Boris not impressed with extra runway delay

[warsaw]

His comments earlier on channel 4 "You've got a kind of terminal indecision here. A lot of people will say this is just fudgearama "

Well yes Boris that's exactly what it is.

Ernest, this will be another howler for you to add to your list.

 

[The Birdman]

Gatwick or Heathrow or Gatwick or Heathrow shit why not just toss a coin Gatwick is cheaper for the runway however the infrastructure will cost a lot more and more houses. Maybe Boris Island might be better.
They should have built a new airport at upper Heyford (USAF base )which had a large runway with over TenThousand yanks living in the area missed opportunity.this was between London and Birmingham .

 

[Perkino]

Just build them both now, in 20 years they will be adding another runway to whoever loses out this time so may as well get both up and running from the off

 

[Igzilla]

It's a political decision, as Zac Goldsmith is anti Heathrow. It's going to get built anyway, somewhere. They may as well get it over with.

 

[Gwylan]

Just build them both now, in 20 years they will be adding another runway to whoever loses out this time so may as well get both up and running from the off

But will they? Nearly every country in western Europe is building high speed train networks to reduce the number of trips on short haul flights. The arrival of self-driving cars will completely transform road travel with people ready to make longer journeys by car. And the ever-increasing improvements in videoconferencing technology and faster networks mean that more business meetings will be conducted remotely - there's every indication that business travel will reduce greatly in the coming years

 

[AmexRuislip]

The cost for the upheaval of all the families that have to be relocated because of the third runway at LHR being built must be more than some of the other options.
Why not utilise other airports, say like Stansted or Manston?

 

[drew]

Gatwick or Heathrow or Gatwick or Heathrow shit why not just toss a coin Gatwick is cheaper for the runway however the infrastructure will cost a lot more and more houses. Maybe Boris Island might be better.
They should have built a new airport at upper Heyford (USAF base )which had a large runway with over TenThousand yanks living in the area missed opportunity.this was between London and Birmingham .

Hasn't been an airfield for decades (since 1993) although some of the concrete hangers still exist. Would seem an odd location to build a '4th' London airport (and let's be honest, it is about links to London and not Birmingham that are important. Gatwick seems the most logical place. M23, main line to London (25 minutes) and currently only has the one runway which, if out of action, would really bugger up everything. Put all the eggs in one basket at Heathrow despite the environmental issues!!! Decision has only been delayed because it suits the mayoral elections.

 

[AmexRuislip]

Hasn't been an airfield for decades (since 1993) although some of the concrete hangers still exist. Would seem an odd location to build a '4th' London airport (and let's be honest, it is about links to London and not Birmingham that are important. Gatwick seems the most logical place. M23, main line to London (25 minutes) and currently only has the one runway which, if out of action, would really bugger up everything. Put all the eggs in one basket at Heathrow despite the environmental issues!!! Decision has only been delayed because it suits the mayoral elections.

Seems the logical thing putting eggs in one basket, but as I said previously the upheaval for all the families that will have to move because of third runway, extra flight traffic, and the top it all the bloody HS2 being built nearby.
It's going to be great round here in the future

 

[Ernest]

China BUILD a NEW airport EVERY day, we take TWENTY years just to THINK about ONE.

Vote Tory, get INCOMPETENCE

 

[Cian]

The cost for the upheaval of all the families that have to be relocated because of the third runway at LHR being built must be more than some of the other options.
Why not utilise other airports, say like Stansted or Manston?

Because Heathrow is heavily reliant on being a hub, and you can't split a hub between two airports

Additionally, a major hub still requires a decent amount of local traffic so its not plausible to tell local passengers to go to Luton/Stansted/Manston and transfer passengers to Heathrow.

 

[beorhthelm]

well he's right, the can has been kicked down the runway for nearly 15 years with Labour, Coalition and now Tory goverments unwilling to make a decision and defering this issue. they need do it, and the obvious fudge but get moving response is to green light both Heathrow and Gatwick. let Heathrow get dragged through the courts while Gatwick gets on with building and improving the BML into London as a nice benefit to us in Sussex. if we had any ambition they'd also take up the mildly bonkers but actually sensible idea of a rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick.

 

[glasfryn]

the whole thing is a big fudge up by the weakest PM we have had for decades
tories out #

 

[Rugrat]

But will they? Nearly every country in western Europe is building high speed train networks to reduce the number of trips on short haul flights. The arrival of self-driving cars will completely transform road travel with people ready to make longer journeys by car. And the ever-increasing improvements in videoconferencing technology and faster networks mean that more business meetings will be conducted remotely - there's every indication that business travel will reduce greatly in the coming years

Blimey do you really believe that? Europe is a whole different proposition ... we have a sea betwwen us and them! On top of that most major Eurooean hubs already have 5, 6 or more runways

Business travel has never been higher despite technology that would seemingly render much of it obsolete

Build them both

 

[Captain Sensible]

Heathrow is the obvious choice in my opinion. It already has increased capacity from its terminals, it already has major connecting traffic, it only needs the runway to increase capacity, plus a smaller terminal 6 possibly. But Gatwick would need major major development of a huge new terminal or 2 the same size as north and south. Plus it then needs to make its self a hub which Heathrow already is.

 

[Gwylan]

Blimey do you really believe that? Europe is a whole different proposition ... we have a sea betwwen us and them! On top of that most major Eurooean hubs already have 5, 6 or more runways

Believe what? That Europe is investing heavily in high-speed train services? I can assure that it is: there are four new French TGV lines being built next year and new lines in Italy, Spain and Germany. There's also a high-speed link between the Baltic states and Poland in the pipeline. And as for the UK being cut off: Eurostar claims 75% of the traffic between London and Paris. There are plans for Eurostar link to Frankfurt in the offing. There are billions of euros being pumped into rail networks. Schipol, on the other hand, is operating at near capacity and, according to its CEO is not able to increase services much more.

Business travel has never been higher despite technology that would seemingly render much of it obsolete

In 1820 coach travel had never been higher: routes which had had one service a day now had several. How did that look 20 years later?

EDIT: I should add that I'm not against the idea of airport expansion but it's a decision that should have been taken about 20 years ago. Any new runway is not going to be built for at least 15 years - probably longer - and my bet is that business air travel will be declining by then

 

[beorhthelm]

EDIT: I should add that I'm not against the idea of airport expansion but it's a decision that should have been taken about 20 years ago. Any new runway is not going to be built for at least 15 years - probably longer - and my bet is that business air travel will be declining by then

the death of air travel has been proclaimed for most those 20 years too. business like to travel by air, abd no high speed rail is going to reach to US, South America, Middle East, China, Japan. anyway, business travel is a smokescreen, a facilitator for the airlines to justify their business, while the airports are really interested in the high footfall of and volume of leisure flights. there's plenty of capacity for flights to Rio or Guangzhou, if they weren't putting on flights to third tier European airports.

 

[LargeHadronZugzwang]

The arrival of self-driving cars will completely transform road travel with people ready to make longer journeys by car.

Sorry, just do not see this as being feasible on a scale that some are willing to imagine. The problem with humans, is that we are not very good at using the exponential function. Are we really going to be replacing 30 million cars in this country with 30 million self driving automobiles? Quite apart from the serious decline in fracking plays after one year, it is doubtful that we will be hoovering up the ocean beds on an industrial scale or mining asteroids anytime soon. If we do, we are going to be in very serious trouble indeed. What is left of the global forests now that the land is now being used for palm oil in vast areas, post the horrendous fires in Indonesia? Otherwise, what you say regarding the increase in rail travel is absolutely correct IMHO.

Before anyone asks where do we build another runway or fancy flower shaped airport on the Thames, what we should be asking is where is the oil and the rare earth metals going to come from?

 

[Gwylan]

there's plenty of capacity for flights to Rio or Guangzhou, if they weren't putting on flights to third tier European airports.

Well yes, that's precisely the point I'm making. Rail has replaced air as the means of travel between London and Paris/Brussels between Paris and Madrid and will do so for other destination. That frees up space for those travelling to longer distances

Are we really going to be replacing 30 million cars in this country with 30 million self driving automobiles?

Of course not, that's the point. We have about 30m vehicles and, on average, they're unused about 90% of the time and when they are used, there's one person per car. We clog the roads at certain times because we still operate Victorian office hours and revolve round a yearly timetable based on harvest times. There are signs that's beginning to change but it will take 25 to 30 years for the full revolution

 

[Rugrat]

Believe what? That Europe is investing heavily in high-speed train services? I can assure that it is: there are four new French TGV lines being built next year and new lines in Italy, Spain and Germany. There's also a high-speed link between the Baltic states and Poland in the pipeline. And as for the UK being cut off: Eurostar claims 75% of the traffic between London and Paris. There are plans for Eurostar link to Frankfurt in the offing. There are billions of euros being pumped into rail networks. Schipol, on the other hand, is operating at near capacity and, according to its CEO is not able to increase services much more.



In 1820 coach travel had never been higher: routes which had had one service a day now had several. How did that look 20 years later?

EDIT: I should add that I'm not against the idea of airport expansion but it's a decision that should have been taken about 20 years ago. Any new runway is not going to be built for at least 15 years - probably longer - and my bet is that business air travel will be declining by then

I'm not challenging your statement about rail expansion in Europe just that it has no relevance to the need to create more air capacity here. We.re also investing heavily in rail (Crossrail, HS2 etc) but so what?

Air travel is only going one way and we are way way behind our European competitors. Of course it should have been done 10 years ago just like the M25 should have been built with 5 lanes in the first place but a combination of lack of foresight, daft bureaucracy and finances prevented that,

The suggestion that business travel, indeed any travel, is going to decline is plain daft

 

[Machiavelli]

But will they? Nearly every country in western Europe is building high speed train networks to reduce the number of trips on short haul flights. The arrival of self-driving cars will completely transform road travel with people ready to make longer journeys by car. And the ever-increasing improvements in videoconferencing technology and faster networks mean that more business meetings will be conducted remotely - there's every indication that business travel will reduce greatly in the coming years

This is a positive scenario undoubtedly, but I remain to be convinced that we'll have a drastic halt in the rise of flying, followed by a decline in it. To do this, we'll need to transform how we understand ourselves, our relations to others (and other generations), and the ecosystem on which we rely. A more negative scenario is that the PM has just committed to spewing out more CO2 into the atmosphere with a private jet, himself mimicking the elite entrepreneurs that he serves so well, and that there will be other new, diverse forms of flying that emerge (e.g. Branson's trips to the moon).
And this decision is so obviously related to the mayoral elections.