So, Heathrow........

Personally speaking, I am in favour of increasing capacity. But the amounts involved for Heathrow expansion are so extraordinary that I wonder if we might be able to increase capacity even more if an alternative option were chosen. Bear in mind that the cost will be loaded onto passenger charges, which will have an impact on competitiveness.

It's a bit like the nuclear plant situation. I am not against nuclear power, but do we have to have the most expensive power plant ever constructed anywhere in the world, or can we get a few power stations for the money spent on that one?
I honestly don't care whether Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Birmingham or Boris Island happens. I'd rather we got on with something. Anything.
 
Amsterdam's Schiphol airport has six runways.
We can't think beyond a massively expensive third runway which will solve little long term.
We think an airport in the Thames is far to ambitious but isn't Holland mostly built on reclaimed land?
 
Meeting air quality and pollution targets is unusually difficult. There are two ways of doing that: reduce the numbers of travellers and/or improve the efficiency of the motive power concerned.

Reducing the number of people travelling by air, road, rail or sea is not going to happen, not unless the world population can be drastically reduced.

Increasing the efficiency of motive power is happening all the time, under continuous development and innovation. All engines are very much more cleaner, more powerful and use less fuel than in the past.

It is very easy to state "we should be flying LESS, not more", but until a remedy can be found that meets the reality of the situation then the status quo will continue.
 
Private Eye has an interesting angle. Let's assume sterling won't regain its previous strength. Likely result is less UK people having overseas holidays overseas city breaks and overseas stag parties and there being more domestic tourism.

Brits spent £18bn more on overseas breaks last year than foreign tourists spent in the UK. So if some of that is hit then good news for the UK economy and bad news for airports and airports enlargement.

I suppose you could add to that that low sterling also means that the UK would be less attractive for foreign workers to come and work here and then travel back and forth from Eastern Europe.

Most UK factories are located by regional airports so Heathrow and Gatwick might want to push for a deal now before their airport business falls.

What it doesn't really explain is that low sterling will mean more foreign tourists coming here and hence still a need for such airports.
 
I don't know much about this at all. Is there a reason they can't build a new airport just for Cargo in the centre of the UK to facilitate freight logistics which would then free up runway capacity at Heathrow for increased passenger routes?
 
95% of cargo transported through Heathrow, is transported in the holds of passenger aircraft.
 
I had tarmac access at Nairobi airport to smooth the throughput of VIPs and their baggage on/off BA flights. Seen with my own eyes the huge amount of freight loaded onto the aircraft at Nairobi airport for the fastest route to London, mostly fresh fruit and veg.
 
Is that why passenger luggage allowance is so rubbish then ?

All interesting stuff though, I didn't know this.
 
We can't think beyond a massively expensive third runway which will solve little long term.
We think an airport in the Thames is far to ambitious but isn't Holland mostly built on reclaimed land?

Schipol airport sits nearly 2m below sea level on reclaimed land, has six runways (one of which taxis across a motorway) has a single terminal building and is 10?km outside the city.

Those crazy Dutch guys...when will they ever learn?
 
I was thinking of having a look around on Google Earth and designing/placing my own airport. Would be a nice game.
 
Flat out wrong, no new runway should be built because it just adds emissions to the atmosphere and global warming, you know that thing no one talks about anymore despite the weather getting more extreme every year.
Sorry but their are better ways. With the government scraping its help for the renewables industry, I don't think it speaks well when they green light more emissions as well...
 
Meeting air quality and pollution targets is unusually difficult. There are two ways of doing that: reduce the numbers of travellers and/or improve the efficiency of the motive power concerned.

Reducing the number of people travelling by air, road, rail or sea is not going to happen, not unless the world population can be drastically reduced.

Increasing the efficiency of motive power is happening all the time, under continuous development and innovation. All engines are very much more cleaner, more powerful and use less fuel than in the past.

It is very easy to state "we should be flying LESS, not more", but until a remedy can be found that meets the reality of the situation then the status quo will continue.

I was just going to say my bit and go (I wasn't going to drop a Thread bomb, honest!), but I've actually got at least one person who agrees with me - thank you!

And of course it's easy to state that we should be flying less, not more because it's easy to do! Since when did flying become an essential service? I've always regarded it as a luxury and my last possible option to go anywhere.

I accept that it's faster and more convenient than rail or ship, but at what Environmental cost? (and don't even get me started on HS2) I just don't accept that this is a decision driven by demand or need by the majority of the population.

And seriously, who here actually enjoys flying? All that waiting around, delays and suspicious and paranoid staff makes the whole experience deeply unpleasant.

I don't care how many other countries have airports and hundreds of runways, the trouble is the Environmental consequences affect us all. It just feels like we are sleepwalking towards Environmental catastrophe and I've always thought a government's first duty is to protect its citizens. It would appear not....
 
It is true we could travel from London to (say) New Delhi by ship and then by rail - the journey would take about, at a rough guess, 4 weeks. The return journey back to London another 4 weeks. Total of 8 weeks travel time, against less than 18 hours by air.

Cost of 8 weeks travel by ship and rail against the cost of 18 hours travel by air?

Also, think of the additional ships required to meet the demands and the environmental costs of weeks of travel rather than hours of travel by air?

Think it through :)
 
Since when did flying become an essential service? I've always regarded it as a luxury and my last possible option to go anywhere.
What are we talking about? London to Brighton?

In 1873 you could go around the world in 80 days. Unlikely today.

Remember, flying is not always about going on holiday. If you work abroad you need to get from
a to b quickly. You're employer doesn't give you the option of a ship or the Orient express.;)
 
Since when did flying become an essential service? I've always regarded it as a luxury and my last possible option to go anywhere...
Necessary for work.
 
I was just going to say my bit and go (I wasn't going to drop a Thread bomb, honest!), but I've actually got at least one person who agrees with me - thank you!

And of course it's easy to state that we should be flying less, not more because it's easy to do! Since when did flying become an essential service? I've always regarded it as a luxury and my last possible option to go anywhere.

I accept that it's faster and more convenient than rail or ship, but at what Environmental cost? (and don't even get me started on HS2) I just don't accept that this is a decision driven by demand or need by the majority of the population.

And seriously, who here actually enjoys flying? All that waiting around, delays and suspicious and paranoid staff makes the whole experience deeply unpleasant.

I don't care how many other countries have airports and hundreds of runways, the trouble is the Environmental consequences affect us all. It just feels like we are sleepwalking towards Environmental catastrophe and I've always thought a government's first duty is to protect its citizens. It would appear not....

A nice thought, but totally unworkable in today's world.

People fly as it is quicker to get to their destination. Flying is not a luxury. If anything taking a ship such as a cruise liner is a luxury. It costs far more to go by alternative means of travel than it does to fly.

Flying is ok, it's not the most enjoyable, but I would rather suffer a few hours on a plane than waste money and holiday days in getting to and from the destination.
 
Apparently it's essential for him.

Greenpeace executive flies 250 miles to work

One of Greenpeace’s most senior executives commutes 250 miles to work by plane, despite the environmental group’s campaign to curb air travel, it has emerged.

Pascal Husting, Greenpeace International’s international programme director, said he began "commuting between Luxembourg and Amsterdam" when he took the job in 2012 and currently made the round trip about twice a month.

The flights, at 250 euros for a round trip, are funded by Greenpeace, despite its campaign to curb "the growth in aviation", which it says "is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change”.
 
And as a counterpoint to the above (deeply dispiriting) post, here's some good news:

High court rules UK government plans to tackle air pollution are illegal

With this in mind, how does building a third runway (which will probably be full to capacity at some point, and then there'll be a request to build another. Then another.) fit into this framework?

Why is cost and convenience the only criteria worth applying? We just can't carry on like this indefinitely.

p.s. Love the advert for British Airways next to the article!:facepalm:
 
Last edited:
I think its pretty safe to say that the pollution caused by cars and trucks in London is way more dangerous than that caused by planes. The proximity of vehicles to homes is also a factor.

Just amazing how politicians like Sudiq Khan run to take part in a court action against the government considering labour were no better than the Tories.

'Documents revealed during the latest case showed the Treasury had blocked plans to charge diesel cars to enter towns and cities blighted by air pollution, concerned about the political impact of angering motorists'

Mr Brown wanted the 3rd runway and all through the Brown Blair years we were encouraged by the EU to change our cars to diesels. The Germans, in particular, developed diesel technology so they could be used in family cars- with similar or better performance to petrol. It was an EU thing (which never caught on in the States or other countries). We now know VW and others cheated because it just wasn't practical to have clean diesels.
I have just bought an F-Pace and it uses an additive (AdBlue) to clean up the exhaust emissions. They don't even make a 2 litre petrol for Europe.

So yes, the motorist would have every right to be angry. First we convert to diesel, with cheaper fuel, then Brown sees a gift horse and puts the price per litre up and now they want to charge us because we are polluting? :devil::mad:
 
I don't agree, Cliff.

Any goverment should be including aviation emissions as part of an immediate overall strategy for addressing poor air quality and pollution.

If they take an "out of sight, out of mind" approach, it will just lead to them putting off having to make any decision until some distant point in the future, something governments seem very good at doing.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom