Heathrow third runway question

Should have expanded Birmingham.

More available space, less local opposition, less disruption to existing services when expanding , much easier to get to than heathrow for most of the country, benefits from HS2/3.


But London, eh.
 
Judgeneo said:
Should have expanded Birmingham.

More available space, less local opposition, less disruption to existing services when expanding , much easier to get to than heathrow for most of the country, benefits from HS2/3.


But London, eh.
Click to expand...

Birmingham Airport is not a hub, therefore making it bigger seems fairly pointless as it is not currently capacity constrained.

If there was more demand for flights to Birmingham then more airlines would serve Birmingham than currently do, it's really that simple.
 
This is simple people: flying to somewhere 50 miles out of your destination and then "transferring" yourself via several methods of transportation to where you wanted to be in the first place is purely British thing. It's not done anywhere in Europe and dare I say - in the world. In the eyes of French, German or Spanish businessman, you fly because it's quick. That's what flying is for. It's faster than car. You walk out of your house, take metro or bus, in 30 minutes you are at the air port, an hour later you board the plane, 3 hours from the moment you locked your door you are in another country. 30 minutes in a queue, 30 minutes in a tube and you are in Central London, where you wanted to be.

Heathrow is the only airport in London that provides this type of service. I'm sorry, but that's true. What we do in Britain with "London" Stansted, Luton or Gatwick is just bizarre. So - you land 50 miles away from capital of a foreign country. Not only that. It is 10-20 miles outside of the ring road bypassing said capital. Then you are expected to organise yourself some sort of train (at the cost often exceeding your air fare), just to be delivered to some obscure part of suburbs, like Tottenham Hale, where you are expected to change the trains (using the same ticket) for another suburban destination of Stratford ("on Lea", is it?) and from there walk across several buildings, buy another ticket, and find some sort of DLR/metro combination to deliver you to Hilton or Ritz in Central London. About 3 hours later. Alternatively you can take a bus, which is cheap, but takes up to 4 hours to reach Victoria. It doesn't work for tourists and it doesn't work for business people. It is not done.

Flying that takes longer end to end, than driving, is pointless. You don't fly out to Barcelona to land in Vic at 5 minutes to midnight and be expected to find a train to Barcelona. You don't fly to Paris and end up waiting for Eurolines cross country bus in Dreux. You don't fly to Berlin and end up hailing taxi for transcontinental trip in Frankfurt Am Oder. So why are we used to flying to London and ending up in Gatwick or Luton or for-the-love-of-god Southend on Sea and pretend that this is normal ordeal and expect all the confused foreigners to waste more time than they spent flying, on some bizarro rip off journey along warehouse districts of outer Essex or Kent before they reach London?

Flying is supposed to be quick. Everyone wants to fly from Heathrow because they take a single metro and end up in Piccadilly Circus. Ease of access. And easy for those interconnecting. Every airline wants to fly from Heathrow, because of ease of access to capital, easy interconnections and because that's what their customers want. But forever and ever we have this annoying roundabout discussion, how the third runway would ruin health and lives of dummies who moved in under flight path years ago and just somehow, apparently weren't expecting planes over their heads. And for that handful of screwups, we are ready to wreck peace and quiet in every borough within 100 miles from London, north and south, but just not around Heathrow.

At first, to calm the Heathrow NIMBY down, an old 1920ies blimp aerodrome 30 miles south of London, in Gatwick, West Sussex, was adopted for commercial flights. Billions were spent, rail tracks were laid, runways were extended, terminals were built. Then everyone returned to discussions how all major airlines want to fly from Heathrow not from some bum-hole beyond M25 down south. Study concluded Heathrow had to be expanded. But NIMBY lobby of Heathrow said no.

So they adopted another old executive airport, 35 miles north, in Luton. Billions were spent. Roads were paved. Runway was extended. Terminals were built. Then everyone returned to discussing how all major airlines want to use Heathrow, and how extra capacity was needed. Because who on earth would want to interconnect for three and a half hours via three trains, tube and a bus? Study concluded Heathrow had to be expanded. But NIMBY lobby around Heathrow said no.

So they found another place, an old RAF landing strip 30 miles north east-ish from London, in Stansted. Billions were spent, rail tracks were laid, runways were expanded. A terrible, terrible terminal was designed and built. Then everyone returned to the discussion, how extra runways are needed at Heathrow, because every major airline wants to fly from Heathrow. By then everyone knew Heathrow had to be expanded. It was a must. Study concluded as much. But NIMBY lobby around Heathrow said no.

So they found another place... and so the story continued until London, as the only capital in Europe and beyond, had 6 active international passenger airports :
London Heathrow (LHY)
London Luton (LTN)
London Stansted (STN)
London Gatwick (LGW)
London City (LCY)
London Southend (SEN)

plus 5 airports serving private flights and commercial transit:
London Biggin Hill (15 miles from London)
Lydd Airport (50 miles)
London Oxford (60 miles)
London Farnborough (32 miles)
Kent International Airport (65 miles)

plus several semi commercial airports like Lasham, Northolt, Duxford or Fairoaks. I don't think there is another place on earth with as many half baked, screwed up, overdesigned and underused airports as London. Not on any continent.

So when I listen to Alexander Dumbojet de Pfeffel Johnson go all blonde about his "Boris Island" - The "London" Thames Estuary Airport project on Isle Of Grain, 34 miles outside of capital I just want to scream. It's the dumbest freaking idea out of them all. Think height restricted, designed for horse carriages Blackwall Tunnel being the only car transit route to and from capital level of dumb. Think Bluewater standstill traffic, then make it times six every hour, on all five lanes, level of stupid. Think the only way up north leading through Dartford Tolls level of cretin. Think short platform Southeastern trains and the already all the way standing 57 minute commute to Victoria, for Heathrow numbers of passengers, level of motherloving de Pfeffel imbecile. Think 34 miles of purchase orders to build new train lines through two estuaries, just to NOT end up in Central London anyway. All to keep few NIMBY's in Hillingdon happy.
 
Last edited:
What a strange question. They give you the value of the house which pays your mortgage off and provides your remaining equity with which to get another mortgage. You should achieve some sort of premium for the compulsory nature of it.
 
v0n said:
Heathrow is the only airport in London that provides this type of service. I'm sorry, but that's true. What we do in Britain with "London" Stansted, Luton or Gatwick is just bizarre. So - you land 50 miles away from capital of a foreign country. Not only that. It is 10-20 miles outside of the ring road bypassing said capital. Then you are expected to organise yourself some sort of train (at the cost often exceeding your air fare), just to be delivered to some obscure part of suburbs, like Tottenham Hale, where you are expected to change the trains (using the same ticket) for another suburban destination of Stratford
Click to expand...

Whilst I am of the view that it's Heathrow that should be expanded some of this is simply wrong - Gatwick is almost exactly the same in travel time terms as Heathrow - 30 minutes by rail direct to the centre of London (Victoria for Gatwick).
 
[TW]Fox;28258780 said:
Whilst I am of the view that it's Heathrow that should be expanded some of this is simply wrong - Gatwick is almost exactly the same in travel time terms as Heathrow - 30 minutes by rail direct to the centre of London (Victoria for Gatwick).
Click to expand...

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. Would you be willing to do the same in a foreign country though - say, fly to Katowice instead of Krakow in Poland and organise yourself some sort of shuttle train that would make the overall journey time comparable vs actually landing in the city you wanted to be in, in the first place?

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?
 
I don't think that's a valid argument in favour of Heathrow. Plenty of cities in Europe/the World have an airport a fair trek from the city. Sometimes in a completely different city to the one you're going to...

So long as the transport infrastructure in place is adequate it isn't a problem. E.g. Tokyo Narita is 37 miles from the city, but it's served by more international airlines and handles the majority of intl. flights for all of Japan and is favourable to flying into Haneda.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;28258780 said:
Whilst I am of the view that it's Heathrow that should be expanded some of this is simply wrong - Gatwick is almost exactly the same in travel time terms as Heathrow - 30 minutes by rail direct to the centre of London (Victoria for Gatwick).
Click to expand...

This. Fair enough for Luton and Stansted but the London to Gatwick connection is just as good as Heathrow's.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
I don't think that's a valid argument in favour of Heathrow. Plenty of cities in Europe/the World have an airport a fair trek from the city. Sometimes in a completely different city to the one you're going to...

So long as the transport infrastructure in place is adequate it isn't a problem. E.g. Tokyo Narita is 37 miles from the city, but it's served by more international airlines and handles the majority of intl. flights for all of Japan.
Click to expand...



Capital cities tend to have them in the proximity, so I Don't agree.
 
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. Would you be willing to do the same in a foreign country though - say, fly to Katowice instead of Krakow in Poland and organise yourself some sort of shuttle train that would make the overall journey time comparable vs actually landing in the city you wanted to be in, in the first place?

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?
Click to expand...

I don't really see how Heathrow and Gatwick are much different in relation to travelling to the centre of London.
You forget that the Heathrow Express is extortionate and that the Pidcally line is slower than the Gatwick Express. It's swings and roundabouts really.

For reference I'm not really pro Gatwick and would rather that Heathrow was expanded but both have fairly similar connections to London.
 
Personally I am in favour of Gatwick.

The new paradigm in air travel economics will change from hub airports towards lower cost point to point travel using smaller fuel efficient aircraft (very few routes that cannot be served by Dreamliners, 777s and A350s).

An investment decision that relies on a hub airport argument is strange when you look at companies struggling to get any orders on the books for 747-8 and A380s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom