kai Tak.
What is most important is for the politicians to think beyond the next election for a change and come up with a strategy that is best for UK plc as a whole. But for me, to preserve any chance of maintaining our role as a major world hub, we need to build rwy 3 soonest.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "I suspect that the real reason why the whole Eurotunnel project has not been a financial success is that the projections of passenger numbers were over stated (as they are for modal shift from air to HS2), and the costs were under-stated - as they tend to be on major engineering projects, because there are always unquantifiable risks."
Indeed, and will be the same with Fantasy Island.
Quote: "An estuary airport will never be built by private funds alone - way too much and way too long term for a commercial return. The public purse is going to get involved one way or another and for a nationally important infrastructure project so it should - especially if it's going to have to build a barrage anyway. Some projects just are not suited to commercial funds - railways, tunnels, airports, Olympic sites and, I suspect, nuclear power stations being among them. At some point, governments will have to recognise the fact."
Governments know this, they also aware of the stick they will get for approving a yet another private sector undertaking that ends up being bailed out (it's too soon after the Channel Tunnel, various banks, etc.).
Could this be why all the fantasy island proposals, going back to 1958, have been ignored by sucessive governments?
Quote: "Even with Runways 3 and 4, lhr just will not do. Wrong place, bad design and etc.
People such as BA and their pax only use it because they have to.
Build Boris island."
Not so, BA are in no hurry to go: they have stated quite catergorically that they will not leave LHR. Why should they? When cutting costs, why pile a load of unnecessary costs on the business?
The same applies to VS, and indeed, any carrier using LHR, especially those that have paid millions for slots, which is most of them.
Apart from that, if BA won't leave, nor will the rest, they would not want to leave BA with such a competitive advantage.
Pax have plenty of choice: AMS is only 217 mi. from LHR and linked to over 20 UK airports. Ditto DUB at 288 mi. from LHR, plus there's CDG and FRA for those who want an "LHR bypass".
Yet 70,000,000 pax use LHR, a success story by any account, and this success is being stifled.
Quote: "2. Recognising that LHR is not viable indefinitely, in parallel a longterm solution for a 4,5 or 6 runway replacement hub airport should begin in the Thames estuary or wherever. When it is finally built, LHR should be closed, as was Kai Tak."
Who owned Kai Tak? Who owns Heathrow?
Exactly. How many times: Heathrow cannot be closed without the owners' agreement, or with millions of taxpayers' money wasted on compensation and years of litigation.
Quote: "What is most important is for the politicians to think beyond the next election for a change and come up with a strategy that is best for UK plc as a whole. But for me, to preserve any chance of maintaining our role as a major world hub, we need to build rwy 3 soonest."
Yes, and rwy 4 soon after.
Indeed, and will be the same with Fantasy Island.
Quote: "An estuary airport will never be built by private funds alone - way too much and way too long term for a commercial return. The public purse is going to get involved one way or another and for a nationally important infrastructure project so it should - especially if it's going to have to build a barrage anyway. Some projects just are not suited to commercial funds - railways, tunnels, airports, Olympic sites and, I suspect, nuclear power stations being among them. At some point, governments will have to recognise the fact."
Governments know this, they also aware of the stick they will get for approving a yet another private sector undertaking that ends up being bailed out (it's too soon after the Channel Tunnel, various banks, etc.).
Could this be why all the fantasy island proposals, going back to 1958, have been ignored by sucessive governments?
Quote: "Even with Runways 3 and 4, lhr just will not do. Wrong place, bad design and etc.
People such as BA and their pax only use it because they have to.
Build Boris island."
Not so, BA are in no hurry to go: they have stated quite catergorically that they will not leave LHR. Why should they? When cutting costs, why pile a load of unnecessary costs on the business?
The same applies to VS, and indeed, any carrier using LHR, especially those that have paid millions for slots, which is most of them.
Apart from that, if BA won't leave, nor will the rest, they would not want to leave BA with such a competitive advantage.
Pax have plenty of choice: AMS is only 217 mi. from LHR and linked to over 20 UK airports. Ditto DUB at 288 mi. from LHR, plus there's CDG and FRA for those who want an "LHR bypass".
Yet 70,000,000 pax use LHR, a success story by any account, and this success is being stifled.
Quote: "2. Recognising that LHR is not viable indefinitely, in parallel a longterm solution for a 4,5 or 6 runway replacement hub airport should begin in the Thames estuary or wherever. When it is finally built, LHR should be closed, as was Kai Tak."
Who owned Kai Tak? Who owns Heathrow?
Exactly. How many times: Heathrow cannot be closed without the owners' agreement, or with millions of taxpayers' money wasted on compensation and years of litigation.
Quote: "What is most important is for the politicians to think beyond the next election for a change and come up with a strategy that is best for UK plc as a whole. But for me, to preserve any chance of maintaining our role as a major world hub, we need to build rwy 3 soonest."
Yes, and rwy 4 soon after.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 20th Sep 2012 at 20:41.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Those are simply two different points of view, so why don't we just all agree to differ, and move on."
Quote: "Normally I see a white flag fluttering alongside that statement, but actually, let's keep disagreeing. Compared to the Fantasy Island thread on AA&R, this one actually has quite an interesting discussion, and a few more people prepared to back it."
It's very reminiscent of the street-preachers and their ilk. Usually after being confounded by logic and finding themselves on the losing side of an argument/discussion, they terminate the conversation with the words "you've got to have faith".
Quote: "Normally I see a white flag fluttering alongside that statement, but actually, let's keep disagreeing. Compared to the Fantasy Island thread on AA&R, this one actually has quite an interesting discussion, and a few more people prepared to back it."
It's very reminiscent of the street-preachers and their ilk. Usually after being confounded by logic and finding themselves on the losing side of an argument/discussion, they terminate the conversation with the words "you've got to have faith".
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 20th Sep 2012 at 20:57.
Usually after being confounded by logic and finding themselves on the losing side of an argument/discussion
We have simply expressed different opinions on what may or not be possible/likely at some indeterminate point in the future.
And when some indeterminate point in the future arrives, we'll know who was right.
