|
Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
|
Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:36:00 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote: On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:17:35 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:12:49 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: 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. You apparently don't understand the concept of a hub airport. A "hub" is of little benefit to anyone other than the airport itself since by definition most of the passengers and freight will simply be passing through. Any tired old economic growth arguments put forward in support are specious and are purely self interest. There are enough runways in the SE. We don't need anymore just to bolster the share price of Ferrovia or get Boris a seat on the board of a construction company when he finally gets bored of playing at being Major. Sigh Hub airports allow many more secondary destinations to be served directly than would be viable otherwise, thus benefiting local businesses and citizens. For example, I'd like to be able to fly directly to cities like Santiago without having to change, as is currently required. This has been discussed here at length in the past. |
Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
In article
, (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. Not the view when the second runway scheme was still going. Colin Rosenstiel |
Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:42:08 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:36:00 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: A "hub" is of little benefit to anyone other than the airport itself since by definition most of the passengers and freight will simply be passing through. Any tired old economic growth arguments put forward in support are specious and are purely self interest. There are enough runways in the SE. We don't need anymore just to bolster the share price of Ferrovia or get Boris a seat on the board of a construction company when he finally gets bored of playing at being Major. Sigh Hub airports allow many more secondary destinations to be served directly than would be viable otherwise, thus benefiting local businesses and citizens. For example, I'd like to be able to fly directly to cities like Santiago without having to change, as is currently required. This has been discussed here at length in the past. Err , the point of a hub airport is that you DO change planes. You seem to be conflating hub with simply a larger airport. As an aside I don't give a rats backside about you being able to fly directly somewhere. I wouldn't expect railway lines or motorways to be built direct from London to every small town and city in europe so I'm not sure why you should expect to always be able to fly direct to anywhere you suddenly decide to go. If changing is a problem - don't go. -- Spud |
Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
On Wed, 8 May 2013 11:21:38 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote: On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:42:08 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:36:00 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: A "hub" is of little benefit to anyone other than the airport itself since by definition most of the passengers and freight will simply be passing through. Any tired old economic growth arguments put forward in support are specious and are purely self interest. There are enough runways in the SE. We don't need anymore just to bolster the share price of Ferrovia or get Boris a seat on the board of a construction company when he finally gets bored of playing at being Major. Sigh Hub airports allow many more secondary destinations to be served directly than would be viable otherwise, thus benefiting local businesses and citizens. For example, I'd like to be able to fly directly to cities like Santiago without having to change, as is currently required. This has been discussed here at length in the past. Err , the point of a hub airport is that you DO change planes. You seem to be conflating hub with simply a larger airport. As an aside I don't give a rats backside about you being able to fly directly somewhere. I wouldn't expect railway lines or motorways to be built direct from London to every small town and city in europe so I'm not sure why you should expect to always be able to fly direct to anywhere you suddenly decide to go. If changing is a problem - don't go. It appears that you don't fly internationally (or at all?). |
Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:13:24 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Wed, 8 May 2013 11:21:38 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: directly somewhere. I wouldn't expect railway lines or motorways to be built direct from London to every small town and city in europe so I'm not sure why you should expect to always be able to fly direct to anywhere you suddenly decide to go. If changing is a problem - don't go. It appears that you don't fly internationally (or at all?). I fly occasionally so I'm not some hair shirt wearing hippy who thinks we should all go back to travelling by horse. But I also don't see it as my god given right to be able to fly where I want when I want. And there is a balance between nuisance + enviromental damage and convenience to passengers and its already swung too far over to the latter. -- Spud |
Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
|
Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:39:33 on Wed, 8 May 2013, d remarked: directly somewhere. I wouldn't expect railway lines or motorways to be built direct from London to every small town and city in europe so I'm not sure why you should expect to always be able to fly direct to anywhere you suddenly decide to go. If changing is a problem - don't go. It appears that you don't fly internationally (or at all?). I fly occasionally so I'm not some hair shirt wearing hippy who thinks we should all go back to travelling by horse. But I also don't see it as my god given right to be able to fly where I want when I want. And there is a balance between nuisance + enviromental damage and convenience to passengers and its already swung too far over to the latter. Despite the best efforts of Ryanair and Easyjet, there are still many city pairs in Europe (let alone further afield) which do not have direct flights, and therefore involve a change (or a substantial domestic land-based leg). Given that many people choose to change planes somewhere, the best places quickly tun into "hubs", irrespective of whether they are Heathrow, Frankfurt, Paris etc. Indeed, and while Heathrow is the busiest of the three, it has to squeeze the traffic on to just two runways, while the latter two have four each. It needs four, too. |
Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:50:00 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:39:33 on Wed, 8 May Despite the best efforts of Ryanair and Easyjet, there are still many city pairs in Europe (let alone further afield) which do not have direct flights, and therefore involve a change (or a substantial domestic land-based leg). So what? Tough. -- Spud |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk