Discussion
MarshPhantom said:
Boris Island is in the sea off Kent, surely Heathrow is easier to get to for most people than that.
I don't think the plan is to make people swim 
Ideal world time, having planes land/take off over water strikes me as logical. Nimbyism avoided.
Heathrow's a daft place for an airport really.
Gatwick and Stansted are likely the most attractive options if rooting ourselves to the South East for air travel is deemed essential. Though for aforementioned Nimbyism I'd really rather Stansted was left as is.
Birmingham's a toilet anyway so expanding there would be a good idea. But again, approaching over land will inevitably generate issues.
I'm not massively convinced of the need at all personally, or if we're making best use of the routes currently available. Though if something radical were done (zero corp tax for firms based around/near the hub maybe to encourage HQs there?) then maybe the effects could be positive.
Trying to get away from being so SE centric would also be massively positive.
98elise said:
Grain has always been an option. To me this makes most sense as we have nothing in the south east, its near the HS1 route, and the approach is over water.
That and Grain is a complete dump which serves no purpose whatsoever and the best thing that could be done with it is to turn it into something useful 
Not sure the residents of Hoo would like it though, but f
k em, they're all inbred with 6 toes anyway DJRC said:
That and Grain is a complete dump which serves no purpose whatsoever and the best thing that could be done with it is to turn it into something useful
Not sure the residents of Hoo would like it though, but fk em, they're all inbred with 6 toes anyway
A proper built for purpose no compromise Global hub airport construction will transform wherever it is placed. Isle of Grain is good because it will have good links to London, M25 and fast trains into Europe. I would imagine cross rail would be expanded to include it to.Not sure the residents of Hoo would like it though, but f
k em, they're all inbred with 6 toes anyway Everything else we would do would be incremental and be behind the demand.
The issue here is noise pollution, you will not get any support for building any kind of airport in an area of high population density, they will never get local people to agree to a new runway at heathrow. The only hope there is of getting a new airport built in the uk is if it's flight path goes over deserted land, of which there isn't any in south east england, or water.
Fittster said:
A hub airport is to let passengers make connections. Still don't see why there is a need to make connections around London, it could be anywhere, even outside the UK. Fly to Europe, land at Schiphol, connect to LHR.
Most people that travel to the UK want to come to London. Those that use a hub to go elsewhere don't care where it is. So if say 50% on a flight want to go to London, another 40% take onward flights and the remainder have other UK destinations, where on that basis should the airport be?rich1231 said:
Most people that travel to the UK want to come to London. Those that use a hub to go elsewhere don't care where it is. So if say 50% on a flight want to go to London, another 40% take onward flights and the remainder have other UK destinations, where on that basis should the airport be?
Made up numbers are made up.I will wager that the vast majority of people who use heathrow live and work outside of the M25
mattnunn said:
Made up numbers are made up.
I will wager that the vast majority of people who use heathrow live and work outside of the M25
Transfer passengers 37 % from here:I will wager that the vast majority of people who use heathrow live and work outside of the M25
http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/company-ne...
Not all the data of course.
I wager that almost all users of Heathrow benefit from the transport infrastructure into and surrounding London.
New location for 3rd runway discussed: http://news.sky.com/story/1116793/heathrow-new-loc...
SW of LHR, towards Stanwell Moor - as assumed by Simon Calder on the Heathrow Live TV programme.
SW of LHR, towards Stanwell Moor - as assumed by Simon Calder on the Heathrow Live TV programme.
I think all the options have merits, EXCEPT Heathrow.
Developing Heathrow is a terrible, terrible idea.
It is about time some politicians got a spine and faced the simple truth that Heathrow is in the wrong place.
It is the only major airport in the world where aircraft have to fly over a major population centre in order to land in this way. Sending ever increasing numbers of huge aircraft over an urban centre of 7 million people is a stupid thing to do. Only self-interest and lobby groups try to argue otherwise.
