Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not Stansted?  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5420 posts, RR: 30
Posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13276 times:

Every month or so we get a discussion about London airports for one reason or another and it inevitably spirals into a Heathrow expansion or Thames estuary replacement and variations of those themes.

My question is why not expand Stansted? I've flown into there and it seems to be surrounded by mostly nothing, so lots of space for more runways, terminals, parking, whatever. It's already controlled by the BAA, is closer to London than the Thames estuary proposal and it has the advantage of already being an international airport.

Since it doesn't seem to be brought up as a viable alternative...I'm wondering why? What are the drawbacks about expanding Stansted into the primary London airport?


What the...?
109 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEGSUcrew From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13254 times:

Stansted have been in both local and national news for some time now trying to get a second runway.

As you correctly say, it is surrounded by mostly nothing and they do own the land where the planned runway would be.

The problem is, it would go through a village and obviously the flight-path of final approach would go over others and the British seem notorious for complaining about noise of planes!

Therefore, after many consultations with councils and airport staff, I believe it has been put on hold for some years to come, at the moment.


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2602 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13150 times:

I've never understood the obsession with LHR, to me that airport is a lost case. I would leave it at 2 runways at expand elsewhere. Indeed, STN is too often forgotten. It can easily be expanded to two runways, and even 4 would be possible at a later stage, with minimal nuisance to the communities, particularly when compared to the LHR 3rd runway.

LTN could also be expanded with a runway to the south, LGW is tricky but possible if it weren't for an agreement prohibiting a 2nd runway until 2019. Basically, there are many tehcnically viable options to increase runway capacity in LON, but there is a stubornness, I guess due to historical reasons, to insist on LHR.

But then there is the political viability - the anti-aviation UK governments and the very influential BANANAs mean nothing will happen at STN, LHR, or anywhere else, regardless of technical viability.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5420 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13131 times:

Quoting EGSUcrew (Reply 1):

Therefore, after many consultations with councils and airport staff, I believe it has been put on hold for some years to come, at the moment.

Really? It seems like there's lots of room to the north and west for a parallel runway without impinging on anybody's space or sensibilities.



What the...?
User currently onlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13121 times:

Is the LGW restriction on operating a second runway, building a second runway or making an application.

Given the timescales involved, then the answer is quite important.

Besides the present government are likely to be in power until 2015. So there is no prospect of any change until then.


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12967 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 2):
I've never understood the obsession with LHR, to me that airport is a lost case. I would leave it at 2 runways at expand elsewhere. Indeed, STN is too often forgotten. It can easily be expanded to two runways, and even 4 would be possible at a later stage, with minimal nuisance to the communities, particularly when compared to the LHR 3rd runway.

Agree. How about closing LHR, sell the land to pay for the nuisance to the communities and build a high speed train connection from STN to other points in London?

I am sure there are going to be a ton of money left.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7120 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12931 times:

So the belief is that LHR's prominence in the UK market is by nature?
Governments have really not looked at distributing traffic between the London airports to increase efficiency as they have done with other mass transit and or the roadways for cars - talking about attempts not success -, so we have what we have, and it will only change when traffic numbers start to decline, now since no one really believes that will happen, the precious will simply continue to be more precious.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 8326 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12919 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

London needs a new airport. Start with a clean slate, 4 runways and build a British Changi. The Thames estuary often gets mentioned as a sight.

User currently onlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12854 times:

This has been considered repeatedly for 40 years, (Maplin?). More recently Boris proposed building an artificial island.

Sadly, nothing came from any of these ideas. Talk is cheap, a new airport will not be.


User currently offlinesteve6666 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12661 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 7):
London needs a new airport. Start with a clean slate, 4 runways and build a British Changi. The Thames estuary often gets mentioned as a sight.

Certain parts of the Thames estuary certainly are quite a sight - which make me very glad I live in Surrey.

And therein lies the problem. Heathrow's location puts it within one hour's drive/travel of some ridiculously high proportion of the UK population, particularly those who er, live in Surrey and similar places and tend to buy high yielding tickets.

Moving east, whether to Stansted or the Thames estuary is going to massively reduce the ease of access for multiple millions of UK passengers. There simply isn't the road infrastructure to cope at present, and putting in high speed trains from multiple access points across London will take decades. Quite aside from which, massive migration of the airport workers east would cause significant housing problems.

I fail to see why bulldozing some of the utterly dreadful places around Heathrow is such an issue. Hayes. Urghhhh. Feltham. Double urghhhh. Pay the people the money and move on.



eu nasci ha dez mil anos atras, e nao tem nada nesse mundo que eu nao saiba demais
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 8326 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12592 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting steve6666 (Reply 9):
Moving east, whether to Stansted or the Thames estuary is going to massively reduce the ease of access for multiple millions of UK passengers. There simply isn't the road infrastructure to cope at present, and putting in high speed trains from multiple access points across London will take decades. Quite aside from which, massive migration of the airport workers east would cause significant housing problems.

I fail to see why bulldozing some of the utterly dreadful places around Heathrow is such an issue. Hayes. Urghhhh. Feltham. Double urghhhh. Pay the people the money and move on.

Any totally new airport of a size to replace LHR is going to need highways and lots of non-existent infrastructure. Buy out home owners next to LHR is build a third runway, crying over dreadful neighborhoods is that, just dreadful.


User currently offlinedavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12565 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting r2rho (Reply 2):
Indeed, STN is too often forgotten. It can easily be expanded to two runways, and even 4 would be possible at a later stage, with minimal nuisance to the communities, particularly when compared to the LHR 3rd runway.

And who is going to pay for this? Remember STN hosts FR and they will not stomach stumping more in charges even if they did pass them on to the passengers?

Have we forgotten BA at LHR? Are you seriously expecting them to split themselves over 3 airports before eliminating LHR/LGW ops; we know they'd much prefer to have everything at 1 airport and being the main beneficiary of T5, why would they move?. What about all the other airlines that feed onto or from BA ops? It's not just practical.

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Governments have really not looked at distributing traffic between the London airports

The Traffic Distribution Rules were in place practically barring new entrants into LHR before 1991. Even now, airlines when they have secured LHR slots useful for them are shifting ops from LGW to LHR.


User currently offlineshankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1541 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12340 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
I've flown into there and it seems to be surrounded by mostly nothing

I grew up in the village of Stansted and love this airport, but anyone muttering these words has failed to do their research and made a dumb assumption from what they have seen out of the window of a 737 whilst on finals to 05 or 23

For JC's benefit, STN is surrounded by fine agricultural land, ancient woodland and some of Englands finest villages and towns. It is also located in a country with strict planning laws which now include tough environmental assesments and facilitate inclusion on a level perhaps unmatched by any other modern economy

The mentality of building large inland airports is dead. We all love our air transport but we should also be sensitive to those who live and work around them

Quoting steve6666 (Reply 9):
I fail to see why bulldozing some of the utterly dreadful places around Heathrow is such an issue

Where do you live Steve? People are born, live, die, go to work, are educated, get married, smile and cry in those "utterly dreadful places". You are clearly someone with no heart, no soul or any sense of a greater quality of life or who has ever experienced the wonderful people with their fantastic economic and social fabric who live there.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 7):
London needs a new airport. Start with a clean slate, 4 runways and build a British Changi. The Thames estuary often gets mentioned as a sight

JFK brings the only sensible position to the debate. Maplin Sands airport could have been built for £800m in the 1960's. Thats probably the cost of a single terminal now and was a huge wasted opportunity. The quicker the pile drivers get going in the Thames estuary, the better



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlinejessbp From UK - Wales, joined Dec 2010, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12338 times:

As someone's already noted, heathrow suffers from a good location. From my point of view, I'm 3 hours from LHR. It's a sad fact that most scheduled flights go from lhr. CWL is my nearest airport, but, well you know. Then there's Bristol which is fine if your flying easy jet. My biggest major airport would be Birmingham but heathrow offers more options. By contrast, lgw is 3 hours 30, stn is 3 hours 50 and ltn is way out at 4 hours plus. Placing an airport to telpace heathrow in the estuary would be further again. And that's a lot of the uk your trying to funnel into a very small part of the country. All around the M25.(need I say more on that). Whist I agree that stansted has the space, thanks to NIMBY's and a government that can't see past the short tern, It'll never happen. Heathrow, with all it's faults is in a good spot.

