Another runway at Heathrow
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed wrote : The market segments which represent LGW's core business are growing, and demand for them must be met somewhere. LGW is the obvious choice for that job,
and just to throw in an anecdote - family over from North Carolina this last weekend and staying in Epsom - delighted that they can fly Charlotte-LHR these days instead of Charlotte-LGW, because "LHR is so much more convenient" - their words not mine.
Last edited by Itchin McCrevis; 30th Jun 2015 at 12:48.
Paxing All Over The World
How many times must we point out: Put in LHR3 and it will free up capacity at LGW. In 10 years time if expansion there is going nicely, they can apply for their 2nd. I say '10 years' coz it'l take 20.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Durham
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Telegraph - MPs with conflict of interest (Constituencies under flightpath)
Crispin Blunt, the Tory MP for Reigate who is opposed to expanding Gatwick, has written to Sir Jeremy Heywood asking him to ensure that Cabinet ministers “who have a constituency interest in the national decision to be taken on airport expansion” are not involved in the decision. Mr Blunt had written to Sir Jeremy on June 10 to seek “assurances that the provisions on conflicts of interest in the Ministerial Code will apply to Ministers who have a constituency interest in opposing a new runway at Heathrow”.
Sir Jeremy replied: “These matters are considered on a case-by-case basis, reflecting specific Ministerial responsibilities and the nature of any constituency interest.
“These Code provisions will of course apply to the Government’s response to the Airports Commission’s Final Report.”
Mr Blunt said in reply to Sir Jeremy’s letter that the suggestion that the Ministerial Code only applies to Ministers’ decision-making within departments and not when involved in collective Government consideration was “a risible proposition, if it was not so serious as to significantly prejudice the national interest in this instance”.
Sir Jeremy replied: “These matters are considered on a case-by-case basis, reflecting specific Ministerial responsibilities and the nature of any constituency interest.
“These Code provisions will of course apply to the Government’s response to the Airports Commission’s Final Report.”
Mr Blunt said in reply to Sir Jeremy’s letter that the suggestion that the Ministerial Code only applies to Ministers’ decision-making within departments and not when involved in collective Government consideration was “a risible proposition, if it was not so serious as to significantly prejudice the national interest in this instance”.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So with the recommendation being made public tomorrow, who's prepared to say now that they'll accept the 'Umpires' decision?
Whatever it is, let's stop squabbling and get on with it!
For me, JFDI!!!
Whatever it is, let's stop squabbling and get on with it!
For me, JFDI!!!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..and, hot off the press, "sources have told the BBC" :
Airports Commission report 'to back Heathrow runway' - BBC News
... plus possibly leaving the door open for R2 at LGW?
Airports Commission report 'to back Heathrow runway' - BBC News
... plus possibly leaving the door open for R2 at LGW?
Paxing All Over The World
from the BBC article:
Would anyone like some freshly made fudge? 
Gosh, no one could have predicted that outcome ... 
He will not, though, rule out a second runway at Gatwick as a credible option - meaning that the government will be left to make the final decision.
But government sources told the BBC earlier this month there would be no immediate response to the final recommendation and the Financial Times has reported that there will be no decision until Christmas.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder who the source actually was. .....tut tut��
"K " hi "it's H " here
"...now you know this airport thingy....."
Care to fill in the blanks anybody ?
I shouldn't say anything but Sir Humphrey called me but I couldn't possibly divulge anything else, given the fact he also asked me about my bank details in the Cayman.
"K " hi "it's H " here
"...now you know this airport thingy....."
Care to fill in the blanks anybody ?
I shouldn't say anything but Sir Humphrey called me but I couldn't possibly divulge anything else, given the fact he also asked me about my bank details in the Cayman.
Last edited by Bagso; 30th Jun 2015 at 22:58.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In the Chalfonts
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport Commission: final report:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nal-report.pdf
Business case and sustainability assessment: Heathrow Airport north west runway:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...assessment.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nal-report.pdf
Business case and sustainability assessment: Heathrow Airport north west runway:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...assessment.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Various at the moment
Posts: 1,159
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
1 Post
Politics getting in the way of common sense. STN wouldn't need to knock down a village thus ruining lives of thousands and yet LHR will be doing just that.
Back handers anyone
Back handers anyone
So a proposal which would adversely affect 25 times as many local people as at Gatwick, plus the demolition of around 750-800 properties is the proposed option?
As for the effect on Denham and White Waltham.......
Access to Heathrow is utterly dire. The M25 and M4 are often static car parks and the only direct rail access is from London....
Gatwick is about as awkward to reach by road from anywhere to the west or north-west, but at least there's a railway station at the airport.
It would be an environmental disaster to build that runway at Sipson....
So, Gatwick plus a high speed direct Heathrow-Gatwick rail link should be the conclusion. But it won't be, as ba will undoubtedly lobby for LHR.
As for the effect on Denham and White Waltham.......
Access to Heathrow is utterly dire. The M25 and M4 are often static car parks and the only direct rail access is from London....
Gatwick is about as awkward to reach by road from anywhere to the west or north-west, but at least there's a railway station at the airport.
It would be an environmental disaster to build that runway at Sipson....
So, Gatwick plus a high speed direct Heathrow-Gatwick rail link should be the conclusion. But it won't be, as ba will undoubtedly lobby for LHR.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: here
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@BEagle is the aerodrome you live near called LHR by any chance?
Have you run your own full investigation into the appropriate location? My two points below in reply to your comments suggest maybe you haven't...
Access to Gatwick from Wales and the West Country isn't exactly great either, made worse by the longer travel distance.
Heathrow does have a rail station as well as a tube station, once Crossrail is complete there will be rail access from the West.
Have you run your own full investigation into the appropriate location? My two points below in reply to your comments suggest maybe you haven't...
Access to Gatwick from Wales and the West Country isn't exactly great either, made worse by the longer travel distance.
Heathrow does have a rail station as well as a tube station, once Crossrail is complete there will be rail access from the West.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A high speed rail link (cos they're cheap!) between a hub airport and loco point to point airport has no commercial basis. That's why it wasn't on the short list.
As to thousands of lives being ruined by their houses being demolised in a run down village half owned by HAL, they'll be compensated. Sipson is a hole.
As to thousands of lives being ruined by their houses being demolised in a run down village half owned by HAL, they'll be compensated. Sipson is a hole.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes decisions have to be taken in the national interest which have drastic consequences on a minority of the population. LHR is Britain's gateway to the world and as such this is a UK issue not an issue for West London only.
If we are happy to see our foreign trade and influence in the world continue to slip away as Amsterdam and Frankfurt airports grow then we should continue to do nothing. If however we want to continue to enjoy the high standard of living which we currently enjoy (despite the austerity we face) then we need a new runway at LHR. We needed it twenty years ago.
The thousands of people directly affected by the expansion of LHR have my sympathy, of course they do. Nobody wants to have their lives subject to such major disturbance. But the wider national interest demands expansion at LHR as it is for the greater good.
If we are happy to see our foreign trade and influence in the world continue to slip away as Amsterdam and Frankfurt airports grow then we should continue to do nothing. If however we want to continue to enjoy the high standard of living which we currently enjoy (despite the austerity we face) then we need a new runway at LHR. We needed it twenty years ago.
The thousands of people directly affected by the expansion of LHR have my sympathy, of course they do. Nobody wants to have their lives subject to such major disturbance. But the wider national interest demands expansion at LHR as it is for the greater good.
