Print

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

[tunnie]

Farnborough airport is a far better idea. Ready to go as is

I'd like that, make property price increase even more. Depending on flight paths of course. At uni I lived in Hayes, Middlesex. Right next to Heathrow, never saw or heard planes.

[chrisgixer]

Farnborough airport is a far better idea. Ready to go as is

I'd like that, make property price increase even more. Depending on flight paths of course. At uni I lived in Hayes, Middlesex. Right next to Heathrow, never saw or heard planes.

Hayes is 4miles NORTH of an east west runway, other side of the M4. So no surprise you didn't hear or see planes.
Move 4 miles east or west under that flight path and see how your house prices do then.

[tunnie]

Why I said depends on flight plans. 

None of the above are London.

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

Where do you think/state you live again? Somewhere your postcode says it's not? 

Heathrow needs the runway, deal with it 

No where near a London airport, that's for sure. although London is 40mins away if travelling at the right times. Especially if trying to catch the curry house before they shut.

There's no doubt there's a need. None at all. It's so great a need that there's a need for a completely new LONDON airport.

I need a completely new Aston Martin, no doubt in that need. But can't afford one, just as country cannot afford a completely new airport. Bodge up Heathrow for now, flatten Slough 

[omega2018]

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.

interesting , they used to keep banging on about hub airports - 'heathrow has to stay a premier hub airport', 'people must stop here on their way from new york to amsterdam' etc etc... but today on the news no mention of hubs, suddenly its all about direct flights , heathrow to some field in china etc...  they can't have it both ways.

the whole hub idea is stupid - think about it, what is the only mode of transport that can go directly from one point on land to any point on land in another continent?  why would you want to make the aeroplane stop en-route at a 'hub'?  why would any business man want to have to change planes at heathrow if they are heading for somewhere else?  why would anyone want to fly from heathrow if they live in birmingham? 

there should be less hubs not more, using an airport as a hub is a waste of the resource.

[Phil L]

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?

I'm surprised as the billion pound benefits claimed, but think that if the UK does need more capacity that we should look elsewhere across the UK as opposed to expanding Heathrow

[05omegav6]

Farnborough airport is a far better idea. Ready to go as is

I'd like that, make property price increase even more. Depending on flight paths of course.At uni I lived in Hayes, Middlesex. Right next to Heathrow, never saw or heard planes.

Oppsing NIMBY

[Kevin Wood]

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.

interesting , they used to keep banging on about hub airports - 'heathrow has to stay a premier hub airport', 'people must stop here on their way from new york to amsterdam' etc etc... but today on the news no mention of hubs, suddenly its all about direct flights , heathrow to some field in china etc...  they can't have it both ways.

the whole hub idea is stupid - think about it, what is the only mode of transport that can go directly from one point on land to any point on land in another continent?  why would you want to make the aeroplane stop en-route at a 'hub'?  why would any business man want to have to change planes at heathrow if they are heading for somewhere else?  why would anyone want to fly from heathrow if they live in birmingham? 

there should be less hubs not more, using an airport as a hub is a waste of the resource.

Yeah, and if it's so important as a hub airport - why not expand an under utilised airport up North?

If the punters are going to rock up, buy a duty free bottle of plonk, fill BAA's coffers and then foxtrott oscar again, will they even notice they've not been to London?

[Kieran]

Heathrow is the best option. A well established airport full to capacity which airlines and customers want to fly into.
The majority of people living next to Heathrow rely on the airport for employment. I am not just talking about the airport itself but also all the other infrastructures around as well.

As far as the noise and pollution levels are concerned many of the airlines flying into Heathrow use aircraft which are quieter and efficient. Just compare an old 737 to a more modern 737-800 and you can tell the difference. Most of the complaints to Heathrow are made by a very small minority of people whilst most others put up with the slight inconvenience caused by an important business providing a lot of wealth to the area.

Heathrow is very important to the British economy. It is about time a decision was made.

[chrisgixer]

Why I said depends on flight plans. 

None of the above are London.

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

Where do you think/state you live again? Somewhere your postcode says it's not? 

Heathrow needs the runway, deal with it 

No where near a London airport, that's for sure. although London is 40mins away if travelling at the right times. Especially if trying to catch the curry house before they shut.

There's no doubt there's a need. None at all. It's so great a need that there's a need for a completely new LONDON airport.

I need a completely new Aston Martin, no doubt in that need. But can't afford one, just as country cannot afford a completely new airport. Bodge up Heathrow for now, flatten Slough 

Nobody needs an Aston. But you do need to be able to get from A to B without interruption and that's not possible around Heathrow.

And your more than welcome to flatten Slough. But as its 3 or 4 junctions west, outside the m25 and North of the m4, when Heathtiw is South East of the m4 and m25, I don't really see how you think that's relevant to anything remotely aviation related.

[Shackeng]

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?

I agree, the thought of some airlines operating over London into Heathrow still makes me shudder.

[Terbs]

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?

I agree, the thought of some airlines operating over London into Heathrow still makes me shudder.

+1

Unfortunately,  those that it does not directly affect are usually the ones that want the go ahead on projects. Out of site, out of mind. Whilst I am under the flight paths of a number of airports, Heathrow being one, I am not in the immediate zone of the lower flying aircraft, 5000 to 7000 feet over here usually, but it is other aspects that affect me, for example, family losing property, etc, etc.
The same applies to HS2, but that is nearer to home and another story

[Shackeng]

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

Politicians are expected, to take the long view for the benefit of the country, (but rarely do) and anyone who thinks extending Heathrow will be good for the country in  the long term, beyond 50 - 100 years, is, to say the least, not looking very far ahead. If Heathrow is expanded, without allowing night flights, how long do you think it will be before the pressure is on to either allow night flights, or, as I expect, pressure to rise for yet another runway.  Government has been kicking this can down the road since the aborted airport proposal for a new airport at Wing in the late 1960's. After nearly 50 years it is time that they sorted it out, not for the next 50 years, but for the foreseeable future. Of course building a new airport in the Estuary will cause huge problems, but, in the long term, even if not this time, it will happen eventually, as Heathrow cannot expand indefinitely.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Re the Heathrow / Stansted debate. Heathrow isn't necessarily nearer. It depends whereabouts in London you want to go (its a big place).
Its a half hour from Stansted down to East London. You could never get across from Heathrow in that time, or probably even twice that time.
The city and Canary wharf are in the East of course, so Stansted is closer for them. Although City airport is closer still.
The main problem with Stansted into central London is the crap road network after the bottom of the M11. It will take longer to get from the bottom of the M11 to the City than it takes from Stansted to the bottom of the M11.
It needs the sh1thole that is Whitechapel / Mile end / most of Tower Hamlets demolished and a motorway running down there as far as Aldgate.
Personally, I hate Heathrow. I think it is the worlds worst airport, with Gatwick a close second. If I must use a U.K. airport I always opt for Stansted if at all possible.
No point in building an airport further north unfortunately. People want to travel to London. That's where all the business is done and all the money is to be made, and that isn't going to change in the foreseeable future, regardless of Osbornes rhetoric about a Northern powerhouse etc.

[LC0112G]

Farnborough airport is a far better idea. Ready to go as is

Farnboroughs runway is 8005' long - which is only just long enough to get a 737-800 fully loaded with bucket and spaders off to Benidorm. A fully loaded 747 or A380 needs 10000+, and preferably 12000 ish. There are plenty of 7500-8000' runways in the London area that could be used for domestic and short haul, but these are all useless for long haul. The only 10000+ runways currently available in the south east are Heathrow's 27L/R (both 12000+), Gatwick's 26L (10879') and Stansted's 22 (10003').

Gatwick does, notionally at least, already have 2 runways as the parallel taxiway can be used if required. But 26R is only 8400' long (useless for long haul), and is only 200m from the main runway, so cannot be used simultaneously. Minimum separation for runways in parallel use is 1300m. Heathrow's two current runways are 1400m apart. 

IMV, both Heathrow and Gatwick should get another 10000' runway. The only other option is to adopt the Munich/Berlin/CdG approach and build a new super airport somewhere to the west/north west of London in green belt land. Boris Island is in the wrong place - impossible to get to from most of the UK.

Not going to happen any time soon due to NIMBYs.

[chrisgixer]

Fransbog is far easier to extend, rather than the upheaval caused at Haethrow.

Although sadly the area to the south west would be favourite as its scrub land and a road to move. Rather than any chance them needing to flatten Tunnies house to accommodate it.

Although there's always hope he'll get his chance to see some planes under the flight path.

Hell there's room for two runways at Farnborough.