User currently offlinedavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12296 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting shankly (Reply 12):
People are born, live, die, go to work, are educated, get married, smile and cry in those "utterly dreadful places".
Quoting shankly (Reply 12):
The quicker the pile drivers get going in the Thames estuary, the better

So it's not alright to destoy peoples habitat but it's fine to do for the natural habitat? Find that hard to equate with trying to get aviation regarded as not environmentally disastrous.


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12246 times:

There is also a perception that Stansted isn't a 'London' airport and a pain in the backside to get to.

User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2981 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12191 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

An airport within the estuary will be a disaster to the environment and operationally spend several weeks closed because of see mist/fog.

Just look at the times City gets closed !

Someone needs to grasp the net by the handle and after spending time dreaming up things like the HSR2 between points that don't need it Euston- Birmingham and/or a scheme for a High speed rail connection between LHR-LGW directly through mega NIMBY land.

Both of these would cost far more create significant environmental damage far more
than simply building a third runway at LHR- FACT.

As for high speed rail it only begins to work over distances in excess of 150m/225km + when significant time advantages kick in.

I have said before that there already exists a suitable route with much track bed and right alignment that would work to the North and thats the line from St Pancras north through the midlands (industrial heartland) left into Manchester and through Sheffield into Leeds and York .
Birmingham does not need or benefit from High Speed when current Virgin journeys are only 1 hr 10 mins !


User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12155 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
My question is why not expand Stansted?

Because Stansted isn't really a London airport. It would be quicker to get to BHX or MAN for the majority of passengers who live south of the river.

To a Londoner you might as well talk about expanding AMS or GLA. They at least feel nearer.

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 15):
There is also a perception that Stansted isn't a 'London' airport and a pain in the backside to get to.

I rest my case.

I think there needs to be a subsidy for rail travel to Stansted. If you arrive there on a Sunday the rail is always closed and you have paid £23 for a replacement bus service. The massive immigration queues, due to the massive demand for Ryanair flights also create a bad memory.


User currently offlinejet72uk From UK - England, joined Oct 2011, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12117 times:

Talking of bulldozing over land near LHR. Please can it be Southall?

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12086 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 4):

Is the LGW restriction on operating a second runway, building a second runway or making an application.

Remember that LGW has 2 runways, but they are too close to operate simultaneously.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 10):
Any totally new airport of a size to replace LHR is going to need highways and lots of non-existent infrastructure. Buy out home owners next to LHR is build a third runway, crying over dreadful neighborhoods is that, just dreadful.

One man's hell is another's heaven. That said, the doctrine of eminent domain exists for a reason. Compensate the displaced well, choose the smallest footprint and build.

Quoting jet72uk (Reply 18):
Talking of bulldozing over land near LHR. Please can it be Southall?

No way. Too much good food to be had.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11941 times:

Simply put you expand where the market will fly. Heathrow has a critical mass as a hub suffering as it can't expand (yet). STN is a good airport but the public disagrees. It would be an Essex Mirabel.

User currently offlinejet72uk From UK - England, joined Oct 2011, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11222 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 20):

Heathrow will never get it's 3rd runway


User currently offlinekdhurst380 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10591 times:

Only those that live in Stansted's supposed catchment area can truly relate to why it can't and won't expand.

It spans back to why it didn't become the envisioned 'relief' airport all those years ago, it's bloody miles from anywhere!

The reason why Heathrow & Gatwick are so obsessed about, is they're well placed in the countries richest catchment area. Stansted is to the north of London, there's flaw number 1. For anyone in Surrey/Hampshire/Berkshire etc, you either trek through London's rail network, or navigate near enough round the entire M25. It appeals to those in the northern south easterly regions and north Londoners. The Midlanders have Birmingham & East Midlands on their doorsteps.

Rail links to Stansted are in a word, atrocious.

Who's number 1 at Stansted? Ryanair. Are they going to pay for any expansion through fees when they're already in rows with BAA over them? not a hope in hell are they.

Stansted's traffic has been on the decline over the past few years on quite a large scale, this is a problem not faced by any other major airport in the UK. Over the past year, traffic has declined even further and the outlook isn't very good.

New runways will pop up in the south east, once the government pulls its head out of the treehuggers backsides. That will be when it realises that the Dutch, Germans & Spanish actually had the right idea. I would be willing to bet my months payslip that it won't be at Stansted.


User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 783 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10378 times:

Surely if Stansted were expanded then the transport links would be improved as well so comparing todays service with a possible future one is moot.

Stansted is the only inland airport with space to expand and as for being 'in the middle of nowhere', well there are several examples of international airports some distance from their city centres - Kuala Lumpar is about the same distance as Stansted, similarly Narita, Pudong, Incheon, Dulles, etc etc

As for infrastructure and staff...if you build it, they will come, as they obviously have in other countries.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5420 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10356 times:

Quoting Babybus (Reply 17):

Because Stansted isn't really a London airport. It would be quicker to get to BHX or MAN for the majority of passengers who live south of the river.

Stansted is no further from the center of London than Gatwick...which is considered a London airport...and closer than the estuary, which is no airport at all.



Not that it matters...the English are either satisfied enough with the current infrastructure or unwilling to change it.

Just look at the responses in this thread...and even with these few people, we've had the opinions; "you can't knock down houses to expand Heathrow", "you can't destroy the farms around Stansted...and it's not a real London airport anyway", and "you can't destroy the natural environment of the estuary and the location is too susceptible to weather", and "Gatwick expansion won't pass muster in local council"...each as vehement and consolidated in their position as the others.

Now I think I know the real answer to, "why not Stansted?". I may as well have left the name blank. I suspect there isn't a possible location or plan that wouldn't be hopelessly, completely and probably permanently deadlocked by opinion and special interest.

LHR will never get another runway, STN will always remain nothing more than a ryan/easy hub, Gatwick slots will always be a consolation prize to LHR and the Thames estuary will always be deemed to environmentally sensitive for any development there.

The most likely scenario in my mind, (and research), is that the status quo will remain far into the future...and life goes on.



What the...?
25 fcogafa : As for low visibility regularly closing an airport, well modern aircraft can land in very low vis, LCY is not an appropriate example due to its specia
26 icna05e : Yes. 2019 is (almost) around the corner. That restriction will soon be void, in times when 5 good years is an optimistic timescale for planning and b
27 kdhurst380 : Bull, Gatwick is surrounded by Surrey and Sussex countryside, they've got three or four fields under ownership now for future expansion, and there's
28 fcogafa : Once again, Stansted is being commented on in its current context. The plans for Stansted a few years ago showed that there is space for four runways
29 JoeCanuck : ...and you've made a rather boorish statement. Okey dokey...google maps give the road distance from Stansted to Charing cross station as 35.6 miles,
30 kdhurst380 : I saw those plans yes, and all that was running through my head was who the hell is going to firstly pay for it, and then shift all their operations
31 DanTaylor2006 : And you are only considering the car as an option... which completely ignores the public transport options to each airport. So whilst the difference
32 JoeCanuck : I didn't say I had all the answers, I just got one of them from a quick google search. I'm just asking questions. I don't have any dog in this fight.
33 skipness1E : The key issue is that many would use FRA, AMS or CDG over STN. There seems to be a lack of understanding of how the market behaves. Buck the market an
34 JoeCanuck : I'm talking about expansion and you're talking about today. LHR is never getting a third runway, so cross off that option. Gatwick is frozen by local
35 kdhurst380 : Tbf, LGW's restriction means nothing when the planning process in the UK would take that long anyway. The governments view on aviation policy is neith
36 JoeCanuck : So if the Gatwick expansion restrictions could be lifted and they could put in at least one more runway, (presumably parallel for simultaneous ops),
37 photoshooter : STN is a big, nice airport. I've been there 5-6 times now and it's a convenient airport. Although, the bathrooms should be cleaned more often, Usually
38 planesmith : All London Airports have drawbacks to potential expansion. Any expansion will inevitably bring out protesters in their droves. We live on a tiny isla
39 Post contains images TCASAlert : OK so lets get an objective view on this then. Liverpool Street: LGW 1h06m, STN ~50m Kings Cross/St Pancreas: LGW 1h11m, STN 1h04m Charing Cross: LGW
40 JoeCanuck : So there are drawbacks to every option...is there a best, realistic option, given the setbacks for each? Is there an option that is the least objectio
41 kdhurst380 : The most frequent services to LGW of a London terminal are from Victoria though, that aside, you cannot avoid London if you go by rail to STN if you'
42 par13del : I do believe that until forced, the status quo will be the desired option even though no one wants to admit it. The option for a third runway was pus
43 DanTaylor2006 : Interesting. I get different figures for each of those journeys, but hey ho, each to their own. Either way, I don't actually care about the whole Lon
44 par13del : If it becomes the main airport one would expect that the transportation infrasturcture would have to be improved. It does seem to be the best of the
45 skipness1E : Joecanuck it's important to point out that London's primary airport should be plugged into the businesses driving the economy. That's the M4 corridor
46 par13del : However LHR is constrained, there was an article on the web putting a price on traffic that LHR has already lost to airports on the continent, even i
47 Post contains images maddog888 : Woah there a minute, no sane person would use those routes to LGW..... Leaving out Victoria to LGW significantly skews the data in favour of STN. Eve
48 DanTaylor2006 : Most likely, yes, but for the Midlands this would need to be a new Motorway, limited stop train service or an entirely new railway itself. A new moto
49 shankly : David, are you arguing for arguments sake? Where would you stick the new airport? Exactly, it has to go somewhere and on balance coastal locations wi
50 photoshooter : Interesting, I was wondering if it's a some sort of tradition in the UK....
51 Revelation : Some parallels to NYC, IMHO. Sounds kind of like Stewart. If everyone involved decided the right thing to do was to make one big NYC airport like the
52 TCASAlert : Apologies, I am not familiar with the geography of London to that detail, I just picked the stations I'd heard of (probably from a Monopoly board lol
53 AirbusA6 : With the terrible state of the world economy, especially in Europe and the rising price of fuel - car journeys are notably down because of this - does
54 kdhurst380 : LHR is our hub airport, biggest player is British Airways. LGW's model is something quite mixed, its a model that's rare to find. The biggest player
55 EuroWings : Of course, you also have Luton and the latest addition of Southend (with newly announced easyJet services) to consider as LCC-style airports serving
56 kdhurst380 : Probably not right this second, but they will do. We have this awful habit in the UK of sitting on our arses until a need arises, rather than forward
57 Revelation : The answer of course is no. The next question is how much is anyone willing to do anything about it? As above, a single airport solution can easily c
58 VV701 : Surely this question holds the key. Does it matter what we think? Hardly. What does matter are the airlines. None of us will fly into STN however gre
59 JoeCanuck : Most of my LHR experiences have been transiting through T-3...and it was painful every time...especially the up to 3 hours standing in line to go thr
60 Post contains images TCASAlert : I have only transitted LHR once, from T3 International to T1 domestic. The experience was certainly not a seamless one, involving buses and lots of c
61 cmf : I can understand BHX and MAN but how can AMS, FRA, MUC etc be easier than STN? Only way I can see the later come in to play is if you fly to them and
62 adriaticflight : Listen all the London airports are used by Londoners for different reasons. People fly from Stansted for various reasons. The destinations served fro
63 DanTaylor2006 : Because I can go via AMS/FRA/MUC etc from my local airport, i.e. BHX and MAN. That eliminates the need to travel and, if you look hard enough, the fa
64 david_itl : And in the meantime the airlines are not exactly clamouring to fly there. Until that is understood, there'll always be a problem regarding London and
65 skipness1E : It's got nothing to do with access to central London, LHR is hardly connected well but that will improve dramatically with Crossrail. It's about conne
66 JoeCanuck : I have been truly blessed by never having had to use CDG. LHR has the connection which is why it's most desirable. It has the most flight options for
67 cmf : I can buy all of that as the situation today. But the premise of the thread is an expanded STN and I do not see why it should be much different switc
68 lhr380 : What happens to all the people that live around the airport and surrounding towns that work there? A lot of things comes with a airport, from transpo
69 DanTaylor2006 : Ah, this is where I think we might have our wires crossed... there are no, and will not be any, flights into STN from BHX/EMA etc. If, for example, B
70 skipness1E : Joe why do you say airlines would move out to Essex with no issue? Is LHR closed at this point? How do you intend to serve wealthy West London and the
71 lhr380 : Heathrow Express 15 min travel time to central London (Non stop from LHR Central after starting at T5) Heathrow Connect 25 Min travel time to central
72 Post contains images cmf : Heathrow Express and Connect. Great if you're going to/close Paddington but for those who aren't it is between OK and horrible. For some reason I've
73 VV701 : Who knows for certain?. But with the prospect of the local economy declining to a fraction of its current level, with the prospect of 120,000 or more
74 YVRLTN : Not to pick on you personally, but here is one of the big issues. Snobby people in west London look down their noses at east London and Essex as the
75 JoeCanuck : I am speaking theoretically if London ever went with a consolidated, unified airport. It's not a fantasy since I have already acknowledged that nothi
76 Flyingfox27 : One thing i wonder about is, people in other countries (with the exception of man made island airports) do they just shrug and say ok you can build an
77 lhr380 : Paddington has access to the underground network connecting to nearby mainline stations such as Euston Kings Cross Charring Cross and Victoria which
78 UAL777UK : To get to its a Royal pain in the backside. I live in Reading and was on a 5.00 pm flight out of STN on the 19th August. My other half thought I was
79 bennett123 : If you live in Reading, why not take the train to LGW.
80 lhr380 : Or train to Feltham and local bus (1 goes to T5 one goes to Central for T1 and 3)
81 AirbusA6 : A single airport for London would be a nightmare for those people on the wrong side of London to it, unless you demolished Central London to build it
82 Post contains links JoeCanuck : YYC is going through this right now. Basically the process is the same there as it seems to be in England...public meetings, proposals to buy land, (
83 Revelation : NIMBYs surely do exist in the US, so that's why the current expansion of Chicago O'Hare is pretty remarkable:
84 booforty : As a passenger, I cannot stand travelling through Stansted. My last two experiences (within the last 12 months) have been horrible and I will now try
85 adriaticflight : Yes. but we must remember that Stansted is an airport for London, as a Londoner i could't care less if people from the provinces fly via the continen
86 Post contains images DanTaylor2006 : And by the same token, a lot of the passengers using Londons airports don't come from London, they come from regions around it, just like myself. So
87 kdhurst380 : You know, the South East as a region is the largest, richest catchment area for the London airports, the operators will tell you that.
88 MillwallSean : CDG suffers from the anglosaxon animosity towards France. It's not a bad airport at all. The main issue for some is that the first language is French
89 JoeCanuck : Language isn't an issue at other major international airports in countries where english is not the first language, at least the ones I've flown thro
90 YTZ : I find it curious that people debate so much over current access to STN. Surely it's cheaper to improve access to STN through a combination or road an
91 bennett123 : More likely, no new airport, no new runways. There is no political will for any of that and no money.
92 OzarkD9S : Yes indeed. We have quite a few pockets of notoriously vocal ones: HPN TTN SNA LGB And the usual hemming and hawing around almost any airport looking
93 YTZ : Wikipedia lists a Thames Estuary airport as something approaching 40 billion pounds. For that price tag, LHR, LGW and STN could all get their extra ru
94 bennett123 : IMO, the Thames Estuary Airport will never happen. it is all academic.
95 Post contains links 2travel2know2 : There's a discussion somewhere in these forums about Possible LGW-LHR rail link thus the idea of the "Heatwick" airport complex. UK aviation authoriti
96 mogandoCI : That's a much better plan. Also give rail discounts to passengers who already hold an onward connection boarding pass at the other airport. Seoul alr
97 mogandoCI : they really only need to construct Paddington to Victoria segment, then it becomes Heathrow-Paddington-Victoria-Gatwick express. limited new infrastr
98 skipness1E : As a Londoner, it's not really like that at all. Why would spend billions linking LHR and LGW by rail? The only reason that makes any sense is for co
99 Post contains links VV701 : Buit it is not welcomed by the airlines because it does not meet their key need, an increase in capacity. It simply spends £5 billion in connecting
100 YTZ : Yet at the end of the day something has to give. And I doubt the 40 billion pound solution will take the lead.
101 Burkhard : Having flown into most London airports, and visited them for spotting, and having worked on them for FSX layouts, there are two options for London whi
102 gingersnap : I don't get what's so bad about STN. I've flew through there many a time and I've had nothing but good experiences. To be honest, apart from a 2 hour
103 skipness1E : Nope, LHR runway 3 is the realistic one, with a second runway at Gatwick once the 2019 agreement is expired. Those are very difficult decision with m
104 YTZ : I'd agree with the above. I think after all the arguments are had, that's the conclusion that will be reached. 3rd runway at LHR and 2nd runway at LGW
105 DCA-ROCguy : This is IMO what is politically about the only available solution. 50 years of not planning ahead has put Britain in a box. Want to keep LHR? Plan on
106 skipness1E : BA are not going ever going to be flying thr A380 to MAD beyond service intro, there's not nearly enough connectivity, MAD is too far compared with AM
107 DCA-ROCguy : If I understand Reply 101 correctly--and I could be wrong--this was an exaggeration to make a point. LHR simply will not be able to handle all of the
108 YTZ : I'm pretty sure he was being facetious about flying 4 A380s per hour to MAD.
109 JoeCanuck : Super, duper high speed rail would do it.
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...
Why Not More Long Haul From Orly? posted Mon Dec 20 2010 06:07:13 by britannia25
Why Not A New 767? posted Fri Nov 26 2010 18:51:02 by RG787
IAH And DTW Airport Names-why Not "International"? posted Sun Sep 5 2010 06:56:18 by CIDflyer
DL Ex-NW 744/A330 BE/WBC Seats - Why Not Leather? posted Tue Aug 3 2010 18:27:11 by 1337Delta764
Why Not Many 737NGs For Europe Legacies? posted Sat Jul 24 2010 21:12:58 by YVRLTN
WN: Why Not The 738 And/or 739? posted Wed Jul 21 2010 14:38:46 by 777fan
Terminal 3 At SIN - Why Not SQ & MI Terminal? posted Wed Jul 21 2010 02:39:21 by initious
Why Not A 787F/A350F? posted Wed May 26 2010 16:13:59 by LPSHobby
Why Not PLU-SDU With Props/ERJ-145s Anymore? posted Wed Apr 28 2010 07:14:46 by LPSHobby
TU154? Why Not Junk Them All? posted Wed Apr 14 2010 01:21:39 by VC10er