On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:12:49 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:45:02 +0100
Recliner wrote:
Heathrow Airport has been buying up the properties that would be
subsumed by a third runway, so there won't be many remaining property
owners affected by a resurrected proposal. However, grander four
runway proposals would be more complicated, probably involving putting
the M25 into a cut and cover tunnel under an expanded airport (as
already happens in, for example, CDG and AMS).

There is of course another option - don't bother expanding any airport since
its all a con. There is quite enough air traffic over south east england
already - we don't need any more. And the comparisons between heathrow and
Schippol or CDG are bogus. Those ARE the main airports for the amsterdam and
paris. Amsterdam doesn't have any others of note and paris only has Orly.
London has heathrow, gatwick, stanstead, city, luton and - at a push -
southend. Thats plenty. This whole drive for airport expansion is nothing more
than vested interests in the airline industry pushing their own agenda at the
expense of quality of life of millions and the enviroment.

You apparently don't understand the concept of a hub airport.

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:17:35 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:12:49 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
There is of course another option - don't bother expanding any airport since
its all a con. There is quite enough air traffic over south east england
already - we don't need any more. And the comparisons between heathrow and
Schippol or CDG are bogus. Those ARE the main airports for the amsterdam and
paris. Amsterdam doesn't have any others of note and paris only has Orly.
London has heathrow, gatwick, stanstead, city, luton and - at a push -
southend. Thats plenty. This whole drive for airport expansion is nothing
more
than vested interests in the airline industry pushing their own agenda at the
expense of quality of life of millions and the enviroment.

You apparently don't understand the concept of a hub airport.

A "hub" is of little benefit to anyone other than the airport itself since
by definition most of the passengers and freight will simply be passing
through. Any tired old economic growth arguments put forward in support are
specious and are purely self interest.

There are enough runways in the SE. We don't need anymore just to bolster the
share price of Ferrovia or get Boris a seat on the board of a construction
company when he finally gets bored of playing at being Major.

--
Spud

On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:36:00 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:17:35 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:12:49 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
There is of course another option - don't bother expanding any airport since
its all a con. There is quite enough air traffic over south east england
already - we don't need any more. And the comparisons between heathrow and
Schippol or CDG are bogus. Those ARE the main airports for the amsterdam and
paris. Amsterdam doesn't have any others of note and paris only has Orly.
London has heathrow, gatwick, stanstead, city, luton and - at a push -
southend. Thats plenty. This whole drive for airport expansion is nothing
more
than vested interests in the airline industry pushing their own agenda at the
expense of quality of life of millions and the enviroment.

You apparently don't understand the concept of a hub airport.

A "hub" is of little benefit to anyone other than the airport itself since
by definition most of the passengers and freight will simply be passing
through. Any tired old economic growth arguments put forward in support are
specious and are purely self interest.

There are enough runways in the SE. We don't need anymore just to bolster the
share price of Ferrovia or get Boris a seat on the board of a construction
company when he finally gets bored of playing at being Major.

Sigh Hub airports allow many more secondary destinations to be
served directly than would be viable otherwise, thus benefiting local
businesses and citizens. For example, I'd like to be able to fly
directly to cities like Santiago without having to change, as is
currently required. This has been discussed here at length in the
past.

In article

, (Neil Williams) wrote:

wrote:

I don't think your description of the Stansted area would meet with
much agreement in North West Essex.

I just looked at a map and the airport's immediate surrounds indeed are
either businesses of the type that support the airport and could be moved,
e.g. the car parks, or farmland. You could make it a lot bigger before
you start taking out villages, unlike LHR.

Not the view when the second runway scheme was still going.

Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:42:08 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:36:00 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
A "hub" is of little benefit to anyone other than the airport itself since
by definition most of the passengers and freight will simply be passing
through. Any tired old economic growth arguments put forward in support are
specious and are purely self interest.

There are enough runways in the SE. We don't need anymore just to bolster the
share price of Ferrovia or get Boris a seat on the board of a construction
company when he finally gets bored of playing at being Major.

Sigh Hub airports allow many more secondary destinations to be
served directly than would be viable otherwise, thus benefiting local
businesses and citizens. For example, I'd like to be able to fly
directly to cities like Santiago without having to change, as is
currently required. This has been discussed here at length in the
past.

Err , the point of a hub airport is that you DO change planes. You seem to be
conflating hub with simply a larger airport.

