Third Runway at Heathrow - BuzzJack Music Forum

BuzzJack - Entertainment Discussion _ General Discussion _ News and Politics

Latest Site News

Hozier gets a second week at number one

Hozier climbs to number one

A chart double for Beyonce

Third Runway at Heathrow, Given the go ahead

Display modes

Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum

Chez Wombat View member profile	Oct 25 2016, 12:46 PM Post #1
The owls are not what they seem Pronouns: He/him Joined: 11 July 2009 Posts: 37,107 User: 9,232	So six years after the idea was dropped, the government has now approved a third runway being built at Heathrow airport. QUOTE The government has approved a third runway at Heathrow to expand UK airport capacity. Ministers approved the long-awaited decision at a cabinet committee meeting on Tuesday. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling called the decision "truly momentous" and said expansion would improve the UK's connections with the rest of the world and support trade and jobs. He will make a statement to the House of Commons about 13:00. A wide range of unions and business groups welcomed the decision to expand Heathrow. TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said it was "absolutely vital for Britain", while CBI chief Paul Drechsler said it would create jobs and boost economic growth. Heathrow management said the airport was ready to deliver a third runway that was "fair, affordable and secures the benefits of expansion for the whole of the UK". However, Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, said it was the wrong decision for both London and the UK. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37760187 What are your thoughts on this? Do any of you live near Heathrow and will feel the effects of this when it happens? It definitely seems like a bad move environmentally, but who knows, could actually mean Boris resigns x


danG View member profile	Oct 25 2016, 01:32 PM Post #2
🔥🚀🔥 Joined: 30 August 2010 Posts: 74,540 User: 11,746	I'm not 100% for or against but at the moment I'm leaning on the 'against' side. Not pleased about how much taxpayer money it'll cost, the additional noise and air pollution it'll cause, plus the locals must be devastated (but fortunately I'm not in that position). At least the economy will likely be boosted from it.


T83:Y96 View member profile	Oct 25 2016, 03:39 PM Post #3
My mother said, to get things done, you better not mess with Maj Joined: 28 October 2014 Posts: 5,765 User: 21,319	I'm all for this if Boris Johnson keeps his word on laying down in front of the bulldozzers. However, on a more serious note, I'm kinda split on this issue. On the one hand, the air pollution and noise is bad, and there's the locals of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Longford, but on the other hand, a third runway for Heathrow isn't exactly unnecessary.


Long Dong Silver View member profile	Oct 25 2016, 04:25 PM Post #4
Buffy/Charmed Joined: 18 April 2013 Posts: 44,036 User: 18,639	This is what happens in a tiny tiny country: no space.


Jade View member profile	Oct 25 2016, 04:54 PM Post #5
Alone and wounded Pronouns: She/her Joined: 18 January 2011 Posts: 60,113 User: 12,810	Zac Goldsmith has resigned in protest of this, Boris to follow him now please As for the idea itself I think I'm leaning more towards against because of the reasons already stated in here - environmental damage, unpleasantness for locals, noise etc.


Silas View member profile	Oct 25 2016, 05:19 PM Post #6
Queen of Soon Joined: 24 May 2007 Posts: 74,077 User: 3,474	Heathrow is a bloody shambles, it needs two new runways, not one. This is about three decades overdue. The government doesn't care about emissions or it wouldn't have cut renewable subsidies and support and then approved a hacking great useless nuclear toxic waste dump on the south coast. In reality what this is is a Brexit smokescreen. It's a controversial decision that will generate millions of column inches so the Government can hide for another few months that it still doesn't have a Brexit plan and it's still completely rudderless and pointless. Another way to look at it is that this will start building in 2020 and be a major infrastructure project, thus employer, at right about the time when Brexit will really start to f*** over the economy. But that's just me being a cynic. The problem with large infrastructure at Westminster is that it's too late, too expensive, shoddily run, late and over budget. We need to start building things like HS2 now, not in 2151 or whenever they're going to finally get on with it.


Rooney View member profile	Oct 25 2016, 05:25 PM Post #7
WINTER IS COMING Joined: 7 March 2006 Posts: 45,597 User: 88	Heathrow is a shithole as it is (the area, not the airport). So I can't see much opposition from the town. The M25 is ridiculous enough as it is, lord knows what it will be like now. I guess the idea is that economically, the expansion of Heathrow is much better. But realistically, they really should have gone for Gatwick. Not quite as glamorous or as close to London, but definitely the better option.


crazy chris View member profile	Oct 25 2016, 06:25 PM Post #8
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 7 March 2006 Posts: 22,001 User: 53	I admire Zac for keeping his promise to his constituents to resign if it was given the go-ahead.


Silas View member profile	Oct 25 2016, 06:28 PM Post #9
Queen of Soon Joined: 24 May 2007 Posts: 74,077 User: 3,474	QUOTE(Rooney @ Oct 25 2016, 06:25 PM) Heathrow is a shithole as it is (the area, not the airport). So I can't see much opposition from the town. The M25 is ridiculous enough as it is, lord knows what it will be like now. I guess the idea is that economically, the expansion of Heathrow is much better. But realistically, they really should have gone for Gatwick. Not quite as glamorous or as close to London, but definitely the better option. Gatwick is a proper shithole in parts. It's a right rabbit warren that they just need to knock down and start again. Gatwick would have worked if the two had been linked by a high speed underground connection


T83:Y96 View member profile	Oct 26 2016, 06:28 AM Post #10
My mother said, to get things done, you better not mess with Maj Joined: 28 October 2014 Posts: 5,765 User: 21,319	The problem is, Heathrow is a very busy airport who could benefit from a third runway. However, I would like to suggest an alternative: Vastly reduce (or cancel altogether) domestic and short distance flights. Far too many flights departing from and going to Heathrow are ridiculously short. You don't need to take a plane to go from London to Manchester. You can take a train. Or drive. My plan would be to remove all flights to destinations which can be driven to from London in less than 10 hours (not counting ferry crossings). This means no more flying to places like Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, and so on, to relieve congestion and to stop wasting money and fuel on short flights. Do you need to fly to go from London to New York? Of course you do, how else are you going to get from London to New York in a relatively short amount of time? Do you need to fly to go from London to Lisbon? Well, you could drive, but it is 20 hour trip (not counting breaks), so it's understandable youj would prefer to take a plane. Do you need to fly to go from London to Paris? No you don't. It takes around 5 hours to go from London to Paris,and the Eurostar does that journey in 2 hours and 16 min. Drive to Paris like a normal person. Or if you don't feel like driving, take the Eurostar. It's better for the environnement, it's cheaper, and you actually spend more time on the London-Paris journey if you take a plane since you need to get to the aeroport 2 hours before. It is not worth either the hassle or the money.


crazy chris View member profile	Oct 26 2016, 08:41 AM Post #11
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 7 March 2006 Posts: 22,001 User: 53	QUOTE(Taylor Jago @ Oct 26 2016, 07:28 AM) The problem is, Heathrow is a very busy airport who could benefit from a third runway. However, I would like to suggest an alternative: Vastly reduce (or cancel altogether) domestic and short distance flights. Far too many flights departing from and going to Heathrow are ridiculously short. You don't need to take a plane to go from London to Manchester. You can take a train. Or drive. My plan would be to remove all flights to destinations which can be driven to from London in less than 10 hours (not counting ferry crossings). This means no more flying to places like Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, and so on, to relieve congestion and to stop wasting money and fuel on short flights. Sorry but that's a ridiculous suggestion. What about people who WANT to fly to Manchester, Paris, Amsterdam etc and can afford it? What about business people going to meetings? Yes, some go by train but some fly too. Why should they drive when they could get there quicker. What if they don't drive? Believe it or not, quite a few people don't. This post has been edited by Common Sense: Oct 26 2016, 08:43 AM


Popchartfreak View member profile	Oct 26 2016, 09:37 AM Post #12
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	the money proposed to knock off 15 mins on the train journey from northern towns to London (a fortune) could have been spent on high-speed links between heathrow and gatwick and gatwick and London. I look forward to news headlines on traffic pileups under the new runway, or planes failing on take-off hurtling into housing.. I am cynical...


Silas View member profile	Oct 26 2016, 10:11 AM Post #13
Queen of Soon Joined: 24 May 2007 Posts: 74,077 User: 3,474	QUOTE(Taylor Jago @ Oct 26 2016, 07:28 AM) The problem is, Heathrow is a very busy airport who could benefit from a third runway. However, I would like to suggest an alternative: Vastly reduce (or cancel altogether) domestic and short distance flights. Far too many flights departing from and going to Heathrow are ridiculously short. You don't need to take a plane to go from London to Manchester. You can take a train. Or drive. My plan would be to remove all flights to destinations which can be driven to from London in less than 10 hours (not counting ferry crossings). This means no more flying to places like Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, and so on, to relieve congestion and to stop wasting money and fuel on short flights. Do you need to fly to go from London to New York? Of course you do, how else are you going to get from London to New York in a relatively short amount of time? Do you need to fly to go from London to Lisbon? Well, you could drive, but it is 20 hour trip (not counting breaks), so it's understandable youj would prefer to take a plane. Do you need to fly to go from London to Paris? No you don't. It takes around 5 hours to go from London to Paris,and the Eurostar does that journey in 2 hours and 16 min. Drive to Paris like a normal person. Or if you don't feel like driving, take the Eurostar. It's better for the environnement, it's cheaper, and you actually spend more time on the London-Paris journey if you take a plane since you need to get to the aeroport 2 hours before. It is not worth either the hassle or the money. You clearly don't live near a regional airport that relies on feeder flights otherwise you'd know how utterly ridiculous this is. I just can't even. Most of these feeder flights are actually necessary to support the long haul flights as they aren't viable otherwise. Oh and even including the time taken to get to the airports and from the airports its quicker to fly from London to Edinburgh because the rail network is shite. Actually the Eurostar is more expensive than at least 75% of the flights crossing the channel and that driving to the continent only becomes viable if you have a large amount of people and/or luggage because the Ferries are expensive as f***


Suedehead2 View member profile	Oct 26 2016, 05:53 PM Post #14
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,655 User: 3,272	Taylor Jago's solution is a bit simplistic, but the gist of his argument is perfectly valid. Successive governments have simply accepted the case for increasing capacity without asking why. Instead of arguing that the train service from London to Edinburgh is too slow and expensive, we should ask "Why do you need to go to Edinburgh for a meeting at all?". Some years ago I was working in Reading. I had regular meetings with people in Liverpool. None if us left our office for the meetings; they were conducted by conference call. At no time did I feel that anything was lost by us not being in the same room. The same applies to meetings in New York or anywhere else across the Atlantic. Of course there will be times when face-to-face contact is required, but there is plenty of scope for increasing the use of technology. That leaves leisure travel. I certainly wouldn't ban short flights, but more people should be using trains. For anyone who wants to go from central London to central Paris, the train is quicker and the views are better. You also know where your luggage is all the time. Next year a direct service to Amsterdam will start and there are already services to the south of France. For longer flights, we should make better use of regional airports. It may mean a little less choice of dates and times, but they are a lot more convenient. The next thing is to persuade the French to make it easier to travel by train from the Channel ports without having to go into Paris first. Of course, they may decide it's not worth listening to us any more.