Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

Subject: Dramatic news in today's Standard

Dramatic news in today’s Standard as it has got hold of documents which reveal 12 options Heathrow Airport has been looking at for new runway/airport.

John Stewart HACAN

03 May 2013

A “superhub� airport with four runways could be built in the home counties or west London under plans drawn up for Heathrow bosses.

The blueprint includes options for a huge new airport close to Maidenhead or Oxford , or doubling the number of runways at Heathrow, to handle 140  million passengers a year.

It was seized on by aviation experts as giving the first detailed insight into Heathrow’s thinking about airport expansion in the South-East.

A document called Heathrow 2025, Masterplan Options & Indicative Layouts, obtained by Aviation Week industry information service, outlines 10 options. They include plans for a four-runway airport at White Waltham in Berkshire, near Maidenhead and Bracknell, or at Haddenham in Aylesbury Vale, Buckinghamshire, about 15 miles from Oxford.

Alternatively, there is a proposal for Heathrow to have one extra runway to the east and another to the west, or four runways slightly to the west of the airport which would involve tunnelling the M25, filling in a local reservoir and using the existing terminals.

The study was commissioned by Heathrow from consultancy Mott MacDonald and also includes four different proposals for a three-runway airport — three at the existing airport and one to the west, over the M25.

Plans are also outlined for take-offs and landings on both existing runways, rather than alternating their use.

John Stewart, chairman of anti-airport expansion campaign group HACAN, called the revelations “utterly dramatic. Nobody expected Heathrow would be looking so far afield. It must mean they don’t feel at all confident of being able to win the argument about expanding the existing airport.�

Heathrow stressed it had not yet backed any of the proposals in the report, believed to have been compiled six months ago. A spokesman said: “These are early drafts of concepts developed by consultants last year. They are not designs that have been endorsed by Heathrow airport. Heathrow will be making its considered submission to the Airports Commission in July.�

Heathrow is understood to be considering at least 12 expansion options which are being whittled down.

Another proposal floated, from a group led by Concorde’s longest-serving pilot, Captain Jock Lowe, has proposed extending the two existing Heathrow runways to create four.

Daniel Moylan, the Mayor of London’s adviser on aviation, argued that the Mott MacDonald study indicated Heathrow chiefs may be “coming round� to Boris Johnson’s view that Heathrow cannot expand on its current site.

He said: “The Mayor believes that the right location for a hub airport is on the eastern side of the capital, where the scope for regeneration is greater and where space is less constrained.�

Councillor David Lyons, leader of Aylesbury Vale Green Party, called the proposal for Haddenham “absolutely mad. It’s such a far-fetched scheme to destroy a beautiful area. There would be a mass campaign (against it).�

The villages of Chearsley and Long Crendon would have to be largely removed, Aviation Week suggested.

White Waltham councillor Carwyn Cox branded the idea of a major international airport there as an “impractical solution�, which would blight green belt land and affect communities in Maidenhead, Windsor, Slough, Reading, Marlow and Henley.

===

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

"Alternatively, there is a proposal for Heathrow to have one extra runway to the east and another to the west, or four runways slightly to the west of the airport which would involve tunnelling the M25, filling in a local reservoir and using the existing terminals."

Sounds like it was drawn up on the back of an envelope in the pub. Going to the west, I think the Queen Mother and Wraysbury are rather important pieces of infrastructure, let alone the demolishing of the Colnbrook Industrial Estate and possibly Colnbrook itself. Then there's the the residents of Datchet and Windsor having runways the other side of their garden fences. If you go east, you'd have to demolish Cranford and parts of Hounslow.

Neill

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

On Fri, 3 May 2013 06:25:56 -0700 (PDT), CJB
wrote:

Subject: Dramatic news in today's Standard

Dramatic news in today’s Standard as it has got hold of documents which reveal 12 options Heathrow Airport has been looking at for new runway/airport.

John Stewart HACAN

03 May 2013

A “superhub” airport with four runways could be built in the home counties or west London under plans drawn up for Heathrow bosses.

The blueprint includes options for a huge new airport close to Maidenhead or Oxford , or doubling the number of runways at Heathrow, to handle 140??million passengers a year.

It was seized on by aviation experts as giving the first detailed insight into Heathrow’s thinking about airport expansion in the South-East.

A document called Heathrow 2025, Masterplan Options & Indicative Layouts, obtained by Aviation Week industry information service, outlines 10 options. They include plans for a four-runway airport at White Waltham in Berkshire, near Maidenhead and Bracknell, or at Haddenham in Aylesbury Vale, Buckinghamshire, about 15 miles from Oxford.

Alternatively, there is a proposal for Heathrow to have one extra runway to the east and another to the west, or four runways slightly to the west of the airport which would involve tunnelling the M25, filling in a local reservoir and using the existing terminals.

The study was commissioned by Heathrow from consultancy Mott MacDonald and also includes four different proposals for a three-runway airport — three at the existing airport and one to the west, over the M25.

Plans are also outlined for take-offs and landings on both existing runways, rather than alternating their use.

John Stewart, chairman of anti-airport expansion campaign group HACAN, called the revelations “utterly dramatic. Nobody expected Heathrow would be looking so far afield. It must mean they don’t feel at all confident of being able to win the argument about expanding the existing airport.”

Heathrow stressed it had not yet backed any of the proposals in the report, believed to have been compiled six months ago. A spokesman said: “These are early drafts of concepts developed by consultants last year. They are not designs that have been endorsed by Heathrow airport. Heathrow will be making its considered submission to the Airports Commission in July.”

Heathrow is understood to be considering at least 12 expansion options which are being whittled down.

Another proposal floated, from a group led by Concorde’s longest-serving pilot, Captain Jock Lowe, has proposed extending the two existing Heathrow runways to create four.

Daniel Moylan, the Mayor of London’s adviser on aviation, argued that the Mott MacDonald study indicated Heathrow chiefs may be “coming round” to Boris Johnson’s view that Heathrow cannot expand on its current site.

He said: “The Mayor believes that the right location for a hub airport is on the eastern side of the capital, where the scope for regeneration is greater and where space is less constrained.”

Councillor David Lyons, leader of Aylesbury Vale Green Party, called the proposal for Haddenham “absolutely mad. It’s such a far-fetched scheme to destroy a beautiful area. There would be a mass campaign (against it).”

The villages of Chearsley and Long Crendon would have to be largely removed, Aviation Week suggested.

White Waltham councillor Carwyn Cox branded the idea of a major international airport there as an “impractical solution”, which would blight green belt land and affect communities in Maidenhead, Windsor, Slough, Reading, Marlow and Henley.

Why is this dramatic news? There have been many recent discussions
here and elsewhere about how Heathrow might be expanded, given the
need for a larger London hub airport and the extreme doubts about an
all-new hub airport out in the Thames estuary.

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

Recliner wrote:

Why is this dramatic news? There have been many recent discussions
here and elsewhere about how Heathrow might be expanded, given the
need for a larger London hub airport and the extreme doubts about an
all-new hub airport out in the Thames estuary.

It'll also be BAA posturing given that to me the most sensible option
(expanding Stansted and closing Heathrow or at least relegating it to a
smaller operation, perhaps involving low-costs) will not exactly help their
business.

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

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

On 2013-05-06 22:08:16 +0000, Neil Williams said:

Recliner wrote:

Why is this dramatic news? There have been many recent discussions
here and elsewhere about how Heathrow might be expanded, given the
need for a larger London hub airport and the extreme doubts about an
all-new hub airport out in the Thames estuary.

It'll also be BAA posturing given that to me the most sensible option
(expanding Stansted and closing Heathrow or at least relegating it to a
smaller operation, perhaps involving low-costs) will not exactly help their
business.

Neil

I'd be interested to hear how you consider that expanding Stansted is
the best option, given that several inquiries over several decades have
failed to come to that conclusion, and that Stansted itself is now
attracting only 80% of the business it did just a few years back..

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

Ken Wheatley wrote:
On 2013-05-06 22:08:16 +0000, Neil Williams said:

Recliner wrote:
Why is this dramatic news? There have been many recent discussions
here and elsewhere about how Heathrow might be expanded, given the
need for a larger London hub airport and the extreme doubts about an
all-new hub airport out in the Thames estuary.
It'll also be BAA posturing given that to me the most sensible option
(expanding Stansted and closing Heathrow or at least relegating it to a
smaller operation, perhaps involving low-costs) will not exactly help their
business.
Neil

I'd be interested to hear how you consider that expanding Stansted is the
best option, given that several inquiries over several decades have
failed to come to that conclusion, and that Stansted itself is now
attracting only 80% of the business it did just a few years back..

Exactly. Heathrow is oversubscribed, while Stansted struggles for business.
The customers want more capacity at Heathrow area, not east or northeast of
London. The operator would prefer the cheaper, simpler third runway north
of the current pair, but I think a more ambitious expansion to four is a
better long term strategy.

Incidentally, I've had occasion to pass through Beijing's busy Capital
airport a couple of times in the last ten days, and it's interesting to see
how much worse it is than Heathrow, despite its grand turtle-and-dragon
Foster-designed Terminal 3, mixed mode operation on three runways: more
walking, worse signage, much longer delays to take off, only bus links
between terminals. And the free wi-fi in the business lounges is behind the
Great Firewall, so lots of web sites are blocked. You also have to register
with your passport to use the wi-fi. But at least it does have wi-fi and
business lounges, unlike Pyongyang airport which instead sports a
collection of parked elderly Russian planes.

I also prefer the Rogers' Heathrow T5 to his Barajas T4, though MAD is less
congested than LHR. The need to squash Heathrow's T5 into a limited space
has made it more efficient than the indulgent, sprawling
also-British-designed contemporaries in Beijing and Madrid.

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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.

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

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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

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?

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

"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.

tim

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

"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?

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

"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

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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.

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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.

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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.

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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.

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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).

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:12:49 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

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.

You apparently don't understand the concept of a hub airport.

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

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.

--
Spud

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
 

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.
--
Roland Perry

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

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

On Wed, 08 May 2013 08:38:45 -0500
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

And when those 4 fill up then what? 6? 8? Where do you stop? When half of
Berkshire is paved over and millions of peoples lives are blighted by aircraft
noise and pollution just so you can save a few hours getting to some non
essential destination - which ironically is probably for rest and relaxation
purposes?

--
Spud

You seem to feel that farm land has no value. Not many will agree with that,
least of all the peope who live near Stansted and who have made clear their
intense opposition to any expansion.

The rail line from Stansted to Liverpool Street is not Britain's leading rail route
and already has capacity problems in the London area. I doubt if more
international travellers want to be in the Liverpool Street area than in the
Paddington area so that argument has minimal validity.

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

Robin9 wrote:
Neil Williams;136900 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.

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

You seem to feel that farm land has no value. Not many will agree with
that,
least of all the peope who live near Stansted and who have made clear
their intense opposition to any expansion.

The rail line from Stansted to Liverpool Street is not Britain's leading
rail route
and already has capacity problems in the London area. I doubt if more
international travellers want to be in the Liverpool Street area than in
the Paddington area so that argument has minimal validity.

In any case, long before any airport expansion, Heathrow will have regular,
direct, high capacity rail connections to West London (Ealing), the West
End, City, Stratford, Canary Wharf and ExCel. It may also get regular,
direct rail connections to Slough and Reading and perhaps Staines as well.
Paddington is a red herring.

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

Robin9 wrote:

You seem to feel that farm land has no value.

There is no land in the UK that isn't owned by someone. Putting a runway
on farmland is disruptive to far fewer people than putting it on a town.
Therefore it is best to put it on farmland.

The rail line from Stansted to Liverpool Street is not Britain's leading
rail route
and already has capacity problems in the London area.

So, if you've ever used it, does First Great Western. Remove HEx and
that's four more fast trains per hour they can run.

I doubt if more
international travellers want to be in the Liverpool Street area than in
the
Paddington area so that argument has minimal validity.

You don't think that many more business travellers will be destined for the
City of London and Canary Wharf than the Paddington area? Whyever not?
Paddington is nowhere near anywhere of significance.

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

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

On 9 May 2013 09:51:20 GMT, Neil Williams
wrote:


You don't think that many more business travellers will be destined for the
City of London and Canary Wharf than the Paddington area? Whyever not?
Paddington is nowhere near anywhere of significance.

Sure, but Heathrow also has the Tube, and will soon have Crossrail,
giving it unsurpassed railway connections.

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

Recliner wrote:

Sure, but Heathrow also has the Tube, and will soon have Crossrail,
giving it unsurpassed railway connections.

True.

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

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

On 08/05/2013 00:43, Recliner wrote:
[snip]
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.

Not arguing in favour of Neil's Stansted option, but there would be
fewer "outraged neighbours" than a four runway Heathrow (where
'neighbour' = people under the flightpath).

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

Mizter T wrote:
On 08/05/2013 00:43, Recliner wrote:
[snip]
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.

Not arguing in favour of Neil's Stansted option, but there would be fewer
"outraged neighbours" than a four runway Heathrow (where 'neighbour' =
people under the flightpath).

Looks like the Commons Transport Committee has seen sense:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22469502

Extract:
"The government should reject the "Boris Island" Thames Estuary airport
plan and expand Heathrow instead, a report by MPs has said.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson has argued for a new hub airport in the
Thames Estuary.

Yet the House of Commons Transport Committee warned it would be hugely
expensive.

The mayor insists London needs a new airport and the only possible place is
east of London.

But the report also warned the new airport could mean the closure of
Heathrow and could harm estuary wildlife.

The MPs argue a third runway at Heathrow is necessary instead and even
suggest a fourth runway might have merit.

A third runway is opposed by both residents and councils in west London.

The committee said adding new runways to expand other existing airports was
not a long-term solution.

Committee chairwoman Louise Ellman MP said: "Research we commissioned made
plain that building an entirely new hub airport east of London could not be
done without huge public investment in new ground transport infrastructure.

"Evidence to our inquiry also showed a substantial potential impact on
wildlife habitat in the Thames Estuary.

"The viability of an estuary hub airport would also require the closure of
Heathrow - a course of action that would have unacceptable consequences."

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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.

ITYF that the people most affected are the ones whose property isn't bought
up, not the ones who are

tim

Heathrow Expansion Bombshell
 

On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:22:21 -0500, Recliner
wrote:

I also prefer the Rogers' Heathrow T5 to his Barajas T4, though MAD is less
congested than LHR. The need to squash Heathrow's T5 into a limited space
has made it more efficient than the indulgent, sprawling
also-British-designed contemporaries in Beijing and Madrid.

(A late entry to this discussion!)

I really like T5, I hadn't thought about why but it's what you say --
it had to be squeezed in so it's not far to walk anywhere.

I think Barajas' T4 is a properly beautiful structure, though, and so
will forgive a recent change there where I arrived at one end of the
building and left from the other!

In the case of Heathrow vs other, I think it's impossible to ignore
LHR's history -- the "inertia" of workforce and clientele location --
and the many good (and about to get better) transport links to get
there. (It's just a pity that, from my direction, all my bus options
end at Heathrow Central rather than continuing to T5.)

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.

Richard.