Manston is in the middle of nowhere (well ok Thanet) It's as far away from London or Southampton. it's just not viable because no one wants to fly from there
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Which London airport needs another runway?
- Thread starter easynow
- Start date
Manston is in the middle of nowhere (well ok Thanet) It's as far away from London or Southampton. it's just not viable because no one wants to fly from there
The Spanish
Well-known member
So many views on this thread but only a couple really seem to grasp the issue. We need a world class hub in the uk to maintain our position as a key transatlantic gateway, and londons position globally. It's either expand Heathrow or build a new hub. Both massive projects that will drag on due to people entirely missing the issue being given airtime, inexplicably.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,477
the thing is, this is bollocks. London's position as a world financial centre doesn't depend on it having a "world class hub", while at the same time the fact that it is a world finanical centre means the transatlantic travel will come here.
and does noone find it odd how the discussion moved on from reducing air travel (and imposing taxes for that purpose), to discussing how we "must" have increased capacity to fly more?
Let's face reality, you're never going to reduce air travel. So we may as well face up to the fact that it is going to continue to grow, and as a result we'll need more airport capacity somewhere.
As for the argument about the need for an expanded hub at Heathrow, there are strong cases to be made for and against.
An expanded hub brings more flights, more destinations, more flight frequencies ... all of which are a major attraction for the business traveller and therefore you could argue will be good for the British economy.
On the other hand, does Heathrow really need to be a hub airport? With restricted capacity at Heathrow and limited opportunities to expand the airport should we leave Heathrow as it is? Do we want or need to attract additional transfer passengers? It is unlikely we would lose any of our current routes at Heathrow, but there would continue to be limited opportunities to add new destinations. Or would there? Do we really really need 20 flights a day from Heathrow to JFK? And a further 10 to Newark? If slots need to be freed up to serve new destinations in China, for example, then how about reducing the number of New York flights? I hardly believe that any city bankers will quit London because Heathrow has only 15 flights a day to JFK instead of 20.
It's not a clear cut matter.
As a previous poster said (presumably a pilot as he flies into Heathrow on a daily basis), we don't need more aircraft flying over London and intimated that Heathrow is in the wrong place. It is indeed. Ideally major airports should be located to the north or south of large cities so that take-offs and landings are not across metropolitan areas. Heathrow is located in the worst possible place, but that's where it is and moving it now would be nigh on impossible.
yxee
Well-known member
I think the only people having that former discussion were the vocal minority. Most of us like that the world is a smaller place nowadays.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,477
take the point about the numbers of flights to New York, though they probably are used enough to justify. the real question is weather we need any flights at all out of a hub airport to the likes of Florida, Caribbean, Canary Islands, the Balerics or other holiday destinations in Spain, Italy and Greece. is there really demand for direct flights to Salt Lake City and Phoenix? especially considering all those flights to New York hubs. the best, daft idea (Boris island being the worst), was the suggestion of linking Heathrow and Gatwick. Heathrow to focus on the long haul, Gatwick on the short/medium distance.
as it is we have two airports neither of which is really suitable for all requirements, because they were built before the requirements were known, and the business models have changed. as you've put it, the better solutions are to be north or south, so Gatwick is the better compromise.
Lawro's Lip
New member
Could be used for cargo though, as has been proposed, and take some of the strain from other south east airports.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
It's obvious that Gatwick would come out on top as a Sussex based poll. But I've worked at both Garwick and Heathrow and although both could do with an extra runway. Heathrow is is dire need. It is more vital to the uk economy as heathrow is a vastly larger airport and proportionally has more flight per runway than Gatwick by far. You never see 5 planes coming into land each within minimum range of eachother. And about 20 queing to take off. It's not just volume but the type of traffic. Gatwick deals in mainly point to point air travel. Heathrow has masses amount of connections from shorthaul traffic to Longhaul. Shorthaul flights are 80% more than long and feed the Longhaul networks. Gatwick a operators such as Easyjet and Thomas Cook etc don't offer connecting traffic and even though there is a small BA operation at gatwick it is also mainly point to point. In order for Gatwick to take in a fraction of this traffic and encourage airlines to move their bases there, gatwick would need not only another runway but then 2 new terminals to deal with the traffic. It simply can't be done. So out of the 2 Heathrow 100%. But in reality both need one.
Last edited:
father_and_son
Well-known member
Neither... we are a small island and no-one is a long distance from the UK coast. All new airports or any allowed to grow should be in a coastal location, where planes can stack&pack/approach from over the sea, thereby minimising the impact on any residents. It should be close to but north of London, have the necessary transport links to/from London plus a couple more cities (Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds?). Remove the vested interests of the airlines and Heathrow/Gatwick management and this is just common sense.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
The 1950's just called, they want someone to organise where our main international airport should be.
Joking aside. Yes with a huge airports lots of runways lots of transport fast links it might work. But you are talking billion and billions and a wait until 2050! No chance, give heathrow an extra runway and then in time gatwick. Then look at alternatives. The heathrow 3rd shorthaul runway is easily possible without major disturbance. We all know it will happen eventually at Heathrow, just get it done.
Last edited:
I'm liking this. Here's a leaked plan for runways no 497 and 498. These are, of course, merely emergency runways and will probably never be used. As such there will still be far more people in this area than at present.
Last edited:
The Spanish
Well-known member
the two things you have treated in my post as perceived to be linked, are separate. they are just sharing a sentence for expediency.
I know extra capacity is not needed just so people can go to meetings in banks in london. neither is it for dubai, abu dhabi, istanbul, doha, frankfurt etc all vying for pre eminence as hubs. the thing is, as these places are investing we are prevaricating.
heathrow has always been dominant as a transatlantic hub for a number of reasons, but we are eroding that and being left behind. thats not bollocks thats fact. departure tax and being outside of schengen is not helping either, before we even start on the yoghurt weavers.
londons position globally has more facets than simply the financial sector. you are a little quick to jump on this. i never mentioned the financial sector. and we are not talking about point to point transatlantic, its all about being a hub.
ironically the LCYJFK route BA were bullied by the banks to put on is tanking.
TheBigUnit
Active member
"Tanking", as in to suffer a sudden, large decline?
matt_32510
New member
Should go to Gatwick, from a personal point of view keeps me in a job.
this.