yxee
Well-known member
Does anyone know why they are ALL anti-3rd runway? Is it just looking out for voters in their own constituencies? What happened to the Big Society?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
LHR 3rd runway - news just in...
- Thread starter portlock seagull
- Start date
This is a very stupid post .... with due respect, of course.
Superphil
Dismember
Maybe now Gatwick will stop its deliberate guerrilla tactics and allow its customers to get back to the service it used to have. No more deliberately backing up planes on the taxiway, making flight after flight take off late, no more lack of staff to unload panes. On Sunday/Monday my flight was delayed because of yet another 'power outage' then, on arrival 'no staff' to operate sky bridges so we sat in a corner of the airport for an hour until they provided buses back to the terminal, the all to add grist to their own propaganda mill. And they have the nerve to say #LGWObviously. They have dropped a bollock here, by trying to prove they need the extra capacity by screwing up people's travel plans all they've succeeded in doing is proving they have no idea how to run an airport efficiently. Imagine if that shower of shite had an extra runway, doesn't bear thinking about.
I don't see Heathrow as 'good' but if the report authors are right then I'd simply regard it as the least bad
TBF I don't have anything other than the superficial knowledge of the arguments. I was just responding to the point that I don't believe Gatwick would offer any kind of advantage in road links ... they will be bad wherever it ends up
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
no night flights and cost of billions
how much exactly did this fudge cost the British taxpayers?
how much exactly did this fudge cost the British taxpayers?
yxee
Well-known member
When we're running up the debt by £10bn a month, investments like this are about the only thing I think the public should be able to stomach.
That's the sort of thing that will improve UK productivity.
That's the sort of thing that will improve UK productivity.
surrey jim
Not in Surrey
As an aside why was Luton not considered for expansion? it is around the same distance out of London that Gatwick is, and located just off the M1, in that travelers from the North don't have to come into/around London to get to the airport.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
the amusing note from the recommendations is that there be no flights between 11pm-6am and keep to noise and pollution levels. so the newly expanded airport will have its capacity restricted from the start...
we could talk about the merits of the report in the context of its objectives, but there's not much sanity involved, its been driven by many vested interests. suggesting one airport that costs twice as much and take 5 years longer over another doesn't sound very sensible to me, but then I've always viewed it pragmatically and with an eye to my interest, to embiggen Sussex opportunities. the whole premise that an airport expansion is even needed is flawed though, but no one (other than the greens) even raises that. its driven by those that want a larger airport, and those that want one want it at Heathrow. job done.
wait until all those in Chelsea & Kensington realise they will be directly under the flight path, i think there will be a long drawn out objection to this. so there's alot still to play for and i can see both airports being given the green light, on the understanding they are are privately funded.
we could talk about the merits of the report in the context of its objectives, but there's not much sanity involved, its been driven by many vested interests. suggesting one airport that costs twice as much and take 5 years longer over another doesn't sound very sensible to me, but then I've always viewed it pragmatically and with an eye to my interest, to embiggen Sussex opportunities. the whole premise that an airport expansion is even needed is flawed though, but no one (other than the greens) even raises that. its driven by those that want a larger airport, and those that want one want it at Heathrow. job done.
wait until all those in Chelsea & Kensington realise they will be directly under the flight path, i think there will be a long drawn out objection to this. so there's alot still to play for and i can see both airports being given the green light, on the understanding they are are privately funded.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,750
Too far North, wouldn't do anything for house prices and general money-making in the south-east
It does seem rather odd that the whole point of the exercise is to increase capacity and yet the recommendations are placing restrictions on night flying!! Were the same restrictions suggested for the Gatwick option. From an operational point of view, surely it would make sense to have a second runway at Gatwick. Like it or not, we do live in a era of terrorist threats so that also goes against 'all the eggs in one basket' option.
I'm also surprised that Prestwick has been dismissed as surely that would assist the economy of the 'Very Northern Powerhouse'!!!
I'm sure your opinion on Nimbyism would be slightly different if one of the 800 homes that will be destroyed was yours.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
i stand to be corrected, but i believe its 800 homes "impacted", not destroyed. the site of the second runway largely replaces warehouses and office buildings. the impact count is a couple of orders of magnitude lower than those in London.
A slightly odd argument as this is the exact definition of Nimbyism.
I personally don't think this will happen for another 10-20 years. 1) there is no way Cameron has the bottle to go through with this. 2) big UK infrastructure projects always have 10-20 years of nonsense and only get build when they're finally desperately needed.
Exactly. As the yankie owners of Gatwick want to build a second runway, let them. In a few years time we will need further runway capacity so get both schemes done now.
From the BBC article "nearly 800 homes would have to be demolished to build the new runway."
He was complaining that nimbyism prevents/delays developments like this. I was pointing out, possibly badly, that it's easy to complain about the delays etc when it's not you having your home destroyed. Let's remember that these people will be FORCED to sell their homes and will be out of pocket as the homes will be brought at market rate with a little compensation on top - it takes no account that the people forced to move will then be forced to pay stamp duty, moving costs and see their hardwork on their homes and gardens destroyed.
What an odd piece of logic. It's not beyond a terrorist to disable two or more airports if they so choose. In fact they don't actually have to blow them up to disable them, just wait for some slightly cold or slightly hot weather and let nature do their work.