Why expand Heath Row and not Gatwick?

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:04:04 +0100, Martin
wrote:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:41:11 -0600, Dan Stephenson
wrote:

I listen to the BBC World Service quite a bit and I know of the desire
to build another runway.

American Airlines recently switched, or is switching, all their flights
from Gatwick to airport at Heath Row.

Would any Britons in the group tell me why there should be a
concentration there, as opposed to expanding Gatwick or one of the
others? If the trouble is making connecting flights they should look
at improving the 90 minute bus ride between the airports.

a) Gatwick only has one runway.
b)The motorway linking Gatwick and Heathrow is saturated.

A better solution would be to use an airport far away from anywhere for those
just making transits through Heathrow.

A typical plane from, say, America is going to have passengers in
transit through a London airport and those who want to arrive in
London. Are you suggesting some flights from America be
pass-through only?

Many such passengers will be changing airlines or flights, so
their onward flight would also carry only pass-throughs.

I know that the majority of those using Amsterdam Airport as a hub never leave
the airport buildings.

I suspect London is a different beast from Amsterdam.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" kirjoitti
om...

I suspect London is a different beast from Amsterdam.

In what way?

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 11:53:37 -0000, "nightjar" cpb@insert my
surname here.me.uk mangled uncounted electrons thus:


"Martin D. Pay" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:41:11 -0600, Dan Stephenson
mangled uncounted electrons thus:

I listen to the BBC World Service quite a bit and I know of the desire
to build another runway.

American Airlines recently switched, or is switching, all their flights
from Gatwick to airport at Heath Row.

Would any Britons in the group tell me why there should be a
concentration there, as opposed to expanding Gatwick or one of the
others? If the trouble is making connecting flights they should look
at improving the 90 minute bus ride between the airports.

At the time of the last expansion to Gatwick in 1979 there was a
legally binding agreement made with the local council that there
would be no further expansion considered until 2019 at the
earliest (the council remains opposed to any expansion even
then).

However, Parliament has the power to overturn the agreement and there have
been rumours that may happen, to help BAA find a buyer for Gatwick.

Rumours, yes - but nothing remotely concrete. Yet. And I rather
doubt that the government wants to try and push this at the
moment - forcing through T6/runway 3 was a nightmare for them...

There has always been the intention to give Stansted a second
runway (I saw the plans for this back in the late 1980s when the
current terminal building was under construction) but
transatlantic routes have a history of failure from this airport,
which remains the UK home of Ryanair and their short-to-medium
haul European operations. Whether the second runway will
encourage new long-haul operations remains to be seen (but I
rather doubt it).

It is in the middle of nowhere and, unlike Gatwick, Heathrow and even Luton,
it has very little natural chatchment population of its own.

Saffron Walden? ^_-

Luton remains relatively small. I don't believe that there is
room for a second runway there and this site is likely to remain
the home of Easyjet and various charter operators.

The terrain is not suitable for expansion. The airport is on high ground and
the existing runway is partly built on an embankment.

Ah. I wasn't aware of that last part. Most interesting...

snip

Southend Corporation have always wanted to expand Southend airport, which,
at one time, was the main freight airport for London. The road and rail
links would not need a lot of upgrading to make it easily accessible from
London, which would also benefit the town as a whole. Unfortunately, it has
a church at one end of the runway and a main road at the other, so there
would be problems extending it, although a tunnel might be an answer for the
road.

Now that Stobart have bought the airport things may get a little
more active. Work is already in hand on a new control tower,
passenger car park and an airport hotel; the intention is also to
build a new railway station providing links to Canary Wharf and
central London (as the nearest stations are currently Rochford
and Prittlewell, both something more than a mile from the airport
entrance).

A road tunnel would be less sensitive than demolition of the
church, although the possibility has been mooted of moving the
church to a new site (which would probably cost less than the
tunnel).

The other option discussed has been Manston / Kent International
Airport. The runway is 3km long and very wide - it was built to allow three
Vampire jets to take off simultaneously. However, the approach path would
pass through an already fairly crowded bit of European airspace and would be
on the same line as Heathrow.

Probably safe to regard that as a non-starter for the reason you
give...

Martin D. Pay
Of course we could always look forward to Boris'
airport-in-the-estuary (I think it used to be called the Maplin
Project) ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 11:53 am, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote:

Southend Corporation have always wanted to expand Southend airport,
which,
at one time, was the main freight airport for London. The road and rail
links would not need a lot of upgrading to make it easily accessible
from
London, which would also benefit the town as a whole.

