Heathrow should close!

RE: Heathrow should close!

that’s all very well for locals… But for non residents of London such as myself, who rely on LHR for transfers, any transfer of routes, shorthaul or otherwise to either LTN or STN is potentially a reason not to travel via London, and that little bit less money in the South East’s economy (not that it needs teh extra, mind…)

BA survive on transfer traffic at LHR, moving routes would be a severe blow for them, too.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with LHR and I think any attempt to move any, or all of it’s flights away would just result in meltdown in UK traffic. I mean, we can’t even build a highspeed West Coast Trainline (it’s currently only 20 Billion over budget, and three years behind schedule)… how the hell are we supposed to work the logisitcs of moving the infrastructure to a different site?

T5 is a welcome step towards modernisation at LHR, but runway capacity is what’s needed. And I’m not sure the third runway as proposed will help, as 09L/27R will still have to be crossed to reach it…

RE: Heathrow should close!

LHR should not be knocked down, as we’ve already ascertained it would cost hundreds, no thousands of jobs. But it is in desperate need of major refurbishment. Terminals 1,2,and 3 are much to close together causing congestion not only airside but also on approach roads. I’m not so sure it should be expanded either(re:T5)after all Luton is underused and to some extent so is Stanstead, surely some short haul flights could be transfered to these locations to ease the congestion at LHR and to alleviate crowded air space .

Stanstead has a rail link to Kings Cross station by Stanstead Express, and Luton has a rail link also to Kings Cross by Thameslink trains, although a short trip on a shuttle bus is needed. If these services are expanded on and made cheaper to use it could entice people to make better use of the two airports

That’s my beef!!

Sober at last

Dave

RE: Heathrow should close!

I really don’t see that Heathrow could close, there has been far too much investment in the development of the airport for it to close. Someone mentioned what would happen to the site if it did close. Well, that’s easy, they’d just bulldoze the place flat and you’d have another faceless, characterless development of umpteen thousand ‘wendy’ houses for the ‘discerning buyer’ who wishes to invest in ‘modern city living’ with a difference. They might reduce traffic by expanding at Stansted and LUTON, but what about the other airports?

Another plan is to build a huge new airport near Rugby in the Midlands which it is said would be bigger than BHX and would probably mean the closure of BHX. I don’t think the people at BHX would be too happy about that especially as there is still capacity for expansion at BHX. BHX could well take some of the strain from LHR if only the Government would improve the ground transport systems. We now have tilting trains capable of reaching 140 mph but will never achieve that speed due to the track not being safe enough to cope with it. The question is, if you could get from BHX to London by rail in an hour or just over, wouldn’t it be a viable alternative to using LHR which is overcrowded?

Well, that’s my two pennorth.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Heathrow should close!

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-10-02 AT 09:04 PM (GMT)]I think knocking down Heathrow would be a terrible idea, due to the fact that 1000’s upon 1000’s of jobs would be lost for a start!
Check-in, ground, catering staff etc… the list is endless. Maybe also some cut backs in staff numbers on the airlines too?
By tearing down LHR, this could put the already struggling British Airways out of Business for good.

LHR has a good rail link, bus links etc, whereas to build an airport at Cliffe, more money will be needed to fork out on building Railway links, road links, bus links etc.

But like some have said above, people keep complaining about LHR what with the noise and everything, but its not the noisest airport in the UK! Its last flight usually touches down around 11-11:30pm, and the last takes off around about the same timish. And from there on there is a flight ban, so to call it, overnight. The first flight landing at around 5:30-6am im the morning, Whereas, LGW flight continue to go on through the night, OK maybe there aren’t as many houses near by, but there are a fair few nun the less.

To knock down LHR would take money away from the UK, what with it being the busiest, biggest airport, resulting in more money being made than any other airport in the UK, because passenger numbers are alot higher.

T5 it was me that said that by STN having the new runways built, that it would take the strain off of LHR, by up to 40%. But this may be a good thing, what with LHR still reciving 60% of its normal daily flights, its still the busiest in the UK.

Sure by LHR becoming a bigger airport, it will mean peoples houses will be lost, but what I still can’t fatham, is that how some of the people who live around the LHR area can whine on and on about losing their homes, surely they would have known that one day LHR was to grow, I mean over the Past 15-20 years LHR has been growing by the day, what wiht more airlines operating flights to there, more jobs being had etc.
Some of the houses around this area weren’t even built until a few years ago — although that is the fault of the council/government!!!

But when LHR was opened in 46′, no-way were any of these houses built then. Some of you by now probably think, “what a cruel, hateful *%£!^$& “.

I know that its a horrible thing for these people to loose their homes, but many will be rehoused elsewhere, and from what I have heard not far from the present location either.

But as another person said above in an earlier post, some of the people knew what living near an airport would entail, so why do it?

Sorry if I have seemed a little horrid in this discussion, but hey its an opinion.

Thanx for your time! 🙂
Attachments:

RE: Heathrow should close!

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-10-02 AT 06:55 PM (GMT)]They are knocking down a considerable amount of homes to place the runway parallel to one of the two current runways though i’m not sure which one.
The new runway is only going to be a runway for short haul flights with the 737,A320,etc,so it doesn’t really free up a a great deal of slots.

RE: Heathrow should close!

I don’t quite see how the A380 is going to reduce traffic, unless there are not enough slots at a given airport to handle the size of the aircraft. If I was running an airline and had say twenty slots a day (for argument’s sake), and had the choice of using a mix of B777’s and A380’s, if I could fill the 380’s I would use them instead, thus maintaining aircraft traffic and trippling my passenger and cargo space. Why operate two 777’s on a route when you can use one A380 and save that other slot for another destination?

Where would Heathrow place its third runway? The area surrounding the airport seems very, very conjested and built up (at least from the sky).

RE: Heathrow should close!

No Ben, don’t shut up now, your opinion is important. I believe Heathrow is the right airport but it needs bringing upi to date from all angles. Not only is the third runway required but as you point out, we are operating bigger aircraft than before and people like Monster need to know they aren’t going to scrape wings (as happens all too often) in the holding areas. You are also 100% right about airport access, big need for improvement. However, incorporating a new airport into the south-east traffic flow will be a major league difficulty so I feel a redevelopment of our current facilities is by far the best solution.

RE: Heathrow should close!

Manston is an even worse prospect than Cliffe!

RE: Heathrow should close!

I’ve visited LHR a few times and the impression I’ve got is of a busy, congested and severly out-dated operation. Not only were there planes queing but the landside traffic is incredibly difficult to work around.

It seems also that they are trying to cram an awful lot into a very limited area with the new terminal possibly making it even more cramped and congested. Its funny I mention this because the LHR ATIS message actual states “Pilots are advised to exercise caution when manouvering in the holding ares as wing tip allowance is not assured”.

Like I say…this is my impression and I don’t know the full layout….surroundings etc…

I think its about time a new airport was at least looked into and considored. Then we have to ask ourselves…what would happen to LHR if it was closed…a mass derelict area? Maybe not the buildings but, the airfield and hangers… would flying be totally stopped there and the operation split in two or would it be fully changed to a new sight…. what about the environment… all these questions and… I’ll shut-up now!

Regards

Ben

RE: Heathrow should close!

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-10-02 AT 03:19 PM (GMT)]When T5 comes along we are going to see some drastic changes at LHR in terms of the other terminals, which who knows, could produce an airport of world quality.
Manston I do not see as an option. It has the runway and the expansion area needed, but is extremely far from central London. Airlines operate into LHR because of its proximity to London. I don’t think it would be a popular choice.The Government doesn’t seem interested in Manston as shown by the plans for UK aviation. I see Manston’s job as a new cargo centre,nothing else.
I think we are going to keep LHR, another new international airport seems unlikely to me.

RE: Heathrow should close!

I fully agree with you there!!! Heathrow does bring hell of a lot of wealth to the area. It provides so many jobs! I honestly can’t see there being that many complaints about the noise around the airport. Sure there will be some, and like you say, most of those will be relatively new to the area. I’m also with you on the aircraft noise issue, it certainly has gone down, and will continue to. To be honest, I can see the traffic into Heathrow reducing once airlines start using larger aircraft like the A380. Whether it’ll happen like that… I don’t know.

RE: Heathrow should close!

I live within 3 miles of LHR (1.5 miles when the new runway is built) and am it’s biggest fan when it comes to development. LHR has done more to bring wealth to this area than any other factor. In fact if it wasn’t for Heathrow this area would be a great big nothing. The locals who complain (in 99% of the cases) moved to LHR after it became a significant international airport, so if they don’t like it they should have paid a bit more attention to where they were moving to.
For my next rant let’s look at noise. With the exception of Concorde (probably the most relatively out of date aeroplane operating regularly out of LHR today!) LHR is actually quieter than it has ever been. Current engine development (particulary high bypass turbofans) are considerably quieter to older jets. For example compare Airbus family, modern Boeings, even dare I say it the One Four Sick to Tridents, VC10’s, 737-200’s, DC9’s, etc. On top of this we have improvements in noise abatement techniques and massively improved performance that gets the considerably reduced noise levels higher up earlier and away from the public ears.
For my final rant let’s consider Cliffe. Gatwick is in effect the first international UK airport you reach when returning from continental Europe. It’s position combined with current commercial aircraft descent performance means that the boundary between England and France is approximately the point where most Gatwick bound traffic is planning to commence it’s descent. If you stick a new airport right on the boundary (or as near as damn it) you are now asking the French air traffic system to take on a lot of the workload for your airport. This is not a prohibitive problem but it would certainly not make for expiditious arrivals. In the last 50 years the French (and most of Europe) have wisely invested in runway capacity. What have we done in the same time in the UK? We’ve added one departure only runway at Manchester! Our developmant plan has been non-existant and now they are panicking. We do not need to build new airports but develop what we already have. 3 runways at Stansted – yes please, a third runway at Heathrow – yes please but make it a proper size one, remain at 1 runway for Gatwick – no way they must be out of their tiny minds!

Rant over, incoming, take cover!

RE: Heathrow should close!

I do not think that knocking Heathrow down is a solution that anybody could even think of. I’m not a great fan of the airport myself and for people living near it, it must be awful with noise pollution, the pollution from the aircraft itself and over time, how the value of their homes are being affected with the increasing traffic. It is after all, the home to the hugely successful British Airways and probably “the” airport that people want to travel to.

A couple of weeks back, I’m sure someone said that by adding some new runways at either STN/LTN (Apolgies.. can’t remember which), traffic at Heathrow could be reduced by 40%.

I think if this is the case, Heathrow will be a great airport. Terminal 5 is not really such a great idea though in my opinion. If they are really going to reduce the traffic quite so dramatically, terminal 5 is just going to make them to think otherwise, or invite more aircraft in to fill up all the empty slots available.

We also have to see how London Manston is going to turn out. Although in Kent, it’s still a London Airport and this may be a great new start at building an international airport!

RE: Heathrow should close!

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-10-02 AT 07:14 PM (GMT)]Heathrow is a mess, no doubt about it. If something is not done within the next 10 to 20 years then Heathrow risks loosing its title as world’s busiest international airport, which will be taken by Frankfurt or CDG. T5 is a step in the right direction, but how much longer can you keep expanding? Heathrow needs new runways and new terminals of a better standard than they currently are.

Bulldoze it down is an option I would like to seen. However, I feel that the environmental issue is of great concern. Granted that we need a new airport, but surely in the 21st century when the environment is becoming even more exploited around the south east, we loose with the construction of a new airport, the very little protected nature area around the outskirts of London? Cliffe is a special area for bird migration, loosing this area is just another blow to an area where nature is destroyed for development every year.

Not just the environment though, remember how long it took for an inquiry into LHR T5…just think of a whole new airport!

RE: Heathrow should close!

Wow! Interesting comments. Is this gentleman prosposing a situation similar to Hong Kong? Is that actually possible in the southern UK? Although, with the go ahead of T5 will a new site even be considered?

I love flying into England, and let’s be honest, Heathrow gives one an amazing diversity of airlines and aircraft to take in, however, the airport is really getting dated. And with increasing strength of the EU I am not so sure that Heathrow has a permanent hold on number one in the European market, especially as the former (and current) colonies of the UK become more and more independent and woven into greater global markets (ie. 80% of Canada’s trade is now with the US).

Heathrow can be a big headache as well. Last year my flight had to hold on the ground in Toronto for an hour because tail winds were so strong over the Atlantic that we would get into London airspace to early and have to circle (which we still needed to do for some 25 minutes–however impressive the air to air movements looked in the early morning hours). But if it was possible to connect through Manchester, or even Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt, one may be more inclined to do so.

From everything that I have read, I don’t see the British government adopting such a proposal.

Sorry, that was a bit long winded 🙂