Heathrow expansion

[AmexRuislip]

(Ex-RAF) Manston Airport in Kent would have been an imaginative alternative. Very long runway, loads of undeveloped space, huge number of potential new and local jobs. Might also have seen off the chancers who want to develop the airport for non-airport use and a quick buck.

With all the will it, won't be built (third runway), RAF Northolt, where I work, has always been rumoured to close.
This has been going on for years, it's still there!

 

[sir albion]

What a waste of time as it will never happen and millions of pounds will be wasted in the process....

 

[Barry Izbak]

I have not heard one single person on the radio or TV who is against this, campaigning for anything other than their own interests.

The people who live near Heathrow who are against it are saying it should be at Gatwick because of the noise/polution/traffic near where they live

The people who live near Gatwick who are against it are saying it should be at Heathrow because of the noise/polution/traffic near where they live

The greens don't want any more planes wherever they are.

You can't trust anyone to make an objective decision that is actually good for the majority, for the country, without knowing it will be one long court case after another.

 

[beorhthelm]

I have not heard one single person on the radio or TV who is against this, campaigning for anything other than their own interests.

The people who live near Heathrow who are against it are saying it should be at Gatwick because of the noise/polution/traffic near where they live

The people who live near Gatwick who are against it are saying it should be at Heathrow because of the noise/polution/traffic near where they live

The greens don't want any more planes wherever they are.

You can't trust anyone to make an objective decision that is actually good for the majority, for the country, without knowing it will be one long court case after another.

well there is one objective measure, the impact to people, which would be largly in favour of Gatwick as the number of people affected directly is a fraction, indirectly negligably smaller.

green views dont count, they are against all air flight, even when on their way to enivromental conferences in south america.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

well there is one objective measure, the impact to people, which would be largly in favour of Gatwick as the number of people affected directly is a fraction, indirectly negligably smaller.

green views dont count, they are against all air flight, even when on their way to enivromental conferences in south america.

Negative impact? Positive impact?

 

[wellquickwoody]

Yes. Far better to concrete over huge parts of Sussex.

What you mean about 50 acres out of about 50 million?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

What you mean about 50 acres out of about 50 million?

Don't forget we would need to build a town the size of Coventry in Sussex if Gatwick got the go ahead. Where would that be built? Do you think Sussex has the infrastructure to cope?

Heathrow is a hub airport, Gatwick is not.

In addition to Heathrow, I'd build another one in the North, probably Manchester.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I have not heard one single person on the radio or TV who is against this, campaigning for anything other than their own interests.

The people who live near Heathrow who are against it are saying it should be at Gatwick because of the noise/polution/traffic near where they live

The people who live near Gatwick who are against it are saying it should be at Heathrow because of the noise/polution/traffic near where they live

The greens don't want any more planes wherever they are.

You can't trust anyone to make an objective decision that is actually good for the majority, for the country, without knowing it will be one long court case after another.

The Davies Commission was independent and came down strongly in favour of Heathrow.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Who cares what 1500 yard x 300 yard strip of tarmac and a few extra planes will do to the environment when (with no disrespect) a city the size of Coventry appears in the UK every year due to net immigration?

Get it built at Gatwick and have done with it.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I take it you've seen the details of the Gatwick plan? Although given your comment I suspect not.

Main objections were noise from new flight path, not the construction itself which was largely within the existing airport compound

It's not just the airport itself that is the issue, it's the infrastructure that goes with it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Negative impact? Positive impact?

intersting point... so use to "impact" in negative sense at work doesnt occur to me it could be otherwise.

 

[yxee]

Don't forget we would need to build a town the size of Coventry in Sussex if Gatwick got the go ahead. Where would that be built? Do you think Sussex has the infrastructure to cope?

Heathrow is a hub airport, Gatwick is not.

In addition to Heathrow, I'd build another one in the North, probably Manchester.

I completely agree with your last two lines, but why would we need to build a town the size of Coventry ?

 

[GT49er]

Well there is one objective measure, the impact to people, which would be largly in favour of Gatwick as the number of people affected directly is a fraction, indirectly negligably smaller.

If the (negative) impact to people was the only measure, that would make the likes of Manston even better options.

 

[beorhthelm]

If the (negative) impact to people was the only measure, that would make the likes of Manston even better options.

it would be better if that were the only measure. its not, and still objectively, the costs of infrastructure and additional time to get to Manston count heavily against it. its a poor idea, let it go

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I completely agree with your last two lines, but why would we need to build a town the size of Coventry ?

Build a second runway at Gatwick and Sussex would need to import thousands and thousands of workers. There is simply not anywhere enough labour here to fulfil demand. There is extremely low unemployment in the Gatwick area.

These workers would have to live somewhere. They would then need schools, hospitals, leisure facilities, shops etc all of which would bring more people into Sussex. Some people might like the idea, and I respect that opinion as after all there would be more jobs etc.

Personally I like Sussex as it is, and don't want to see great swathes of it concreted over.

 

[beorhthelm]

Personally I like Sussex as it is, and don't want to see great swathes of it concreted over.

you wouldnt be concreating great swathes of Sussex, you'd build out Crawley and the already urbanised corridor up to Redhill/Reigate (which is in Surrey anyway). it would maybe mean doubling Crawley, a large amount by filling in gap to the airport, the M23 etc. this would probably be a really good idea rather than small incremental additions to all the other towns and villages in Sussex, which will happen in the next decade anyway, only without additional infrastructure. focusing large build out of selected towns, big enough to support new facilities, is the better way to go.

 

[GT49er]

it would be better if that were the only measure. its not, and still objectively, the costs of infrastructure and additional time to get to Manston count heavily against it. its a poor idea, let it go.

I'm not really that bothered (and I'd never heard of Manston, other than as a wartime RAF aerodrome, until it was mentioned on this thread). To be honest, though, I haven't seen any argument to convince me that splattering more Heathrow all over a heavily populated area is a good idea.

 

[BensGrandad]

I'm not really that bothered (and I'd never heard of Manston, other than as a wartime RAF aerodrome, until it was mentioned on this thread). To be honest, though, I haven't seen any argument to convince me that splattering more Heathrow all over a heavily populated area is a good idea.

Manston has constantly been on ITV News over the past 2 years with groups trying to keep it alive as an airport but failing. This perhaps could have been an answer.

 

[Milano]

That Chris Grayling really comes across as a typical rent a quote untrustworthy career politician. Easy to dislike.
Now perhaps he could focus on fixing some of the transport infrastructure that actually exists already, starting with a certain shambles of a TOC?

 

[Barry Izbak]

The Davies Commission was independent and came down strongly in favour of Heathrow.

True enough, but my point was that all the Vox Pops on TV and radio have all been "we don't want it near us"