Heathrow & Gatwick are both controversial that's the problem, it needs to be somewhere else.
Why?
Can't speak for Gatwick but surveys have shown the majority of people in the vicinity of LHR support expansion as do most of the local authorities, probably due to the fact that upto a third of all employment in some west London boroughs is connected to LHR in some capacity.
It's been batted back to the government to make a decision, several Tory MPs are implicitly opposed to the expansion of Heathrow which for a government with a small majority is a bad place to be.
I also note the government said there won't be a "snap decision" - which as this has been going on for 60 years is an understatement
Heathrow & Gatwick are both controversial that's the problem, it needs to be somewhere else.
Building anywhere would be controversial. Heck, anything any government does is controversial - but their job is to choose the best solution for the whole country regardless of what a bunch of NIMBYs, Swampies and Flat Earthers think.
Anywhere in the South East will be problematic for the Tories :D
Or it will be if they allow their party political interest to override the national interest/need for more airport capacity.
Airports are like council houses, power stations and prisons. Almost everyone thinks they should be built but almost nobody wants to live next door to one.
I'm usually a fan of Boris Johnson but he he really needs to admit defeat over this one. His Fantasy Island is never going to be built.
The majority of the airpassenger growth from a new runway at LHR/Gwick is supposed to come from transit passengers.
It would much more sense to make a huge hub airport elsewhere for all those passengers who spend literally an hour or so on the ground in the UK before flying off to other destinations. It wouldnt need such great road/rail links to the rest of the UK.
Then we could concentrate on providing GOOD airports for the inhabitants/visisters to Britain.
The Airports Commission report has lots of information on the need. You should try reading it.
If we built a new airport in the middle of nowhere just for connections then why would airlines use it when they could go via Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt? You also need the local traffic too. No airport in the world operates just for transit passengers.
Can't speak for Gatwick but surveys have shown the majority of people in the vicinity of LHR support expansion as do most of the local authorities, probably due to the fact that upto a third of all employment in some west London boroughs is connected to LHR in some capacity.
Those surveys were commissioned by HAL. Funny that.
It's been batted back to the government to make a decision, several Tory MPs are implicitly opposed to the expansion of Heathrow which for a government with a small majority is a bad place to be.
I also note the government said there won't be a "snap decision" - which as this has been going on for 60 years is an understatement
Doubly bad as you can't put a runway to the east or north of London with building Boris Island - and you can't dump all the noise on East London where the Labour voters are. If you inflict more noise on west and central London its Conservative, and formerly Liberal, voters who get the nuisance .If they don't like it, they might even vote Liberal - though Labour seems to have missed its chance for a strategic win by angling for a boris-Dave fight. Its a political no brainer - it has to be Gatwick where only a few cows will notice,
The problem is the airlines can't directed to go somewhere sensible. Transit flights and European flights to Gatwick , cargo to places like Manston and Stanstead with new rail links to take the stuff off the roads, and transatlantic and tourist flights to Heathrow. Its ridiculous to demolish whole villages in West London when Manston has one of the two longest runways in the country and green fields around it , and you could build a second runway at Gatwick on whats now car parks.
The problem is the airlines can't directed to go somewhere sensible. Transit flights and European flights to Gatwick , cargo to places like Manston and Stanstead with new rail links to take the stuff off the roads, and transatlantic and tourist flights to Heathrow.
Well LGW already carries the same amount of PAX to EU destinations as LHR - and it is growing faster. As far as cargo goes, most of it is transported on passenger aircraft so it is bound to end up at the same destination as the passengers - dedicated cargo operations are a tiny part of the overall cargo movement operation.
Comments
I thought both Heathrow & Gatwick were too controversial.
It depends on who you ask: http://www.gacc.org.uk/
Heathrow & Gatwick are both controversial that's the problem, it needs to be somewhere else.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/30/london-airports-expansion-report-will-not-be-binding-say-tories
Why?
Can't speak for Gatwick but surveys have shown the majority of people in the vicinity of LHR support expansion as do most of the local authorities, probably due to the fact that upto a third of all employment in some west London boroughs is connected to LHR in some capacity.
It's the best decision for the long term
surely the best decision for the long term is to allow them both to expand - the more capacity the better all around.
It doesn't say that?
I also note the government said there won't be a "snap decision" - which as this has been going on for 60 years is an understatement
True - that would be the ideal solution but it's not going to happen.
Building anywhere would be controversial. Heck, anything any government does is controversial - but their job is to choose the best solution for the whole country regardless of what a bunch of NIMBYs, Swampies and Flat Earthers think.
Give me £20M and I'll let you know in three years.
Or it will be if they allow their party political interest to override the national interest/need for more airport capacity.
Airports are like council houses, power stations and prisons. Almost everyone thinks they should be built but almost nobody wants to live next door to one.
I'm usually a fan of Boris Johnson but he he really needs to admit defeat over this one. His Fantasy Island is never going to be built.
The majority of the airpassenger growth from a new runway at LHR/Gwick is supposed to come from transit passengers.
It would much more sense to make a huge hub airport elsewhere for all those passengers who spend literally an hour or so on the ground in the UK before flying off to other destinations. It wouldnt need such great road/rail links to the rest of the UK.
Then we could concentrate on providing GOOD airports for the inhabitants/visisters to Britain.
The Airports Commission report has lots of information on the need. You should try reading it.
If we built a new airport in the middle of nowhere just for connections then why would airlines use it when they could go via Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt? You also need the local traffic too. No airport in the world operates just for transit passengers.
Doubly bad as you can't put a runway to the east or north of London with building Boris Island - and you can't dump all the noise on East London where the Labour voters are. If you inflict more noise on west and central London its Conservative, and formerly Liberal, voters who get the nuisance .If they don't like it, they might even vote Liberal - though Labour seems to have missed its chance for a strategic win by angling for a boris-Dave fight. Its a political no brainer - it has to be Gatwick where only a few cows will notice,
The problem is the airlines can't directed to go somewhere sensible. Transit flights and European flights to Gatwick , cargo to places like Manston and Stanstead with new rail links to take the stuff off the roads, and transatlantic and tourist flights to Heathrow. Its ridiculous to demolish whole villages in West London when Manston has one of the two longest runways in the country and green fields around it , and you could build a second runway at Gatwick on whats now car parks.
Well LGW already carries the same amount of PAX to EU destinations as LHR - and it is growing faster. As far as cargo goes, most of it is transported on passenger aircraft so it is bound to end up at the same destination as the passengers - dedicated cargo operations are a tiny part of the overall cargo movement operation.