So with all this talk of airports, why not Northampton?
Discussion
So I'm watching Newsnight and they're all still rabbiting on about Heathrow and Boris Island etc.
Why not just build a new "hub" airport around Northampton.
It has the M1 on one side feeding London to the south and Birmingham/Coventry/Manchester etc to the north, the A1m feeding into the east.
The airlines say something about how you can't close one airport and open another the next day so why not open the new one (rijmij99 international for now) to the smaller airlines (easyjet,monarch,klm etc).
Also surely it has to cost less than 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 that HS2 is supposed to cost (I think there may be an extra zero or two in there).
So Why would this not work?
Why not just build a new "hub" airport around Northampton.
It has the M1 on one side feeding London to the south and Birmingham/Coventry/Manchester etc to the north, the A1m feeding into the east.
The airlines say something about how you can't close one airport and open another the next day so why not open the new one (rijmij99 international for now) to the smaller airlines (easyjet,monarch,klm etc).
Also surely it has to cost less than 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 that HS2 is supposed to cost (I think there may be an extra zero or two in there).
So Why would this not work?
This is the same Northampton that said no to IKEA and let it go to Milton Keynes?
The same Northampton that years ago said no to the train line that goes to HS 1 in st Pancras and let wellingbrough take it (long time ago) j
You are right however, it has great links. M1, M6, A1 A5, A14, all close by.
The same Northampton that years ago said no to the train line that goes to HS 1 in st Pancras and let wellingbrough take it (long time ago) j
You are right however, it has great links. M1, M6, A1 A5, A14, all close by.
GoneAnon said:
Instead of ANOTHER airport in the south, why not use one of the Scottish airports as the hub for flights to/from the west and north?
BA only flies from Scotland to London so they are already set up to move passengers.
Why not? Because nobody wants to. Planes are expensive things to run. Airlines only put them on when there is demand for the route, and if there is no demand they don't fly. Until a few years ago I could fly direct to New York from Bristol airport. That was awesome, and saved me about three hours against going to Heathrow. The route got canned because not enough people use it. BA only flies from Scotland to London so they are already set up to move passengers.
A hub airport like Heathrow creates a critical mass. With a huge local market, lots of planes fly direct there. Because lots of planes fly direct to Heathrow, it also becomes a big transit airport too. An airport outside of London would not be able to build that critical mass. that's why London needs a bigger airport.
Shurv said:
Luton is a crap place for an airport. It's constantly foggy there, speak to any pilot who flies in Luton and they'll wonder why an airport was ever built there.
Because it's on a hill...Agree about the weather though, it does get rather misty and bears the brunt of snow etc because of its location...on a hill.
GoneAnon said:
Instead of ANOTHER airport in the south, why not use one of the Scottish airports as the hub for flights to/from the west and north?
BA only flies from Scotland to London so they are already set up to move passengers.
Because its Scotland, aspiring to be free. They can use their own money for a hub.BA only flies from Scotland to London so they are already set up to move passengers.
Compromise on Carlisle?
Shurv said:
Luton is a crap place for an airport. It's constantly foggy there, speak to any pilot who flies in Luton and they'll wonder why an airport was ever built there.
It's because people went to Luton thinking "millinery!" and then realised it's a s
thole and they want to leave ASAP. It's also why the M1's there.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff