[Anonymous]

[Tete_de_cuvee]

Recent positive and negatives for LHR

More efficient use of runways trial expanded –

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15530894

Whilst labour withdraws support for third runway

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15518963

[BusinessTraveller]

Thanks for your post Tete_de_cuvee – both of these subjects have also been report on businesstraveller.com at:

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/heathrow-launches-dual-use-runway-trial

and

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/labour-drops-support-for-third-runway

[RichHI1]

Interesting to see how LHR experiment works. Sad at the same time we have Labour trying to outcameron on inept transport planning and Theresa May displaying an even shallower grasp of Uk air transport needs than of feline immigration policy.

[HedgeFundFlyer]

The sooner that we all realise that LHR (with or without a rail link to LGW) is NEVER going to be able or allowed to handle the movements that a proper hub airport requires, the sooner we can move on and start thinking about a proper solution to this problem.

Talking about LHR expansion – or lamenting the lack of it – is no different to yearning for the return of Concorde, Mrs Thatcher or the Empire.

[RichHI1]

Agreed butthen politicians should do more than trade cliches and work together for a constructive long term transport policy not simply saying we won’t do this in your backyard If you vote for us. A plague on all their houses. We need a proper transport policy. Heathrow is over capacity and building a new airport with infrastructure, British planning procedures and british politics will probablyake 20 – 25 yeArs so they need to start soon.

[VintageKrug]

The return of HM Thatcher, Concorde and the Empire would pretty much tick all my boxes. Thankfully, we have the BBC, so all is not lost!

The Thatcher government had considerable successes deregulating of buses, privatising BA, building the Channel Tunnel, expanding Stansted and (less successfully) creating more of a market on the railways, the increasing roadbuilding (M25 is 25 years old this month, M40 was also a great boon!) and empowering people to own a car.

Sadly, I can’t think of anything positive which happened under Labour (second runway at MAN, some tinkering on the railways involving Nationalisation of some beleaguered services and the beginnings of Crossrail, though that idea was started under Thatcher and the disaster which is HS2).

The UK has long lacked a coherent policy, and really what’s needed is to take responsibility out of politicians’ control, inject some independence into the process and see what the experts come up with. Rather like GB’s masterstroke with the Bank of England.

[FlyingChinaman]

Keeping up with the Great British tradition – the waiting game!!!

I guess I am more likely transiting a European hub in 10 years’ time instead of London!!!

[Bucksnet]

VK, what do you mean HS1 is a disaster? Don’t you mean HS2?

[Binman62]

Labour did much for which it can be very proud. The health service was rescued and flourished whilst education received investment and a vision all of which was destroyed in less than 3 weeks under the current government. Above all peace in Northern Ireland brought about through discussion and pragmatism, not threats and bullying.

Labour may not have got it all right we but I do not recall riots and civil unrest which I do recall as the hall mark of Thatcher’s years and which even now seem to be the hall mark of conservative Britain.

Thatcher was a divisive xenophobic figure whose philosophy was self above all else. It was flawed then and is flawed now, had she had any vision she would have joined with France and Germany to create a strong Europe and one that perhaps would not be subject to the travails we have now.

Her divisive and fundamentally selfish attitude to life, coupled with selling off the countries assets at knock down prices resulted in misery to millions and a breakdown in social cohesion that is being felt even now.

[Tete_de_cuvee]

Somewhat off thread but certainly worth 18 mins of your time if you are interested in leadership.

http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html

There are leaders and there are those who lead.

Leaders hold a position of power or authority but those who lead inspire us whether they are individuals or organisations.

We follow those who lead not because we have to but because we want to.

We follow those who lead, not for them but for ourselves.

[Bucksnet]

Binman, the NHS had its budget tripled under Labour, but with little improvement and still had long waiting lists. If the party that’s supposed to care about the NHS cannot eliminate waiting lists in 13 years, then either it’s not trying or their policies don’t work. Of course it does not help that the NHS is under effective Common Purpose control.

As for education, it is well known that Labour dumbed down the entire system, and kids are leaving university who still can’t read and write very well. Totally shocking.

Thatcher came to power when the country was in a very bad way, and she turned the country around. Before you knock the Conservatives, remember that every Labour government ends with higher unemployment. Also, there was a massive increase in incapacity benefit claimants. Around 67,000 in May 1997, but 2.7 million when they left office. This was done on purpose to hide the true scale of unemployment and mass immigration. Only 67,000 IB claimants in all the years before, but an average increase of 200,000 a year under ‘new’ Labour! Work it out.

Back on topic re transport infrastructure, you need to ask yourself why Labour spent around £100 billion a year on their immigrant client state instead of new airports and electrifying all train lines, new rolling stock etc.

[ScottWilson]

The fundamental problem is the politicising of transport infrastructure. The more political it is, the greater the mismanagement and misallocation of resources. The largest number of examples are in road and rail sectors, but the topic here is aviation.

Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are all privately owned, and their owners would happily pay for runway expansion themselves. Stansted and Gatwick both have some capacity, but it would be a positive move to remove constraints on them expanding when it is viable to do so. Stansted especially was purpose built to provide more capacity, and Gatwick’s planning constraint is meant to expire in 2019. However, neither can serve as a proper hub airport with a vast diversity of long haul destinations. Expanded Stansted might see more LCCs shift from Gatwick, and expanded Gatwick may see some transfer of growth from Heathrow, but it will be on the margins.

Nonsense about rail relieving Heathrow needs to be dealt to at every turn, since 95% of Heathrow flights are not to the British mainland.

However, Heathrow is going to be a long term problem. A third runway is essential, now and ought to be built – but at the same time there needs to be a parallel debate about what to do beyond that. If there is a vision that there will need to be more capacity beyond that in 15-20 years time, planning for that should start now. It would mean releasing Heathrow eventually and redeveloping that site, but for now let’s not forget the enormous investment put into two brand new terminals on that site, the investment in Crossrail to support access to Heathrow and the businesses that cluster around it.

Delaying a third runway at Heathrow has several beneficiaries – airports at CDG, AMS, FRA and MUC, and the airlines that hub at them AF/KL and LH. In addition, the foreign hub airlines that can cheaply service the regions, like EK, ET, QR and UA all benefit.

The losers are London, BA, VS (and I guess BD) and the UK more widely, as the capital/business hub becomes relatively less connected compared to Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich, Amsterdam and New York.

However, political parties will sacrifice the long term thinking for the short termism of NIMBYism and the chimera that constraining airports in London somehow benefits climate change policy. Encouraging people to hub through CDG, FRA, AMS, DXB and AUH is not green.

[Bucksnet]

Scott, the 3rd runway proposal as put forward under Labour is a non-starter, and would make LHR even more of a mess than it is now. What’s needed is to flatten the entire area and start from scratch with a clean sheet 4 runway airport, designed as a world class hub.

The 3 main parties are deliberately acting against the best interests of the UK on orders from the EU, and man made global warming is one of the biggest scams going.

[VintageKrug]

Gosh, Binman, if anyone can have such an interpretation of the “good” that happened under Blair/Brown and the “bad” that was alleged under the administrations previous to that, then I pity your world view. I really do.

I think ScottWilson has hit the nail on the head, and although I disagree that a third runway is in any way desirable or quickly achievable, I do think that most contributors here agree that the debate really has to focus not on the next ten years, but the next fifty; and Heathrow is clearly not the right site for London’s hub in the long term.

[Author]

Posts