"tim......" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Neil Williams wrote:
Recliner wrote:

Exactly. Heathrow is oversubscribed, while Stansted struggles for business.
The customers want more capacity at Heathrow area, not east or northeast of
London.

No, they want extra capacity at the main London airport (with lots of
airlines and passengers) which happens to be Heathrow. If Heathrow closed,
it wouldn't be any more.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, not an overriding desire to visit Slough
on holiday.

Businesses (including company head offices, caterers, hotels, air freight
companies, airline offices, people who need to travel a lot, etc) have
located around Heathrow, and they want the main London hub to remain in the
area.

This is a tiny percentage of the total demand for air travel.

There are just as many businesses at other locations around the country
who would quite happily have the airport somewhere else.

I don't think that we should be lead by (random) Company X saying "we
must have the main airport 10 minutes away". That's a silly way to make a decision

It also has much better transport links than other London airports.

Only because it's the closest, but it is that very closeness that makes
it the most unsuitable for expansion.

So who would pay for the move and the new transport infrastructure, given
that the airlines, the suppliers, the workers, the owners of Heathrow, the
customers and the workers don't want it, wouldn't support it or pay for it?
Unless the replacement hub airport was a very long way away from its
customers, out in the estuary, it would simply annoy a new set of
neighbours without benefiting anyone with a business interest. The private
sector would pay to enhance a much-in-demand Heathrow, but why would it
fund a Mirabel-on-Thames white elephant?

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim......" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Neil Williams wrote:
Recliner wrote:

Exactly. Heathrow is oversubscribed, while Stansted struggles for
business.
The customers want more capacity at Heathrow area, not east or
northeast of
London.

No, they want extra capacity at the main London airport (with lots of
airlines and passengers) which happens to be Heathrow. If Heathrow
closed,
it wouldn't be any more.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, not an overriding desire to visit
Slough
on holiday.

Businesses (including company head offices, caterers, hotels, air
freight
companies, airline offices, people who need to travel a lot, etc) have
located around Heathrow, and they want the main London hub to remain in
the
area.

This is a tiny percentage of the total demand for air travel.

There are just as many businesses at other locations around the country
who would quite happily have the airport somewhere else.

I don't think that we should be lead by (random) Company X saying "we
must have the main airport 10 minutes away". That's a silly way to make
a decision

It also has much better transport links than other London airports.

Only because it's the closest, but it is that very closeness that makes
it the most unsuitable for expansion.

So who would pay for the move

Dunno

Who paid when Munich moved.

Who paid when HK moved?

tim

In message , at 17:41:11 on Tue, 7 May
2013, tim...... remarked:
I don't think that we should be lead by (random) Company X saying "we
must have the main airport 10 minutes away". That's a silly way to
make a decision

But it's why Bath Rd, Slough had so many (offices of US-based) hi-tech
companies in the 70's; and why that subsequently spread down the Thames
Valley to Reading and beyond.
--
Roland Perry

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.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

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.

Colin Rosenstiel

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.

wrote:

I don't think your description of the Stansted area would meet with much
agreement in North West Essex.

I just looked at a map and the airport's immediate surrounds indeed are
either businesses of the type that support the airport and could be moved,
e.g. the car parks, or farmland. You could make it a lot bigger before you
start taking out villages, unlike LHR.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On Tue, 7 May 2013 19:11:01 +0200, "tim......"
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim......" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Neil Williams wrote:
Recliner wrote:

Exactly. Heathrow is oversubscribed, while Stansted struggles for
business.
The customers want more capacity at Heathrow area, not east or
northeast of
London.

No, they want extra capacity at the main London airport (with lots of
airlines and passengers) which happens to be Heathrow. If Heathrow
closed,
it wouldn't be any more.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, not an overriding desire to visit
Slough
on holiday.

Businesses (including company head offices, caterers, hotels, air
freight
companies, airline offices, people who need to travel a lot, etc) have
located around Heathrow, and they want the main London hub to remain in
the
area.

This is a tiny percentage of the total demand for air travel.

There are just as many businesses at other locations around the country
who would quite happily have the airport somewhere else.

I don't think that we should be lead by (random) Company X saying "we
must have the main airport 10 minutes away". That's a silly way to make
a decision

It also has much better transport links than other London airports.

Only because it's the closest, but it is that very closeness that makes
it the most unsuitable for expansion.

So who would pay for the move

Dunno

Who paid when Munich moved.

Who paid when HK moved?

I don't think the German and Hong Kong governments would want to pay
to move London's hub airport. And neither would the British
government.

On 8 May 2013 08:32:10 GMT, Neil Williams
wrote:

wrote:

I don't think your description of the Stansted area would meet with much
agreement in North West Essex.

I just looked at a map and the airport's immediate surrounds indeed are
either businesses of the type that support the airport and could be moved,
e.g. the car parks, or farmland. You could make it a lot bigger before you
start taking out villages, unlike LHR.

Heathrow Airport has been buying up the properties that would be
subsumed by a third runway, so there won't be many remaining property
owners affected by a resurrected proposal. However, grander four
runway proposals would be more complicated, probably involving putting
the M25 into a cut and cover tunnel under an expanded airport (as
already happens in, for example, CDG and AMS).

On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:45:02 +0100
Recliner wrote:
Heathrow Airport has been buying up the properties that would be
subsumed by a third runway, so there won't be many remaining property
owners affected by a resurrected proposal. However, grander four
runway proposals would be more complicated, probably involving putting
the M25 into a cut and cover tunnel under an expanded airport (as
already happens in, for example, CDG and AMS).

There is of course another option - don't bother expanding any airport since
its all a con. There is quite enough air traffic over south east england
already - we don't need any more. And the comparisons between heathrow and
Schippol or CDG are bogus. Those ARE the main airports for the amsterdam and
paris. Amsterdam doesn't have any others of note and paris only has Orly.
London has heathrow, gatwick, stanstead, city, luton and - at a push -
southend. Thats plenty. This whole drive for airport expansion is nothing more
than vested interests in the airline industry pushing their own agenda at the
expense of quality of life of millions and the enviroment.

--
Spud