Print

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

[Gaffers]

Problem is...they just tread over peoples lives. None of those in favour are going to lose their homes, communities, etc. So...its going to create 180,000 jobs according to some. What about the existing jammed up roads, where are the houses coming from. Some sources are talking freight, not passenger flights. Surely there must be other options for a freight only airport. 

Many years ago when raf Alconbury was being handed back they tried to get planning to turn it into a freight hub air/road and rail,  bearing in mind, its been a military airfield since 1941 upto 2006, the local tree huggers and bent councilors, with the help of two jags got it scuppared, If it had happened Heathrow would have had enough capacity, after freight had been removed, without the need to expand.

You cannot just move the freight element to another airport as a lot of it is transported in the spare space in the hold of passenger aircraft.

This is a decision that should have been taken decades ago and we should now be debating another runway on top of this one rather than dithering.  Build 2, one at Gatwick as well or better still build a high speed link to Heathrow from Farnborough and turn the I to a larger airport operation.  It ready has suitable runways.

[LC0112G]

Problem is...they just tread over peoples lives. None of those in favour are going to lose their homes, communities, etc. So...its going to create 180,000 jobs according to some. What about the existing jammed up roads, where are the houses coming from. Some sources are talking freight, not passenger flights. Surely there must be other options for a freight only airport. 

Many years ago when raf Alconbury was being handed back they tried to get planning to turn it into a freight hub air/road and rail,  bearing in mind, its been a military airfield since 1941 upto 2006, the local tree huggers and bent councilors, with the help of two jags got it scuppared, If it had happened Heathrow would have had enough capacity, after freight had been removed, without the need to expand.

You cannot just move the freight element to another airport as a lot of it is transported in the spare space in the hold of passenger aircraft.

This is a decision that should have been taken decades ago and we should now be debating another runway on top of this one rather than dithering.  Build 2, one at Gatwick as well or better still build a high speed link to Heathrow from Farnborough and turn the I to a larger airport operation.  It ready has suitable runways.

It doesn't. It's only 8000' long, which isn't long enough for long haul jets to operate from, there is virtually no airport infrastructure for handling passengers, and the approach goes right over the top of a large town which, unlike Heathrow is built up right to the perimeter fence. If you're going to build connections to other airports, then Northolt is the obvious choice, but that suffers many of the issues associated with FAB.

You need 10000'+ for long haul, and the only 10000'+ civil runways in the south east are at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and IMV all three of these should be given permission to build an extra runway.

[Kevin Wood]

You cannot just move the freight element to another airport as a lot of it is transported in the spare space in the hold of passenger aircraft.

This is a decision that should have been taken decades ago and we should now be debating another runway on top of this one rather than dithering.  Build 2, one at Gatwick as well or better still build a high speed link to Heathrow from Farnborough and turn the I to a larger airport operation.  It ready has suitable runways.

Stop it! Don't give them ideas above their station. Based on the airspace they are trying to get for a handful of bizjets a day, they'll need most of Europe to be controlled airspace to accommodate commercial traffic. 

[Gaffers]

   I knew that would get a bite 

[Varche]

So a suggestion today is to build the end of the new runway over the M25.

Why not go the whole hog and build a soundproof bio sphere over a large part of the houses adjacent to Heathrow. Could be environment controlled, heated etc. Large flaps to drive in and out of like a cold store.

[Doctor Gollum]

Stansted and East Midlands are both freight hubs, with operating hours and road links that suit parcel shipping operations. Heathrow has a strong freight only operation but is severely limited by having to close overnight... another reason for its demanding another runway... it would effectively provide 27 hours capacity within its 19 hour opening window.

Stansted would be a sensible expansion point except for a few critical factors... the railway has no money for a dedicated highspeed link to London (a bit chicken and egg), it's an hour in the wrong direction, the local councils don't want it, the owners aren't interested... they probably use it as a tax write down for Manchester airport

Gatwick is the only viable option... economically, financially and geographically. And that's that.

[Shackeng]

Wherever the new runway(s) is/are built, in <50 years time they will still have to build a new airport, so build it now, either Thames or Severn Estuary, thus avoiding the known hazard of aircraft approaching Heathrow over heavily urbanised areas, and to a lesser extent Gatwick.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Expanding Stansted was a serious option a few years back, but it cant be done without erasing many little villages and their churches etc. which have stood in the same place for many many centuries.
When this was pointed out very strongly (cultural vandalism, destruction of Englands green & pleasant land....) by the local pillars of the establishment / seriously wealthy people / Tory stalwarts and donors, et. etc. it was deemed to be a fight that couldn't be won - thankfully. 

[Rods2]

So if Britain needs more flights and more destinations especially China, where else would they land other than the international hub?

Boris island was poo poo,ed but would have shown the world we can still do massive projects notwithstanding Crossrail for example.

Mrs V asks couldnt they use Northolt and link it to Heathrow?

Gatwick has direct flights to China with both Cathays Pacific and Hainan Airlines and Emirates are looking to increase A380 flights to five a day... The Anglo American open skies agreement and 9/11 killed the US flights from here, but Norwegian are basing their UK hub here with ultimately 100 aircraft being based at Gatwick, similar in scale to EasyJet.

Reality is thst Gatwick will have an operational second runway before the last house in Harmonsworth is vacated.

Reality is that both are needed as they are both running at near runway capacity so any disruption causes long delays.

[Rods2]

Problem is...they just tread over peoples lives. None of those in favour are going to lose their homes, communities, etc. So...its going to create 180,000 jobs according to some. What about the existing jammed up roads, where are the houses coming from. Some sources are talking freight, not passenger flights. Surely there must be other options for a freight only airport. 

Where I live west of London on a Heathrow decent path then at times I do get disturbed from the noise of landing aircraft from 5am onwards, but I'm all in favour of the building of a third and ideally a fourth runway as we need the capacity and it will considerable increase the nations and citizens wealth.

[Mister Rog]

The thing I find odd about this whole thing, is that these days everything is "save the planet", cut pollution, recycle etc and yet we are encouraging and indeed anticipating an increase in demand for air travel. I'm sure many will argue, but I hardly think that a big metal tube flying at 39,000ft burning up tons of fuel is exactly good for the environment 

A huge amount of air travel is completely non-essential. Holidays, tourism, fun etc. I'd like to see some comparison between for example a one hour flight versus how many 3 litre cars for a year, or something like that. Trouble is even the rabid tree huggers like their trips and holidays abroad. " I know let's have our "Save The Planet Conference" in . . . . . Japan instead of teleconferencing it. That'll be fun    And before anyone asks, yes I do take holidays abroad by plane. That's the problem everyone expects it these days.

[TheBoy]

If I have my sensible hat on, Heathrow expansion was the only viable option.  As I said last time I believe.

Despite the protestations of some of the more vocal Mancs officials, expanding Mancs (or Brum or anywhere else not London) is a waste of time - they are not at capacity, and are not London.

Gatwick isn't a viable passenger hub while Heathrow remains larger, and is too far out.

Stanstead would never get chosen as its currently London's emergency airport.

Passenger numbers at Luton are dropping like a stone, as nobody, rightly, wants to fly out of that shithole. Ever.


That said, I would have like to have seen a 2 pronged attack - full go-ahead permission at Heathrow, followed by a 2nd runway at Gatwick...   ...because we have so many do-gooders, by the time Heathrow is done, we'll already be lagging in capacity.  As always, line them up ready for shooting, come the mass cull.


And who cares about Harmondsworth? Its got an immigration centre, a couple of hotels, a really shite pub, and a few houses.  Far mores disruption is being caused by HS2, but at least a runway is useful.

[TheBoy]

And before anyone asks, yes I do take holidays abroad by plane. That's the problem everyone expects it these days.

I'd rather drive, as then it avoids dealing with the utter numpties at airports and planes.

Sadly, its not always practical

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I too would rather drive if the option is viable. Although Ive never enjoyed flying, but I used to be ok with flying from Stanstead as it was a relatively friendly little airport, half an hour from home.
Now, you have to queue for what seems like an eternity to get past the Securinazis before you can get within a mile of an aeroplane.
I wouldn't mind if it prevented would be terrorists, but I don't believe for a minute that it would. Its just being seen to be doing something, and giving the type of people who enjoy donning a uniform and ruining peoples days, an excuse top do so.
Its the same when flying out of Belfast. I used to fly in and out of there when there was a clear and present terror threat every day of the year, but there was none of that crap then. Security was very tight, but discreet, targeted, based on intelligence info, and non disruptive to 99% of passengers.
Although I loathe Heathrow and Gatwick with a passion, I must say that last time I flew out of Gatwick - about 4 years ago, the security seemed efficient, without making everyone wish they had gone to Brighton for a holiday instead.
No idea what its like now though.

[biggriffin]

Let's throw this in.

When these people who live in and around Heathrow, bought there houses did they not notice a ruddee great airport or a large plane type thing above them. You chose to live there, nobody forced you to buy a house in that area, Basically put up shut up or move.