airbusa340 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 54 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3648 times:
Maybe we can do a simple poll as to whether LHR should get a third runway!!
Very simple, just answer YES or NO together with the area in the UK or Worldwide that you live.
Let's see how many replies we get in 7 days..
euflyer From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2011, 54 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3504 times:
YES - cheaper to build a new runway than to build a LHR sized replacment airport, and as big build projects in the UK have a tendency to go "a little bit" over budget: wembley stadium, olympic park, scot parliament, west coast re-build.
Hywel From Peru, joined Apr 2008, 719 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3318 times:
I'll be the first to say no. LHR is in a bad location because due to the prevailing winds, runway 27 is in most common use and hence aircraft have to fly over central London. Plus the land around it is already quite busy, with villages, the M4 motorway etc.
I'd prefer to build a brand new airport in the Thames estuary and connect a high-speed train link to central London (the journey could be easily done in 15 mins - same as the current Heathrow Express). Just look at HKG for an example that's worked out well.
Otherwise, the southern side of LGW just consists of fields. Build a new runway and terminal there, and then you wouldn't have to evict villagers like at LHR.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11128 posts, RR: 63 Reply 18, posted (8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2968 times:
No, as a preferred first option I do not believe a third runway should be built.
In a matter of years from opening we will go from two overcrowded runways to three overcrowded runways and be back where we started, with LHR operating at 99% capacity, albeit with a few more frequencies and destinations than before. The UK needs to take a step back and think coherently and holistically about its long term future air travel and connectivity needs. I believe the only way of achieving this is with a clean sheet hub airport, most likely to the East of London in the Thames. This does not mean that other London airports should close or that LHR should close fully (premium, cargo, key business destinations could still be supported and compliment redevelopment); even at low levels of passenger growth a massive new hub could not replace LGW and STN too.
starrymarkb From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2011, 91 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2921 times:
YES - Devon, UK
A big problem with a Thames Esturary airport (or indeed an airport east of London) is that it will make access difficult from a large part of Southern England, The Midlands and anywhere north of London - Heathrow doesn't just serve London!
These are fair points, but what about all the investments on LHR right now, a brand new terminal 5 with all other terminals being renovated? Should these just be used for a decade or so until a new airport is built, leaving them under-utilized when LHR becomes a business/cargo airport?
As the estuary airport is considered kind of a dream right now (environmental and other considerations), where do you think the new airport should be moved? Won't you just end up pissing off people again, just in a different location, who never even imagined having an airport next to them when they built/purchased their homes?
I just don't get the nuisance part with LHR. Yes, aircraft are noisy but I also live in a city where planes approach from all over the place and fly over a big part of the city. In such big cities, the noise from the aircraft is the least of our problems. I have lived in west London, to tell you the truth, my building shaking every time the tube passed below us (which would start early in the morning and go on all day in 3' intervals) was more annoying than aircraft approaching LHR. London is NOT the only city with a busy approach path over it.