Heathrow, Gatwick, Boris’s Thames Barge or is there a hidden agenda?

[oldbluefox]

As Mob correctly says, not everyone coming to or leaving UK wants to go through London. Why does everybody have to be funneled through Heathrow or Gatwick to get to where they want to be.
It appears from news reports there are huge problems in London due to over capacity. Meanwhile other areas of the country are struggling. Why the obsession with putting everything into London and the south east?

[brillo]

The biggest problem to start with is that the south east has two thirds of the whole uk population,
it would be no good trying to move the airport to another location if the passengers want to end up in London.

[Mervyn and Trish]

As Mob correctly says, not everyone coming to or leaving UK wants to go through London.

Quite right, not everyone wants to. But the point of this debate is that more people want to than are currently able to comfortably do so. If tourists want to see Buckingham Palace or business people have business in the South East they don't want to be diverted through an airport 100 miles from their destination. If the debate was about air capacity into the UK I'd agree, look elsewhere. But it isn't. It's specifically about capacity in the South East/London area. When Manchester Airport needed a second runway no one suggested building it in Norwich!

[Dark Knight]

leave it with Heathrow
they can have the noise, the pollution, the traffic jams, the road chaos whilst they build it, after all who on earth wants to go anywhere except London?
it the centre of the political universe, so why would our politicians want to share the wealth with anywhere other than London?
there may be many reasons to build a runway elsewhere but only one reason for heathrow, coz it is London and that's where all the real decision makers live

[oldbluefox]

But at the moment there is no choice for some destinations other than to go through London thereby putting extra pressure on capacity. I don't believe that everybody passing through Heathrow, whether businessmen or tourists, does so by choice. For many there is no alternative. It doesn't make sense except as DK says 'it is London and that's where all the real decision makers live'. Meanwhile we waste millions of taxpayers' money debating the issue.

[Silver_Shiney]

I should have thought that a good deal of capacity on the existing facilities could be created by moving package-holiday flights away from Gatwick (don't know if any fly from LHR) to regional airports (after all many holiday destinations overseas are served by airports some distance away from the main airport - eg Sanford for Orlando), opening more international routes to regional airports. For instance, there are no direct flights to the US from Bristol, so anyone from this area has to travel to London.

The skies over the capital are crowded enough as it is with existing LHR traffic - if an aircraft was to come down in such a densely populated area, the devastation would be too horrific to contemplate. IF it is absolutely essential that another runway MUST be built in the south-east, then it should be somewhere where there is open land with few people to whom Compulsory Purchase Orders would be issued. But that's just my opinion.

[Mervyn and Trish]

leave it with Heathrow
they can have the noise, the pollution, the traffic jams, the road chaos whilst they build it, after all who on earth wants to go anywhere except London?
it the centre of the political universe, so why would our politicians want to share the wealth with anywhere other than London?
there may be many reasons to build a runway elsewhere but only one reason for heathrow, coz it is London and that's where all the real decision makers live

You're right Batty. I've changed my mind and I'm voting for London ('Ull) airport with a rail link to Southampton ('Ull) cruise terminal and an extension to the Metropolitan Line

[Dark Knight]

it wont be long before Hull has it's own cruise terminal, High speed link to Whitby and an we can expand Humber side airport

who needs London?

[Manoverboard]

it wont be long before Hull has it's own cruise terminal, High speed link to Whitby and an we can expand Humber side airport

who needs London?

But if you do then a 'Ull connection with Gatwick would be ideal, you could call it The ' Grimsby Express '

[Dark Knight]

we wont need Gatwick, we will be able to travel the globe from Umberside
and we wont have to risk contamination by southern softies and oiks from darn sarf

[david63]

A large part of the problem of over capacity lies with the airlines. There are many airlines that use LHR as their "hub" meaning that anyone from the "sticks" has to shuttle down/up to LHR.

Having said that I also believe that it can be difficult for airlines to get routing to some provincial airports due in part to government regulations and LHR being "money grabbers"

[Mervyn and Trish]

Economically you need a hub system. If, for example, 300 passengers want to go to Calgary, it just doesn't work for 5 flights to go from 5 different regional airports with 60 passengers each, so it makes sense for them to all go from one hub airport. It also makes sense for the hub airport to be where the biggest number of those passengers are, and that is the South East. It doesn't suit me personally, it would be much more convenient if our nearest airport, Manchester, was the centre of the universe but sadly that's not the case.

[oldbluefox]

It also makes sense for the hub airport to be where the biggest number of those passengers are, and that is the South East.

Hmmm! But is that because that's where everybody is directed? I would think Manchester or Birmingham would be more central as a hub but it will never happen.
A few years ago they knocked down Wembley Stadium and debated where to place the national stadium. Instead of moving it to a more central location with better access they built it on the old site with all the problems of congestion it causes not only for spectators but also for local residents. Incredible!!

[BrianI]

If you live in the regions if often better and no more expensive to take a connecting flight to Amsterdam. Amsterdam is connected to more UK airports than Heathrow.
Brian

[Silver_Shiney]

Hmmm! But is that because that's where everybody is directed? I would think Manchester or Birmingham would be more central as a hub but it will never happen.

I think you're right there, sir. If you or I want to fly to the US, we're directed to LHR/GTW. Someone has to be directed somewhere for a transatlantic hop... so why can't those in the south-east not have to be redirected instead, to a western-located airport? Not only could it ease congestion, but it would also reduce flying time as the distance wouldn't be as great (and if avtur is as expensive as the airlines make out, they'll be grateful for every mile of distance saved) and the time in the air may well be reduced (further lowering fuel costs) as the "stack" won't be as prolonged.

[Manoverboard]

I think Merv mentioned Heathrow to Galgary .... interesting example, albeit not perhaps an actual.

When we went to Galgary ' one ' couldn't get there without changing at Toronto, that being the situation we went to Toronto via Manchester and then on to Calgary, ditto Vancouver. No point in going to Heathrow only to fly over our house umpteen hours later just to conform to the concept of a ' Hub '.

When we used to go to Cape Town one was supposed to head from Manchester to Heathrow and then on to Cape Town. But we bypassed Heathrow by going from Manchester to Jo'Burg and then on to Cape Town.

[Mervyn and Trish]

It also makes sense for the hub airport to be where the biggest number of those passengers are, and that is the South East.

Hmmm! But is that because that's where everybody is directed?!

It's where two thirds of the population live

[Silver_Shiney]

It also makes sense for the hub airport to be where the biggest number of those passengers are, and that is the South East.

Hmmm! But is that because that's where everybody is directed?!

It's where two thirds of the population live

More people to suffer if one of the big aircraft come down over densely populated areas. More reason (IMHO) to move to less densely populated parts of the country...

[Mervyn and Trish]

I think Merv mentioned Heathrow to Galgary .... interesting example, albeit not perhaps an actual.

It was an actual from our Canada and Alaska trip last year. The only tour operator offering out to Calgary allegedly from Manchester actually began the itinerary with a train from Manchester to Gatwick! We ended up doing BA via Heathrow.

I apologise for keeping banging on. My personal preference would be a big increase in routes from Manchester with all the major airlines moving their hubs there and a third runway.

But the question was where in the South East should we build an extra runway, or airport, to increase capacity there and if this had been a GCSE anyone answering Manchester, Glasgow, Humberside or Norwich would not have passed and their teacher would have said they hadn't read the question.

It's like what is your favourite Shakespeare play? Answer, Little Dorritt because I prefer Dickens.

[ITWA Travel Writer]

However Allan,

The “Ten Bob Millionaire” would likewise not have passed. The question, which I believe I asked, was: “or is there a hidden agenda” directed at Little England’s First Minister.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Sorry don't understand that question. I've not heard of Little England, only England. And we don't have a First Minister. We share a Prime Minister with the rest of the UK

[oldbluefox]

The quick answer to all of them is neither since Gatwick and Heathrow mean a long trek from wherever whilst other airports can take the extra capacity. It won't happen of course.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Gatwick for me is the airport of last resort. Anywhere the other side of the M25 car park is a challenge.

[Silver_Shiney]

However Allan,

The “Ten Bob Millionaire” would likewise not have passed. The question, which I believe I asked, was: “or is there a hidden agenda” directed at Little England’s First Minister.

The key is the word "or". We've all been answering the first part, not the bit about hidden agendas.

I thought Mrs Krankie was Little England's First Minister....

But to answer your previously ignored second part - I'm not sure there is a hidden agenda, just a mentality that LHR is the country's "primary" airport and its status must be preserved and enhanced at all costs - even at the cost of common sense.

[ITWA Travel Writer]

I think she is Alan, but I wonder how she disguised herself at Eaton?