Third runway at heathrow official

[swamp]

It's for northern chavs to go and spend time with Thai prostitutes.

[ChimpMaster]

So I have to recycle everything I use, switch off my electrical appliances at night etc etc because if I don't the world will come to an end, but its ok to have a load more aircraft flying about. Forgive me if I boil my kettle to make a cup of tea to ponder this one.

perform 2 Google searches

[Spacecadet]

Boris's idea of a brand new airport to replace heathrow (and one other?) is the best idea.

Heathrow is already very fragmented, the new runway and terminal won't help matters.
Untill a brand new airport is designed and built from scratch to handle the passenger numbers people are going to avoid Heathrow and fly through better organised european hubs.

As it is, if you're not based in London and close to another international airport (e.g. manchester) then it really makes better sense to use other european/middle east hubs anyway and avoid the Heathrow factor. A new runway and terminal will not fix this

[PM-Junkie]

I love this sort of argument. On what basis do you assert the majority of people are against it?

Try learning to read eh? You will note the inclusion of the word "apparently" in my post. The media report polls that suggest the majority of people are against it - you may or may not believe the media, or indeed the polls - since it all depends what the questions are. But if those polls are true (and I happen to believe they are....and this government have a long history of doing the exact opposite of what most people want) - my opinion is perfectly valid.

So before getting on your high horse and making yourself look like an idiot, try actually reading what people post?

[MPwannadecentincome]

Should do what HK did. Build a new one on edge of town.

I agree.

big advantages of this are:

1) no night flight restrictions, which leads to
2) less traffic congestion and stacking of planes, which leads to
3) less pollution and fuel wastage

and it would probably be cheaper to build a new one compared to trying to build a 3rd runway and terminal 6.

[MPwannadecentincome]

Boris's idea of a brand new airport to replace heathrow (and one other?) is the best idea.

Heathrow is already very fragmented, the new runway and terminal won't help matters.
Untill a brand new airport is designed and built from scratch to handle the passenger numbers people are going to avoid Heathrow and fly through better organised european hubs.

As it is, if you're not based in London and close to another international airport (e.g. manchester) then it really makes better sense to use other european/middle east hubs anyway and avoid the Heathrow factor. A new runway and terminal will not fix this

Quite... and the european / middle east hubs are already winning vs heathrow especially dubai which can fly direct to USA and OZ - I cannot see the attraction of heathrow as a connection point at all when e.g. amsterdam has one big terminal for all flights.

[Cyberman]

We have enough airports and enough runways. Stabilisation or even reduction of flights should be the aim. Aircraft are getting bigger anyway so this should take up a lot of the extra passenger requirements.

[MPwannadecentincome]

Heard the Airlines muppet on 5live this morning arguing for it.

It's so that we can have more connecting flights from Airports such as Manchester, Glasgow, Newcastle, etc through London.

Simple solution?

Encourage the Airlines to operate more long haul flights (through their licences) from Manchester, Glasgow, Newcastle, etc

It's a pain in the A$$ having to change flights (in addition usually adding an extra half day there and half day back).

And it's cheaper to change at Schipol, Brussels and Paris than it is to change at London anyway (I've changed at all three recently, but at London, never!).

Only problem is not enough people were using these services when they were there - BMI cancelled their flights from Manchester as they were not profitable.

[swamp]

I agree.

big advantages of this are:

1) no night flight restrictions, which leads to
2) less traffic congestion and stacking of planes, which leads to
3) less pollution and fuel wastage

and it would probably be cheaper to build a new one compared to trying to build a 3rd runway and terminal 6.

The Thames Estuary is in the arse end of nowhere. No roads, no rail, no nearby towns or cities apart from East London and Docklands, which already has its own airport.

The Thames Estuary airport is the dumbest idea since the Burmese government moved its capital from coastal Rangoon to Pyinmana, a malaria infested jungle hell-hole, apparently to avoid attack by the United States.

[PM-Junkie]

The Thames Estuary is in the arse end of nowhere. No roads, no rail, no nearby towns or cities apart from East London and Docklands, which already has its own airport.

The Thames Estuary airport is the dumbest idea since the Burmese government moved its capital from coastal Rangoon to Pyinmana, a malaria infested jungle hell-hole, apparently to avoid attack by the United States.

But it would cost a fortune, undoubtedly go several times over budget, probably take at least 10 years longer to build than originally forcast, and by the time it goes live almost certainly not be fit for purpose.

So I can't understand for the life of me why this government hasn't already started doing it.