Heathrow expansion - response

[Nemesis]

[Open Image] [Hosted by PhotoGalaxy.com]

No response from Pandora though Biff to your interesting and informative post. Odd as she was online, maybe hasn't read it yet.

Is that your real name Pandora? An interesting choice.

 

[Flyfisher]

Biff, I suspect the reason for the lack of expansion of regional airports is the 'hub' nature of airline routes. We're fortunate (well, depending on your viewpoint) in the UK to have a major world hub airport in Heathrow so we're not used to the hassle of having to fly to, say, Schiphol before getting a flight to our final destination. There's also the economic benefits of concentrating most operations in a single place. Anyway, people not living near the south-east can use our marvellous rail infrastructure for their journeys to/from the airline hubs.

I'm surprised at Graham's experience of being able to book so many cheap flights on a single trip, but it just goes to show what can be achieved. So why is it that the train companies can't achieve such fares and actually compete with the airlines for domestic routes? (not for NI obviously).

 

[skier-hughes]

My wife regularly books train journeys to London from Wolverhampton at £10 a go, with a £15 to first class upgrade on a Sunday, but never been able to find a 4p one.

 

[Nemesis]

Thought some people may be interested in this site and the links:

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/campaigncommunity.php

 

[pandora]

Biff,
I'm glad you appreciated my post . There are many problems with the existing regional airports, the main one being location. So many people want to fly out of the South East, Heathrow in particular, because London is a massive business centre. Sadly, although people near the regoinal airports do go on holiday, the big money spinners are business travel. It is a kind of vicious circle - the airlines fly out of Heathrow because the punters are there. The punters set up their businesses there because it is near Heathrow. Hence the success of the M$ corridor as a popular out-of-town place to base a company. Because the bigger airlines catering for business passengers are based out of the South East, they are able to cover both business and leisure markets with one fleet. In the regions the airlines which operate there are primarily aimed at the low cost holiday maker and therefore are more restricted in where they can fly to. It costs an awful lot more to fly to, say, Barcelona than to Reus or Girona, because of premium airport fees. Also holiday makers are much happier to fly out of wherever the flight goes from - if they are not travelling frequently and are anticipating a nice time a bit of a drive doesn't bother so much. You have to admit yourself that Humberside isn't exactly handy for, well, anywhere! I was born in Hull and my mum still lives overlooking the Humber Bridge - there's not a lot happening around there. Airports like Stansted and Luton have managed in recent years to reinvent themselves mainly thanks to Easyjet (Luton) and Ryanair (Stansted.) Each of these airlines have driven a very very hard bargain with the airports and each has been the main player when the airports were in decline. Each of these airports has turned it's fortunes around by being able to attract smaller operators after the larger ones have helped encourage road and rail infrastructure development.

So, what I am trying to say in a bit of a rambling way, is that the regional airports will not be able to attract the larger airlines, and the smaller airlines want to be where the big players are in order to piggyback on their improvements to the airport. Hope that makes sense. Also - the Thames Estuary idea is a non-starter, although is always suggested, because of the wildlife issues involved and the complete lack of transport infrastructure, among other reasons.


Now. Nemesis seems to be of the opinion that she has intelligently started a tail-wagging competition. She is also reading FAR too much into the fact that I lurked but didn't reply to a question. Here's what happened, Nemesis; I started to have a read, my baby started showing signs she was tired a bit earlier than I expected her to so I put down the laptop and took her up for her bath, book and bed. Then I had my dinner, had a chat with my mum, watched some TV and then switched the laptop back on again. OH and I have a 'half hour on the laptop during the evenings' limit so we don't turn into sad old people with nothing better to do than see how many posts we can notch up on internet discussion boards. BTW do you have a cat?

 

[Nemesis]

Actually I think Biff's tongue may have been a little in his cheek... as mine frequently is. The doggy jokelet was clearly lost on you though.

Such exciting lives you airline pilots lead.

I'm not sure I need a cat. I seem to have acquired a virtual one. Another saucer of milk dear?

 

[Schoolmarm]

" OH and I have a 'half hour on the laptop during the evenings' limit so we don't turn into sad old people with nothing better to do than see how many posts we can notch up on internet discussion boards. BTW do you have a cat?"




Very funny, Now I know why pilots fall asleep, they bore each other into oblivion.

 

[Nemesis]

Oooh Marm - you may say that, I couldn't possibly comment!

 

[gsport george]

The thing I dont understand is why nearly ALL long haul flights HAVE to go from Heathrow.

A lot of Heathrows traffic MUST be people from "North of Watford Gap". Yet it is impossible to fly to (for example) Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Hong Kong, Tokyo etc from ANYWHERE EXCEPT Heathrow. So for the business (or holiday) traveller from "The North" You either have a NIGHTMARE journey to Heathrow by road or rail (why does the mainline into St.Pancras now stop about half a mile from the tube station to make space for a shopping centre that you HAVE to walk through?) OR you Fly from Manchester or East Midlands, or Birmingham or Leeds Bradford, or Doncaster INTO Heathrow then out again, and subsequently increase the airtraffic there for no apparent reason...

Heathrow IS big enough to serve London and it's environs. Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham COULD easily handle the traffic in the "North" if they could ever get it.... Moving just a few flights to these other airports would take a lot of strain off Heathrow and the poor dears could finally tart the dump up a bit...

 

[biffvernon]

No tongue in cheek, Nemesis, I was being absolutely straight.

I suspect Pandora is quite right in desribing why Heathrow is popular with the airlines. But the point remains that there is plenty of runway capacity in the country. If permissions for new runways at Heathrow and Stansted are refused then air traffic could still expand. It would just have to be reorganised to make better use of regional airports, and if that went hand in hand with other economic devolution away from the South East it would be no bad thing.

I happen to think that all flying is an evil abberation for creatures without wings and should stop forthwith, but we are where we are, and to save the destruction of some fine period properties threatened by new runways, promoting the regional airports and the infrastructure that makes them viable seems a good tactic.

At least Pandora's mother and I find Humberside very convenient.

 

[Nemesis]

Where I live, people are gearing up to fight the expansion of the local airport. There is plenty of runway capacity, it's just many seem to agree with your view of flying. Possibly these are the ones who wash of course.

(Of course we could build a new airport in the Thames Estuary - at least the folly would be hidden when sea level rises. )

Now why I wonder would that happen?

Interesting snippets of news via this site link:

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/news/index.php

 

[Flyfisher]

I suspect that if expansion of regional airports made economic sense, compared with expanding the existing hubs, then it would have been done by now. Of course, any proposal to expand, say, Manchester airport rather than Heathrow would no doubt be opposed by the usual factions that just seem to like saying 'no' but never seem to propose better alternatives.

As for flying being an evil abberation for creatures without wings, well it's a point of view, if somewhat arbitrary. Why not include the wheel or the ICE as similar evil abberations - they've probably done more 'damage' than flying. Or even agriculture. Mankind is unique in its impact on the environment - indeed, period properties are hardly a natural construct themselves. But as Biff rightly says we are where we are.

 

[Nemesis]

See picture I posted earlier...

And some information:

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/news/detail.php?art_id=1373&art_AIRPORTWATCH=Y

and opinion:

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/problems.php

with which you are of course entitled to agree or disagree.

 

[skier-hughes]

Airlines = 13%
Computers = 10%

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1295295,00.html

Pandora's not putting much out with her 30 mins an evening only, good for her.

 

[Nemesis]

See also:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13649526,00.html

We print out enough paper every year to pile 8,000 miles high, almost half of which we will throw away and one in three of us never turns off our computer.

Think before you print and use the off switch then Graham?

I blame online forums for much of this waste of electricity. Possibly those who run them should consider closing them down.

 

[Pford75]

Biff - We clearly have different views on the matter, but I appreciate your efforts to at least engage in debate and raise sensible questions, without resorting to personal attacks.

I think there is some truth in your comment on regional airports...in fact, with a combination of the drive from Norfolk to Heathrow and the overbearing security measures, I have on several occasions in the past months flown from Norwich airport. One has to fly to Schipol and then take an international connection from there...but the route is always very busy and it seems mostly to be business passengers (many of whom head to flight connections in Schipol with me)..leading me to conclude that there is some demand for business travel from regional airports.

However, there are a number of additional factors which need to be considered, beyond the runway size and capacity:

1. Transport connections - There is no rail terminal at Norwich airport and car parking is limited. In any case, the surrounding roads are minor roads and already at capacity (as anyone who has queued on the A140 will know).

2. Other services at the airport - There are apx. 12 check-in desks only. Would make for some fairly long queues.

3. Airside - There is seating for apx. 200 people, 1 cafe and 2 toilets.


So, whilst the runways are large...the airport terminal would require almost complete reconstruction, the surrounding transport infrastructure complete upgrading. I don't see this happening on a general basis, Stanstead is a good example of local opposition to expansion of regional airports. But I do agree with you, that we can't put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Nemesis]

So you think that the current 'predict and provide' model as used by BAA etc is the correct one, and that expansion can and should carry on in this country without hindrance?

I do seem to recall that you were not entirely convinced about emissions and climate change - is that still your view?

Have you discovered yet who sent you what you claim were racist and abusive e-mails which emanated from person or persons (unspecified) whom you regarded (unsure why) as a poster on this site?

 

[Pford75]

What you call the 'predict and provide' model is just basic business operation and economics as employed by just about every other industry worldwide. I'm not sure what you think the alternatives are? "Predict and ignore" - The ostrich model, "Don't predict, don't provide" - The ignorance is bliss model, "Don't predict, but provide" - the mindless expansion model.

I'll ignore the off-topic trolling

 

[Nemesis]

Sorry - but I can't see any off-topic trolling - you raised the subject of 'personal attacks' and have made these claims on this site in the past, more than once I recall, I got the impression that it was connected with your stance on air travel/climate change?

by Pford75 on 02 Sep 2007 14:42

For the record, I have received both abusive private messages and also IM's (meaning I have had to remove my MSN id from my profile).

The IM's were particularly offensive, since we run MSN on our family PC all of the time and were read by my children. I don't wish to engage in the debate as to what words are considered 'offensive'...I think it's actually rather sad that some people feel the need to act in this way.

I'm staying out of the discussions where people have passionate views...sad really, but seems like the only way for me to make use of what is a very helpful forum for period property owners (it's taught me lots).

I have no idea who is responsible for the IM's (obviously someone from this forum and someone with a different and rather passionate view to my own on climate change), but their tone and content are sufficiently severe, that if they do not stop, I will report them to the policePford75

As I have no real idea of the contents of the e-mails which you claimed on this site you received possibly I'm wrong, but...

I gather that your stance (as stated here I think in the past?) on emissions and climate change is not something you wish to discuss?

 

[Pford75]

My 'stance' is

1. That I am still 'unconvinced' that the sole reason for 'climate change' is CO2 emissions as direct consequence of man's actions

2. That the 'Imminent disaster scenario' marketed by the environmentalist lobby is correct in it's scale and timing (they've not got a good track record at predicting the end of the world)

3. I am not saying that it is not true either....just that informed opinion is being replaced by tabloid hysteria, political lobbyists (on all sides) and persecution of minority groups

4. That anyone who is convinced has any remotely feasible and realistic suggestions for responding to the challenge


As others have said "The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone, the iron age didn't end because we ran out of iron...the oil age will not end because we run out of oil - it will simply reach a point where technological advances and economics make other options more attractive"