View Full Version : Third Runway
Not wanting to lose a commons vote they've decided not to have one. BAA will be happy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/15/bbaaviation-theairlineindustry
ThEGr33k
15-01-09, 03:16 PM
It was on the news that it was going ahead.
TBH I think itll be a good thing to have a 3rd runway! Work making it and extra jobs, more trade and more companies willing to come to this country with the better travel. All good. N' TBH the people who live in london are daft anyway so who cares? :p
I thought it was going ahead too?
Not a problem for me, as Gr33k said, it creates lots of jobs which is kind of what we need right now...
Biker Biggles
15-01-09, 03:21 PM
Do I detect a north south divide here?
Surely the south is already overdeveloped,overpopulated and overpolluted.Shouldnt we be building infrastructure like this in the grim north where no one works and all the benefits get spent?
ThEGr33k
15-01-09, 03:25 PM
Do I detect a north south divide here?
Surely the south is already overdeveloped,overpopulated and overpolluted.Shouldnt we be building infrastructure like this in the grim north where no one works and all the benefits get spent?
LOL indeed you are right they should bring things north... But as you know the government seems to believe only london exists, we get the spare change to survive on. :rolleyes:
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 03:26 PM
..Shouldnt we be building infrastructure like this in the grim north...why? they'd only point and stair at the planes...;)
timwilky
15-01-09, 03:27 PM
Infrastructure investment is welcome up here in the North. But we need roads railways and have enough airports (Manchester, Blackpool and Liverpool are all less than 1/2 an hours drive from me) and non are running at capacity.
The problem is that for some reason the greedy south has poached all investment for so long that it is seen as the only place to be. So reap what you sow. Not enough houses and cause massive house price inflation. Few can moan about Heathrow. you want to live near an airport expect noise/traffic etc. How many bought near when it was still fields.
Luckypants
15-01-09, 03:32 PM
Not wanting to lose a commons vote they've decided not to have one.
I smell a judicial review from the objectors.
When the protesters were on the roofs of the houses of parliament Gordon brown took the line "No no we'll discuss it on the floor" - Which shows just how much trust you can have in the words of a politician.
ThEGr33k
15-01-09, 03:39 PM
Infrastructure investment is welcome up here in the North. But we need roads railways and have enough airports (Manchester, Blackpool and Liverpool are all less than 1/2 an hours drive from me) and non are running at capacity.
The problem is that for some reason the greedy south has poached all investment for so long that it is seen as the only place to be. So reap what you sow. Not enough houses and cause massive house price inflation. Few can moan about Heathrow. you want to live near an airport expect noise/traffic etc. How many bought near when it was still fields.
Indeeeeeed. Too true. No one to blame but themselves :p
Grim north... The weather up here isnt that different to the south... something I never understood, the southerners (some at least) seem to think as soon as you come north you freeze. :rolleyes:
Why cant they expand gatwick or stanstead ?
chris8886
15-01-09, 03:42 PM
i live in an area that will supposedly be affected by the new flight path plans. not overly keen on that, but heathrow needs this i think. i just wish these 'green' people would shut up, they're getting seriously repetitive and are boring me now! it's going to happen whether they like it or not and will be creating jobs!
Why cant they expand gatwick or stanstead ?
cos they can't apparently. i could be wrong
Few can moan about Heathrow. you want to live near an airport expect noise/traffic etc. How many bought near when it was still fields.
1980 Terminal 4 inquiry the inspector gave the go-ahead on the condition that Government policy would not permit a fifth terminal or any other major expansion at Heathrow. The aviation minister at the time agreed.
heard yesterday that a few celebs had bought a piece of land that was needed for the runway.That land is now being sold ,blade of grass by blade of grass to people all over the world.
In their words"Lets see them compulsory purchase that then"
The only minor plus is that the residents of Chelsea & the like don't realise they're going to turn into Staines.
Do I detect a north south divide here?
Surely the south is already overdeveloped,overpopulated and overpolluted.Shouldnt we be building infrastructure like this in the grim north where no one works and all the benefits get spent?
Heh, even Anglesey has it's own commercial airport these days!!
Build the runway, don't build the runway. It doesn't directly affect me. People will be upset/happy about the decision either way.
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 03:48 PM
In their words"Lets see them compulsory purchase that then"
let's see someone turn up at court to fight for their blade of grass...:rolleyes:
timwilky
15-01-09, 03:48 PM
how can anyone give an undertaking that things globally wont change so that in 29 years time it need reviewing.
NIMBYs. Welcome the investment, jobs and economic prosperity it brings
i just wish these 'green' people would shut up, they're getting seriously repetitive and are boring me now! it's going to happen whether they like it or not and will be creating jobs!
Air quality in the areas around Heathrow is already Sh1te. The argument "By the time the runway is operational planes will be cleaner" solves that though.
ThEGr33k
15-01-09, 03:49 PM
heard yesterday that a few celebs had bought a piece of land that was needed for the runway.That land is now being sold ,blade of grass by blade of grass to people all over the world.
In their words"Lets see them compulsory purchase that then"
Brilliant, now we get to give more of our hard earnt cash to the dicks who have enough money already to just keep screwing us. That isnt a good thing. sigh.
how can anyone give an undertaking that things globally wont change so that in 29 years time it need reviewing.
NIMBYs. Welcome the investment, jobs and economic prosperity it brings
Thing is the arguments against expanding Heathrow haven't changed.
It's a stupid place to put an Airport.
(Condensed version)
Celebs buy land. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/13/travelandtransport-activists)
At full capacity, an expanded Heathrow would become the biggest single source of C02 emissions in the country. It would emit nearly 27m tonnes of CO2 every year – equivalent to the emissions of 57 of the least polluting countries in the world combined.
Oooh nice...
dizzyblonde
15-01-09, 04:11 PM
I think the celebs do right. Those people living in Sipson or wherever it is, haven't got a choice in demolition by the sounds of it. Going on compulsary demolition processes in our town in recent years, folks that have owned their homes for years haven't been given the money that they've shelled out on mortgages etc. They get given a general market value of their property and a lot of folks lose out on it. I think its disgusting that this government go bulldozing in and give the go ahead for a plan that is not popular...so where do the 700 dwellers of this village go to.......
timwilky
15-01-09, 04:16 PM
Celebs buy land. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/13/travelandtransport-activists)
At full capacity, an expanded Heathrow would become the biggest single source of C02 emissions in the country. It would emit nearly 27m tonnes of CO2 every year – equivalent to the emissions of 57 of the least polluting countries in the world combined.
Oooh nice...
Surely that is less than hovis's bottom emits after a weekend of ale;)
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 04:18 PM
I think its disgusting that this government go bulldozing in and give the go ahead for a plan that is not popular...
taxes aren't popular, yet if they abolished them the economy would collapse
sometimes what's right or what's necessary isn't what's popular
I think its great. However, i still fly from gatwick. I think i have flown form Heathrow once in 38 years!
dizzyblonde
15-01-09, 04:19 PM
is it necessary....after all, this country is a financial slide, and they are wanting to go throwing money around....and none of us will be able to go on holiday anyways.....IF we're all skint!!!
I think its great. However, i still fly from gatwick. I think i have flown form Heathrow once in 38 years!
ppfffffftttt! 38? yeah right. jimmy hill
DanAbnormal
15-01-09, 04:22 PM
LOL indeed you are right they should bring things north...
Why? There's f'all up North sept bad weather and sweaty socks. :p
Bah!
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 04:23 PM
is it necessary....after all, this country is a financial slide, and they are wanting to go throwing money around....and none of us will be able to go on holiday anyways.....IF we're all skint!!!
the economy will recover from this crash, same as it's done every other time it's dipped in history, trying to argue that nobody will want to go on holiday in the future is short sighted to the extreme...
meanwhile, during the conomic hard times the project will create jobs and provide economic stimulus, by the time it's finished we'll be wanting to use it, win win...
dizzyblonde
15-01-09, 04:27 PM
no not at all......I was doom mongering.....its alll dooomed ;-)
Speedy Claire
15-01-09, 04:35 PM
I heard on the 4pm news that there will be a third runway within a couple of years... this year the plan is to expand Liverpool John Lennon airport and build a further runway there
Aren't we committed to reducing CO2 emissions by the Kyoto Treaty? So we add these ones, where else is the axe to fall?
As for the land buyers - I would have thought that the short answer is for the Government to vest the land in themselves by an Act of Parliament. And then leave the owners to claim compo. Much quicker than compulsory purchase.
Personally I think it's a sensible deciion to proced with the development, but the Govt needs to be very sensitive about other parts of the country which do not benefit from such munificence. It really is time to think about - well, let's start with electrifying the train line from Shrewsbury to Birmingham. At the moment, the wires stop at Wolverhampton.
ThEGr33k
15-01-09, 04:49 PM
Why? There's f'all up North sept bad weather and sweaty socks. :p
Bah!
Thats right and big hairy monsters (sorry to mention you Robchester). Stay away we dont want you :p
Sheffield is also not electrified... Strange to be honest since a lot of the lines about the place are! Doncaster for example :-?
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 04:53 PM
Why? There's f'all up North sept bad weather and sweaty socks. :p
Bah!
that's a little unfair, they have pies, pints, whippets and racing pigeons too;)
dizzyblonde
15-01-09, 04:55 PM
a lot better roads than you lot down there....:-)
oh and half as many speed cameras...or suverners ;-)
trying to argue that nobody will want to go on holiday in the future is short sighted to the extreme...
meanwhile, during the conomic hard times the project will create jobs and provide economic stimulus, by the time it's finished we'll be wanting to use it, win win...
To continue adding to an airport in the middle of london is also shortsided in the extreme.
Replacing ridiculous short haul flights with an effective rail service would help. Moving transit flights to other airports would also help. (though would cost BAA in shopping revenue)
Or ...
Build a suitable Airport out of London with a fast rail link and redevelop the heathrow site with the housing the capital is desperately short of.
Nah.....
that's a little unfair, they have pies, pints, whippets and racing pigeons too;)
Not in Cheshire dear boy :D
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 05:01 PM
To continue adding to an airport in the middle of london is also shortsided in the extreme.
so instead of simply adding capacity to an existing airport you would build a brand new airport, including everything required to support it? car parking, road links, rail links, buildings, staff, you'd have to come up with new flight patterns and airspace control, and you'd also meet much more resistance to the idea than just adding another runway where the infrastructure already exists...:confused:
dizzyblonde
15-01-09, 05:01 PM
so borrowing more money, that we haven't got to build something, not all of us necessarily need, is a really frugal use of tax payers money is it?
Not in Cheshire dear boy :D
you do have Mock tudor footballers.
so instead of simply adding capacity to an existing airport you would build a brand new airport, including everything required to support it? car parking, road links, rail links, buildings, staff, you'd have to come up with new flight patterns and airspace control, and you'd also meet much more resistance to the idea than just adding another runway where the infrastructure already exists...:confused:
Yes.
Where else in the world is the final decent of your main airport over your centre of government?
& Roads/ parking & rail links will be needed as is anyway.
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 05:17 PM
Where else in the world is the final decent of your main airport over your centre of government?
more to the point, why is it an issue?:confused:
Ignoring the enviromental impact to Londoners - I wouldn't have thought it great from a security point of view.
ThEGr33k
15-01-09, 05:19 PM
so borrowing more money, that we haven't got to build something, not all of us necessarily need, is a really frugal use of tax payers money is it?
From what I been listening and reading today we will benefit from it because business will want to settle in london because its the centre of it all due to the available air travel all over the workd. Should work great... Though I guess up north we might not bennefit much from it.
Soooo the money spent that we dont have should be gotten back from this venture if what I hear is right.
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 05:21 PM
Ignoring the enviromental impact to Londoners & I wouldn't have thought it great from a security point of view.
planes have this magic ability of being fast and non-restricted to using roads, if you hijacked a plane in dorset you'd have hit parliment before the fighter jets left the ground...
gettin2dizzy
15-01-09, 05:23 PM
Ridiculous plan.
Britain needs a decent rail network, which would in turn reduce the number of domestic flights clogging up the runways, and allow passengers to come to Britain through the Tunnel.
This is just a sweetener brought on by the Government calling for BAA to sell and airport. It makes no sense whatsoever to allow this to happen when they can't even run the two runways efficiently.
ThEGr33k
15-01-09, 05:24 PM
planes have this magic ability of being fast and non-restricted to using roads, if you hijacked a plane in dorset you'd have hit parliment before the fighter jets left the ground...
I wouldnt be sure about that ;)
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 05:27 PM
I wouldnt be sure about that ;)
if you were manning the controls instead of playing CS:S i'd be more confident...:p;)
gettin2dizzy
15-01-09, 05:29 PM
planes have this magic ability of being fast and non-restricted to using roads, if you hijacked a plane in dorset you'd have hit parliment before the fighter jets left the ground...
I can't help but look forward to that day.
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 05:30 PM
I can't help but look forward to that day.
allah akbar:rolleyes:
I just don't see the Benifits of having a multistorey plane park over our capital - especially as a large percentage of passengers are simply on their way some where else.
Actually scratch that - assuming I don't own heathrow I don't see the benefits.
I can't help but look forward to that day.
:)
Im sorry, but all this CO2 emissions crap is just that. Ok, we can do our bit, but lets face it, the US and China, amongst others are going to kill this planet, not us.
Flamin_Squirrel
15-01-09, 06:06 PM
I'm disappointed that the conservatives plan to over turn the decision if they get in power. I hope that's just an empty promise.
ThEGr33k
15-01-09, 06:13 PM
Indeed... Hmmm we'll see what happens I guess. :)
Lets build it on the IOW.
Nick762
15-01-09, 08:33 PM
As I understand it the reason we need the third runway is because more people are travelling by air. More people are travelling by air due to the massive increase in low cost flights in recent years.
I get the impresion that the trend in fuel prices is inevitably upward. If this is the case then surely the days of low cost flights are numbered and the absurd situatuation where an air ticket to Scotland is less expensive than a rail ticket will be no more.
Higher prices means fewer non essential flights which in turn means spare capacity within the existing infrastructure. That being the case by the time the third runway is built (some estimates I've heard put it at ten years plus) it will be surplus to requirements (and not just in the UK but internationally).
But then I'm not an economist or a transport analyst so what do I know.
gettin2dizzy
15-01-09, 08:39 PM
...we .... need ... better ... trains ...
Then kick all those bleedin' lorries off the roads!
As I understand it the reason we need the third runway is because more people are travelling by air. More people are travelling by air due to the massive increase in low cost flights in recent years.
I get the impresion that the trend in fuel prices is inevitably upward. If this is the case then surely the days of low cost flights are numbered and the absurd situatuation where an air ticket to Scotland is less expensive than a rail ticket will be no more.
Higher prices means fewer non essential flights which in turn means spare capacity within the existing infrastructure. That being the case by the time the third runway is built (some estimates I've heard put it at ten years plus) it will be surplus to requirements (and not just in the UK but internationally).
But then I'm not an economist or a transport analyst so what do I know.
Sounds like a good point to me
the_lone_wolf
15-01-09, 08:57 PM
Lets build it on the IOW.
you mean bembridge airport isn't big enough?:p
i spose they could install a second runway by trimming the grass in the adjacent field;)
jamesterror
15-01-09, 10:26 PM
As I understand it the reason we need the third runway is because more people are travelling by air. More people are travelling by air due to the massive increase in low cost flights in recent years.
I get the impresion that the trend in fuel prices is inevitably upward. If this is the case then surely the days of low cost flights are numbered and the absurd situatuation where an air ticket to Scotland is less expensive than a rail ticket will be no more.
Higher prices means fewer non essential flights which in turn means spare capacity within the existing infrastructure. That being the case by the time the third runway is built (some estimates I've heard put it at ten years plus) it will be surplus to requirements (and not just in the UK but internationally).
But then I'm not an economist or a transport analyst so what do I know.
Thats how I see it also.
Yeh it will create jobs, it won't stimulate the economy as I've heard from GB. But then again, people will lose homes, more businesses will be forced to move, probably leading to over crowded schools, a worse off economy and increased unemployement.
During the summer fuel prices increased considerably and so did flight costs, effectively putting customers off.. It will happen again as Opec are trying to keep supply and demand by producing less oil, back to where it use to be when they were getting $147 a barrel.
Why not Birmingham or Coventry, its fairly central to England, high speed routes from London, Manchester can be beneficial for northern's needing to commute to London, or southerns needing to commute north!
I don't think words will turn to action as it is the labour government on the spot here.
...we .... need ... better ... trains ...
Then kick all those bleedin' lorries off the roads!
Good idea, put 80,000 drivers on the dole, but how you gonna get your corn flakes and baked beans from tescos when there are no wagons to deliver em :confused: still, on the plus side I can retire a bit earlier :D
injury_ian
16-01-09, 07:50 AM
I work for BAA, But I am also somewhat of a 'tree huggin hippy' But I think the 3rd runway @ heathrow is a good thing.
Gatwick is land locked (no room for expansion
Stansted has room...
However, Why lay a whacking great slab of tarmack in the REAL countryside when you can make an already noisy busy area a *little* worse.
The impact felt here with the extra traffic / noise / pollution will be less than it would out in the sticks... standstead, gatwick (hypotheticly) OR Luton *spit*
the_lone_wolf
16-01-09, 08:33 AM
However, Why lay a whacking great slab of tarmack in the REAL countryside when you can make an already noisy busy area a *little* worse.
because that way the londoners wouldn't complain...;)
seriously, the only people who are objecting to this are either the environmental morons who are going to moan their lives away whatever you do, and the people who are going to have to move house or are in the flight path of an airport they naively assumed would remain at the same capacity forever
oh, and northerners, but they'd just find some other thing about the south to moan at;)
I think its a great idea for the IOW...
Flamin_Squirrel
16-01-09, 09:17 AM
Yeh it will create jobs, it won't stimulate the economy as I've heard from GB. But then again, people will lose homes, more businesses will be forced to move, probably leading to over crowded schools, a worse off economy and increased unemployement.
During the summer fuel prices increased considerably and so did flight costs, effectively putting customers off.. It will happen again as Opec are trying to keep supply and demand by producing less oil, back to where it use to be when they were getting $147 a barrel.
Nah disagree. Aviation suffers from peaks and troughs of demand more than most sectors. It's heading for a dip right now, but it'll recover. Then it'll suffer again, recover, etc.
Why not Birmingham or Coventry, its fairly central to England, high speed routes from London, Manchester can be beneficial for northern's needing to commute to London, or southerns needing to commute north!
I'm guessing because there is still spare capacity there, so expanding would be pointless right now. Then take into consideration that the train fair from B'ham to London is almost as expensive as some airfairs, why would anyone want to pay more to travel further.
the_lone_wolf
16-01-09, 09:29 AM
I think its a great idea for the IOW...
as long as they built a motorway bridge back to the north island, demolishing most of portsmouth for it, i'd be happy:mrgreen:
northwind
16-01-09, 09:03 PM
It's a stupid place to put an Airport.
One time, it took me less time to take the 2 buses to get from my house to Edinburgh airport, check in, then fly to heathrow in a little tin plane with propellors, than it did to get from Heathrow to London :mrgreen: Expand City, it's only 10 minutes from my mates' house, ideal! (the extra runway would have to be underwater, though)
I can see why the environmentalists are fighting this fight- it's very visible- but it's daft. The issue isn't how many runways you have, it's how many flights you have and what they're doing. Cheap mass flight is the problem, and domestic flying is the problem. And those aren't problems that most people will be interested in hearing about, because people like cheap holidays in spain and connecting flights.
(I usually take the train from Edinburgh to London, the door to door time from my house to kings cross isn't much different if you have luggage, and it's a much more pleasant experience. We have the seeds of good long-distance public transport here, if we'd just work at it.)
gettin2dizzy
16-01-09, 10:30 PM
Why give them more to deal with when they can't run their airport efficiently already?!
Surely you should only look at the terminal 5 fiasco to realise that this is such a ridiculous proposal.
northwind
16-01-09, 10:35 PM
Good idea, put 80,000 drivers on the dole, but how you gonna get your corn flakes and baked beans from tescos when there are no wagons to deliver em :confused: still, on the plus side I can retire a bit earlier :D
Don't think he meant all the trucks :) Just the long hauls, presumably. Either that or they'll need to build a lot of little sidings :mrgreen:
gettin2dizzy
16-01-09, 10:41 PM
Don't think he meant all the trucks :) Just the long hauls, presumably. Either that or they'll need to build a lot of little sidings :mrgreen:
Exactly, yeah.
Besides Stewie, I thought it was you who complained about the hours truck drivers need to work ;)
northwind
16-01-09, 10:51 PM
Course, Hornby would be happy, we can make little ho/oo branch lines to every corner shop.
ThEGr33k
17-01-09, 12:05 AM
No need for anothe runway, Use the themes :p
Indeed this country hasnt had a good railway since they shut all the branches down in the 50's (think it was the 50's) they failed to realise that without the branch lines the smaller ones wont get filled. Sigh. Maybe they'll sort it? :rolleyes:
gettin2dizzy
17-01-09, 12:15 AM
No need for anothe runway, Use the themes :p
Indeed this country hasnt had a good railway since they shut all the branches down in the 50's (think it was the 50's) they failed to realise that without the branch lines the smaller ones wont get filled. Sigh. Maybe they'll sort it? :rolleyes:
Lack of passengers isn't the problem. You ever been to London? ;)
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.