superhub
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:17 pm

Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 5:03 pm

From BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5024770.stm

---------------------
Heathrow airport should be phased out and replaced with a new international hub to the east of London, a planning charity has claimed.

The Town and County Planning Association argues 30,000 homes could be built on the "catastrophically" planned west London site instead.

A Thames Estuary hub would stop plane noise over London and further expansion of Heathrow displacing villages.

The group said the swap should happen over the next century.

The report also claims that a high-speed rail link, from the new site, would be an alternative to "environmentally damaging short-haul flights".

'Logistically impossible'

In the paper, Heathrow's 60-year history was condemned as "a series of minor planning disasters that together make up one of the country's truly great planning catastrophes."

The report's authors Tony Hall and Sir Peter Hall said passengers who fumed at the "long taxiing operations culminating in a take-off queue, or at long periods spent in the four holding areas" might well echo Dr Johnson's famous remark about a dog walking on its hind legs.

"It's not that it is done well, but you are surprised to find it is done at all," wrote Dr Johnson.

They also said it would be "logistically impossible" for the airport to be phased out in a short time scale of five or ten years.

A housing development at Heathrow could be worth more than £6.8bn, they said.

----------------------
 
nosedive
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 2:18 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 5:09 pm

YAY NIMBYS!


Your post should be relevant to the topic discussed.
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2107
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 5:15 pm

I saw this report and think the whole idea of a move would be nothing far short of ridiculous. Planning issues aside the geographical position of the UK's major hub away on the Eastern side of London makes no sense at all, not forgetting the damage it would do to the enviromenmt there.
And do we honestly think that with T5 on its way that the government would move across town.......me thinks not.....I am in no doubt that a third runway will be seen at LHR or at least planning agreed in 10yrs or so.
 
superhub
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:17 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 5:16 pm

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 1):
Your post should be relevant to the topic discussed.

Sorry? I don't understand what you are trying to say. My post is a simple copy+paste of the BBC article. The thread title is the BBC title...it's not my own opinion.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 5:16 pm

Oh please. No way is that going to happen.

It would also be more inconvenient to get to LHR for me.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
SA7700
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:38 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 5:57 pm

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 1):
YAY NIMBYS!

Exactly, and in another 60 years time the "new" LHR will also be a pain for housing developments to the East. Will Heathrow then be moved further to the Eeast and be built on a man-made island (e.g. KIX) just a stone throw away from Dover??

Move the people to the estuary. LHR was there first.  twocents 


Rgds

SA7700
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
 
Geo772
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 6:39 pm

One of the main reasons that there is such a housing shortage in the west of london is becasue of all the jobs that heathrow has created and continuously supports.

If Heathrow were to move then it would just create problems elsewhere.

And another thing, the housing they say will be worth £6.8billion but heathrow is almost certainly worth more than that, certainly to the economy.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 7:14 pm

London already has 5 international airports. I don't think it needs another one.
 
voodoo
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:14 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 7:59 pm

What a bunch of amateurs those Town and Country Association people are.
Even if they closed the airport and built houses on Heathrow's land you can see Gatwick and Luton each tripling in size from the demand for service closer than `Estuary International'. Too funny.
` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
 
kazzie
Posts: 1655
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:09 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 8:07 pm

Wont work

LHR's current location is perfect, Its linked to the tube network and coach networks very well, not to mention the link it has to the M25 and the M40.
Bazinga punk.
 
mhodgson
Posts: 4673
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 8:47 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Stupid idea. LHR wasn't catastrophically planned; at the time it was the best site, and it simply grew up. Now people who move into the area think its the airport that shouldn't be there, rather than them!

Plus an airport in the estuary would require demolition of villages, and unless they built north-south runways would still require London overflights.
No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
 
bananaboy
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:58 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 9:38 pm

Quoting Superhub (Reply 3):
Quoting Nosedive (Reply 1):
Your post should be relevant to the topic discussed.

Sorry? I don't understand what you are trying to say. My post is a simple copy+paste of the BBC article. The thread title is the BBC title...it's not my own opinion.

Don't worry Superhub ... that text has been used as a filler. The website returns that text (and more) when it thinks the post you are trying to add is too short to be of value.


Mark
All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
 
avroarrow
Posts: 804
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 10:40 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 9:49 pm

I wonder if we'll ever see vast tracts of urban/industrial wasteland in cities torn down and re-developed into an airport? I can think of a few cities in Canada with downtown areas that are all but abandoned and would certainly benifit from the employment and greenspace offered by an airport. Although I guess it has been done to an extent with LCY.
Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
 
aviationfreak
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 9:01 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 10:01 pm

Lets stop the building of T5 then  Wink

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 5):
Exactly, and in another 60 years time the "new" LHR will also be a pain for housing developments to the East. Will Heathrow then be moved further to the Eeast and be built on a man-made island (e.g. KIX) just a stone throw away from Dover??

Oh why not. In the Netherlands they are talking about a second off-shore AMS in the Northsea. Why not combining it with a 'second' Heathrow somewhere in the middle. Big grin
I love both Airbus and Boeing as much as I love aviation!
 
noelg
Posts: 2313
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 11:39 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 10:28 pm

They've been talking about this for years - I remember the arguments last time round about 5 years ago when they released proposed plans etc.

It's a great idea, especially if they merged the operations from the other London airports into that one.

Think Hong Kong's new airport to see the benefits that's had - more room for expansion from the outset. Add in a good transport link to and from London and the rest of the country and it would be great.

It will never happen in the UK though. It took years and years of public enquiries to get T5 and even that's still a couple of years from opening, so imagine how long it would take for a new London airport?

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 4):
It would also be more inconvenient to get to
LHR for me.

Of course! Stop the whole development because Singapore_Air will have a slightly longer journey to the airport!  sarcastic 

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 5):
Exactly, and in another 60 years time the "new" LHR will also be a pain for housing developments to the East.



Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 10):
Plus an airport in the estuary would require demolition of villages,

They are talking about making it in the Thames Estuary - i.e. an island with rail links in the estuary. There aren't many houses in the Thames Estuary!

Quoting Kazzie (Reply 9):
LHR's current location is perfect

...if you live in London. For the rest of the country it is a nightmare. For a start if you drive it means you driving on the worst car park in the UK - the M25. Rail links are poor - unless you live on that rail line it requires getting a train into Central London, then negotiating the London Underground with your cases. A coach to LHR takes at least 3 hours from the Midlands, from our house it's a good 4 hours (it goes through all the minor towns enroute too).

The proposed "new" airport would hopefully have much better transport links from the rest of the country, and not just be a "London International" airport.

Quoting Peterinlisbon (Reply 7):
London already has 5 international airports. I don't think it needs another one.

They're talking about replacing LHR, not adding another one...
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 10:28 pm

It's not going to happen, not in our lifetime anyway. The logistics and cost of relocating Heathrow would be too expensive and too time-consuming. Not to mention the bureacracy, paperwork and government commitees that would get in the way. It would be nice to have a Japanese-style offshore airport, but it's simply not feasible in the next 50 years. In that time LHR will be a completely different airport from what it is now. LHR is currently undergoing a major facelift, plus there's terminal 5 to come. It also doesn't make sense to build an airport to the east of London where there is already one, LHR is ideally placed in west London with good transport links to London and the surrounding counties. This article is simply a demonstration of nimby-ism and selfishnes, LHR contributes more than £5 billion to the UK economy annually, and provides the livelyhoods of thousands of people.
In Arsene we trust!!
 
filton216
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:19 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 10:47 pm

Why dont they move the villages near heathrow to the spot on the east side of London and build on from there.

filton216
Filton216 - The home of Concorde 216!
 
highpeaklad
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:19 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 10:59 pm

But think of the planning constraints! Ok, its seems like a good site to start with, but think on its a replacement heathrow we're looking at. I would think at least three or 4 runways so the area required will be vast. If its going in the estuary there's bound to be some wildlife affected so the environmentalists will be up in arms. It will need a new rail link, but which part of the already overcrowded network will that connect into, which line can take an extra 4 trains an hour in the peak. Where's the motorway running from the airport going to go? I would imagine the associated transport infrastructure required will need many homes to be demolished and would be even more of a problem getting planning permission than the airport itself. Where are the staff going to be found? Its unlikely all the tens of thousands of Heathrow staff will want to move 50 miles to the East so you've got another problem. Finally, planning. It took over 10 years to get planning permission for a new terminal just how long do you think it would take to get permission for a whole new airport the size of Heathrow?

Far better to develop Heathrow incrementally, new runways at Gatwick and Stansted and perhaps dedicated train links between all three to make transfers easier.

Good idea on paper. bad idea in practice.

Chris
Don't try to keep up with the Joneses - bring them down to your level !
 
VEEREF
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:55 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 11:04 pm

What exactly is a "planning charity"?
Airplanes are cool. Aviation sucks.
 
HS748
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Mon May 29, 2006 11:27 pm

An airport on the Thames estuary has been talked about for more than thirty years. It will never happen - LHR will continue to expand, regardless of what the NIMBY's think.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 12:01 am

Quoting VEEREF (Reply 18):
What exactly is a "planning charity"?

Just guessing, something like Habitat for Humanity. If so, then you could add yet another level of NIMBYism to the reasons this will never happen.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 12:05 am

Shut down LHR????  boggled 

I must be dreaming....that's like shutting down ORD and expanding Midway 20X or 30X...IMPOSSIBLE and totally ludricrous!!!!!
The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
 
art
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 12:08 am

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 5):
Exactly, and in another 60 years time the "new" LHR will also be a pain for housing developments to the East. Will Heathrow then be moved further to the Eeast and be built on a man-made island (e.g. KIX) just a stone throw away from Dover??

More or less what was proposed nearly 40 years ago but closer to London.

Quoting Arsenal@LHR (Reply 14):
This article is simply a demonstration of nimby-ism and selfishnes,

Not exactly. IIRC expansion of Heathrow has been approved several times on the basis "thus far and no further".

Quoting Noelg (Reply 15):
It will never happen in the UK though. It took years and years of public enquiries to get T5 and even that's still a couple of years from opening, so imagine how long it would take for a new London airport?

If a new London airport were proposed east of London in the sea, a public enquiry could be relatively quick since the main inconvenience would be to fish.
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 12:12 am

This "planning charity" is being a bit naive. What about all the jobs that LHR supports?

I thought the argument was that placing an new airport in the estuary would disrupt wildlife too much.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 12:13 am

Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 10):
Stupid idea.

Quite! And impossible. You simply cannot 'phase out' Heathrow. If it were to be 'phased out' it would be viable until the day BA moved - and, like their move to T5 it would be a day and it simply could not:

Quoting Superhub (Thread starter):
happen over the next century

The following day it would be non viable and more than 60,000 people would be redundant. So you either decide to keep it or build a new airport and transfer all operations over a very short period.

The idea of putting it to the east of London (to reduce the numbers of aircraft overflying central London) would, contrary to what the authors propound, be an environmental disaster. If you are planning a green field airport with environmental consideration you do not position it as far away from the centre of the population using the facility as you can. That simply multiplies the length of the average car journey to reach the airport and the one form of transport that is less environmentally friendly than the aeroplane is the automobile.

Of course here this group would probably argue that a new ground public transport system would supplant the use of the car simply because they do not realise how heavilly journeys to the airport are waiterd towards the very early morning when other people do not wish to travel. So having an exprerss raiul service from central London is no help if you cannot get into central London to catch the early departure you need to get to the airport in time to check in and go through security in time to board your 0730 hours flight.

From this perspective the proposal of the late 1980s to build a new airport at Wing / Cublington in north Buckinghamshire was the soundest. But now it is my view that an LHR / LGW / STN solution is the only viable one from which ever way you approach the issue. Any other approach would have massively disadvantagous economic consequences.
 
HS748
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 12:58 am

Quoting Voodoo (Reply 8):
What a bunch of amateurs those Town and Country Association people are.

You clearly have no idea what the Town and Country Planning Association is (so I'll enlighten you....)

Quoting VEEREF (Reply 18):
What exactly is a "planning charity"?



Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 20):
Just guessing, something like Habitat for Humanity. If so, then you could add yet another level of NIMBYism to the reasons this will never happen.

The Town and Country Planning Association is a trade body that represents Town Planners - it's legal status is charitable as it exists solely to represent the interests of its members. It's not the type of charity that goes around shaking tins!

