Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Michael

Heathrow

Government is backing a third runway, what do we think?
Racing Teatray

It's a categorically insane idea. And another good reason for really loathing, for the first time in my life, a Tory government.

First off, Heathrow has always been in the wrong place given prevailing weather – its main flight path comes in over central London and, setting aside the air and noise pollution that adds in any already suffering environment, I'm afraid that it is a matter of when not if that results in a major accident, the chances of which will be proportionately increased by increased air traffic created by a third runway.

Secondly, the proposed work would cause simply unacceptable levels of travel embuggerance for years for those using the M25/M4 because the site of the proposed new runway straddles the M25/M4 intersection, thereby requiring that to be sunk underground. That alone will cause untold congestion (and attendant pollution increases) all around West London for at least a decade before the new runway was even operational.

Thirdly, it is also staggeringly expensive - the eventual costs will make HS2 look cheap and it is likely that we could build an entirely new airport from scratch for a similar amount, never mind that you could, for the same amount, upgraded each of Gatwick, Stansted or Luton. Or expanded a regional airport at say Birmingham to better serve the entire country, particularly in view of HS2…

So no, I'm afraid the only real beneficiaries will be the owners of Heathrow who have run a quite staggeringly ruthless and expensive publicity campaign aimed at furthering their own self-interest.

Expanding Gatwick, which only has a single runway at present, makes much more sense for London. It makes less sense for the rest of the UK but then again as mentioned, for the price of a third runway at Heathrow, you could expand Gatwick AND Birmingham, with change to spare. Which is the most sensible suggestion I've heard.
PhilD

Funny how May and Boris were very much against it. I'm sure the landscape must have changed.
Racing Teatray

I believe Boris still is. And Zac Goldsmith resigned.

I think I might go and campaign against the Tories in Richmond to try and ensure they lose the seat.
Frank Bullitt

Agree with RT's post, it seems utterly incredulous - as a hub for the UK I have no issue with Gatwick, which has decent road transport and space or in reality Birmingham - railway into London and you'd still get change from H3, plus excellent access to the rest of the midlands and North West especially
JohnC

I know little about the pro's and cons but when I heard yesterday that they would have to redirect the M25 for several years causing untold congestion, that was enough for me to think it was a stupid idea.
PhilD

I voted Yes, but Racing makes an educated, logical and impassioned argument so I've changed my mind.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

It's an insane idea.  What would have been far better IMHO is to have made Greenham Common the third London Airport when the cruise missiles went.  It's only just off the M4 and a new road link to it, plus high-speed train link to the existing London-Bristol HST network would have been straightforward and given easy access to a large part of the UK at a stroke.

What is also needed now is a proper direct high-speed train link between London and Gatwick. This should have been done when the M25 was built, or if not, when the western side of the M25 was widened.

Unfortuntaley governments suffer from poor vision and lack of imagination at best......
Nice Guy Eddie

No doubt they need another runway in London and I guess it makes sense at Heathrow to keep it as the hub for Europe. No other airport as far as I'm aware could offer the same.

If Goldsmith goes I guess that's one less Goldsmith in the public arena, which I can't see a down side too.

Truth is I don't know enough about the other proposals to judge it.
gooner

I personally think Gatwick is a better idea on the basis that it has a good rail link and less houses along the incoming flight path compared to Heathrow. LHR already has 5 terminals and is ludicrously overcrowded.There will surely have to be a terminal 6 and maybe even 7 to take all the extra passengers. I don't think any of the London airports have a brilliant road link. The western stretch of the M25 is gridlocked from 2pm every weekday in both directions so planning a trip by road to LHR at that time is a nightmare. But the M1, M11,and M23 can be just as bad. Luton wouldn't of been a bad idea with perhaps some expansion at LGW to go in tandem. With the direct rail link that exists between the two airports on the upgraded Thameslink line they could easily work together for domestic flight transfers.
Michael

I imagine when the residents of London start boycotting Heathrow and booking their flights from Birmingham instead the plans will change.
Big Blue

In terms of timing, this is the correct decision. The time taken to acquire the land and public consultation on aircraft patterns for either rural Gatwick or a greenfield site would mean no additional capacity for longer. This is the crux of the issue.

