Discussion
We seem to have debating increasing airport capacity for ages while other countries have developed and are leaving us behind. I now read that apart from 'Boris Island' there is another proposal for the Isle of Grain.
Surely the answer is to develop Stansted. There is room to do so and the rail and M11 can be improved to take passengers right into the City. The last time they tried to expand Stansted the authorities were beaten by a loud and very well organised small minority BUT surely the airport has to go somewhere?
Surely the answer is to develop Stansted. There is room to do so and the rail and M11 can be improved to take passengers right into the City. The last time they tried to expand Stansted the authorities were beaten by a loud and very well organised small minority BUT surely the airport has to go somewhere?
Fittster said:
Isn't the point of a hub airport is to provide connections? People using hubs are generally supposed to get onto another plane not leave the airport for a local destination.
So why build in the S/E? Couldn't the hub be anywhere in the UK, leaving LHR for those wanting to travel to London?
Try persuading the average American that they want to go thru Manchester or Birmingham.So why build in the S/E? Couldn't the hub be anywhere in the UK, leaving LHR for those wanting to travel to London?
There is an excellent case being made for the expansion of Stansted - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-2337689...
Predictably the small but well organised and very vocal minority group are getting going again. Surely this cannot be allowed to succeed - http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/
Predictably the small but well organised and very vocal minority group are getting going again. Surely this cannot be allowed to succeed - http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/
MarshPhantom said:
The M25 is a problem. For people coming from the west it could add a good 2 hrs or more to their journey compared with Heathrow.
True but Heathrow would surely still be there serving as you say those from the West.Wherever the airport goes it will be difficult for some people. Stansted just seems to offer the best solution by far.
V8 Fettler said:
Stansted to Liverpool St train service is an embarrassment. Frequent bus replacement service or - on occasions - not even a bus replacement service. M11 bottleneck at junction 4 is a joke, but resolvable.
I doubt if there is political or commercial will in the UK to do anything other than peacemeal improvements to the existing airports.
The M11 and the train service can be fairly easily improved.I doubt if there is political or commercial will in the UK to do anything other than peacemeal improvements to the existing airports.
V8 Fettler said:
M11 closed northbound today (south of Stansted), 0600hrs to 1300hrs, people walking along the carriageway with their cases, shambolic. Short term solution should have been to bulldoze the rebar off the carriageway and then re-open, instead it's all carefully re-slung and carefully lifted back onto a truck.
That did sound like a mess and caused a lot of trouble. Any idea why they deal with everything so slowly/carefully?
Why don't the authorities just stop all this farting around and build a new runway at Stansted. There is plenty of room for the runway and to widen the M11. The train service can also be improved and it runs straight into Liverpool Street in the City so business types do not need to travel all the way accross London from LHR or LGW.
As I see it the only problem comes a small but very loud and well organised minority of NIMBYS.
As I see it the only problem comes a small but very loud and well organised minority of NIMBYS.
LHRFlightman said:
bad company said:
No don't close it that would be a terrible waste of a major resource.
I am simply saying that further development should take place elsewhere IMO at Stansted.
Stansted is half empty, so is that? Because no airline wants to fly there as they can't make money. Heathrow lays the golden eggs. When Open Skies came in, all those American Airlines that used to use Gatwick came our way. Why? Because they make more money out of each flight. I am simply saying that further development should take place elsewhere IMO at Stansted.
LHRFlightman said:
bad company said:
Because you can get into the City in a fraction of the time.
If it's that urgent you'll fly to LCY. When it's not fogged in that is. Also you have not answered my question on WHY Stansted cannot be a successful hub airport like LHR given its better location and communication links to London, East Anglia and the Midlands.
LHRFlightman said:
JFK springs to mind.
Anyway, look at where many of the top companies have their headquarters. M4 corridor. Now you tell me, why would they want to fly from STN when LHR is 20 minutes away?
Heathrow Express is 15 mins to Paddington. Stansted Express is 47 mins to Liverpool St. Now remind me again, which airport has the better comms links to London?
The answer to your question is clearly Stansted. The 47 minutes to Liverpool Street can easily be upgraded as can the M11 AND there is far more business done in the City of London than Paddington.Anyway, look at where many of the top companies have their headquarters. M4 corridor. Now you tell me, why would they want to fly from STN when LHR is 20 minutes away?
Heathrow Express is 15 mins to Paddington. Stansted Express is 47 mins to Liverpool St. Now remind me again, which airport has the better comms links to London?
KTF said:
STN is in a crap location if you have an office on the M3/M4 corridor and/or close to LHR already which is most of the multinationals.
If STN was so marvellous then it would already be in use by the major carriers already rather than the low cost airlines who have been lured there by low gate rates to make it seem busy.
When BA wound down GO, did they move their operations to STN to take advantage of the slots, no, they sold it off to EZY and moved the remains back to LHR where the money is because LHR a hub (or at least as close as we have to one given the current infrastructure).
I'm not saying that Stansted is marvellous. I am saying that Stansted could be marvellous given another runway, improved communications and more flights to become an alternative hub to LHR.If STN was so marvellous then it would already be in use by the major carriers already rather than the low cost airlines who have been lured there by low gate rates to make it seem busy.
When BA wound down GO, did they move their operations to STN to take advantage of the slots, no, they sold it off to EZY and moved the remains back to LHR where the money is because LHR a hub (or at least as close as we have to one given the current infrastructure).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff