Reply To: London Heathrow Airport third runway U-turn aheadBack to Forum
We are not discussing Boris Island, we are talking about Thames Hub.
The above article is a report of the formerlyBAA’s position on LHR. They would, of course, never advocate any other solution.
As ever, seeing the other perspective and understanding the motivations behind an argument are essential in this debate.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that an additional runway in Gatwick is sensible.
Everyone also seems to be in agreement that a four runway hub is required. A few can see the sense in developing a whole new site for the next 100 years, others somewhat shortsightedly cling to the short-termism of enough capacity in their lifetime and to hell with future generations’ needs.
As to the points, they are easily dismissed:
– Aircraft make noise, even when coming into land. Noise will continue to be a factor in West London, and nighttime flights will always remain highly restricted.
– I just don’t see HS rail being viable in the UK for many years, even if HS2 gets the go ahead. The space constraints and noise pollution in the UK is a big issue, and while it works for Europeans, HS Rail just doesn’t stack up in the UK.
– Significant changes have been made in reducing weight with the 787 and A380, but a further sea-change is unlikely in the near future, and as aircraft weight reduces cargo capacity will increase, negating any technological weight saving.
– While larger aircraft will play a part, frequency and departures at the right time of day is key to business use; that’s why BA runs so many NYC services per day.