Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Voting For Another Airport For London?  
User currently offlinePeq From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (15 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

I have lived in London all my life, and it seems to me that the country's major airports, are running out of space to build, T5 at Heathrow is just taking too long to decide upon, and London,to keep its place as one of the majors in Europe, it must think about expansion.
Who thinks London should another international airport build ,to cope with the demand from Heathrow and Gatwick, and tell me why or perhaps, why not!

This is a vote, please take part, and tell me why or why not!!!!!

Thank u!

See ya!

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (15 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1959 times:

Hello guys,

I agree with fellow peq that a new airport should be built. A large one. Maybe once this airport is built, it will cobine Heathrow and Gatwick services. London really needs another airport to cope. See, residents living near Heathrow and Gatwick are complaining about the noise and Heathrow is getting more and more busier... cannot afford for curfews.

That's my thoughts. Anyone else???

Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlinePeq From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (15 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

comeon-vote! does London nned another airport, i want to hear from people who have travelled through london, what is wrong, what should we do?

thank u to mr BA, like him, just like the airline!

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (15 years 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

London needs another airport like I need a hole in the head.

What the United Kingdom needs is an air transport strategy that acknowledges that the BOAC/British Airways driven London bias of the last 45 years should be thrown away for ever and access to the provincial airports should be opened up to all airlines.

This would reduce interline traffic at LHR and LGW by about 25-30%.

This bias is, of course, wholeheartedly supported by the BAA, which picks up two sets of fees from airlines providing domestic links to the London airports when the journey is started from one of its own airports and is happy to see passengers from non-BAA airports have to detour and pay dearly for using the horrendously over burdened runway and terminal facilities at LHR and LGW.

From certain locations, such as the south west and South Wales the air service is almost non existent and BAA are happy to see people take the train to Paddington and then pay a fortune on the Heathrow Express which it runs as a "service"(?).

There is no doubt that airlines are willing and able to provide major international services to many new points from Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow. In time, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff and Leeds will need more direct services and, in Scotland, Edinburgh and Aberdeen have growth potential to certain destinations.

A corridor 60 miles deep from the Mersey to the Humber contains a population as great as that within a 70 mile radius of Charing Cross, London (1991 UK census figures).

On this basis alone, it is indefensible for so much traffic to have to divert through London, particularly on long haul, because BA, its predecessor and the BAA have had, and still have, certain civil service departments in their pockets to such an extent that bilateral talks on expanding routes to airports outside London consistently break down.

Finally, I well remember the debate, the parliamentary wrangles, the vociferous protests and the massive waste of money spent on finding a site for London's Third Airport in the 1960s.

Perhaps a trick was missed by not building at Foulness, but the residents of Hertfordshire, Essex and Buckinghamshire made it very plain that they did NOT want an airport on their doorsteps.

The development of Stansted was severly hampered for 25 years because of this.

So before contributing short posts agreeing that another airport should be built, take a time to think.

Study an atlas of the south of England, preferably one showing topography and population and then make your pitch - or decide there is a better alternative which would benefit not only London and the south, but over two thirds of the rest of the UK population

User currently offlinePeq From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

so how about spreading out the airports, rather than concentrating all of them in london? to develop other airports, such as manchester?

User currently offlineG-KIRAN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2000, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

I say develop the other regional airports as well,especially Manchester as that has alot of potential to grow.In my opinion they should expand Gatwick,Stansted and Luton and then completly redesigned and rebuild Heathrow from the ground up.Gatwick could do with a 2nd runway and terminal extensions.Luton and Stansted should be allocated charter flights from Heathrow and Gatwick to ease traffic.
Heathrow should be blasted from the face of the earth and then completely rebuilt from scratch.It should have at least 4 parallel runways and 1 main terminal not 5 so that it is easier for transfering passengers.The main terminal will be where 1,2 and 3 are.While the hangers and cargo centre will be where terminal 4 is.The control tower will be in the middle of runway 23.
All this will cost several billion pounds in construction costs and compensation not to mention protests from the local population but for the British aviation industry and economy its worth it.

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

Some interesting ideas G-KIRAN. You may not be aware but in the early 1990s there was a serious proposal by BAA, part of their initial thinking that led to the continuing Terminal 5 debacle, to build a new runway to the north of the A4 (Great West Rd), demolishing acres of Sipson, Harlington and Harmondsworth, not to mention totally re-engineering parts of West Drayton and Hayes.

You can guess what the local reaction to that was!

Re a second Gatwick runway, there is an "understanding" from Government that no second runway would be built at Gatwick until the second decade of the 21st century.

This was called into question in 1996/7 and, within a day of the news that the "promise" was being reconsidered, anti runway posters appeared throughout the Gatwick area and a protest movement got under way. The "change in policy", if it ever had been mooted, quietly faded away.

Then there was the idea of expanding Redhill which the same protest movement also buried.

Back to Heathrow, and the idea of building the terminals in the centre was quite revolutionary in the 1940s. Designed so that runways would not be blocked by crossing traffic, the idea worked brilliantly until Terminal 4 came along.

Whilst some T4 traffic does land on 27L/9R when these are used for takeoff, until the CAA and NATS uses both runways for landing and takeoff, runway congestion will continue.

If there is a controller in this forum who can explain the logic of the Heathrow runway use system to me, I'd be grateful as the last two CEOs of NATS and the previous Chairmen of both BAA and CAA could not really tie down the reason - especially when both runways are used for landings and take offs in parallel in the evening on days when 23 has been in use and caused delays.

User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 25347 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1906 times:

If im not mistaken, im sure that LGW is in an area which cannot be developed further as it is surrounded by a couple of small hills or something.

When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

The hills at Gatwick, Russ hill to the west being the major feature, are not considered a navigation hazard under the airport licensing arrangements, nor would they be with any expansion to the north side.

The south side is totally industrialised and development to the east would entail crossing both major highways and a rail line.

To the west, the hills would preclude much further extension, but a parallel runway is required and one with a "stagger" of over 10,000ft from the current runway would make for difficult operations

User currently offlineN863DA From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 48 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1902 times:

The answer, I believe, is that London needs an airport such as Atlanta, (on a greater scale) located at a place called Cublington, near Wing, in Buckinghamshire. There have been many studies in the past looking at this location, and it would be ideal for such a field.

An airport designed as Atlanta is would allow for muh expansion and adding of terminals in the future.... IE just add another concourse onto the end of the existing buildings. This would allow more airplanes in. Having six parallel runways would mean that there could be, in theory, six movements at any one time, assuming the runways were far enough apart.

The only major design difference would be that the airport would be primarily international, with a few domestics, so have one Domestic terminal and six or seven international concourses.

But bear in mind that the Labor government currently in power is commited to closing any airport in the UK that it can. (Why does that not surprise me?) For example, you are not allowed to land at certain airports on Saturdays or Sundays - because the neighbors don't like it. The fact that the airports have been there since WWII seems to be irrelevant. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they moved in!

(And at ERAU I live on an airfield with plenty of loud MD-88s taking off over my head all the time, so I am well aware what it's like.)

Just my Two Cents on the issue!


N 8 6 3 D A

User currently offlineN863DA From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 48 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1898 times:

And about Gatwick...

BAA is seriously looking at Building a terminal and using the existing runway at Redhill, a few miles north of Gatwick.

It's on the M23 too (same as Gatwick) and has the potential to become a conventient runway site, with less people problems than building a new runway on another 'greenfield' sight.

But if it were built, they would have to rename the current North Terminal   Of course it would make for interesting taxiing from one area to the other (about 10 mins!), and there would have to be an exceptionally good train service between terminals. (Which again could take 10 or 15 mins.)


N 8 6 3 D A

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1896 times:

You obviously don't know much of the history of the 1960's decision on a third London Airport, the process of public enquiry and decision making in British Government or much of the public antipathy to any new greenfield site airport in the UK.

As for a primarily international airport, you don't understand the logistics of travel as they currently exist in the UK with log jammed highways, increasing journey times and railroads only serving major centres with problems of poor performance by operators, which means any new airport would have to be served by connecting internal flights.

As for your crass comment about the Labour govt, please expand on which airports it is committed to closing and which airports "you", whoever "you" may be are denied access to on Saturday or Sunday, and I'll gladly send on your accusations to the Managing Director of each airport and John Prescott for their comments

User currently offlineN863DA From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 48 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

The Labor Government has decreed that you cannot fly (you being any PPL aircraft) into airports (or should I say airfields) such as Panshanger near Hertford, Biggin Hill on certain weekends (a major GA airfield) and even Manston!! We called them up one weekend when we were in the UK a couple of months back and they said they were closed - a surprise, it must be said, so that put a dampner on our flying plans for that weekend. Obviously, if you declared an emergency, any airfield would open up.

As to other lines of communications, the whole thing was only a suggestion!! Lighten up. No I don't know all about the intricate details of London transportation, but he asked for ideas, and I gave him one!

The Redhill idea however, I read in Flight International a few months (up to a year as far as I can remember) on an article about Heathrow Congestion and how keeping at least Gatwick as a major airport was important... hence the possibilty of a new terminal.

Lighten up!


N 8 6 3 D A

User currently offlineJonnyboy From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

Being a Londoner I have every idea about how screwed up the air tranpsort system is.

One of the first problems is the basic fact that the airports are all privately operated to make money, not provide a service. BAA want to make money, not make life easier (T5 will/would be a cash-cow)

You cannot grow Heathrow. Full stop. It is over-capacity, and bar razing it to the ground and moving out the neighbours, changes are limited. Forget it.

Stansted still has a but of room; but bare in mind it is at minimum 1h 20m from West London (where most of the rich people live) and 1h from the City. It could not be the primary focus for London, and it looks like no intercontinental services can get going. But its a nice airport  

Luton is being redeveloped, since it is currently a hole, even further than Stansted. Gatwick is actually in a near identical situation as Heathrow; London City is less than 1% of London traffic; so it seems we return to the point of regional replacement services.

Manchester is growing into a major international airport. No problem there. But in my opinion the UK can only sustain one large airport outside London. It is unrealistic for those in Bristol, Birmingham or Leeds to have a major airport when our country is so small.

The answer is for the REST of the transport system to be improved - so people don't have to fly to Heathrow. They can go by public transport. It would be much easier and more beneficial on the whole to invest in an efficient train system that connects our airports, like they are trying to do in France with CDG.

We still need an airport like CDG...but thats just a few ideas up in the air.

P.S. I am sorry but I think the stat. about population between Mersey and Humber blah, blah, blah is false.

I think you meant within a 70 mile circle, or 35 mile radius. Which means you would get everything up to the greenbelt - but theres a lot more just past it. And you forget that it is much quicker to travel around the SE than the NW. Middlesborough to Liverpool takes much longer than London - Bristol...not to mention the difference in business travellers...anyway...i was just surprised

User currently offlineJonnyboy From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Sorry, I dont think I actually mentioned my opinion on the original topic...Another airport is so necessary, yet so impossible. I would like to see Stansted become Gatwick size eventually, with a terminal extension

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1877 times:


The figures I quote are accurate. The figure at the 1991 census for the corridor was less than in 1981 which was less than in 1971 but the fact remains.

When I was Conference Officer for Greater Manchester Council I was at meeting (in 1982) and gave the statistic. I was challenged by Sir Henry Marking, who was then Chairman of the BTA. I still have his letter of apology and I keep my stats up to date.

I don't know where you get your impressions abot travelling around the south east. My twelve years living in East Sussex and travelling around the Home Counties by road and rail left me longing for my previous existence in N E Lancashire. The north west of England has a far more modern and better connected road system than anywhere in the Home Counties.


You still haven't detailed under what regulations the airfields were closed and justified your comment that it is the Labour Govt to blame.

Panshanger has been a battlefield since the early 1960s and I suspect any restriction is part of the planning regulations imposed by Hertfordshire County Council, the local authority, independent of national govt.

Manston was, until recently an RAF airfield.

The liklihood is your planned flight would have been on a day the airfield was closed. RAF airfields traditionally close on Saturday and Sunday, except in time of war or crisis, and no fire cover is available. In addition, Manston was not classed as an RAF operational field in terms of active units being based there. It was leased to an operating company and, again, Kent County Council applied planning restrictions.

The airfield is now no longer an RAF field.

I don't understand your comments re Biggin Hill. In the twelve years I lived in south east England (1986-1998) the airfield was active in normal operating hours, seven days a week.

Finally, I'll lighten up when people stop posting half truths, inaccurate accusations and downright unsupported nonsense as fact.

User currently offlineN863DA From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 48 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1873 times:

I conceed I don't know what part of the Labor manifesto closed Panshangar. I don't know why either, but all I know is that since 1998, Panshangar, along with other airfields around the country, has been closed on weekends. The person who I spoke to, (namely the guy in the control tower as we paid the landing fee) said that it was due to the Labor govt. that all these fields were closing. It must be said that he was probably as right-wing as I and as loathing of Tony's Cronies, but that is for the non-aviation forum. (Was it not you who said Question, and Question again? Something I would do too if I had a guy like that in power - not that he listens to public opinion...)

And the Manston thing was only a few months back - June I think. And Biggin Hill was the same day, as we were going to go in there instead. So eventually we ended up going to North Weald.

Finally, no matter what I say you'll probably discount it, but don't forget what I came up with was merely a suggestion but not surprisingly, as seems to happen a lot recently, someone jumped down my throat.

Anyways, later y'all.


N 8 6 3 D A

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1872 times:

The people at Panshanger are very much anti any form of government as they have had a very hard time for decades.

Part of it they bring on themselves by not supporting those who would support them - the enthusiasts who they hound off the premises. But they do have a point in as much as the residents seem to have it all their own way.

However, his statement re other airfields is a nonsense. Private aviation is flourishing in the UK given its comparitively high cost.

Re Manston, I understand the RAF were still providing fire cover at that time - though I can't swear to it. Even if they weren't Air Atlanta and the aircraft maintenance facility on the field would be closed, so if there were no flights offerring a reasonable revenue due, (like for instance a 707/DC8/IL76 cargo flight), the airfield licence allows the field to close as its not worth paying for the staff necessary to handle a light aircraft.

I wonder if you tried for Biggin Hill on the airshow day, when only invited aircraft and pre booked slots are available?

This is because the traffic in the area is tightly controlled as the airfield not only sits beneath one of the Heathrow holding points, but is adjacent to the downwind for London City when landing easterlies and is close to Gatwick arrival and departure tracks.

On show days, movements are tightly orchestrated to ensure the programme runs to time and doesn't foul surrounding airspace with backed up participants. Casual visitors are therefore unwelcome.

As to Tony, like most politicians its Tony and his cronies first....but then you should have lived in the UK under the Handbag.

User currently offlineG-KIRAN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2000, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

Another idea.How about building a kansai like airport but alot bigger in the Thames estury near Tilbury.If they dont want another airport then for christs sake at least build t5 before its to late.Looking at a map of Heathrow there is still some space availible where the Perry Oaks sludge works are and maybe they can stick in a 3rd 27/09 runway north of the bath road.This will increase the capacity alot and would have been money well spent unlike a certain dome,eye and bridge.
I would also like to question the local authorities and residents as well,when you build houses near any major international airport you are bound to have noise and air pollution so what were they thinking when they moved in?
London City should have a longer runway if possible to allow 737 type operations.Imagine how good that will be.

In the end I wont be surprised that by the time I am 40 which will be in another 24 years they will still be debating about whether T5 will be built or not.Looking at the state of the British aviation industry its in shambles.British Airways is making a loss,computers at the worlds busiest international airport crashed,inability too plan for future expansion before its to late and the lastest scandal where 12 BA pilots were over the limit and whats next?

User currently offlineG-KIRAN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2000, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

I forgot to mention some other points.Sinagpore Changi airport will have a third terminal ready in 2006 and it will boost their capicity to 60 million.Thats near the amount of passengers that heathrow handles each year and it only handles 28 million.
In Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia they could not expand their old airport due to the fact that it would affect the local population they ended up building it(KLIA) away from the city.Thus giving it the liberty to operate 24 hours a day with out night flight restrictions and plenty of space for expansion.In the end when fully developed it will have 4 runways and 100 million a year capacity.Nothing to worry about there.Any ideas now BAA?
Someone should appeal build a pro terminal 5 website so that people will realise how important heathrow is for not only london but for Britain as a whole.

User currently offlineJonnyboy From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

Phil B,

It is just that I don't think you are comparing like with like, the statistic can be misleading.

You cannot imply that population is the only factor in an airports success. Populations differ in how much they fly. I don't think Manchester could or should be as big as London. In a perfect world though, transport improvements would be made at both airports and we would be spoiled for choice. One other point is that Manchester is the only sizeable airport in its region, wheras London has 2 or 2.5. London handles 100 million between its airports, more than double the whole of the rest of the country. And you cannot assume it is because passengers are forced through London. On its own it is one of the worlds largest air markets.

But anyway, the argument is about a new London airport;

I cannot see a Kansai style airport in London happening simply because no one will wanna put up the money like they want to in Japan - and if the funding was there, the objection would stop it. The public are short-sited when it comes to aviation. NIMBY!!!! Plus, the estuary is like a wildlife reserve or something stupid. And third, One reason Heathrows location is so good is that so much business has grown up and become established in the M3-M4 corridor. Towns like Basingstoke, Reading, Slough, Swindon...they all want a mega-airport down the road. The Thames estuary would be 2 hours from them.

Sorry if it seems all I do is put down other ideas instead of starting my own. But I will say one thing - the airport should ideally be in Heathrows part of the country, and T5 needs to be built regardless. T5 is now a short-term solution, not a long-term one like they thought it would be. It will not be the final answer - but please will they go on and build the thing

User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Here in Boston, Massport has been keen in advertising "Regionalisation". And method to try and reduce pressure by showing the plusses of flying through Manchester, NH, Providence, RI, Worcester and Bedford, MA, and even Hartford, CT.

