|
Post by ronnie on Jun 7, 2018 11:03:07 GMT
Now that it's starting to become less cloudy as opposed to the winter months it's actually amazing the amount of planes you can see circling over the area. The other day while waiting for a train at Greenwich I probably ended up seeing more planes than the last time I went Heathrow It's also a pain as a passenger when you're in the sky going around in circles because of a lack of landing capacity. I remember once seeing a plane from Manchester spending more time in the hold than it actually did making the journey from Manchester Oh yes, spending more time holding than making the journey is pretty much the norm for short-haul flights into Heathrow. I used to do Paris - London quite a bit (connecting with flights from further afield); when you started circling over London you knew you'd only done half of the flight at most
At one time Air France were talking about running trains through the Channel Tunnel to take passengers directly from London to CDG. It was never likely to happen, but would have made my journeys soooo much easier.
Don't forget that if you then take a cab from Heathrow (after coming from a short haul flight) it might take you longer to get home than the flight... Think the worst one I had was when I once flew in from Stockholm on a SAS - 2+ hour flight landed after two A380s. Absolute chaos in immigration meant nearly 1 hour 15 min in immigration and then a fun 2-hour cab ride ...
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 25, 2018 21:35:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 25, 2018 21:42:49 GMT
It will now face at least a decade's worth of objections, legal battles and other obstruction. I'll be astonished if it gets built. And as for BOJO the Clown - he's just a monstrous liar. He won't be lying down in front of anything except a mirror to admire himself. Still at least Justine Greening and Greg Hands ripped the p*ss out of him today in their little Twitter exchange. That Tory MPs feel able to do that to the Foreign Secretary says it all really. He should have been sacked about 10 times in the last year for his appalling errors, diplomatic gaffes and general uselessness. He made another gaffe today - you don't show the sole of your shoes towards people of Arab descent. It's considered an insult but he did this in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jun 25, 2018 21:50:36 GMT
BoJo doesn’t have to. He knows the people of Uxbridge, Ruislip and Hillingdon will still vote for him next time round. The Tories could field an armadillo as their candidate in that seat and people would still vote it in.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 25, 2018 22:23:16 GMT
It will now face at least a decade's worth of objections, legal battles and other obstruction. I'll be astonished if it gets built. And as for BOJO the Clown - he's just a monstrous liar. He won't be lying down in front of anything except a mirror to admire himself. Still at least Justine Greening and Greg Hands ripped the p*ss out of him today in their little Twitter exchange. That Tory MPs feel able to do that to the Foreign Secretary says it all really. He should have been sacked about 10 times in the last year for his appalling errors, diplomatic gaffes and general uselessness. He made another gaffe today - you don't show the sole of your shoes towards people of Arab descent. It's considered an insult but he did this in Afghanistan. Virtually every report and spoken body has been in favour of it other than environmental groups and locals .... Hoping it will be started before the end of the decade .... But suspect you are right! This is the UK, where the man walking his dog of a morning has the right to object .... and the tax payer will foot the bill for all these objections!!! Wonder why there is no money left!
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 25, 2019 22:25:07 GMT
Assuming you have never been to Sussex as you will quickly realise there would be load of residents effected by Gatwick expansion, as much as I would love it as it is easier to get to for me ... So you more than happy for non Heathrow homes to be bulldozed? If there is no expansion of Heathrow it will have to close as any replacement will need to take up the slack ... how many jobs would that effect? The stark choice for Heathrow is expand or close The South East of England isn't exactly awash with spare land for an airport, and no matter where you are likely to place the airport you'll upset one group of people or another. Yes you could go for something like Boris' vision, although that has other challenges. There is also the issue of how you provide good transport links to wherever you place your airport, something we are not very good at as a country.
The question in my mind is long term - what airport capacity do we need and wish to provide. No doubt if we build more capacity it will be used, but what about the environmental impact. All important questions, for which rather unhelpfully I am not offering any answers - at least in this post.
I've moved the discussion here so it doesn't clutter the Upcoming changes thread In terms of the environment it's arguable that a third runway could actually be beneficial in some way as it'll slow down the need for holding patterns. At times a holding pattern can take over 45 minutes just flying in circles over London to a point many airlines have actually factored this into their flight time in most cases. This is a lot of pollution which can easily be alleviated just by getting another runway so planes can get onto the ground quicker.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Nov 25, 2019 23:32:53 GMT
The South East of England isn't exactly awash with spare land for an airport, and no matter where you are likely to place the airport you'll upset one group of people or another. Yes you could go for something like Boris' vision, although that has other challenges. There is also the issue of how you provide good transport links to wherever you place your airport, something we are not very good at as a country.
The question in my mind is long term - what airport capacity do we need and wish to provide. No doubt if we build more capacity it will be used, but what about the environmental impact. All important questions, for which rather unhelpfully I am not offering any answers - at least in this post.
I've moved the discussion here so it doesn't clutter the Upcoming changes thread In terms of the environment it's arguable that a third runway could actually be beneficial in some way as it'll slow down the need for holding patterns. At times a holding pattern can take over 45 minutes just flying in circles over London to a point many airlines have actually factored this into their flight time in most cases. This is a lot of pollution which can easily be alleviated just by getting another runway so planes can get onto the ground quicker. A very valid argument - however that would only really be true if the number of flights remains constant. As soon as the number of flights increase that will soon eat up the reduced pollution due to no holding patterns. Worse continued expansion of Heathrow could mean that you have three full runways with even more aircraft holding, and then talk of a fourth runway!
Well done on moving the discussion to this thread.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 26, 2019 0:00:41 GMT
I've moved the discussion here so it doesn't clutter the Upcoming changes thread In terms of the environment it's arguable that a third runway could actually be beneficial in some way as it'll slow down the need for holding patterns. At times a holding pattern can take over 45 minutes just flying in circles over London to a point many airlines have actually factored this into their flight time in most cases. This is a lot of pollution which can easily be alleviated just by getting another runway so planes can get onto the ground quicker. A very valid argument - however that would only really be true if the number of flights remains constant. As soon as the number of flights increase that will soon eat up the reduced pollution due to no holding patterns. Worse continued expansion of Heathrow could mean that you have three full runways with even more aircraft holding, and then talk of a fourth runway!
Well done on moving the discussion to this thread.
Heathrow is the busiest airport in Europe, the 2nd and 3rd busiest Schiphol and Paris Charles del Gaulle have 6 and 4 runways respectively. Is it not surprising then that Heathrow is polluted ... just as with road congestion causing pollution, so does air transport congestion. To be honest, the statistics say we should be implementing a 4th as well as a 3rd runway now! We probably needed the 3rd runway 20 years ago. 1990 it was declared Heathrow needed to expand ... here we are nearly 30 year later in do nothing Britain having done nothing ... London is a Victorian city not fit for the 21st century. Do we always want to lag behind our European peers? Using your arguement of a correlation of how busy an airport is to how many runways it has means Heathroww should ge a lot quieter than it is ... no of runways does not directly correlate to how busy it is, rather how efficiently it can be operated.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 26, 2019 2:17:42 GMT
I've moved the discussion here so it doesn't clutter the Upcoming changes thread In terms of the environment it's arguable that a third runway could actually be beneficial in some way as it'll slow down the need for holding patterns. At times a holding pattern can take over 45 minutes just flying in circles over London to a point many airlines have actually factored this into their flight time in most cases. This is a lot of pollution which can easily be alleviated just by getting another runway so planes can get onto the ground quicker. A very valid argument - however that would only really be true if the number of flights remains constant. As soon as the number of flights increase that will soon eat up the reduced pollution due to no holding patterns. Worse continued expansion of Heathrow could mean that you have three full runways with even more aircraft holding, and then talk of a fourth runway!
Well done on moving the discussion to this thread.
A very valid point - I mean, when will it stop - when the 6th one is plonked over Staines for example? We should be ultilising other airports who actually have space to expand rather than continually focusing on an airport which is poorly located in terms of expanding.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 26, 2019 9:34:47 GMT
A very valid argument - however that would only really be true if the number of flights remains constant. As soon as the number of flights increase that will soon eat up the reduced pollution due to no holding patterns. Worse continued expansion of Heathrow could mean that you have three full runways with even more aircraft holding, and then talk of a fourth runway!
Well done on moving the discussion to this thread.
A very valid point - I mean, when will it stop - when the 6th one is plonked over Staines for example? We should be ultilising other airports who actually have space to expand rather than continually focusing on an airport which is poorly located in terms of expanding. But the problem is you can't just expand another airport and expect airlines to use it. They're the ones who have to make the choice to fly out of the alternative airport as opposed to Heathrow. Currently airlines who fly out of Gatwick are airlines which are low cost, major airlines who already have umpteen flights into Heathrow or airlines who are simply waiting for an available slot at Heathrow for them to move into. The only way you'd ever make another airport appealing is if you remove Heathrow completely.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 26, 2019 11:38:30 GMT
A very valid point - I mean, when will it stop - when the 6th one is plonked over Staines for example? We should be ultilising other airports who actually have space to expand rather than continually focusing on an airport which is poorly located in terms of expanding. But the problem is you can't just expand another airport and expect airlines to use it. They're the ones who have to make the choice to fly out of the alternative airport as opposed to Heathrow. Currently airlines who fly out of Gatwick are airlines which are low cost, major airlines who already have umpteen flights into Heathrow or airlines who are simply waiting for an available slot at Heathrow for them to move into. The only way you'd ever make another airport appealing is if you remove Heathrow completely. Gatwick is not a low cost airline airport like Luton. Gatwcick has many major long haul international flights, with carriers such as American Airlines, British Airways, Virgin, Air Canada. I do not think these airlines are waiting for slots from Heathrow, for years now destinations in South America, Caribbean, USA, Canada have had flights from Gatwick.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 26, 2019 11:54:51 GMT
But the problem is you can't just expand another airport and expect airlines to use it. They're the ones who have to make the choice to fly out of the alternative airport as opposed to Heathrow. Currently airlines who fly out of Gatwick are airlines which are low cost, major airlines who already have umpteen flights into Heathrow or airlines who are simply waiting for an available slot at Heathrow for them to move into. The only way you'd ever make another airport appealing is if you remove Heathrow completely. Gatwick is not a low cost airline airport like Luton. Gatwcick has many major long haul international flights, with carriers such as American Airlines, British Airways, Virgin, Air Canada. I do not think these airlines are waiting for slots from Heathrow, for years now destinations in South America, Caribbean, USA, Canada have had flights from Gatwick. The reason all of the Carribean destinations operate out of Gatwick is because Virgin Atlantic do not have the slots at Heathrow, these are leisure destinations primarily so having them at Gatwick is the "lesser evil". As soon as slots become available at Heathrow Virgin have shown they have an eye on moving them there as seen with the recent move of Barbados. American and Air Canada are in a similar boat to Emirates and Qatar. They will happily add more flights to Heathrow if they could but they can't find the slots so opt for Gatwick.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 26, 2019 12:01:26 GMT
But the problem is you can't just expand another airport and expect airlines to use it. They're the ones who have to make the choice to fly out of the alternative airport as opposed to Heathrow. Currently airlines who fly out of Gatwick are airlines which are low cost, major airlines who already have umpteen flights into Heathrow or airlines who are simply waiting for an available slot at Heathrow for them to move into. The only way you'd ever make another airport appealing is if you remove Heathrow completely. Gatwick is not a low cost airline airport like Luton. Gatwcick has many major long haul international flights, with carriers such as American Airlines, British Airways, Virgin, Air Canada. I do not think these airlines are waiting for slots from Heathrow, for years now destinations in South America, Caribbean, USA, Canada have had flights from Gatwick. Virgin if they have any flights left at Gatwick are moving them the Heathrow, as I found out to my cost when booking tickets to Las Vegas earlier in the year. Gatwick is mainly charter and low cost airlines ... BA fly out of most larger UK airports as they are the national carrier. Having said that agree it is one up on Stansted, but Heathrow it is not. www.gatwickairport.com/flights/London needs a single main air hub. Whether you agree with it or not, 2 reports at seperate times have said Heathrow is the best site for this hub rather than any other London based airport or any newly identified site. Make that conclusion once, maybe a mistake, twice, has to be some substance to the argument. Trouble is if the 3rd runway was built in the 90s, instead of being passed around like a hot potato, people would be laughing if we suggested removing it. Britain always puts off making difficult decisions, always kicking it into the future when the same issues will exist, probably got worse. Get it done now, be harder in 15 years time.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 26, 2019 12:08:30 GMT
A very valid point - I mean, when will it stop - when the 6th one is plonked over Staines for example? We should be ultilising other airports who actually have space to expand rather than continually focusing on an airport which is poorly located in terms of expanding. But the problem is you can't just expand another airport and expect airlines to use it. They're the ones who have to make the choice to fly out of the alternative airport as opposed to Heathrow. Currently airlines who fly out of Gatwick are airlines which are low cost, major airlines who already have umpteen flights into Heathrow or airlines who are simply waiting for an available slot at Heathrow for them to move into. The only way you'd ever make another airport appealing is if you remove Heathrow completely. I've already said Heathrow should close but even then, there are always ways to legally entice a business to adapt and go elsewhere regardless. People said businesses wouldn't move to the Docklands once it was built yet look at it now.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Nov 26, 2019 12:52:13 GMT
But the problem is you can't just expand another airport and expect airlines to use it. They're the ones who have to make the choice to fly out of the alternative airport as opposed to Heathrow. Currently airlines who fly out of Gatwick are airlines which are low cost, major airlines who already have umpteen flights into Heathrow or airlines who are simply waiting for an available slot at Heathrow for them to move into. The only way you'd ever make another airport appealing is if you remove Heathrow completely. I've already said Heathrow should close but even then, there are always ways to legally entice a business to adapt and go elsewhere regardless. People said businesses wouldn't move to the Docklands once it was built yet look at it now. The problem is that no one planned long term all those years ago, although to be fair who could have forecast such a demand for air travel. Heathrow should have had four runways arguably when it was planned or at least with room for expansion. Once that wasn't possible, then it should really have been built elsewhere....but we are where we are and that doesn't help us now.
The problem about moving Heathrow is where do you put it? Even if you found a good location, there is the huge cost of building a new airport and then closing Heathrow. Boris's plan is certainly feasible, but not without its own problems. If you take a look at the cost of the new airport, building good road and rail transport links, the cost really is vast, and I suspect makes the revised HS2 costs look small. Moving Heathrow is easier said than done.
|
|