As to the location of LHR, it became the hub for London when Croydon reached its limitations and it is in Middlesex. It was an out of town airport and that London has spread west to embrace it is a symbol of its outright success as an airport. I'm absolutely certain that if LGW were expanded to the size of LHR it would still be a distant airport as the locals round there just wouldn't have it that the A217 and M23 became as highly populated and densely developed as the areas around LHR.

There are negatives as pointed out by Racing but is anyone imagining that development of either LGW or LXX would happen as a turn-key happy-camp where in 5-8 years time this huge piece of infrastructure would magically be connected to every other bit of infrastructure? The negatives of LHR were weighed against those of the other options and likewise the positives. LHR won on its existing record of delivering world class facilities that are constantly improving.

As you can imagine I'm a "yes" voter and very pro-LHR but would temper its expansion with another ideal: that LXX is ALSO developed somewhere else so that in the future (20-30 years) either LHR or LGW can be closed and redeveloped. These are very long term ideals and government does not invest in infrastructure in the current fiscal model, instead demanding the private sector does it. As it is a consultation programme on a new London hub and its associated connections is a huge risk for any organisation that probably looks back over 20-30 years and can't recognise itself due to change in that period.
Racing Teatray

Big Blue wrote:
It was an out of town airport and that London has spread west to embrace it is a symbol of its outright success as an airport.
 

That's a leap of the imagination. Most of the UK is north and west of London and that is really why London spread in those directions.

Big Blue wrote:


There are negatives as pointed out by Racing but is anyone imagining that development of either LGW or LXX would happen as a turn-key happy-camp where in 5-8 years time this huge piece of infrastructure would magically be connected to every other bit of infrastructure? The negatives of LHR were weighed against those of the other options and likewise the positives. LHR won on its existing record of delivering world class facilities that are constantly improving.



I do not believe the Airports Commission led by Howard Davies was impartial in any sense of the word. Plus the pros and cons of the hub model of airports is a hotly contested topic in the aviation industry (having spent six months of last year working on a major deal in aviation logistics, I know rather more about this than I ever imagined I would) so that is not a silver bullet in Heathrow's favour. And furthermore, whilst the service at Gatwick is certainly not currently world class, I'd argue that it was better to concentrate on pulling all of London's airports up to a common high standard rather than polishing the gilded turd that is Heathrow.  

Big Blue wrote:

As you can imagine I'm a "yes" voter and very pro-LHR but would temper its expansion with another ideal: that LXX is ALSO developed somewhere else so that in the future (20-30 years) either LHR or LGW can be closed and redeveloped. These are very long term ideals and government does not invest in infrastructure in the current fiscal model, instead demanding the private sector does it. As it is a consultation programme on a new London hub and its associated connections is a huge risk for any organisation that probably looks back over 20-30 years and can't recognise itself due to change in that period.
 

Which is as good as admitting that Heathrow has never been in the right place...
Big Blue

Hmm. If most of the UK is north and west of London LGW can forget it as can any Estuary-placed "Boris island".

I'm not sure proposing that a new airport would be required 80 years after the commencement of services at LHR is admitting it's never been in the right place: more facing the reality of population growth and the development of air travel over that period. Where I live was all orchards 90 years ago; the row of houses I own one of was a small development close to the Epsom-London line. There was a huge roadhouse pub by the railway which was massively busy until its decline. Was it always in the wrong place or did society change?

As to your beliefs on impartiality, this is the way of mankind I'm afraid. As Noel Coward said in The Italian Job "CampFreddy, everyone in the World is bent."
Racing Teatray

Big Blue wrote:
As to your beliefs on impartiality, this is the way of mankind I'm afraid. As Noel Coward said in The Italian Job "CampFreddy, everyone in the World is bent."


Well quite so. Doesn't mean you can't fight back!
Scouse

Or you do a Goldsmith and flounce out.
Racing Teatray

He has a marginal seat so it was the most logical threat.
PG

The airport saga, is perfectly encapsulated by the old cliches -

"How do I get to X?"
"Well I wouldn't start from where you are".
"Yes, but we are where we are".  

I am sure that everybody would really like a new purpose built 4 runway airport about 30 minutes drive north of London with great road and high speed rail links to London and the rest of the UK. But in this crowded isle, especially the south east, that was never going to happen in this timescale.  Even if you could persuade yourself that Luton or Stanstead could become that hub, the infrastructure would be an even bigger issue and you'd have to close Heathrow, and I can't see the owners of that airport going quietly.

Boris Island might have been a possibility (except for the wildlife there and the fact that it is too near Schipol) but it is in totally the wrong place for the country. And see above re infrastrcuture and Heathrow.    

As a national hub airport, Gatwick is in the wrong place too. You might be able to add one runway, but is that really a long term solution?  

And adding runways at Gatwick, Luton, Stanstead or Birmingham would require some fundamental change to attitides - for example, how would you persuade some airlines to operate from multiple airports and / or decide to switch flights to the newer airports? If their competitors didn't also do it, they'd fear losing out.  

So, based on this, Heathrow expansion seems the only real game in town. Everything else is just avoiding the issue. or fraught with even more issues.

But what May needs to do now is take some more decisions - HS2 needs to be re-routed to go via Heathrow and Birmingham and Manchester airports (future insurance) for example. Then Birmingham might be able to become Terminal X of Heathrow in about 20 years.
gooner

I don't think this was ever going to be a chance for us to have our cake and eat it. There's downsides to every option when it comes to expansion, the question really is whether Heathrow is the least shit option and that's quite debatable.

The flip side to all this is whether capacity could be better managed. In a modern world not everyone needs to travel to one another to do business so over the next 20-30 years I think we'll see business travel decrease dramatically. If HS2 can be marketed correctly and be as quick as its being hyped up to be whilst remaining reasonably priced (and there's the rub), we can reduce the amount of domestic flights too. There's currently a number of flights to Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow operating out of Heathrow. Ditch the need for them and you've freed up 20 odd slots in an instant.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

PG wrote:
But what May needs to do now is take some more decisions - HS2 needs to be re-routed to go via Heathrow and Birmingham and Manchester airports (future insurance) for example. Then Birmingham might be able to become Terminal X of Heathrow in about 20 years.

I'd fully agree with that, and also extend it down to Gatwick and, ideally, also somewhere on the south coast such as Brighton
Frank Bullitt

"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

Sign of insanity, that.

BB has a point, perhaps the short-term (30 years) solution is Heathrow's 3rd with a plan to build a new airport in a few decades in a better location with the infrastructure to support it. But then long-term planning in the UK is considered a parliament so that won't happen.
Michael

gooner wrote:
There's currently a number of flights to Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow operating out of Heathrow. Ditch the need for them and you've freed up 20 odd slots in an instant.


Nope. That defeats the object of it being a hub, increase the capacity so that more regional airports can connect to Heathrow and the wider world.
A huge new airport 'somewhere else' would be lovely but the needs are pressing so Heathrow is the only option.
Bob Sacamano

I was under the impression that sales of large multi-engine jets were falling and the growth was in twin engine, highly efficient mid-size jets like the Dreamliner, flying to regional airports direct, delivering customers to where they want to go, rather than via some distant hub and an additional commuter plane flight.
Giant

Bob Sacamano wrote:
I was under the impression that sales of large multi-engine jets were falling and the growth was in twin engine, highly efficient mid-size jets like the Dreamliner, flying to regional airports direct, delivering customers to where they want to go, rather than via some distant hub and an additional commuter plane flight.


Dont the two opposing views on which way to go, with regards super hubs against regional airports depend on whether it's Airbus or Boeing speaking? One having bet the house on the A380, the other on Dreamliner?
Michael

Racing Teatray wrote:
I believe Boris still is. And Zac Goldsmith resigned.

I think I might go and campaign against the Tories in Richmond to try and ensure they lose the seat.


They aren't standing a candidate. Given the seat voted to remain and Zac didn't I'm not sure brand Goldsmith is worth so much in Richmond. It'll be Lib Dem again soon.
Racing Teatray

Michael wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
I believe Boris still is. And Zac Goldsmith resigned.

I think I might go and campaign against the Tories in Richmond to try and ensure they lose the seat.


They aren't standing a candidate. Given the seat voted to remain and Zac didn't I'm not sure brand Goldsmith is worth so much in Richmond. It'll be Lib Dem again soon.


Good stuff. The LibDems will roar again! Strike 2 against Darth May.
Tim

As someone who has zero fascination with London the decision seems madness to me and that was before I realised the M25 would have to be modified.

It also adds to the list of reasons why I question the point of HS2.

Have the whole Government completely forgotten that the majority of the UK population is outwith the South East?

I think the timing is fairly awful too - the Brexit decision could have a large change on the movement of people in/out of London in particular and it will be pretty annoying if a huge amount of money is spent on yet another large infrastructure project for the benefit of London only for the demand to reduce significantly.
gooner

Interesting to hear on the radio earlier that they're now talking of building the runway above the M25 as opposed to building it at ground level and tunnelling the motorway below it. So you'll effectively have a big ramp going over the motorway with planes having to be very careful to get the runway straight on!
Michael

Tim wrote:
As someone who has zero fascination with London the decision seems madness to me and that was before I realised the M25 would have to be modified.

It also adds to the list of reasons why I question the point of HS2.

Have the whole Government completely forgotten that the majority of the UK population is outwith the South East?

I think the timing is fairly awful too - the Brexit decision could have a large change on the movement of people in/out of London in particular and it will be pretty annoying if a huge amount of money is spent on yet another large infrastructure project for the benefit of London only for the demand to reduce significantly.


I don't think anybody would argue the bulk of business traffic is in the South East and a third of traffic through Heathrow is connecting traffic so the capacity does need to increase there. It will benefit the rest of the UK as there will be more slots to connect regional airports particularly in the North - I can't see many Dreamliners from Australia, Asia and the US turning up at Newcastle (and certainly not Durham Tees Valley) when the best they can muster right now is a service to Dubai.
TreVoR

Thompson fly Dreamliners to Orlando from Newcastle.

I do think that Heathrow is the best of a bad lot.  Connections via train to Gatwick from the North require schlepping across London to change stations and flights are few and far between.
Michael

That's not business traffic though, is it?
TreVoR

Michael wrote:
That's not business traffic though, is it?


Not generally, no. I think most business in the North would go via Schiphol. I would certainly choose that over Heathrow or Gatwick due to the lousy connections.
Frank Bullitt

To be fair, traffic around Schippol can get busy - 7 lanes (5 on the main motorway, 2 on the regular on/ off road


Tim

Michael wrote:
I don't think anybody would argue the bulk of business traffic is in the South East and a third of traffic through Heathrow is connecting traffic so the capacity does need to increase there. It will benefit the rest of the UK as there will be more slots to connect regional airports particularly in the North - I can't see many Dreamliners from Australia, Asia and the US turning up at Newcastle (and certainly not Durham Tees Valley) when the best they can muster right now is a service to Dubai.


I'd like to see the rest of the UK being benefitted directly though rather than increasing the reliance on London even more.
TreVoR

Frank Bullitt wrote:
To be fair, traffic around Schippol can get busy - 7 lanes (5 on the main motorway, 2 on the regular on/ off road




It can, but flying into Schiphol from Teesside or Newcastle means you never see it. Our regional airports have great connections to AMS but hardly any to LGW or LHR which makes AMS a much more attractive proposition than London if you are in the North.
Michael

Tim wrote:
Michael wrote:
I don't think anybody would argue the bulk of business traffic is in the South East and a third of traffic through Heathrow is connecting traffic so the capacity does need to increase there. It will benefit the rest of the UK as there will be more slots to connect regional airports particularly in the North - I can't see many Dreamliners from Australia, Asia and the US turning up at Newcastle (and certainly not Durham Tees Valley) when the best they can muster right now is a service to Dubai.


I'd like to see the rest of the UK being benefitted directly though rather than increasing the reliance on London even more.


You know the SNP support Heathrow, right?
Big Blue

Tim wrote:
As someone who has zero fascination with London the decision seems madness to me and that was before I realised the M25 would have to be modified.

It also adds to the list of reasons why I question the point of HS2.

Have the whole Government completely forgotten that the majority of the UK population is outwith the South East?

I think the timing is fairly awful too - the Brexit decision could have a large change on the movement of people in/out of London in particular and it will be pretty annoying if a huge amount of money is spent on yet another large infrastructure project for the benefit of London only for the demand to reduce significantly.


I agree on HS2 because of Birmingham.

However London was a huge trade centre long before Brexit or The EU and will continue to be so after the rest of Europe have had another huge war and split into Gallic, Latin, Germanic and Slav regions. That might be in 2017 after the French and German elections or it may be in 2039-45 as a centenary celebration - no one knows when....

As to the population in the South East, you're right but extend this to the south of the UK and you get:

some stats wrote:
For statistical purposes, Southern England is divided into four regions: South West England, South East England, London, and the East of England. Combined, these have a total area of 62,042 square kilometres (23,955 sq mi), and a population of 28 million.


That's closer to 50% than not. Add in the part of the West along the M4 and M40 then Heathrow is in the right place. Heathrow is therefore a preferable position for access. Those in the East avoid crossing London by going via the M25; the SW don't need to go near London; Londoners are coming out of London leaving only the SE to suffer. As this is the most despised regional set of residents from most of what I read perhaps we (for I am unashamedly one) deserve the pain

As to the merits or otherwise of the M25, I dare anyone to suggest it is better to go from Guildford to the Excel centre through London. Its job is to take cars round London. It's horrible, busy and the long way round. But it's a victim of its own success.
Tim

Michael wrote:
Tim wrote:
Michael wrote:
I don't think anybody would argue the bulk of business traffic is in the South East and a third of traffic through Heathrow is connecting traffic so the capacity does need to increase there. It will benefit the rest of the UK as there will be more slots to connect regional airports particularly in the North - I can't see many Dreamliners from Australia, Asia and the US turning up at Newcastle (and certainly not Durham Tees Valley) when the best they can muster right now is a service to Dubai.


I'd like to see the rest of the UK being benefitted directly though rather than increasing the reliance on London even more.


You know the SNP support Heathrow, right?


So?
I'm expressing my opinion, not that of a regional government.

I'm probably in the wrong but I find the overwhelming focus on the South East just as irritating as the focus on Porsche 911s in car mags  

BB makes a good point about the population of the South but then that includes, for example, the South West and most of them are pretty far from the airport.

It also ignores the remaining population, more than 50% who are effectively 'out in the sticks' as far as policymakers are concerned, at least on these grounds.
That's not exactly fair on those in Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc is it?

There's no way in my mind that HS2 is going past Birmingham either, once there have been years of legal challenges, route compromises and engineering difficulties that result in it costing 4 times the current highest estimate and shaving 2 minutes off the current time.
gooner

TreVoR wrote:
Thompson fly Dreamliners to Orlando from Newcastle.

I do think that Heathrow is the best of a bad lot.  Connections via train to Gatwick from the North require schlepping across London to change stations and flights are few and far between.


Heathrow isn't much better though, you still have to change trains and either go via the Piccadilly Line or Heathrow Express. At least with Thameslink you can get it from St Pamcras which is much easier when you're on a train coming in to Kings Cross as those from Darlington do.
Michael

Tim wrote:
Michael wrote:


You know the SNP support Heathrow, right?


So?
.


Because they recognise that a strong airport hub benefits the whole country as it connects the regional airports to the wider world.
There are flights from Newcastle and Leeds into Heathrow operated by BA. I'd rather fly with any other airline but to get to the US it's a case of going through Heathrow. Yes, I could, and have gone via Schipol but that's surely the reason the UK needs more capacity?
Chris M Wanted a V-10

TreVoR wrote:
It can, but flying into Schiphol from Teesside or Newcastle means you never see it. Our regional airports have great connections to AMS but hardly any to LGW or LHR which makes AMS a much more attractive proposition than London if you are in the North.

