Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Rods2 on 21 June 2018, 19:48:25
-
Wrong time of year for a winter tyre thread, so I thought this would be a good summer substitute. :o ::) ;D
Should it be built?
Should it be this cheaper £4bn version, which doesn't involve demolishing 100's of houses and costing the official proposed version estimated £30bn?
https://capx.co/heathrows-third-runway-a-sorry-tale-of-bungling-bureaucrats/ (https://capx.co/heathrows-third-runway-a-sorry-tale-of-bungling-bureaucrats/)
Discuss.
-
Gatwick'second runway will be built and operational before they decide which lane of the A4 to close for construction traffic... ;D
-
No and No.
It is blindingly obvious that a new airport will be required in 50 years or less. Do it now! >:(
Does no-one think of the catastrophic result of a large A/C dropping in central London on approach to 28R. We allow all and sundry to operate into LHR in order that we can operate into their countries. They do not all operate to our standards.
Think on. :-X
-
I'm sure the 15 countries whose airlines are totally banned from EU airspace are all maintained to the highest standards. ::) ::) ::)
-
Haven't seen MedView for a while ::)
-
Now a few years ago,, some bright spark suggested moving ALL of the air-freight out of Heathrow and moving it to Alconbury, then the nimbys took hold,and that idea was scrapped, would have eased Heathrow a tad.
UK PLC needs a brand new airport fit for use, including all the necessary road and rail infrastructure.
-
Answer is simple.Level London entirely and have one ginormous airport there and everyone's a winner :y :D :D
-
Now a few years ago,, some bright spark suggested moving ALL of the air-freight out of Heathrow and moving it to Alconbury, then the nimbys took hold,and that idea was scrapped, would have eased Heathrow a tad.
UK PLC needs a brand new airport fit for use, including all the necessary road and rail infrastructure.
Well, they don't use Stansted for anything useful either... ::)
-
UK PLC needs a brand new airport fit for use, including all the necessary road and rail infrastructure.
Boris Island anyone? ??? ::) :y
-
Now with the combined knowledge on oof, regarding, aviation, transport, construction and demolition,, and the impending rise to power of TB, let's get thinking,
I do like baza"s initial plan ;)
-
Answer is simple.Level London entirely and have one ginormous airport there and everyone's a winner :y :D :D
You might as well, there are precious few Londoners there now anyway. :(
Ron.
-
Now a few years ago,, some bright spark suggested moving ALL of the air-freight out of Heathrow and moving it to Alconbury, then the nimbys took hold,and that idea was scrapped, would have eased Heathrow a tad.
UK PLC needs a brand new airport fit for use, including all the necessary road and rail infrastructure.
Well, they don't use Stansted for anything useful either... ::)
Got enough planes flying in & out of there now. Don't want anymore thankyou. :P...……...other than that, they can build runways anywhere they want. I couldn't give a monkeys. :D
-
Now a few years ago,, some bright spark suggested moving ALL of the air-freight out of Heathrow and moving it to Alconbury, then the nimbys took hold,and that idea was scrapped, would have eased Heathrow a tad.
UK PLC needs a brand new airport fit for use, including all the necessary road and rail infrastructure.
Well, they don't use Stansted for anything useful either... ::)
Got enough planes flying in & out of there now. Don't want anymore thankyou. :P...……...other than that, they can build runways anywhere they want. I couldn't give a monkeys. :D
Me neither.... as long as they don't want any restricted airspace around them. ;)
-
Could always level Sarfend* and turn the whole thing into an airport, rather than the little one they have now.
* The town they forgot to close down according to Morrisey. :D
-
The problem is that Britain lacks visionaries. We just have sticking plasterers. Not enough motorways convert the hard shoulder into a fourth lane. Traffic jams make the motorways smart and slow at 50 mph. ( taking after making a supersonic plane and then reverting to slower planes)
Need double the airports capacity? Build just one more runway.
There would be plenty of investment money for the right ideas .
-
as a good proportion of people flying from "thiefrow" are not local, why not build/extend a regional airport?
it would cut down on the amount of traffic to the bloody airport,
Humberside airport lands and takes off over farmland or the sea, and its next to the M180,
norwich has an internation airpost but no decent roads to it. several billion could build a nice motorway too.
-
Much of the travel to and from Thiefrow (I like that) is business travel in and out of London. With the best will in the world, that isn't going to change.
-
I’m glad the 3rd runway is coming. It means I can keep using BHX and getting from my car to the gate in 30mins flat, any time of the day or year. Heathrow is awful and more runways will only make it worse.
We’re using it to fly to Aus next year, but only because the air miles are paying. ;D
-
as a good proportion of people flying from "thiefrow" are not local, why not build/extend a regional airport?
it would cut down on the amount of traffic to the bloody airport,
Humberside airport lands and takes off over farmland or the sea, and its next to the M180,
norwich has an internation airpost but no decent roads to it. several billion could build a nice motorway too.
Neither Humberside nor Norwich justify the investment - they're too far from the passengers, and are frankly pi55holes in aviation terms. The international airlines already have the option of flying into many of them, but chose not to. There have been scheduled services from Bristol to Newark in the recent past, but passenger numbers simply didn't support it. People would rather travel 2hrs to Heathrow to take advantage of the cheaper prices that come from the competition of multiple airlines.
Any new runways need to be within 1hr of London, and 2hrs of a large proportion of the rest of the UK population. That really means it has to be west or north west of London - in prime Tory commuter green belt. If we were starting from scratch, Heathrow should probably be 'moved' to somewhere half way between London and Oxford, but it'll never happen.
For long haul wide body airliners you need a minimum of 10000ft runway(s) and 12000ft+ is better. There are currently only six 10K+ (civil) runways in England - two at Heathrow, one each at Gatters and Stanners, and two at Manchester. Heathrow needs two new runways - one 12K+ although the other could be shorter (say 8K), Gatwick needs another 12K+, and if Stansted want's one then Ok - but it's not my favourite site.
-
Here's a radical plan, build a brand new airport, maybe call it Boris island, then leave Heathrow as an immigration detion, reciption centre, as it's staffed by mainly illegals now.
-
There should be 2, 1 at Heathrow and another at Gatwick. By the time this 3rd runway is built we will be out of capacity again because we are already behind the curve.
Plus you have to factor in resilience for incidents like when the NATS phone system went down and it closed Heathrow. If all your eggs are in one basket.......
-
3rd Runway is just plain nuts and driven by big business. As things are there is an almost constant steam of planes in or out. Only a matter of time before one of 'em drops on top of Westminster. Yes of course it's the safest in the World etc etc . . . . until it happens. Besides, with everyone trying to save the planet, shouldn't we be trying to reduce air travel not encourage it ?
Ah yes of course, the fear factor. "If we don't do this then Frankfurt will take over as the critical Euro hub". So what ? let them. ::)
-
3rd Runway is just plain nuts and driven by big business. As things are there is an almost constant steam of planes in or out. Only a matter of time before one of 'em drops on top of Westminster. Yes of course it's the safest in the World etc etc
The last time it happened in the UK (by accident), a PanAm B747 fell on Lockerbie, killing 259 on board and 11 on the ground. Lockerbie is nowhere near any major airport yet...
If someone decides to crash a plane by malign intent, then you can't stop them. Moving LHR out into the sticks won't stop a terrorist trying to plant one in Westminster.
So the only thing you'll cure by moving LHR is takeoff/approach/landing incidents. IMV the biggest danger there is easterly take-offs. Landing accidents tend to occur within a mile of the approach, which is kept clear of permanent obsticals and the airport fire brigade can get there PDQ too. A plane just dropping out of the sky over central London is no more likely than over any other built up area.
-
3rd Runway is just plain nuts and driven by big business. As things are there is an almost constant steam of planes in or out. Only a matter of time before one of 'em drops on top of Westminster. Yes of course it's the safest in the World etc etc
The last time it happened in the UK (by accident), a PanAm B747 fell on Lockerbie, killing 259 on board and 11 on the ground. Lockerbie is nowhere near any major airport yet...
If someone decides to crash a plane by malign intent, then you can't stop them. Moving LHR out into the sticks won't stop a terrorist trying to plant one in Westminster.
So the only thing you'll cure by moving LHR is takeoff/approach/landing incidents. IMV the biggest danger there is easterly take-offs. Landing accidents tend to occur within a mile of the approach, which is kept clear of permanent obsticals and the airport fire brigade can get there PDQ too. A plane just dropping out of the sky over central London is no more likely than over any other built up area.
I thought Lockerbie was a bomb ?
I still take the view that increasing the density of aircraft in any one area, increases the possibility of a disaster, not necessarily by malicious intent. Where's my tin hat ::)
-
I thought Lockerbie was a bomb ?
It was.
I still take the view that increasing the density of aircraft in any one area, increases the possibility of a disaster, not necessarily by malicious intent. Where's my tin hat ::)
Best look at a UK airways map then, and make sure you don't buy a house under any of them. Virtually all transatlantic traffic from Northern Europe overflies the UK and that amounts to many more flights than use LHR daily. Just look at all them blue lines :-)
https://skyvector.com/?ll=51.41256951653948,-1.7265014624360912&chart=304&zoom=4&fpl=undefined
And then there are the Military Training Areas, Military Air to Air Refuelling areas.
If a plane falls out of the sky you need a bunker, not a tin hat.
-
Rog's new house: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/965050/cold-war-Scottish-nuclear-bunker-on-sale
-
The biggest threat to central Lundun is actually London City Airport ;)
-
I thought Lockerbie was a bomb ?
It was.
I still take the view that increasing the density of aircraft in any one area, increases the possibility of a disaster, not necessarily by malicious intent. Where's my tin hat ::)
Best look at a UK airways map then, and make sure you don't buy a house under any of them. Virtually all transatlantic traffic from Northern Europe overflies the UK and that amounts to many more flights than use LHR daily. Just look at all them blue lines :-)
https://skyvector.com/?ll=51.41256951653948,-1.7265014624360912&chart=304&zoom=4&fpl=undefined
And then there are the Military Training Areas, Military Air to Air Refuelling areas.
If a plane falls out of the sky you need a bunker, not a tin hat.
Might be the odd glider or two on a nice day, too: ;)
http://glidertracker.org/#lat=51.198&lon=-0.984&z=11 (http://glidertracker.org/#lat=51.198&lon=-0.984&z=11)
.. but they aren't all predominantly 2 engined jets stooging around a couple of thousand feet up in prime bird strike territory like we have over London.
It might not happen often, but it happened to Sully. Luckily he had a big expanse of water to put it down in. Not sure a double engine failure at 3,000 ft above London would have been as survivable. :-\
-
It might not happen often, but it happened to Sully. Luckily he had a big expanse of water to put it down in. Not sure a double engine failure at 3,000 ft above London would have been as survivable. :-\
Sully's incident was shortly after take off, and I agree that for an easterly departure OTT London it'd be a problem. However, prevailing winds are westerly, so the majority of departures are to the west, and there are lots of green spaces there so there are lots of options which shouldn't involve casualties on the ground although the fate of the passengers is down to pilot skill and luck. I'm not sure that justifies banning 09L/R takeoffs though.
There is always the possibility of a Concorde type issue where the crew are believed to have been trying to divert from CdG into Le Bourget but lost control and crashed into a Hotel killing 4 people on the ground. Aviation is littered with on-off causes of accidents which will never be repeated, and no-matter how small the risk it can never be nil. Moving LHR to Rockall doesn't make it nil over London either.
-
I see no one has mentioned Durham Tees Valley yet !
-
Rog's new house: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/965050/cold-war-Scottish-nuclear-bunker-on-sale
Looks good to me :D Any local sheep ? . . . . .
-
Looks good to me :D Any local sheep ? . . . . .
;D ;D ;D I think they prefer things that go moo up there?
-
Looks good to me :D Any local sheep ? . . . . .
;D ;D ;D I think they prefer things that go moo up there?
Yuk no! what do you think I am, some kind of perv ? ;D
-
its a rather stupid idea,access is awful parking is a nightmare and the place is like a cattle farm,I hope and pray it never gets built
-
Get the 3rd one built at Heathrow. Line up the do-gooders against it, and cull.
They immediately plan the 2nd at Gatwick.
No point doing anything at Luton, because that shithole is run by incompetent idiots, and they would know how to use it.
And Wing in central Bucks (was on the list to be another London airport, but that went to Stanstead) as somewhere for the cheapies to fly out of.
-
The Gatwick one is already planned, they just need to build it ;)
-
The Gatwick one is already planned, they just need to build it ;)
I meant a more complete planning, including the money, getting the contractors lined up and so on.
-
The Gatwick one is already planned, they just need to build it ;)
I meant a more complete planning, including the money, getting the contractors lined up and so on.
It's already funded, privately, no government involvement necessary.
With the relevant permissions in place, they could start it on Monday.
-
The Gatwick one is already planned, they just need to build it ;)
I meant a more complete planning, including the money, getting the contractors lined up and so on.
It's already funded, privately, no government involvement necessary.
With the relevant permissions in place, they could start it on Monday.
While the tree huggers are busy protesting in West London, now would be a good time for planning to be agreed for Gatwick. :y