Stansted Expansion
Discussion
How much extra capacity would be generated by removing all local flights?
Heathrow to Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Leeds
Gatwick to Newquay
Southampton to Leeds etc, etc, etc
Seriously, flying from London to Manchester or Leeds is beyond incredible.
Rail links exist between all of these cities and should be utilised, with or without the proposed high speed link. This also extends to Paris, Brussels and more thanks to Eurostar. I wouldn't even contemplate flying to Paris and I live within easy reach of Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted and (oh how I laugh at this) London Southend.
Heathrow already operates much closer to capacity than other European hubs which is the cause of many of its problems.
Heathrow to Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Leeds
Gatwick to Newquay
Southampton to Leeds etc, etc, etc
Seriously, flying from London to Manchester or Leeds is beyond incredible.
Rail links exist between all of these cities and should be utilised, with or without the proposed high speed link. This also extends to Paris, Brussels and more thanks to Eurostar. I wouldn't even contemplate flying to Paris and I live within easy reach of Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted and (oh how I laugh at this) London Southend.
Heathrow already operates much closer to capacity than other European hubs which is the cause of many of its problems.
davepoth said:
Heathrow is in a terrible spot, nationally speaking. It's good for me because I live in Bath so I don't have to drive around the M25 to get there, but for most other people in the country it's a pain because they need to drive around the most congested part of the M25 to get there. A site north of London makes much more sense in that respect.
I would rather query whether it was 'most' of those who would actually drive to the airport. Around 20 million people live in regions of England (excluding London) for whom Heathrow is more conveniant than Stanstead.
I do believe that Maastricht have already said that an estuary airport would be an absolute nightmare to accommodate into what is already a bottleneck in European air traffic.
Stansted in a nice suggestion, but I think that it isn't nearly as accessible as LHR given current transport infrastructure and that isn't going to change anytime soon. If another site were suggested somewhere approaching London along the M4 corridor with the associated infrastructure upgrades then I think that would be more viable in the short to medium term.
WRT high speed rail links connecting the north to the London airports that's a good idea which we needed to start building 10 to 15 years ago. This indecision now isn't benefiting anybody and I can't help but think that it is the same type of governmental paralysis that has seen so many UK industries fade away over the past decades.
Stansted in a nice suggestion, but I think that it isn't nearly as accessible as LHR given current transport infrastructure and that isn't going to change anytime soon. If another site were suggested somewhere approaching London along the M4 corridor with the associated infrastructure upgrades then I think that would be more viable in the short to medium term.
WRT high speed rail links connecting the north to the London airports that's a good idea which we needed to start building 10 to 15 years ago. This indecision now isn't benefiting anybody and I can't help but think that it is the same type of governmental paralysis that has seen so many UK industries fade away over the past decades.
Stansted really is the only solution, if you rule out building anywhere new. There is just so much space there, and you're 10mins from the M25. M11 needs another lane going north to Cambridge, but it's not the biggest stumbling block.
I can guarantee there will be a second runway there in 20 years' time. Makes me laugh all the cars with SSE stickers in the back window, try asking them where they or their friends work or how much more their house is worth because of the airport
I can guarantee there will be a second runway there in 20 years' time. Makes me laugh all the cars with SSE stickers in the back window, try asking them where they or their friends work or how much more their house is worth because of the airport
SLacKer said:
Not everyone wants to come to London though. If the 'regional' airports were better utilised then the London airports would have more capacity to deal with all the London lovers. I am a bit sick of having to travel to London airports to fly because my local airport at Birmingham doesn't have a long enough runway.
My local airport (Doncaster, which is about 3 miles away) has a frikkin huge runway (nearly 3km) but no one flies in to it, the only destination choices are some offered by Thomson and Poland.Hugely frustrating really, would be perfect for trans-atlantic flights, great onward transport links too (on the East coast mainline, 1 hr 30 mins to London by train) and on the M1, A1 and M62.
At the moment though, it's just wasted potential because everything happens in London, and no one thinks about the North of the country.
The SE (and arguably the UK) is too small/densely populated for any 24hr hub airport not to be a problem. Aircraft don't get high enough, quickly enough not to be a nuisance to literally millions of people in this region, be it Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick or wherever. Nimbyism is indeed a cursed thing. Until it's your own back yard impacted 
I half get the Seattle <> Bangalore argument. Though am far from convinced by it. Too many variables - how much Seattle and/or Bangalore business would leave these shores? Is there genuinely not enough business originating here to warrant flights to these locations (bearing in mind all the off shoring that continues)? Even if the quantity were reduced? Etc.
Should we not be focussing the resources on making foreign nations want to come here almost irrespective of whether we have a "24hr hub" airport? ie ensuring enough people from Seattle or Bangalore have sufficient reason to come here that a route is viable even without the additional transit traffic?
Can alternative potential hub sites in mainland Europe cope with the extra capacity that we are allegedly offering them up on a plate? Being similarly positioned countries in terms of their societies, will they really have no issue with additional capacity there?
If there's genuinely need for a super sized 24hr hub, it *must* consider all the social issues associated with it. But first we need to be sure of the need. It would be a massive mistake to build this thing in the expectation/hope it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
I half get the Seattle <> Bangalore argument. Though am far from convinced by it. Too many variables - how much Seattle and/or Bangalore business would leave these shores? Is there genuinely not enough business originating here to warrant flights to these locations (bearing in mind all the off shoring that continues)? Even if the quantity were reduced? Etc.
Should we not be focussing the resources on making foreign nations want to come here almost irrespective of whether we have a "24hr hub" airport? ie ensuring enough people from Seattle or Bangalore have sufficient reason to come here that a route is viable even without the additional transit traffic?
Can alternative potential hub sites in mainland Europe cope with the extra capacity that we are allegedly offering them up on a plate? Being similarly positioned countries in terms of their societies, will they really have no issue with additional capacity there?
If there's genuinely need for a super sized 24hr hub, it *must* consider all the social issues associated with it. But first we need to be sure of the need. It would be a massive mistake to build this thing in the expectation/hope it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Steameh said:
My local airport (Doncaster, which is about 3 miles away) has a frikkin huge runway (nearly 3km) but no one flies in to it, the only destination choices are some offered by Thomson and Poland.
Hugely frustrating really, would be perfect for trans-atlantic flights, great onward transport links too (on the East coast mainline, 1 hr 30 mins to London by train) and on the M1, A1 and M62.
At the moment though, it's just wasted potential because everything happens in London, and no one thinks about the North of the country.
I wonder how many Americans for example have heard of Doncaster? I know it's frustrating but it has to be London.Hugely frustrating really, would be perfect for trans-atlantic flights, great onward transport links too (on the East coast mainline, 1 hr 30 mins to London by train) and on the M1, A1 and M62.
At the moment though, it's just wasted potential because everything happens in London, and no one thinks about the North of the country.
Hackney said:
How much extra capacity would be generated by removing all local flights?
Heathrow to Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Leeds
Gatwick to Newquay
Southampton to Leeds etc, etc, etc
[b]Seriously, flying from London to Manchester or Leeds is beyond incredible.
Rail links exist between all of these cities and should be utilised, with or without the proposed high speed link.[/b] This also extends to Paris, Brussels and more thanks to Eurostar. I wouldn't even contemplate flying to Paris and I live within easy reach of Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted and (oh how I laugh at this) London Southend.
Heathrow already operates much closer to capacity than other European hubs which is the cause of many of its problems.
Sometimes it's both cheaper and faster. I can see the logic personally.Heathrow to Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Leeds
Gatwick to Newquay
Southampton to Leeds etc, etc, etc
[b]Seriously, flying from London to Manchester or Leeds is beyond incredible.
Rail links exist between all of these cities and should be utilised, with or without the proposed high speed link.[/b] This also extends to Paris, Brussels and more thanks to Eurostar. I wouldn't even contemplate flying to Paris and I live within easy reach of Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted and (oh how I laugh at this) London Southend.
Heathrow already operates much closer to capacity than other European hubs which is the cause of many of its problems.
Ekona said:
Stansted really is the only solution, if you rule out building anywhere new. There is just so much space there, and you're 10mins from the M25. M11 needs another lane going north to Cambridge, but it's not the biggest stumbling block.
I can guarantee there will be a second runway there in 20 years' time. Makes me laugh all the cars with SSE stickers in the back window, try asking them where they or their friends work or how much more their house is worth because of the airport
I'd love to hear how you can guarantee it. I can guarantee there will be a second runway there in 20 years' time. Makes me laugh all the cars with SSE stickers in the back window, try asking them where they or their friends work or how much more their house is worth because of the airport
Murph7355 said:
I don't see why there is a need for a "24hr hub".
I also don't see why we seem intent on cramming more and more into the South East.
Haven't we just built some pretty quick rail links to the midlands? What about spreading the load around the country a little if we are desperate for more capacity? Are we really? Where are all these extras passengers going/likely to go, and if it's a transit hub only, why are we bothered?
You obviously dont remember the fight over Manchester!!!!I also don't see why we seem intent on cramming more and more into the South East.
Haven't we just built some pretty quick rail links to the midlands? What about spreading the load around the country a little if we are desperate for more capacity? Are we really? Where are all these extras passengers going/likely to go, and if it's a transit hub only, why are we bothered?
I have some relatives who live near Stansted who were very involved in the anti-expansion lobby thew last time a 2nd runway was proposed - unashamebly from a NIMBY perspective.
There was a widely beleived rumour amongst the NIMBY's that when Stanstead was re-deveoploed from an abandoned milirary facility into a commercial airport, it was developed to a much larger scale than is currently used including the construction of a second runway and associated taxiways/aprons etc - much of which was immediatly grassed over and never used but with a view to being able to expand the capacity "just" by clearing the turfed over concrete.
Seems a bit far fetched to me, but wondered if there's any truth to it.
There was a widely beleived rumour amongst the NIMBY's that when Stanstead was re-deveoploed from an abandoned milirary facility into a commercial airport, it was developed to a much larger scale than is currently used including the construction of a second runway and associated taxiways/aprons etc - much of which was immediatly grassed over and never used but with a view to being able to expand the capacity "just" by clearing the turfed over concrete.
Seems a bit far fetched to me, but wondered if there's any truth to it.
Ekona said:
Stansted really is the only solution, if you rule out building anywhere new. There is just so much space there, and you're 10mins from the M25. M11 needs another lane going north to Cambridge, but it's not the biggest stumbling block.
I can guarantee there will be a second runway there in 20 years' time. Makes me laugh all the cars with SSE stickers in the back window, try asking them where they or their friends work or how much more their house is worth because of the airport
I live six miles from Stansted,I don't know anyone who works there and also dont know anyone who wants it. why would my house value increase due to the airport, the only thing that has increased are traffic on the M11 and A120, Taxis parking on country lanes waiting for a call and some house rents to Airport companies usually for flight staff. I can guarantee there will be a second runway there in 20 years' time. Makes me laugh all the cars with SSE stickers in the back window, try asking them where they or their friends work or how much more their house is worth because of the airport
Seight_Returns said:
I have some relatives who live near Stansted who were very involved in the anti-expansion lobby thew last time a 2nd runway was proposed - unashamebly from a NIMBY perspective.
There was a widely beleived rumour amongst the NIMBY's that when Stanstead was re-deveoploed from an abandoned milirary facility into a commercial airport, it was developed to a much larger scale than is currently used including the construction of a second runway and associated taxiways/aprons etc - much of which was immediatly grassed over and never used but with a view to being able to expand the capacity "just" by clearing the turfed over concrete.
Seems a bit far fetched to me, but wondered if there's any truth to it.
I have never heard that one before. I just hope that the NIMBYS do not win.There was a widely beleived rumour amongst the NIMBY's that when Stanstead was re-deveoploed from an abandoned milirary facility into a commercial airport, it was developed to a much larger scale than is currently used including the construction of a second runway and associated taxiways/aprons etc - much of which was immediatly grassed over and never used but with a view to being able to expand the capacity "just" by clearing the turfed over concrete.
Seems a bit far fetched to me, but wondered if there's any truth to it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff