[Anonymous]

[Bucksnet]

Heathrow plans to move to Buckinghamshire: –

http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/community/parish-and-mp-horrified-by-out-of-blue-vale-airport-plans-1-5070667

4 runways and 2 villages completely destroyed. I live nearby and to build this they would need to flatten the hills, as this is where the villages are. Madness!

[Binman62]

Would be handy for HS2!

Seriously , barking mad and simply a further delaying tactic by Heathrow ltd and on this matter, their side kicks at BA/IAG.

[Bucksnet]

HS2 doesn’t run past the airport, so no connections there.

Heathrow needs to stay where it is, regardless of what new airports open.

[WoburnMan]

To see “The Bell” at chearsley destroyed because of an airport would be an outrage !

Heathrow needs to stay where it is …

[VintageKrug]

This proposal is barking mad.

Just further bluster by those at formerlyBAA to muddy the waters and distract from the opportunity to realise the great potential of the Heathrow site for residential and business use.

Sorry, Binman, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with BA/IAG. BA is best served by remaining at a slot constricted Heathrow; that is what WW has stated and that is the right line to take for shareholders.

What’s needed is investment to create an airport to the East of London delivering infrastructure fit for the 22nd Century:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financevideo/8931958/Lord-Fosters-plans-for-a-new-London-airport.html

[TominScotland]

I cannot see this option ever happening – the local newspaper report says it all in terms of the local politics and no UKIP (sorry, Tory) MP in the Shires would ever let this sort of thing happen in their constituency, even though a fast rail link to Central London would be, what, 20 – 30 minutes?

[JordanD]

And this is what’s wrong with the country – a bit of blue sky thinking, (useful leverage in trying to expand LHR too) and it gets shouted down because people don’t like it.

And you wonder why there hasn’t been a solid aviation policy in the UK in decades …

[canucklad]

According to the vice-chairman of the parish council it seems it might be a goer….lol

“People are going to be really worried about this. I imagine we have been selected no doubt because of our proximity to a major motorway and a major rail link plus a well operating Chiltern Railways service.”

Seem’s like a case of “Not in my backyard” syndrome……so typical of Toryshire constituencies….

In any case, it’s one of many options being considered….and as many of us have mentioned before…..it’s politicians lack of positive progress on aviation/ airport expansion that frustrates us all….

At least debate keeps the issue from just dwindling away….

And Bucksnet, I wouldn’t worry,,,,,your local MP will ensure that the story will run until the blue rinse brigade get their knickers in a twist and then he will come riding in ala St. George and rescue the Cheaserly Bell ensuring re-election at the next poll’s…..

A familiar story played out across the UK….

[Binman62]

Sorry, Binman, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with BA/IAG. BA is best served by remaining at a slot constricted Heathrow; that is what WW has stated and that is the right line to take for shareholders.

That is true, but their customers are not.

BA has a vested interest in delaying the inevitable, a new purpose built airport capable of operating 24/7 and improving choice to assengers via new operators.

[VintageKrug]

It does indeed.

And BA is running a business which would be holed below the waterline if LHR was shut.

Another reason to keep diversifying to reduce their exposure in this area….and more ammunition to justify the Iberia purchase.

I used to be fully supportive of a Third Runway.

However, the need for a dedicated 24/7 four runway airport is increasingly obvious, as is the inadequacy of Heathrow.

What’s more, the ease with which LHR site could be put to other uses and the long term strategic stimulus which the building of a new airport and associated infrastructure links would deliver is hard to ignore.

I don’t buy the argument that the Estuary sites are isolated – LHR has a very poor road link from London, which will likely need to be shut for an extended period as the structure is hardly stable. It didn’t have a dedicated rail link until relatively recently, and public transport to anywhere other than London is woeful.

[Binman62]

And BA is running a business which would be holed below the waterline if LHR was shut….

Surely that is the point of capitalism…the strong survive and the weak fail…..

The pages are often filled with comments about state subsidy of AF AZ and many others but state subsidy surely extend to protecting a declining business by preventing effective competition. That no one will bite the bullet and build Boris Island is in large part due to the lobbying of Heathrow Ltd and BA. WW has made it clear that he does not support a new airport because he knows that its current offer is poor and would not be supported if there were new entrants and greater competition.

The 3rd runway is nonsense as is the idea that it could be in Bucks. Let Boris have his way and as the saying goes……”Build and they will come”

BA may just up its game at the same time.

[VintageKrug]

BA is certainly not weak, nor is its offering.

It is not state subsidised or protected, nor is effective competition prevented.

You only have to look at the recent slots granted to Virgin, and others leased out by Virgin and others to see there is a market for slots for those prepared to pay for the them.

Really this constant criticism is just getting dull, and adds nothing to the debate.

[Binman62]

So if true why would BA fail if LHR closed?

[JohnHarper]

I must say I love this proposal. There is no doubt that London needs a new airport and while I’ve tended to favour the estuary option I’ve also maintained that further out up the Thames Valley would be a good option too. I had not thought of moving to the north of there.

This seems like an excellent solution all round, the airport is more central than the estuary and it can be extensive enough to cope with demand and there is still further room for expansion. I would actually favour starting with six runways rather than four.

There would be no slot issues and therefore the free market would reign with those offering quality at a reasonable price succeeding while the inferiour offerings for higher prices were done away with.

The whole business of aircraft movements being constrained by slots at one of the world’s busiest airports is actually anti-competative and against the Thatcher principles of a free market which I certainly still espouse.

[Author]

Posts