|
Fourth London airport
Any one got any ideas or alternatives to either a third Heathrow
runway (Gawd help us all, a bigger and even less efficient Heathrow) or 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, which would cost as much as our nuclear deterrent replacement... |
Fourth London airport
"Bill" wrote in message ...
Any one got any ideas or alternatives to either a third Heathrow runway (Gawd help us all, a bigger and even less efficient Heathrow) or 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, which would cost as much as our nuclear deterrent replacement... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that we should build a second runway at Gatwick. It will affect a tiny fraction of the people that the extra runway at LHR will affect and already has better rail connections and serves a more populous non London catchment than STN. I agree with Simon Jenkins from what someone posted on a different group this morning: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...willy-politics That is, we do not need extra runways to create a bigger hub. If the aim of the extra runway is to create growth then that growth is not helped one tiny little bit by people in-lining airside. if (however) London business does need more runway capacity for origination and terminating passengers that does not need to be at LHR and LGW is just as good IMHO tim |
Fourth London airport
"tim....." wrote in message ... "Bill" wrote in message ... Any one got any ideas or alternatives to either a third Heathrow runway (Gawd help us all, a bigger and even less efficient Heathrow) or 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, which would cost as much as our nuclear deterrent replacement... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that we should build a second runway at Gatwick. It will affect a tiny fraction of the people that the extra runway at LHR will affect and already has better rail connections and serves a more populous non London catchment than STN. I agree with Simon Jenkins from what someone posted on a different group this morning: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...willy-politics That is, we do not need extra runways to create a bigger hub. If the aim of the extra runway is to create growth then that growth is not helped one tiny little bit by people in-lining airside. if (however) London business does need more runway capacity for origination and terminating passengers that does not need to be at LHR and LGW is just as good IMHO But a second runway at Gatwick is not possible until 2019 at the earliest: "The construction of any new runway at Gatwick is ruled out before August 2019 by a legal agreement between BAA and West Sussex County Council. The agreement applies to whoever owns Gatwick, and could only be overturned by legislation which would need to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords might well refuse to pass such a Bill. The legal agreement merely reflects the physical constraints of the site. They will remain when the agreement expires." I am aware that BAA no longer own LGW, but that does not in any way affect the legal agreement. -- JohnT |
Fourth London airport
"JohnT" wrote in message ...
"tim....." wrote in message ... "Bill" wrote in message ... Any one got any ideas or alternatives to either a third Heathrow runway (Gawd help us all, a bigger and even less efficient Heathrow) or 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, which would cost as much as our nuclear deterrent replacement... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that we should build a second runway at Gatwick. It will affect a tiny fraction of the people that the extra runway at LHR will affect and already has better rail connections and serves a more populous non London catchment than STN. I agree with Simon Jenkins from what someone posted on a different group this morning: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...willy-politics That is, we do not need extra runways to create a bigger hub. If the aim of the extra runway is to create growth then that growth is not helped one tiny little bit by people in-lining airside. if (however) London business does need more runway capacity for origination and terminating passengers that does not need to be at LHR and LGW is just as good IMHO But a second runway at Gatwick is not possible until 2019 at the earliest: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So we wait until 2019 to start to build. It will take 2 or 3 years to get through planning anyway, so we're only going to lose a few years. And a new runway will (almost certainly) need a new terminal (and links to the railway) which will take longer to build than a runway so we can start that before 2019 as it isn't technically "building the runway". tim |
Fourth London airport
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:54:51 +0100, "JohnT"
wrote: "tim....." wrote in message ... "Bill" wrote in message ... Any one got any ideas or alternatives to either a third Heathrow runway (Gawd help us all, a bigger and even less efficient Heathrow) or 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, which would cost as much as our nuclear deterrent replacement... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that we should build a second runway at Gatwick. It will affect a tiny fraction of the people that the extra runway at LHR will affect and already has better rail connections and serves a more populous non London catchment than STN. I agree with Simon Jenkins from what someone posted on a different group this morning: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...willy-politics That is, we do not need extra runways to create a bigger hub. If the aim of the extra runway is to create growth then that growth is not helped one tiny little bit by people in-lining airside. if (however) London business does need more runway capacity for origination and terminating passengers that does not need to be at LHR and LGW is just as good IMHO But a second runway at Gatwick is not possible until 2019 at the earliest: "The construction of any new runway at Gatwick is ruled out before August 2019 by a legal agreement between BAA and West Sussex County Council. The agreement applies to whoever owns Gatwick, and could only be overturned by legislation which would need to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords might well refuse to pass such a Bill. The legal agreement merely reflects the physical constraints of the site. They will remain when the agreement expires." I am aware that BAA no longer own LGW, but that does not in any way affect the legal agreement. I'm prone to 'Boris Island' myself, although I notice the 'third runway at Heathrow' rhetoric has changed somewhat in the past week. They started out talking about more flights to the Far East, and that changed to 'More flights to China' when someone mentioned that about 10% of flights to India has stopped flying in the past two years... My opinion is that what we need are more long haul scheduled flights flying from provincial airports. Why are there no scheduled flights to India from Leed/Bradford or Manchester or Birmingham? Both have significant Indian populations. |
Fourth London airport
"Bill" wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:54:51 +0100, "JohnT" wrote: "tim....." wrote in message ... "Bill" wrote in message ... Any one got any ideas or alternatives to either a third Heathrow runway (Gawd help us all, a bigger and even less efficient Heathrow) or 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, which would cost as much as our nuclear deterrent replacement... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that we should build a second runway at Gatwick. It will affect a tiny fraction of the people that the extra runway at LHR will affect and already has better rail connections and serves a more populous non London catchment than STN. I agree with Simon Jenkins from what someone posted on a different group this morning: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...willy-politics That is, we do not need extra runways to create a bigger hub. If the aim of the extra runway is to create growth then that growth is not helped one tiny little bit by people in-lining airside. if (however) London business does need more runway capacity for origination and terminating passengers that does not need to be at LHR and LGW is just as good IMHO But a second runway at Gatwick is not possible until 2019 at the earliest: "The construction of any new runway at Gatwick is ruled out before August 2019 by a legal agreement between BAA and West Sussex County Council. The agreement applies to whoever owns Gatwick, and could only be overturned by legislation which would need to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords might well refuse to pass such a Bill. The legal agreement merely reflects the physical constraints of the site. They will remain when the agreement expires." I am aware that BAA no longer own LGW, but that does not in any way affect the legal agreement. I'm prone to 'Boris Island' myself, although I notice the 'third runway at Heathrow' rhetoric has changed somewhat in the past week. They started out talking about more flights to the Far East, and that changed to 'More flights to China' when someone mentioned that about 10% of flights to India has stopped flying in the past two years... My opinion is that what we need are more long haul scheduled flights flying from provincial airports. Why are there no scheduled flights to India from Leed/Bradford or Manchester or Birmingham? Both have significant Indian populations. It's a lot cheaper to fly with KLM from LBA-AMS and take advantage of the range of non UK APD flights available from Schiphol than it is to make your way from there to Heathrow/Gatwick. |
Fourth London airport
"Jake" wrote in message ... "Bill" wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:54:51 +0100, "JohnT" wrote: "tim....." wrote in message ... "Bill" wrote in message ... Any one got any ideas or alternatives to either a third Heathrow runway (Gawd help us all, a bigger and even less efficient Heathrow) or 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, which would cost as much as our nuclear deterrent replacement... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that we should build a second runway at Gatwick. It will affect a tiny fraction of the people that the extra runway at LHR will affect and already has better rail connections and serves a more populous non London catchment than STN. I agree with Simon Jenkins from what someone posted on a different group this morning: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...willy-politics That is, we do not need extra runways to create a bigger hub. If the aim of the extra runway is to create growth then that growth is not helped one tiny little bit by people in-lining airside. if (however) London business does need more runway capacity for origination and terminating passengers that does not need to be at LHR and LGW is just as good IMHO But a second runway at Gatwick is not possible until 2019 at the earliest: "The construction of any new runway at Gatwick is ruled out before August 2019 by a legal agreement between BAA and West Sussex County Council. The agreement applies to whoever owns Gatwick, and could only be overturned by legislation which would need to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords might well refuse to pass such a Bill. The legal agreement merely reflects the physical constraints of the site. They will remain when the agreement expires." I am aware that BAA no longer own LGW, but that does not in any way affect the legal agreement. I'm prone to 'Boris Island' myself, although I notice the 'third runway at Heathrow' rhetoric has changed somewhat in the past week. They started out talking about more flights to the Far East, and that changed to 'More flights to China' when someone mentioned that about 10% of flights to India has stopped flying in the past two years... My opinion is that what we need are more long haul scheduled flights flying from provincial airports. Why are there no scheduled flights to India from Leed/Bradford or Manchester or Birmingham? Both have significant Indian populations. It's a lot cheaper to fly with KLM from LBA-AMS and take advantage of the range of non UK APD flights available from Schiphol than it is to make your way from there to Heathrow/Gatwick. If the flights are on the same Itinerary, APD is payable. If seperate tickets then perhaps not, but if your incoming to AMS is late or cancelled and you miss your flight out of AMS you won't get re-routed and are up the creek without a paddle. And I have never ever been able to find anything cheaper in the manner you describe. Perhaps you could give some precise examples? -- JohnT |
Fourth London airport
"Jake" wrote in message
... "Bill" wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:54:51 +0100, "JohnT" wrote: "tim....." wrote in message ... "Bill" wrote in message ... Any one got any ideas or alternatives to either a third Heathrow runway (Gawd help us all, a bigger and even less efficient Heathrow) or 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, which would cost as much as our nuclear deterrent replacement... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that we should build a second runway at Gatwick. It will affect a tiny fraction of the people that the extra runway at LHR will affect and already has better rail connections and serves a more populous non London catchment than STN. I agree with Simon Jenkins from what someone posted on a different group this morning: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...willy-politics That is, we do not need extra runways to create a bigger hub. If the aim of the extra runway is to create growth then that growth is not helped one tiny little bit by people in-lining airside. if (however) London business does need more runway capacity for origination and terminating passengers that does not need to be at LHR and LGW is just as good IMHO But a second runway at Gatwick is not possible until 2019 at the earliest: "The construction of any new runway at Gatwick is ruled out before August 2019 by a legal agreement between BAA and West Sussex County Council. The agreement applies to whoever owns Gatwick, and could only be overturned by legislation which would need to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords might well refuse to pass such a Bill. The legal agreement merely reflects the physical constraints of the site. They will remain when the agreement expires." I am aware that BAA no longer own LGW, but that does not in any way affect the legal agreement. I'm prone to 'Boris Island' myself, although I notice the 'third runway at Heathrow' rhetoric has changed somewhat in the past week. They started out talking about more flights to the Far East, and that changed to 'More flights to China' when someone mentioned that about 10% of flights to India has stopped flying in the past two years... My opinion is that what we need are more long haul scheduled flights flying from provincial airports. Why are there no scheduled flights to India from Leed/Bradford or Manchester or Birmingham? Both have significant Indian populations. It's a lot cheaper to fly with KLM from LBA-AMS and take advantage of the range of non UK APD flights available from Schiphol than it is to make your way from there to Heathrow/Gatwick. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the solution to encourage airlines to operate more LH flights from regional airports (which I think most people can see might be a viable alternative to a new runway in the SE) is to make APD dependent upon departure airport. tim |
Fourth London airport
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:18:01 +0100, "Jake"
wrote: It's a lot cheaper to fly with KLM from LBA-AMS and take advantage of the range of non UK APD flights available from Schiphol than it is to make your way from there to Heathrow/Gatwick. None APD? What do you do? Overnight on a bench at Schiphol or take the risk that your connecting flight will happen on schedule? |
Fourth London airport
"Bill" wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:18:01 +0100, "Jake" wrote: It's a lot cheaper to fly with KLM from LBA-AMS and take advantage of the range of non UK APD flights available from Schiphol than it is to make your way from there to Heathrow/Gatwick. None APD? What do you do? Overnight on a bench at Schiphol or take the risk that your connecting flight will happen on schedule? You take the risk of course, building longer into your schedule. And why not overnight at Schiphol if it saves you a packet? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TravelBanter.com