Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 11:12:27 GMT
Why do they not support HS2 then? That is a major potential investment in rail. Because it is environmentally damaging, and they support investment in existing lines So basically offering no solution to increasing capacity as per my original statement. Thank god they were not around in Victorian times.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 3, 2014 11:37:11 GMT
I don't see how expanding Gatwick is going to help, yeah we could always give them a 2nd runway, but they have only got 2 terminals compared to the 5 of London Heathrow. Gatwick is also pretty far out of London and considering that EasyJet and other Low Cost airlines operate out of there, if you add all Heathrow's planes the situation is probably going to become worse.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 3, 2014 13:28:14 GMT
If the Green Party had their way, we'd all be living in the forest with the animals, getting to be one with nature. I can't stand the nonsense that comes out of Caroline Pidgeons mouth!
|
|
|
Post by TA1 on Sept 3, 2014 13:30:10 GMT
If the Green Party had their way, we'd all be living in the forest with the animals, getting to be one with nature. I can't stand the nonsense that comes out of Caroline Pidgeons mouth! Isn't Caroline Pidgeon, a liberal democratic politician. I assume you mean Jenny Jones, member of the Green Party and London Assembly.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 3, 2014 13:32:37 GMT
I don't see how expanding Gatwick is going to help, yeah we could always give them a 2nd runway, but they have only got 2 terminals compared to the 5 of London Heathrow. Gatwick is also pretty far out of London and considering that EasyJet and other Low Cost airlines operate out of there, if you add all Heathrow's planes the situation is probably going to become worse. So basically, screw all the people who live north of Heathrow in the villages I've previously mentioned? Why should they have their homes knocked down to build a third runway when we all know the airlines will start asking for a fourth runway, then a fifth, sixth and so on - you'll end up demolishing Hounslow in the end.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 3, 2014 13:34:08 GMT
If the Green Party had their way, we'd all be living in the forest with the animals, getting to be one with nature. I can't stand the nonsense that comes out of Caroline Pidgeons mouth! Isn't Caroline Pidgeon, a liberal democratic politician. I assume you mean Jenny Jones, member of the Green Party and London Assembly. Apologies, it was Caroline Lucas I was thinking of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 14:21:11 GMT
Isn't Caroline Pidgeon, a liberal democratic politician. I assume you mean Jenny Jones, member of the Green Party and London Assembly. Apologies, it was Caroline Lucas I was thinking of. I spoke to Caroline Lucas yesterday, and whqt she said seemed reasonable about airport expansion, they actually believe in a better country not all this about living with animals
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 3, 2014 14:29:51 GMT
I don't see how expanding Gatwick is going to help, yeah we could always give them a 2nd runway, but they have only got 2 terminals compared to the 5 of London Heathrow. Gatwick is also pretty far out of London and considering that EasyJet and other Low Cost airlines operate out of there, if you add all Heathrow's planes the situation is probably going to become worse. So basically, screw all the people who live north of Heathrow in the villages I've previously mentioned? Why should they have their homes knocked down to build a third runway when we all know the airlines will start asking for a fourth runway, then a fifth, sixth and so on - you'll end up demolishing Hounslow in the end. Heathrow airport is at full capacity and needs expansion, airlines and politicians state that if the airport has this much lack of space it will hinder the UK's economic growth. Would you rather a couple hundred people loose their homes with compensation and being relocated by the government for free. Or the UKs economic growth to slow down? The people living near the airport should be expecting these sort of forthcomings, what airports in the world do not want to expand? and It isn't like people using air travel is going to decrease anytime soon. It has been stated quite a few times that the people which will be relocated will get quite a lot of compensation as well. Other people in the city also have their houses knocked down due to multiple redevelopment plans, Where I live a lot of houses are being knocked down and people are being forced to move out. They are not making such a big deal of it.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 3, 2014 14:38:25 GMT
If the Green Party had their way, we'd all be living in the forest with the animals, getting to be one with nature. I can't stand the nonsense that comes out of Caroline Pidgeons mouth! Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it nonsense, I certainly don't agree with all the greens ideas but they do have some good ones.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 3, 2014 14:42:25 GMT
So basically, screw all the people who live north of Heathrow in the villages I've previously mentioned? Why should they have their homes knocked down to build a third runway when we all know the airlines will start asking for a fourth runway, then a fifth, sixth and so on - you'll end up demolishing Hounslow in the end. Heathrow airport is at full capacity and needs expansion, airlines and politicians state that if the airport has this much lack of space it will hinder the UK's economic growth. Would you rather a couple hundred people loose their homes with compensation and being relocated by the government for free. Or the UKs economic growth to slow down? The people living near the airport should be expecting these sort of forthcomings, what airports in the world do not want to expand? and It isn't like people using air travel is going to decrease anytime soon. It has been stated quite a few times that the people which will be relocated will get quite a lot of compensation as well. Other people in the city also have their houses knocked down due to multiple redevelopment plans, Where I live a lot of houses are being knocked down and people are being forced to move out. They are not making such a big deal of it. Surely Hounslow being demolished would be an added bonus? Provided the people being forced to move are well compensated then as you say it's not really any different to people being forced to move because of road widening etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 17:49:12 GMT
I don't see how expanding Gatwick is going to help, yeah we could always give them a 2nd runway, but they have only got 2 terminals compared to the 5 of London Heathrow. Gatwick is also pretty far out of London and considering that EasyJet and other Low Cost airlines operate out of there, if you add all Heathrow's planes the situation is probably going to become worse. So basically, screw all the people who live north of Heathrow in the villages I've previously mentioned? Why should they have their homes knocked down to build a third runway when we all know the airlines will start asking for a fourth runway, then a fifth, sixth and so on - you'll end up demolishing Hounslow in the end. Vj ... can I ask if it came to a straight choice of screwing the resident of the villages you mention or all the workers at Heathrow ... which side of the fence would you come down on. Would you rather Heathrow closed affecting thousands of job ... or a handful of small villages were bulldozed to save thousands of jobs and create more?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 3, 2014 20:06:32 GMT
So basically, screw all the people who live north of Heathrow in the villages I've previously mentioned? Why should they have their homes knocked down to build a third runway when we all know the airlines will start asking for a fourth runway, then a fifth, sixth and so on - you'll end up demolishing Hounslow in the end. Vj ... can I ask if it came to a straight choice of screwing the resident of the villages you mention or all the workers at Heathrow ... which side of the fence would you come down on. Would you rather Heathrow closed affecting thousands of job ... or a handful of small villages were bulldozed to save thousands of jobs and create more? Neither, I'm afraid I don't buy into the argument that Heathrow has to close nor does it need to expand. Another airport the size of Heathrow or bigger IMO is needed but only to take some of the strain off Heathrow and without the need to close Heathrow - not only do you safeguard jobs at Heathrow but you create new ones at the new airport. If Heathrow did close, it's very likely to be turned into 'Heathrow City' which would create plenty of jobs in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 3, 2014 20:42:07 GMT
Vj ... can I ask if it came to a straight choice of screwing the resident of the villages you mention or all the workers at Heathrow ... which side of the fence would you come down on. Would you rather Heathrow closed affecting thousands of job ... or a handful of small villages were bulldozed to save thousands of jobs and create more? Neither, I'm afraid I don't buy into the argument that Heathrow has to close nor does it need to expand. Another airport the size of Heathrow or bigger IMO is needed but only to take some of the strain off Heathrow and without the need to close Heathrow - not only do you safeguard jobs at Heathrow but you create new ones at the new airport. If Heathrow did close, it's very likely to be turned into 'Heathrow City' which would create plenty of jobs in itself. If the airport didn't close, the airlines would probably refuse to move out and the current overcrowding at the airport would remain. The close proximity of Heathrow to central London would probably keep the airlines there as well. No airline would want to move further away from London then they currently are because people are then likely to use competing airlines because they would be easy to get to. E.g say if you want to fly to Singapore, and you have two airline choices. British Airways from London Heathrow and Singapore Airlines from the Thames Estuary. You are probably more likely to choose British Airways because it is closer to you and easier to get to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 22:27:24 GMT
Vj ... can I ask if it came to a straight choice of screwing the resident of the villages you mention or all the workers at Heathrow ... which side of the fence would you come down on. Would you rather Heathrow closed affecting thousands of job ... or a handful of small villages were bulldozed to save thousands of jobs and create more? Neither, I'm afraid I don't buy into the argument that Heathrow has to close nor does it need to expand. Another airport the size of Heathrow or bigger IMO is needed but only to take some of the strain off Heathrow and without the need to close Heathrow - not only do you safeguard jobs at Heathrow but you create new ones at the new airport. If Heathrow did close, it's very likely to be turned into 'Heathrow City' which would create plenty of jobs in itself. So what do you say to the residents of the villages that need to be bulldozed to build this new airport the size of Heathrow .... your homes are not as important as the one in the villages you have mentioned? And you will be unlikely to get there by TfL bus/train/tube service
|
|
|
Post by wivenswold on Sept 8, 2014 1:02:31 GMT
If the Green Party had their way, we'd all be living in the forest with the animals, getting to be one with nature. I can't stand the nonsense that comes out of Caroline Pidgeons mouth! Wow, that really is Cabdriver-level political ignorance. Thought I'd stumbled on to the Daily Mail forum for a moment there.
|
|