 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So there are a few options on the table for expanding the capacity of London's runway space. The reason given is that London is falling behind other international cities and needs to do it to maintain its status as a business and interconnection hub.
This would be fine if it wasn't for one thing. They want to spend 40Bn driving a railway to Birmingham and Manchester to enable business to be done up there.
Does the one excuse not negate the other, and can't we not save some money by not doing one or the other? Just expand E.Mids or Manchester airports and save a packet surely?
Thoughts?
Fuck me, a serious thread. I best have a drink. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Think they should utilise Manston!!
It's sitting there not doing very much  "
Manston is being used more and more. KLM buzz in twice a day and go off to the hub airport at Amsterdam, but as far as becoming another "London" airport the road and rail links (to London, apparently no one goes anywhere other than London  ) have been deemed too naff to be of any use to a major airport now I think.
Although it does make me chuckle that BA especially are using Manston as an emergency airport like the other day when Heathrow became fog bound and sent 4 of their planes there on divert. Its also being used as a training airport for pilots and testing out new aircraft.
I'd like to see it expand but can't see it happening somehow |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"So there are a few options on the table for expanding the capacity of London's runway space. The reason given is that London is falling behind other international cities and needs to do it to maintain its status as a business and interconnection hub.
This would be fine if it wasn't for one thing. They want to spend 40Bn driving a railway to Birmingham and Manchester to enable business to be done up there.
Does the one excuse not negate the other, and can't we not save some money by not doing one or the other? Just expand E.Mids or Manchester airports and save a packet surely?
Thoughts?
Fuck me, a serious thread. I best have a drink."
it should have been joined up thinking.... but the decisions with regards to hs2 and airport expansion will be made seperately....
so if for example you linked hs1 with heathrow airport, birmingham airport and manchester airport for example... you would take out a lot of the capacity needed for domestic flights..... plus you can then use the train for transfers (as they do for people travelling between paris-brussels and brussels-amsterdam where the airlines book the trains.....)
most people going from london-paris use eurostar instead of the plane because it can be cheaper and is quicker going city centre to city centre.....
it can be the same for them... and almost turn the uk into a mega-hub, and persuade carriers they dont have to just use heathrow |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yep - spread the wealth!!
The trouble is, they'll say that Brum/Manc doesn't have the surrounding infrastructure to warrant it - yet they know damn well that one leads another!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So there are a few options on the table for expanding the capacity of London's runway space. The reason given is that London is falling behind other international cities and needs to do it to maintain its status as a business and interconnection hub.
This would be fine if it wasn't for one thing. They want to spend 40Bn driving a railway to Birmingham and Manchester to enable business to be done up there.
Does the one excuse not negate the other, and can't we not save some money by not doing one or the other? Just expand E.Mids or Manchester airports and save a packet surely?
Thoughts?
Fuck me, a serious thread. I best have a drink."
The best option would be a high speed train link from Doncaster airport to London and use that. Its an ex forces base lots of space round it and there already is a 1:50hr link to London. Make it cost effective for people and switch some flights with a free connection to other cities then most people win. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
why all the expense when theres a perfectly good airport under used at manston.one of the worlds longest runways,room for expansion if needed,fast access to london,by road or rail,and has services flying to schipol airport already. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Manston is defo worth considering though I fear it's too far from London , sadly. I like Boris's proposal best.
Remember all the short sighted protests against the m25 before it was built. Can you possibly imagine what chaos there would be without it?....... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
RAF alconbury near Huntingdon.
Already has one if the longest runways in the uk. It's right next to the A1/A14. A small section of rail (about 1 mile) would connect it straight in to kings cross. Plus it would only take me 20 minutes to get to the airport !!
Simples  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Agreed! Kick 'the only way is London' attitude in the butt - & build a humungus airport north of Brum & spread the wealth!! "
Fuck that. Just fly over the nation with a few Hercules aircraft and spread the £40bn wealth, in used tenners, out the loading doors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
it should have been joined up thinking.... but the decisions with regards to hs2 and airport expansion will be made seperately....
so if for example you linked hs1 with heathrow airport, birmingham airport and manchester airport for example... you would take out a lot of the capacity needed for domestic flights..... plus you can then use the train for transfers (as they do for people travelling between paris-brussels and brussels-amsterdam where the airlines book the trains.....)
most people going from london-paris use eurostar instead of the plane because it can be cheaper and is quicker going city centre to city centre.....
Worst part of this is that when I was travelling to London a lot it was often cheaper to drive and stay overnight on the outskirts or fly down in the morning because tickets to get you into London for early meetings cost huge amounts from Manchester.
It would be difficult to expand Manchester to the level of international hub similar to say Schiphol, that easily but it does need to be expanded probably.
The transport strategy is however disjointed and why we are spending so much on HS2 I really don't understand. It's just over 2 hours london to Manchester. That's pretty good really. Yeah I know other countries go fast on trains but frankly I don't want to go much faster. I like my 1st class breakfast and the time to eat it when I go. Also I tend to feel a bit sicky sometimes on the pendilinos, or maybe that's when I'm in cattle class sitting with those common people. 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
It's the disjointed bit that causes the problems.
There's no train service from Glasgow or Edinburgh to each of their airports - or to each others whilst the airport with the best rail connection AND the best fog free status ( Prestwick) has just been sold for £1 cos nobody wants to use it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Business people want to fly into Heathrow. If that were not the case Gatwick would be more properly. When crossrail is finished it will link Heathrow directly to central London, Basildon and Reading. HS2 will connect directly with crossrail and Heathrow. Giving fast rail links to central London, the north west and Silicon Valley
While Boris island sounds dead sexy on paper as a floating island in the estuary, it is in the wrong place for 80% of passengers coming from the north, northwest and west of England.
Whatever drawbacks there may be with Heathrow, it is still the cheapest and most sensible option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We always fly from heathrow or gatwick despite there being MANY airports closer.
Why?
Because they are all far more expensive travelling to or flying from.
Reduce the costs of travelling to and flying from local airports and make heathrow business use only.
You wont need new a runway built over people homes then.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think part of the problem is that the Airports are seen as Heathrow = Business, Gatwick = Holiday and Stansted = Low cost airlines.
Of the three Stansted has the most unused capacity I think, and also would be the cheapest option for expansion, but the problem would be to convince proper airlines to fly there when they see the place dominated by Ryanair at the moment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'd argue that the reason we're falling behind other countries isn't because of our airports but because we have very little decent business worth flying in for |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
