New runway at Heathrow

[Silver_Shiney]

Now that the decision has been made to build a new runway at LHR, what are your views on this?

Personally, I think it a big mistake - it should have been built at LGW, in my humble opinion. Aside from the building costs being much cheaper, far fewer people would have had to be relocated after the destruction of their cherished homes. Yes, it's further out from the centre of London but then the Piccadilly line isn't exactly a fast service and, if memory serves correctly, the journey time from LHR to the West End was about the same as Victoria-LGW - that line could do with upgrading anyway. The airspace at LHR will be even more congested whereas LGW has obviously got more capacity in that respect.

[david63]

As I try to avoid LHR, and all other London airports, like the plague it does not bother me one bit

[Boris+]

I would have preferred it if BOTH LGW and LHR had been awarded the right to have new runways. LGW only officially has one runway (the 'other' one is an emergency/standby/taxi way, but it is there). I think that LGW should have a proper second runway.

[barney]

As it doesn't affect me, I have no firm opinion on it.

What I do know is that both Gatwick and Heathrow run at near capacity so I wouldn't be shocked if Gatwick doesn't build a new runway itself when the fuss dies down.

My advice to the residents who are affected is to move somewhere nicer.

[towny44]

I think Heathrow is the correct decision, just a pity it was not made about 20 years ago when it was first mooted. Most business people also seem to support Heathrow and it is accepted by the ROW as the UK's premier airport.
But a bit like David it is somewhere I would avoid using as a hub whenever possible.

[Boris+]

To those who may well have to move because of the LHR plans ..... I gather that property owners are to be given market value + 25%; so treat it as an opportunity and not a threat. If I was in that situation, I could quite happily embrace market value + 25%!!!

I wonder though, if there are any tax implications?

[david63]

I could quite happily embrace market value + 25%

It would all depend on whose market value it was - there can be wide variations between what someone values it at, what you consider the value to be and what somebody will pay - especially in that area.

[Stephen]

As I try to avoid LHR, and all other London airports, like the plague it does not bother me one bit

With you there David, although I can't see it happening any time soon if at all. Mind you if the price was right and from what some residents interviewed were saying the package on offer is well above property price value I'd take it and run to somewhere quieter.

[oldbluefox]

This runway debacle is a good example of successive governments' incompetence. Everything has been placed in and around the capital and now they are all complaining that London is overcrowded.
A good example of this is Wembley Stadium which is a nightmare to visit, hemmed in as it is by residential housing. For my money it should have been built somewhere like Birmingham which has good rail and road links. The same goes for a lot of capital investment which only goes on making the problems in London worse. Sometimes we have no alternative but to go via London. It doesn't make sense.

[barney]

Having lived in London for many years and then moving to rural Kent, I can absolutely confirm that London is a dump.

Nice to visit, as we do regularly, but I wouldn't live there if you paid me to.

My brother moved out from Greenwich to Faversham a few years ago and cannot believe the difference in his life and his wallet.

[Boris+]

I could quite happily embrace market value + 25%

It would all depend on whose market value it was - there can be wide variations between what someone values it at, what you consider the value to be and what somebody will pay - especially in that area.

We aren't involved, but I imagine that valuations will be stipulated by an official govt dept, so figures may not be overly generous, but I would imagine that it wouldn't be stingy either. Whatever - you only have to watch those idiot progs on tv about developing property to see how difference estate agents put differing values on the same property. In a normal sale situation however, an owner can hope for a nice high value but that value itself is worthless - it's what a purchaser is willing to pay that counts.

Still, having a glass half full attitude, I'd go for it.

[jay-ell71]

Heathrow is right. If you live anywhere but Crawley getting to Gatwick is a long nightmarish journey partly on the M25. As it is we are going from Heathrow on Sunday to get a 7.40am flight. This entails leaving home at around 4.00am. Flying from Gatwick we have to add another half an hour. Who wants too do that.
The thing is, I probably won't see the new runway so what doI care!!!!!!

[CaroleF]

Certainly from where we live - about 8 miles east of Southampton - it is far easier to get to Heathrow than to Gatwick. Heathrow is easy, M27, M3. Gatwick well we can either go cross country - A27 East to near Fontwell Park then North from there, all countryside, very pretty journey but if it's in the middle of the night not so pleasant, or we can go up the M3 then onto the M25 which can be a nightmare. It's interesting that when we've gone by taxi from home to Gatwick by far the majority of the drivers have taken the latter route - M27, then M3. They say that even allowing for the traffic it's quicker than cross country.

I'd rather go from Heathrow but most of the flights we take these days, not that we take many, seem to be from Gatwick.

Carole

[Manoverboard]

It makes no difference to us ... we always go the day before and, thankfully, both Airports have a Sofitel.

[Silver_Shiney]

I note what others say about preferring to fly from regional airports but, as the Lady C won't entertain the thought of non-direct flights, we can't fly to the US from Bristol, and there are no flights from there to Australia anyway, so we have no choice but to go to LHR or LGW. We invariably drive up the day before and stay overnight anyway, so the trek to either doesn't bother us either way.

I see the CEO of one of the smaller independent airlines stood down after suggesting that RAF Northolt be used as a civilian airport. This is something I suggested a long time ago - the airfield has the capacity for short-haul flights, many of which are probably clogging up Heathrow at the moment. While military security would be an issue, other airfields have been shared by the RAF and civilian traffic (eg RAF Aldergrove/Belfast Airport - and that during the height of the Troubles).

My feeling is that, with three runways in close proximity, the potential for a disaster is greatly increased. The costs for supporting infrastructure will be massive - new roads, another Underground station etc. The M4/M25/A408 intersections are busy enough without having to cope with the extra road traffic that will be generated by the additional air traffic resulting from the third runway.

[david63]

other airfields have been shared by the RAF and civilian traffic

Most military airfields are used for civilian traffic - albeit the majority is private aircraft.

[Silver_Shiney]

other airfields have been shared by the RAF and civilian traffic

Most military airfields are used for civilian traffic - albeit the majority is private aircraft.

I really meant commercial flights, David, although it certainly wasn't the case at the majority of airfields I was at during my time in the Queen's uniform. I never saw any civilian aircraft at Scampton, Waddington, Coningsby, Finningley, Cranwell, Brize Norton, Cosford, Newton, Lyneham to mention a few. The only place I did see a civvy, a C-130, was at Masirah.

Obviously the situation may well be different now.