Heathrow Airport Expansion 'approved'

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37760187

Well, well, well !

Boris once said that he would chain himself to the bulldozers, if this was to happen....where can I get tickets for this event please ?

[EDDIE51]

I know about Schipol's runway I've flown in and out of there more than I have Heathrow. I'm just anticipating the headlines the first time the M25 has to be shut due to an incident at Heathrow.

[Old_Geezer]

I see your answer to my last post Mikey; I accept what you say, but I do not think it nullifies the point I made. This is about having to accept a deteriorating situation when one feels it has already hit a limit.

If the nation wants a hub it can be built anywhere. If London nearby is so important to business it can move tourist traffic out of London to local airports, thus avoiding holidaymakers having to make a large journey before flying off, and free up existing bandwidth for further business allocation.

[Khandro]

Bang on O.G. ! I think it makes no difference where person changes fights in transit. And Mikey, instead of getting het up about where a third runway is to be built in London (with already 5 airports) shouldn't you be arguing for a better service for the West of England and Wales?

[mikey4444]

K....its about Heathrow being a better Hub airport, and being able to compete with Dubai, Schiphol etc.

I can see Haethrow, Gatwick, Stanstead and Luton...is your 5th airport London City ? eIf so, its hardly a Hub material.

I agree about regional airports. I myself flew to Boston, via Bristol and Schiphol in 2008, and it worked out very well. But loads of other people on that first leg...Bristol to Schiphol were in transit to other, far flung places, like Africa.

And an improved airport at Plymouth or Exeter, or Newquay will do nothing to improve London's reputation as a Hub Airport.

[dave50]

Just get the damn thing built, how much longer do we have to wait? I hope they aren't going listen to the environmental loonies, they object to everything.

[New Judge]

As I mentioned earlier, Mikey, London is already losing hub traffic to places like Schipol and Frankfurt. Airlines can’t wait decades for additional capacity which may or may not be delivered somewhere or other sometime. By the time the third runway is operational all new hub traffic (and much of that existing) will go elsewhere.

Thinking outside the box, a Heathrow/Gatwick “superhub” was probably an option. A rail link, entirely in tunnel, could have been built. The two airports are less than 25 miles apart as the crow flies and a tunnel of that length these days presents few problems. Trains could cover that distance in around 15-20 minutes – far less than it sometimes takes to travel between terminals at Heathrow. A second runway at Gatwick was by far the best option and the cost of that and a rail link would have been far less and caused less disruption.

BTW, Mikey, Gatwick does a lot more than serve package flights to the Med. It carries a lot of long haul traffic and business passengers as well as a large amount of freight. It is also the London base of low-cost carriers such as EasyJet and Norwegian Air and it is the busiest single runway airport in the world. Although a little further out than Heathrow it has decent links to London (30 mins by train).

[mushroom25]

//Although a little further out than Heathrow it has decent links to London (30 mins by train). //

at present, yes. but the brighton main line and the line to London Bridge are both now at peak capacity most of the day, so it's unclear how additional traffic generated by an expanded airport might be accommodated. there's no scope for platform extensions, and extra train paths could only be generated by reducing the speed differential between the slowest and fastest services, which would increase journey time by up to 15mn.

plus, users of the Govia Thameslink franchise might argue that your use of the word "decent" represented a definition of the word with which they are not familiar.