Surely Stansted - which already has some of the infrastructure and is
a little more accessible for the rest of the country in terms of
location - would be a better option if it was decided to expand in
Essex?

Is Stansted more accessible from anywhere else without passing through of
near London? Perhaps from some parts of the East Coast, but I wouldn't
have thought signifanctly more so than an improved Southend.

If you live somewhere, anywhere, more than about 50 miles north of
London then Stanstead is significantly easier to get to.

Only if you intend to drive (or be driven) there

Not everyone wants to pay "more than the flight cost" to leave their car at
the airport

tim

"Markku Grönroos" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Hatunen" kirjoitti
om...

I suspect London is a different beast from Amsterdam.

In what way?

There will be many more passengers on the plane whos actual destination is
London/surrounding areas.

tim

"Martin D. Pay" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 11:53:37 -0000, "nightjar" cpb@insert my
surname here.me.uk mangled uncounted electrons thus:
.....
However, Parliament has the power to overturn the agreement and there have
been rumours that may happen, to help BAA find a buyer for Gatwick.

Rumours, yes - but nothing remotely concrete. Yet. And I rather
doubt that the government wants to try and push this at the
moment - forcing through T6/runway 3 was a nightmare for them...

The problem is, of course, that without a guarantee of expansion potential,
BAA will probably struggle to sell it off. Crawley District Council seems to
be working on the assumption that there will be aserious attempt to overturm
the agreement.

.....
(re Southend Airport)
A road tunnel would be less sensitive than demolition of the
church, although the possibility has been mooted of moving the
church to a new site (which would probably cost less than the
tunnel).

My recollection is that the road option would give a longer runway. The
other option would be to do what happened at Liverpool - they built an
entirely new airport on an adjacent site. There is quite a lot of open
farmland to the East of Southend airport.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
"tim....." wrote:

"William Black" wrote in message
...

If you live somewhere, anywhere, more than about 50 miles north of
London then Stanstead is significantly easier to get to.

Only if you intend to drive (or be driven) there

Not everyone wants to pay "more than the flight cost" to leave their car at
the airport

London airports are also transfer points for a lot of people. Into
Heathrow and out of Stanstead or vice versa?

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo*

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:52:20 -0600, erilar
wrote:

In article ,
"tim....." wrote:

"William Black" wrote in message
...

If you live somewhere, anywhere, more than about 50 miles north of
London then Stanstead is significantly easier to get to.

Only if you intend to drive (or be driven) there

Not everyone wants to pay "more than the flight cost" to leave their car
at
the airport

London airports are also transfer points for a lot of people. Into
Heathrow and out of Stanstead or vice versa?

Probably the majority of the passengers are transferring.

At LHR?

There's been lots of discussions about this before (in other groups under
the subject of travel modes to the airport). IIRC the figure is about 30%.

tim

"William Black" wrote in message
...

Southend Corporation have always wanted to expand Southend airport,
which,
at one time, was the main freight airport for London. The road and rail
links would not need a lot of upgrading to make it easily accessible
from
London, which would also benefit the town as a whole.

Surely Stansted - which already has some of the infrastructure and is
a little more accessible for the rest of the country in terms of
location - would be a better option if it was decided to expand in
Essex?

Is Stansted more accessible from anywhere else without passing through of
near London? Perhaps from some parts of the East Coast, but I wouldn't
have thought signifanctly more so than an improved Southend.

If you live somewhere, anywhere, more than about 50 miles north of London
then Stanstead is significantly easier to get to.

No it isn't. According to my route planner Stanstead is over 20 miles further
(using the quickest route) and takes 20 mins longer from Manchester. The more
direct route to Stanstead takes about an hour longer. The same will be true of
anywhere in the North West, West Midlands or anywhere where the M6/M1 or M40 is
the best route into London. Which is probably the vast majority of the UK
population who are "50 miles north of London".

--
Andy

"Dan Stephenson" wrote in message
news:2009020609411116807-stephedanospam@maccom...
I listen to the BBC World Service quite a bit and I know of the desire to
build another runway.

American Airlines recently switched, or is switching, all their flights
from Gatwick to airport at Heath Row.


Gatwick is OK if London is your final destination but its
a bad choice if you are using it as a hub.


Would any Britons in the group tell me why there should be a concentration
there, as opposed to expanding Gatwick or one of the others? If the
trouble is making connecting flights they should look at improving the 90
minute bus ride between the airports.

Thanks,

Given the geography of the region and its traffic patterns reducing
that journey time would require either a minor act of god or the
building of a high speed rail line between the two which is rather
less likely to happen than divine intervention

Keith