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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FT: Six decades of London airport cowardice
Financial Times
October 19, 2011 Six decades of London airport cowardice By Michael Skapinker The British government is considering a new wheeze to ease London’s aerial gridlock: Heathwick, a 15-minute high-speed rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick. How would this help, connecting two airports already bursting with passengers and planes? Well, the rail link would raise the price of Gatwick landing slots, forcing low-cost airlines to move to Stansted airport, which has excess capacity. Convinced? Me neither. Heathwick is a piece of nonsense. Worse, it is displacement activity, a substitute for the decisions needed to ensure London remains a great city. The current administration is not alone in failing to take them. With two exceptions, which we will come to, governments have been ducking the hard choices for half a century. Heathrow, a one-time military facility, was designated London’s main airport after the second world war. It soon became clear this was a mistake. The airport was in the west and the principal aircraft approach was from the east, so they flew right over the city. In 1958, Richard Harris, a Conservative MP, said the noise was “becoming intolerable”. Still, flight numbers expanded to serve what had become Europe’s financial capital and one of the world’s premier commercial and cultural hubs. Heathrow eventually built five terminals, but still has only two runways, which is why so many aircraft have to sit in a holding pattern before being called in to land. Expanding or building airports often provokes resistance, and opposition to a third runway has been ferocious. The objectors have a point: they have heard constant promises that every Heathrow expansion would be its last. It was said after Terminal Four was approved. When BAA, Heathrow’s owner, won the go-ahead for Terminal Five, it said it wouldn’t ask for a third runway. It did ask, and the last Labour government finally agreed. It was an unpopular move, and a brave one. Airports elsewhere were building new runways and new facilities. London could either compete or decline. The Conservatives, desperate to win west London seats, said they would reverse the decision, which they did, adding that they wouldn’t allow any new runways at Gatwick or Stansted either. In a consultation document in March, the government said new runways were incompatible with the fight against climate change and that aviation needed a more sustainable future. It is not clear that the current stacks of delayed, fuel-spewing aircraft contribute to the fight against climate change. As for a sustainable futu it is the present overcrowding that is unsustainable. There is an alternative to a bigger Heathrow – a new airport. Boris Johnson, London’s mayor, has become the leading tub-thumper for a Thames Estuary airport, but the idea has been around for as long as Heathrow has, as an excellent historical survey from the House of Commons Library shows. Cliffe, in Kent, was considered and rejected in 1946, 1954, 1967 and 2002. In 1971, Edward Heath’s Tory government decided to build an airport at Maplin Sands, Essex. That was the other bold post-second world war decision – and it, too, came to nothing. When Labour came to power in 1974, it scrapped Maplin on the grounds that London would not need any more runways until 1990. There have always been arguments against an eastern airport. It would need new transport links, there aren’t enough workers in the area (I once wrote this), the Thames Estuary bird life would be a danger to air traffic, it would cost too much. But an estuary airport would have one huge advantage: being able to operate 24 hours a day without bothering local neighbourhoods. Mr Johnson commissioned Douglas Oakervee, who oversaw the construction of Hong Kong’s island airport, to look into something similar for London. Mr Oakervee’s examination of various options suggests it is all possible. Careful siting could even avoid the birds, which are a Heathrow problem too. There are private-sector companies offering to do it all – and a natural suspicion that they have underestimated the costs and that the taxpayer will end up picking up the tab. We can always find a downside, but what is inescapable is that London can barely serve its current traffic, let alone the expected increase of future decades. There are three options: an extra Heathrow runway, a new airport, or ceding London’s leadership. However it dresses it up, Britain’s government has opted for the third. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0b7c7...44feab49a.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
FT: Six decades of London airport cowardice
On 22/10/11 12:59, sufaud wrote:
Financial Times October 19, 2011 Six decades of London airport cowardice By Michael Skapinker The British government is considering a new wheeze to ease London’s aerial gridlock: Heathwick, a 15-minute high-speed rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick. How would this help, connecting two airports already bursting with passengers and planes? Well, the rail link would raise the price of Gatwick landing slots, forcing low-cost airlines to move to Stansted airport, which has excess capacity. Convinced? Me neither. Heathwick is a piece of nonsense. Worse, it is displacement activity, a substitute for the decisions needed to ensure London remains a great city. The current administration is not alone in failing to take them. With two exceptions, which we will come to, governments have been ducking the hard choices for half a century. Heathrow, a one-time military facility, was designated London’s main airport after the second world war. It soon became clear this was a mistake. The airport was in the west and the principal aircraft approach was from the east, so they flew right over the city. In 1958, Richard Harris, a Conservative MP, said the noise was “becoming intolerable”. Still, flight numbers expanded to serve what had become Europe’s financial capital and one of the world’s premier commercial and cultural hubs. Heathrow eventually built five terminals, but still has only two runways, which is why so many aircraft have to sit in a holding pattern before being called in to land. Expanding or building airports often provokes resistance, and opposition to a third runway has been ferocious. The objectors have a point: they have heard constant promises that every Heathrow expansion would be its last. It was said after Terminal Four was approved. When BAA, Heathrow’s owner, won the go-ahead for Terminal Five, it said it wouldn’t ask for a third runway. It did ask, and the last Labour government finally agreed. It was an unpopular move, and a brave one. Airports elsewhere were building new runways and new facilities. London could either compete or decline. The Conservatives, desperate to win west London seats, said they would reverse the decision, which they did, adding that they wouldn’t allow any new runways at Gatwick or Stansted either. In a consultation document in March, the government said new runways were incompatible with the fight against climate change and that aviation needed a more sustainable future. It is not clear that the current stacks of delayed, fuel-spewing aircraft contribute to the fight against climate change. As for a sustainable futu it is the present overcrowding that is unsustainable. There is an alternative to a bigger Heathrow – a new airport. Boris Johnson, London’s mayor, has become the leading tub-thumper for a Thames Estuary airport, but the idea has been around for as long as Heathrow has, as an excellent historical survey from the House of Commons Library shows. Cliffe, in Kent, was considered and rejected in 1946, 1954, 1967 and 2002. In 1971, Edward Heath’s Tory government decided to build an airport at Maplin Sands, Essex. That was the other bold post-second world war decision – and it, too, came to nothing. When Labour came to power in 1974, it scrapped Maplin on the grounds that London would not need any more runways until 1990. There have always been arguments against an eastern airport. It would need new transport links, there aren’t enough workers in the area (I once wrote this), the Thames Estuary bird life would be a danger to air traffic, it would cost too much. But an estuary airport would have one huge advantage: being able to operate 24 hours a day without bothering local neighbourhoods. Mr Johnson commissioned Douglas Oakervee, who oversaw the construction of Hong Kong’s island airport, to look into something similar for London. Mr Oakervee’s examination of various options suggests it is all possible. Careful siting could even avoid the birds, which are a Heathrow problem too. There are private-sector companies offering to do it all – and a natural suspicion that they have underestimated the costs and that the taxpayer will end up picking up the tab. We can always find a downside, but what is inescapable is that London can barely serve its current traffic, let alone the expected increase of future decades. There are three options: an extra Heathrow runway, a new airport, or ceding London’s leadership. However it dresses it up, Britain’s government has opted for the third. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0b7c7...44feab49a.html I've avoided Heathrow for years, it's dirty, squalid, badly run abomination. What I don't understand is BA's resistance to flying anywhere outside the UK from anywhere else. BA has half a dozen flights to Paris every day, why can't they fly a couple from one of the bigger provincial airports? It's the same with long haul flights. There are sizeable Indian and Pakistani communities living in Birmingham and Leeds/Bradford but it's impossible to get a direct flight to South Asia from anywhere but Heathrow on BA, and if you're going to change you might as well do so in a less stressful environment than Heathrow and with a cheaper airline than BA. -- William Black Free men have open minds If you want loyalty, buy a dog... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
fluege stuttgart london flug wien london billigfluege von berlin nachlondon flug von london flug friedrichshafen london billigfluege london fluegefrankfurt london gatwick billigflug hannover london billigfluege londongatwick london flug hotel billig | [email protected] | Europe | 1 | March 29th, 2008 02:49 PM |
Which London airport? LGN, LTN, STN? | gary | Europe | 13 | November 6th, 2003 12:50 AM |
airport shuttles in London? | ramraideruk | Europe | 1 | September 17th, 2003 11:52 AM |
airport shuttles in London? | Mark Hewitt | Europe | 3 | September 15th, 2003 08:39 AM |
airport shuttles in London? | Office Manager | Europe | 0 | September 14th, 2003 01:21 PM |