Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
British Opposition Leader: No Third LHR Runway!  
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12600 posts, RR: 34
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2194 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.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...ctors/transport/article4152227.ece

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.

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2185 times:

Surprising turn - Conservatives againt the third runway for the airport which was created by their most important grand father.

So Heathrow will see many A380s...


User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

But I bet the Mixed Mode Take off and landing gets ratified. There is plenty of growth right there

User currently offlineItsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2105 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?

User currently offlineTonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1448 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2098 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.
User currently offlineGAWZU From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 235 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2009 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.

User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1972 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.

User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1901 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.


User currently offlineBA787 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1835 times:



Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 6):

Exactly.

It's just the Tories trying to pick up more supporters while the PM is unpopular. I'd put money on him doing a U-turn if he actually came into power.

BA787


User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2531 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1830 times:



Quoting BA787 (Reply 8):
Exactly.

It's just the Tories trying to pick up more supporters while the PM is unpopular. I'd put money on him doing a U-turn if he actually came into power.

BA787

The UK is becoming hopeless... Well they will only have themselves to blame when other economies get stronger than the UK.



Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

Don't suppose anyone knows the answer to this. The glide slope is 3 degrees I believe. Could it be raised to 3.5 or 4.0? It would reduce the noise profile I bet.

User currently offlineRivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 818 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1543 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.

Riv'



I travel, therefore I am.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1509 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.

How sad.


User currently offlineSB From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1475 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  banghead 

S.



"Confirm leave the hold and maintain 320kts?!"
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...
Virgin Calls For Third LHR Runway posted Tue Jun 24 2003 16:28:14 by Kaitak
British Airways From EWR To LHR Deverted posted Tue Jun 3 2008 16:39:41 by MKE22
LHR Runway Ops posted Fri Nov 30 2007 14:39:59 by Boysteve
Why No Direct LHR - MNL Flight? posted Thu Jul 12 2007 15:14:48 by Krje1980
LHR Runway Temporary Closed This Evening? posted Sun Apr 23 2006 01:02:39 by Planesarecool
Why No Direct LHR-LAS? posted Mon Mar 27 2006 15:01:05 by Londonlady71
No QF146's @ LHR Anymore? posted Mon Feb 20 2006 01:31:30 by Timetable
3rd LHR Runway Go Ahead? posted Sat Jan 7 2006 09:04:09 by Scotron11
British Airways Goes No-Frills posted Sat Oct 15 2005 08:57:46 by Delta777Jet
Why No CX LHR-JFK Yet? posted Fri Jul 15 2005 07:29:51 by Asianguy767