|
Originally Posted by bealine
(Post 18274329)
Very easy to say, but would you want to be the Air Traffic Controller that has to accept the responsibility for thousands of lives at a time? The job itself, despite the help from technology, is pretty stressful as it is without adding to the burden.
The Ground controllers would have a nightmare too, with taxiways being used for mixed mode. It would be extremely hard for them to keep up to speed with who's lining up for take-off, who's waiting to go to a stand and who is under tow. The single mode operation means a neat, orderly, methodical way of working - mixed mode calls for much greater powers of concentration and would make handing over at the end of a shift almost an impossible task. Mixed mode runways work well at less crowded airports. Heathrow, thanks to successive short-sighted politicians and the "NIMBY" brigade, is probably the most congested airport in the world. |
Originally Posted by BOH
(Post 18270769)
a) No one in their right minds would promote and authorise something that would so clearly be a huge safety risk.
|
And Boris says not on his watch for an expansion at LHR. Thinks it would be an 'environmental disaster'. But wrecking one of the country's most important estuaries for migratory birds would somehow be less of an environmental disaster than building a third runway at an existing airport? :confused:
Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayoral candidate, has warned that further expansion of Heathrow would be "an environmental disaster " and akin to trying to "cram a quart into a pint pot". Johnson, the incumbent Conservative mayor who is seeking re-election in May, made clear his ongoing opposition to the idea of a third runway at Heathrow, insisting that "it will not be built as long as I am mayor." He issued the warning amid reports that David Cameron and George Osborne are keen to re-examine long term policy on Heathrow amid fears that it is choking off economic growth. "'Heathrow has a great future as a key UK airport. But we cannot endlessly expand it, and cram a quart into a pint pot," Johnson said. "A third runway would be an environmental disaster. It would mean a huge increase in planes over London, and intolerable traffic and fumes in the west of the city – and it will not be built as long as I am mayor of London. |
IMHO everyone is thinking inside the box on this one.
The technology exists to connect all of the London airports, terminals and key points in the city using high speed trains (like the MagLev in Pudong), taking serious amounts of traffic off the local roads. This would lead to all of the LHR, STN, LTN, LCY and LGW runways functioning together like cells in a brain. (And even BHX and EMA wouldn't be too much of a stretch). The transfer time to get from LGW to LTN could easily be less than the time it currently takes to get from LHR T1 to T4. This would all mean that when one airport is experiencing delays the others can absorb some of the load. You could also use an underdeveloped site way outside of London as a mass parking facility and use the high-speed train to get them in. The future of airport design is not going to be expanding on and on and on with more terminals and more runways. It will be using the space we have in a far more effective way. |
http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/default.asp?contentID=48
I am sorry, but for some reason I cant see the airport at Heathrow happening over the next 5 years. BA need to think about another way to get much needed flights into China. He would resign as an MP and trigger a byelection if the government reneged on its promise not to expand Heathrow airport, which would be a "betrayal". |
Originally Posted by roberino
(Post 18274424)
IMHO everyone is thinking inside the box on this one.
The technology exists to connect all of the London airports, terminals and key points in the city using high speed trains (like the MagLev in Pudong), taking serious amounts of traffic off the local roads. This would lead to all of the LHR, STN, LTN, LCY and LGW runways functioning together like cells in a brain. (And even BHX and EMA wouldn't be too much of a stretch). The transfer time to get from LGW to LTN could easily be less than the time it currently takes to get from LHR T1 to T4. This would all mean that when one airport is experiencing delays the others can absorb some of the load. You could also use an underdeveloped site way outside of London as a mass parking facility and use the high-speed train to get them in. The future of airport design is not going to be expanding on and on and on with more terminals and more runways. It will be using the space we have in a far more effective way. |
Originally Posted by jib71
(Post 18274418)
Yes. Nothing unsafe ever gets built, does it?
Originally Posted by jib71
(Post 18274418)
And that Boris Johnson chap has a classical education, so he must know a thing or two.
|
Originally Posted by apeman85
(Post 18274449)
This is an excellent idea. However, knowing how long it takes to build HS lines in the UK, it would take decades to get this up and running.
|
Originally Posted by BOH
(Post 18274465)
What a strange comment :confused:
|
Originally Posted by origin
(Post 18274432)
BA need to think about another way to get much needed flights into China
Yes, I am aware one of the reasons the frequency is high on short-haul routes is to create feeder traffic into the long-haul services but there maybe room to remove one rotation from one or more of these services. In the event of no R3 (even if it was given a go-ahead tomorrow it would be 7 years minimum to get built) BA might just need to be more creative in how they use their existing slots. If a new Chinese route is really that important then it shouldn't be too hard to pull a short-haul rotation somehow - I've been on enough incredibly quiet flights to BRU and AMS before - normally the ones around midday and last ones back in the evening. Anyway, isn't the problem for BA likely to ease a little if the BD take over goes through. There are quite a few duplicate routes in their networks. |
Confused
I'm confused. London has three airports and one of them, Gatwick is actually quite good. Why not increase capacity at Luton and Gatwick and improve transport links between the three?
|
Originally Posted by roberino
(Post 18274497)
Anyone got a handy sarcasm sign?
|
Originally Posted by Internaut
(Post 18274601)
I'm confused. London has three airports and one of them, Gatwick is actually quite good. Why not increase capacity at Luton and Gatwick and improve transport links between the three?
Luton already have expansion plans which involve building a taxiway and improving other facilities, however it's pretty space-constrained - it would be very difficult to find space to build a 2nd runway. Stansted has plenty of space but BAA have dropped plans for a 2nd runway and apparently began selling back land/houses that were acquired for the purpose. Will be interesting to see what approach the new owners of Stansted take towards expansion. |
Originally Posted by roberino
(Post 18274424)
IMHO everyone is thinking inside the box on this one.
The technology exists to connect all of the London airports, terminals and key points in the city using high speed trains (like the MagLev in Pudong), taking serious amounts of traffic off the local roads. This would lead to all of the LHR, STN, LTN, LCY and LGW runways functioning together like cells in a brain. (And even BHX and EMA wouldn't be too much of a stretch). |
In 50years time when the UK is no longer in the top 10 economies of the world, let alone the top 20, you all can look back at debates and moratoriums such as these as the reason why.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:13 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.