On 25 Oct 2016 at 3:32pm Zack Silversmith wrote:
I must admit, I'm not sorry that Gatwick didn't get it - who wants more planes flying over Sussex? But for anyone in W.London it's going to be a nightmare and also, as has been pointed out, does it make sense to have so many planes in the air above such a densely populated area? 'Boris Airport' was actually a good idea, placing an airport next to the sea so that planes could approach over the water. Heathrow could have been used to build much-needed housing. Everyone would have benefited, except for bird watches and fans of marshland.
On 25 Oct 2016 at 4:20pm Sterilised Jim wrote:
I'm glad Heathrow got it too, I prefer that all the jobs and associated employees go that way as well so we can keep our own town peaceful and not too crowded,
On 25 Oct 2016 at 5:44pm The Greek wrote:
If we're serious about climate change it would not have happened. While cheap flights are great and convenient (I use them a lot), we have to make sacrifices. Do we really need flights going to one Spanish city from all London airports for example? As for competitiveness, most new airlines will now prob look to the EU or central Europe for a European hub.
Domestic flights should be banned or heavily subsidised with the proceeds going to cheaper rail fares.
Not to mention the 8000 or so homes that are going to be destroyed. It's not like this govt has been great with house-building either when stocks are already under pressure.
On 25 Oct 2016 at 6:54pm News wrote:
Will not see it before 2030 given the legal issues and the need to reroute the M25 underground.........
On 25 Oct 2016 at 7:41pm Dan Dare wrote:
An aviation planner once explained things to me like this ...
The third London Airport will eventually be built at Stansted. It's why they built the M11. And they built the current M11 there because of the airport. There's no hurry to complete the project, though - which is why all sorts of new ideas get thrown into the mix, like the Thames Estuary proposal, or Boris Island, or something on the Isle of Thanet, or expansion of Gatwick, or an additional runway at Heathrow.
The point is that none of these schemes will ever happen. They just give the impression that progress is being made. But eventually, we'll get a wider M11 and then they will expand Stansted.
On 26 Oct 2016 at 5:45am Towney wrote:
I've often wondered about the intelligence of some people. They buy a house on the flight path of one of the world's busiest airports and then spend 25 years moaning about it.
Can't get my head round that one.
On 26 Oct 2016 at 6:52am Kazak 98 wrote:
Totally agree with above, what's the point of buying a house under the flight path or near to the airport then moaning about the noise and pollution. The airport came first long before people took up residence there,
On 26 Oct 2016 at 6:54am Little Bird wrote:
Bet these moaners don't mind using the plane to go on holiday.
On 26 Oct 2016 at 11:59am @The greek wrote:
"heavily subsidised", did you mean heavily taxed?
What's the point of adding tax on domestic flights to increase the rail budget, the rail operators and franchisee's already make some serious profits. Maybe put it towards HS2, HS3 (etc) or even some good old fashioned new railway routes, but seeing as they are a decade or 2 away still I don't see people paying extra tax willingly.
Planes get quieter and more efficient the whole time, by the time the decision is made (this is far from final) and the runway is built (remember there is some serious engineering work as the runway will run over the top of the M25, we're talking a good decade in the future anyway) Gatwick and Heathrow will both have round the clock flights and the third runway won't be so necessary.
On 26 Oct 2016 at 9:06pm Fairmeadow wrote:
Had it gone to gatwick it would have brought with it an estimated 40,000 additional houses, on top of all the ones we have to find room for anyway.