| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
There's a short item in today's Sunday Times that suggests that the
government is favouring the Heathrow Hub option: http://www.heathrowhub.com This is cheaper than the third runway, needs much less land (and very few properties will be affected), will be much quicker to build, and will not increase the noise footprint nearly as much. The scheme as proposed (not by HAL) also includes a road-rail interchange on the M4 and GWML (and possibly an HS2 spur), immediately to the north of the airport, with a direct light rail link to the terminals. However, I think that's really a separate idea. Crucially, BA is backing this scheme, rather than the third runway: http://news.sky.com/story/ba-owner-s...cheme-10319759 |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On 25/09/2016 12:16, Recliner wrote: There's a short item in today's Sunday Times that suggests that the government is favouring the Heathrow Hub option: http://www.heathrowhub.com This is cheaper than the third runway, needs much less land (and very few properties will be affected), will be much quicker to build, and will not increase the noise footprint nearly as much. The scheme as proposed (not by HAL) also includes a road-rail interchange on the M4 and GWML (and possibly an HS2 spur), immediately to the north of the airport, with a direct light rail link to the terminals. However, I think that's really a separate idea. Crucially, BA is backing this scheme, rather than the third runway: http://news.sky.com/story/ba-owner-s...cheme-10319759 Interesting. Especially given that the Heathrow Hub proposal was rejected by the Airports Commission. If Heathrow is the government's choice then it's still going to face some almighty opposition, though perhaps given the whole Heathrow question has been going on for so long - a 'war of attrition' if you will - maybe some of that opposition could fall by the wayside. Poyle would be razed under the scheme - much of the area is a trading estate, though there are some residential streets south of Bath Rd that would have to go. (As would the current T5 Pod Parking!) |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
Mizter T wrote:
On 25/09/2016 12:16, Recliner wrote: There's a short item in today's Sunday Times that suggests that the government is favouring the Heathrow Hub option: http://www.heathrowhub.com This is cheaper than the third runway, needs much less land (and very few properties will be affected), will be much quicker to build, and will not increase the noise footprint nearly as much. The scheme as proposed (not by HAL) also includes a road-rail interchange on the M4 and GWML (and possibly an HS2 spur), immediately to the north of the airport, with a direct light rail link to the terminals. However, I think that's really a separate idea. Crucially, BA is backing this scheme, rather than the third runway: http://news.sky.com/story/ba-owner-s...cheme-10319759 Interesting. Especially given that the Heathrow Hub proposal was rejected by the Airports Commission. It wasn't rejected. It was one of the three preferred options, ahead of Gatwick. It doesn't add as much capacity as a completely new runway, but is cheaper, quicker, easier, less disruptive. If Heathrow is the government's choice then it's still going to face some almighty opposition, though perhaps given the whole Heathrow question has been going on for so long - a 'war of attrition' if you will - maybe some of that opposition could fall by the wayside. I think Heathrow has been the government's choice for ages. They just couldn't find a good time to announce it. Had Gatwick been the preferred choice, it would have been announced before the 2015 election. Poyle would be razed under the scheme - much of the area is a trading estate, though there are some residential streets south of Bath Rd that would have to go. (As would the current T5 Pod Parking!) The latter would be affected by either of the runway options. |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On 25/09/2016 16:10, Recliner wrote: Mizter T wrote: On 25/09/2016 12:16, Recliner wrote: There's a short item in today's Sunday Times that suggests that the government is favouring the Heathrow Hub option: http://www.heathrowhub.com This is cheaper than the third runway, needs much less land (and very few properties will be affected), will be much quicker to build, and will not increase the noise footprint nearly as much. The scheme as proposed (not by HAL) also includes a road-rail interchange on the M4 and GWML (and possibly an HS2 spur), immediately to the north of the airport, with a direct light rail link to the terminals. However, I think that's really a separate idea. Crucially, BA is backing this scheme, rather than the third runway: http://news.sky.com/story/ba-owner-s...cheme-10319759 Interesting. Especially given that the Heathrow Hub proposal was rejected by the Airports Commission. It wasn't rejected. It was one of the three preferred options, ahead of Gatwick. It doesn't add as much capacity as a completely new runway, but is cheaper, quicker, easier, less disruptive. Mea culpa... I was going to check, but decided to let my faulty memory serve me instead. I shall go and have another look at the Commission's report. If Heathrow is the government's choice then it's still going to face some almighty opposition, though perhaps given the whole Heathrow question has been going on for so long - a 'war of attrition' if you will - maybe some of that opposition could fall by the wayside. I think Heathrow has been the government's choice for ages. They just couldn't find a good time to announce it. Had Gatwick been the preferred choice, it would have been announced before the 2015 election. George Osborne's choice, yes. But there's not been a government decision per se on it. There have been all sorts of rumours and whispers about the issue though, with some seemingly credible ones also pointing to the choice being Gatwick, with the subtext that Heathrow was just too difficult. Poyle would be razed under the scheme - much of the area is a trading estate, though there are some residential streets south of Bath Rd that would have to go. (As would the current T5 Pod Parking!) The latter would be affected by either of the runway options. OK, though I wasn't seeking to make a serious point from that! I was just thinking about the immediate localities that will be affected. I'm not sure to what degree Colnbrook and Poyle have been hit by planning blight re the possibility of a Heathrow extension - it has certainly badly affected Sipson and Harmondsworth. On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was something of a folly. |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
Mizter T wrote:
On 25/09/2016 16:10, Recliner wrote: Mizter T wrote: On 25/09/2016 12:16, Recliner wrote: There's a short item in today's Sunday Times that suggests that the government is favouring the Heathrow Hub option: http://www.heathrowhub.com This is cheaper than the third runway, needs much less land (and very few properties will be affected), will be much quicker to build, and will not increase the noise footprint nearly as much. The scheme as proposed (not by HAL) also includes a road-rail interchange on the M4 and GWML (and possibly an HS2 spur), immediately to the north of the airport, with a direct light rail link to the terminals. However, I think that's really a separate idea. Crucially, BA is backing this scheme, rather than the third runway: http://news.sky.com/story/ba-owner-s...cheme-10319759 Interesting. Especially given that the Heathrow Hub proposal was rejected by the Airports Commission. It wasn't rejected. It was one of the three preferred options, ahead of Gatwick. It doesn't add as much capacity as a completely new runway, but is cheaper, quicker, easier, less disruptive. Mea culpa... I was going to check, but decided to let my faulty memory serve me instead. I shall go and have another look at the Commission's report. From https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf We have concluded that the best answer is to expand Heathrow’s runway capacity. A brand new airport in the Thames Estuary, while appealing in theory, is unfeasibly expensive, highly problematic in environmental terms and would be hugely disruptive for many businesses and communities. Gatwick, by contrast, has presented a plausible case for expansion. It is well placed to cater for growth in intra-European leisure flying, but is unlikely to provide as much of the type of capacity which is most urgently required: long-haul destinations in new markets. Heathrow can provide that capacity most easily and quickly. The benefits are signifcantly greater, for business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy. All passengers will benefit from enhanced competition. Our choice at Heathrow is in favour of the Northwest Runway proposal by the airport operator. The so-called Heathrow Hub is an imaginative idea, which has usefully opened up thinking about the way the airport operates, but for the reasons we explain is less attractive from a noise perspective. The Northwest Runway scheme is technically feasible and does not involve massive, untested infrastructure. The costs are high, but financeable by the private sector, in our judgement and that of investors. .... 13.2 Each of the three schemes shortlisted for detailed consideration was considered a credible option for expansion, capable of delivering valuable enhancements to the UK’s aviation capacity and connectivity. They would each also have negative environmental effects, which would need to be carefully managed, though in all three cases the schemes’ developers have sought to limit those where possible through careful design. 13.3 Nonetheless, the Commission has unanimously concluded that the proposal for a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport, in combination with the signi cant package of measures to address its environmental and community impacts described below, presents the strongest case. It delivers more substantial economic and strategic bene ts than any other shortlisted option, strengthening connectivity for passengers and freight users and boosting the productivity of the UK economy, and strikes a fair balance between national and local priorities. The Commission’s terms of reference required it to make recommendations designed to maintain the UK’s position as a global hub for aviation: Heathrow expansion is the most likely route to achieving that. If Heathrow is the government's choice then it's still going to face some almighty opposition, though perhaps given the whole Heathrow question has been going on for so long - a 'war of attrition' if you will - maybe some of that opposition could fall by the wayside. I think Heathrow has been the government's choice for ages. They just couldn't find a good time to announce it. Had Gatwick been the preferred choice, it would have been announced before the 2015 election. George Osborne's choice, yes. But there's not been a government decision per se on it. Agreed, but I think most ministers and MPs (with some well-known exceptions) favour Heathrow. There have been all sorts of rumours and whispers about the issue though, with some seemingly credible ones also pointing to the choice being Gatwick, with the subtext that Heathrow was just too difficult. Poyle would be razed under the scheme - much of the area is a trading estate, though there are some residential streets south of Bath Rd that would have to go. (As would the current T5 Pod Parking!) The latter would be affected by either of the runway options. OK, though I wasn't seeking to make a serious point from that! I was just thinking about the immediate localities that will be affected. I'm not sure to what degree Colnbrook and Poyle have been hit by planning blight re the possibility of a Heathrow extension - it has certainly badly affected Sipson and Harmondsworth. Which would actually survive under this proposal. HAL would be the owner of some newly valuable properties! On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was something of a folly. Probably, but I'm not sure there was a good place to site a major four-runway airport anywhere convenient for London. London didn't have the Denver option. |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On 25/09/2016 16:56, Recliner wrote:
The Commission's report did also include under Safety considerations: "12.24 The CAA did note the lack of precedent for the Heathrow Extended Northern Runway concept and indicated that it would need more detailed development. It was emphasised, however, that the CAA remained open-minded on the concept and open to further engagement." And even Heathrow Hub's own press release on their safety study had: "Hazards arising during normal operations and emergency situations, including go-arounds and overruns, were examined using a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques. The initial assessment concluded that the proposed Heathrow Hub concept has the potential to be safe, but that further analysis and evidence would be required to prove this in detail." I'm not qualified to judge the risks of "tandem" runways. But I do know one economist said it'd be really, really hard to assess the cost if a go-around or overrun allowed Heathrow to beat Tenerife's record of 583 :( -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
In message , at 16:25:37 on Sun, 25 Sep
2016, Mizter T remarked: On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was something of a folly. iirc it was farmland which was commandeered as a wartime airstrip. meme They only built Windsor castle at the end of the runway later. /meme From the kerfuffle about where to put the third London Airport, if people had objected to Heathrow's expansion, we'd perhaps be stuck with one of the world's busiest International airports in the middle of Croydon. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On 25/09/2016 17:54, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:25:37 on Sun, 25 Sep 2016, Mizter T remarked: On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was something of a folly. iirc it was farmland which was commandeered as a wartime airstrip. Which was only a pretence conjured up by Harold Balfour and others in order to establish a fact on the ground - i.e. a big aerodrome - using wartime requisition powers. meme They only built Windsor castle at the end of the runway later. /meme From the kerfuffle about where to put the third London Airport, if people had objected to Heathrow's expansion, we'd perhaps be stuck with one of the world's busiest International airports in the middle of Croydon. |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 16:25:37 on Sun, 25 Sep 2016, Mizter T remarked: On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was something of a folly. iirc it was farmland which was commandeered as a wartime airstrip. meme They only built Windsor castle at the end of the runway later. /meme From the kerfuffle about where to put the third London Airport, if people had objected to Heathrow's expansion, we'd perhaps be stuck with one of the world's busiest International airports in the middle of Croydon. The issue with LHR being London's main airport in the wrong place is "should it have been moved before T4 was given permission" IMHO the answer to that is "Absolutely" tim |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
The so-called Heathrow Hub is an imaginative idea,
which has usefully opened up thinking about the way the airport operates, but for the reasons we explain is less attractive from a noise perspective. The Northwest Runway scheme is technically feasible and does not involve massive, untested infrastructure. "massive untested infrastructure"? [I'm intrigued by the phrase but don't have time to read the report.] |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
The so-called Heathrow Hub is an imaginative idea, which has usefully opened up thinking about the way the airport operates, but for the reasons we explain is less attractive from a noise perspective. The Northwest Runway scheme is technically feasible and does not involve massive, untested infrastructure. "massive untested infrastructure"? [I'm intrigued by the phrase but don't have time to read the report.] It just means that the novel extended double runway idea would be a world's first, and so all the safety analyses would have to be carried out from scratch. New operating procedures would probably also be needed. The much more expensive and disruptive northwest third runway scheme is entirely conventional, which is the main reason the commission favoured it. |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
In message , at 18:37:03 on Sun, 25 Sep
2016, Mizter T remarked: iirc it was farmland which was commandeered as a wartime airstrip. Which was only a pretence conjured up by Harold Balfour and others in order to establish a fact on the ground - i.e. a big aerodrome - using wartime requisition powers. Even if that was true (I hope you have some citations for that) the point is that it was *farmland* and thus outside the urban area of London at that time. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
In message , at 19:30:49 on Sun, 25 Sep
2016, tim... remarked: The issue with LHR being London's main airport in the wrong place is "should it have been moved before T4 was given permission" IMHO the answer to that is "Absolutely" Where would you have put it? Bear in mind that Maplin Sands, and several other sites had been rules out already, so you might have only Stansted on offer. And that already had an active set of pressure groups opposed to even any extension of its status as the third airport. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 19:30:49 on Sun, 25 Sep 2016, tim... remarked: The issue with LHR being London's main airport in the wrong place is "should it have been moved before T4 was given permission" IMHO the answer to that is "Absolutely" Where would you have put it? You just have to find somewhere I'm sure that there are (were) lots of viable options Bear in mind that Maplin Sands, and several other sites had been rules out already, so you might have only Stansted on offer. And that already had an active set of pressure groups opposed to even any extension of its status as the third airport. Of course there are going to be pressure groups. But that's what politics has to cope with that makes it hard you have to overrule the pressure groups to do what's best for the country. It's what happened in all other places that have moved their major airport This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it is now tim |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
tim... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 19:30:49 on Sun, 25 Sep 2016, tim... remarked: The issue with LHR being London's main airport in the wrong place is "should it have been moved before T4 was given permission" IMHO the answer to that is "Absolutely" Where would you have put it? You just have to find somewhere I'm sure that there are (were) lots of viable options I don't think there were, even back then. That's why we've had multiple airport enquiries and commissions, but haven't come even close to choosing a new airport site. Bear in mind that Maplin Sands, and several other sites had been rules out already, so you might have only Stansted on offer. And that already had an active set of pressure groups opposed to even any extension of its status as the third airport. Of course there are going to be pressure groups. But that's what politics has to cope with that makes it hard you have to overrule the pressure groups to do what's best for the country. So you might just as well expand Heathrow. It will cause far less trouble than attempting to build a major new 4-runway airport anywhere in the southeast. It's what happened in all other places that have moved their major airport This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it is now London isn't short of airport capacity. It's just short of capacity at Heathrow. Stansted and Luton have plenty of spare capacity, Gatwick has a little, and Southend could handle many more London flights. |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
|
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
In message , at 10:34:25 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, tim... remarked: The issue with LHR being London's main airport in the wrong place is "should it have been moved before T4 was given permission" IMHO the answer to that is "Absolutely" Where would you have put it? You just have to find somewhere I'm sure that there are (were) lots of viable options That's what the Roskill Commission had a rather hard time with. They suggested Cublington. Bear in mind that Maplin Sands, and several other sites had been rules out already, so you might have only Stansted on offer. And that already had an active set of pressure groups opposed to even any extension of its status as the third airport. Of course there are going to be pressure groups. But that's what politics has to cope with that makes it hard you have to overrule the pressure groups to do what's best for the country. It's what happened in all other places that have moved their major airport Almost always to reclaimed land off the coast, or virtually uninhabited tracts of farmland. Boris wanted to pursue the former (to much derision from onlookers) and there isn't any of the latter in the Southeast. This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it is now SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:57:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:34:25 on Mon, 26 Sep This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it is now SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow. The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world. When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with 24 hours notice. Instant gratification is something children expect, not adults. -- Spud |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
|
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
|
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:27:27 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:23:19 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, d remarked: This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it is now SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow. The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world. When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with 24 hours notice. You need just as much capacity for people booking flights months in advance. Not necessarily. People who can't find a last minute flight to go on a w/e break probably won't rebook for a few months ahead, they'll either not bother or just go somewhere else using another method of transport. Anyway, the fact that budget airline fares are still so low indicates there isn't a capacity issue for the airlines at the moment. Supply & demand etc etc... -- Spud |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
|
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:44:35 +0100
Neil Williams wrote: On 2016-09-26 13:35:29 +0000, d said: I know, but its all still controlled by NATS. From watching the Skies Over Britain programme on the BBC recently its obvious they're already close to their limit. I can't so how even more aircraft will help. And thats before we get onto people - like me - who live under airport flightpaths who are sick of the constant drone of airliners overhead. Did you move there before the airport opened? If not, that wasn't a very good selection of property, was it? ITYF most of London is affected by the noise from aircraft in a stack or on takeoff/approach to heathrow. They pass over my house at 4-5000 ft and they're still bloody annoying. In august it was almost one every minute. -- Spud |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
|
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
|
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:36:27 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:29:18 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, d remarked: I know, but its all still controlled by NATS. From watching the Skies Over Britain programme on the BBC recently its obvious they're already close to their limit. I can't so how even more aircraft will help. And thats before we get onto people - like me - who live under airport flightpaths who are sick of the constant drone of airliners overhead. Did you move there before the airport opened? If not, that wasn't a very good selection of property, was it? ITYF most of London is affected by the noise from aircraft in a stack or on takeoff/approach to heathrow. Thus you are not affected by the ones at 30,000ft. Next contestant please! I didn't say I was directly affected, though seeing a natural blue sky over my house just occasionally would be nice. But the point was about more airport capacity in the SE which means more takeoffs and landings. -- Spud |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:36:27 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:29:18 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, d remarked: I know, but its all still controlled by NATS. From watching the Skies Over Britain programme on the BBC recently its obvious they're already close to their limit. I can't so how even more aircraft will help. And thats before we get onto people - like me - who live under airport flightpaths who are sick of the constant drone of airliners overhead. Did you move there before the airport opened? If not, that wasn't a very good selection of property, was it? ITYF most of London is affected by the noise from aircraft in a stack or on takeoff/approach to heathrow. Thus you are not affected by the ones at 30,000ft. Next contestant please! I didn't say I was directly affected, though seeing a natural blue sky over my house just occasionally would be nice. But the point was about more airport capacity in the SE which means more takeoffs and landings. I suspect Brexit will be given as one of the reasons for expanding Heathrow, on the basis that we need more longhaul trading links to partially replace some potentially lost EU trade. Heathrow is seen as the preferred choice for wide-body, longhaul flights, Gatwick for shorthaul narrow-body flights. |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:31:30 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: I didn't say I was directly affected, though seeing a natural blue sky over my house just occasionally would be nice. But the point was about more airport capacity in the SE which means more takeoffs and landings. I suspect Brexit will be given as one of the reasons for expanding Heathrow, on the basis that we need more longhaul trading links to partially replace some potentially lost EU trade. Heathrow is seen as the preferred choice for wide-body, longhaul flights, Gatwick for shorthaul narrow-body flights. The ulimate problem is the SE is too crowded so lots of people will be affected by the extra noise and finding any land for expansion anywhere is going to be viciously opposed. Quite understandably IMO. We've already got 6 large runways (8 if you include northolt and biggin hill) in and around the London area. With *proper* transport links that should be more than enough. -- Spud |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:57:55 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:34:25 on Mon, 26 Sep This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it is now SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow. The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world. When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with 24 hours notice. Instant gratification is something children expect, not adults. If having the whole of Europe available to me at (less than) 24 hours notice makes me a child - **** it, I'm loving my childhood. My mother (in her 70s) bought a globe recently so she can stick a pin in all the places I WhatsApp her from that she couldn't even conceive of visiting in her lifetime. I have absolutely no guilt about this - my generation has the opportunity to embrace the world and our lives are immeasurably improved for it, and if it upsets a few nimbies who object to seeing a contrail, so be it. Alas, the next generation in Britain will have had many of those opportunities taken away from them by Brexit. I'm glad I emigrated when I did - ration cards and hiding from the rest of the world never seemed that bucolic to me, but whatever floats your boat... |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 13:41:37 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, d remarked: The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world. When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with 24 hours notice. You need just as much capacity for people booking flights months in advance. Not necessarily. People who can't find a last minute flight to go on a w/e break probably won't rebook for a few months ahead, they'll either not bother or just go somewhere else using another method of transport. I don't know anyone who flies for leisure at the last minute, especially on low-cost airlines - because those fares are the very highest. One of the pax who shared the shuttle bus with me from PRG two months ago shared the info that he had booked at some random hotel via Hotwire [1]. I surmised that he had booked at the last minute and asked what fare he had paid and it wasn't that much different to the one that I had paid booked on two months notice. I note that I can book same for tomorrow for 33 quid returning a week later for 41. (plus luggage etc etc) tim |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:44:35 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote: On 2016-09-26 13:35:29 +0000, d said: I know, but its all still controlled by NATS. From watching the Skies Over Britain programme on the BBC recently its obvious they're already close to their limit. I can't so how even more aircraft will help. And thats before we get onto people - like me - who live under airport flightpaths who are sick of the constant drone of airliners overhead. Did you move there before the airport opened? If not, that wasn't a very good selection of property, was it? Neil I live under one of the routes into London City, (in Thurrock) & I've no idea what height the 'planes are flying, but they are quite noticable. (I've flown into LCY just once & it was easy to recognize my home..........) We bought the house in '85, probably before LCY was planned. I feel for anyone living under a flight-path into a major airport. DC --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On 2016-09-26 18:50:17 +0000, David C said:
I feel for anyone living under a flight-path into a major airport. I do, but if the airport was there when they bought it (not yourself), they don't really get to complain - the price was probably cheaper as a result. It's like people who move next to pubs and complain when they are noisy. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-09-26 18:50:17 +0000, David C said: I feel for anyone living under a flight-path into a major airport. I do, but if the airport was there when they bought it (not yourself), they don't really get to complain - the price was probably cheaper as a result. It's like people who move next to pubs and complain when they are noisy. And modern planes are likely much, much quieter than the planes than were the norm when the property was bought. |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:30:07 +0100
Neil Williams wrote: On 2016-09-26 18:50:17 +0000, David C said: I feel for anyone living under a flight-path into a major airport. I do, but if the airport was there when they bought it (not yourself), they don't really get to complain - the price was probably cheaper as a result. It's like people who move next to pubs and complain when they are noisy. If someone moves next to a quiet village pub, then some years later its license gets upgraded to a 1000 head nightclub they have every damn right to complain about the noise. -- Spud |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:36:01 +0300
