Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

Once again the experts recommend the new runway at Heathrow. makes sense unless you live there.

How long can Cameron kick the can (again) down the road and avoid making an unpopular decision. He says by the end of the year. Ye gods just get on with it. How many more times will there be a report, inquiry, investigation to come up with the same answer.

It will still take another twenty years to build it by which time the rest of Europe will have robbed all our trade and tourism with China and the likes.

Me, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as well

PS Gatwick missed a trick. They should have built in free fares to and from London in their bid.

What do you think will happen?

[chrisgixer]

Heathrow must be throwing a huge number of brown envelopes about, as according to the locals in the area, half the infasructure and tunnels are already in place. No no, nothing under hand going on here at all.
Even though the area is so rammed solid there simply isn't room for another runway. Bah, but don't let that small inconvenience get in the way. Nooooo... Don't worry about that. Let's make air and road congestion worse, knock down a few thousand houses and worsen house prices and lives still further. Noise and air pollution is already horrific. And not just in the immediate area but under the flight paths as well.

Third runway at Heathrow? Utterly absurd idea.

[VXL V6]

Well it gives me something to watch when sitting in the Cisco Café

[tunnie]

Big bulldozers should make some room, it makes sense to expand Heathow, unless you live near it.

It's served very well by motorways, trains, tube. It's going to get bogged down in appeal after appeal, but needs to happen.

[The Sheriff]

What's wrong wi' horse n cart?

[chrisgixer]

Big bulldozers should make some room, it makes sense to expand Heathow, unless you live near it.

It's served very well by motorways, trains, tube. It's going to get bogged down in appeal after appeal, but needs to happen.

Oh really? Why did they build Stanstead then? And Gatwick? And Luton? To take traffic away from Heathrow. Now expanding Haethrow as well? Utter rubbish.

As Borris the bafoon says IMO. It's simply not on to dump this on ANYONES door step.


Although I think Farnborough would be a damn good alternative? Or anywhere else on YOUR doorstep.

[tunnie]

None of the above are London, people fly to Heathrow for a reason.  If I fly to New York, I want to Land in New York. Pointless landing in Boston.

Do you think people love Heathrows art work? Perhaps the view? Nope, they land there cause it's London. Until you remove that need, Heathow will need it expand as we cannot afford a better solution. 

Pop something in the Thames Estuary,  4 runways? Add in a high speed rail line and sure maybe the best solution, but country can't afford that.

Maybe we need a war, like last time with Heathrow emergency seizing powers! Get the job jobbed

[the alarming man]

Once again the experts recommend the new runway at Heathrow. makes sense unless you live there.

How long can Cameron kick the can (again) down the road and avoid making an unpopular decision. He says by the end of the year. Ye gods just get on with it. How many more times will there be a report, inquiry, investigation to come up with the same answer.

It will still take another twenty years to build it by which time the rest of Europe will have robbed all our trade and tourism with China and the likes.

Me, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as wellMe, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as well

PS Gatwick missed a trick. They should have built in free fares to and from London in their bid.

What do you think will happen?

It is obvious you have not got a clue what your on about by the comment i have highlighted.....which idiot would want to land a 747 (or the like) in amongst the biggest LNG terminus in Europe....and as for moving it....where too it was moved 10 years ago and sociatia or what ever they are called payed for the infrastructure to get into/out of the site???....not to mention the 2 nuclear power stations they are now proposing to build....oh and the ship....the one that if it went up would blow all the water out of that stretch of land.....stupidness of the highest order when 40 minutes down the road there is an airport just sitting there unused

[chrisgixer]

None of the above are London, people fly to Heathrow for a reason.  If I fly to New York, I want to Land in New York. Pointless landing in Boston.

Do you think people love Heathrows art work? Perhaps the view? Nope, they land there cause it's London. Until you remove that need, Heathow will need it expand as we cannot afford a better solution. 

Pop something in the Thames Estuary,  4 runways? Add in a high speed rail line and sure maybe the best solution, but country can't afford that.

