To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport expansion short
list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that left it on the list for so
long at all. So what remains are three options, two for Heathrow expansion,
and one for Gatwick. The business vote strongly favours Heathrow, but
Gatwick is easier politically. The decision is due after the election, and
I wonder which will win?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484

In message

, at 01:57:03 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport expansion short
list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that left it on the list for so
long at all. So what remains are three options, two for Heathrow expansion,
and one for Gatwick. The business vote strongly favours Heathrow, but
Gatwick is easier politically. The decision is due after the election, and
I wonder which will win?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484

Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds), I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new
runway". Doesn't the plan to redevelop the railway station there almost
take that outcome for granted?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at 01:57:03 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport expansion short
list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that left it on the list for so
long at all. So what remains are three options, two for Heathrow expansion,
and one for Gatwick. The business vote strongly favours Heathrow, but
Gatwick is easier politically. The decision is due after the election, and
I wonder which will win?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484

Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds), I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new runway".

By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen? All the logic favours a
third Heathrow runway as first choice, with a second Gatwick runway the
next expansion option a few years later.

Doesn't the plan to redevelop the railway station there almost take that
outcome for granted?

I don't know the details, but if the new runway and terminals are well to
the south of the existing railway station, wouldn't the station need to be
moved as well as expanded? There would almost certainly need to be a new,
fast, direct rail link between the airports as well, if they're to share
the hub airport role.

In message
,
at 02:36:55 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds), I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new runway".

By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen?

Lots of local opposition, and much more expensive.

All the logic favours a
third Heathrow runway as first choice, with a second Gatwick runway the
next expansion option a few years later.

Doesn't the plan to redevelop the railway station there almost take that
outcome for granted?

I don't know the details, but if the new runway and terminals are well to
the south of the existing railway station,

The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further
from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle
train).

wouldn't the station need to be moved as well as expanded?

No.

There would almost certainly need to be a new, fast, direct rail link
between the airports as well, if they're to share the hub airport role.

No. The proposal is to keep the most valuable "hub" flights at Heathrow
and move the more point-to-point ones to Gatwick.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
,
at 02:36:55 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds), I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new runway".

By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen?

Lots of local opposition, and much more expensive.

True, but also much, much more demand for it. Apart from Gatwick
airport itself, not many people are demanding a second runway there.
Pretty much the entire business community and airline industry want
Heathrow to expand.


All the logic favours a
third Heathrow runway as first choice, with a second Gatwick runway the
next expansion option a few years later.

Doesn't the plan to redevelop the railway station there almost take that
outcome for granted?

I don't know the details, but if the new runway and terminals are well to
the south of the existing railway station,

The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further
from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle
train).

If it's the other side of the existing runway, it'll be a lot further
from the current south terminal than the north terminal is.

wouldn't the station need to be moved as well as expanded?

No.

There would almost certainly need to be a new, fast, direct rail link
between the airports as well, if they're to share the hub airport role.

No. The proposal is to keep the most valuable "hub" flights at Heathrow
and move the more point-to-point ones to Gatwick.

But how do you decide that the point-to-point flights don't support
the hub flights?

In message , at 10:44:46 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
The new terminal will be between the old and new runways, no further
from the station than the current North Terminal (with its shuttle
train).

If it's the other side of the existing runway, it'll be a lot further
from the current south terminal than the north terminal is.

No it won't. The new terminal will be quite thin and east-west between
the runways.

wouldn't the station need to be moved as well as expanded?

No.

There would almost certainly need to be a new, fast, direct rail link
between the airports as well, if they're to share the hub airport role.

No. The proposal is to keep the most valuable "hub" flights at Heathrow
and move the more point-to-point ones to Gatwick.

But how do you decide that the point-to-point flights don't support
the hub flights?

Because you have access to the information about who is taking which
flight, and hence which pairs of flights have the most people
transiting.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:44:46 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry
True, but also much, much more demand for it. Apart from Gatwick
airport itself, not many people are demanding a second runway there.
Pretty much the entire business community and airline industry want
Heathrow to expand.

Which "entire business community" would this be then? Give some examples.

--
Spud

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
,
at 02:36:55 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds),
I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new
runway".

By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen?

Lots of local opposition, and much more expensive.

True, but also much, much more demand for it. Apart from Gatwick
airport itself, not many people are demanding a second runway there.
Pretty much the entire business community and airline industry want
Heathrow to expand.

That's because they've all bought into the fiction that it will mean there
is space for daily flights to Ulan Bator (insert list of other out of the
way places that only 3 people a week want to travel to) thus increasing the
trade that we do with um, Mongolia.

But IMHO the extra capacity wont be used this way. It'll be used to
increase the number of flights a day to NYC from 30 to 60 to no-ones benefit
except BA/AA/Etc

tim

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 02:36:55 -0500
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds), I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new runway".

By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen? All the logic favours a
third Heathrow runway as first choice, with a second Gatwick runway the
next expansion option a few years later.

Logic actually favours no expansion at all. The much quoted hub airport
will do nothing for UK Plc other than put more money into the pockets of
the airport owners and will be an enviromental disaster wherever its located.
But of course as soon as someone says this you get the usual vested
interests shouting them down saying they're anti business and banging on
about "growth". As if a constant increase in GDP is all that makes a pleasant
country to live in.

--
Spud

On 02/09/2014 11:40, d wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 02:36:55 -0500
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds), I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new runway".

By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen? All the logic favours a
third Heathrow runway as first choice, with a second Gatwick runway the
next expansion option a few years later.

Logic actually favours no expansion at all.
By this you mean your logic or the logic you're minded to believe in?

The much quoted hub airport
will do nothing for UK Plc other than put more money into the pockets of
the airport owners and will be an enviromental disaster wherever its located.
The hub part is one argument, but it can clearly be argued that
expansion to even handle the current number of flights is necessary to
prevent stacking or horrendous problems caused by the smallest of issues
due to lack of over-capacity.

I await the response that if you build more capacity it will fill up,
and you hear the same argument about road building. Strangely, it's
rarely used when it comes to railways. But in any case if people feel
so strongly about such things they should examine their overall
travelling habits - but then they couldn't have their big house in the
leafy suburbs....

I'd also argue that the word "disaster" is hyperbole in this case
-unless of course any large infrastructure project comes under the same
heading.

If we see air travel as a necessity, even if that is an evil necessity,
then logic would dictate that you need a single airport that is easy
and quick to get to from all parts of the area it serves to use the
capacity as efficiently as possible - I haven't looked at the schedules
but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to
particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into
less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case.