Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Economist On LHR: Give It Up  
User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2497 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15601 times:

Check out this highly interesting and extense article from The Economist, definitely worth a read:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10923778

Just a few excerpts:

"London's main airport is bursting at the seams. A third runway and a sixth terminal are not the answer to the congestion."

"Expansion looks like the obvious answer to the well publicised problems of an international airport that is both the world's busiest and the one most loathed by those who use it. However, obvious answers are not always the best. Additional capacity would be quickly filled. Rival airports, notably in continental Europe, already have the capacity and room to grow that Heathrow will always lack. Higher prices for Heathrow's capacity, and more competition from other London airports, may be a better answer"

"In 2003 it published a White Paper on air transport. This advocated two new runways in the south-east by 2030, but the government committed itself only to a second runway at Stansted. A 1979 planning agreement prevents the building of a second runway at Gatwick before 2019. A proposal for a new airport in the Thames estuary was dismissed as too risky and too unkind to birds."

Heathrow's underlying problem is that it has been in the wrong place all along. “Heathrow's history”, says Sir Peter, “is a series of minor planning disasters that together make up one of the country's truly great planning catastrophes.”

"At Heathrow, passenger traffic has been flat for two years or so. But this is probably because some transfer passengers, put off by the airport's squalor and the “one bag” rule imposed by the British government in 2006, switched to less crowded, friendlier hubs."

"In short, Heathrow can never be the competitive global hub the government says it wants it to be. Almost every other country faced with a similar question has chosen to move its hub airport further away from the capital, to where there is space to expand."

"A case could be made for the CAA eventually getting out of price regulation if BAA no longer owned Gatwick, the only existing British airport with the potential (given a second runway), to compete with Heathrow."


In short: give it up expanding Heathrow, expand the other London airports instead, split up BAA, allow Heathrow to increase prices, and consider an all-new major hub away from the city, maybe in the Thames estuary. Let the debate begin  Smile

80 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15486 times:



Quoting R2rho (Thread starter):
In short: give it up expanding Heathrow

Cant happen....because....

Quoting R2rho (Thread starter):
expand the other London airports instead

Will cost billions and take 20 years to cut through the red tape and NIMBYs. The Labour Govt are too spineless to take a stand because they are worried they'll lose a few greeny votes and those of the locals.

Quoting R2rho (Thread starter):
consider an all-new major hub away from the city

As above.

Quoting R2rho (Thread starter):
maybe in the Thames estuary.

Nope - too many birds and treehugging greenies.

So whats the solution?

There isnt one.

Nobody wants anything so we'll just continue to abuse LHR and underuse STN.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15431 times:

Other than seeing the complaints about Heathrow I don't really follow the ins and outs of the proposed developments so don't shoot me down for asking this....

Has there ever been a proposal to move LHR to a location outside the city where there would be no size restriction and then link the airport to major cities by high speed rail with carriages designed for airline passengers? Once the new airport was built and all operations transferred the land could be reclaimed for housing/business projects to help cover the costs involved. (similar to Denver's Stapleton redevelopment).


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15376 times:



Quoting Jbernie (Reply 2):
Has there ever been a proposal to move LHR to a location outside the city where there would be no size restriction and then link the airport to major cities by high speed rail with carriages designed for airline passengers?

No such site exists in the South of England. And if it did - it would be full of tree hugging greenies who think we should all go back to horses and sailing ships.

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 2):
Once the new airport was built and all operations transferred the land could be reclaimed for housing/business projects to help cover the costs involved. (similar to Denver's Stapleton redevelopment).

Such a development would take 25 years and cost more than the GDP of a decent percentage of the EU member states. It will run vastly overbudget, be obsolete before EIS due to inept planning and be finished three years late. To give you a (sarcastic) idea of how f*cked up things are in this country, i'll c&p a joke post I made re the timeframe for redevelopment of what is now T1/2.

Quoting CXfirst:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER:
No idea when T2 closes, but the words "20 years too late" spring to mind.

Lol so true.

Quoting Bongodog1964:
Terminal 2 is due to disappear when construction commences on Heathrow East; as however BAA seems to be in a bit of refinancing bother at present, the start date for this might be delayed.

I don't think the government will allow them to delay too much. I'm sure they don't want an unfinished terminal for the 2012 olympics.

-CXfirst

LOL finished by 2012?

This is Britain we are talking about.

My predicted timeframe:

Oct 2008 - stop using T2.

June 2009 - Submit public tenders for various designs for its replacement.

July 2009 - All designs rejected by local residents.

August 2009 - A rare and previously thought to be extinct breed of dust mite is discovered in T2.

Late-August 2009 - A charity single entitled "Save the Mites = Save our future (and our Children's future)" is released by two ex-Pop Idol nobodies. It goes straight in at number one.

September 2009 - Local residents set up an action group called T.W.A.T.S - (Team Worried and Against Terminal Success) which pickets Parliament to demand that the area is left for animals to graze on, as anything other than this course of action represents what basically amounts to Planetary Homicide. They lodge their formal complaints to the planning commission, which rules that in light of the new complaints against the massive expansion of Heathrow airport and the obvious and irrefutable damage replacing the terminal building will do to London’s green belt, that all previous planning permissions and tenders are null and void. A new planning process is started.

October 2009 – T.W.A.T.S chain themselves to a chainlink fence on the airport perimeter and are forcibly removed by police.

November 2009 – T.W.A.T.S climb in the roof of T5 and splash red paint all over the place to illustrate the murder of the green belt. One tries to break a window and falls to his death. “Stinky” as he is known, of no fixed address, is immediately Martyred. The local Government releases a statement expressing their sincere sorrow at his death. His wife/partner “Crusty” also of no fixed address, sues BAA for having lax enough security to let them in in the first place, and is awarded three million quid in damages. She cuts her hair, has a bath, moves to Kensington, sets up an advertising firm and buys a Range Rover.

December 2009 – Local residents not affiliated to T.W.A.T.S pre-emptively sue the Government for millions because of the emotional hardship so brutally inflicted on their lives by the grim edifice of the new terminal, in whatever form it may take. A Government investigation board is appointed to appoint a committee to do a study of the plans.

June 2010 – Committee appointed.

October 2010 – Committee convened for half an hour.

April 2011 - Committee convened for an hour and ten mins.

November 2011 - Committee convened for a seventeen minutes.

December 2011 – Preliminary findings are released. They say – “It is the opinion of this Committee that a public enquiry should be convened to assess the lawsuit brought by local residents. Once this is complete planning process may begin on the new terminal”

June 2012 – New committee convened which meets for three mins in a bar in Whitehall before taking a treasury credit card to Spearmint Rhino. Signs are put up all round the now derelict and crumbling T2 site that say that BAA is ‘Caring for your future’

November 2012 – T2 blows down in a moderately strong wind. A national day of mourning is held for the dust mites which it is presumed all perished. A charity single rework of Elton John’s ‘Candle in the Wind’ is released, sung by Jason Donovan and a class of primary school kids from Bromsgrove, entitled “You weren’t just a dust mite to me (Give peace a chance)” – its rockets straight to number one.

December 2012 – Work begins on clearing the site. Local residents complain about the noise of the drills and diggers (over the noise of the planes) which are causing emotional problems and successfully get an injunction to prevent the contractors from using any mechanical tools at all. The rubble is moved by hand. Local residents win more millions in compensation, because BAA should never have allowed the building to collapse in the first place.

December 2013 – the site is cleared. The fourth appeal of the planning permission is in the process of being dealt with in the High Courts.


April 2014 – The local residents take their case to the European Court of Human Rights in The Hague.

June 2014 – Final design, an award winning masterpiece of modern design and technical genius from Sir Norman Foster is dismissed on costs grounds. A rival bid from Botchitt & Scarper Ltd is accepted. The commission expresses ‘concerns’ that the design does not have any gates, and that the water feature and timber decking in and around the hard stands are unnecessary.

November 2015 – Work begins.

December 2016 – Work finishes. BAA make a massive glitzy launch and much is made of the fact that it came in with no work overruns and actually early. Rather less is made of the fact that the work is 395% over budget.

March 2017 – Structural engineers state that the building is unsafe. It transpires that the contractors had just poured tar over the ground and stuck beams into the tar. The site foreman, a Paddy O’Murphy, went on record as stating that “It was fine mate, its fine for people’s drives, and its fine for de terminal tingy dat we’re doing for ya’s. Do ya like Dags?”

April 2017 – Botchitt & Scarper Ltd is found to be a fake company. Nobody at the planning commission bothered to do any due diligence because they all had their drives done as a bonus. The new T2 falls down in a light breeze. An Al-Qaida carbomb is blamed.

May 2017 – Local residents sue again for emotional distress caused by the length of the planning process.

July 2021 – A new terminal design is approved.

May 2027 – The new T2 is opened. It was fifteen years late and cost more than nine-billion pounds all told, or 30% more than an entire brand new airport in the Thames Estuary.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineDLPhoenix From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 414 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15268 times:



Quoting Jbernie (Reply 2):

You missed the catch here.
- Any expansion/new airport in a populated area will be blocked by NIMBYs and the cost of relocation.
- Building a new airport in an open area will be blocked by environmentalistss.

This is not unique to the London area. Check out NY metro, Los Angles or the San Fransisco Bay area.

DLP


User currently offline787EWR From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 15039 times:



Quoting R2rho (Thread starter):
In short: give it up expanding Heathrow, expand the other London airports instead, split up BAA, allow Heathrow to increase prices, and consider an all-new major hub away from the city, maybe in the Thames estuary. Let the debate begin

Here is a really stupid idea, but what the heck, I'll say it anyway. Use Heathrow for an International traffic only airport. By this I mean, limit the traffic to international carriers only. BA, should obviously be allowed to operate from there, but only internationally and a few domestic destinations. To handle ongoing traffic, establish high speed, frequent trains(not quite as big of an environmental issue) between Heathrow and the other 3 airports, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton. If you want to fly to any destination in Western Europe, you need to transfer to one of these airports. Of course, you will need to strictly enforce slots at these airports, perhaps forcing airlines to use bigger planes and less frequencies. THis plan is of course, far fetched, but it would reduce traffic while also utilizing resources at the other facilities.

Luton is 30 miles from London(according to it's website). It's limitations is the 7100 foot runway (No 747, 777 or A340 for you). According to Wikipedia, the airport management indicated that they supported the governments plan to expand but community groups opposed it. However, the recent closure of a major factory in the area might sway some of their minds.

Stansted is 30 miles from London. It has a 10,000ft runway. Again, there is talk of expansion which is being limited by local groups. Stansted recently submitted planning for a second runway, but....

Bottom line is London has 4 major airports within 30 miles of it's city center. Would be ideal for British citizens, except for the fact that London is, realistically, the financial and commercial hub for western Europe(No offense to Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt) and everyone wants to travel in and out of it.


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 15024 times:

Chris, thank you for publishing that masterpiece again!!  rotfl  Even the members of Monty Python would be impressed with that...

Heathrow is the perfect example of the old saying, "when you try and please everyone, you end up pleasing no one". Travellers are CONSTANTLY screwed, neighbors want it closed down ("won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?"), British Airways' reputation takes a beating everytime there's a fiasco...who else?

The only people who ARE pleased are the terrorists who have made the western world so security OVER-conscious that ludicrously stupid rules are implemented with no forethought, planning, or common sense. Could someone please explain how the "one bag" rule makes us all safe from terrorism if the "one bag" consists of stuffing three bags into one to get through security and then removing them all once through security? Or how a country expects to tell travellers, "sorry, no checked luggage will be accepted for the next few days. Thank you for flying, and have a nice day...NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!"

And yet, the world fawns over Heathrow as if it were a trip to the moon. While I understand that its proximity to downtown London makes it THE airport of choice, and the number of non-stops scheduled from LHR is staggering, the image that always comes to mind for me is a poorly maintained limousine - yes, it is desirable, but if it is breaking down all the time and you cannot depend on it to function as other limousines do, then why are you bothering?

Both CDG and FRA have their issues, however, the near total catastrophic shut-downs that have plagued LHR recently should make it the last place anyone would want to change planes. AMS is gaining quite a reputation as a decent connecting point for its simplicity and connectivity; similarly, ZRH is well-suited as a transit airport. MAD seems to be taking the lead in expanding its operations to match demand for southern Europe - what other European airports function well for transfers?



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineHjulicher From Liechtenstein, joined Feb 2005, 861 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 14758 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):
My predicted timeframe:

Simply Brilliant. You should send this to the economist.


London has never really made sense to me. It would seem that having so many airports (LHR, LCY, STN, LGW, LTN, did I forget any) is really overkill. I understand that there is enough traffic, but wouldn't building one facility or maybe have two do the job? Why isn't LHR expanded at the expense of shutting the other airports down save LCY and LGW. This way, you reduce traffic, noise and other externalities that airports bring. London needs an airport, so tough luck to those who live near it. I think that consolidation is much more valuable.

Moscow is having a similar problem I think. With 3 major airports right now all undergoing expansion, yet a business community much smaller than London's, I don't see the purpose for having so many airports, but hey, Washington DC has 3 civil commercial airports, NYC also does, and LA greater area has a bunch.



LH 442
User currently offlineVisityyj From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 14677 times:



Quoting Jbernie (Reply 2):
Has there ever been a proposal to move LHR to a location outside the city where there would be no size restriction and then link the airport to major cities by high speed rail with carriages designed for airline passengers?

Yes, it was the Roskill Commission and nominated 5 potential sites in 1971 (yes, 1971 !).

None were developed except for Stansted, although that was a limited expansion of the existing airport not the greenfield site identified by Roskill.

I expect the same non-appearance of the 3rd runway at LHR. O/D traffic is where the future for LHR lies, anybody who willingly uses it to connect onwards to Europe is seriously uninformed.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11116 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 14626 times:

Yeah, it's a sad state of affairs for such a wonderful country with such wonderful people!

Heathrow is, indeed, a national disgrace and it is most disgraceful and disgusting of all that Britain has allowed the economic viability of one of its most important economic engines - namely, Heathrow - to be hijacked by these ridiculous, stupid, misinformed NIMBYs and tree-huggers (the sort who climb on top of airplanes and unfurl banners, and storm the ticketing lobby of new terminals, etc.).

The article was interesting, but as more and more time goes on, I find less and less in The Economist that I can agree with. I personally disagree completely with their assessment that expanding Heathrow is not the answer.

My opinion is that expansion of Heathrow is precisely the answer.

Sure, Heathrow likely won't ever have the number of runway that Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt do, but that's alright - it can still have more than it does now. Just because Heathrow is way behind its continental competitors in terms of runway/terminal capacity now doesn't mean it has to stay that way forever.

A third runway at Heathrow is, to me, a no-brainer, and should begin construction tomorrow. Beyond that, I also think Heathrow needs to, at the very least, redevelop Terminals 1 and 2 into the new Heathrow East structure starting - again - immediately.

No more waiting, discussing, talking, ruminating, debating, hearings, counsels, forums, discussions, etc. Enough is enough already.


User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 792 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 14527 times:

I just wish the UK Government would grow some balls, make a decision and legislate it through quickly.
Short term pain for a few to achieve longterm gain for the majority.



What?
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2641 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14233 times:

What London needs is King Daley. I know you already have a Queen but Mayor Richard Daley would be able to ram a Heathrow expansion through no problem!

User currently offlineAwthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 441 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14012 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 9):
No more waiting, discussing, talking, ruminating, debating, hearings, counsels, forums, discussions, etc. Enough is enough already.

It is already too late. Massive business has been lost to better organised European hubs and the UK economy has already been affected by the failure to positively address the runway shortage in the South of England. In saying this, it is no excuse for giving up. It is time to arrest this decline before it worsens.

However, sadly, bureaucracy and the UK planning nightmare will unfortunately mean that it will be many years before London catches up with where it should be now in 2007. Therefore It will infinitely be a game of catch up and thats what I mean be saying that it is already too late.


User currently offlineFlyLKU From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 787 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13931 times:

Only Heathrow is Heathrow. It may not be the best airport in the world but it is unique and my favorite of them all to visit. ...bet I'm not alone in that!


...are we there yet?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8201 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13814 times:

There is no real excuse for Heathrow to have poor on-time performance.

It's just mis-management. Given the large demand, some capacity controls are necessary. Heathrow already has slots. But maybe it needs fewer slots. Or a forcible re-timing of some slots.

To continue with poor operations is the worst option. Anything is preferable. Including some very nasty options that will make people howl. But that would still bring improvement to the traveler.


User currently offlineJcavinato From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13728 times:

The one bag rule has caused me to avoid LHR with 18 business class trans-Atlantic round trips in the past three years. Absolutely stupid on their part, so I voted with me feet via Eurostar. I have choice, and that choice is to avoid this BAA bunk.

User currently offlineAwthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 441 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13680 times:



Quoting FlyLKU (Reply 13):
Only Heathrow is Heathrow. It may not be the best airport in the world but it is unique and my favorite of them all to visit. ...bet I'm not alone in that!

Yes, despite what I have said in the previous post, I still personally like travelling through LHR. I love the variety of airlines from far afield which are always seen. I use BMI from Belfast City (BHD) regularly and have flown out of LHR on Iberia and Lufthansa from Terminal Two and Cathay Pacific, Emirates and Qatar from Terminal Three. The latter were all late evening flights and consequently suffered no delays.

The only occasion that I flew out of LHR with BA in recent years was on 3rd March this year (short haul to Barcelona) and although I was pleased to get a B763, the delay both in the terminal (30 mins) and after boarding (60 mins) was the first I had really experienced the negative side of using LHR. Also coming back from the same trip I used Iberia from Madrid. The only delays on the whole four screen departures board at Madrid were those to LHR. A little bit embarrassing!


User currently offlineOrdfrbdl From France, joined Aug 2007, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 13519 times:



Quoting United787 (Reply 11):
What London needs is King Daley. I know you already have a Queen but Mayor Richard Daley would be able to ram a Heathrow expansion through no problem!

LHR kinda looks like the European version of ORD already, doesn't it?  Smile

I know the NIMBYs in the North wouldn't like it, but if you're looking to efficiently route pax who are connecting through the UK (i.e. do not really need to be in London), how is the capacity at MAN doing? Any potential for growth in GLA? And, to switch islands, how about developing DUB or SNN? I mean, EI has a decent trans-pond network as well as a good intra-European one.

Just my tuppence worth....



From CDG to BDL, now posting from between ORD and DPA...
User currently offlineAnsettB727 From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 13339 times:



Quoting United787 (Reply 11):

This is so true LOL! I remember waking up one morning to the front page of the Trib and the sudden realisation that Chicago had one less airport because he had bulldozers destroy Meigs Field, literally overnight! What was even funnier were the aircraft parked there overnight that had to be removed by road because there was no way to get them airborne.


User currently offlineWunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12929 times:

What continues to strike me as completely un-understandable is the fact that in a 5-page article about LHR, the Economist could not be scr3wed to mention at least ONCE possible alternatives to short-haul air transport.

No figures whatsoever about short-distance flights in and out of LHR who occupy the exact same amount of airspace and gates and slots as inter-continental flights, but with 70 people on board instead of 300.

