Heathrow Expansion

[The Don of Croy]

I think they will expand Heathrow, but it'll be the last time (due to further development etc etc).

The better alternative was Boris Island imho, leave plenty of space for future expansion etc etc.

I live under the Gatwick flight path - have done for decades. It brings a huge number of jobs with it, plus the convenience when travelling! Another runway would only improve the value of my house, add another layer of background noise, so I'm ambivalent (unlike my neighbours, the parish council, the district council and the county council).

Oddly the Ashdown Forest is under the Gatwick flightpath too - and there's a 7Km development embargo to 'manage' nitrous oxide (sic) emissions to safeguard the ecosystem...but it doesn't apply to air traffic.

[OzzyR1]

Thankyou4calling said:

Build a new runway or two and add some terminals, it would take six months at most to do

What?!? 6 months?

[andy-xr]

I think it's hilarious how Londoners are coming out as badly done to, yet somehow that sthole remains the centre of the UK for everyone. Really glad I'm nowhere near it, absolutely hate the place. Too much noise, people, traffic, pollution, it's just a cold hearted place that's getting worse by the day

Happily fly from Manchester or Birmingham to wherever I want to go to

[Blib]

andy-xr said:

I think it's hilarious how Londoners are coming out as badly done to, yet somehow that sthole remains the centre of the UK for everyone. Really glad I'm nowhere near it, absolutely hate the place. Too much noise, people, traffic, pollution, it's just a cold hearted place that's getting worse by the day

Happily fly from Manchester or Birmingham to wherever I want to go to

We miss you.

[Guybrush]

My guess is for Heathrow to be the preferred option, for a number of good reasons; however, (non-technical viewpoint / initial reaction) the recent large oil find near Gatwick may well strengthen the case for not developing Gatwick airport as it could compromise the big (oil) earner for the country. The proposed new runway, with its inevitable additional infrastructure spread wide, could possibly hamper the oil extraction process.(?)

[andy-xr]

I miss you too, but after living in Kingston for a few years and Surbiton as well I dont particularly miss the A3 or the Chessington/Waterloo line

It just strikes me that there's way too many people, houses, cars and transport things in too small a patch of earth to make much worthwhile

[Blaster72]

andy-xr said:

I think it's hilarious how Londoners are coming out as badly done to, yet somehow that sthole remains the centre of the UK for everyone. Really glad I'm nowhere near it, absolutely hate the place. Too much noise, people, traffic, pollution, it's just a cold hearted place that's getting worse by the day

Happily fly from Manchester or Birmingham to wherever I want to go to

None of the above makes any sense whatsoever, this thread is about Heathrow - a LONDON airport

Anyway, I work there and its kept me employed for a couple of decades so far. I can't see any government actually doing anything about expansion - they'll just keep kicking it around until the next election again.

[Mario149]

CAPP0 said:

colour of the line doesn't make it any quicker though!

Yeah it does, District line is proper sh t (although I do like the new carriages), Piccadilly line is manageable

[truck71]

Mario149 said:

Yeah it does, District line is proper sh t (although I do like the new carriages), Piccadilly line is manageable

Sums it up pretty well, be even better when the PL stops at Turnham Green after the upgrade work.

[myvision]

kev1974 said:

jogon said:

Good on him. I asked my local MP, Jane Ellison Con, and never got a response as even in Battersea the noise is dreadful from 4.30am till 11pm with the two runways.

meh I live directly inbetween the two inbound flightpaths over Barnes, first few days of moving there I was horrified at the noise and wondering what I had done in moving there, but a month later I didn't notice it at all, and I still don't. I can look up and see the planes and they might as well be completely silent, my brain has just completely tuned them out.

Went to work there on T5 stayed in Wraysbury and the noise did my head in for all of two weeks as you say after that it's blocked out automatically.

[Ari]

CAPP0 said:

I think there are at least two very good counter-arguments to LHR expansion outside of any directly airline-business-related matters:

1. I just can't see how, in the current day & age, with all we know about terror/extremism, it is a good idea to fly a massive number of planes DIRECTLY over the capital city and the key business districts, let alone all the heritage and tourism that goes with it. Dropping a plane anywhere from Greenwich to Richmond would cause carnage beyond belief, and everyone can see from recent and relatively-recent events that it would not be particularly difficult to do so, although we're somewhat stuck with he current arrangements. But do we really want to increase the odds?

You're going to have to help me here. Presumably they'd only need to 'drop' one of them and they already have over a thousand to choose from every day!
How does increasing that number increase the risk of terrorist activity?

[dcb]

JagLover said:

Heathrow is actually well placed for the rest of the country.

Really ?

Tens of millions of folks live in the UK, yet are more than 100 miles from Heathrow.
Both Birmingham and Manchester are more central.

More Heathrow or Gatwick expansion would only make a bad situation worse
for London & SE England dominating the UK.

For a lot less money, one of the Scottish airports could be expanded, a
Northern Airport (Manchester ?) could be expanded *AND* somewhere in the
Midlands could be expanded too.

It would load balance air traffic nicely across the country and
save millions of journeys of folks from Scotland, the North and the
Midlands downto pesky Heathrow for international journeys.

[Blib]

dcb said:

For a lot less money, one of the Scottish airports could be expanded, a
Northern Airport (Manchester ?) could be expanded *AND* somewhere in the
Midlands could be expanded too.

One problem. In the whole scheme of things, few want to go to those places. They want to come to London and the South East. It has little to do with us Brits. wanting easier access to airports.

[truck71]

dcb said:

Really ?

Tens of millions of folks live in the UK, yet are more than 100 miles from Heathrow.
Both Birmingham and Manchester are more central.

More Heathrow or Gatwick expansion would only make a bad situation worse
for London & SE England dominating the UK.

For a lot less money, one of the Scottish airports could be expanded, a
Northern Airport (Manchester ?) could be expanded *AND* somewhere in the
Midlands could be expanded too.

It would load balance air traffic nicely across the country and
save millions of journeys of folks from Scotland, the North and the
Midlands downto pesky Heathrow for international journeys.

Trouble is no-one inbound wants to go to any of the places suggested, London and the SE are where it's at- tourists or business. If the economic activity can spread North over time (I hope it does) then maybe that traffic will increase but we're a long way off that. As for Scotland, will it ever get off it's ar$e and become economically significant?

[Johnnytheboy]

el stovey said:

AAGR said:

Johnnytheboy said:

They'll choose Gatwick over Heathrow - I bet.

They'll fudge, and announce another review just to delay a decision - I'll bet

Highly likely. The thing is, both those airports desperately needed a new runway decades ago.

It's an endless cycle of election and consultation process then election then consultation process.

Gatwick, trust me.

[andy-xr]

Blib said:

One problem. In the whole scheme of things, few want to go to those places. They want to come to London and the South East. It has little to do with us Brits. wanting easier access to airports.

I'm not convinced everyone who lands at LHR actually wants to go to London, for many it's a stop off, same as when I'm at CDG on the weekend, absolutely no plans to go to Paris. For others it's just where their airline flies to for The Engerland. My bosses for example, find it easier to get a flight to Heathrow from Gothenburg rather than to Manchester which is better for both of us, but they find it easier still to get me to go out to them

[zygalski]

Johnnytheboy said:

Gatwick, trust me.

Yep.
Lots of houses on the market about a mile or so South of the existing runway. Some very expensive detached jobs as well.

[onyx39]

The Don of Croy said:

The better alternative was Boris Island imho, leave plenty of space for future expansion etc etc.

Sorry, but Boris island was a ridiculous idea. What do you think would have happened to the local economy which has grown up around Heathrow?
Several hundred thousand jobs lost, and didn't they intend to build a massive housing estate on the site?
Who would be able to afford to buy them when the local area had sunk into a "localised recession"
There is also the issue of the SS Richard Montgomery

Edited by onyx39 on Thursday 14th May 19:27

[CAPP0]

Ari said:

CAPP0 said:

I think there are at least two very good counter-arguments to LHR expansion outside of any directly airline-business-related matters:

1. I just can't see how, in the current day & age, with all we know about terror/extremism, it is a good idea to fly a massive number of planes DIRECTLY over the capital city and the key business districts, let alone all the heritage and tourism that goes with it. Dropping a plane anywhere from Greenwich to Richmond would cause carnage beyond belief, and everyone can see from recent and relatively-recent events that it would not be particularly difficult to do so, although we're somewhat stuck with he current arrangements. But do we really want to increase the odds?

You're going to have to help me here. Presumably they'd only need to 'drop' one of them and they already have over a thousand to choose from every day!
How does increasing that number increase the risk of terrorist activity?

Well, the last time I checked, if we assume for a moment that are 1000 flights per day at a probabiity of, just for the sake of picking a factor, 0.01%, then 10 planes are "potentially" at risk. If the number of flights goes up to, what, 1500, then, erm, that appears to put 15 planes at risk, and 15 is more than 10. I'm no tinfoil-hatter but It's documented that Lubitz was just awaiting his moment, having partially tested his plan previously, so if 0.01% of pilots have Lubitzism, then more dodgy pilots = more likelihood. And that's before we factor in the most wonderful, beautiful, peaceful religion in the world and its hatred of the west. Or any other favour of mentalist. It's not rocket science. Jet science perhaps….

Edited by CAPP0 on Thursday 14th May 22:23

[Halb]

Blib said:

One problem. In the whole scheme of things, few want to go to those places. They want to come to London and the South East. It has little to do with us Brits. wanting easier access to airports.

It's easier (less hassle) for me to get to London from Manchester than Heathrow to London. Getting from Euston to Heathrow is such a massive ballache.