Forum menu
More feet on the ground - fewer planes in the air...
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/26/heathrow-gatwick-expansion-davies-report-frequent-flyers-aviation
So I take it now that STW is taking the moral highground on this then there'll be no more threads about taking bikes to Morzine for a jolly weekend?
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/26/heathrow-gatwick-expansion-davies-report-frequent-flyers-aviation
Interesting read, by video conferencing is no replacement for 'pressing the flesh'.
and then you have justification for a HS2 link just to get anyone out of there
If only HS2 were going anywhere near Heathrow directly....
My argument is that there should be a long term government plan on how the country should look be structured in 5/10/20yrs but if the government wants to have private companies owning and running the airports then they should deb allowed to get on with it. If they put in the planning applications and build too many runways and then have over capacity then it is their problem. Like the railways, why the hell does the government allow private firms and then we the tax payer pays for the rolling stock. If it is going to be private have a regulator but then let the companies get on with it and take full responsibility. If National Grid can be a private company then why can't Railtrack. We just seem to have a dogs dinner of a setup and too many things being caught up in party politics and not sensible long term thinking and planning
[i]Demand basically. More people are flying [/i]
50% of the population fly less than once a year, 15% of the population fly multiple times, they should be paying a frequent flyer tax.
However, we're told that this expansion is required for "business" growth, not rich people flying off to their villas in the sun.
The "there" in that sentence was the south east generally, not heathrow specifically. IME people prefer to take their cases to the airport in a car, not piss about with public transport - hence the SE being ****ed up by congestionbreatheeasy - Memberand then you have justification for a HS2 link just to get anyone out of there
If only HS2 were going anywhere near Heathrow directly....
I beg to differ. I was forced, through work, to go through Heathrow for years. Lost luggage and missed connections (even with 2 hrs to connect) were routine. Then I switched to going through Frankfurt or Amsterdam and never had another problem.As a frequency business flyer I'm in favour of Heathrow getting a 3rd runway, it's the only well run airport in the country
If Heathrow's the best answer then we're asking the wrong question.
15% of the population fly multiple times, they should be paying a frequent flyer tax.
I think they call it departure tax, paid on every departure.
Thankfully here in Oz where I can't work without planes we don't have one.
I'm assuming the desire to expand heathrow is mostly a social experiment- build the world's biggest maze and release tens of thousands of stressed[s] mice[/s] people into it and see what happens.
breatheeasy - MemberSo I take it now that STW is taking the moral highground on this then there'll be no more threads about taking bikes to Morzine for a jolly weekend?
As soon as I can telecommute a bike ride, I'm in.
It's yet another example of how politicians are unable to deliver a long term plan; although to be fair, the way that they're elected doesn't encourage it.
We have a 'departure tax' which encourages people to fly to other European countries before starting a long haul flight; more flights, more miles, how's that 'green'?
And people wonder why Heathrow struggles with only two runways, when it handles more people than either Paris or Frankfurt with four each.
I don't know what the answer is, but the 'solution' is more than likely to be politically expedient rather than what's best for the future.
The voters round Datchet must be Labour, is all I can think!
Not in my road they aren't!
To be honest, living under the flight path is not so bad and LHR is very convenient (I cycle round it every morning).
But really I think the solution should be the same as that taken elsewhere - new infrastructure rather than "make and mend". Twas always the UK way and it has not served the country well compared with its peers (see HS2 for example).
I'd build a second runway at LGW to cope with immediate (read 10-year) needs, AND a third hub airport aka Boris Island for a 50-year plan, with proper high speed rail links to the main network (not hub and spoke nonsense). Then phase down LHR and LGW.
Gatwick seems to be run by amateurs who can't cope with the single runway they already have.
Have you wondered whether the fact that they only have one runway (at full capacity) may be the source of their problems? See any mildly foggy day at LHR for short-haul chaos as the landing interval widens.
I live 20 mins south of Gatwick but haven't been through there in 3 years. I reckon 90% of our flights over the past 10 years have been out of Heathrow.
Have done trains and tubes to LHR in the past and then the coach from LHR to LGW. All of these public transport options were a complete bolx to deal with so now we get taxis. More expensive overall but a darn sight more convenient, even taking the M25 into account.
A 2nd runway at Gatwick would make more sense [i]if there was a direct rail link and better roads between there and [b]Stansted.[/b][/i]
However that's far too joined up and long term an option and would never happen.
Luton is geographically much better suited to the rest of the country but never seems to feature in these discussions. I've never been there but I gather it's not a great experience?
They couldn't bulldoze Sipson, West Drayton and Harmondsworth quick enough IMHO total dumps.
i keep banging on about this, because no-one's listening:There is plenty of oil in the World, enough for centuries, we're not going to run out.
the next few decades will see the meaningful end of the easy stuff, that squirts out of the ground when an Arab drills a hole.
We're already extracting oil from tar-sands, for less than $100/barrel.
i'll let you google the total amount of oil available in tar-sands.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/may/28/carbon-bomb-canada-tar-sands-fort-mckay-town-sold-itself ]TAR SANDS ARE NOT THE WAY TO GO WHEN THE COST IS THIS HIGH[/url]
As for the runway....?
I'm unconvinced by the economics for, but understand the upheaval relocation would entail. I think whatever we do it's a short term fix at best - fundamentally LHR is in the WRONG place..
If pushed for an option I 'd go for expansion at LGW - more space & less people affected by the increase in air traffic.
and LGW is in a better place tucked round the bottom of london?
If there was an expanstion of LGW ther would need to be a regular high speed train link between all other london airports so they couls act as park and rides / fly and rides.
LGW is the only place that has the space - whether it's in the right place? That's a different matter.
The BEST solution would be Birmingham, but since that idea never got really off the ground it became a toss up between LGW & LHR - rightly or wrongly..
@ TheBrick
LGW is served by the Brighton Main(railway)line, which is very nearly at full capacity already. East Croydon is the busiest non junction station on the network.
This goes back to a more cohesive countrywide transport plan for the trains, roads and airports.
(A new rail link between LGW and LHR is never going to happen as it'd probably cost 5 times HS2)
The customers, i.e. the airlines, don't want airport capacity scattered around - they want to fly large numbers of passengers from as few airports as possible - its more efficient and cost effective for them to have fewer, larger aircraft and its better for the environment - a full A380 burns a lower amount of fuel per seat mile than a smaller aircraft. Splitting airport capacity across more airports mean a larger fleets of smaller aircraft and ultimately more environmental impact. If you think getting to Heathrow to catch your flight is a PITA, try having to get over to Schipol, Charles DeGaulle or Frankfurt, because without Heathrow expansion that's where were heading - they'll happily expand to take Heathrow's traffic. It was the only option and the whole report has just been a public exercise charade so the politicians can make a decision without committing political suicide. I liked the idea of Boris Island in theory, but in practice it is totally impractical, ridiculously expensive, too late and would have even more of an environmental impact, and airlines didn't want it, and neither do passengers (unless you live near Heathrow of course). Anyway with the growth of air travel over the next 20 years and more, there is enough room for expansion at all of the UK's major airports.
This country needs more transport infrastructure for planes, trains and cars, last time I checked the population of the country was growing and people WANT to move around for social, domestic, pleasure and business purposes and don't want to be told by anyone that they shouldn't travel anywhere and instead Skype friends, family and business associates. Last time I checked a builder can't build a skyscraper over video conference, a salesman can't sell his wares via You Tube and you can't attend someones wedding over FaceTime.
Anyway, the vast majority of passengers travelling through Heathrow are not British holiday makers and business people, its foreign people passing through to get to somewhere else, so we could all lock ourselves in our houses like hermits and live on the internet, but air travel demand will still rise and Heathrow expansion still needed.
video conferencing is no replacement for 'pressing the flesh'
It bloody well needs to be and there's absoutely no reason why it can't be.
'Oh it's just not the same.. you don't get the same feel' is absolutely not a good reason to squander natural resources and bollocks up the planet. It's bloody ridiculous.
LGW is served by the Brighton Main(railway)line, which is very nearly at full capacity already. East Croydon is the busiest non junction station on the network.
That supports my point. LGW is a in a awful place to expand.
This expansion is not for the Uk population as such. Heathrow is a hub, this is about throughput, getting passengers off one interconnecting flight and onto another. The airlines would prefer their aircraft to all land at one airport for such connectivity. This is why airports such as Gatwick, stanstead, lootin etc, won't get a look in.
This is once again one private buisiness(heathrow) implying economic disaster for all if it is not allowed to grow to "compete" with other European hubs. Naturally, they wouldn't want to move airports to lets say one built in the Thames Estuary(the one issue I agree with Johnson on) because the owners of Heathrow may not own the new site.
Instead, we will get a third runway that will further blight the west of London and surrounding counties. Wait until Heathrow comes back and wants a fourth runway. This is purely another reminder that only economics matter, and you and your opinions are worthless.
It bloody well needs to be and there's absoutely no reason why it can't be.
We can't manage it between three sites 10 miles apart.
Ok I missed the point - Why are we going after this biggest hub scenario? Why do we want flatten the homes of thousands of people on a piece of land in one of the country's mostly densely populated and expensive areas only to turn it into a glorified bus depot for the rest of the world?
London will likely always be big enough to attract it's own direct flightpaths so I don't see the reason (other than someone thinks they can trouser a massive pile of cash out of the deal) why you would do such a thing.
Heathrow's not a hub, though. There aren't that many other UK airports it serves. Nor is Gatwick.
They are built to serve London, not the whole country.
See this article written from the true northern perspective:
[url= http://www.citymetric.com/transport/uks-hub-airport-isnt-london-heathrow-its-amsterdam-schiphol-1190 ]It's Amsterdam for the win[/url]
Good article that, certainly inline with our experience- my office flies people to every part of the developed world and amsterdam's the most common stopoff by a country mile.
I fly out of Heathrow weekly with work, its far better now that it was.
People who want Gatwick extended ask yourself this, why did Delta and Continental not hang around when slots at Heathrow became available? Do you really think a extended Gatwick would be popular? It would end up been a white elephant.
Likewise any thoughts of Boris Island are pretty unworkable too. It would cost billions pounds of taxpayers money to close Heathrow and then you would have tens of thousands of people out of work in the local area.
Where are all these emerging economic powerhouse cities we need to fly to/from to compete on the world stage and if they're that good, why do we still want to fly to the old/waning economic powerhouse cities (apparently there are two flights a day from Heathrow to Detroit). I guess they're these cities in China we've never even heard of or possibly South American cities that are traditionally served from Madrid.
As a non-Londoner I avoid Heathrow like the plague. When I used to travel a lot Manchester served all my US and European needs with the odd transfer preferably at Schiphol.
Personally I think the whole thing's bollocks, the M25's a mess, and getting across London to Heathrow is a pain. Tourists will always come here via whatever is the most convenient/cheapest but are there really plane loads of biznissmen dying to get to Wenzhou (popn 9,122,100) in which case you only have to wait 1h 45m in Guangzhou which doesn't occur to me as a major hardship. And you can't get there directly from Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris or Dubai.
Actually both LGW and LHR need extra runways.
Like it or not we live in the modern world. Planes are getting quieter and more economical. And we expect to be able to fly, and to compete with markets in Europe.
LHR has good rail links to London but nowhere else. But this could be fixed.
LGW has better rail connectivity, but it is at capacity, and small problems screw it up.
And how can LHR shut at night and still get flights from Hong Kong?
I really don't envy Cameron and co in making the decision. But we have to grow up and ensure it is taken.
El-bent - Member
This expansion is not for the Uk population as such. Heathrow is a hub, this is about throughput, getting passengers off one interconnecting flight and onto another. The airlines would prefer their aircraft to all land at one airport for such connectivity. This is why airports such as Gatwick, stanstead, lootin etc, won't get a look in.
So apart from it's size already why Heaathrow?
There are 2 reasons going on and I suspect the answer is more in the middle.
The night ban is ridiculous and just as much of a penalty to current markets as a third runway would be a benefit to emerging markets.
I thought that there was a housing crisis? Destroying thousands of homes to make way for a runway sounds like a clear winner. No worries, we can build new homes. Flatten a few thousand acres of countryside along with the thousands that have been flattened for the runway and job done.
No one is saying people shouldn't travel, I love traveling but there are alternatives that should be explored to help reduce the need to travel so much.
No one is saying people shouldn't travel, I love traveling but there are alternatives that should be explored to help reduce the need to travel so much.
Certainly not one to talk on travel but I try and limit it, use video/teleconferences as much as possible and save the flying for when it's really needed and make the most of the trips. Every flight wipes out 3-4 hours out of my useful time before flying time.
The night ban is ridiculous and just as much of a penalty to current markets as a third runway would be a benefit to emerging markets.
Try telling that to the 1,000,000 or so poor souls who live under the flight path.....
Have a bit of consideration!
Try telling that to the 1,000,000 or so poor souls who live under the flight path.....Have a bit of consideration!
The vast majority of them, (unless i am missing something?) actually chose to buy a house near one of the busiest airports in the world. You cannot then complain that the aircraft are noisy.
Its like people who buy houses near motorsport venues then complain that its noisy at weekend.
Just be done with it, tarmac over a few villages and lets move on.
Planes are getting quieter
Most people under the flightpath moved in knowing there was an airport there.
The vast majority of them, (unless i am missing something?) actually chose to buy a house near one of the busiest airports in the world
Or perhaps they chose to live in their hometowns. The ones they grew up in.
Stoatsbrother - Member
Planes are getting quieter
Most people under the flightpath moved in knowing there was an airport there.
Rick Draper - Member
The night ban is ridiculous and just as much of a penalty to current markets as a third runway would be a benefit to emerging markets.
people live where they can afford to live they also dont appreciate that a plane every 90 seconds even in the distance can have a large effect on your mental wellbeing, the noise levels can also vary greatly depending on cloud cover, wind direction etc
night flights would be horrendous for the people living nearby
children near noise pollution blackspots have higher blood pressure, faster heart rates and lower attainment in school
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21537105
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17869340
and jet engines dump a huge amount of pollutants around the airports
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es5001566
Where are these people supposed to move to? I imagine they'll be given market value+ but even then take out 1000 homes from the existing stock in an already pressurised market and see what happens. Especially if they want to stay in the locale and go to the same job/schools etc.
It's just ludicrous.
Stupid thing won't let me edit properly!
Rick, 2 things:
1. Put yourself in their shoes...
2. Its not a few hundred houses, it's the homes of over 750,000 people who'll face even more disturbance (24/7 if you had you're selfish way!) - many of whom probably can't afford to move away.
You really need to be more compassionate.
I thought that there was a housing crisis?
Only amongst the young who don't vote. Hence it doesn't really matter 😉
The vast majority of them, (unless i am missing something?) actually chose to buy a house near one of the busiest airports in the world.
Or maybe that's all they could afford?
And a new runway means that people who weren't that close to the flightpath suddenly will be.
No one is saying people shouldn't travel, I love traveling but there are alternatives that should be explored to help reduce the need to travel so much.
Hah.. but in order to do that you'd have to have way more control over things than current governments have. You're talking about the revolution that we're waiting for.
After trying to enjoy a nice relaxing time next to the river in Windsor a few years back and realising very quickly this wasn't going to happen due to all the planes overhead I do have sympathy for anyone under a flight path.
I still have no idea why anyone would want to pay extra for a house in Windsor, you couldn't pay me to live there. Even worse I experienced it closer to London in Isleworth and I couldn't believe how bad it was, how do people ever sleep or relax?
So what do people propose doing then if some are so dead against airport expansion?