Heathrow expansion
In my opinion major infrastructure projects should not have to go through this laughable process.
At the outset a period for consultation and raised objections should be set at no longer than one year.
Any serious objection should be swiftly considered and if needed plans altered to accommodate.
The government of the day should then have the right to go ahead without recourse to either parliament or The House of old greedy Scoungers, sorry The Lords!
At the outset a period for consultation and raised objections should be set at no longer than one year.
Any serious objection should be swiftly considered and if needed plans altered to accommodate.
The government of the day should then have the right to go ahead without recourse to either parliament or The House of old greedy Scoungers, sorry The Lords!
Ridiculously long time for a decision only to be eclipsed by the ridiculous budget over runs .
UK needs a global hub airport which LHR just about is but soon won't be without this and expanding LGW or MAN would just give us three sub par hub airports. The area north of LHR has been expecting this for 25 years and other than the usual attempt by the government to swindle Joe public on compensation should be plainish sailing as all of that area depends on LHR and its adjuncts for economic prosperity.
Obvoiously there will be the usual green objections -often well founded but not this time and from individual MPs usually representing places miles away who claim it will affect them.
Strange the way some people talk about he Lords these days-because they have a mind of their own maybe? But they are integral to our democracy as we dont have much in the way of checks and balances and doing away with the Lords is the first step to doing away with the Monarchy
UK needs a global hub airport which LHR just about is but soon won't be without this and expanding LGW or MAN would just give us three sub par hub airports. The area north of LHR has been expecting this for 25 years and other than the usual attempt by the government to swindle Joe public on compensation should be plainish sailing as all of that area depends on LHR and its adjuncts for economic prosperity.
Obvoiously there will be the usual green objections -often well founded but not this time and from individual MPs usually representing places miles away who claim it will affect them.
Strange the way some people talk about he Lords these days-because they have a mind of their own maybe? But they are integral to our democracy as we dont have much in the way of checks and balances and doing away with the Lords is the first step to doing away with the Monarchy
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Well, there goes quality of life for several (hundred?) thousand people. Houses demolished, new roads built and traffic to fill them, noise and pollution, way above what should be permitted. It's about time someone realised that because a field was selected as London Airport immediately after the war doesn't mean it's the right place for the foreseeable future. This argument will still run for a long time.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Driffield
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The length of time taken to come to this decision is for political reasons. Mainly Tory MPs around West London worried about losing their seats if the expansion goes ahead. There will fierce opposition to this, so expect every delaying tactic going to be used. Fact is the UK is losing business to bigger continental hubs, so now the decision has been made get on with it. I wont hold my breath though.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need for third runway. Just stop people using Heathrow as a Europe to USA transfer lounge.
Percentage of transfer passengers: 30% (https://www.heathrow.com/company/com...ts-and-figures).
Let's say half of them are transferring to UK airports. That leaves 15% of Heathrow's traffic doing next to nothing for us, bar an airside Costa and souvenir Beefeater. Just flying in and out.
Simply tax non-UK transfers at double APD. Instantly capacity freed up for people who people who actually come to the UK and contribute to the UK economy. No need for third runway. Problem solved
Percentage of transfer passengers: 30% (https://www.heathrow.com/company/com...ts-and-figures).
Let's say half of them are transferring to UK airports. That leaves 15% of Heathrow's traffic doing next to nothing for us, bar an airside Costa and souvenir Beefeater. Just flying in and out.
Simply tax non-UK transfers at double APD. Instantly capacity freed up for people who people who actually come to the UK and contribute to the UK economy. No need for third runway. Problem solved
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a hub airport, LHR is pretty dire with the amount of walking and messing around with buses. I will admit I've never had to connect through the airport but friends who have do not say polite things about it.
As for the third runway, as I understand it, the traffic is already there, flying round in circles waiting for a landing slot, burning fuel that would be saved if there was another runway to use. That's a point that needs to be emphasised when environmental concerns are raised, that it would potentially improve things.
As for the third runway, as I understand it, the traffic is already there, flying round in circles waiting for a landing slot, burning fuel that would be saved if there was another runway to use. That's a point that needs to be emphasised when environmental concerns are raised, that it would potentially improve things.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK. East Mids.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just get the thing blinking thing built...
As already mentioned, no doubt the snow flakes will rebel in both houses when it comes to the vote.
This country is already far behind a lot of Europe and the world when it comes to airport infrastructure. Just get on with it.
As already mentioned, no doubt the snow flakes will rebel in both houses when it comes to the vote.
This country is already far behind a lot of Europe and the world when it comes to airport infrastructure. Just get on with it.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one who readily admits to knowing aproximately naff all about it, could someone one here please help me understand why instead of building an adjacent parallel runway like many other major ports, we need to commandeer half of Middlesex to make this happen? And in any case, whatever they build, I thought an overriding issue was that the airspace was pretty crammed thereabouts not just the ground 😕
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: #N/A
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need for third runway. Just stop people using Heathrow as a Europe to USA transfer lounge.
Percentage of transfer passengers: 30%.
Let's say half of them are transferring to UK airports. That leaves 15% of Heathrow's traffic doing next to nothing for us, bar an airside Costa and souvenir Beefeater. Just flying in and out.
Simply tax non-UK transfers at double APD. Instantly capacity freed up for people who people who actually come to the UK and contribute to the UK economy. No need for third runway. Problem solved
Percentage of transfer passengers: 30%.
Let's say half of them are transferring to UK airports. That leaves 15% of Heathrow's traffic doing next to nothing for us, bar an airside Costa and souvenir Beefeater. Just flying in and out.
Simply tax non-UK transfers at double APD. Instantly capacity freed up for people who people who actually come to the UK and contribute to the UK economy. No need for third runway. Problem solved
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't underestimate this type of transfer passengers - they help to sustain the economic viability of many routes. Or put another way, if due to additional costs/taxation for these pax it is more profitable to operate routes through other European hubs the UK may lose some of their US and European connectivity.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 48
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow is a vital piece of infrastructure to the U.K. economy. Those transfer passengers are flown in and flown out by U.K. based airlines, bringing U.K. based jobs and U.K. based revenue.
That said, there are many options to mitigate the impact to the surrounding communities: alternate flight paths, a ban on scheduled flights between 11pm and 6am, and many other things. These should all be considered so that Heathrow can at least try to be a good neighbor.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To place the increased noise argument in context, yes there will be more flights. But aircraft noise footprints are a fraction of what they were thirty or so years ago. Likewise, Heathrow has been a major international airport for the entire lifetimes of almost everyone now protesting. They're already being (over?)generously compensated. But if the nimbys are allowed to block this, UK plc is truly screwed.