JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 4007
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:12 am

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...?
 
EGSUcrew
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 6:01 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:23 am

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.
 
r2rho
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:47 am

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.
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 4007
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:49 am

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...?
 
bennett123
Posts: 7530
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:53 am

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.
 
panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:48 am

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:57 am

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.
 
jfk777
Posts: 5960
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:01 pm

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.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7530
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:14 pm

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.
 
steve6666
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:03 pm

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.
A306, A318, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A346, A388, B722, B732, B733, B734, B735, B73G, B738, B742, B744, B752, B753, B762, B763, B764, B772, B773, B77W, B787-8, BAe-146, Cessna Something, DC-10, E175, E195, ERJ145, MD-11, MD-80, PA Something
 
jfk777
Posts: 5960
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:28 pm

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.
 
David_itl
Posts: 5993
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:34 pm

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.
 
shankly
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:04 pm

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
 
jessbp
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:07 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:04 pm

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.
 
David_itl
Posts: 5993
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:19 pm

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.
 
G-CIVP
Posts: 1468
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:38 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:30 pm

There is also a perception that Stansted isn't a 'London' airport and a pain in the backside to get to.
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:42 pm

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 !
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:57 pm

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.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
jet72uk
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:14 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:04 pm

Talking of bulldozing over land near LHR. Please can it be Southall?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:13 pm

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
 
skipness1E
Posts: 3451
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:06 pm

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.
 
jet72uk
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:14 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:36 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 20):

Heathrow will never get it's 3rd runway
 
kdhurst380
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:52 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:12 pm

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.
 
fcogafa
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:46 pm

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.
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 4007
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:51 pm

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...?
 
fcogafa
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:07 pm

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 special circumstances, short runway, glidepath etc.

Heathrow is never closed because of low vis, Yes it does reduce the number of arrivals but even that would not be such an issue if the runways were further apart, as they would be on Boris Island, and were able to operate independently of each other. MLS helps too....

[Edited 2011-10-08 15:10:09]
 
icna05e
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:11 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:17 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 4):
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.

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 building infrastructure.

I think LGW has a big opportunity. The corner it's stuck in is one of big wealth, and frankly it could like STN expand with comparatively little environemental footprint (says Google Earth).

Quoting jessbp (Reply 13):
CWL is my nearest airport
Quoting jessbp (Reply 13):
stn is 3 hours 50 and ltn is way out at 4 hours plus

Hey I am puzzled here. Still contemplating Google Earth it makes little sense, since from Cardiff you'd have to drive past LTN to get to STN. Or am I mistaking?
 
kdhurst380
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:52 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:19 pm

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 23):

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.

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 not a hint of urbanisation that would have to be bulldozed to make way for it. All those examples seem to be primary airports of their respective cities no? Stansted isn't. The people paying for anything at Stansted are the bus services, and bucket & spade clientele. You do the maths.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 24):

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.

The centre of London is measured from Charing Cross station. Come back to me when you've got mileage distance for both of them. I think you'll find that you've made a rather uneducated statement.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 24):
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 idea of selling Gatwick was to create competition, people pipe up constantly (not saying it's you) with these ridiculous theories that it's somehow harder to get to than Heathrow. Gatwick is not quite the rotting hovel it was a few years ago, it's becoming a much nicer place, and this is reflected in the airlines that are taking up slots there.
 
fcogafa
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:32 pm

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 27):
bulldozed to make way for it. All those examples seem to be primary airports of their respective cities no? Stansted isn't. The people paying for anything at Stansted are the bus services, and bucket & spade clientele. You do the maths.

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 and additional terminals. This then would become the primary London airport, whether it replaced Heathrow entirely or not.

[Edited 2011-10-08 15:38:05]
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 4007
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:33 pm

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 27):

The centre of London is measured from Charing Cross station. Come back to me when you've got mileage distance for both of them. I think you'll find that you've made a rather uneducated statement.


...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, and 57 minutes. Gatwick to Charing cross station is 28.8 miles but they say it takes an hour to make the trip.

So, my good yet much too hasty to rush to the keyboard man, while it is by road a 5-7 miles longer trip to Stansted, it actually takes less time.

Since trip time is more important to the traveler than actual distance, Stansted can actually be considered closer.

Besides, you consider 5 miles to be a deal breaker? Maybe if you're walking but by modern conveyance, not a big deal for most.
What the...?
 
kdhurst380
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:52 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:45 pm

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 28):
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 and additional terminals. This then would become the primary London airport, whether it replaced Heathrow or not.

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 to it.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
...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, and 57 minutes. Gatwick to Charing cross station is 28.8 miles but they say it takes an hour to make the trip.

So, my good yet much too hasty to rush to the keyboard man, while it is by road a 5-7 miles longer trip to Stansted, it actually takes less time.

Since trip time is more important to the traveler than actual distance, Stansted can actually be considered closer.

Besides, you consider 5 miles to be a deal breaker? Maybe if you're walking but by modern conveyance, not a big deal for most.

Are you being serious? The MINIMUM time from Liverpool Street to Stansted is 45 minutes by train, London Bridge to Gatwick is 32 minutes. Gatwick is served by a 24 hour Brighton line commuter train.

I was disproving your theory that they're equal distance, as that is completely incorrect.

We then have to take into consideration that contrary to popular overseas belief, we don't all live in London. Which is why Stansted for its catchment area is a pain in the arse to get to, Stansted's rail links force you to either go north or go into London, from Gatwick you can avoid London and still get to most parts of the UK in a reasonable time.

The all important deal breaker is the catchment area, that is the south east, and getting to north London by road is painful to even think about!
 
User avatar
DanTaylor2006
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:15 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:46 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
Besides, you consider 5 miles to be a deal breaker? Maybe if you're walking but by modern conveyance, not a big deal for most.

And you are only considering the car as an option... which completely ignores the public transport options to each airport.

So whilst the difference may be negligible by road, by train, for instance, it's less so...

Charing Cross to Stansted Airport takes 1 hour 27 minutes.
Charing Cross to Gatwick Airport takes 47 minutes.

These times are the fastest possible journey time courtesy of National Rail journey planner. That's 45 minutes difference... a bit more significant.

Stansted to me will always lose when I consider London airports. Being from North of Birmingham it's far easier for me to get to Heathrow or Gatwick than Stansted, and Gatwick is the wrong side of London for me! Improving its transport links could work, sure, but really... I'd still rather go from Heathrow or Gatwick.

[Edited 2011-10-08 15:53:49]
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 4007
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:04 pm

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 30):

Are you being serious? The MINIMUM time from Liverpool Street to Stansted is 45 minutes by train, London Bridge to Gatwick is 32 minutes. Gatwick is served by a 24 hour Brighton line commuter train.

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...and I really don't care what the English to with their airports...I was asking the question out of curiosity and you don't like Stansted...ok...check that one off for you.

While you might not, I saw plenty of cars in the lots at Stansted so somebody drives there.

As it turns out, and you can see from this thread, some of your countrymen don't have the same prejudice against that option.

So that doesn't actually change anything. LHR and Gatwick are still out for expansion and does anyone really believe that Gatwick will ever get another runway?

People are talking about a line between LHR and Gatwick...if you're going to build lines, maybe it's possible to build a better one to Stansted.

Some want to go through the massive expense and undertaking of the estuary option...which not only requires trains, but roads and actually building a whole airport on a swamp. It would probably be cheaper to build a faster train to Stansted than build a whole new airport...but that's just an uneducated guess.

Quoting DanTaylor2006 (Reply 31):
These times are the fastest possible journey time courtesy of National Rail journey planner. That's 45 minutes difference... a bit more significant than 5.

Right...so for some it's shorter for some it's not...that's going to happen regardless of where any airport is.
What the...?
 
skipness1E
Posts: 3451
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:06 pm

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 and you get STN or YMX! It depends on what question you are answering. Plug the UK into the world economy via the tough and correct runway 3 at Heathrow or pretend that people will connect LGW to LHR without entering the UK on a new multi billion pound railway line between LHR and LGW. That's comic! Stansted is not seen by the market to be a key London airport. Given that without subsidising FR there's barely a business case for a single runway STN, what's the point in expansion that NONE of it's customers want!? It's barmy.
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 4007
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:36 am

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 33):

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 councils until 2019, and has there been one whiff they won't freeze it for another 2 decades?

The thames estuary is a swamp...everything would have to be built from scratch costing...?

Stansted already is an airport without significant buildup surrounding it, has good highway access, and train lines and airport expansion would cost orders of magnitude less than the estuary.

Transiting or o&d traffic don't care where they land as long as it's convenient. London would be better off, imo, with one big airport that can handle the traffic than the ongoing knife fight between LHR. and Gatwick.

Of course nothing will change so the point is moot in any case, but it has been a mostly interesting discussion.
What the...?
 
kdhurst380
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:52 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:14 am

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 neither here nor there at the moment, there's no long term plan apart form a blanket ban, for now, on new runways. The government want to promote high speed rail as a viable alternative, and it just isn't.
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 4007
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:37 am

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 35):
Tbf, LGW's restriction means nothing when the planning process in the UK would take that long anyway.

So if the Gatwick expansion restrictions could be lifted and they could put in at least one more runway, (presumably parallel for simultaneous ops), might it have the potential to grow larger than Heathrow?

If the ultimate goal of the Thames estuary plan is to replace LHR, is there enough expansion room for Gatwick to do that, if the locals could be brought on board.

I imagine the real estate that LHR sits on is worth a couple of shekels.

In general, is consolidation of the majority of the London flight operations to ANY one airport possible or practical?
What the...?
 
photoshooter
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:12 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:27 am

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 they smell or filthy passengers forgot
to flush! Not to mention 90% of what's landing at STN is a low cost carrier. You can't expect the luxury
you will find in SIN or LHR... It's a good, decent airport.
'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.' - Winston Churchill
 
planesmith
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:10 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:14 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
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.

All London Airports have drawbacks to potential expansion. Any expansion will inevitably bring out protesters in their droves. We live on a tiny island and London is in the most crowded part of it - if any blade of grass has the temerity to show it's face then some bugger will build something on top of it.

Access to Heathrow is already appalling - invariably passengers are slowed by excessive traffic, the rail-link if grossly overpriced and the underground service takes too long.

Gatwick has the potential for expansion but the people living around it would certainly swamp any movement for years, if not decades - in the 30-years I've been using Gatwick I've lost count of the number of times I've been at the airport on the scheduled arrival time, sadly 10,000-feet above it. The terminal buildings are constantly being "improved" - it's never worked yet.

Stansted - probably has the most potential but the Motorway connection is the worst Motorway in country and can lead to massive traffic jams building up in minutes. The rail service is frequently delayed or cancelled (last two times I tried at least!) - and the planned expansion led immediately to loud and forceful objections from the local residents. (Why would you buy a house near an airport and THEN protest about noise?)

The south east of England is grossly overcrowded in comparison to the rest of the country - too much so for the transport infra-structure to work effectively - all forms of transport have suffered from under investment, the roads are poor, the trains dirty (with the exception of Southeastern Railways), the bus services generally slow and uncomfortable, not a lot going for it really so far as any transport is concerned unless you happen to own one of the aforementioned transport companies and it will be a cash-cow for you as they are all overpriced and under-invested.
 
tcasalert
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:34 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:08 am

Quoting DanTaylor2006 (Reply 31):
Charing Cross to Stansted Airport takes 1 hour 27 minutes.
Charing Cross to Gatwick Airport takes 47 minutes.
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 1h - 1h15m (depending on connections), STN 1h32m
Euston: LGW 1h20m, STN 1h09m
Marylebone: LGW 1h36m, STN 1h37m

So all in all, the only station that is significantly longer to get to from STN is Charing Cross, every other station is either similar or significantly shorter.

Quoting photoshooter (Reply 37):
Although, the bathrooms should be cleaned more often, Usually they smell or filthy passengers forgot to flush!

Unfortunately that is normal for the UK in general in public toilets. You rarely find a flushed toilet. Sad

[Edited 2011-10-09 03:10:09]
Next flight: Feb 2012 - BHX-CPH-BHX - SK MD87 / CRJ900
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 4007
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:11 am

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 objectionable to the most people?

Maybe that's the beauty of the Thames estuary plan... a completely fresh start, though no doubt the most expensive option.
What the...?
 
kdhurst380
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:52 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:58 am

Quoting TCASAlert (Reply 39):

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're south of London, this is why LGW has always won it for the south east. The infrastructure is in place, its got the countries busiest airport station. Measuring these distances from London are pointless when arguably the majority of pax are from the surrounding area.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:21 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 40):
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 objectionable to the most people?

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 pushed through based on political will and it was killed by political will, so even if a rich back came along and said I'll build an airport free of cost the arguments then would be that there is no place in the UK to build it.
 
User avatar
DanTaylor2006
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:15 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:33 pm

Quoting TCASAlert (Reply 39):
OK so lets get an objective view on this then.

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 London debate since I live in the Midlands, I was just building on a post which pointed out that the centre of London is essentially Charing Cross, and comparisons should be made from there. Of course travel from different areas of London, and the rest of the country, are going to be different... as JoeCanuck has already pointed out in reply 32.

My position still remains that Stansted is a bitch to get to, and if it became the main London airport I'd shift my business elsewhere... be that BHX, MAN or AMS/FRA/MUC etc.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:52 pm

Quoting DanTaylor2006 (Reply 43):
My position still remains that Stansted is a bitch to get to, and if it became the main London airport I'd shift my business elsewhere... be that BHX, MAN or AMS/FRA/MUC etc.

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 three in terms of actual "concrete - runway" space for expansion, whether that means anything in the overall scheme is debatable, it does seem that the status quo is most desirable.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 3451
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:58 pm

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 from LHR all the way to Bristol on one side and the City all the way to Canary Wharf on the other. Stansted doesn't reach that catchment area to the West. Thousands of jobs are where they are for access to LHR, it's not about fields and space to build. Also London's primary airport is a hub, something STN is not.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:05 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 45):
Also London's primary airport is a hub, something STN is not.

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 if the numbers are inaccurate, airports on the continent have been able to expand to accomodate the increasing traffic numbers, LHR is struggling to do the same.
So yes it is fine now, has all the important ground transportation in place, massive hub for BA, new terminal, close to city center, but if traffic numbers continue to increase will LHR be able to accomodate?
 
maddog888
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:24 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:06 pm

Quoting TCASAlert (Reply 39):
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 1h - 1h15m (depending on connections), STN 1h32m
Euston: LGW 1h20m, STN 1h09m
Marylebone: LGW 1h36m, STN 1h37m

So all in all, the only station that is significantly longer to get to from STN is Charing Cross, every other station is either similar or significantly shorter.

Woah there a minute, no sane person would use those routes to LGW.....

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 41):
The most frequent services to LGW of a London terminal are from Victoria though,

     

Leaving out Victoria to LGW significantly skews the data in favour of STN. Even if you are being pedantic and add a >10m bus ride from Charing Cross to Victoria, a ~45m journey time (~35m Vicoria to LGW) makes a big difference in favour of LGW. I live in North London and will use LGW instead of STN mainly because of the journey time ( but at least in part also because I have no desire to use certain airlines since I don't meet their passenger profiles   ).

( off topic: only in this country can you have a Heathrow "Express" and a Gatwick "Express" when the trains rarely exceed walking pace)

Maddog888
 
User avatar
DanTaylor2006
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:15 am

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:26 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 44):
If it becomes the main airport one would expect that the transportation infrasturcture would have to be improved.

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 motorway and railway would be very costly and annoy so many NIMBYs in the process it'd take many years to get going.

At present one of the quickest ways by road from the Midlands to Stansted is M6, A14 and M11... the A14 portion accounts for a very long stretch of the journey, isn't very direct, and passes through a number of towns. Short of going via London, which is an unnecessary hassle, there is a direct train to Stansted Airport from Birmingham... which calls at every single station. Not to mention, if you don't live in Birmingham you have to catch a train there first. A limited stop service might reduce journey times, but finding paths and the rolling stock for something like this on an already constrained network is going to prove difficult.

Like I say, I'm sure infrastructure would be improved... but it's going to be a costly exercise, and I'd probably rather put that money toward a new runway and improving infrastructure at Heathrow and Gatwick.

[Edited 2011-10-09 08:32:01]
 
shankly
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

RE: Why Not Stansted?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:31 pm

Quoting david_itl (Reply 14):
So it's not alright to destroy 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


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 will provide the least overall environmetal impact and the best chance for a clean sheet design

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 28):
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 and additional terminals. This then would become the primary London airport, whether it replaced Heathrow entirely or not


Not true. It was a demonstrable demand masterplan. Plain and simple the demand peaked out because it became the bucket and spade airport of SE England and IS too far from London. The M11 junction serving the airport opened 10 years after the original Foster terminal and the rail link is hopeless, running through some of the worse rail infrastructure in England
L1011 - P F M

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos