Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
The so-called Heathrow Hub is an imaginative idea,
which has usefully opened up thinking about the way the airport operates,
but for the reasons we explain is less attractive from a noise perspective.
The Northwest Runway scheme is technically feasible and does not involve
massive, untested infrastructure.

"massive untested infrastructure"?

[I'm intrigued by the phrase but don't have time to read the report.]

It just means that the novel extended double runway idea would be a world's
first, and so all the safety analyses would have to be carried out from
scratch. New operating procedures would probably also be needed.

The much more expensive and disruptive northwest third runway scheme is
entirely conventional, which is the main reason the commission favoured it.

In message , at 18:37:03 on Sun, 25 Sep
2016, Mizter T remarked:

iirc it was farmland which was commandeered as a wartime airstrip.

Which was only a pretence conjured up by Harold Balfour and others in
order to establish a fact on the ground - i.e. a big aerodrome - using
wartime requisition powers.

Even if that was true (I hope you have some citations for that) the
point is that it was *farmland* and thus outside the urban area of
London at that time.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:30:49 on Sun, 25 Sep
2016, tim... remarked:

The issue with LHR being London's main airport in the wrong place is
"should it have been moved before T4 was given permission"

IMHO the answer to that is "Absolutely"

Where would you have put it? Bear in mind that Maplin Sands, and several
other sites had been rules out already, so you might have only Stansted
on offer. And that already had an active set of pressure groups opposed
to even any extension of its status as the third airport.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:30:49 on Sun, 25 Sep 2016,
tim... remarked:

The issue with LHR being London's main airport in the wrong place is
"should it have been moved before T4 was given permission"

IMHO the answer to that is "Absolutely"

Where would you have put it?

You just have to find somewhere

I'm sure that there are (were) lots of viable options

Bear in mind that Maplin Sands, and several other sites had been rules out
already, so you might have only Stansted on offer. And that already had an
active set of pressure groups opposed to even any extension of its status
as the third airport.

Of course there are going to be pressure groups. But that's what politics
has to cope with that makes it hard

you have to overrule the pressure groups to do what's best for the country.

It's what happened in all other places that have moved their major airport

This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by now
and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it is now

tim

tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:30:49 on Sun, 25 Sep 2016,
tim... remarked:

The issue with LHR being London's main airport in the wrong place is
"should it have been moved before T4 was given permission"

IMHO the answer to that is "Absolutely"

Where would you have put it?

You just have to find somewhere

I'm sure that there are (were) lots of viable options

I don't think there were, even back then. That's why we've had multiple
airport enquiries and commissions, but haven't come even close to choosing
a new airport site.


Bear in mind that Maplin Sands, and several other sites had been rules out
already, so you might have only Stansted on offer. And that already had an
active set of pressure groups opposed to even any extension of its status
as the third airport.

Of course there are going to be pressure groups. But that's what politics
has to cope with that makes it hard

you have to overrule the pressure groups to do what's best for the country.

So you might just as well expand Heathrow. It will cause far less trouble
than attempting to build a major new 4-runway airport anywhere in the
southeast.


It's what happened in all other places that have moved their major airport

This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by now
and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it is now

London isn't short of airport capacity. It's just short of capacity at
Heathrow. Stansted and Luton have plenty of spare capacity, Gatwick has a
little, and Southend could handle many more London flights.

In message , at 19:36:29 on
Sun, 25 Sep 2016, remarked:
On a broader view, siting London's main airport at Heathrow was
something of a folly.

iirc it was farmland which was commandeered as a wartime airstrip.

There is a 95 year old woman in our village who still goes on about it
at the weekly Coffee morning that is run by volunteers where such folk
can get out and have a chat.
Her father and family relocated to Hampshire but never got a business
established enough to provide for them all after that, so she married
young and has lived in Council accommodation ever since while her
brothers inherited the farm he did establish, at least a council
bungalow in a village like this is a world away from a sink estate in
a city.

Look on the bright side - they didn't die in the blitz or a POW camp (or
as a result of the wartime influences which caused the Norton Fitzwarren
rail crash).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:34:25 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, tim... remarked:
The issue with LHR being London's main airport in the wrong place is
"should it have been moved before T4 was given permission"

IMHO the answer to that is "Absolutely"

Where would you have put it?

You just have to find somewhere

I'm sure that there are (were) lots of viable options

That's what the Roskill Commission had a rather hard time with. They
suggested Cublington.

Bear in mind that Maplin Sands, and several other sites had been rules
out already, so you might have only Stansted on offer. And that
already had an active set of pressure groups opposed to even any
extension of its status as the third airport.

Of course there are going to be pressure groups. But that's what
politics has to cope with that makes it hard

you have to overrule the pressure groups to do what's best for the country.

It's what happened in all other places that have moved their major airport

Almost always to reclaimed land off the coast, or virtually uninhabited
tracts of farmland. Boris wanted to pursue the former (to much derision
from onlookers) and there isn't any of the latter in the Southeast.

This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by
now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it
is now

SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway
at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:57:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:34:25 on Mon, 26 Sep
This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by
now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it
is now

SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway
at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow.

The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world.
When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't
need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with
24 hours notice. Instant gratification is something children expect, not adults.

--
Spud

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:23:19 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:57:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:34:25 on Mon, 26 Sep
This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by
now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it
is now

SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway
at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow.

The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world.
When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't
need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with
24 hours notice. Instant gratification is something children expect, not adults.

The vapour trails you see are from high flying aircraft, nothing to do
with London airports. Many of the air routes from Europe to North
America are visible from London.

In message , at 10:23:19 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, d remarked:
This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by
now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it
is now

SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway
at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow.

The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world.
When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't
need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with
24 hours notice.

You need just as much capacity for people booking flights months in
advance.
--
Roland Perry