Heathrow Expansion
Discussion
Harry H said:
The lives of everyone in a 30 mile radius will degrade all so an overseas company can make more money. Heathrow is no longer a suitable place for a major modern air port. Why we don't just start from scratch and build something future proof out in the Thames Estuary. Boris Island.
Plenty of space around Stanstead and Luton. Surely the location of either of those two are perfect. Close enough to London but far out enough not to cause gridlock, either could serve both the North and Midlands and both could bring jobs to surrounding cities like Cambridge, Milton Keynes, etc.Boris Island would literally only serve the SE and would be a PITA for anyone else in the country.
Digga said:
eople flying into (and, as is often the case, straight back out of) a global air hub don't care. They just want to utilise a hub with the right connections. If you want to be a hub, you have to be big.
If we don't do it, somewhere else in Europe will. That French air traffic is as unreliable as the (hideous) Charles De Gaulle is unwelcoming does not mean other hubs might not steal traffic and trade in the future.
So we import a lot of noise and pollution we don't really need in response to the potential threat to a foreign owned business that it might at some point lose out?If we don't do it, somewhere else in Europe will. That French air traffic is as unreliable as the (hideous) Charles De Gaulle is unwelcoming does not mean other hubs might not steal traffic and trade in the future.
Assuming the threat is real and given Heathrow has been (and will continue to be) running at capacity for years then this will have already happened.
Alternatively if it hasn't already happened then...
The only true hubs are artificial constructs built around freight or anchored by a flag carrier running all their routes though it because it suits a specific interest.
Plus if the business case was so strong it would be fully funded privately. It isn't.
Someone should really have pointed out what other major airports have done - relocate to a better position to build a modern facility then sell the existing site for redevelopment. Not piss about on a constrained site with all the legacy mess. After all it's not the location that's important is it?
jammy-git said:
Harry H said:
The lives of everyone in a 30 mile radius will degrade all so an overseas company can make more money. Heathrow is no longer a suitable place for a major modern air port. Why we don't just start from scratch and build something future proof out in the Thames Estuary. Boris Island.
Plenty of space around Stanstead and Luton. Surely the location of either of those two are perfect. Close enough to London but far out enough not to cause gridlock, either could serve both the North and Midlands and both could bring jobs to surrounding cities like Cambridge, Milton Keynes, etc.Boris Island would literally only serve the SE and would be a PITA for anyone else in the country.
I live in Berkshire, so LHR is best for me, LGW is the next closest but horrible for me as on my Aussie passport, I spend so long in immigration lines they've taken my flight off the luggage board by the time I arrive (I arrive at the Immi desk with my passport and BRP in hand and open to the photo page, actual processing is quite rapid).
The thing about LLA and LGW is that they're geared towards Intra-European flights which means quick turn around times and only LHR is geared towards long haul flying which have longer turnaround times (LGW does do some US/Asian routes but nowhere near as many as LHR). To add an additional runway to LLA or LGW wont fix that issue, the terminals will need a serious overhaul, if not an additional terminal to be built. LGW will need some serious tarmac extension given the position of the terminals.
Also it's not a case of "build it and they will land", airlines are champing at the bit to land at LHR because that's where passengers can get the best connections and that's where their operations currently are. Setting up in a new airport will add additional costs and if all an airline wants is to send 1-2 more flights a day its just not cost effective.
dcb said:
BlackLabel said:
There isn't a solution that keeps everyone happy however if expansion at a particular airport creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and generate billions for the economy then there comes a point where the greater good of the nation trumps the concerns of West London NIMBYs who are against expansion.
There is more to it than that. West London is already pretty affluent and theM25 from M40 to M3 is already one of Europe's most congested roads.Making a
already very bad situation worse doesn't sound like progress to me.
If I were in charge, I'd be developing regional infrastructure in a variety of local airports.
Each could be done piecemeal, in serial or parallel. A billion £ here and there
to develop the provinces.
This would lead to reduced journeys to Heathrow, spread the wealth about,
reduce pressure on the M25.
M25 already worth avoiding most times of the day, adding a runway
at Heathrow will cause significant extra aggro for years.
In you are going to put all your eggs in one basket make sure it's
a good basket. Heathrow isn't it. It's already a hotspot and putting
in another runway will make it hotter.
Politicians finally make the right decision, only many years too late.
If only Luton didn't butt up against the Hertfordshire border, then it would be relatively plainless to expand across in the direction of the A1M, both by adding terminals and runways across, as well as a decent dual carraigeway. Easy access to two mainline trains and two good North/South motorways with the M25 close too.
If only Luton didn't butt up against the Hertfordshire border, then it would be relatively plainless to expand across in the direction of the A1M, both by adding terminals and runways across, as well as a decent dual carraigeway. Easy access to two mainline trains and two good North/South motorways with the M25 close too.
Jonesy23 said:
Someone should really have pointed out what other major airports have done - relocate to a better position to build a modern facility then sell the existing site for redevelopment. Not piss about on a constrained site with all the legacy mess. After all it's not the location that's important is it?
crankedup said:
Agree with this pov, why not build a new airport and conjoin with the new rail link in the middle of the Country. Start spreading the major infrastructure and encourage business into the midland / northern areas.
This is the UK FFS, not China. Where else are you going to find a decent site, with all the ancillary support network that it requires, for an airport the size that Heathrow needs to become?Digga said:
Jonesy23 said:
Someone should really have pointed out what other major airports have done - relocate to a better position to build a modern facility then sell the existing site for redevelopment. Not piss about on a constrained site with all the legacy mess. After all it's not the location that's important is it?
crankedup said:
Agree with this pov, why not build a new airport and conjoin with the new rail link in the middle of the Country. Start spreading the major infrastructure and encourage business into the midland / northern areas.
This is the UK FFS, not China. Where else are you going to find a decent site, with all the ancillary support network that it requires, for an airport the size that Heathrow needs to become?There is enough room with the proposed Thames Estuary airport (Boris Island) but it keeps falling flat because you're flying into Nowhere, Kent and it'll be another flight or several trains to get to where you want to go. Operations wise, the Thames Estuary makes a lot of sense (good flight path, 24/7 operations) but if you cant get passengers to go there, the airlines wont land there.
Europe has no shortage of hubs, but only really one in the UK (LHR) because the UK is on the periphery of Europe (geologically speaking) so passengers coming long haul to LHR are usually coming to the UK or very close to it. Flights coming from the Americas, Asia and Australasia have no shortage of alternative places if they think passengers wont mind additional travel time and pain. Alternatives to LHR for long haul flights are places like CDG, FRA, MAD and AMS rather than LLA or LGW.
Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 26th June 11:31
Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 26th June 11:32
captain_cynic said:
Operations wise, the Thames Estuary makes a lot of sense (good flight path, 24/7 operations) but if you cant get passengers to go there, the airlines wont land there.
You have to get everything there to be a hub. Everything from drinks serviettes to aircraft fuel and spares. It's an impossible task, given the road transport situation in the UK. A huge risk, given Heathrow already has this supply chain established.As soon as you move it out to the estuary you might as well use Schiphol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_...
For the UK and bearing in mind transport links and population balance rather than the land area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Brize_Norton
which may be why it's there
Or this one
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brize+Norton,+Ca...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_...
For the UK and bearing in mind transport links and population balance rather than the land area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Brize_Norton
which may be why it's there
Or this one
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brize+Norton,+Ca...
Digga said:
captain_cynic said:
Operations wise, the Thames Estuary makes a lot of sense (good flight path, 24/7 operations) but if you cant get passengers to go there, the airlines wont land there.
You have to get everything there to be a hub. Everything from drinks serviettes to aircraft fuel and spares. It's an impossible task, given the road transport situation in the UK. A huge risk, given Heathrow already has this supply chain established.But this is Great Britain, so...
Heathrow is where it needs to be,
its already got the infrastructure, and that's what sets it up as the prime choice, we do nothing were going to struggle against the other hubs in Europe.
Move it up north ? you mad ? its serving London aswell as acting as a hub.
If you want to improve Heathrow as a regional airport then build facilities away from the airport, have a connecting rail system between an adequate car park and the airport. joined up thinking. set it up and make it work, its there so invest in what we have and as for building another airport that would be daft indeed.
It needs a rail system to link it to the wider area.
its already got the infrastructure, and that's what sets it up as the prime choice, we do nothing were going to struggle against the other hubs in Europe.
Move it up north ? you mad ? its serving London aswell as acting as a hub.
If you want to improve Heathrow as a regional airport then build facilities away from the airport, have a connecting rail system between an adequate car park and the airport. joined up thinking. set it up and make it work, its there so invest in what we have and as for building another airport that would be daft indeed.
It needs a rail system to link it to the wider area.
Johnnytheboy said:
Digga said:
captain_cynic said:
Operations wise, the Thames Estuary makes a lot of sense (good flight path, 24/7 operations) but if you cant get passengers to go there, the airlines wont land there.
You have to get everything there to be a hub. Everything from drinks serviettes to aircraft fuel and spares. It's an impossible task, given the road transport situation in the UK. A huge risk, given Heathrow already has this supply chain established.But this is Great Britain, so...
I really don't understand how those who are advocating the Thames Estuary plan can ignore upgrading Luton and/or Stanstead. The money you'd spent building an airport in the sea along with the associated infrastructure could turn Luton or Stanstead into Heathrow 2.0.
As someone in the SE it's about time the UK started becoming less SE-centric!
[quote=spikeyhead]Politicians finally make the right decision, only many years too late.
Australia identified the need for a new airport to service Sydney just after World War 2 with Badgery's Creek being chosen as the best site. Construction starts next year with first planes in 2026. 80 years from Go to Whoa.
Now that is 'many years too late'!
Australia identified the need for a new airport to service Sydney just after World War 2 with Badgery's Creek being chosen as the best site. Construction starts next year with first planes in 2026. 80 years from Go to Whoa.
Now that is 'many years too late'!
jammy-git said:
Well quite.
I really don't understand how those who are advocating the Thames Estuary plan can ignore upgrading Luton and/or Stanstead. The money you'd spent building an airport in the sea along with the associated infrastructure could turn Luton or Stanstead into Heathrow 2.0.
As someone in the SE it's about time the UK started becoming less SE-centric!
This whole “U.K. should become less SE centric” thing annoys me a bit. There are an enormous number of airports around the other parts of the U.K. that operate at nowhere near their capacity. Why? Because there isn’t the demand. There is in the south east though and that’s why we must build more in the south east. The south east whether we like it or not is where our economy is rooted and we must serve that appropriately. By all means try to build other regions up (HS2 etc) but trying to do it by limiting development in the south east is cutting your nose off to spite your face.I really don't understand how those who are advocating the Thames Estuary plan can ignore upgrading Luton and/or Stanstead. The money you'd spent building an airport in the sea along with the associated infrastructure could turn Luton or Stanstead into Heathrow 2.0.
As someone in the SE it's about time the UK started becoming less SE-centric!
Build the runway (preferably runways), build high speed train lines, build additional motorway capacity and start up flights from Heathrow to more regional airports to increase connectivity.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff