Discussion
Tootles the Taxi said:
The so-called "transport infrastructure" is crap. Ever tried going on the Piccadilly Line with a load of luggage? Heathrow Express from Paddington is vastly overpriced as are cabs/minicabs from central London to the airport. No-one with any semblance of sanity would use the Airbus or go to Reading by train and then get on a coach to get stuck on the M25 just outside Heathrow in the traffic caused by other morons who all want to fly out from Heathrow.
This I just don't get, Heathrow may not be perfect but IT IS better than any of the other options around London. I've also used the trains, Rail-Air link, Taxi's and I think pretty much every other option to get to and from each terminal at Heathrow.Are you seriously trying to say getting to Gatwick / Stanstead / Luton / Boris Island is or would be better?
nonuts said:
Tootles the Taxi said:
The so-called "transport infrastructure" is crap. Ever tried going on the Piccadilly Line with a load of luggage? Heathrow Express from Paddington is vastly overpriced as are cabs/minicabs from central London to the airport. No-one with any semblance of sanity would use the Airbus or go to Reading by train and then get on a coach to get stuck on the M25 just outside Heathrow in the traffic caused by other morons who all want to fly out from Heathrow.
This I just don't get, Heathrow may not be perfect but IT IS better than any of the other options around London. I've also used the trains, Rail-Air link, Taxi's and I think pretty much every other option to get to and from each terminal at Heathrow.Are you seriously trying to say getting to Gatwick / Stanstead / Luton / Boris Island is or would be better?
out of preference, I use Heathrow even though standstead/luton/birmingham are all closer.
If you shut Heathrow, just how many of the people who live round it would be complaining about being out of work with no prospects?
all it needs is another runway (or two!), something that it used to have int he past, and was planned for years ago.
my only gripe with heathrow is it needs it's own access off the M25 that does not involve the M4
MarshPhantom said:
toppstuff said:
HK spent an absolute fortune on a new island airport for precisely this reason.
HK had a fortune to spend, we don't.Expanding LHR is simply compounding on a basic problem - if you were building an airport for London, Heathrow is not where you would put it. If there was no LHR now, there is not a slight chance that anyone would agree to putting an airport there. We should just accept that it is in the wrong place and focus on the other 3 options.
toppstuff said:
MarshPhantom said:
toppstuff said:
HK spent an absolute fortune on a new island airport for precisely this reason.
HK had a fortune to spend, we don't.Expanding LHR is simply compounding on a basic problem - if you were building an airport for London, Heathrow is not where you would put it. If there was no LHR now, there is not a slight chance that anyone would agree to putting an airport there. We should just accept that it is in the wrong place and focus on the other 3 options.
I think, if we are serious about improving our airports then we need to take a reality pill. The idea of building a new airport "Boris Island" is simply not going to happen. It's put forward as a solution, there will be lots spent on consultancy, modelling and plans but never, ever will it happen. So, stop wasting time and focus on what can happen. It's like people saying "if only they could pick their house up and move it" you can't!
As far as I know Heathrow used to have more runways. Why does the UK have to make everything soooooooo complicated, just bring one into play or add another. Why oh why does it need to cost billions, why does it need to take years. It's been talked of for at least 20 years yet still we talk. It not a spaceship or drilling to the earths core, it's a runway, a 2 mile strip of Tarmac for gods sake.
Perhaps airport capacity isn't the problem we are led tonbelieve it is because if I were the MD of UK PLC and had a service that people wanted more of I would sure as hell be expanding and fast. It's called progress. Other countries do it.
As far as I know Heathrow used to have more runways. Why does the UK have to make everything soooooooo complicated, just bring one into play or add another. Why oh why does it need to cost billions, why does it need to take years. It's been talked of for at least 20 years yet still we talk. It not a spaceship or drilling to the earths core, it's a runway, a 2 mile strip of Tarmac for gods sake.
Perhaps airport capacity isn't the problem we are led tonbelieve it is because if I were the MD of UK PLC and had a service that people wanted more of I would sure as hell be expanding and fast. It's called progress. Other countries do it.
Thankyou4calling said:
I think, if we are serious about improving our airports then we need to take a reality pill. The idea of building a new airport "Boris Island" is simply not going to happen. It's put forward as a solution, there will be lots spent on consultancy, modelling and plans but never, ever will it happen. So, stop wasting time and focus on what can happen. It's like people saying "if only they could pick their house up and move it" you can't!
As far as I know Heathrow used to have more runways. Why does the UK have to make everything soooooooo complicated, just bring one into play or add another. Why oh why does it need to cost billions, why does it need to take years. It's been talked of for at least 20 years yet still we talk. It not a spaceship or drilling to the earths core, it's a runway, a 2 mile strip of Tarmac for gods sake.
Perhaps airport capacity isn't the problem we are led tonbelieve it is because if I were the MD of UK PLC and had a service that people wanted more of I would sure as hell be expanding and fast. It's called progress. Other countries do it.
Between 1939 and 1945 loads of airports were built with little fuss; despite shortages of materials, equipment and men. I wonder how fast they could build a runway in those days?As far as I know Heathrow used to have more runways. Why does the UK have to make everything soooooooo complicated, just bring one into play or add another. Why oh why does it need to cost billions, why does it need to take years. It's been talked of for at least 20 years yet still we talk. It not a spaceship or drilling to the earths core, it's a runway, a 2 mile strip of Tarmac for gods sake.
Perhaps airport capacity isn't the problem we are led tonbelieve it is because if I were the MD of UK PLC and had a service that people wanted more of I would sure as hell be expanding and fast. It's called progress. Other countries do it.
If they really tried the government could have had London Heyford operational in two or three years. They already own the land and infrastructure projects like that are useful in recession because they do pay back. As opposed to all those white elephant art and culture galleries. Maybe Manchester would have been the better idea though?
Perhaps, with all this talk of needed a Hub, oh I don't know they could invest money away from the South East (heaven forbid) build a new tourist airport off a motorway somewhere, and 'free up' capacity in Heathrow instead of trying to create a freight hub and making the entire population travel to fecking Heathrow or even worse Gatwick just to go on their Holidays.
AAGR said:
toppstuff said:
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.
So you've never flown in to Los Angeles, then ? Or San Francisco ? 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.
Tootles the Taxi said:
The so-called "transport infrastructure" is crap. Ever tried going on the Piccadilly Line with a load of luggage? Heathrow Express from Paddington is vastly overpriced as are cabs/minicabs from central London to the airport. No-one with any semblance of sanity <clip>
Cabs expensive, yes but have you ever taken a taxi from CDG to Paris? 
about €75 ... As for the trains there's a choice; Tube £5, Heathrow Connect £10, Heathrow Express £20 seems fine to me. P-Jay said:
Perhaps, with all this talk of needed a Hub, oh I don't know they could invest money away from the South East (heaven forbid) build a new tourist airport off a motorway somewhere, and 'free up' capacity in Heathrow instead of trying to create a freight hub and making the entire population travel to fecking Heathrow or even worse Gatwick just to go on their Holidays.
And the reason why that doesn't happen is that wherever it is you live, the passenger numbers dont support a regular flight to wherever it is you want to go. That's why the hub and spoke method works. You have one Hub airport flying everyday to everywhere (in utopia) and that flight is fed by smaller flights across the UK to the Hub. You gather up the demand to one airport, to support that daily flight to wherever. The issue Heathrow has is that it has no spare capacity on the runways to add to those destinations perople now wish to travel too. Hence the need for a new runway(s). Airlines dont' make a lot of money, are prone to natural disasters (volcanoes etc) that are unforeseen and further erode profits. They will not provide a service from your local airport if it doesn't make them money.
As an aside, if you total the net worth of every US carrier, they total $2 billion LESS than Starbucks. Frankly I'm amazed we have a private aviation sector at all!
RichB said:
AAGR said:
toppstuff said:
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.
So you've never flown in to Los Angeles, then ? Or San Francisco ? 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.
Atlanta is supposedly the textbook 'good hub' - 4 runways
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff