Search results

Why won't it work? And why will it be so expensive? Surely other major european airports have a mix which works? Schiphol comes to mind.

Quite. Amsterdam has 5 runways at Schiphol alone.

And directly to a lot of nice European places.....unfortunately. :smile:

As I said, NIMBY.

I'm certain costs will be covered in any compulsory purchase order. As an aside, your concerns seem to be the exact definition of a NIMBY. Personally, I prefer progress and would be happy to take a supposed hit for the greater good.

What an odd piece of logic. It's not beyond a terrorist to disable two or more airports if they so choose. In fact they don't actually have to blow them up to disable them, just wait for some slightly cold or slightly hot weather and let nature do their work.

I personally don't think this will happen for another 10-20 years. 1) there is no way Cameron has the bottle to go through with this. 2) big UK infrastructure projects always have 10-20 years of nonsense and only get build when they're finally desperately needed.

A slightly odd argument as this is the exact definition of Nimbyism.

Gatwick, Gatwick? Oooooh shit :lolol:

Quite. Amusing that everyone on here is now an expert on airports, and know more than the people who have spent the past 2-3 years researching this.

Every major report into expansion has concluded Heathrow is the most viable. It's not my view, it's the view of experts. This latest report just cements this opinion.

Definitely wouldn't happen in Germany http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/12/15/berlins-new-airport-it-now-wont-open-until-late-2017/20434317/

Any sane person knows Heathrow is the best option. But it needs a third runway just to cope properly with current volume not more.