Heathrow v Gatwick v Stansted airport expansion
- Thread starter Kudoscycles
- Start date
Flecc....When I think about China all the airports near major cities are a long way out of the centre of the city.
That's how the Chinese build new airports so quickly.
Shanghai is interesting,the old airport at Honquiao is close to the edge of the city,not unlike Heathrow. But they have built a fantastic new airport at Pudong,some 20 miles out of the centre,in a poor quality land area.
Honquiao is now mainly,but not exclusively,the airport for internal Chinese flights and Pudong is for international.
Why cannot Heathrow be used like Honquiao and build a new super international airport,with 2 new runways at Stansted...if this were made,like Pudong,our major hub international airport then onward travel would also be through that airport.
This overcomes all the pollution,disruption,high cost problems associated with Heathrow.
KudosDave
That's how the Chinese build new airports so quickly.
Shanghai is interesting,the old airport at Honquiao is close to the edge of the city,not unlike Heathrow. But they have built a fantastic new airport at Pudong,some 20 miles out of the centre,in a poor quality land area.
Honquiao is now mainly,but not exclusively,the airport for internal Chinese flights and Pudong is for international.
Why cannot Heathrow be used like Honquiao and build a new super international airport,with 2 new runways at Stansted...if this were made,like Pudong,our major hub international airport then onward travel would also be through that airport.
This overcomes all the pollution,disruption,high cost problems associated with Heathrow.
KudosDave
That would work Dave, but it would be as expensive as an additional runway at Heathrow, possibly more. Heathrow has five terminals, not one like Stanstead. Heathrow has huge freight facilities and handles1.3 million tonnes of freight ever year against a minute amount at Stanstead.
So it wouldn't just be building two runways at Stanstead, we'd need all the terminals, freight centres, internal roads and a vast area of countryside to accommodate them all. So having spoilt all the countryside around Heathrow ( As a kid I used to go fruit picking on the farms that were there before the airport!), we'd be wrecking some of the best parts of the Essex countryside.
Personally I don't think Stanstead airport should ever have been built, just an additional runway at Gatwick would have provided sufficient back-up for an enlarged three runway Heathrow.
.
Flecc...the countryside around Stansted is not that special,it already has a comprehensive road structure,it would save knocking down 750 houses plus all the disruption to the M25.
Around Heathrow is already one of the most congested parts of the UK,Stansted is relatively light for traffic.
Anyway,they didnt consider it and Heathrow extension will probably never be built.
KudosDave
Around Heathrow is already one of the most congested parts of the UK,Stansted is relatively light for traffic.
Anyway,they didnt consider it and Heathrow extension will probably never be built.
KudosDave
[QUOTE="Kudoscycles, post: 336408, member: 5492"
Why cannot Heathrow be used like Honquiao and build a new super international airport,with 2 new runways at Stansted...[/QUOTE]
David Elderfield, I am shocked!
What you are suggesting is essentially shifting the problem from the people of London and the western Home Counties over to the eastern counties and the people of Bishops Stortford in particular. Now, I know many people around that area and have spent much time in that locale so I can tell you......................actually, on second thoughts, it's a brilliant idea! Those people have always taken great delight in the misery of others each time Stansted has been passed over for expansion that I really believe a bit of shared misery is long overdue.
As it happens, some curtailment of traffic volume both in the air and on the roads would present some welcome relief to those people affected by Heathrow so, given that Stansted is ideally placed to absorb massive expansion with the consequential effects harming far, far fewer people, I believe that is the way forward.
New York has three major airports, two of them handling international flights while La Guardia is internal only with the occasional exception and unless things have changed, there is no border control presence required there.
The other two, JFK and Newark share total passenger numbers fairly evenly, unlike the London airports where Heathrow currently handles about 75 million passengers a year, (likely to double), Gatwick about 40 million whereas Stansted doesn't even reach 20 million.
Evidently, Atlanta and Beijing are the busiest airports in the world, handling nearly 200 million passengers between them annually, just for perspective.
My simple conclusion is that Stansted is ripe for development for a variety of reasons and silly though it first seems, Lydd airport down in Kent as well as Manston could serve the same purpose. It really is about time our governments started think about growing the economies of areas further afield from London.
Tom
Why cannot Heathrow be used like Honquiao and build a new super international airport,with 2 new runways at Stansted...[/QUOTE]
David Elderfield, I am shocked!
What you are suggesting is essentially shifting the problem from the people of London and the western Home Counties over to the eastern counties and the people of Bishops Stortford in particular. Now, I know many people around that area and have spent much time in that locale so I can tell you......................actually, on second thoughts, it's a brilliant idea! Those people have always taken great delight in the misery of others each time Stansted has been passed over for expansion that I really believe a bit of shared misery is long overdue.
As it happens, some curtailment of traffic volume both in the air and on the roads would present some welcome relief to those people affected by Heathrow so, given that Stansted is ideally placed to absorb massive expansion with the consequential effects harming far, far fewer people, I believe that is the way forward.
New York has three major airports, two of them handling international flights while La Guardia is internal only with the occasional exception and unless things have changed, there is no border control presence required there.
The other two, JFK and Newark share total passenger numbers fairly evenly, unlike the London airports where Heathrow currently handles about 75 million passengers a year, (likely to double), Gatwick about 40 million whereas Stansted doesn't even reach 20 million.
Evidently, Atlanta and Beijing are the busiest airports in the world, handling nearly 200 million passengers between them annually, just for perspective.
My simple conclusion is that Stansted is ripe for development for a variety of reasons and silly though it first seems, Lydd airport down in Kent as well as Manston could serve the same purpose. It really is about time our governments started think about growing the economies of areas further afield from London.
Tom
Are the lib-dems anti the Heathrow extension....Anti Heathrow plus pro Remain should win it for the liberals as a protest vote.
KudosDave
I think that is linked to Brexit Dave, since it will be a long time before we are actually building it.
If Brexit turns out to be as disastrous as many of us think, we won't need a Heathrow extension. All the business will have gone to Schiphol (six runways in one of Europes smaller countries), Frankfurt (four runways) and Charles de Gaulle (four runways).
They show how backward we are in years of arguing about a measly third runway at Heathrow. America's central hub airport at Atlanta has seven runways!
.
David Elderfield, I am shocked!
What you are suggesting is essentially shifting the problem from the people of London and the western Home Counties over to the eastern counties and the people of Bishops Stortford in particular. Now, I know many people around that area and have spent much time in that locale so I can tell you......................actually, on second thoughts, it's a brilliant idea! Those people have always taken great delight in the misery of others each time Stansted has been passed over for expansion that I really believe a bit of shared misery is long overdue.
As it happens, some curtailment of traffic volume both in the air and on the roads would present some welcome relief to those people affected by Heathrow so, given that Stansted is ideally placed to absorb massive expansion with the consequential effects harming far, far fewer people, I believe that is the way forward.
New York has three major airports, two of them handling international flights while La Guardia is internal only with the occasional exception and unless things have changed, there is no border control presence required there.
The other two, JFK and Newark share total passenger numbers fairly evenly, unlike the London airports where Heathrow currently handles about 75 million passengers a year, (likely to double), Gatwick about 40 million whereas Stansted doesn't even reach 20 million.
Evidently, Atlanta and Beijing are the busiest airports in the world, handling nearly 200 million passengers between them annually, just for perspective.
My simple conclusion is that Stansted is ripe for development for a variety of reasons and silly though it first seems, Lydd airport down in Kent as well as Manston could serve the same purpose. It really is about time our governments started think about growing the economies of areas further afield from London.
Tom[/QUOTE]
Lydd and Manston don't have good enough communications and are just too far from London. They also have sea all around them so dont have many chimney pots,Lydd is next to an important bird sanctuary.
Stansted is also easily connected with HS1 at Stratford.
Also it must be easier to build on Green fields than all the infrastructure problems around Heathrow.
They are saying that the cost of Heathrow may double the landing fees.
The biggest problem of Stansted is persuading the likes of British Airways and the big international carriers to move there,so that those who desire onward connections do not have to change airports....it would feed nicely into the Ryanair short haul system.
Heathrow would of course be aggrieved,but thats their fault for being in such a difficult location.
Just amazed that Stansted gets ignored.
KudosDave
It's the way we do things Dave. We want them to start moving bit by bit now while Stanstead expands, meaning many years of disruption and split services with long link interchanges across different airports. Of course they won't do that, they'd be mad to.
If we first do all the work at Stanstead, building two more runways, all the freight warehouses, the string of hotels, the internal road network etc, and then offer the newly ready to fully operate completed facilities to heathrow.com for the cost, they and the airlines would all move lock stock and barrel willingly.
.
My vote would be for the Midlands, great road links and also to that other white elephant HS2 and HS2A
Haven't you heard,you are going to be devolved,anything north of the Watford Gap and you will need a visa to come south,but you are going to be part of the EPCA (European Poor Country Agreement).We are going to rebuild Hadrians Wall and get the Scots to pay for it.....TRUMP that !!!!
KudosDave
Maybe we'll reinstate the Roman empire divisions. They had a demarcation line from the Mersey to The Wash. South of that they called Britannia Superior, north of that line they called Britannia Inferior.
.
Unless of course aircraft change and achieve vertical take off etc., Heathrow must surely be doomed for the future, because it is so hemmed in.
What about when they want a fourth, fifth, six runway?
An imaginative government would now plan a ten runway airport. No need to build it all in case as I say aircraft change, but with land all bought, the roads and railways set up, even if only in the planning stage, ready to be built at the drop of a hat.
The reality probably is that we will be slowly strangled by our nimbyism, our Social Justice Warrior mentality, our over exaggerated care for rare earthworm species what have you.
I think that the UK is now over populated and the only way is down. We will argue and argue, achieve little. Governments will come and go, but we are now in a post Imperial death spiral.
Naturally, there will be those who rail against it. Occasionally we will manage a short lived recovery.
But the too many sectional interests, all demanding respect and consideration will pull us down.
Sorry to be so pessimistic, hope that I am wrong.
What about when they want a fourth, fifth, six runway?
An imaginative government would now plan a ten runway airport. No need to build it all in case as I say aircraft change, but with land all bought, the roads and railways set up, even if only in the planning stage, ready to be built at the drop of a hat.
The reality probably is that we will be slowly strangled by our nimbyism, our Social Justice Warrior mentality, our over exaggerated care for rare earthworm species what have you.
I think that the UK is now over populated and the only way is down. We will argue and argue, achieve little. Governments will come and go, but we are now in a post Imperial death spiral.
Naturally, there will be those who rail against it. Occasionally we will manage a short lived recovery.
But the too many sectional interests, all demanding respect and consideration will pull us down.
Sorry to be so pessimistic, hope that I am wrong.
There's already a background plan allowing a fourth runway, there's level enough space for it.
However, we might not need that and wouldn't need to go beyond that if we get on with a complete high speed rail network, meaning HS2, HS3, HS4 and HS 5, connecting the whole country. Then with no necessity for any internal flights and a large proportion of travel into mainland Europe by direct high speed train connection, flights would be slashed in number.
Those electrically powered trains instead of aircraft would be a huge environmental benefit too. Unfortunately the nimbys won't even allow us to progress the first stage of HS2. We had the same fuss over HS1, but now it's there no-one complains and most like the fact it's there, the services it provides and the huge boost to their south-east economy.
.