"Paul Weaver" wrote in
oups.com:

LMac wrote:
We've been studying a new airport location for almost 40 years and
have spent millions on outside consultants.

Only millions? My employer has spent millions on consultants to change
a freakin' lightbulb (well, thousands anyway)





Not going to happen. Could have saved you the money.

(a) the impact on local employment would be huge. People would be more
****ed off about the jobs going (not just at the airport but in local shops
and hotels etc) than about the impact on the local environment or noise
pollution.

(b) the impact on the Thames Estuary's environment would be far more
dangerous than at Heathrow where the damage has been done, and the
environmental lobby would (quite rightly so) be a force to be reckoned
with.

(c) Stanstead already serves that "side" of London more than adequately, so
traffic-wise it would be a disaster to move another major airport to the
East, while we have (kinda) Luton to the North, Heathrow to the West,
Gatwick to the South, Stanstead to the East, and City in the middle. The
system isn't perfect, but it's not bad, and the thought of having the two
main airports to the East would be crazy.

(d) It'll never work.