Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

On Wed, 15 May 2013 12:32:06 +0100
Richard wrote:
It would be good to have the empty space to locate a Munich-sized
airport, but look at how relatively poor transport is there, although
maybe that's a special case, nothing much attempted while distracted
by a ridiculous monorail project.

Monorails always used to pop up where some organisation wanted mass public
transport but didn't want to pay for it. These days it appears to be cable
cars!

--
Spud

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

On Tue, 07 May 2013 17:41:11 +0200, tim...... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
news:1636431306389608658.505000recliner2-news-
...
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

I think you're underestimating the number of off-airport business that
exist solely to service demand created by the airport. If you move the
airport, then their work is gone, so their employees livelihoods is gone.

No amount of retail and housing development, for example, on the land
currently occupied by heathrow, would support the continued operation of
the service sector industries around the current site that the existing
airport does, such as freight handling, in flight catering,
accommodation, cleaning aircraft etc. Those businesses need to be near
the airport to work, because the airport is what provides their business.

Catering companies in West London are not going to be able to supply food
service for planes over 2 hours drive away and accommodate special meal
requests made at check-in. Aircrew and passengers stopping overnight are
not going to travel from Stansted to Heathrow by rail & / or tube to use
a hotel. Freight companies don't want their vehicles tied up in a 4 hour
round trip every time they take something to, or collect something from,
the freight terminal.

So these businesses will shut down and look for premises near the new
airport. And their employees will either have to move, travel, or accept
redundancy. I don't know where they're going to move to, because I don't
see a huge amount of empty affordable housing near Stansted.

--
Denis McMahon,

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

"Denis McMahon" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 May 2013 17:41:11 +0200, tim...... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
news:1636431306389608658.505000recliner2-news-
...
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

I think you're underestimating the number of off-airport business that
exist solely to service demand created by the airport. If you move the
airport, then their work is gone, so their employees livelihoods is gone.

No it's not it all moves to the new airport

I accept that whether the new location can support this requirement (and
whether staff relocation is reasonable) is a consideration when deciding
whether to move, but the suggestion that these jobs will disagree is just
plain silly

tim