Heathwick is an absolute non-starter. Passengers are not going to transit through a hub airport which is actually two airports 30 miles apart however quick the transfer, when there are plenty of much better and quicker options available (Amsterdam, for example).
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
OT- may be a silly question RE Heathrow
- Thread starter watsongooal
- Start date
Heathwick is an absolute non-starter. Passengers are not going to transit through a hub airport which is actually two airports 30 miles apart however quick the transfer, when there are plenty of much better and quicker options available (Amsterdam, for example).
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,454
interesting point on aircarft noise is how Heathrow 3rd runway would cause flights over head through Pimlico, West and South Kensington. im sure all those good Tory voters (and business people) would be none too happy about that.
It's a measure of how much the aviation lobby has captured this debate that no-one on this thread is seriously questioning the basic assumption that we need to expand our airport capacity and traffic.
I'm aware of the economic arguments for expansion, but I do think more fundamental questions need to be asked and answered about what we're trying to achieve. Where will this expansion stop? What impact will it have on our collective quality of life? Is the negative impact sufficiently off-set by the supposed economic benefits? What alternatives exist (e.g. high-speed rail for European destinations)? That's without even getting into the vexed question of carbon emissions.
Personally, I'm not keen that we continue on an inexorable path of expansion that will ultimately lead to a poorer environment for everyone. Just think all the options should be explored, rather than a knee-jerk policy of expanded capacity.
I'm aware of the economic arguments for expansion, but I do think more fundamental questions need to be asked and answered about what we're trying to achieve. Where will this expansion stop? What impact will it have on our collective quality of life? Is the negative impact sufficiently off-set by the supposed economic benefits? What alternatives exist (e.g. high-speed rail for European destinations)? That's without even getting into the vexed question of carbon emissions.
Personally, I'm not keen that we continue on an inexorable path of expansion that will ultimately lead to a poorer environment for everyone. Just think all the options should be explored, rather than a knee-jerk policy of expanded capacity.