As an aside I don't give a rats backside about you being able to fly
directly somewhere. I wouldn't expect railway lines or motorways to be built
direct from London to every small town and city in europe so I'm not sure why
you should expect to always be able to fly direct to anywhere you suddenly
decide to go. If changing is a problem - don't go.

--
Spud

On Wed, 8 May 2013 11:21:38 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:42:08 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:36:00 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
A "hub" is of little benefit to anyone other than the airport itself since
by definition most of the passengers and freight will simply be passing
through. Any tired old economic growth arguments put forward in support are
specious and are purely self interest.

There are enough runways in the SE. We don't need anymore just to bolster the
share price of Ferrovia or get Boris a seat on the board of a construction
company when he finally gets bored of playing at being Major.

Sigh Hub airports allow many more secondary destinations to be
served directly than would be viable otherwise, thus benefiting local
businesses and citizens. For example, I'd like to be able to fly
directly to cities like Santiago without having to change, as is
currently required. This has been discussed here at length in the
past.

Err , the point of a hub airport is that you DO change planes. You seem to be
conflating hub with simply a larger airport.

As an aside I don't give a rats backside about you being able to fly
directly somewhere. I wouldn't expect railway lines or motorways to be built
direct from London to every small town and city in europe so I'm not sure why
you should expect to always be able to fly direct to anywhere you suddenly
decide to go. If changing is a problem - don't go.

It appears that you don't fly internationally (or at all?).

On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:13:24 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 11:21:38 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
directly somewhere. I wouldn't expect railway lines or motorways to be built
direct from London to every small town and city in europe so I'm not sure why
you should expect to always be able to fly direct to anywhere you suddenly
decide to go. If changing is a problem - don't go.

It appears that you don't fly internationally (or at all?).

I fly occasionally so I'm not some hair shirt wearing hippy who thinks we
should all go back to travelling by horse. But I also don't see it as my god
given right to be able to fly where I want when I want. And there is a balance
between nuisance + enviromental damage and convenience to passengers and its
already swung too far over to the latter.

--
Spud

In message , at 12:39:33 on Wed, 8 May
2013, d remarked:
directly somewhere. I wouldn't expect railway lines or motorways to be built
direct from London to every small town and city in europe so I'm not sure why
you should expect to always be able to fly direct to anywhere you suddenly
decide to go. If changing is a problem - don't go.

It appears that you don't fly internationally (or at all?).

I fly occasionally so I'm not some hair shirt wearing hippy who thinks we
should all go back to travelling by horse. But I also don't see it as my god
given right to be able to fly where I want when I want. And there is a balance
between nuisance + enviromental damage and convenience to passengers and its
already swung too far over to the latter.

Despite the best efforts of Ryanair and Easyjet, there are still many
city pairs in Europe (let alone further afield) which do not have direct
flights, and therefore involve a change (or a substantial domestic
land-based leg).

Given that many people choose to change planes somewhere, the best
places quickly tun into "hubs", irrespective of whether they are
Heathrow, Frankfurt, Paris etc.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:39:33 on Wed, 8 May
2013, d remarked:
directly somewhere. I wouldn't expect railway lines or motorways to be built
direct from London to every small town and city in europe so I'm not sure why
you should expect to always be able to fly direct to anywhere you suddenly
decide to go. If changing is a problem - don't go.

It appears that you don't fly internationally (or at all?).

I fly occasionally so I'm not some hair shirt wearing hippy who thinks we
should all go back to travelling by horse. But I also don't see it as my god
given right to be able to fly where I want when I want. And there is a balance
between nuisance + enviromental damage and convenience to passengers and its
already swung too far over to the latter.

Despite the best efforts of Ryanair and Easyjet, there are still many
city pairs in Europe (let alone further afield) which do not have direct
flights, and therefore involve a change (or a substantial domestic land-based leg).

Given that many people choose to change planes somewhere, the best places
quickly tun into "hubs", irrespective of whether they are Heathrow, Frankfurt, Paris etc.

Indeed, and while Heathrow is the busiest of the three, it has to squeeze
the traffic on to just two runways, while the latter two have four each. It
needs four, too.

On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:50:00 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:39:33 on Wed, 8 May
Despite the best efforts of Ryanair and Easyjet, there are still many
city pairs in Europe (let alone further afield) which do not have direct
flights, and therefore involve a change (or a substantial domestic
land-based leg).

So what? Tough.

--
Spud