V-Flyer

Not to put cat amongst the pidgeons, but what do you all think, it seems like the much desired and detested 3rd runway at heathrow won't be happening.

do you guys think the 3rd runway is still needed, what do think of the "thames esturary" idea do we need another airport?

does lgw need a second runway??

do you think these issues are central to the development of our economy??

goldenapple wrote:Not to put cat amongst the pidgeons, but what do you all think, it seems like the much desired and detested 3rd runway at heathrow won't be happening.

do you guys think the 3rd runway is still needed, what do think of the "thames esturary" idea do we need another airport?

does lgw need a second runway??

do you think these issues are central to the development of our economy??

High speed rail link up T'north and a major MAN expansion.. y)

I think we do need a third runway. A high speed rail network will not work unless it is connected directly to LHR. Making passengers go into central London then up to wherever they need to go adds unnecessary time and delay and wont help to reduce the many domestic flights that are taking up valuable slots.

I still hold with my original idea of converting the Isle of Wight into a new airport to rival Chek Lap Kok with high speed rail from there, but I haven't figured out what to do with the IoW residents yet

LHR

Yes LHR does need a 3rd runway. Even if there were no additional flights its use would bring the runway usage from 99% right down and thus reduce delays etc.At present there is no flexibilty and the whoe place essentially shuts down of there is a problem on one of the runway.

If aircraft are not having to circle so long or taxi etc then they use less fuel then less polution.

Boris Island Airport

Even Boris has dropped this idiotic airport idea. It would cost a small fortune to build the airport let alone the other infrastructure - rail / roads etc for people to be able to actually get to it. Also where are the workers supposed to live? Is there anywhere in Essex / Kent for them to live? what about the support services businesses?

There are also environmental issues. the estuary is a major flight path for birds and not every pilot is a Sully B Sullenberger III when (not if) there was a bird strike.

High Speed Rail

I also say yes to high speed rail too but I honestly think that a link to LHR would not do the business to make it economically worthwhile. The tory plans to have trains run some complicated route from LHR to London (or a hun on the outskirts to connect to crossrail then north would just add time and reduce the point of high speed rail.

Also a number of them campaigned against the proposed route.

Of course LHR needs a new runway - as Tonty says it makes sense based on current operations alone, let alone any future ones.

Let's think - a new runway brings jobs, visitors, investment, flexibility, modernity, releases stress on the current infrastructure, reduces the effect of stacking and ground delays meaning environmental benefit and safety. It's straightforwardly good common sense and is not contrary to improved HS rail either.

I know for a fact that many Tory MPs in west London believe this including my own, Justine Greening, but she and all the others are simply pandering to NIMBIES for their votes and not being honest about their views on what is the right thing to do. Politicians eh, never change their spots!

LHR does need a third runway as the comments above say the whole airport is shut down if there is an issue on one of the current 2.

HighFlyer wrote:I think we do need a third runway. A high speed rail network will not work unless it is connected directly to LHR. Making passengers go into central London then up to wherever they need to go adds unnecessary time and delay and wont help to reduce the many domestic flights that are taking up valuable slots.

I still hold with my original idea of converting the Isle of Wight into a new airport to rival Chek Lap Kok with high speed rail from there, but I haven't figured out what to do with the IoW residents yet

a good idea but the IOW is not connected to the mainland... how about Portland in Dorset. the road network is being put in place for the Olympics and there is a disused rail link that could be replaced.

Does LHR need a third runway? Yes it does but it is not going to happen. In order to stop the LHR issue, the government needs to work hard to persuade airlines that other airports in the South East are better than LHR. The problem is this is going to be near on impossible. The recent mass exidous from LGW by the US carriers just highlights just how much airlines want to be at LHR.

Back in the early 90's STN was expanded and had a lovely new terminal built in order for it to become the new LHR for the South East. This plan backfired big time, and twenty years later we still have the same problem.

I cannot really see any major carrier leaving LHR for an alternative airport anytime soon. In fact the only way its going to happen is if LHR is closed.

From a personal point of view, I would have probably developed somewhere like Upper Heyford back in the early 90's. Heyford is a missed opportunity, it has a rail link, is less than a mile from a major motorway, had a huge long runway (it was used as a B52 bomber base up until about 95) and is roughly halfway between London and Birmingham and already had a lot of infrastructure in place.

2nd runway at LGW will not happen either.

so they have scrapped the plans for stanstead's second runway.... as you would expect looking at finances in this country.

what impact is that going to have???

goldenapple wrote:so they have scrapped the plans for stanstead's second runway.... as you would expect looking at finances in this country.

what impact is that going to have???

the runway would have been paid for by BAA as part of the airline landing charges which we then pay as pax.

There was no taxpayers money going to pay for LHR / STN runways.

The Governments role would - to be simplistic - be to have granted planning permission