Heathrow Expansion
Discussion
Can someone enlighten me, and I am asking from a genuinely interested to know perspective rather than as a form of criticism of the decision, what the reasoning is as to why capacity is apparently needed int he SW, when it's also seemingly stated that this capacity is needed to accommodate more connections, taking that traffic from other European airports such as Schipol?
Why, for example, isn't Manchester Airport being pushed those connections when it has ample capacity (operating at c50%) and is the only other UK airport with 2 full runways? The surrounding area has practically been sold to the Chinese and development of Airport City is well underway. Add to that there's an HS2 connection proposed and the surrounding strategic and primary road network is finally undergoing major change with schemes which have been in the pipeline for decades.
Why, for example, isn't Manchester Airport being pushed those connections when it has ample capacity (operating at c50%) and is the only other UK airport with 2 full runways? The surrounding area has practically been sold to the Chinese and development of Airport City is well underway. Add to that there's an HS2 connection proposed and the surrounding strategic and primary road network is finally undergoing major change with schemes which have been in the pipeline for decades.
Swervin_Mervin said:
Why, for example, isn't Manchester Airport being pushed those connections when it has ample capacity (operating at c50%) and is the only other UK airport with 2 full runways? The surrounding area has practically been sold to the Chinese and development of Airport City is well underway. Add to that there's an HS2 connection proposed and the surrounding strategic and primary road network is finally undergoing major change with schemes which have been in the pipeline for decades.
It is. The 50% is pretty theoretical, until they build the car park, check and security capacity to match the runway capacity. A project that's just starting up.Swervin_Mervin said:
Can someone enlighten me, and I am asking from a genuinely interested to know perspective rather than as a form of criticism of the decision, what the reasoning is as to why capacity is apparently needed int he SW, when it's also seemingly stated that this capacity is needed to accommodate more connections, taking that traffic from other European airports such as Schipol?
Why, for example, isn't Manchester Airport being pushed those connections when it has ample capacity (operating at c50%) and is the only other UK airport with 2 full runways? The surrounding area has practically been sold to the Chinese and development of Airport City is well underway. Add to that there's an HS2 connection proposed and the surrounding strategic and primary road network is finally undergoing major change with schemes which have been in the pipeline for decades.
Because Manchester is a good 3hours drive awayWhy, for example, isn't Manchester Airport being pushed those connections when it has ample capacity (operating at c50%) and is the only other UK airport with 2 full runways? The surrounding area has practically been sold to the Chinese and development of Airport City is well underway. Add to that there's an HS2 connection proposed and the surrounding strategic and primary road network is finally undergoing major change with schemes which have been in the pipeline for decades.
Heathrow 45mins door to door.
If you have a family with kids you want short door to holiday destination else screaming in the plane which no one likes.
Swervin_Mervin said:
Can someone enlighten me, and I am asking from a genuinely interested to know perspective rather than as a form of criticism of the decision, what the reasoning is as to why capacity is apparently needed int he SW, when it's also seemingly stated that this capacity is needed to accommodate more connections, taking that traffic from other European airports such as Schipol?
Why, for example, isn't Manchester Airport being pushed those connections when it has ample capacity (operating at c50%) and is the only other UK airport with 2 full runways? The surrounding area has practically been sold to the Chinese and development of Airport City is well underway. Add to that there's an HS2 connection proposed and the surrounding strategic and primary road network is finally undergoing major change with schemes which have been in the pipeline for decades.
Did you read my post about Southampton docks? If not, scroll up and look for it.Why, for example, isn't Manchester Airport being pushed those connections when it has ample capacity (operating at c50%) and is the only other UK airport with 2 full runways? The surrounding area has practically been sold to the Chinese and development of Airport City is well underway. Add to that there's an HS2 connection proposed and the surrounding strategic and primary road network is finally undergoing major change with schemes which have been in the pipeline for decades.
If you did read it, then clearly I didn't make myself understood. That would be entirely my fault, and not yours. So, feel free to tell me that I didn't explain it properly, and I will rewrite the post.
Fittster said:
Why does the UK need a hub airport?
One third of heathrow passengers simply transfer from one plane to another, nice for the Heathrow shops but doesn't really make much difference to most people in the UK.
Would it really hurt if Heathrow passed up at being a hub and let that traffic go to Schiphol?
People coming through the country is always a good thing, a busy airport is always a good thing.One third of heathrow passengers simply transfer from one plane to another, nice for the Heathrow shops but doesn't really make much difference to most people in the UK.
Would it really hurt if Heathrow passed up at being a hub and let that traffic go to Schiphol?
This is exactly how some of the gulf states, particularly UAE have managed to build a world city from nothing in 30 years.
skeggysteve said:
Sorry, but Heathrow is not the most accessible for the rest of the country. Expanding it is for the benefit of London and the south.
Up north we have East Midlands (technically the midlands but it's up north to you southerners!), Manchester, Leeds/Bradford etc. which are all far more accessible for anyone up here.
But carry on with the work and the disruption which I'm sure you'll all be on here moaning about!
Well those airports have spare capacity.Up north we have East Midlands (technically the midlands but it's up north to you southerners!), Manchester, Leeds/Bradford etc. which are all far more accessible for anyone up here.
But carry on with the work and the disruption which I'm sure you'll all be on here moaning about!
Heathrow is running over capacity, what should they do divert flights to East midlands and let connecting passengers make their own way to Heathrow?
jamoor said:
skeggysteve said:
Sorry, but Heathrow is not the most accessible for the rest of the country. Expanding it is for the benefit of London and the south.
Up north we have East Midlands (technically the midlands but it's up north to you southerners!), Manchester, Leeds/Bradford etc. which are all far more accessible for anyone up here.
But carry on with the work and the disruption which I'm sure you'll all be on here moaning about!
Well those airports have spare capacity.Up north we have East Midlands (technically the midlands but it's up north to you southerners!), Manchester, Leeds/Bradford etc. which are all far more accessible for anyone up here.
But carry on with the work and the disruption which I'm sure you'll all be on here moaning about!
Heathrow is running over capacity, what should they do divert flights to East midlands and let connecting passengers make their own way to Heathrow?
mcdjl said:
For a number of weekends coming up soon East Midlands will be at full capacity of exactly 0 flights per day while they resurface the runway. How Heathrow will manage that when they need to its beyond me. East Midlands should be much better than it is, they have a new station on the main line, that took 5 years to get a connecting bus service and even now is more or less a taxi. HS2 might pass under it, but will stop in the suburbs of Nottingham. A little more joined up thinking would help massively with it. Even though it's less than a mile from the M1 the small link road frequently gets jammed.
All very true - and equally true that EMA could provide massive capacity with just a few tweaks (as you suggest) - for a minute fraction of what is being thrown at LHR. EMA already handles a good proportion of the UK parcels/post traffic and general freight.Robertj21a said:
All very true - and equally true that EMA could provide massive capacity with just a few tweaks (as you suggest) - for a minute fraction of what is being thrown at LHR. EMA already handles a good proportion of the UK parcels/post traffic and general freight.
Problem is, it's in the wrong location.jamoor said:
People coming through the country is always a good thing, a busy airport is always a good thing.
This is exactly how some of the gulf states, particularly UAE have managed to build a world city from nothing in 30 years.
So they built the airport which financed a world city? Didn't the trillions from oil sales have something to do with it first, before the desire to use the proceeds to build something in a God forsaken desert. This is exactly how some of the gulf states, particularly UAE have managed to build a world city from nothing in 30 years.
skeggysteve said:
JagLover said:
Heathrow is the most accessible for the rest of the country, so expanding Heathrow makes a big statement about prioritising the needs of the country rather than just London.
Sorry, but Heathrow is not the most accessible for the rest of the country. Expanding it is for the benefit of London and the south.Up north we have East Midlands (technically the midlands but it's up north to you southerners!), Manchester, Leeds/Bradford etc. which are all far more accessible for anyone up here.
But carry on with the work and the disruption which I'm sure you'll all be on here moaning about!
Both Gatwick and "Boris Island" have London between them and the rest of the country. By contrast Heathrow is at the end of the M4 and the M3 and M40 are close by.
If you want to have a hub airport it needs to be near London as that is where more of the people are and the business travellers.
jamoor said:
Robertj21a said:
All very true - and equally true that EMA could provide massive capacity with just a few tweaks (as you suggest) - for a minute fraction of what is being thrown at LHR. EMA already handles a good proportion of the UK parcels/post traffic and general freight.
Problem is, it's in the wrong location.Fozziebear said:
unfortunately everyone thinks they have to fly via Heathrow.
I think that this is the case. It's a very London-centric view of the world. Heathrow happens to be my "regional airport" and it is very convenient. An extra runway would benefit me personally as there would be more flights and more choice of flights. But do I think it's the "right" choice? No. The simple cost of obtaining the land! WOW!I'd have preferred another runway at Gatwick, given that the S.E. needs more capacity.
mcdjl said:
For a number of weekends coming up soon East Midlands will be at full capacity of exactly 0 flights per day while they resurface the runway. How Heathrow will manage that when they need to its beyond me. East Midlands should be much better than it is, they have a new station on the main line, that took 5 years to get a connecting bus service and even now is more or less a taxi. HS2 might pass under it, but will stop in the suburbs of Nottingham. A little more joined up thinking would help massively with it. Even though it's less than a mile from the M1 the small link road frequently gets jammed.
Easy. We resurface the runway at night after the last movement and before the first arrival. It's all done over a few months, bit by bit.Right, now we know WHERE, has HOW been decided yet? The obvious (cheapest) solution seems to be to extend one of the existing runways. So we have 4 direction to go. The eastern end looks a no go because of the housing density. Going west, the southern runway looks the less disruptive choice. Anyone concur ? From the suggestions I've seen, north of the existing runways between the airport and M4 looks another choice.
Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 26th October 08:53
robinessex said:
Right, now we know WHERE, has HOW been decided yet? The obvious (cheapest) solution seems to be to extend one of the existing runways. So we have 4 direction to go. The eastern end looks a no go because of the housing density. Going west, the southern runway looks the less disruptive choice. Anyone concur ?
It's a 3rd parallel runway, offset to the existing two, to the north west. There were only 3 choices for the Govt, it was all laid out by Davies.
Fozziebear said:
jamoor said:
Robertj21a said:
All very true - and equally true that EMA could provide massive capacity with just a few tweaks (as you suggest) - for a minute fraction of what is being thrown at LHR. EMA already handles a good proportion of the UK parcels/post traffic and general freight.
Problem is, it's in the wrong location.
LHRFlightman said:
robinessex said:
Right, now we know WHERE, has HOW been decided yet? The obvious (cheapest) solution seems to be to extend one of the existing runways. So we have 4 direction to go. The eastern end looks a no go because of the housing density. Going west, the southern runway looks the less disruptive choice. Anyone concur ?
It's a 3rd parallel runway, offset to the existing two, to the north west. There were only 3 choices for the Govt, it was all laid out by Davies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37773052
The third runway at Heathrow Airport could involve planes taking off from a "ramp" over a motorway, the transport secretary says.
Chris Grayling said this would be "cheaper and quicker" than building a tunnel for the M25 under the new runway and would cause less disruption for drivers.
He said many other airports around the world had built runways over motorways.
It would involve "a very gentle hill up which the planes can take off".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff