On 19/06/2019 08:02, Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001


well I don't know about the rest,

but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.


I suspect they'll build a temporary road either side of the motorway,
divert the traffic onto that and then dig down and build a roof where
the old carriageway was. There'll probably be a 50 mph limit for a year
while the temporary road is being used.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Nine Horses - 2005 - Snow Borne Sorrow

Basil Jet wrote:
On 19/06/2019 08:02, Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001


well I don't know about the rest,

but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.


I suspect they'll build a temporary road either side of the motorway,
divert the traffic onto that and then dig down and build a roof where
the old carriageway was. There'll probably be a 50 mph limit for a year
while the temporary road is being used.


No. They'll build the diverted, sunken, bridged M25 to the west of the
current road, with no disruption to road or air traffic during the
building, which might take a couple of years.

The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is diverted to
the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic will be moved first,
with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required while they connect the new to
the old carriageways, then an overnight closure for the final switch to be
made. The same procedure would then be followed a few months later to
divert the southbound carriageway to the new alignment.

It will all be much less disruptive than when the motorway was widened a
few years ago.

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 18/06/2019 20:02, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2019 18:24, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 18/06/2019 09:52, Recliner wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001

Total waste of time. A far better plan would have been a second runway
at Gatwick.

...or a new terminal and a few road improvements - and maybe a rail
spur - at Manston.

I think the extra runway is to steal the intercontinental passengers who
are currently transferring at Schiphol,

exactly

a lot of upheaval so that a private company can get rich

with little benefit to the rest of UK PLC

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2019 00:15, Basil Jet wrote:
On 18/06/2019 20:02, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2019 18:24, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 18/06/2019 09:52, Recliner wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001

Total waste of time. A far better plan would have been a second runway
at Gatwick.

...or a new terminal and a few road improvements - and maybe a rail
spur - at Manston.

I think the extra runway is to steal the intercontinental passengers who
are currently transferring at Schiphol, so I don't see how a new terminal
at Manston is going to help.

It would mean that many short haul travellers in Kent and South East
Sussex would not have to slog over to Heathrow or even over to Stansted or
Gatwick, thereby reeieving them of the need to use the M25.

for most of them Gatwick is easier than Manston could ever be

and I doubt very much that taking airport customers off the M25 would make a
visible dent in the congestion on that road

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001


well I don't know about the rest,

but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's
more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)

how can that not cause major disruption?

tim

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001


well I don't know about the rest,

but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's
more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)

how can that not cause major disruption?


You've obviously not looked at the map, or read this thread.

tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 18/06/2019 20:02, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2019 18:24, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 18/06/2019 09:52, Recliner wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001

Total waste of time. A far better plan would have been a second runway
at Gatwick.

...or a new terminal and a few road improvements - and maybe a rail
spur - at Manston.

I think the extra runway is to steal the intercontinental passengers who
are currently transferring at Schiphol,

exactly

a lot of upheaval so that a private company can get rich

with little benefit to the rest of UK PLC

This comes up regularly here. In fact, the expansion of a hub airport means
that it can sustain direct flights to more secondary destinations than if
it only relies on O&D business, which benefits Brits who need to get to
those destinations for business or pleasure. The bigger airport also helps
UK businesses, such as exporters, airlines, air service companies,
caterers, hotels, freight operators, etc. It also makes it a better place
to locate international HQ operations, conference centres, etc. So it
generates wealth and job opportunities for far more than just the airport
owner.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001


well I don't know about the rest,

but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or no
business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption? It's
more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from the way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)

how can that not cause major disruption?


You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see it (You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article included a
link)

or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 18/06/2019 20:02, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2019 18:24, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 18/06/2019 09:52, Recliner wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001

Total waste of time. A far better plan would have been a second runway
at Gatwick.

...or a new terminal and a few road improvements - and maybe a rail
spur - at Manston.

I think the extra runway is to steal the intercontinental passengers who
are currently transferring at Schiphol,

exactly

a lot of upheaval so that a private company can get rich

with little benefit to the rest of UK PLC

This comes up regularly here. In fact, the expansion of a hub airport
means
that it can sustain direct flights to more secondary destinations than if
it only relies on O&D business,

Yes we've heard it all before

1) London is such a prime source/destination I don't believe that we need
transfer passengers to sustain such links

2) I would bet you that once this runway is built, next to no new
destinations will open up. All that will happen is that we get twice as
many flights to New York (etc).

a which benefits Brits who need to get to
those destinations for business or pleasure. The bigger airport also helps
UK businesses, such as exporters, airlines, air service companies,
caterers, hotels, freight operators, etc.

Obviously a bigger airport is going to create more jobs at the airport

but spending 15 Billion (was it) on fixed infrastructure anywhere (sensible)
is going to create jobs

and there are parts of the county that need those jobs a dammed sight more
than West London does (which arguably doesn't need any new jobs at all)

It also makes it a better place
to locate international HQ operations, conference centres, etc.

Again

LHR is big enough to do that already

making it even bigger wont bring much here that isn't here already IMHO

tim

On 19/06/2019 11:05, tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 18/06/2019 20:02, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2019 18:24, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 18/06/2019 09:52, Recliner wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001

Total waste of time. A far better plan would have been a second
runway
at Gatwick.

...or a new terminal and a few road improvements - and maybe a rail
spur - at Manston.

I think the extra runway is to steal the intercontinental passengers
who
are currently transferring at Schiphol,

exactly

a lot of upheaval so that a private company can get rich

with little benefit to the rest of UK PLC

This comes up regularly here. In fact, the expansion of a hub airport
means
that it can sustain direct flights to more secondary destinations than if
it only relies on O&D business,

Yes we've heard it all before

1) London is such a prime source/destination I don't believe that we
need transfer passengers to sustain such links

2) I would bet you that once this runway is built, next to no new
destinations will open up.Â* All that will happen is that we get twice as
many flights to New York (etc).

What are you betting?

If you follow the BA schedule changes you'll note that enough
destinations come and go - somewhat due to whether those destinations
are economic but also due to slot constraints.

For example BA flew to Tallinn for a couple of years and those flights
were generally very full and I'm sure profitable, but it was dropped for
another destination because it could be even more profitable - that
sounds like slot constraints to me.