Heathrow - Additional Runway

2»

Comments

  • JVB66
    JVB66 Forum Participant Posts: 22,892
    1000 Comments
    edited October 2016 #32

    Which is precisely why I suggested Lynham!

    TF

    ...Trouble with that is transport links,which are basically in place in the most highly populated area of the UK

  • Kennine
    Kennine Forum Participant Posts: 3,472
    1000 Comments
    edited October 2016 #33

    Now that the decision has been made -- Just get on with the job. Get the bulldozers in - build the runway - settle any claims later. 

    I have just read that this new runway will enhance trade and tourism to the nation of Scotland. That in itself is as good as any other reason to proceed with the building of the runway without delay. 

    Of course to demonstrate that we are a fair and considerate nation, we would be happy to have the UK airport hub based up here in Scotland instead of Heathrow England, but I don't think that will happen.--- So come on, fire up the bulldozers and get to work. --- Now !!

    K Cool

     

  • IanH
    IanH Forum Participant Posts: 4,708
    1000 Comments
    edited October 2016 #34

    I reckon these airport operators must make a heck of a lot of money, if they can afford the sort of figures to build this runway and terminal that I see quoted.

  • byron
    byron Forum Participant Posts: 120
    100 Comments
    edited October 2016 #35

    I doubt that the operator will be dipping into their Building Society account to pay for this

  • IanH
    IanH Forum Participant Posts: 4,708
    1000 Comments
    edited October 2016 #36

    I understood that it was the airport owner / operator that paid for it (on the basis that it's their airport) and HMG (i.e. taxpayers) only paid for any improvements to the infrastructure (roads etc) that weren't simply required to accomodate the new development.

  • avondriver
    avondriver Forum Participant Posts: 85
    First Comment
    edited October 2016 #37

    with regards to Lyneham the runway is too short for a modern hub airfield and it really takes up the flat space available in the prefered east west alignement. The runway was last updated in a major way about 25 years ago and has been circuit bashed by hercs
    ever since so it probably would need a major referb before commercial use. Then connectivity is bad - the route back to the M4 is not good and it is a long drive back past Heathrow to London. I guess with enough investment a new rail halt could be put on the
    Paddington Bristol line at Dauntsey connected up somehow (up a very steep hill and probably to the wrong side of the airport). BUT to cap it all it still would not enhance the HUB capacity which is so important in Heathrow. 

  • byron
    byron Forum Participant Posts: 120
    100 Comments
    edited October 2016 #38

    As with any major construction project there are many players, venture capitalists, banks, overseas investors, HMG as you mentioned.

  • ABM
    ABM Forum Participant Posts: 14,578
    1000 Comments
    edited October 2016 #39

    Just as Heathrow is hundreds of miles away from most of the UK.

    Write your comments here...You would have thought that having committed themselves to HS2 that by the time this was built it could have joined up with a new runway at Birmingham, thus helping most UK residents instead of the South East (again)

    Don't  think  so,  they  think  there's  room  for  more  eggs  in  that  basket  !

     

    Actually  I  agree  with  you  there  --  bang  in  the  1ST section  of  H S T  ,   widen  M40  and  do  it  sharpish  !!

    If  nothing  else  it  would  give  another  safe  place  if  it's  getting  foggy !

    But  then,  you  don't  get  me  flying  'cos  I'm  reading  up  on  Gravity  !Surprised

  • cyberyacht
    cyberyacht Forum Participant Posts: 10,218
    1000 Comments
    edited October 2016 #40

    Realistically it shouldn't be Heathrow or Gatwick but rather Heathrow AND Gatwick. The latter could be delivered cheaper and quicker than LHR and provide the needed capacity while LHR is being built.

    Infrastructure will be the issue though. I saw that 75K+ jobs bandied around. That is going to need an awful lot of housing, shops, hospitals etc. Basically a moderate sized city just for the jobs, without thinking about road and rail connections. We only
    ever appear to do half a job without thinking it all through.

    Much more use could be made of regional airports. Personally I would much sooner Easyjet flew to Alicante from Southampton rather than having to traipse up to Gatwick for instance. Blue sky thinking - clouded vision more like.

  • Bakers2
    Bakers2 Forum Participant Posts: 8,195 ✭✭✭
    2,500 Likes 1000 Comments Name Dropper
    edited October 2016 #41

    Realistically it shouldn't be Heathrow or Gatwick but rather Heathrow AND Gatwick. The latter could be delivered cheaper and quicker than LHR and provide the needed capacity while LHR is being built.

    Infrastructure will be the issue though. I saw that 75K+ jobs bandied around. That is going to need an awful lot of housing, shops, hospitals etc. Basically a moderate sized city just for the jobs, without thinking about road and rail connections. We only
    ever appear to do half a job without thinking it all through.

    Much more use could be made of regional airports. Personally I would much sooner Easyjet flew to Alicante from Southampton rather than having to traipse up to Gatwick for instance. Blue sky thinking - clouded vision more like.

    Sounds eminently sensible to me. The job's yours. You can start immediately. Financial benefits - whatever you can be bought with from the highest bidder  . No opportunity for caravanning breaks- would give the press afield day. LOL.

  • Pippah45
    Pippah45 Forum Participant Posts: 2,452
    1000 Comments
    edited October 2016 #42

    I am all for that idea Cyberyacht - please tell the Government!  I spent the first 6 years of my life in a house that is now under the runway at Gatwick and the family held onto about 10 acres there hoping.... and hoping......  I wonder if my children will
    still be hoping in 20 years time?!

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman Forum Participant Posts: 2,367
    1000 Comments
    edited October 2016 #43

    Cant uderstand why both sites were not given the go ahead.If its private enterprise paying for it why not have some competition.

Categories