By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
No for me. I live below the south runway flight path. A third runway would end the principle of runway rotation, which gives us quiet for half of each day, for the financial benefit of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Spanish banks, and the convenience of interchange international passengers. The residents have been promised that each redevelopment would be the last. It’s not Nimbyism when you already have 300 planes a day flying over you.
8
3rd runway at heathrow on 23:05 - Jun 21 with 5020 views
Quite literally you might as well line kids up against the wall and shoot them dead. The future means nothing to people who think that we can all go on flying and that more airports and runways are a good idea. Quite apart from anything else, I suspect that increasing airport capacity runs directly counter of the UK's commitments under international law.
‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’
5
3rd runway at heathrow on 23:45 - Jun 21 with 4973 views
No from me. I can't see who's going to benefit from it. Apparently it'll create jobs but last time I flew I dealt mostly with machines in this country. Job's for people to look after machines to look after people perhaps? What's wrong with jobs for people to look after people? I'm sure the construction/tech industry will love it.
I work at and live close to Heathrow and its a no from me. Other than when there is operational disruption caused by weather etc..... the airport generally works OK. The waiting on the taxiway is already prebuilt into the advertised journey time of the flight - LHR is 20mins and on average this is correct. My question is not on the ground but in the air. Where are all of these potential new flights supposed to fit in above the already extremely congested airspace? I'm sure it will happen and I can absolutely see the business case for it...... but personally I hope its gets delayed for as long as possible.
2
3rd runway at heathrow on 08:49 - Jun 22 with 4796 views
The area around Heathrow is far too congested and polluted. Heathrow did have a third short cross runway, not really practical, rarely used and they decided to close it.
London Gatwick, London Stanstead, London Luton all have room for expansion and only have one runway, so if something goes wrong the delays and knock on effect to Heathrow and other airports is enormous. There are also airports at London Southend, Southampton and Birmingham within a short train journey of London.
We have to get away from this obsession with Heathrow. The 'north' is always complaining about the bias towards London. Now is the time to demonstrate that they should have a bigger share in the aviation business. There are many large airports around Britain, we should be making the availability of these more attractive.
1
3rd runway at heathrow on 10:23 - Jun 22 with 4702 views
I guess this is part of the battle to make LHR the hub for flights between North America, Africa and Asia. For flights in and out of Schengen, Schipol, Frankfurt and Paris will be faster. Which would tie in with a vision of Britain at the centre of a non-European world, and all that.
(Krop you're right of course, but looking on the bright side, the sooner the human population collapses, the better it will be for everything else.)
A magnificent football club, the love of our lives, finding a way to finally have its day in the sun.
I was astonished it wasn't at Gatwick or Stanstead where there is more room. No doubt politics at play. Not sure about 'you may as well put the kids against a wall and shoot them though' that seems a mild over-reaction.
0
3rd runway at heathrow on 10:35 - Jun 22 with 4685 views
Let's say that if there is the growth in long-haul required to justify the project, it will be short-lived. As a long term investment it's up there with large-scale new building at sea level in coastal storm zones.
A magnificent football club, the love of our lives, finding a way to finally have its day in the sun.
No from me as well. I live under the flight path and have long lost faith in airport management's assurances on anything. More objectively, I think bringing even more aircraft over a densely populated city is foolhardy. Statistically, I'm aware aviation is very safe but I can't help thinking that sooner or later there will be a major accident over London. If we were starting again, I doubt we'd build an airport that involves bringing aircraft over a city.
1
3rd runway at heathrow on 11:23 - Jun 22 with 4637 views
Massive government bias to putting infrastructure to the west of London where people who count can get to quickly. They built two motorways to Oxford before they built one to Cambridge.
Seems obvious it should be Gatwick (where they could build two extra runways if they wanted) but it would be a nightmare to get to from your second home in the Cotswolds.
1
3rd runway at heathrow on 11:27 - Jun 22 with 4620 views
Over the years I have done about 130 odd airports around the planet and it's been noticeable how many airports are being built further away from the city centre. Narita (Tokyo) for example, is about an hour away and has fast and efficient links to/from. And that is the key; super efficient transport links in/out to the airport.
I fly in/out of LHR about six times a year and depending on when you go it's like wading through treacle; I just don't see how it's going to improve with more traffic and another runway.
However, that is not the issue and apologies, but I have forgotten who brought up the issue of air congestion, but they are bang on!
Mrs PH and I had a year back in London and lived in Battersea for a year. As regular as clockwork, at around 5am, the first flights would come in every 30 seconds until 11pmish if memory serves. Even that far from LHR, one could pick off the plane's numbers with ease. Then you throw in planes looping in over the Thames toward LCY and even the helicopters landing at a helipad close to us, and it was deafening as it was polluting. And now they are going to add to it!!!!
Why LGW was not chosen I don't know. It just made sense to even out the traffic better for those living in London. These days I avoid so much news, but I had the misfortune to catch professional-c..t Piers Morgan on QT a while back, advocating LHR expansion so that it would keep LHR as a primary international airport. What a complete tit of a man he is - it's only going to be a bloody mess and make the lives of millions of people more dangerous and lessen the quality to boot.
The danger element is potentially exacerbated if the wish of a number of previous governments to nationalise NATS happens. Such a step is madness on top of the soon-to-be congested skies over west London.
'Always In Motion' by John Honney available on amazon.co.uk
It’s a No from me . Noise and Air pollution already very bad in West London this would make it much much worse not to mention the people being evicted from their homes
1
3rd runway at heathrow on 13:43 - Jun 22 with 4505 views
No, because: - Misleading capacity related arguments were used to justify it. Heathrow's capacity alone was compared with those of all the airports in Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam; the comparison should've been based on all of London's airports. London's airports carry more passengers than Paris and Frankfurt's combined. - Air pollution, which is at dangerous and illegal levels already in many parts of the UK, and which is resulting in thousands of premature deaths - Climate change - Noise pollution - Traffic: Heathrow already generates more traffic than anything else in the country. God help the south east if the third runway is ever built. - Oil: We're not running out of it - yet - but the easy to get, cleaner crude has all gone so we are reliant on the stuff which takes a lot more energy to extract. In 2017, we used 97m barrels per day and that just can't go on forever. This is a big issue when we are years away from being able to fly a commercial aircraft using anything other than a fuel derived from oil. - Oh and finally, I have never been unable to go on a business or pleasure trip because of a lack of flights. Actually, I wish flight availability had stopped me going on some of my business trips!
RFA
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
2
3rd runway at heathrow on 14:13 - Jun 22 with 4462 views
It might surprise you then that development along coastlines continues unabated all around the globe. Other points of interest are that insurance companies show little reluctance in issuing coverage for such projects and that the buyers / residents of these properties are generally wealthy and well enough educated not to invest in an unwise manner.
Airports are built where there are available green field sites.
As a regular flyer you will be aware that most passengers heading to London want to land at Heathrow.
Logan, here in Boston, is supposed to have the most passenger traffic per sq ft in the western world. It’s uncomfortable at times but it’s where travellers want to be, virtually downtown.
I live in Milton, directly south of and abutting Boston, we get a lot of flights passing overhead rarely bothers me.
It's a no from me. I've always thought the sensible thing to do would be to expand Luton and run HS2 through there. That would provide good access to the airport from both London and Birmingham, would ensure regular use of HS2 making the investment more worthwhile, Luton is more centrally located in England making it more accessible to more people, and Luton definitely needs the investment and jobs.
Given that crossrail is almost complete and the government has already committed to Crossrail 2 running south to north I cannot understand why this would not go as far south as Gatwick especially given that Crossrail itself will go as far west as Reading. And why they are using their tunnelling machines why not build a direct underground high speed rail link between Gatwick and Heathrow. Will keep disruption to a minimum especially compared to the plans for the M25 during the building of the third runway at Heathrow
The short answer is "Vested interests" and short term strategy without longer term vision and planning
Heathrow and surrounding infrastructure is at choking point already it is not sensible for the country as a whole or the west of greater london to shove any more in there and yet we are going to do it anyway, utter madness.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
