Heathrow expansion - response

[Nemesis]

resorting to personal attacks.

i know that my point of view is different to some and last time I tried to raise my view in a sensible, polite manner...all I got in response was personal abuse, racist emails

Forgot about that one...

 

[Flyfisher]

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"

Interesting quote; perhaps we're living through the transition period where the advances and economics of flying make it more attractive than other options, e.g. holidaying in the UK and/or travelling by rail. Even so, I'd feel a bit more comfortable about the future if we had a little more visibility of what's going to replace oil as the worlds primary energy source.

As for trying to ban flying, here's something else for the 'no' brigade to worry about if it really does catch on as apparently predicted :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

Oh, are people trying to ban flying? I thought containing it was more the issue.

I'm holidaying in Edinburgh this year. Well, most days are a holiday to me I admit. But Edinburgh is a whole 100 miles away.

 

[Pford75]

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?

What is 'hindrance' if it doesn't involve banning someone from flying at some level?

 

[Nemesis]

Well I presume you have a dictionary same as I do.

I presume also then the accusations re people on this forum you aren't going to give us an update on.

 

[Pford75]

I'm not going to be drawn into that discussion...so please drop it.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, if you will raise the issue don't be surprised if it's continued.

resorting to personal attacks.

Seems to me that a shadow of accusation is hanging over us all.

 

[skier-hughes]

Hardly hanging over us all, as Pford75 quite clearly also stated that in a post as well.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, was it you? It wasn't me - but we have no idea. Just the accusations.

 

[skier-hughes]

We have no new accusations from Pford75, so stop worrying. The ones you refer to were put to bed months ago.

 

[Nemesis]

Not as far as I am concerned. He has made more accusations of 'personal abuse'. And we have no idea if the culprit was ever hunted down.

I know it wasn't me, hardly my style.

 

[biffvernon]

So, whilst the runways are large...the airport terminal would require almost complete reconstruction, the surrounding transport infrastructure complete upgrading.

Valid points, but I guess that even major reconstructions of the regional airports would be less destructive than further development at Heathrow. I don't know much about Norwich airport, but when the Robin Hood was re-developed for civilian use I don't recall much local opposition and it does have fairly good transport links and a hinterland that includes Sheffield and Doncaster. There is a railway the runs along the perimeter of the airport but Finningley Station was closed in 1965 so one now has to take a seven mile trip on the shuttle bus from Doncaster. There are plans to open a new station for the airport with the next few years.

This site http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/f/finningley/index.shtml has some delightful pictures of the station as it was when open and as it is today.

 

[skier-hughes]

Interesting article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

 

[Nemesis]

Many of the three hundred plus comments put a great deal of that in perspective.

 

[Pford75]

Mr Goodall, Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford West & Abingdon

That's the problem with these 'climate change deniers'...they're all funded by the oil companies :wink:

 

[Pford75]

Biff - here's something we agree on!

Personally, I think expansion of regional airports is more viable than continuous expansion of heathrow. It might also go some way to reducing road congestion and prove to be more efficient in the long run. I have to believe that a full plane (smallish prop as are run from Norwich on some routes) is more efficient as a means of ferrying passengers to (say Bristol), than each of them driving their own car. (which most will do, rather than take the train service via London)

It would reduce traffic to and from airports (since most people could travel to a more local alternative than Heathrow) and would spread the economic benefit of having major transport hubs

 

[Flyfisher]

Doesn't it depend on the definition of 'viable' ?
Presumably there's no fundamental reason why the airline industry couldn't already have done this, but it doesn't seem to have happened in any significant way.

One of the big criticisms of the budget airlines is that they fly to the much cheaper regional airports instead of to the main areas of attraction. I once flew to 'Stockholm' with Ryan Air but it took a two hour coach ride to get to the city itself after landing in what looked like an old military airbase called Skvaska. Still, it was less than £20.

On the other hand, when Ryanair started a service to Newquay in Cornwall a few years ago it was so popular that the county council took advantage and added extra taxes to the each passenger ticket resulting in a load of flights being subsequently withdrawn. Presumably they didn't actually want the extra visitor revenues :roll:

These two examples might not be representative of the industry as a whole, but there must presumably be some good reasons why the regional airports remain largely undeveloped. I suspect it's simple economics.

Still, things might change when atlantic flights are opened to more competition following the US-EU 'Open Skies' deal that becomes effective at the end of this month I believe. Perhaps it will mean the development of mainland Europe-based hubs for Atlantic travel to the detriment of LHR and STN?

 

[Nemesis]

This isn't proving too popular:

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/news/detail.php?art_id=890

Newquay and airport tax:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/3413183.stm

12 February 2004

MP DEMANDS RYANAIR RETHINK
A Cornish MP says it could be time to kick cut-price airline
Ryanair out of services to Newquay.

BBC News - 4 February 2004

The low-cost airline has been given discounted landing charges by Newquay airport since it started services to Cornwall in March 2002.

But airport bosses claim the reduced rates have forced the airport into a £750,000 debt.

Executive members of Cornwall County Council, which runs the airport, are expected to meet on Wednesday to discuss the future of the airport.

North Cornwall MP Mr Tyler, whose constituency includes Newquay, said the deal with Ryanair should never have been agreed.

He said: "At the moment we are paying a huge amount to subsidise Ryanair's profits and their passenger fares and the only people that seem to be benefiting is Ryanair."

"I am sure we would get another low-cost airline to come in, but bribing an airline to give us a cut-price deal doesn't make long-term sense for the county."

"What we need are viable airlines with viable services and a viable airport."

"We don't want a subsidised airport which pours money into the profits of any one particular airline."

EC ruling

The number of passengers at Newquay has soared in the past two years, from 85,000 a year to nearly 250,000. It is estimated that the airport brought in more than £17m into the Cornish economy last year.

But Mr Tyler said it should not be at the expense of council tax payers.

"I don't think we should be in anyone's pocket and we should be looking around at who can produce the best deal, not just for passengers going in and out of Cornwall, but for the council tax payers in the county."

Mr Tyler's concerns follow a European Commission ruling that subsidies paid to Ryanair by a Belgian airport are illegal.

Ryanair has refused to comment on the future of the Newquay to Stansted service in the light of the ruling.

http://www.uk-airport-news.info/newquay-airport-news-270107.htm

But the council said the fee brought in an extra £160,000 a month which had been used to borrow £10m. Some of that has been used to fund an expanded passenger terminal. The council said it would not be dropping the fee which it said had had no overall adverse effect on the number of people using the airport. Other operators at Newquay, Air South West, Flybe and Skybus, have accepted the charge.

http://www.flightmapping.com/UK/Newquay/

http://news.scotsman.com/uk?articleid=3887896

Protests at Newquay:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387942.html

 

[skier-hughes]

It says target date for decision 16 Jan 2008, what was the decision?

 

[Nemesis]

Anything and everything is printed in the Cumberland News:

http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=597972

http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=803302

http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=805419