A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fourth London airport



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 29th, 2012, 12:19 PM posted to rec.travel.air
bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
Default 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...
  #2  
Old August 29th, 2012, 02:59 PM posted to rec.travel.air
tim.....
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,591
Default 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




  #3  
Old August 29th, 2012, 03:54 PM posted to rec.travel.air
JohnT[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default 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

  #4  
Old August 29th, 2012, 04:20 PM posted to rec.travel.air
tim.....
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,591
Default 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


  #5  
Old August 29th, 2012, 04:41 PM posted to rec.travel.air
bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
Default 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.
  #6  
Old August 29th, 2012, 09:18 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Jake[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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.


  #7  
Old August 29th, 2012, 09:50 PM posted to rec.travel.air
JohnT[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default 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

  #8  
Old August 29th, 2012, 10:23 PM posted to rec.travel.air
tim.....
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,591
Default 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





  #9  
Old August 29th, 2012, 10:23 PM posted to rec.travel.air
bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
Default 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?
  #10  
Old August 29th, 2012, 11:03 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Jake[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fourth of july Surfer E2468 Cruises 17 July 5th, 2009 05:34 PM
Name and Define the New' Fourth Class' of On Board Service Treb Air travel 1 December 17th, 2005 02:13 AM
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY EVERYONE! Jean O'Boyle Cruises 1 July 3rd, 2005 03:22 AM
Fred to Acquire Fourth Ship Mark O. Polo Cruises 0 March 10th, 2005 07:17 AM
2004 Was Fourth-Warmest Year Ever Recorded Earl Evleth Europe 0 February 11th, 2005 08:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.