The fact that there is no high-speed (300 km/h and above), high-capacity (triple or even quadruple tracks if needed) railtrack between London and Manchester/Birmingham is puzzling, especially in a country that already has high-speed trains (too bad it's only over 130 kilometres). But is beyond puzzling, and downright staggering, is that there simply is no project of such an infrastructure.

How many slots out of LHR for flights to MAN, BHX, NCL or LPL? How many could be easily transferred (and most of the time bettered) onto rail?

The cost of the infrastructure is very comparable to that of a new airport/runway/terminal (about €12m/km). What about thinking outside the square (or the airport), for once?

There goes your need for a third runway or 25th terminal.

 Smile


User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12889 times:

If they wanted to bring LHR up to any sort of efficient hub standard, then a third and fourth runway can be the only real option. The area to the north of the current Heathrow site is about the same size as the Heathrow site itself, so fitting two more parallel runways and a 6th terminal shouldn't be a problem. Of course, with the issues of getting one additional runway, which i can almost guarentee won't be open until long after 2020, proposing a fourth would get the ill-informed tree huggers out crying for the government to be thrown out and all airports to be completely closed down. It makes me sick that a few idiots can prevent the building of something that is going to benefit not just people in the UK, but across the world.

It's simply embarressing that the UK and London's three busiest airports combined have the same amount of runways as CDG alone, despite carrying almost 3 times as many passengers.


User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12771 times:



Quoting Ordfrbdl (Reply 17):
LHR kinda looks like the European version of ORD already, doesn't it?

Except that the City of Chicago has mostly crushed the NIMBYs and is building not one but four new runways.


User currently offlineBRUNOatBHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12557 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):

Absolute genius! had to make this my first post,  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineSFOHORIZON From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12526 times:



Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 21):
Except that the City of Chicago has mostly crushed the NIMBYs and is building not one but four new runways.

Only after years and years of litigation and after the state legislature went around Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald's opposition, did it happen.

The NIMBY's put up a good fight....


User currently offlineWunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12310 times:



Quoting SFOHORIZON (Reply 23):
The NIMBY's put up a good fight....

And why shouldn't they? If you told me that suddenly my apartment which had never been anywhere near a flightpath would now be directly under one, I guess I would take the issue seriously.

This is the difference between increasing aircraft movements at a given infrastructure already in existence, and creating them where they never existed.

This is where I would recommend caution to all NIMBY bashers. I have no sympathy for people who decided to go live underneath final approach at CDG, LHR or NRT. But I certainly understand very much people who chose NOT to go live there but suddenly find themselves substantially impacted by newer developments of these infrastructures.

Treating both sides fairly, regardless of the myopic, megalomaniac fantasies of the "it's vital that [insert appropriate airport name] remain a premier world aviation hub" fan club.

