Heathrow third runway question

Freefaller · 2 Jul 2015 at 11:33

MichaelAwkward said:
Proximity should be defined by how accessible it is though, not actual distance - that's irrelevant with high speed rail and efficient motorways.

Fair comment, but even so lots of big cities have major airports near them. Heathrow and Gatwick are technically easily accessible. London City is even better!

Stansted, Southend and Luton aren't accessible IMO. Yes better infrastructure would be good to these airports it would make them more accessible, but then you're just spreading the problem around no?

MichaelAwkward · 2 Jul 2015 at 11:36

Freefaller said:
Fair comment, but even so lots of big cities have major airports near them. Heathrow and Gatwick are technically easily accessible. London City is even better!

Yeah, but my point was that many cities don't have an airport that close to them and manage just fine with good transport links.

Stansted, Southend and Luton aren't accessible IMO. Yes better infrastructure would be good to these airports it would make them more accessible, but then you're just spreading the problem around no?

True, but that's not what I'd advocate. Close them all down and have one major airport in a location with space to grow with good links to London and surrounding areas. Sorted.

Freefaller · 2 Jul 2015 at 11:59

That seems sensible, but Heathrow has been the hub so long, and has had so much money spent on it, it would seem daft not to at least utilise it? With Crossrail and so on Heathrow will be far more accessible.

Danthus · 2 Jul 2015 at 12:00

Freefaller said:
Probably a mixture of private and public funding I'd guess?

And looks after the debt and who gets the profits.

chanjy · 2 Jul 2015 at 12:11

MichaelAwkward said:
True, but that's not what I'd advocate. Close them all down and have one major airport in a location with space to grow with good links to London and surrounding areas. Sorted.

This has been studied to death (see RUCATSE, SERAS, Airports Commission) and it's clear that this is not a realistic or feasible option.

MichaelAwkward · 2 Jul 2015 at 12:16

chanjy said:
This has been studied to death (see RUCATSE, SERAS, Airports Commission) and it's clear that this is not a realistic or feasible option.

It's been studied to death by people with vested interests DECADES after a proper decision about the future of London's airports should have been made.

[TW]Fox · 2 Jul 2015 at 12:19

v0n said:
Fair enough, but you know it because you found the info in your own language, were familiar enough with local express trains and didn't mind trying.

Have you ever visited Gatwick? It has its own mainline railway station right in the terminal, clearly signposted and very easy. It's very obviously advertised - it has to be to reinforce the fact it isnt THAT far from London.

Also - single ticket on Gatwick Express to Victoria, on the spot is what - £20? Ticket from Heathrow Terminal 5 to Zone 1 is about £6 cash or £4 contactless (something like that, IIRC?) and takes you to anywhere you need to go in London?

Not like for like - Heathrow Express is even more expensive and you can hop a regular Southern service to London Victoria - which takes about 5 minutes longer at the most - for less money.

Heathrow to Zone 1 for that sort of money takes anything up to an hour.

For the other airports you are spot on but Gatwick really is about as close in time to London as Heathrow.

Trifid · 2 Jul 2015 at 12:21

Freefaller said:
Stansted, Southend and Luton aren't accessible IMO. Yes better infrastructure would be good to these airports it would make them more accessible, but then you're just spreading the problem around no?

For business trips to the city, Southend is a very good option. Walking distance from the plane to the station is very short and the airport is very easy to use with minimal queuing. The only thing that slows you down is immigration control.

chanjy · 2 Jul 2015 at 12:28

MichaelAwkward said:
It's been studied to death by people with vested interests DECADES after a proper decision about the future of London's airports should have been made.

Erm, you are talking out of your backside. All the reports I mentioned are independent, technical in nature, and make recommendations about where to add capacity.

You may be right that politicians with vested interests that put the decision off, but there is little doubt that a new super airport in the South East is an unworkable idea.

wildman · 2 Jul 2015 at 12:35

Trifid said:
For business trips to the city, Southend is a very good option. Walking distance from the plane to the station is very short and the airport is very easy to use with minimal queuing. The only thing that slows you down is immigration control.

No.......... Southend is a 1 hour train ride to Liverpool street
Heathrow is 15 mins to Paddington. If i am on a 1 day in out meeting somewhere i am not going to spend an hour on the worlds crapiest transport network getting me to the capital which is where the nob jockey travel agent told me southend airport is located..................

It is simply not practical however hard you try to justify it. They just need to tarmac over the whole area where Heathrow is and make it into a massive 20 runway superhub just like when you play simcity.....................

Trifid · 2 Jul 2015 at 12:58

wildman said:
No.......... Southend is a 1 hour train ride to Liverpool street
Heathrow is 15 mins to Paddington. If i am on a 1 day in out meeting somewhere i am not going to spend an hour on the worlds crapiest transport network getting me to the capital which is where the nob jockey travel agent told me southend airport is located..................

It is simply not practical however hard you try to justify it. They just need to tarmac over the whole area where Heathrow is and make it into a massive 20 runway superhub just like when you play simcity.....................

You're looking at one very small part of the journey. What about time at the airport? Southend is a very easy to use terminal and there is no queuing to get on the runway or queuing in the sky to land. You can also spend that train journey working with mobile internet access.

OracIe · 2 Jul 2015 at 13:00

As someone who lives in north Kent, I oppose the Estuary airport idea for obvious reasons, the simple matter is that there isn't the infrastructure in place here to deal with the increase in cars/people.

The A2, the life blood main road which links Kent to London is already strained beyond belief, it's basically a car park almost all the time so adding people trying to get into an airport will overtax everything. Not to mention the wildlife in danger and the huge costs involved means it simply not feasible.

wildman · 2 Jul 2015 at 13:11

Trifid said:
You're looking at one very small part of the journey. What about time at the airport? Southend is a very easy to use terminal and there is no queuing to get on the runway or queuing in the sky to land. You can also spend that train journey working with mobile internet access.

Time at the airport is par for the course. I am getting on a plane I expect to have to spend time at the airport. What I don't expect is to get on a **** stinking train from the arse end of essex for another hour after I get of the plane to get me to where I was actually supposed to be.

It sounds ludicrous, but when you have to fly that regularly for in/out 1 day only's you really don't want to burn more of your own time on a train when a plane could and should have landed you in the capital. Southend is about as much as London as Folkestone is of France. You wouldn't fly a truck load of people to Folkestone under the pretence they were landing in northern france by calling it Calais-Folkestone airport would you. so why the hell do people think this is acceptable practice for London airports ?

Incidentally Folkestone is actually closer to Calais than Southend is to central London.............. so I now demand that an airport is built there for French businessmen and it is called Folkestone-Calais airport...................

Trifid · 2 Jul 2015 at 13:17

wildman said:
Time at the airport is par for the course. I am getting on a plane I expect to have to spend time at the airport. What I don't expect is to get on a **** stinking train from the arse end of essex for another hour after I get of the plane to get me to where I was actually supposed to be.

It sounds ludicrous, but when you have to fly that regularly for in/out 1 day only's you really don't want to burn more of your own time on a train when a plane could and should have landed you in the capital. Southend is about as much as London as Folkestone is of France. You wouldn't fly a truck load of people to Folkestone under the pretence they were landing in northern france by calling it Calais-Folkestone airport would you. so why the hell do people think this is acceptable practice for London airports ?

Incidentally Folkestone is actually closer to Calais than Southend is to central London.............. so I now demand that an airport is built there for French businessmen and it is called Folkestone-Calais airport...................

That is a ridiculous argument. And flawed too. Airports are far from enjoyable places, you should be measuring door to door time not looking at a small part being longer.

wildman · 2 Jul 2015 at 13:25

Trifid said:
That is a ridiculous argument. And flawed too. Airports are far from enjoyable places, you should be measuring door to door time not looking at a small part being longer.

how much 1 day flying do you actually do ? also your argument is rubbish, because by default your door to door is going to be longer if you land an hour away from where you need to be.

A 1 day in out means you don't check any bags, you check in on line and you breeze through security. yes even at Heathrow you can be out of your car in the short stay car park and sipping a beer in Huxley's in under 20 mins. More over if its a 1 day in out you are looking at early morning flights when the airport is still not at full capacity. Thus flying to the arse end of the world for a quieter airport is nonsensical for the 1 day in/out type trips.

SiD the Turtle · 2 Jul 2015 at 13:33

Freefaller said:
They should make better use of City Airport - but then it might stop being London's best airport (never had any queues, lots of charging points, good coffee and food, decent facilities).

Sssshhhh don't tell everyone. I live a few DLR stops down and it's like my own private VIP airport.

chanjy · 2 Jul 2015 at 15:12

Runway at LCY too short for anything but puddle jumpers though.

Even the A318 can only take off with enough fuel to get it to Shannon!

Freefaller · 2 Jul 2015 at 15:22

SiD the Turtle said:
Sssshhhh don't tell everyone. I live a few DLR stops down and it's like my own private VIP airport.

Same - it's great!"

chanjy said:
Runway at LCY too short for anything but puddle jumpers though.

Even the A318 can only take off with enough fuel to get it to Shannon!

You can fly to NY from City and pretty much most places in Europe.

(Okay with a stop on the way of course - but that's not too bad if you take into consideration the ease of LCY!).

chanjy · 2 Jul 2015 at 15:24

Freefaller said:
You can fly to NY from City and pretty much most places in Europe.

Only in business, and as per my previous post, only with a refuelling stop!

It is a good airport but not the answer to the capacity issues

Trifid · 2 Jul 2015 at 15:25

wildman said:
how much 1 day flying do you actually do ? also your argument is rubbish, because by default your door to door is going to be longer if you land an hour away from where you need to be.

None, fortunately. But I can see there is more to it then just the train journey to London! (which by the way is an extra half an hour). When I went to Amsterdam last summer we nearly took as long taxiing to the stand then we did in the air because the runway was a million miles away, like the 3rd runway at Heathrow will be.