I think BAA should try and show the plusses of Stansted and Luton. And for regional European flights, other local London airports. Unfortunaltely London City is almost useless in taking up some of the slack, as rules regarding # of flights, and then that famous 5.5° approach.


« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1847 times:

Well aparently Lydd airport, in the south of England is looking to become the next airport with the London designation, despite it being about 60 miles away (correct me if i'm wrong). There was an article about it in Airliner World about three months ago

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8363 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1840 times:


I think in terms of trying to relieve pressure on LHR and LGW, there are two ways to tackle this.

The first method is to build an airport on the scale of DFW or CDG, with 6-8 parallel runways spaced far enough apart for unlimited ICAO Category IIIc operations 24 hours a day. It will have 6-8 large terminal buildings like DFW is now. Only one problem: where in England close enough to London are we going to BUILD such a gigantic airport? I don't think there's enough space in the Thames Estuary to attempt this, not to mention the serious environmental issues of what could be the world's biggest landfill project ever.

The second method is to expand operations at airports in other parts of the UK. I think Manchester and Glasgow could be candidates for airport expansion, so airlines can serve other parts of Great Britain, so everyone don't have to fly to LHR or LGW.

I think the second choice will be a bit more logical, since the first idea will be extremely expensive (read: at least US$10-$15 billion to build, not including transportation infrastructure back into London itself).

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

Johhny boy,

Believe me I am comparing like with like. I am talking about the biggest Metroplex (to use an Americanism) outside of London, of massive business and technology centres with worldwide connections and a travelling public, both business and leisure, that needs/wants to travel as much as any body in the South of England.

I repeat that 25%-30% of all Heathrow and Gatwick traffic is interlining (not all from the UK).

You've got me started now about North v South, how Manchester, and Liverpool which has handled over 1,000,000 pax this year so far, have been done down by various governments and BA in the past in respect of route allocations in order to force people onto the Shuttle. Well many were forced, but Schiphol, Frankfurt and CDG also benefitted, and what good did that do the UK?

I can qoute you facts and figures going back to 1960.

From the late 1970s until the mid 1980s, I spent many a long day in committee meetings, spent weeks in working with others on presentations to airlines, governments, businesses and a host of other interested parties lobbying for direct services from Manchester and other provincial airports. Had, like my other colleagues in both tourism and airport management, promises made face to face to find that, once back in London the Minister or Civil Servant changed his tune.

Since leaving the area I have kept in touch and also run conferences on airport development and airport environment which, in passing, have all tended to show how badly the provincial UK airports have been served, given the population concentrations and the industrial output of the regions and how much that London bias has caused a major imbalance which is dertrimental to the whole of the UK (as are many other factors in the pre-dominance of the south east).

Anyway, with the second runway at Manchester about to open, the future is brighter for at least the northwest corner of the UK and Liverpool should get a new terminal within 3 years. Birmingham is getting new PIA and Emirates services and looking for other carriers too, so the problem might alleviate itself to some degree.

As for Terminal 5, the whole thing is becoming a major joke. perhaps putting Terminal 5 on the site of the sewage works was taking recycling a step too far!

P S Where will all the sewage go from the airport when T5 does eventually arise?

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Qantas Re-Evaluates 777 For Sydney-London posted Mon Jun 26 2006 19:38:39 by Leelaw
TAM Get The Approval For GRU-London Route posted Wed Mar 22 2006 23:53:51 by LipeGIG
Another Stellar Year For Beirut Airport posted Mon Jan 12 2004 03:50:00 by Yegbey01
Idea For Expanding London Capacity posted Thu Oct 16 2003 14:18:42 by Cfalk
007 Theme For MH007 London - Penang Inaugural posted Wed Oct 15 2003 19:40:34 by Gamps
New Owner For Dundee Airport posted Mon Feb 12 2007 23:59:18 by Humberside
AC L1011 Left The Fleet For Flies For Orbital Scie posted Sun Dec 31 2006 00:03:15 by AirCanada014
Major Award For Madrid Airport's New Terminal! posted Sat Oct 14 2006 22:12:10 by Kaitak
LH Asking For Fingerprints For JNB Departures posted Mon Oct 2 2006 09:43:21 by QM001
Jacksonville, Fla Had Another Airport In Jet Era? posted Sun Sep 3 2006 18:46:16 by 727LOVER