Conservative party admits wrong on Heathrow
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...?newsfeed=true

Why were they agasint it in the first place?

Hi,

I think ( before this thread goes to OMNI)

(1) Lots of affluent voters immediately around LHR ( I think some seats may be marginal)
(2) Lib Dems against it for " environmental reasons"-ignoring the fact that the planes are circling in the sky burning more fuel ( plus the additional hold time on the ground where the jet engines are not as efficient as once airborne ie more fuel was burned)

I was a bit surprised when the Conservatives originally announced they were against expanding LHR

Regards

TBS

I suppose the argument is the same one they use against road widening. If you build a 3rd (and 4th) runway, and T6, T7 and T8, hold times won't get better -- there'll just be more flights.

Better to close LHR and expand BHX

Well BA is a small user of Heathrow. BA has made it very clear that Heathrow needs expansion. This is why I placed it here for people to see. Its not my normal newspaper, so I would only read it online or onhere.

I personally think we should just increase BHX, keep LHR how it is at the moment. At one stage, when many on here were young, BA were going to have a hub at BHX. A previous recession caused them to rethink that idea (I think).

I venture to guess that it was to try to get more votes. :D

Yes of course, because Birmingham is the centre of the UK's economy :D

You can build an extra runway and terminals but still restrict the number of flights that can use LHR to current levels (or with a very snall number of extra slots) - something you can not do with roads.

I support a 3rd runway as long as it is used to manage delays and reduce circling etc and not for masses of additional flights numbers.

Anyone calculated the environmental cost of building a 'boris island' compared to a 3rd runway?

Like it or not, there are likely to be more flights in 10 years time than there are now. Either we build the facilities to cope with this, or we allow the economies of other European countries to benefit whilst we don't.

Whilst there is all this waffling and unecessary bureaucracy, make Heathrow mixed mode. You gain a modest number of slots and help to cut down on queues and holding patterns.

Whatever could happen beyond this, it will undoubtedly take longer than it should (IMO) and probably won't be enough when we get it. Expanding Heathrow is not a long term solution.

Even in this thread I see some of the same smug and unrealistic comments made in the press and in the (UK) real world. Birmingham is not an option. Two runways is an ABSOLUTE JOKE, making LHR in reality the smallest of all major international airports around the World. If the Uk wants to even attempt to be a first World player for the rest of the current century it should have already built a 3rd AND A FOURTH runway yesterday! (I also find it ridiculous when one considers that the original aerodrome had over 20 landing strips and as recently as 1977 there were SIX RUNWAYS at LHR (Yes, angled due to wind, yada yada, but it was at leats three real ones).

^

rb211.

Seems as if we could get them to change their mind for the price of twenty or so F returns to SYD. Fancy a whip round?

Same old Tories...

Which reminds me, I'm always very upset they don't have the gruaniad in the lounges. There must be other FFers who aren't raving right-wingers!

That'll be me then