Maybe we need a war, like last time with Heathrow emergency seizing powers! Get the job jobbed

They land at Heathrow, as that's where the transatlantic gates are. And didn't they make sure of that. Ask Branson.
[Tunnie Mode on]
Do you think it's says London Stanstead on flights from Mercia when actually people want to fly to Bishops oppsin Storford ?
I dint give a monkeys if it's on someone else's doorstep as long as it's not mine
[Tinnie mode off]

Typical Tory boy sheltered Arrogance as usual.

[chrisgixer]

None of the above are London.

Really?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airports_of_London

[chrisgixer]

Looking at Google maps. Stanstead airport has acres of space. The area to the north west adjacent to the runway is already airport land anyway. Just re arrange that bit and buy some fields from the farmers.

Jobbed.

But nooooo, it's got to be at Heathrow hast it.

[Varche]

Where is the money? The far east. China.

Where are the direct flights INTO capital cities? Not Heathrow but other European capitals are well placed. Leave EU we need better links. No Chinese business man wants to land at Stanstead or Gatwick and then be faced with a long journey to get to his place of business/pleasure after a 15 hour flight or whatever. Spot on Tunnie. Need further convincing? Ask anyone who has flown into Glasgow (Prestwick) or Barcelona (Reus) what an ar*e it is to get to the capital.

Only two choices.

Heathrow. Cheap option but blights lives

Something more creative,world class with superb infrastructure but no money, too many obstacles. The Victorians would have just got on with it. We should have blown the Montgomery up as part of the Olympic Games fireworks like I suggested and provided a few mop and buckets free. 

[chrisgixer]

Where is the money? The far east. China.

Where are the direct flights INTO capital cities? Not Heathrow but other European capitals are well placed. Leave EU we need better links. No Chinese business man wants to land at Stanstead or Gatwick and then be faced with a long journey to get to his place of business/pleasure after a 15 hour flight or whatever. Spot on Tunnie. Need further convincing? Ask anyone who has flown into Glasgow (Prestwick) or Barcelona (Reus) what an ar*e it is to get to the capital.

Only two choices.

Heathrow. Cheap option but blights lives

Something more creative,world class with superb infrastructure but no money, too many obstacles. The Victorians would have just got on with it. We should have blown the Montgomery up as part of the Olympic Games fireworks like I suggested and provided a few mop and buckets free. 

Point is, as far as I'm aware, you fly to where the gate is on that route. Reguardless of where the airport is. Lesser routes get the lesser airport but let's not pretend there is a choice in the matter. And why presume all in bound passengers final destination is in London? I wonder?

Stanstead to London is arguably an easier journey at peak anyway. The M4 is a disaster at the best of times. Never mind with the extra traffic from Heathrow. The Hammersmith flyover is falling down, M25 has 6 lanes already by terminal 5 yet it grinds to a halt on a twice daily basis. A4 is a a joke.... Etc etc. tube is the only help, but your not telling me your international business man is getting the tube, to the city surely?

[Kevin Wood]

Although I think Farnborough would be a damn good alternative? Or anywhere else on YOUR doorstep.

He he. Closer then you think. Farnborough are already passing brown paper envelopes around behind the scenes to achieve precisely that.

Probably a good time to sell up before it becomes public.

Oh, and if you hear on the news about a whole load of gliders landing there and burning tyres on the runway...

[TheBoy]

Stansted, the originally planned but abolished one at Wing, Gatwick, Luton, none of them are London. And the whole point of hub airports are that they are, well, a hub.

Heathrow makes sense. Well, it makes more sense than the other options.  It will cause me more work than any of the other options, but I still feel its the best.  And inquiry after inquiry backs this.

We all have to tolerate the inconvenience of supposed progression, be it pointless windmills, the white elephant that is HS2, stupid and dull motor racing events.  The proposed ban of night flights may actually improve the area...  ...although the area north of heathrow is a bit of a shithole anyway from what I remember last time I was there 4 or 5 years ago.