On 28 Jan 2014 at 11:00am Nevillman wrote:
There has been a lot of discussion about the need for a new airport runway in the south east and the cost seems enormous. If you look at Gatwick airport, there is a great deal of space to the side of the existing runway. What is the problem with having 2 runways side by side? One for planes landing and one for taking off?
On 28 Jan 2014 at 12:59pm Gatwick Consulting Ltd wrote:
None at all, that's a great idea! We had planned to keep it as a biodiversity zone (lost of docks and nettles along with beneficial flies and dogs) but a 2nd runway will allow us to boost profits and give even more money away to our shareholders, following a small increase in landing fees naturally..... I'll scribble out a planning application and we should have this built by the end of next year.
On 28 Jan 2014 at 2:14pm bastian wrote:
Isn't that the stcking zone for aircraft-could be a health and safety issue with putting a runway under it.
On 28 Jan 2014 at 2:29pm rookie wrote:
There are certain criteria that have to be adhered to. A parallel runway at Gatwick has to be a certain distance away from the existing. It will mean levelling Charlwood to comply
On 28 Jan 2014 at 3:41pm Gatwick Consulting Ltd wrote:
Charlwood, isn't that a biodiversity zone too? Anyways I'll mention n the planning app that it has to be levelled, thanks for alerting me. Incidentally do you know any good local road layers?
On 28 Jan 2014 at 3:53pm Conspiracy Theorist wrote:
There's already a second runway. You just can't see it.
On 28 Jan 2014 at 5:05pm Ed Can Do wrote:
Gatwick runs at nothing like full capacity as it is. The addition of another runway would allow for more flights during attractive hours (i.e. daylight) for the air operators but with video conferencing and online colaboration becoming more and more the norm, the country would benefit far more from spending the billions earmarked for more air travel on better broadband. Unless you live in a built up area, decent speed braodband is non-existant and even in Lewes our part of Malling isn't hooked up to fibre optic yet. The UK is running a real risk of being left behind more progressive nations by focusing on more planes whilst being blind to the fact that in the future business travel will be increasingly eclipsed by online interaction.
On 28 Jan 2014 at 6:19pm Gatwick Consulting Ltd wrote:
Ok Ed we'll stick fast broadband on the planes, together with an optician. And don't worry, the eclipse won't affect our target implementation date, the guys are getting the spades out already and Charlwood will be level in no time. This is good teamwork, keep up the dialogue guys, I appreciate it!
On 28 Jan 2014 at 6:54pm my towm wrote:
I hope gatwick gets the go ahead . good for jobs around sussex
On 28 Jan 2014 at 7:20pm Gatwick Consulting Ltd wrote:
We're hiring everyone that wants a job. Zero hours contracts and don't expect us to pay your stamp.
On 28 Jan 2014 at 7:39pm Townie wrote:
Get off your high horse pal. We need another runway to deal with the extra demand for air travel. To all those tw@ts who have bought property on the Gatwick flight path, im sure you knew what you let yourself in for. Now get over it and move on.
On 28 Jan 2014 at 7:45pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Maplin sands in Essex is the place for a new airport. Out of sight and mind.
And ideal for Essex man wanting to fly out to Iberia and the Balierics just to get drunk every night and waste the daytime sunshine sleeping it off.
On 28 Jan 2014 at 7:53pm Townie wrote:
Would love them to agree something really close just to shut W@nkers like sussex jim up.
On 28 Jan 2014 at 8:15pm Gatwick Consulting Ltd wrote:
Good evening Townie. Take a look at our policy as outlined in our first post of this thread and you will see that in fact we are well prepared and anxious to go ahead with the second runway, with planned completion by the end of next year. We don't mess about with consultations. Now, you sound well qualified Townie, do you want a job getting that tarmac down?
On 28 Jan 2014 at 8:34pm Kentish boy wrote:
What's wrong with mansion airport !
On 28 Jan 2014 at 10:24pm Dan wrote:
Gatwick consulting - what a load of total tosh!
On 29 Jan 2014 at 7:08am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I think they should expand Shoreham. The planes could fly straight out over the sea, and hardly bother anyone at all.
On 29 Jan 2014 at 11:52am Shoreham Seafood Plc wrote:
The fish go deeper when ever a plane goes low overhead and this has a severe impact on our catch. With your idea we would need submarines and the price of fish and chips would treble overnight, resulting in the closure of the majority of fish and chip shops in the UK, significantly increasing unemployment to the extent that taxes would have to double to pay for the extra social security payments so few would have any incentive to work here and the entire UK economy would crash as Brits emigrated to China in search of work.
On 29 Jan 2014 at 12:03pm The Kronic wrote:
Are you on drugs or something, Shoreham seafood ?
On 29 Jan 2014 at 4:49pm Nevillman wrote:
I'm not sure whether we need a new runway or not but if we do then my point should be more seriously considered (not here of course but by someone). If you look at the space between the hangars to the south and the terminal to the north there is a considerable distance which is mainly taken up by grass. I appreciate that there needs to be space for planes to taxi along but it still seems to me there is room for 2 runways side by side. If Gatwick has to have another runway then it must be a lot cheaper to use this than destroy Charlwood. I'm sure regulations would not allow it but why not examine the regulations to see how much space is actually needed for a runway
On 29 Jan 2014 at 5:56pm Gatwick Consulting Ltd wrote:
Good comment Mr Nevillman. The way you're talkin' we could get three flippin runways down, I mean what use is grass except for hiding dog crap and soaking up a bit of carbon now and again? Now, get rid of the grass and get more planes in the air, that'll warm the world up and stop us moanin' about the cold. I'll tell the guys you'll be joining tomorrow, the chaps at the council have given us the green light.
On 29 Jan 2014 at 6:12pm SHS wrote:
@Nevillmam Gatwick is already an option, shortlisted nbr 2 after Heathrow. The reason it has not happened before is a restriction imposed by the local planning authority that prevents any expansion until 20xx (not sure which year, but this restriction expires very soon). Don't you read the newspapers?
On 29 Jan 2014 at 6:52pm Urbanite wrote:
We could scrap the Common Agricultural Policy and use the £50billion we give farmers every year to not grow stuff to buy two new runways a year or build a new airport in the sea every two years. The land wouldn't cost much because take away their handouts and most farmers would probably sell the millions of pounds worth of land they're living on at bargain prices and get jobs at airports instead.
On 30 Jan 2014 at 12:01am Nevillman wrote:
I have read the newspapers and it appeared that the Gatwick option was a completely new runway that would eat into the pleasant Surrey countryside. I am merely suggesting that if you actually look at the existing Gatwick runway, it appears to be wide enough for more than one runway. This would be considerably cheaper and mean that more countryside would not be taken. I am sorry that Gatwick consulting enjoys using the grass at the side of the existing runway so much and it is true that this would be lost but from a slightly wider environmental perspective, there would be less damage overall.
On 30 Jan 2014 at 2:50pm Badger wrote:
Jesus Christ Nevillman, don't you think the experts have already thought of all the options? Do you think someone just 'forgot' to look at how Gatwick is actually laid out and whether there is room for an additional runway? Do you seriously think that your idea would come as a complete surprise to them?
Why not let people do their jobs hey?
On 30 Jan 2014 at 5:03pm Nevillman wrote:
No I don't Badger. No doubt there are regulations about how far runways need to be apart but unless someone questions regulations then they remain often long after they are required. I am sure that plane flying accuracy is continually improving. How many cases have there been of planes missing the runway to the side and landing on the grass verge? It's people like you who are not prepared to question 'experts' that allow us to be trampled over. I'm not particularly impressed with your tone either. No wonder fewer intelligent people seem to use this forum.
On 30 Jan 2014 at 5:23pm Pilot wrote:
Nevillman - I think your last sentence should be 'less' not 'fewer'
On 30 Jan 2014 at 6:47pm Nevillman wrote:
It does work as a sentence using less but I did actually mean fewer in that in recent years there were far more intelligent people on here than appears to be the case now as the constant trolling is wearing.
On 31 Jan 2014 at 3:07pm Badger wrote:
If you think my post is 'trolling' Nevillman, you are very much mistaken.
I apologise for the tone, but it's infuriating to read posts like yours where people seem to think they have come up with some sort of amazing idea that quite obviously would have already been considered by people actually involved in deciding how and where a new runway could be built.
It's not about me being unwilling to question 'experts', it's about realising that those who do a job (whether they be on the pro or contra new runway side of the debate) probably know a bit better than someone who randomly posts on a local forum.
It's weird that you think virtually all obvious angles won't have been covered by those developing the plans (particularly those at Gatwick who would massively profit from a new runway).