Any anyone who complains about "job losses in the area" should wake up.
We live in the 21st century, where the concept of "a job for life" is
no longer the norm anyhow. Any jobs lost in the area will be created
where the new airport is built. People would simply move eslewhere for
a new job, and the change of scene will probably do them good anyhow,
it's as simple as that.

Anyone who complains about "job losses in the area" should wake up.
We live in the 21st century where the concept of "a job for life" is
no longer the norm. Any jobs lost in the area will be created
where the new airport is built. People would simply move eslewhere for
a new job, and the change of scene will probably do them good anyhow.

wrote:

John Rowland wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5024770.stm

I'm surprised the BBC managed to find a response as silly as the
original claim!

I can't see the logic of building houses at Heathrow and then complaining
about the job losses devastating West London. Surely Heathrow should be
turned into an industrial estate/business park, if anything.

If they're clever about it, they can attract more businesses there if it
remains fully operational than they can if it's phased out!

Absolutely agree. Heathrow is one of the most badly planned airports in
Europe. Not only does it reduce the quality of life for millions living
in West London, it is also a huge security threat. How can we allow a
situation where routinely, widebody aircraft fly over central London at
30 second intervals and low altitude? That's just asking for a huge
disaster.

As long as security and air traffic control are up to scratch, it's not
asking for anything of the sort!

What I suggest: Build a completely new airport with four runways
somewhere in the vicinity of Northhampton.

Aside from the obvious cost issue, there isn't anywhere well suited to
the building of a four runway airport.

When the government released its airport expansion consultation, I had a
look at the supporting documents that they were trying to use to justify
needless expensive expansion. You may remember the controversy over the
inclusion of Cliffe on the list, but it was only included as a
distractor to divert opposition away from Heathrow expansion. It did
somehow manage to find its way onto a list of possible sites, but it was
a government decision to include it but exclude Ockendon and several
other options.

Airport policy should try to maximize the value of the existing assets.
There are numerous airfields that could be developed into small airports
at a much lower cost (Alconbury, Thurleigh, North Weald, Lyneham etc.)
leaving the main airports to handle the higher value traffic.

There's a strong case for reserving land at Pilning (near Bristol) and
Ockendon for future airport requirements, but it will be decades before
such expensive projects as these (or any offshore airports) are
economically justified.

This location is closer to
the population center of mass of England, well connected, and far away
from any large residential areas. Connect the airport to central London
with a 300mph maglev (like the one in Shanghai). The journey to the
airport would take 15 min, which isn't any longer than currently by
Heathrow express.

15min is a very short time even for a 300mph maglev!

Also, London is not the only place that has to be considered. How long
would it take to get from Reading?

The entire project could be funded by a) selling the land occipied by
Heathrow b) imposing a one-off 10% windfall tax on property buyers in
the areas in West London affected by aircraft noise.

But who decides which property buyers are affected? Some houses may be
so well insulated that their owners consider themselves to be
unaffected. How do you take into account the differing senitivity of
people's ears?

House prices near
the airport should be expected to increase if it is closed.

Not everybody near Heathrow is under the flightpath! Your assumption
would certainly be false in Feltham, as people would lose the economic
benefits of proximity to the airport and gain virtually nothing!

Your assumption might be true in places such as Hounslow, though even
this is dubious. The most likely outcome (of this improbable scenario)
would be a small rise in prices and huge arguments as to whether this
was because of the noise reduction or just prices in general.

It has been done in Hong Kong. Why can't it be done in London?

The old Hong Kong airport had its flightpaths constrained by tall
buildings, and could not provide the capacity HK needed. But most
importantly, a replacement could be constructed nearby.

Flightpaths in London aren't so awkward, and though Heathrow alone can't
provide the capacity London needs, it can in combination with other
smaller airports. But most importantly, no replacement could be
constructed nearby.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

(Aidan Stanger) wrote:
As long as security and air traffic control are up to scratch, it's not
asking for anything of the sort!

You think? All it would take is for one terrorist cell who've got hold of a
SAM to fall through the net. Then one weekday morning they park up a some
reasonably anonymous location under the flight path in central london and wait
for the next 747 to lumber past. Then it'll be 400 odd dead from the plane,
god knows how many on the ground and a large crater in oxford street.

B2003

wrote:

(Aidan Stanger) wrote:
As long as security and air traffic control are up to scratch, it's not
asking for anything of the sort!

You think? All it would take is for one terrorist cell who've got hold of a
SAM to fall through the net. Then one weekday morning they park up a some
reasonably anonymous location under the flight path in central london and wait
for the next 747 to lumber past. Then it'll be 400 odd dead from the plane,
god knows how many on the ground and a large crater in oxford street.

They'd actually have a high probability of missing. Terrorists have
tried to shoot down planes in Iraq. Even when one was hit, the pilot was
still able to control it and land it.

Your scenario is theoretically possible but highly unlikely. In reality,
conventional bombs, not involving planes, could do more damage with a
higher probability of success.