wrote:
In article
, (Neil Williams) wrote:
Robin9 wrote:
You haven't explained why you believe "the most sensible option" is
"expanding Stansted and closing Heathrow or at least relegating it to a
smaller operation." Why and how would that be better than the
present situation?
Because it's in the middle of farmland, which means it can easily be
expanded substantially (4 or even 6 runways?) and is connected directly to
the City of London by a railway line with a station under the terminal
which could be upgraded further, unlike LHR which is connected to
Paddington which isn't really where anyone wants to go.
IOW, London could gain a properly designed super-Schiphol rather than the
hotch potch that an upgraded LHR will be.
I don't think your description of the Stansted area would meet with much
agreement in North West Essex.
Exactly. Any new or greatly expanded inland airport will turn out to have
outraged neighbours just as unhappy as those who live under the Heathrow
flight paths. And one far enough away to annoy no-one will also be too far
away from the customers to be non-viable.