http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate...3-12-19a.936.1

Read some of the comments about Heathrow here, before your jump on Zac. Although, I agree he only appears to be after one thing.

Does anyone have more insight on the impact to LCY if the Isle of Grain option gets the go-ahead? From what I heard on the news in the past week, it will have to close as the approach is in the same airspace that would be required for the hub airport.

I only caught this in one news bulletin and don't have any more info. If correct, it will have a significant impact to a large number of people who like LCY precisely because it's a small airport with a 15 minute minimum check in. And it's proximity to the City/Canary Wharf.

Heathrow cleared for take-off? Third (and even FOURTH) runway plans
 

Even if LHR gets it - it will be 2030 before its completed. Lunacy. In any case I have a feeling as many others in the industry do that LGW will get the nod.

That would be a good outcome. No reason why LGW can't be to LON what EWR is to NYC. They just need to tempt a major alliance over and market the O&D superiority over LHR for London and the South Coast / South West.

Because knowing what I know about the rail connections from LGW, I would choose it every time over LHR for getting into Central London easily ^

Uh, I thought that would be typical German. All the discussions we have in FRA, MUC and BER.

Not in my backyard in German is a prayer to Saint Florian (the saint of the firefighters): O holy Saint Florian, spare my house, kindle others!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Florian

How?
Oneworld? Hardly, not with BA and American at LHR.
STAR? All new T2 facility opening in June?
SkyTeam? Use of the quietest Terminal at LHR with recently upgraded lounge and departure facilities.

When companies pay substantial sums to get away from LGW, I am baffled as to why it's so super easy to get a whole alliance to move back? I cannot think of a single major airline that would move out of LHR and if you made them you'd end up in court.

The JFK / Newark one doesn't work as Newark has a huge hub operation from a legacy carrier in situ, something Gatters doesn't. It has point to point leisure! Remember Adam Thomson and Freddie Laker were denied access to LHR and as a result went bust in the end.

If Gatwick "gets the nod" it can only be in answer to more terminal/runway capacity, (remember STN remains a white elephant so why not fill this first?) this is not the same as hub capacity. Even Boris, as much as I disagree with him get's the distinction.

There is every reason why LGW cannot be to London as to what Newark is to New York. Ask Sir Richard Branson why he moved all his US flights except Vegas and Florida to LHR yet can still offer a JFK / Newark option from LHR. You're not comparing like with like.

One thing that annoys me about the airports commission is that they seem to be saying a third runway at Heathrow OR a second runway at Gatwick. Why not both? both are needed desperately. Might as well bite the bullet and do the works, Britain really seems hopeless at long term planning.

Also the actual Heathrow Hub proposal says that BOTH Heathrow runways should be extended to 7,000 metres to create 4 runways on 2 long runways if you get what I mean.

Its a shame the airport commission is only considering a dumbed down version with just the northern runway being extended to 6,000 metres.

Need to start thinking big and stop being wimps.

Also the Heathrow Hub is my favourite solution now. In its full and proper form it will double Heathrow capacity, create a large rail hub north of T5, and be cheaper than plans for a North West third runway and quicker to construct. It will also require Terminal 5 to be extended westwards with 5 new satellite terminals. GREAT!
Its a brilliant idea and MAD has done a similar thing, when it built 2 new runways in a sort of zig zag style a few years back.
LHR really would be able to compete with FRA, CDG, DXB and AMS with the PROPER Heathrow Hub solution, not too impressed with the commission dumbing down the proposals.

I agree.

EWR is a HUB with full service airlines providing many connections.

LGW is a point to point airport with holiday flights and LCCs.

LHR is the one that needs priority.

Study: 1 Million People Suffer From LHR Aircraft Noise (4 Times Official Estimates)
 

New research has found very different results from previous official studies. The research found that up to 1 million people living near LHR become annoyed by aircraft noise and they do so at a much lower noise level than has previous been claimed. These results among with may other study results will be examined and considered by the Airports Commission as a part of LHR's third-runway plans.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...estimates.html

And probably 900k of them moved there knowing they would be affected.

^

and the other 61 Million would like a decent airport with good connections....

Couldn't agree with you both more!
All the locals against R3 annoy me so much - Heathrow has been operating at over 90% capacity since 1995 (>432,000/480,000 limit) therefore the noise has always been there and in fact has probably decreased some due to quieter aircraft.

I don't see therefore, apart from those who would have to be relocated, why other locals should be allowed to affect and delay this so much.

I would put money on many residents within, I don't know, say 25 miles of Heathrow, having moved there after 1995 therefore they knew what they moving into and the noise this would bring - that is of course unless the house viewing was in the middle of the night during the curfew:D

I used to live (by choice) in Cheadle Manchester directly under the flight path where the aircraft were only 30 seconds from landing and to be quite honest you got so used to it that you didn't notice the noise after a while. It's ludicrous in this day and age that our number one airport has only two runways and is permanently running at full capacity. Heathrow needs this runway yesterday not in 2030 and if the parliamentarians had any nouse they would get this done immediately.

Maybe the reason so few MPs seem to be travelling through LHR today, is to avoid the issue of any more capacity.

Agree 100%, 2nd runway at Gatwick by 2022 and 3rd runway at LHR by 2030 would be sensible.

Why not? it all comes down to money. The new runways will be privately funded by the airport owners and the airport owners rather like running at capacity because it removes competition on price between them. Gatwick have said that if LHR gets a third runway then it will not seek to build a second.