Every other major city in the world has bitten the bullet, swallowed hard and built themselves an airport down-wind of the population centre so that the aircraft land effectively in front of the major city rather than having to fly over it. It is time we grew some balls and did the same.
Gatwick, Stanstead, Isle of Grain. All fine.
But Heathrow is a bad idea. It is simply polishing a turd. The only reason to give it to Heathrow is if politicians are suckered in or bribed by the myopic self-interest of Heathrow's owners.
Developing Heathrow is a terrible, terrible idea.
It is about time some politicians got a spine and faced the simple truth that Heathrow is in the wrong place.
It is the only major airport in the world where aircraft have to fly over a major population centre in order to land in this way. Sending ever increasing numbers of huge aircraft over an urban centre of 7 million people is a stupid thing to do. Only self-interest and lobby groups try to argue otherwise.
Every other major city in the world has bitten the bullet, swallowed hard and built themselves an airport down-wind of the population centre so that the aircraft land effectively in front of the major city rather than having to fly over it. It is time we grew some balls and did the same.
Gatwick, Stanstead, Isle of Grain. All fine.
But Heathrow is a bad idea. It is simply polishing a turd. The only reason to give it to Heathrow is if politicians are suckered in or bribed by the myopic self-interest of Heathrow's owners.
theboss said:
I think the government should just put a pin in the map somewhere in Central Southern England and build a purpose built hub that serves all of Southern England and the Midlands. Take somewhere like the old airfield at Upper Heyford - equidistant between London and Birmingham, smack on the M40/A43 and both Chiltern and Brum-Oxford railway lines, divert HS2 a few miles West and have a station there which can double-up as an M40 'parkway' station with 30 mins trips to either city centre. Yep prime rural Oxfordshire and a whole load of pissed off wealthy home owners, but they were already upset about HS2. The farmers can turn all their fields into car parks and retire. I'll have my £10M in consultancy fees now thanks Dave.
(oh and I don't live anywhere near the place)
Upper Heyford is the obvious choice - it could replace Heathrow and Birmingham. Just imagine how useful the land those two airports could be if redeveloped; this should be more than sufficient to pay for the new airport and compensation of the owners of Heathrow and Birmingham. Not only that it could be fully built "from scratch" without disrupting the exisiting services and the government already owns the land.(oh and I don't live anywhere near the place)
Of course it's surrounded by Conservative constituencies that could easily turn UKIP...
Gun said:
I can only really see expansion of Gatwick and Stansted working. Boris Island was never going to work and the Isle of Grain has a few things going against it that would make it decades before they started building.
I reckon the Isle of Grain edges it.The problem is that Gatwick and Stanstead have a considerably body of NIMBY's who will do their best to delay things. Taking these inevitable challenges into account, I would not be surprised if the Isle Of Grain would not take much longer. There are not likely to be many people objecting to the Isle of Grain plan.
The proposed cost of the runways seems massive to me; Listed as between £14bn and £18 bn here here
Compare that to a four Runway Thames airport priced at £60bn to £100bn including high speed rail links, road links, a new Thames road crossing and a 2nd flood barrier for Greater london.
That said Berlin are in the process of (re)building themselves a new airport, it has gone 100% over budget but is still only €5bn or so, and should serve some 20 million odd people a year compared to Heathrow's 70 million.
Has there been any suggestions to expand Luton?
Compare that to a four Runway Thames airport priced at £60bn to £100bn including high speed rail links, road links, a new Thames road crossing and a 2nd flood barrier for Greater london.
That said Berlin are in the process of (re)building themselves a new airport, it has gone 100% over budget but is still only €5bn or so, and should serve some 20 million odd people a year compared to Heathrow's 70 million.
Has there been any suggestions to expand Luton?
Rovinghawk said:
98elise said:
Currently anyone flying from kent has to travel around the M25.
That's the saddest thing I've ever heard- Gatwick is so terribly far away.How someone in Kent can moan about not have an Airport on your doorstep beggars belief!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff