On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:50:51 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 02/09/2014 11:40, d wrote:
Logic actually favours no expansion at all.
By this you mean your logic or the logic you're minded to believe in?
This logic:
Expansion will do next to nothing for UK business
Will add to pollution
Will add to noise
The hub part is one argument, but it can clearly be argued that
expansion to even handle the current number of flights is necessary to
prevent stacking or horrendous problems caused by the smallest of issues
due to lack of over-capacity.
Flights arn't a natural phenomenon that have to be dealt with. They don't
suddenly appear out of the ether. If the airports can't cope with the amount
of flights they shouldn't give the airlines the slots in the first place.
Simple. If they're over capacity its their own damn faults.
I await the response that if you build more capacity it will fill up,
So you don't think it will after a decade or 2?
and you hear the same argument about road building. Strangely, it's
rarely used when it comes to railways. But in any case if people feel
Apart from HS1 and crossrail, when was the last time a major railway was
built in this country? Or to be more precise - which century? And have you
no noticed all the complaining about HS2?
so strongly about such things they should examine their overall
travelling habits - but then they couldn't have their big house in the
leafy suburbs....
I don't fly more than once every few years, and I try and use public
transport where possible. So I might not be at the top of the moral high
ground but I suspect I'm higher up than most. And good luck buying a house
in a city centre these days.
If we see air travel as a necessity, even if that is an evil necessity,
Do we?
then logic would dictate that you need a single airport that is easy
and quick to get to from all parts of the area it serves to use the
capacity as efficiently as possible - I haven't looked at the schedules
but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to
particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into
less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case.
Probably, but they're no doubt run by different airlines who would cry foul
if one airline was given sole responsibility for a route. Unless they had
a rota. Either way, can't see it happening.
--
Spud