Clank wrote: wrote: The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world. When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with 24 hours notice. Instant gratification is something children expect, not adults. If having the whole of Europe available to me at (less than) 24 hours notice makes me a child - **** it, I'm loving my childhood. My mother (in her 70s) bought a globe recently so she can stick a pin in all the places I WhatsApp her from that she couldn't even conceive of visiting in her lifetime. I have absolutely no guilt about this - my generation has the opportunity to embrace the world and our lives are immeasurably improved for it, and if it upsets a few nimbies who object to seeing a contrail, so be it. You sound like a cheap voiceover for a holiday company. How exactly is your life "immeasurably improved" by being able to go anywhere with 24 hours notice? Give us some details. Something concrete, not "Oh , I just love watching the sunrises over blah blah blah". Alas, the next generation in Britain will have had many of those opportunities taken away from them by Brexit. What opportunities? Britains visit and work in loads of countries around the world that are not part of the EU. Why will the EU suddenly be off limits after Brexit? Also future generations will hardly thank us for ****ing up the climate. I'm not speaking as some ranting hippy, I travel for pleasure too. But the idea of moderation and waiting for something seems to have gone out the window. People expect instant gratification and sod the costs, they're someone elses problem. Right? I'm glad I emigrated when I I'm fairly glad you did with the ******** you spout. did - ration cards and hiding from the rest of the world never seemed that bucolic to me, but whatever floats your boat... Oh dear, poor little confused ex-pat. Better go have some more sangria eh? -- Spud |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
|
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
|
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
Mizter T wrote:
On 25/09/2016 12:16, Recliner wrote: There's a short item in today's Sunday Times that suggests that the government is favouring the Heathrow Hub option: http://www.heathrowhub.com This is cheaper than the third runway, needs much less land (and very few properties will be affected), will be much quicker to build, and will not increase the noise footprint nearly as much. The scheme as proposed (not by HAL) also includes a road-rail interchange on the M4 and GWML (and possibly an HS2 spur), immediately to the north of the airport, with a direct light rail link to the terminals. However, I think that's really a separate idea. Crucially, BA is backing this scheme, rather than the third runway: http://news.sky.com/story/ba-owner-s...cheme-10319759 Interesting. Especially given that the Heathrow Hub proposal was rejected by the Airports Commission. If Heathrow is the government's choice then it's still going to face some almighty opposition, though perhaps given the whole Heathrow question has been going on for so long - a 'war of attrition' if you will - maybe some of that opposition could fall by the wayside. Poyle would be razed under the scheme - much of the area is a trading estate, though there are some residential streets south of Bath Rd that would have to go. (As would the current T5 Pod Parking!) More Heathrow rumours: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-in-parliame/ |
Heathrow Hub looking like the winner
"Recliner" wrote in message ... Mizter T wrote: On 25/09/2016 12:16, Recliner wrote: There's a short item in today's Sunday Times that suggests that the government is favouring the Heathrow Hub option: http://www.heathrowhub.com This is cheaper than the third runway, needs much less land (and very few properties will be affected), will be much quicker to build, and will not increase the noise footprint nearly as much. The scheme as proposed (not by HAL) also includes a road-rail interchange on the M4 and GWML (and possibly an HS2 spur), immediately to the north of the airport, with a direct light rail link to the terminals. However, I think that's really a separate idea. Crucially, BA is backing this scheme, rather than the third runway: http://news.sky.com/story/ba-owner-s...cheme-10319759 Interesting. Especially given that the Heathrow Hub proposal was rejected by the Airports Commission. If Heathrow is the government's choice then it's still going to face some almighty opposition, though perhaps given the whole Heathrow question has been going on for so long - a 'war of attrition' if you will - maybe some of that opposition could fall by the wayside. Poyle would be razed under the scheme - much of the area is a trading estate, though there are some residential streets south of Bath Rd that would have to go. (As would the current T5 Pod Parking!) More Heathrow rumours: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-in-parliame/ That's hardly a surprise, it will be carried by labour votes tim |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk