Heathrow 3rd runway: yay or nay

[hash tag]

Next thing you know and Reeves will be digging up the new Thames Island airport again.

 

[Ax^]

3rd runway at Heathrow is the more sensible option . infrastructure is more or less in place and the land bought already

 

[hash tag]

3rd runway at Heathrow is the more sensible option . infrastructure is more or less in place and the land bought already

Is the 3rd runway sensible?

 

[Ax^]

compared to destroying the Thames estuary

it is reasonably sensible

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Never mind runways, what Heathrow needs is more jet bridges. I got off an overnight BA flight yesterday and had to be shuttled to the terminal on a bus like some second rate budget airline, at their main hub no less. Nothing quite says welcome to Britain like standing on a freezing bus on a dark January morning, then arriving at T5 to find the escalator out of order. Load of bollocks.

Heh, at least you are in cattle-class, I have had two first class flights that have gone from gate A10. Nothing says first class than being crammed on a freezing bus then queueing up stairs. Lufthansa, Swiss & Air France take first class passengers to the plane in a private Porsche, BA crams them on to a Dennis with every other cunt whose on the flight.

 

[skyscraper101]

Heh, at least you are in cattle-class, I have had two first class flights that have gone from gate A10. Nothing says first class than being crammed on a freezing bus then queueing up stairs. Lufthansa, Swiss & Air France take first class passengers to the plane in a private Porsche, BA crams them on to a Dennis with every other cunt whose on the flight.

I was flying Club World! A private Porsche would've been lovely. I'd even have accepted a Ford Focus.

 

[kalmatthew]

I was flying Club World! A private Porsche would've been lovely. I'd even have accepted a Ford Focus.

Or even a bus for group 1

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I was flying Club World! A private Porsche would've been lovely. I'd even have accepted a Ford Focus.

Peasant.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Or even a bus for group 1

Wouldn't hurt really. Total first world problem and really of no consequence. When I travel first I never spend more than £2k on a ticket, but I have punters who spend just shy of £20k per ticket and they may have two or three people with them, gets me angry on their behalf...

 

[nottsgirl]

Wouldn't hurt really. Total first world problem and really of no consequence. When I travel first I never spend more than £2k on a ticket, but I have punters who spend just shy of £20k per ticket and they may have two or three people with them, gets me angry on their behalf...

Ah, poor them.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Ah, poor them.

Glad you are in my corner on this one

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

More plane capacity means more planes and more tax. Not to mention increased air freight and it's associated logistics. Frankfurt, Schiphol and Paris have better capacity IIRC.

means more tourists coming to UK

Except London has:

Heathrow
Gatwick
Stansted
Luton
London City


Paris has Charles de Gaulle & Orly
Amsterdam has Schiphol
Frankfurt has Frankfurt am Main

So London's got a shitload more capacity than these 'rivals' - and no one has ever been able to explain why it is desirable for the country to encourage transfer passengers, which is what the other three have far more of than London does, especially Amsterdam.

 

[kalmatthew]

Except London has:

Heathrow
Gatwick
Stansted
Luton
London City


Paris has Charles de Gaulle & Orly
Amsterdam has Schiphol
Frankfurt has Frankfurt am Main

So London's got a shitload more capacity than these 'rivals' - and no one has ever been able to explain why it is desirable for the country to encourage transfer passengers, which is what the other three have far more of than London does, especially Amsterdam.

Thing is really Heathrow and London city are the real London ones there. Gatwick is pushing it a bit the others being called London is just to drag in punters. I suspect if you used distance from the center and applied it to those other countries you'd pull in some others.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Heathrow & City are within the Metropolitan Area, but to suggest Gatwick, Luton and Stansted don't serve London is not really fair on them, all three have (or had) dedicated express rail links from central London terminals. When Kidlington Airport started marketing itself as London Oxford, yeah, that was taking the piss...

 

[skyscraper101]

Except London has:

Heathrow
Gatwick
Stansted
Luton
London City


Paris has Charles de Gaulle & Orly
Amsterdam has Schiphol
Frankfurt has Frankfurt am Main

So London's got a shitload more capacity than these 'rivals' - and no one has ever been able to explain why it is desirable for the country to encourage transfer passengers, which is what the other three have far more of than London does, especially Amsterdam.

Isn't the fact London has all these smaller airports which are nowhere near London rather than one mega airport like Schiphol or Frankfurt precisely the problem. None of them are currently much good for combining the lucrative Long Haul destinations in the US or Asia with shorter European legs. Only Heathrow has that ability/proximity and is already at capacity.

(City doesn't count as it can't do the big jets)

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Gatwick has a lot of long haul routes.

Heathrow (and to a lesser extent, Gatwick) bleats that they are losing the transfer traffic that Schiphol, Frankfurt and (to a lesser extent) CDG gets. The benefits to KLM and Lufthansa and to the airports themselves are obvious, but what are benefits to Amsterdam, Frankfurt, The Netherlands or Germany? Seems to me to be a detriment; more flights with all the noise and pollution, yet no financial gain to anyone other than the airlines and airports.

 

[hash tag]

Heathrow & City are within the Metropolitan Area, but to suggest Gatwick, Luton and Stansted don't serve London

I don't think serving London makes them a London airport.
Thinking outside the box, Farnborough has a huge airport with a very long runway and good links to London. It must be ripe for exploiting.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I don't think serving London makes them a London airport.
Thinking outside the box, Farnborough has a huge airport with a very long runway and good links to London. It must be ripe for exploiting.

Gatwick's airport code is LGW, the L standing for London and is only a few miles outside of the Metropolitan Area.

I left Southend off the list btw.

Farnborough is busy as fuck with private aviation, as is nearby Blackbusche, Biggin Hill and Northolt, the last two of which are also inside the Metropolitan Area.

 

[weltweit]

I just changed my vote.

I don't believe in growth as a mantra.

 

[hash tag]

Gatwick's airport code is LGW, the L standing for London and is only a few miles outside of the Metropolitan Area.

I left Southend off the list btw.

Farnborough is busy as fuck with private aviation, as is nearby Blackbusche, Biggin Hill and Northolt, the last two of which are also inside the Metropolitan Area.

There must be room for a small runway at Farnborough to cater for the smaller planes.

 

[brogdale]

Gatwick's airport code is LGW, the L standing for London and is only a few miles outside of the Metropolitan Area.

I left Southend off the list btw.

Farnborough is busy as fuck with private aviation, as is nearby Blackbusche, Biggin Hill and Northolt, the last two of which are also inside the Metropolitan Area.

At least 12 miles to the very edge of GL.

 

[skyscraper101]

There must be room for a small runway at Farnborough to cater for the smaller planes.

Not just planes though is it, it's infrastructure, terminals, roads etc. It doesn't even have a rail link.

I can already picture the residents of Fleet, Farnborough and Aldershot up in arms at the thought of TUI or Ryanair setting up shop there on top of the private jets.

 

[Cerv]

and no one has ever been able to explain why it is desirable for the country to encourage transfer passengers, which is what the other three have far more of than London does

they pay airport landing fees.
and spend money in the airport hospitality while waiting for their flight out.

and by sharing flights with actual non-transit passengers, improve the economies of scale on those.

edit: and Direct Airside Transit visas. £35 a head.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

they pay airport landing fees.
and spend money in the airport hospitality while waiting for their flight out.

and by sharing flights with actual non-transit passengers, improve the economies of scale on those.

The first two benefit the airport operators (Heathrow currently owned by a Spanish company, maybe bought out by a Saudi one, so the profits go abroad).

And the sharing of flights thing, Heathrow and Gatwick are busy enough with end-point users, they have a huge number of airlines and destinations.

So what benefit to the UK and most especially the people of West London, Surrey and Berkshire would be gained by a third runway paving the way for more transfer passengers?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

At least 12 miles to the very edge of GL.

Hardly the next galaxy, is it, 10 minutes up the M23.

 

[MickiQ]

I suspect there is a belief (desperately clung to amongst the political class) that if the UK is easier and more convenient for 'business people' to get to and from then there will be a greater desire amongst said 'business people' to come here and do 'business' bringing investment with them. I also suspect that this belief is a bit flawed tbh. Our big selling point used to be that we were in the EU and thus inside the single market but a bit more lax on such trivialities as workers rights and transparent accounting than the rest of the them. We've thrown away the first advantage and the second one isn't enough anymore to offset the loss of the first. Our economy is going to flatline for years now and the one thing that might address it is unthinkable so an extra runway probably not worth the cost.

 

[Cerv]

The first two benefit the airport operators (Heathrow currently owned by a Spanish company, maybe bought out by a Saudi one, so the profits go abroad).

And the sharing of flights thing, Heathrow and Gatwick are busy enough with end-point users, they have a huge number of airlines and destinations.

So what benefit to the UK and most especially the people of West London, Surrey and Berkshire would be gained by a third runway paving the way for more transfer passengers?

directly - airports and associated businesses a big employer.
indirectly - all about growth innit. bigger enconomy for benefit of the whole nation.


whether those benefits are worth the cost? fucked if I know. unconvinced especially re the environmental impact.

 

[stavros]

Except London has:

Heathrow
Gatwick
Stansted
Luton
London City


Paris has Charles de Gaulle & Orly
Amsterdam has Schiphol
Frankfurt has Frankfurt am Main

So London's got a shitload more capacity than these 'rivals' - and no one has ever been able to explain why it is desirable for the country to encourage transfer passengers, which is what the other three have far more of than London does, especially Amsterdam.

Southend Airport is branded "London Southend" too.

 

[alex_]

They should fix travel between Gatwick and Heathrow and build the railway into Heathrow from the south if they do this

 

[PTK]

Every hard-working family should have an airport within fiftenn minutes walking distance from their home. I call this policy the Fifteen Minute World.