mr_brain Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 The government has approved a controversial plan to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport. About 700 homes will have to be demolished to make way for the runway, which will increase the number of flights using Heathrow from about 480,000 a year now to 702,000 by 2030. personally iam against the idea but no doubt other folk will have their own opinion... verdict http://img3.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sad/sad0141.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenlink Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 NO, No, no. A third runway is a ludicrous idea. For a start the two runways that exist at the moment are bad enough. Heathrow's location and set up is far from ideal and this third runway would just add to the problems. I think if this goes ahead it (which I very much doubt) will contribute a total of 20% of the UK's CO2 emission target for 2050 and I am far from convinced that the economic benefits stack up against the environmental and social impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twerto Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxFusion Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 If it didn't need it would they be considering building another one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuggie Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Yeah there's probably a need for a third runway, but I really dont want to see another one. Can you imagine how many bags they're going to lose next time around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 For once I’m with the Boris on this one if they can spend (According to these figures, the total for the Olympic Games and the regeneration of the East London area, is £9.345 billion) For a 14 day event it seems to me that the money would be better spent on a new airport system just out side London a longer lasting regeneration than the Olympics will ever be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 The idea of a third runway is that Heathrow will be able to continue getting its fair share of the profitable intercontinental traffic including the transatlantic routes. Before all the expenditure on terminals 4 & 5 and the Heathrow Express rail link there was certainly some chance of going for a completely new London Airport but I fear that expenditure means we have commited to Heathrow for a long time to come. There is just possibly one alternative. A high speed rail link connecting several London airports into one super airport. Not talking of 125mph trains but some sort of advanced system, perhaps maglev, with frequent 300mph services. Could work but until then I see little alternative to the third runway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooter Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Too many flights from Heathrow already. The airspace surely can't cope with much more. Not everybody wants to travel to London, Why don't they put another runway/airport somewhere less congested? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tirvaluk Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I feel sorry for the villages that will be destroyed to make way for it.Especially when it's only to fill the pockets of the shareholders of the airport, More and more people are using Amsterdam as their hub for travel from the UK, better facilities and less hassle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
man of kent Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 No, Heathrow doesn't need a third runway, but the London Area supposedly needs more air traffic as both Heathrow and Gatwick are full. This is why Luton and Stanstead are "London" airports, both of which are a good hour away from London. I cannot understand why RAF Manston cannot be developed further to take up the overspill form Heathrow and Gatwick. RAF Manston has one of the longest runways in the UK, the RAF were forced to pull out of Manston in the late 1980's but the facilities are still used by civil aviation company's, but only a few flights per day. The road network into and out of Manston isnt bad, probably better than Luton with all the road works on the M1. An hour away from London? Well perhaps an hour and a half.The area isnt that populated like Heathrow, - why should 700 homes be demolished for another runway?Come on make use of Manston in Kent, its less disruptive, it will work out cheaper, the runway is there already, just re-furbish the Terminal. no compulsory purchase of homes, gotta be a win-win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 And maybe with the high speed Javelin trains running from Kent to London St. Pancras the rail link might just be really fast someday soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.