 Smile


25 Adam42185 : i thought they used the taxi way to take-off.... ?
26 CXfirst : I think that the British Government should have a public vote. There should be a couple of options including- - a third runway and a 6th terminal - hi
27 Post contains images WunalaYann : I think you are right. My only concern is that the vested interests with the most money would be able to finance the heavy-hitting communication camp
28 Incitatus : I agree with the Economist. The whole place needs to be bulldozed, including whatever sections are being built right now. London cannot live with its
29 Post contains images SashA : I agree the new terminal should be build outside London. Maybe even construct an island like many in Japan and the successor of Kai Tak in HK. This wa
30 MMEPHX : I gave up on LHR a long while ago. It is an utterly overcrowded mess, and a lovely new Terminal isn't going to fix the real mess of lack of overall sp
31 Lufthansa411 : I think that what the Economist is saying is correct. You cannot solve HUGE problems with tiny fixes. A third runway is just putting a tiny bandage on
32 HZ747300 : it's the perfect place for a megaport, I agree! with a high speed train, where you can check in downtown up to 24 hours in advance! Can't tell you how
33 XJETFlyer : LHR needs to be expanded in a large way. But building other airports is a joke. LHR is a fine established jewel. Continue the progress and understand
34 MetalInyoni : The problem is all issues are localised i.e. the NIMBY's in LHR are different from those at LGW or STN. IF they could all negotiate together and agree
35 VS773ER : CHRISBA777ER, you are a legend. How can you be so so right about this toilet of a country!!!!!!! I wholeheartedly concur How can you be so so right a
36 Killjoy : Since we're all bashing LHR here, I'd like to comment that the final insult to travelers is what I think is a weird attitude problem. Perhaps lack of
37 LVHGEL : Sir, welcome to my respect list.
38 Post contains images Standby87 : My turn to sort out LHR: Get the Japanese in and build a new off-shore airport a la Osaka-Kansai in the Thames Estuary Simultaneously, get the Japanes
39 Standby87 : Sorry - duplicate posting....[Edited 2008-04-01 04:04:40]
40 GFFgold : High speed rail connections whisking domestic travellers to and from LON airports is probably more of a pipe-dream than additional runway capacity. Th
41 BuyantUkhaa : However, building an airport in the Thames would mean you could use the recently opened HS line, for at least half of the journey. I do think that a
42 BeechNut : Build it in France. Send a TGV through the Chunnel... Watch de Gaulle laugh uproariously in his grave... "finally, ve beet ze maudit eeengleesh". Bee
43 Wolflair : Chris, you should get and MBE for your "outstanding and cogent portrayal of modern British attitudes towards new infrastructure development. Mate, I
44 Boeing777/747 : Easy. World's running out of fuel. Flying will come to a stop. No airport expansion needed.
45 CHRISBA777ER : I think a return to the month-long business trip to Singapore is long overdue. Two and a half weeks on a sailing/solar hybrid ship, half an hour meet
46 Farnborough24 : Problem with the idea of high speed rail linking LHR (or its replacement) to major UK cities, and thus removing the need for domestic flying, is that
47 SATX : You sound like a reasonable person. That’s why I think you’ll understand when I say we don’t want horses and sailboats, but we would strongly p
48 CHRISBA777ER : Less than 5% of LHR's flights are domestic runs. Factor in Paris, Brussels etc and you've got circa 8-10% of the flights from LHR that you can reason
49 Post contains images CHRISBA777ER : Yes I know - before you point it out. I didnt book it the guys did.
50 Signol : Here's a thought. Build a nice terminal at Northolt. Build a non-stop underground railway line connecting it to LHR. Have both "airside" and "landside
51 Post contains images Ferroviarius : Good evening. May it be that the problem is not that Heathrow is too small but instead that there simply is too much air traffic. I am not an expert i
52 CHRISBA777ER : I think eventually we'll be forced to - air travel for long-haul only.
53 Incitatus : Not that the majority that hasn't flown has turned the opportunity down because of environmental concerns. Most less favored people - given the choic
54 Jfk777 : The Olympics will fix Heathrow since London wants to put on its best face in 2012.
55 CHRISBA777ER : I wish that were true. Fact is, we are going to humiliate ourselves in front of the world. We cannot organise a drinking session in a brewery, nor a
56 GDB : Very funny stuff Chris, but I recall, recently, a very major infrastructure project coming in on time, working as advertised. The major St Pancras upg
57 CHRISBA777ER : I forgot to mention: when its none of the above, its a track failure, staff shortage, signalling problems, flooded track, electrical supply issues, d
58 CHRISBA777ER : The exception that proves the rule. I fully expect it to be condemned with rising damp or chronic subsidance shortly LOL Oh totally, but then Zimbabw
59 Post contains images Hypersonic : I agree, If they want a 3rd runway at heathrow for short haul & prop etc, Why the Bloody hell NOT use Northolt for Crying Out Loud! - It's only a cou
60 YULWinterSkies : A380.
61 CHRISBA777ER : The local ressies will not wear a new terminal and increase in flights. Also the runway is quite short - would probably mean widebodies on short haul
62 CHRISBA777ER : You'd think so wouldnt you? But the greenies dont like them either.
63 YULWinterSkies : With all my due respect, may i remind you that flying people still are a minority of population and as (perhaps unfortunately in your opinion) the UK
64 Post contains images Voodoo : 'On time' and 'working' is relative. How many years after the French side's equivalents were completed and working? If I didn't have tax and lottery
65 Shankly : Whilst Chris', muse might look amusing to a non-Brit, it might have been better if it had perhaps made truer reference to the actual planning, procure
66 BuyantUkhaa : You don't have much faith in Dutch civil engineering now do you? The Dutch will be the last to go under (just before La Paz airport), just because of
67 Babybus : Gatwick needs to come out of the BAA collection and compete more with LHR. I know we don't have much space here in UK for new airports especially roun
68 Smeg : Stratford now has the problem that it is stuffed full of infrastructure for the items that you mentioned above. There is also not the ability for hig
69 DLPhoenix : And from what we have learned after Hurricane Katrina I would expect AMS to be operational many years after JFK, LGA and EWR (substitute with any US
70 R2rho : As many of you say, there may simply be no answer to the London airport problem, and things will never improve or change. There's only one problem wit
71 Post contains images WunalaYann : Care to explain? What exactly are you referring to? Just remind me... What's the name of that strip in the middle of London again? Oh, yes, the Thame
72 Post contains images WunalaYann : Care to explain? What exactly are you referring to? Just remind me... What's the name of that strip in the middle of London again? Oh, yes, the Thame
73 Post contains images WunalaYann : Care to explain? What exactly are you referring to? Just remind me... What's the name of that strip in the middle of London again? Oh, yes, the Thame
74 Post contains images WunalaYann : Care to explain? What exactly are you referring to? Just remind me... What's the name of that strip in the middle of London again? Oh, yes, the Thame
75 Post contains images WunalaYann : Bugger. What happened to my post? Three times???? Mods??? Help...
76 Voodoo : Heh heh I love the mental image of 10,000 foot high dykes and the KLM fleet spiralling down/up out of the airport, and/or Schiphol raised up on 2-mil
77 CHRISBA777ER : Where can we build its replacement though mate? All very well saying this, and I agree, but there needs to be a replacement. Thames Estuary is out be
78 Wolflair : Have you been to STN area? RWY is 05-23. You have the M11 on one side, very close to the airport, running from N to S. On the south side of the airpo
79 Post contains images Shamrock604 : I doubt this would really be an option for the British Government.. considering that Dublin and Shannon are in a foreign Country (Republic of Ireland
80 WunalaYann : Yes you do. It comes out of St Pancras and Waterloo. Now if that's not central enough for you, I don't know what is. Indeed Chris, but you should try
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...
Is The Emphasis On Florida Worth It? posted Fri Nov 19 2004 01:07:42 by SUNvaLLEY
The Effects On BA's Flights After LHR Incident. posted Thu Jan 17 2008 19:39:15 by Albird87
UA Turns Up The Heat On Proposed Beijing Route. posted Mon Oct 16 2006 22:33:40 by UAL777UK
Virgin LHR-LAX On VS007. Is It A 747 Or A340? posted Thu Oct 20 2005 10:02:25 by Virgin744
Good Article On Low-cost Carriers In The Economist posted Fri Jul 9 2004 15:39:29 by LoneStarMike
What Is The Service On British Airways MIA-LHR? posted Sun Aug 31 2003 19:21:19 by Vkstealth
How Can The Majors Keep It Up? posted Fri Apr 25 2003 16:00:47 by AApilot2b
Boeing Capital Turning Up The Heat On HA posted Tue Mar 25 2003 18:50:48 by HA_DC9
Just How Safe Is It To Use The Lavatory On Planes? posted Wed Oct 2 2002 00:58:43 by Bobcat
Is It Possible To Access The Internet On Planes? posted Wed Feb 13 2002 18:27:39 by Bobcat
Just How Safe Is It To Use The Lavatory On Planes? posted Wed Oct 2 2002 00:58:43 by Bobcat