Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Sir Tigger KC on 25 October 2016, 19:45:09
-
So the Government has given the go ahead for a third runway and associated infrastructure at Heathrow, but given that it's got to go through the planning process and there will probably be endless consultations, legal challenges, judicial reviews, public inquiries, royal commissions etc etc ::)
Will it ever happen? ??? :-\
-
We have become a nation of paper shufflers and enquiries
Other countries decide on a need, plan and execute.
We will all be dead and the Omega will be a classic by the time it happens.
-
Problem is...they just tread over peoples lives. None of those in favour are going to lose their homes, communities, etc. So...its going to create 180,000 jobs according to some. What about the existing jammed up roads, where are the houses coming from. Some sources are talking freight, not passenger flights. Surely there must be other options for a freight only airport. ;)
-
Problem is...they just tread over peoples lives. None of those in favour are going to lose their homes, communities, etc. So...its going to create 180,000 jobs according to some. What about the existing jammed up roads, where are the houses coming from. Some sources are talking freight, not passenger flights. Surely there must be other options for a freight only airport. ;)
Many years ago when raf Alconbury was being handed back they tried to get planning to turn it into a freight hub air/road and rail, bearing in mind, its been a military airfield since 1941 upto 2006, the local tree huggers and bent councilors, with the help of two jags got it scuppared, If it had happened Heathrow would have had enough capacity, after freight had been removed, without the need to expand.
-
I am so against this, and was before I moved to Wales. It is a vanity project, and they have caved in to Willie Walsh and BAAs business objectives. I'd like to know what went on behind the scenes.
I now have enormous respect for Zak Goldsmnith who has resigned over this decision. It's nice to see a politician who sticks by his guns and stands by what he has said in the past. The government now has a by-election on it's hands. Unfortunately it's a safe seat. I would prefer if it was a marginal to make the Government sweat a bit.
-
I am so against this, and was before I moved to Wales. It is a vanity project, and they have caved in to Willie Walsh and BAAs business objectives. I'd like to know what went on behind the scenes.
I now have enormous respect for Zak Goldsmnith who has resigned over this decision. It's nice to see a politician who sticks by his guns and stands by what he has said in the past. The government now has a by-election on it's hands. Unfortunately it's a safe seat. I would prefer if it was a marginal to make the Government sweat a bit.
Seems that Goldsmith has stated that he will contest the seat as an independant, not Tory. The Tories have said that they will not be putting up a candidate. Chickens ! They know that Goldsmith will win it and are prepared to lose an MP rather than be embarrased by a defeat. In this seat other the parties don't stand a hope in hell. Damn, I was hoping for a bit of a scrap.
-
I am so against this, and was before I moved to Wales. It is a vanity project, and they have caved in to Willie Walsh and BAAs business objectives. I'd like to know what went on behind the scenes.
I now have enormous respect for Zak Goldsmnith who has resigned over this decision. It's nice to see a politician who sticks by his guns and stands by what he has said in the past. The government now has a by-election on it's hands. Unfortunately it's a safe seat. I would prefer if it was a marginal to make the Government sweat a bit.
Seems that Goldsmith has stated that he will contest the seat as an independant, not Tory. The Tories have said that they will not be putting up a candidate. Chickens ! They know that Goldsmith will win it and are prepared to lose an MP rather than be embarrased by a defeat. In this seat other the parties don't stand a hope in hell. Damn, I was hoping for a bit of a scrap.
Disagree, he's only done it for the publicity, why give him a platform? He'll vote Conservative on every other matter so let him be on this one . Makes sense not to allow him to stir things.
-
I am so against this, and was before I moved to Wales. It is a vanity project, and they have caved in to Willie Walsh and BAAs business objectives. I'd like to know what went on behind the scenes.
I now have enormous respect for Zak Goldsmnith who has resigned over this decision. It's nice to see a politician who sticks by his guns and stands by what he has said in the past. The government now has a by-election on it's hands. Unfortunately it's a safe seat. I would prefer if it was a marginal to make the Government sweat a bit.
Hardly, have you not read his comments? :y
-
I am so against this, and was before I moved to Wales. It is a vanity project, and they have caved in to Willie Walsh and BAAs business objectives. I'd like to know what went on behind the scenes.
I now have enormous respect for Zak Goldsmnith who has resigned over this decision. It's nice to see a politician who sticks by his guns and stands by what he has said in the past. The government now has a by-election on it's hands. Unfortunately it's a safe seat. I would prefer if it was a marginal to make the Government sweat a bit.
Hardly, have you not read his comments? :y
he obviously hasn't ....
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Willie+Walsh&rlz=1C1AVNE_enGB663GB664&oq=Willie+Walsh&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Willie+Walsh+heathrow
:)
-
So if Britain needs more flights and more destinations especially China, where else would they land other than the international hub?
Boris island was poo poo,ed but would have shown the world we can still do massive projects notwithstanding Crossrail for example.
Mrs V asks couldnt they use Northolt and link it to Heathrow?
-
So if Britain needs more flights and more destinations especially China, where else would they land other than the international hub?
Boris island was poo poo,ed but would have shown the world we can still do massive projects notwithstanding Crossrail for example.
Mrs V asks couldnt they use Northolt and link it to Heathrow?
Too short .. some years ago a large aircraft .. 747 I think, mistakenly landed at Northolt and somehow managed to stop without running off the end (thankfully) .. it took nearly 3 weeks to strip all the seats out, and a load of other stuff, catering kit etc etc, so that with even minimum fuel it could take off and get to Heathrow ... caused some consternation to the locals I believe .. :)
-
It's a clever political ploy...
BAA have been badgering as they sold Gatwick knowing that a second runway there is a forgone certainty and they simply want the kudos of the extra runway.
PM says they can have the runway at Heathrow, but have a year to demonstrate that it is actually viable and cost effective.
They cannot deliver this burden of proof, so in a year's time, Gatwick will officially be given the green light.
Tax payers will have to bear the cost of not only of building Heathrow 3, but also of the associated disruption...
Gatwick already has the private funding in place to start building tomorrow, and was effectively given outline planning permission for it in 1979...
-
So if Britain needs more flights and more destinations especially China, where else would they land other than the international hub?
Boris island was poo poo,ed but would have shown the world we can still do massive projects notwithstanding Crossrail for example.
Mrs V asks couldnt they use Northolt and link it to Heathrow?
Gatwick has direct flights to China with both Cathays Pacific and Hainan Airlines and Emirates are looking to increase A380 flights to five a day... The Anglo American open skies agreement and 9/11 killed the US flights from here, but Norwegian are basing their UK hub here with ultimately 100 aircraft being based at Gatwick, similar in scale to EasyJet.
Reality is thst Gatwick will have an operational second runway before the last house in Harmonsworth is vacated.
-
Problem is...they just tread over peoples lives. None of those in favour are going to lose their homes, communities, etc.
Have you driven through Staines, Harmondsworth, Poyle, Colnbrook, Stanwell recently? Those places could do with flattening!
-
I am so against this, and was before I moved to Wales. It is a vanity project, and they have caved in to Willie Walsh and BAAs business objectives. I'd like to know what went on behind the scenes.
I now have enormous respect for Zak Goldsmnith who has resigned over this decision. It's nice to see a politician who sticks by his guns and stands by what he has said in the past. The government now has a by-election on it's hands. Unfortunately it's a safe seat. I would prefer if it was a marginal to make the Government sweat a bit.
Hardly, have you not read his comments? :y
No I hadn't. I stand corrected. But a few years ago he was very much in favour.
-
Problem is...they just tread over peoples lives. None of those in favour are going to lose their homes, communities, etc. So...its going to create 180,000 jobs according to some. What about the existing jammed up roads, where are the houses coming from. Some sources are talking freight, not passenger flights. Surely there must be other options for a freight only airport. ;)
Many years ago when raf Alconbury was being handed back they tried to get planning to turn it into a freight hub air/road and rail, bearing in mind, its been a military airfield since 1941 upto 2006, the local tree huggers and bent councilors, with the help of two jags got it scuppared, If it had happened Heathrow would have had enough capacity, after freight had been removed, without the need to expand.
You cannot just move the freight element to another airport as a lot of it is transported in the spare space in the hold of passenger aircraft.
This is a decision that should have been taken decades ago and we should now be debating another runway on top of this one rather than dithering. Build 2, one at Gatwick as well or better still build a high speed link to Heathrow from Farnborough and turn the I to a larger airport operation. It ready has suitable runways.
-
Problem is...they just tread over peoples lives. None of those in favour are going to lose their homes, communities, etc. So...its going to create 180,000 jobs according to some. What about the existing jammed up roads, where are the houses coming from. Some sources are talking freight, not passenger flights. Surely there must be other options for a freight only airport. ;)
Many years ago when raf Alconbury was being handed back they tried to get planning to turn it into a freight hub air/road and rail, bearing in mind, its been a military airfield since 1941 upto 2006, the local tree huggers and bent councilors, with the help of two jags got it scuppared, If it had happened Heathrow would have had enough capacity, after freight had been removed, without the need to expand.
You cannot just move the freight element to another airport as a lot of it is transported in the spare space in the hold of passenger aircraft.
This is a decision that should have been taken decades ago and we should now be debating another runway on top of this one rather than dithering. Build 2, one at Gatwick as well or better still build a high speed link to Heathrow from Farnborough and turn the I to a larger airport operation. It ready has suitable runways.
It doesn't. It's only 8000' long, which isn't long enough for long haul jets to operate from, there is virtually no airport infrastructure for handling passengers, and the approach goes right over the top of a large town which, unlike Heathrow is built up right to the perimeter fence. If you're going to build connections to other airports, then Northolt is the obvious choice, but that suffers many of the issues associated with FAB.
You need 10000'+ for long haul, and the only 10000'+ civil runways in the south east are at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and IMV all three of these should be given permission to build an extra runway.
-
You cannot just move the freight element to another airport as a lot of it is transported in the spare space in the hold of passenger aircraft.
This is a decision that should have been taken decades ago and we should now be debating another runway on top of this one rather than dithering. Build 2, one at Gatwick as well or better still build a high speed link to Heathrow from Farnborough and turn the I to a larger airport operation. It ready has suitable runways.
Stop it! Don't give them ideas above their station. Based on the airspace they are trying to get for a handful of bizjets a day, they'll need most of Europe to be controlled airspace to accommodate commercial traffic. ::)
-
;D I knew that would get a bite ::)
-
So a suggestion today is to build the end of the new runway over the M25.
Why not go the whole hog and build a soundproof bio sphere over a large part of the houses adjacent to Heathrow. Could be environment controlled, heated etc. Large flaps to drive in and out of like a cold store.
-
Stansted and East Midlands are both freight hubs, with operating hours and road links that suit parcel shipping operations. Heathrow has a strong freight only operation but is severely limited by having to close overnight... another reason for its demanding another runway... it would effectively provide 27 hours capacity within its 19 hour opening window.
Stansted would be a sensible expansion point except for a few critical factors... the railway has no money for a dedicated highspeed link to London (a bit chicken and egg), it's an hour in the wrong direction, the local councils don't want it, the owners aren't interested... they probably use it as a tax write down for Manchester airport ::)
Gatwick is the only viable option... economically, financially and geographically. And that's that.
-
Wherever the new runway(s) is/are built, in <50 years time they will still have to build a new airport, so build it now, either Thames or Severn Estuary, thus avoiding the known hazard of aircraft approaching Heathrow over heavily urbanised areas, and to a lesser extent Gatwick.
-
Expanding Stansted was a serious option a few years back, but it cant be done without erasing many little villages and their churches etc. which have stood in the same place for many many centuries.
When this was pointed out very strongly (cultural vandalism, destruction of Englands green & pleasant land....) by the local pillars of the establishment / seriously wealthy people / Tory stalwarts and donors, et. etc. it was deemed to be a fight that couldn't be won - thankfully. :)
-
So if Britain needs more flights and more destinations especially China, where else would they land other than the international hub?
Boris island was poo poo,ed but would have shown the world we can still do massive projects notwithstanding Crossrail for example.
Mrs V asks couldnt they use Northolt and link it to Heathrow?
Gatwick has direct flights to China with both Cathays Pacific and Hainan Airlines and Emirates are looking to increase A380 flights to five a day... The Anglo American open skies agreement and 9/11 killed the US flights from here, but Norwegian are basing their UK hub here with ultimately 100 aircraft being based at Gatwick, similar in scale to EasyJet.
Reality is thst Gatwick will have an operational second runway before the last house in Harmonsworth is vacated.
Reality is that both are needed as they are both running at near runway capacity so any disruption causes long delays. :(
-
Problem is...they just tread over peoples lives. None of those in favour are going to lose their homes, communities, etc. So...its going to create 180,000 jobs according to some. What about the existing jammed up roads, where are the houses coming from. Some sources are talking freight, not passenger flights. Surely there must be other options for a freight only airport. ;)
Where I live west of London on a Heathrow decent path then at times I do get disturbed from the noise of landing aircraft from 5am onwards, but I'm all in favour of the building of a third and ideally a fourth runway as we need the capacity and it will considerable increase the nations and citizens wealth. :y
-
The thing I find odd about this whole thing, is that these days everything is "save the planet", cut pollution, recycle etc and yet we are encouraging and indeed anticipating an increase in demand for air travel. I'm sure many will argue, but I hardly think that a big metal tube flying at 39,000ft burning up tons of fuel is exactly good for the environment ???
A huge amount of air travel is completely non-essential. Holidays, tourism, fun etc. I'd like to see some comparison between for example a one hour flight versus how many 3 litre cars for a year, or something like that. Trouble is even the rabid tree huggers like their trips and holidays abroad. " I know let's have our "Save The Planet Conference" in . . . . . Japan instead of teleconferencing it. That'll be fun :y And before anyone asks, yes I do take holidays abroad by plane. That's the problem everyone expects it these days.
-
If I have my sensible hat on, Heathrow expansion was the only viable option. As I said last time I believe.
Despite the protestations of some of the more vocal Mancs officials, expanding Mancs (or Brum or anywhere else not London) is a waste of time - they are not at capacity, and are not London.
Gatwick isn't a viable passenger hub while Heathrow remains larger, and is too far out.
Stanstead would never get chosen as its currently London's emergency airport.
Passenger numbers at Luton are dropping like a stone, as nobody, rightly, wants to fly out of that shithole. Ever.
That said, I would have like to have seen a 2 pronged attack - full go-ahead permission at Heathrow, followed by a 2nd runway at Gatwick... ...because we have so many do-gooders, by the time Heathrow is done, we'll already be lagging in capacity. As always, line them up ready for shooting, come the mass cull.
And who cares about Harmondsworth? Its got an immigration centre, a couple of hotels, a really shite pub, and a few houses. Far mores disruption is being caused by HS2, but at least a runway is useful.
-
And before anyone asks, yes I do take holidays abroad by plane. That's the problem everyone expects it these days.
I'd rather drive, as then it avoids dealing with the utter numpties at airports and planes.
Sadly, its not always practical :(
-
I too would rather drive if the option is viable. Although Ive never enjoyed flying, but I used to be ok with flying from Stanstead as it was a relatively friendly little airport, half an hour from home.
Now, you have to queue for what seems like an eternity to get past the Securinazis before you can get within a mile of an aeroplane.
I wouldn't mind if it prevented would be terrorists, but I don't believe for a minute that it would. Its just being seen to be doing something, and giving the type of people who enjoy donning a uniform and ruining peoples days, an excuse top do so.