[Edited 2006-05-29 17:59:48]
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 1:22 am

Quoting HS748 (Reply 25):
The Town and Country Planning Association is a trade body that represents Town Planners

This, of course, makes them 'professionals'. But professionals can still act like a bunch of amateurs. From my own experience - and I am not griping about a planning application that I made and was refused or ammended - many Town Planners have little concept of the real world and seem to be only able to act within the tight boundaries and their own interpretation of the various Planning Guidelines (that are, after all, only 'guidelines') issued by central government. They even use independent consultants whose expertise is often only theoretical and not based on the real world.
 
bigb
Posts: 722
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 1:35 am

I think it would be a good idea
ETSN Baber, USN
 
noelg
Posts: 2313
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 11:39 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 1:41 am

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 21):
that's like shutting down ORD and expanding Midway 20X or 30X...IMPOSSIBLE and totally ludricrous!!!!!



Quoting VV701 (Reply 24):
Stupid idea.

Quite! And impossible.



Quoting VV701 (Reply 24):
more than 60,000 people would be redundant. So you either decide to keep it or build a new airport and transfer all operations over a very short period.

If it's so impossible, how did HKG, KIX, OSL all manage it? I'm sure there are plenty more examples of an airport 'moving'.....and last I heard CX, JL and SK were all major profitable airlines, minimal disruption occurred to their operations...

Although we are of course talking about the UK here, who couldn't organise a p!$$ up in a brewery, and where a sprinkle of snow brings the country to a halt...

[Edited 2006-05-29 18:46:17]
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8548
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 2:03 am

Quoting Noelg (Reply 29):
If it's so impossible, how did HKG, KIX, OSL all manage it? I'm sure there are plenty more examples of an airport 'moving'....

Don't forget DFW..

There's a decent history of moving airports, it isn't unheard of by any means. If the logistics of redeveloping the airport within its perimeter (like ORD) is beyond reasonable means, then reasonable options are few and far between.

However, if London built a modern, interconnected airport (i.e. people actually use it) and chose a well optimized layout like DFW, ORD, DEN, or ATL, the prospects of the 747 and A380 would take a major hit.
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 2:26 am

There's no need to move heathrow; it's where it needs to be, but of course its heavily utilised which incurs noise, traffic congestion and pollution. Moving the airport won't make these problems go away, in fact it'll create a whole set of new ones I'm sure. Press on with T-5, roll on A380, work with what we have rather than working on something new.
Resident TechOps Troll
 
AngelAirways
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 1999 3:55 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 2:46 am

Ha! Go away!

How on earth are us people living to the west of London, going to get to some airport in the Thames Estuary? Why dont they go build all those lovely homes in the Thames Estuary!

I say Build a third Runway at LHR and run over the houses.. they can find somewhere else to live...
 
amhilde
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:01 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 2:51 am

Quoting Babybus (Reply 23):
This "planning charity" is being a bit naive. What about all the jobs that LHR supports?

Thats for another charity to deal with! I think there are more difficult planning decisions to be made throughout the UK than proposing to move the damn airport.
Hang on tightly, Let go lightly
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 2:53 am

Quoting Noelg (Reply 29):
Quoting VV701 (Reply 24):
more than 60,000 people would be redundant. So you either decide to keep it or build a new airport and transfer all operations over a very short period.

If it's so impossible, how did AND OLD: Hong Kong - Kai Tak International (HKG / VHHH) (closed), China - Hong Kong">HKG, KIX, OSL all manage it?

Please be good enough to read what I said before critiicising it. I said 'So you either decide to keep it OR BUILD A NEW AIRPORT AND TRANSFER ALL OPERATIONS OVER A VERY SHORT PERIOD' which is exactly what they did at Kai Tak and Fornebu.

The idea that 'the swap should happen OVER THE NEXT CENTURY' (particularly recognising that flight itself is only a century old) is clearly ridiculous:

Quoting Superhub (Thread starter):
The group said the swap should happen over the next century.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 3:07 am

Unfortunately for us, no one who supports and or understands the reasoning behind this suggestion is a member of this site, or choose not to engage in a discourse. I read the link to the article, but will admit, that I would be interested in hearing the "Other side of the story"

History has shown that whenever large projects are first thought of, the majority just jump on the no bandwagon.
 
nosedive
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 2:18 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 3:46 am

Quoting Superhub (Reply 3):
Your post should be relevant to the topic discussed.
Sorry? I don't understand what you are trying to say. My post is a simple copy+paste of the BBC article. The thread title is the BBC title...it's not my own opinion



Quoting BananaBoY (Reply 11):
Don't worry Superhub ... that text has been used as a filler. The website returns that text (and more) when it thinks the post you are trying to add is too short to be of value.

Pretty much, BananaBoY. I was just getting to the to the heart of the matter, Superhub, and my message was too short.
 
cxsjr
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:44 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 4:12 am

I personally think LHR is a frigging embarrassment; for what is one of the worlds most important cities, LHR doesn't even come close to airports like HKG, SIN, KIX, DEN and undoubtedly the new BKK (when it happens) to name but a few. It's outdated to the extreme and having to stack just about every time you land there is a pain in the ass!

I too think relocating would've been a much better idea than building T4/T5 but don't really go with east of town. There must be plenty of other suitable green/brownfield sites west of London?
The world is a book, those who do not travel read only one page ....
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 4:19 am

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 21):
I must be dreaming....that's like shutting down ORD and expanding Midway 20X or 30X...IMPOSSIBLE and totally ludricrous!!!!!

While I agree it won't happen, your analogy is a little off. MDW is a close-in airport bounded on all sides by city.

This is a bit more like closing Stapleton and building DIA... somewhat more reasonable don't you think?

N
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 4:39 am

I say we move everything back to Croyden!  Smile

Steve
 
cosec59
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:59 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 4:42 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 40):
I say we move everything back to Croyden!

 old   old   Wink
Rules are for the obedience of fools but for the guidance of wise men
 
highflyer9790
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:21 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 5:10 am

Quoting Superhub (Thread starter):
Heathrow airport should be phased out and replaced with a new international hub to the east of London

gimme a break. one of the busiest, largest airports in the world isn't going to be relocated by a bunch of planees on a board that has nothing else to do.

just my  twocents 
121
 
StarGoldLHR
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:29 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 5:43 am

Quoting Cxsjr (Reply 38):
I personally think LHR is a frigging embarrassment; for what is one of the worlds most important cities, LHR doesn't even come close to airports like HKG, SIN, KIX, DEN and

I agree with this whole heartedly...


No other city in the world do you arrive at an airport where:

- The rail link is always delayed, suspended or having "planned engineering works".

- Where the access roads are Jam packed to traffic

- 30 minute Taxi-ing / Circling for take off / landing slots are scheduled as part of the flight time + 30 mins for "unscheduled" delays.

- Elevators, escalators and any other passenger devices are out of order, awaiting routing maintenace.

- EU Passengers wait longer for immigration than passengers from the rest of the world.

- Yellow / Black Welcome to London sign has broken lighting and missing letters and is still lit by fish-oil victorian lamps from the 60's, but which century isnt known.

- The gates have a missing false ceiling with loose wired dangling round.

- Archaeolgists find long dead passengers amongst dinasours remains excavated in the ground.

The airport is a disgrace, there is no room to expand without moving everyone out, and even then it's only a matter of time before one plane falls out of the sky onto the centre of london.

A new airport in the thames, like HKG, like SFO, like JFK, like AMS, like SIN, like CDG, and any other major airport... is out of town, connected by good transport links, with no/few neighbours and is ultra modern... not like an old pair of jeans with a dozen patches and badges sown on.

LHR = Dogs Dinner.
So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
 
irishmd11
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 5:49 am

Quoting Highpeaklad (Reply 17):
new runways at Gatwick

Why not upon the Isle of Wight, just in case of any slight emerging difficulty???

Gerry.
ATR 72,Avro 85,BAC 1-11,Concorde,Trident,BAE146,BN Islander,707,727,737,741,743,744757,767,772,773,DC-9,DC-10,MD-11,MD-8
 
noelg
Posts: 2313
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 11:39 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 5:52 am

Quoting Irishmd11 (Reply 44):
Quoting Highpeaklad (Reply 17):
new runways at Gatwick

Why not upon the Isle of Wight, just in case of any slight emerging difficulty???

I say we eliminate the problem at the root - just completely flatten London and build a huge airport over the top of it! That way - no more NIMBYs, and we get rid of Britain's crudhole in one foul swoop!  Wink
 
HS748
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 5:54 am

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 43):
No other city in the world do you arrive at an airport where:

- The rail link is always delayed, suspended or having "planned engineering works".

I use LHR at least twice a week and I can only think of one occassion when the Heathrow Express has been suspended. Whilst it's certainly not cheap it is, on the whole, comfortable and reliable.
 
mainMAN
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:55 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 6:10 am

Quoting Noelg (Reply 15):
For the rest of the country it is a nightmare. For a start if you drive it means you driving on the worst car park in the UK - the M25. Rail links are poor - unless you live on that rail line it requires getting a train into Central London, then negotiating the London Underground with your cases. A coach to LHR takes at least 3 hours from the Midlands, from our house it's a good 4 hours (it goes through all the minor towns enroute too).

You've just reminded me why I've never used LHR for an international flight.

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 43):
The airport is a disgrace, there is no room to expand without moving everyone out, and even then it's only a matter of time before one plane falls out of the sky onto the centre of london.

It's alarming how much conflicting air traffic flies low over London. I was once pretty convinced I'd had a lucky mid-air escape climbing over Kilburn, to be precise.

LHR has got its problems, big ones by the sounds of it StarGold, but they could be remedied. After T5 and LHR East, BAA should completely rebuild T3 and then T1, sort of transport once and for all, introduce rail links to Reading and South West London/Surrey........it wouldn't take a miracle to sort LHR out by any means.

[Edited 2006-05-29 23:11:53]
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 6:14 am

I think the entire notion of moving LHR is stupid. Nearly every big airport on earth that is more than a few decades old has this issue. JFK in New York is out of space, and the real estate it sits on has greatly appreciated. Likewise, Chicago will have to displace thousands to allow the continual improvements and expansions required of O'Hare to meet volume demands. People want to move those airports. I'm sure every big city with a global hub airport has people who don't like it where it is.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
MAS777
Posts: 2757
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 7:27 am

I guess in an ideal world and environmentalists aside - expansion at LGW would have been the ideal answer with a new terminal and an additional runway.

Gatwick already has the infrastructure to keep growing. The Gatwick Express could expand to service London Bridge (right in the heart of the City of London). A long-overdue Gatwick-Heathrow rail service could also be built. Gatwick already has direct rail-links with Luton and the whole national rail network north of London via the Thameslink route which runs underneath the city.

If Terminal 5 had been built at LGW - this would have meant OneWorld partners being able to consolidate seamlessly at LGW. Gatwick also does not seem to have such tight controls over noise curfews although I guess that would change in time.

BA could also then further develop their Birmingham hub to cater to areas of the UK west/north of London.
 
AussieItaliano
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 7:56 am

Well, there have been times when this has worked, and times where it hasn't.

The one major situation where an attempt failed was in Montreal. When YMX was built, it was intentioned to replace YUL. However, not long after the new airport opened, AC and others would not move their domestic and transborder flights. That was the beginning of the end for YMX, which no longer has any commercial traffic.

However, it has worked in places like DEN, ATL, HKG and KIX to name a few. But in order to get those airports to succeed, the old one (closer to the city centre) was closed.

However, there is also the third type of airport replacement. I'm thinking of DFW (where the Wright Amendment limited traffic in and out of DAL), IAD (where DCA has a perimeter rule), and JFK (the airport is primarily for overseas flights while LGA is for domestic traffic).

In London, there are already 5 international airports. If one were to be closed down, does another one really need to be built? One of the main reasons why LHR is so busy and airlines want to land there is because of the proximity to London. If you shut it down, and move it to the Thames Estuary (further from London than LGW is currently), then LGW just becomes the new preferred airport for airlines.

The only way that an LHR replacement would work is if it were still the closest major airport to Central London. Otherwise, you'll have a new Mirabel International White Elephant to look at while the airlines move most of their flights to LGW and the displaced employees try to find new jobs and homes near there.
Third Runway - LHR, Second Runway - LGW, Build Them Both!!!
 
ReverseThrust
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 8:24 pm

RE: Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"

Tue May 30, 2006 8:02 am

The airport would actually be quite cool if it A: Got finished. B: Made to look decent and C: given proportionate numbers of staff to deal with passenger throughput. I was there on Friday in Terminal 3 and at 1pm they had 2 people on the security / X-Ray point and queues for over an hour to get through, having to run for my flight!

The airport is the same thorugh and through, whichever terminal you fly from. So moving it is not the point. It is substandard and a long way short of many other airports, even those which are not particularly new. Anyway, the UK would never keep to budget on such a new project and the NIMBY's will always find somewhere else to put 30,000 houses if they're so desperate to ruin the environment.
Flown MD11/81/82/83/87/90,B732/733/734/735/737W/738/739/742/752/753,F70/100,A300/319/320/321/332/333/343,TU134A/154M,L10