If you then fly long-haul from AMS you miss out on the huge departure tax that applies to flights from the UK....

and to think that we in the UK never had departure tax at all until fairly recently - just one of many additional taxes or stealth taxes the scumbag politicians have imposed upon us in recent times
Roadsterstu

I voted yes. It's not in my back yard.
TreVoR

gooner wrote:
TreVoR wrote:
Thompson fly Dreamliners to Orlando from Newcastle.

I do think that Heathrow is the best of a bad lot.  Connections via train to Gatwick from the North require schlepping across London to change stations and flights are few and far between.


Heathrow isn't much better though, you still have to change trains and either go via the Piccadilly Line or Heathrow Express. At least with Thameslink you can get it from St Pamcras which is much easier when you're on a train coming in to Kings Cross as those from Darlington do.


That makes a difference. I thought it was still a case of dragging oneself to Victoria.
Michael

Piccadilly line goes from Kings Cross to Heathrow.
TreVoR

Michael wrote:
Piccadilly line goes from Kings Cross to Heathrow.


I knew that. It's still a pain and I would always try and fly from a regional airport first.
Martin

The last thing I'd want to do when I land back from holiday is catch a train.  I can get to Heathrow in 75-90mins, Luton, Stanstead or Birmingham in about an hour.  Gatwick is more of a pain, but we'll stay over the night before when we fly from there in January which will help.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

Martin wrote:
The last thing I'd want to do when I land back from holiday is catch a train.  I can get to Heathrow in 75-90mins

By car, on a good day I can get from home to LHR T5 in around 22 minutes.  The central terminals take around 30 to 35 minutes.  Public transport means around 3 hours !
Frank Bullitt

Martin wrote:
The last thing I'd want to do when I land back from holiday is catch public transport.


FYP
Scouse

Michael wrote:
Tim wrote:
Michael wrote:


You know the SNP support Heathrow, right?


So?
.


Because they recognise that this will cause the most grief and aggro for Westminster and the Government, so they can then point this out (and the cost) to their supporters and say 'See?, Another reason to vote for independence.'


FYP
Racing Teatray

Despite living in west London (Fulham) just 13 miles from Heathrow, making it geographically the closest airport, Heathrow doesn't exactly ace it from a convenience perspective. My travel times to the London airports are:

Heathrow: takes an hour by public transport regardless of whether I take the tube directly to Heathrow or take the tube up to Paddington and then take the Heathrow Express. By car it takes around half an hour without traffic.

Gatwick: takes an hour by public transport (taxi and then train from either Clapham Junction or Victoria-Gatwick Express). By car it takes 45 minutes without traffic.

City: takes an hour by public transport (tube and DLR). By car it takes 45 minutes without traffic.

Stansted: takes an hour and a half by public transport (tube to Liverpool St and then Stansted Express). By car it takes an hour and a quarter without traffic.

Luton: takes over an hour and a half by public transport (tube to Blackfriars and then Thameslink). By car it takes an hour without traffic.

So as you can see Heathrow is only more convenient than Gatwick if you drive or take a taxi, and even then 15 minutes either way isn't life-changing.

And actually, from my office in the City, I can get to each of Gatwick, Luton, City and Stansted rather quicker than I can get to Heathrow.
Martin

Better to live outside London if you travel by plane regularly, but isn't your biggest problem (relatively and when travelling from home) the 30min tube ride just to get into central London?
Racing Teatray

Actually, living as I do all of about 500 metres from the edge of Chelsea and only 3 miles from Trafalgar Square (considered the centre of London), most people would consider my house to already be in central London!

It's only a 20 min tube ride for me, but then you have to add the near 10 minute walk at either end and usually a few minutes wait for a tube, meaning it's typically a 40 minute journey.

Or half an hour if you cycle the 6 miles to my office as I did today.
Big Blue

That tube journey to the LHR terminals is soul destroying. I'd assume Racing can join the Piccadilly line somewhere like South Ken so wouldn't need to go into the centre. The cost of the HEX is so vast that if there's two or more of you a Black Cab is more cost effective, which takes some doing!

For me LHR is 12 miles and 35 minutes at about 0500hrs. Triple that for any other time except morning rush hour when it's up to 3hrs (where I live the 1.25miles to join the A3 at the start of the LEZ takes an hour on a normal work day. No one knows what a traffic jam is like the residents of KT4)

LGW is 35 minutes most of the time allowing for a lack of police presence on the M23. Rush hour adds 30minutes on for the A217 section. I'll be going to that there Stansted (iPhone just suggested "Satan" as an alternative - about right) on Sunday to drop the out-laws off. They fly early so it's 1hr15 ish. Up to 3hrs any other time if I don't use the M25. Luton is closer than Stansted in terms of time but is just a big warehouse building with some planes nearby from what I can make out. I think I've been there twice.

Thing most airports anywhere are nowhere near your final destination / origin unless you live in a small state (like HK) or live in the equivalent of Stanwell or Isleworth (delightful!). No location will please all the people all the time so we'll just deal with what we have.
Martin

Racing Teatray wrote:
Actually, living as I do all of about 500 metres from the edge of Chelsea and only 3 miles from Trafalgar Square (considered the centre of London), most people would consider my house to already be in central London!


No offence intended!  

I think of Zone 1 as Central London and a 20min tube ride is only 10mins less than the train ride from MK....    
Tim

Michael wrote:
Tim wrote:
Michael wrote:


You know the SNP support Heathrow, right?


So?
.


Because they recognise that a strong airport hub benefits the whole country as it connects the regional airports to the wider world.
There are flights from Newcastle and Leeds into Heathrow operated by BA. I'd rather fly with any other airline but to get to the US it's a case of going through Heathrow. Yes, I could, and have gone via Schipol but that's surely the reason the UK needs more capacity?


Bit late back to this.

We've sent plenty of people on work trips to the US and from Edinburgh (not sure about Glasgow) they've always routed through Shannon, apart from the last one when they went via Stockholm because SAS were the cheapest option  
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

Mostly fly through Schipol as KLM seem to connect to more UK regional airports than any other airline. Generally find it far preferable to any other equivalent-sized hub, though it can involve a lot of walking. But can you believe it has six (!) runways? Even though it's tolerably close to the centre of the capital of the most densely populated country in Europe.

Heathrow, by contrast, is a lost cause. Just look at it on a map, and try and work out how you'd sensibly expand it, short of building a new airport west of the M25 and north of the M4.
PhilD

Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote:
Mostly fly through Schipol as KLM seem to connect to more UK regional airports than any other airline. Generally find it far preferable to any other equivalent-sized hub, though it can involve a lot of walking. But can you believe it has six (!) runways? Even though it's tolerably close to the centre of the capital of the most densely populated country in Europe.



Not very Brexit of me but maybe we should have a European Hub?
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

PhilD wrote:
Not very Brexit of me but maybe we should have a European Hub?

Indeed, especially given Berlin's continuing failure to open its new airport.
Nice Guy Eddie

Martin wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
Actually, living as I do all of about 500 metres from the edge of Chelsea and only 3 miles from Trafalgar Square (considered the centre of London), most people would consider my house to already be in central London!


No offence intended!  

I think of Zone 1 as Central London and a 20min tube ride is only 10mins less than the train ride from MK....    


It's ok, you can just say you live in the mean streets of Fulham
Racing Teatray

Nice Guy Eddie wrote:
Martin wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
Actually, living as I do all of about 500 metres from the edge of Chelsea and only 3 miles from Trafalgar Square (considered the centre of London), most people would consider my house to already be in central London!


No offence intended!  

I think of Zone 1 as Central London and a 20min tube ride is only 10mins less than the train ride from MK....    


It's ok, you can just say you live in the mean streets of Fulham


Straight outta Sands End...

No offence taken!
Martin

Racing Teatray wrote:
Nice Guy Eddie wrote:
Martin wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
Actually, living as I do all of about 500 metres from the edge of Chelsea and only 3 miles from Trafalgar Square (considered the centre of London), most people would consider my house to already be in central London!


No offence intended!  

I think of Zone 1 as Central London and a 20min tube ride is only 10mins less than the train ride from MK....    


It's ok, you can just say you live in the mean streets of Fulham


Straight outta Sands End...

No offence taken!



       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum