Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 13170 posts, RR: 33 Posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2522 times:
The leader of the British Conservative party, David Cameron - seen by many as the most likely person to be Britain's next PM, due to the stumbling Gordon Brown - has today all but ruled out a third runway at Heathrow.
Speaking on the issue, he accuses Brown of pigheadedly trying to pursue a political point (although he didn't specify what that point was); the rejection by DC of a third runway would come as a blow to the business community in particular and may well have a negative outcome for the Tories, particularly if DC can be portrayed as unwilling or unable to make difficult choices.
Of course, it could well be that the papers are quoting him as going further than he actually went - wouldn't be the first time for that, so we'll see if there's any wriggle room left.
Itsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2433 times:
I was reading somewhere how a few years ago Star Alliance showed great interest in a proposed new airport in the Thames Estuary, but the Govt pushed for increased Heathrow expansion instead of pursuing other options. Given how our new Mayor seems to support, or atleast seems open to the arguements of an estuary airport, i wonder if this could get more traction?
Tonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1564 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
The UK NEEDS that third runway. They have already ruled out any possibility of creating a new more suitable alternative such as another airport out in the Thames Estuary and even if they expand LGW or STN it will still not be enough. LHR needs to expand, people want an integrated transport system and thats a fact!!!
My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
GAWZU From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 235 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2337 times:
A third, short runway at LHR would be another episode to the botch job that is UK aviation. A little bit here, a bit more there. It will never satisfy demand in the long term, and we'd be back to square one in no time. Not to mention the cost of clearing the communities north of LHR. A second runway at STN is a better option (LGW won't see one soon enough), but I really believe that London needs a new, purpose built field all together - land or sea.
ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1450 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
It's a surprise policy for the Tories; with a PM that is becoming so unpopular, there is more to be gained by the Conservatives by disagreeing with Brown than by agreeing where it makes sense to do so. It's unfortunate; perhaps 2-3 years ago the Tories would have openly supported a Labour-led measure to push ahead with the 3rd runway.
UAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 6): It's a surprise policy for the Tories; with a PM that is becoming so unpopular, there is more to be gained by the Conservatives by disagreeing with Brown than by agreeing where it makes sense to do so. It's unfortunate; perhaps 2-3 years ago the Tories would have openly supported a Labour-led measure to push ahead with the 3rd runway.
Agreed. I am surprised that Cameron has come out with this, we all know Boris is opposed to the Third runway. IMHO LHR is screaming out for a third runway, whether we will ever see one is another thing altogether.
Rivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 908 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1871 times:
Actually, I saw the interview (or one of his interviews on this subject), and what was said was that the case for the 3rd runway (in an economic sense as well as in an environmentally acceptable sense) was not proven, and it would have to be proven convincingly for the Conservatives to back any such proposal. That's not quite the same as "no 3rd runway!", but of course the media (and those that report on the media) often prefer to 'manipulate' the message in order to make it more sensational.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 13203 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1837 times:
And Heathrow slips further into European megahub irrelevance.
It never ceases to amaze me how a country so great and advanced - in some ways - could be so backwards and regressive when it comes to their aviation industry, which is, after all, fairly critical consider this great country is an island.
Heathrow is arguably the economic engine of the United Kingdom, together with the City (which itself relies heavily on the premium travel options out of Heathrow). By continuing to artificially constrain Heathrow, all that happens is that London becomes not only a less-attractive and less-competitive air hub, but eventually, just a less competitive city in which to do business.
It's bad enough that Heathrow - as it is - is like a third world country in many cases. (You'd think they could have already gotten that sorted out.) They are now making steady progress with Terminal 5, and hopefully with the refurbishment of Terminal 3 - which is desperately needed.
But not investing in a third runway - which Heathrow really needed two decades ago, and definitely still needs now, is just short-sighted and wrong.
SB From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1803 times:
Stumbled across this last night: London Oxford Airport. Although hardly the perfect solution it seems to me far better than an airport out in the Thames estuary, and much better than throwing more money into the certain disaster which is Heathrow. It could conceivably replace Heathrow in the long term.
But this is the UK . . . A "new" airport will never ever be built