Its the same when flying out of Belfast. I used to fly in and out of there when there was a clear and present terror threat every day of the year, but there was none of that crap then. Security was very tight, but discreet, targeted, based on intelligence info, and non disruptive to 99% of passengers.
Although I loathe Heathrow and Gatwick with a passion, I must say that last time I flew out of Gatwick - about 4 years ago, the security seemed efficient, without making everyone wish they had gone to Brighton for a holiday instead.
No idea what its like now though. :-\
-
Let's throw this in.
When these people who live in and around Heathrow, bought there houses did they not notice a ruddee great airport or a large plane type thing above them. You chose to live there, nobody forced you to buy a house in that area, Basically put up shut up or move.
-
Friendly is a Gatwick buzzword.
Agreed BG, there's been an operational Airfield here since the Twenties... There's no one living locally who hasn't moved here in the knowledge of the airports' presence.
Contrary to the nimbies, aircraft are cleaner and quieter now, and although passenger numbers are ever increasing, larger, more efficient aircraft actually leads to a slower increase in the relative number of flights.
-
And before anyone asks, yes I do take holidays abroad by plane. That's the problem everyone expects it these days.
I'd rather drive, as then it avoids dealing with the utter numpties at airports and planes.
Sadly, its not always practical :(
If where I'm going is within around 900Km of Calais, I drive, even if there is an overnight stay. Except for the bit that goes under the Channel.
-
Design some decent VTOL....problem solved !!!! It will happen one day :y
-
For long haul I generally opt for Heathrow as a first option followed by a change at a major European hub as a second option.
Gatwick is avoided at all cost as its a shite to get to.
Heathrow has needed a third run way for as long as I have been flying regularly which is a long time!
-
You have the reasonable option of BHX... Easy global access via Dubai...
-
You have the reasonable option of BHX... Easy global access via Dubai...
But not a great option on flights and tends to add major travel time, a quick hop to Schipol or even CDG is far preferred as a second option to a direct flight out of LHR
-
You have the reasonable option of BHX... Easy global access via Dubai...
As long as I have a hole in my backside, I NEVER want to fly from that hellhole again.
The previous 2 times, been there in plenty of time (the last time arriving nearly 3hrs before flight), and been waiting in security when our names are called explicitly (along with plenty others) stating the plane was ready to depart.
Luton is bad, but Birmingham does take incompetence to a new level.
-
Shame, as BHX is dead easy for me to get to :(
-
Gatwick is not a pita for everyone. I am lucky I that I can easily access both.
I am.coming to the realisation that they should have said yes to both. A) because we have dithered for decades on thus issue and by the time the 3rd rutter way is built the need for another runway somewhere will be quite high. B) think back to the NATS phone issue which stopped all.flights at Heathrow. If most of your capacity is in one place all you need is a fire, flood, technological failure in order to render all the capacity to be lost. With a second rutter way at Gatwick you will have extra capacity to deal with the extra burden coming from a closure of 3 runways at Heathrow
-
WTF is a rutter way? :D
Actually, I'd rather not know. :-X
-
;D ;D ;D
Autocorrect, I thought I had retyped that, it must have re-ACed it after. ::)
-
I think it's probably similar to a "dogging lane" .. but posher ;D ;D
-
I think it's probably similar to a "dogging lane" .. but posher ;D ;D
Who lives down that road ??? :o
-
Gatwick is not a pita for everyone. I am lucky I that I can easily access both.
I am.coming to the realisation that they should have said yes to both. A) because we have dithered for decades on thus issue and by the time the 3rd rutter way is built the need for another runway somewhere will be quite high. B) think back to the NATS phone issue which stopped all.flights at Heathrow. If most of your capacity is in one place all you need is a fire, flood, technological failure in order to render all the capacity to be lost. With a second rutter way at Gatwick you will have extra capacity to deal with the extra burden coming from a closure of 3 runways at Heathrow
See my reply #21 :y
-
They haven't said 'No' to Gatwick ;)