Heathrow public consultation
Discussion
GT03ROB said:
The trouble with democracies is everyone thinks they have a say!!
They government need to quit messing about & do the right thing.
PS: not sure what that is, but it isn't Boris's Island
Agree entirely, May seems far too weak to take on such a decision though, another ten or twenty years of dithering seems predictable.They government need to quit messing about & do the right thing.
PS: not sure what that is, but it isn't Boris's Island
GT03ROB said:
PS: not sure what that is, but it isn't Boris's Island
Apart from the Boris association, having one enormous airport to the east of the city with high speed rail links would be quite nice, you could then close down or massively reduce flights to the other (?) six.Given the prevailing winds in this country I've always though LHR was in just about the worst place imaginable for noise nuisance, plus the Cromwell Road drag out of the city is pretty boring.
Wozy68 said:
Well it might seem like madness (and I haven’t a clue 
) but if they could squeeze three runways in, wouldn’t it still be cheaper to knock down the terminals and rebuild than to buy new land, knock down a village and build new infrastructure for the new runway?
Plus you wouldn't have to build a bridge / tunnel the M25 ) but if they could squeeze three runways in, wouldn’t it still be cheaper to knock down the terminals and rebuild than to buy new land, knock down a village and build new infrastructure for the new runway? The runways cannot be too close together that would prevent them from being used at the same time. When Heathrow are landing on both runways in the morning they have to stagger them.
Just build the bloody thing already. We know people will moan but they have had decades of enjoying the prosperity that air travel brings so it’s time to quit moaning and accept the inevitable.
Just build the bloody thing already. We know people will moan but they have had decades of enjoying the prosperity that air travel brings so it’s time to quit moaning and accept the inevitable.
djc206 said:
Just build the bloody thing already. We know people will moan but they have had decades of enjoying the prosperity that air travel brings so it’s time to quit moaning and accept the inevitable.
I can’t understand the hold up or the cost. I’d grab a few lads from the pub, a couple of JCBs, Macka the tarmacer who loves a cider or three, I know a few brickies. Sorting it at weekends for cash. We’d get it built in a year. Job done
Wozy68 said:
I can’t understand the hold up or the cost. I’d grab a few lads from the pub, a couple of JCBs, Macka the tarmacer who loves a cider or three, I know a few brickies.
Sorting it at weekends for cash. We’d get it built in a year. Job done
Ha I’m sure you’d do a sterling job. The numbers are eye watering but then so is the amount of fuel wasted as aircraft hold all day every day so it’s time to crack on.Sorting it at weekends for cash. We’d get it built in a year. Job done
NickCQ said:
Given the prevailing winds in this country I've always though LHR was in just about the worst place imaginable for noise nuisance
It wasn't back in 1950 though.......The failure was Govt being blind to the blindingly obvious regarding expansion at all time during the subsequent decades and not when the airports were all Govt owned, in buying up swathes of the land around it, even if just keeping and renting out etc., until you may need to make use of it.
Harmondsworth/Sipson etc could do with bloody flattening anyway.
Anyway, the noise situation is a complete modern red herring. Modern airliners are now so quiet compared to in decades previously, that I really get peed off with people complaining about it.
They clearly didn't live under the LHR flightpaths back in the 60's and 70's like I did, when you had smokey old turbojet powered 707's, Tridents, VC10's, DC8's, Caravelles etc screaming and screeching overhead for a lot longer duration that any modern airliner with their high by-pass ratio fan engines.
Heathrow area is now massively quieter than those days, and yet people are still f
king moaning ........ 
Location wise as well as runway oreintation wise, the old Vickers airfield at Wisley probably would have been the best site to have further developed in the 1960's as a satellite to LHR or long term replacement for LHR with its E-W long runway layout. No nearby main rail link though, and back then there was no M25 either.
Govt of today just needs to grow a pair and get on with it regardless.
They won't though, the can will just be kicked down the road for another few years/decades just as it has for the past 20-30 years or more.
Utter incompetence.
They are of course building the thing in the wrong place. They should be building it at Gatwick.
Fundamental flaw in the original consultation where the conclusion was the economic benefits of Heathrow were better. They might have been overall but you got a much higher return for every pound invested in improving Gatwick than you did for every pound invested in Heathrow.
Oh and in case you wonder about vested interests I don't work for any aviation related business and do get planes coming into and out of Gatwick overhead, although am 20 odd miles from it.
Fundamental flaw in the original consultation where the conclusion was the economic benefits of Heathrow were better. They might have been overall but you got a much higher return for every pound invested in improving Gatwick than you did for every pound invested in Heathrow.
Oh and in case you wonder about vested interests I don't work for any aviation related business and do get planes coming into and out of Gatwick overhead, although am 20 odd miles from it.
Chrisgr31 said:
They are of course building the thing in the wrong place. They should be building it at Gatwick.
Gatwick is in the wrong place from the point of view of a hub expansion airport........end of.That doesn't mean that Gatwick also wouldn't benefit from a 2nd runway, because it most certainly needs it as well.
3rd runway at Heathrow should have been given go-ahead 20 years ago, and Gatwick should have been given the go-ahead at least 5 years ago.
Govt incompetence is simply staggering on this matter, no matter what colour rosette the incumbent Govt wears.
Chrisgr31 said:
They are of course building the thing in the wrong place. They should be building it at Gatwick.
Fundamental flaw in the original consultation where the conclusion was the economic benefits of Heathrow were better. They might have been overall but you got a much higher return for every pound invested in improving Gatwick than you did for every pound invested in Heathrow.
Oh and in case you wonder about vested interests I don't work for any aviation related business and do get planes coming into and out of Gatwick overhead, although am 20 odd miles from it.
They’re not building it in the wrong place, it just shouldn’t be an it, it should be a them. One at Gatwick, one at Heathrow. Sod the cost, if UK based contractors are used the money goes back into the UK economy anyway.Fundamental flaw in the original consultation where the conclusion was the economic benefits of Heathrow were better. They might have been overall but you got a much higher return for every pound invested in improving Gatwick than you did for every pound invested in Heathrow.
Oh and in case you wonder about vested interests I don't work for any aviation related business and do get planes coming into and out of Gatwick overhead, although am 20 odd miles from it.
The third runway at Heathrow with current demand and growth will be saturated in no time and given that it’s taken us decades to get to this point it would be prudent to plan for the future.
djc206 said:
Chrisgr31 said:
They are of course building the thing in the wrong place. They should be building it at Gatwick.
Fundamental flaw in the original consultation where the conclusion was the economic benefits of Heathrow were better. They might have been overall but you got a much higher return for every pound invested in improving Gatwick than you did for every pound invested in Heathrow.
Oh and in case you wonder about vested interests I don't work for any aviation related business and do get planes coming into and out of Gatwick overhead, although am 20 odd miles from it.
They’re not building it in the wrong place, it just shouldn’t be an it, it should be a them. One at Gatwick, one at Heathrow. Sod the cost, if UK based contractors are used the money goes back into the UK economy anyway.Fundamental flaw in the original consultation where the conclusion was the economic benefits of Heathrow were better. They might have been overall but you got a much higher return for every pound invested in improving Gatwick than you did for every pound invested in Heathrow.
Oh and in case you wonder about vested interests I don't work for any aviation related business and do get planes coming into and out of Gatwick overhead, although am 20 odd miles from it.
The third runway at Heathrow with current demand and growth will be saturated in no time and given that it’s taken us decades to get to this point it would be prudent to plan for the future.
3rd one should have been built 15 years ago, and we could now be talking about flattening the cess-pit that is Feltham and building a new 4th one south of LHR
aeropilot said:
Anyway, the noise situation is a complete modern red herring. Modern airliners are now so quiet compared to in decades previously, that I really get peed off with people complaining about it.
They clearly didn't live under the LHR flightpaths back in the 60's and 70's like I did, when you had smokey old turbojet powered 707's, Tridents, VC10's, DC8's, Caravelles etc screaming and screeching overhead for a lot longer duration that any modern airliner with their high by-pass ratio fan engines.
Heathrow area is now massively quieter than those days, and yet people are still fking moaning ........
Agree, back then the 747 was quiet compared to all the Trident's etc., now the 747 is old and noisy in comparison to modern stuff. Not sure how anybody could find the sound of the Conways on a VC10 offensive They clearly didn't live under the LHR flightpaths back in the 60's and 70's like I did, when you had smokey old turbojet powered 707's, Tridents, VC10's, DC8's, Caravelles etc screaming and screeching overhead for a lot longer duration that any modern airliner with their high by-pass ratio fan engines.
Heathrow area is now massively quieter than those days, and yet people are still f
king moaning ........ 
Have sympathy for anyone living there since 1946 as they couldn't have foreseen what was to come when the then government stole the airfield from Fairey Aviation. Everybody else what do they expect moving next door to one of the worlds busiest airports. It's had 7 runways in it's history and 10 were planned in total so quit moaning about a 3rd and build it.
Should have built a brand new airport in the Rugby area in the 60s/70s when it was first proposed. The right place to serve as a hub airport for both London and the Midlands.
An alternative could have been to use both RAF Alconbury and RAF Wyton, giving 6 runways, and build a large rail linked terminal and service complex in the middle of the two, NE of Huntingdon. A1 and A14 nearby also.
An alternative could have been to use both RAF Alconbury and RAF Wyton, giving 6 runways, and build a large rail linked terminal and service complex in the middle of the two, NE of Huntingdon. A1 and A14 nearby also.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff