So, Heathrow........

Cliff

By not expanding Heathrow I think we done exactly that over the last 40 years albeit for different reasons.
Yet we have to fly. The hopeless dithering over expansion has not decreased air traffic. We just burn more fuel in holding stacks over LHR, as Enki mentioned, or connect elsewhere- Amsterdam for instance.

Sonic67

Amsterdam's Schiphol airport has six runways.

Sonic67

What's wrong with that? To me it says, there was demand, it was needed, it's now being used.

I'd be concerned if we spent billions on roads and they weren't used.

Charles de Gaulle airport has four runways, Frankfurt has four, Amsterdam six, we are being left behind. They will get the business not us.

fluxo

Personally speaking, I am in favour of increasing capacity. But the amounts involved for Heathrow expansion are so extraordinary that I wonder if we might be able to increase capacity even more if an alternative option were chosen. Bear in mind that the cost will be loaded onto passenger charges, which will have an impact on competitiveness.

It's a bit like the nuclear plant situation. I am not against nuclear power, but do we have to have the most expensive power plant ever constructed anywhere in the world, or can we get a few power stations for the money spent on that one?

Sonic67

I honestly don't care whether Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Birmingham or Boris Island happens. I'd rather we got on with something. Anything.

Cliff

We can't think beyond a massively expensive third runway which will solve little long term.
We think an airport in the Thames is far to ambitious but isn't Holland mostly built on reclaimed land?

EarthRod

Meeting air quality and pollution targets is unusually difficult. There are two ways of doing that: reduce the numbers of travellers and/or improve the efficiency of the motive power concerned.

Reducing the number of people travelling by air, road, rail or sea is not going to happen, not unless the world population can be drastically reduced.

Increasing the efficiency of motive power is happening all the time, under continuous development and innovation. All engines are very much more cleaner, more powerful and use less fuel than in the past.

It is very easy to state "we should be flying LESS, not more", but until a remedy can be found that meets the reality of the situation then the status quo will continue.

Sonic67

Private Eye has an interesting angle. Let's assume sterling won't regain its previous strength. Likely result is less UK people having overseas holidays overseas city breaks and overseas stag parties and there being more domestic tourism.

Brits spent £18bn more on overseas breaks last year than foreign tourists spent in the UK. So if some of that is hit then good news for the UK economy and bad news for airports and airports enlargement.

I suppose you could add to that that low sterling also means that the UK would be less attractive for foreign workers to come and work here and then travel back and forth from Eastern Europe.

Most UK factories are located by regional airports so Heathrow and Gatwick might want to push for a deal now before their airport business falls.

What it doesn't really explain is that low sterling will mean more foreign tourists coming here and hence still a need for such airports.

SteakAndCake

I don't know much about this at all. Is there a reason they can't build a new airport just for Cargo in the centre of the UK to facilitate freight logistics which would then free up runway capacity at Heathrow for increased passenger routes?