On 02/09/2014 11:40, d wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 02:36:55 -0500
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds), I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new runway".

By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen? All the logic favours a
third Heathrow runway as first choice, with a second Gatwick runway the
next expansion option a few years later.

Logic actually favours no expansion at all.
By this you mean your logic or the logic you're minded to believe in?

The much quoted hub airport
will do nothing for UK Plc other than put more money into the pockets of
the airport owners and will be an enviromental disaster wherever its located.
The hub part is one argument, but it can clearly be argued that
expansion to even handle the current number of flights is necessary to
prevent stacking or horrendous problems caused by the smallest of issues
due to lack of over-capacity.

I await the response that if you build more capacity it will fill up,
and you hear the same argument about road building. Strangely, it's
rarely used when it comes to railways. But in any case if people feel
so strongly about such things they should examine their overall
travelling habits - but then they couldn't have their big house in the
leafy suburbs....

I'd also argue that the word "disaster" is hyperbole in this case
-unless of course any large infrastructure project comes under the same
heading.

If we see air travel as a necessity, even if that is an evil necessity,
then logic would dictate that you need a single airport that is easy
and quick to get to from all parts of the area it serves to use the
capacity as efficiently as possible - I haven't looked at the schedules
but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to
particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into
less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case.

In message , at 11:18:08 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:50:48 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 10:44:46 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further
from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle
train).

If it's the other side of the existing runway, it'll be a lot further
from the current south terminal than the north terminal is.

No it won't. The new terminal will be quite thin and east-west between
the runways.

So, roughly slightly south of where the A23 runs today?

North is the impression I get from this pictu

http://www.gatwickobviously.com/debate

The proposal is to keep the most valuable "hub" flights at Heathrow
and move the more point-to-point ones to Gatwick.

But how do you decide that the point-to-point flights don't support
the hub flights?

Because you have access to the information about who is taking which
flight, and hence which pairs of flights have the most people
transiting.

That would imply a move forced on reluctant airlines, who would no
doubt sue to keep their much more valuable Heathrow slots. I can't
imagine a single airline would want to move a single flight from
Heathrow to Gatwick without massive compensation.

I'm not suggesting they'll cancel existing slots, but new ones will only
be available at Gatwick. The airlines will have to decide where to
juggle their flights.
--
Roland Perry

Logic actually favours no expansion at all. The much quoted hub
airport
will do nothing for UK Plc other than put more money into the pockets
of
the airport owners and will be an enviromental disaster wherever its
located. But of course as soon as someone says this you get the usual
vested interests shouting them down saying they're anti business and
banging on about "growth".

So all those other countries/cities[1] which have developed 4-runway[2]
airports are stupid?

As if a constant increase in GDP is all
that makes a pleasant country to live in.

Could luck campaiging for votes on a manifesto of "let's stand still and
let the rest of the world get richer". You might be happy with the
prospect of the same per capita GDP (PPP) as, say, the average African
has currently but I doubt many others would.

[1] eg Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Madrid,
[2] in some cases more

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In message , at 11:50:51 on Tue, 2 Sep
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London
airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations
that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more
efficient, planes if that were the case.

Heathrow/Gatwick don't have flights to very many European destinations.
That market is dominated by low-cost airlines from other airports.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:51:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 11:18:08 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:50:48 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 10:44:46 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further
from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle
train).

If it's the other side of the existing runway, it'll be a lot further
from the current south terminal than the north terminal is.

No it won't. The new terminal will be quite thin and east-west between
the runways.

So, roughly slightly south of where the A23 runs today?

North is the impression I get from this pictu

http://www.gatwickobviously.com/debate

That looks like it's just about on the position of the current A23. It
shows the new terminal building as being, as one would expect, about
as far south of the current runway as the current main terminal is
north of it. It's quite a distance from the current railway station,
much further than the North terminal.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:08:00 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 11:50:51 on Tue, 2 Sep
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London
airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations
that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more
efficient, planes if that were the case.

Heathrow/Gatwick don't have flights to very many European destinations.
That market is dominated by low-cost airlines from other airports.

That's certainly true of the holiday resorts, but the major European
cities tend to have flights to Heathrow and Gatwick.

Also, don't forget that easyJet is now Gatwick's major airline, thus
reinforcing its position as being much less of a business airport than
Heathrow. Indeed, BA, which dominated the North terminal when it first
opened, will soon be squeezed out of that terminal, into the older
South terminal.

In message , at 12:16:52 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
North is the impression I get from this pictu

http://www.gatwickobviously.com/debate

That looks like it's just about on the position of the current A23. It
shows the new terminal building as being, as one would expect, about
as far south of the current runway as the current main terminal is
north of it. It's quite a distance from the current railway station,
much further than the North terminal.

The current main terminal is alongside the station!

http://goo.gl/maps/ohZXO

And if you draw another arc mirroring the shuttle to the north terminal
(you aren't getting confused by the satellite I hope) it'll end up
exactly where the new terminal is pictured, just south of the eastern
end of the existing runway.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:22:10 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London
airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations
that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more
efficient, planes if that were the case.

Heathrow/Gatwick don't have flights to very many European destinations.
That market is dominated by low-cost airlines from other airports.

That's certainly true of the holiday resorts, but the major European
cities tend to have flights to Heathrow and Gatwick.

That's not many cities though, and we know that flights to Brussels and
Paris are much reduced on account of Eurostar.

If we take the next most significant capital, Berlin, there are just ten
flights a day from Heathrow (seven by BA, three Germanwings) and three
from Gatwick (all Easyjet).

Frankfurt has a few more from Heathrow, but none from Gatwick.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:22:10 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:

BA, which dominated the North terminal when it first opened, will soon
be squeezed out of that terminal, into the older South terminal.

Which they must have inherited from the British Caledonian routes (the
takeover was almost the same month the terminal opened). BA subsequently
decided that its long-haul should be predominantly from Heathrow.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:27:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:16:52 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
North is the impression I get from this pictu

http://www.gatwickobviously.com/debate

That looks like it's just about on the position of the current A23. It
shows the new terminal building as being, as one would expect, about
as far south of the current runway as the current main terminal is
north of it. It's quite a distance from the current railway station,
much further than the North terminal.

The current main terminal is alongside the station!

Of course I know that -- I have used Gatwick, you know. I was
obviously talking about how far the new terminal would be from the
existing south terminal and the railway station.

http://goo.gl/maps/ohZXO

And if you draw another arc mirroring the shuttle to the north terminal
(you aren't getting confused by the satellite I hope) it'll end up
exactly where the new terminal is pictured, just south of the eastern
end of the existing runway.

No, it's nearly twice as far. A flipped arc would get you just beyond
the end of the runway, not the terminal.

And, no, I'm obviously not confused by the satellite (I'm not Mr
Bell). I've used it both when it had its little shuttle train, and
since that was removed.