Euro MP urges for a UK hub airport location before HS2 is developed

7:40am Monday 4th February 2013 in News By Rebecca Cain

James Elles James Elles

A EURO MP has urged the Government to make a decision on the location of a UK hub airport before it takes any further decision on HS2.

Conservative European MP for the South East, James Elles wrote in his weekly blog following the announcement of the second phase of the HS2 project to build north of Birmingham, linking London to Leeds and Manchester.

He said the announcement that there would be no decision yet about the link of HS2 to Heathrow "shone an unwelcomed ray of light in the current unacceptable delay in deciding how the fast developing lack of capacity of airport space in the South-East should be resolved."

The Department of Transport’s unconstrained demand forecasts predicted Heathrow will need a third runway by 2020 and a fourth by 2030, while Gatwick will require a second runway by 2030.

Mr Elles said: "If the UK wants to be a real player in the global race of tomorrow, we must not lag in building the most effective and efficient infrastructure.

He said the UK should learn from the Continent which has hub airports such as Frankfurt am Main, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol, where incoming global passengers can easily transfer through high-speed rail to other European destinations.

He added: "What makes absolutely no sense whatsoever is to steam ahead with announcing high speed rail projects, going across mostly Conservative held seats, without having any idea where the major hub airport is ultimately going to be placed.

"The sooner that decision is taken – including the real possibility of the Thames Estuary project – the better. Britain will be able to feel confident about its place in the global race of the 21st century. Until this decision is taken, any steps to establish HS2 should be frozen."

James Elles’s blog can be read at: www.jameselles.com

Comments (30)

8:51am Mon 4 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

International airports develop international links which help to build international trade. That's the only way to bring money in to the country. Why don't HS2 supporters understand that?
International airports develop international links which help to build international trade. That's the only way to bring money in to the country. Why don't HS2 supporters understand that? gpn01

9:30am Mon 4 Feb 13

jayeatman says...

HS2 as opposed to HS1 is primarily a project to improve national links and in my opinion will merely redistribute what prosperity this country has rather than create new wealth.
As gnp01 rightly points out, a new hub airport is about creating international links and is a true prosperity driver. The Tories have totally dropped the ball on this. At least Labour realised this and took the Heathrow 3rd runway decision.
Of course a hub airport has to be properly integrated with the domestic transport network. Why is it something that is a no brainer in the rest of Europe takes decades for our inept politicians of either hue to catch on to? It took 30 years for Heathrow to get a tube connection and more than a further 20 to get a rail link to London and there's still not a proper mainline railway station!!!
HS2 as opposed to HS1 is primarily a project to improve national links and in my opinion will merely redistribute what prosperity this country has rather than create new wealth. As gnp01 rightly points out, a new hub airport is about creating international links and is a true prosperity driver. The Tories have totally dropped the ball on this. At least Labour realised this and took the Heathrow 3rd runway decision. Of course a hub airport has to be properly integrated with the domestic transport network. Why is it something that is a no brainer in the rest of Europe takes decades for our inept politicians of either hue to catch on to? It took 30 years for Heathrow to get a tube connection and more than a further 20 to get a rail link to London and there's still not a proper mainline railway station!!! jayeatman

10:50am Mon 4 Feb 13

LadyOr says...

A new 6 runway airport, with 24 hrs flights, will instantly improve the wealth of the country by attracting foreign investment whereas HS2 will cost more money and attract far less business, that's a no brainer!

The UK exists due to international business connections, have we forgotten what we are about ? How can we distribute wealth if we are in recession to Europe ?

Channel Tunnel link (HS1) connecting Essex and Kent coast via the new airport, allowing people from the North and South to access the new Airport and Channel Tunnel by High-speed rail. Creating Business and Jobs from Sea, Airport, Railway, new flight paths, competitive fares, jobs in airport development, new housing, new foreign distribution import / export shops, shipping, freight, technology, medical supplies to Transport, etc

Also an new modern airport in the Estuary could avoid as many problems with snow and the temperature of the water would likely melt the falling snow! Also pollution over land is a major contributor to environmental and health issues.
A new 6 runway airport, with 24 hrs flights, will instantly improve the wealth of the country by attracting foreign investment whereas HS2 will cost more money and attract far less business, that's a no brainer! The UK exists due to international business connections, have we forgotten what we are about ? How can we distribute wealth if we are in recession to Europe ? Channel Tunnel link (HS1) connecting Essex and Kent coast via the new airport, allowing people from the North and South to access the new Airport and Channel Tunnel by High-speed rail. Creating Business and Jobs from Sea, Airport, Railway, new flight paths, competitive fares, jobs in airport development, new housing, new foreign distribution import / export shops, shipping, freight, technology, medical supplies to Transport, etc Also an new modern airport in the Estuary could avoid as many problems with snow and the temperature of the water would likely melt the falling snow! Also pollution over land is a major contributor to environmental and health issues. LadyOr

10:55am Mon 4 Feb 13

Voyeur says...

The plan is to incorporate Manchester Airport with HS2 but there is no plan to incorporate Heathrow Airport at the London end. It could be achieved with a Heathrow / Ruislip link. At least then a transport hub would benefit the scheme and provide a feeder for passengers who might be able to afford the train tickets, unlike the locals.
The plan is to incorporate Manchester Airport with HS2 but there is no plan to incorporate Heathrow Airport at the London end. It could be achieved with a Heathrow / Ruislip link. At least then a transport hub would benefit the scheme and provide a feeder for passengers who might be able to afford the train tickets, unlike the locals. Voyeur

1:00pm Mon 4 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

Voyeur wrote:
The plan is to incorporate Manchester Airport with HS2 but there is no plan to incorporate Heathrow Airport at the London end. It could be achieved with a Heathrow / Ruislip link. At least then a transport hub would benefit the scheme and provide a feeder for passengers who might be able to afford the train tickets, unlike the locals.
If a fast, direct, train linked up Manchester Airport with Heathrow Airport then it would remove the need for flights between the two airports. That would release much needed runway capacity at Heathrow.
[quote][p][bold]Voyeur[/bold] wrote: The plan is to incorporate Manchester Airport with HS2 but there is no plan to incorporate Heathrow Airport at the London end. It could be achieved with a Heathrow / Ruislip link. At least then a transport hub would benefit the scheme and provide a feeder for passengers who might be able to afford the train tickets, unlike the locals.[/p][/quote]If a fast, direct, train linked up Manchester Airport with Heathrow Airport then it would remove the need for flights between the two airports. That would release much needed runway capacity at Heathrow. gpn01

1:30pm Mon 4 Feb 13

jayeatman says...

gpn01 wrote:
Voyeur wrote:
The plan is to incorporate Manchester Airport with HS2 but there is no plan to incorporate Heathrow Airport at the London end. It could be achieved with a Heathrow / Ruislip link. At least then a transport hub would benefit the scheme and provide a feeder for passengers who might be able to afford the train tickets, unlike the locals.
If a fast, direct, train linked up Manchester Airport with Heathrow Airport then it would remove the need for flights between the two airports. That would release much needed runway capacity at Heathrow.
This is one Tory argument for justifying cancelling Heathrow runway 3 and substituting HS2. It doesn't wash for several reasons: Firstly, nobody wants to take a train from Heathrow to Manchester. If they choose the train its more than likely they are travelling city centre to city centre. Second, there aren't enough Heathrow to Manchester flights to make a difference and thirdly what is everybody supposed to do in the 20 years b4 HS2 is finished? (Heathrow R3 could have been built by 2015).
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Voyeur[/bold] wrote: The plan is to incorporate Manchester Airport with HS2 but there is no plan to incorporate Heathrow Airport at the London end. It could be achieved with a Heathrow / Ruislip link. At least then a transport hub would benefit the scheme and provide a feeder for passengers who might be able to afford the train tickets, unlike the locals.[/p][/quote]If a fast, direct, train linked up Manchester Airport with Heathrow Airport then it would remove the need for flights between the two airports. That would release much needed runway capacity at Heathrow.[/p][/quote]This is one Tory argument for justifying cancelling Heathrow runway 3 and substituting HS2. It doesn't wash for several reasons: Firstly, nobody wants to take a train from Heathrow to Manchester. If they choose the train its more than likely they are travelling city centre to city centre. Second, there aren't enough Heathrow to Manchester flights to make a difference and thirdly what is everybody supposed to do in the 20 years b4 HS2 is finished? (Heathrow R3 could have been built by 2015). jayeatman

1:44pm Mon 4 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

jayeatman wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
Voyeur wrote: The plan is to incorporate Manchester Airport with HS2 but there is no plan to incorporate Heathrow Airport at the London end. It could be achieved with a Heathrow / Ruislip link. At least then a transport hub would benefit the scheme and provide a feeder for passengers who might be able to afford the train tickets, unlike the locals.
If a fast, direct, train linked up Manchester Airport with Heathrow Airport then it would remove the need for flights between the two airports. That would release much needed runway capacity at Heathrow.
This is one Tory argument for justifying cancelling Heathrow runway 3 and substituting HS2. It doesn't wash for several reasons: Firstly, nobody wants to take a train from Heathrow to Manchester. If they choose the train its more than likely they are travelling city centre to city centre. Second, there aren't enough Heathrow to Manchester flights to make a difference and thirdly what is everybody supposed to do in the 20 years b4 HS2 is finished? (Heathrow R3 could have been built by 2015).
Disagree, a major reason for the establishment of Heathrow originally was the "hib & spoke" idea wheerby regional airports such as Manchester served as a spoke into the Heathrow hub. If it was possible therefore to interline from Manchester via Heathrow (which is why many people fly from Manchester to Heathrow - it's not that theyr'e travelling to London, it's that theyr'e using Heathrow as a hop to an international destination) then why would the insist on flying? That's why in other Countries (e.g. Germany) you may pay for a ticket between Frankfurt, Cologne and Susseldorf and your timetable may give it a "flight" number but it's actually operated by train.
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Voyeur[/bold] wrote: The plan is to incorporate Manchester Airport with HS2 but there is no plan to incorporate Heathrow Airport at the London end. It could be achieved with a Heathrow / Ruislip link. At least then a transport hub would benefit the scheme and provide a feeder for passengers who might be able to afford the train tickets, unlike the locals.[/p][/quote]If a fast, direct, train linked up Manchester Airport with Heathrow Airport then it would remove the need for flights between the two airports. That would release much needed runway capacity at Heathrow.[/p][/quote]This is one Tory argument for justifying cancelling Heathrow runway 3 and substituting HS2. It doesn't wash for several reasons: Firstly, nobody wants to take a train from Heathrow to Manchester. If they choose the train its more than likely they are travelling city centre to city centre. Second, there aren't enough Heathrow to Manchester flights to make a difference and thirdly what is everybody supposed to do in the 20 years b4 HS2 is finished? (Heathrow R3 could have been built by 2015).[/p][/quote]Disagree, a major reason for the establishment of Heathrow originally was the "hib & spoke" idea wheerby regional airports such as Manchester served as a spoke into the Heathrow hub. If it was possible therefore to interline from Manchester via Heathrow (which is why many people fly from Manchester to Heathrow - it's not that theyr'e travelling to London, it's that theyr'e using Heathrow as a hop to an international destination) then why would the insist on flying? That's why in other Countries (e.g. Germany) you may pay for a ticket between Frankfurt, Cologne and Susseldorf and your timetable may give it a "flight" number but it's actually operated by train. gpn01

1:54pm Mon 4 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

gpn01 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
Voyeur wrote: The plan is to incorporate Manchester Airport with HS2 but there is no plan to incorporate Heathrow Airport at the London end. It could be achieved with a Heathrow / Ruislip link. At least then a transport hub would benefit the scheme and provide a feeder for passengers who might be able to afford the train tickets, unlike the locals.
If a fast, direct, train linked up Manchester Airport with Heathrow Airport then it would remove the need for flights between the two airports. That would release much needed runway capacity at Heathrow.
This is one Tory argument for justifying cancelling Heathrow runway 3 and substituting HS2. It doesn't wash for several reasons: Firstly, nobody wants to take a train from Heathrow to Manchester. If they choose the train its more than likely they are travelling city centre to city centre. Second, there aren't enough Heathrow to Manchester flights to make a difference and thirdly what is everybody supposed to do in the 20 years b4 HS2 is finished? (Heathrow R3 could have been built by 2015).
Disagree, a major reason for the establishment of Heathrow originally was the "hib & spoke" idea wheerby regional airports such as Manchester served as a spoke into the Heathrow hub. If it was possible therefore to interline from Manchester via Heathrow (which is why many people fly from Manchester to Heathrow - it's not that theyr'e travelling to London, it's that theyr'e using Heathrow as a hop to an international destination) then why would the insist on flying? That's why in other Countries (e.g. Germany) you may pay for a ticket between Frankfurt, Cologne and Susseldorf and your timetable may give it a "flight" number but it's actually operated by train.
I'll try this again and spell & grammar check it first:

Disagree, a major reason for the establishment of Heathrow originally was the "hub & spoke" idea whereby regional airports such as Manchester served as a spoke into the Heathrow hub. If it was possible therefore to interline from Manchester via Heathrow (which is why many people fly from Manchester to Heathrow - it's not that they're travelling to London, it's that they're using Heathrow as a hop to an international destination) then why would they insist on flying? That's why in other Countries (e.g. Germany) you may pay for a ticket between Frankfurt, Cologne and Dusseldorf and your timetable may give it a "flight" number but it's actually operated by train.
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Voyeur[/bold] wrote: The plan is to incorporate Manchester Airport with HS2 but there is no plan to incorporate Heathrow Airport at the London end. It could be achieved with a Heathrow / Ruislip link. At least then a transport hub would benefit the scheme and provide a feeder for passengers who might be able to afford the train tickets, unlike the locals.[/p][/quote]If a fast, direct, train linked up Manchester Airport with Heathrow Airport then it would remove the need for flights between the two airports. That would release much needed runway capacity at Heathrow.[/p][/quote]This is one Tory argument for justifying cancelling Heathrow runway 3 and substituting HS2. It doesn't wash for several reasons: Firstly, nobody wants to take a train from Heathrow to Manchester. If they choose the train its more than likely they are travelling city centre to city centre. Second, there aren't enough Heathrow to Manchester flights to make a difference and thirdly what is everybody supposed to do in the 20 years b4 HS2 is finished? (Heathrow R3 could have been built by 2015).[/p][/quote]Disagree, a major reason for the establishment of Heathrow originally was the "hib & spoke" idea wheerby regional airports such as Manchester served as a spoke into the Heathrow hub. If it was possible therefore to interline from Manchester via Heathrow (which is why many people fly from Manchester to Heathrow - it's not that theyr'e travelling to London, it's that theyr'e using Heathrow as a hop to an international destination) then why would the insist on flying? That's why in other Countries (e.g. Germany) you may pay for a ticket between Frankfurt, Cologne and Susseldorf and your timetable may give it a "flight" number but it's actually operated by train.[/p][/quote]I'll try this again and spell & grammar check it first: Disagree, a major reason for the establishment of Heathrow originally was the "hub & spoke" idea whereby regional airports such as Manchester served as a spoke into the Heathrow hub. If it was possible therefore to interline from Manchester via Heathrow (which is why many people fly from Manchester to Heathrow - it's not that they're travelling to London, it's that they're using Heathrow as a hop to an international destination) then why would they insist on flying? That's why in other Countries (e.g. Germany) you may pay for a ticket between Frankfurt, Cologne and Dusseldorf and your timetable may give it a "flight" number but it's actually operated by train. gpn01

1:58pm Mon 4 Feb 13

jayeatman says...

gnp01 you are right BUT Manchester is but one spoke. If I want to fly from say Manchester to Seoul, I have a choice of flying via Heathrow, Frankfurt, Munich, Amsterdam, Paris or Dubai to name but a few. If (after 2033) you make me take the (expensive) train to Heathrow, even a very fast one I'm just going to pick one of the alternatives. On top of that because Heathrow will only have 2 runways it may well not be able serve my final destination as often or at all. Of course by 2033 the choice will have long gone against Heathrow anyway as it will be a further 20 years behind its competitors.
A vanishing small fraction of HS2's traffic will ever be as a substitute for Heathrow feeder flights.
gnp01 you are right BUT Manchester is but one spoke. If I want to fly from say Manchester to Seoul, I have a choice of flying via Heathrow, Frankfurt, Munich, Amsterdam, Paris or Dubai to name but a few. If (after 2033) you make me take the (expensive) train to Heathrow, even a very fast one I'm just going to pick one of the alternatives. On top of that because Heathrow will only have 2 runways it may well not be able serve my final destination as often or at all. Of course by 2033 the choice will have long gone against Heathrow anyway as it will be a further 20 years behind its competitors. A vanishing small fraction of HS2's traffic will ever be as a substitute for Heathrow feeder flights. jayeatman

3:25pm Mon 4 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

jayeatman wrote:
gnp01 you are right BUT Manchester is but one spoke. If I want to fly from say Manchester to Seoul, I have a choice of flying via Heathrow, Frankfurt, Munich, Amsterdam, Paris or Dubai to name but a few. If (after 2033) you make me take the (expensive) train to Heathrow, even a very fast one I'm just going to pick one of the alternatives. On top of that because Heathrow will only have 2 runways it may well not be able serve my final destination as often or at all. Of course by 2033 the choice will have long gone against Heathrow anyway as it will be a further 20 years behind its competitors. A vanishing small fraction of HS2's traffic will ever be as a substitute for Heathrow feeder flights.
Which is why there's a move away from hub & spoke and towards point to point. That's why there'd be value in investing in extending the capacity of regional airports. In 2011, 34.6% of Heathrow's passengers were transfer passengers - so that's a third of capacity that is being used by people not visiting London and who're travelling from regional airports (or inded other airports in the World en-route to somewhere else).

In terms of an "expensive" train ticket - would it matter what price it was if it was the same price as the equivalent using another form of transport?
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: gnp01 you are right BUT Manchester is but one spoke. If I want to fly from say Manchester to Seoul, I have a choice of flying via Heathrow, Frankfurt, Munich, Amsterdam, Paris or Dubai to name but a few. If (after 2033) you make me take the (expensive) train to Heathrow, even a very fast one I'm just going to pick one of the alternatives. On top of that because Heathrow will only have 2 runways it may well not be able serve my final destination as often or at all. Of course by 2033 the choice will have long gone against Heathrow anyway as it will be a further 20 years behind its competitors. A vanishing small fraction of HS2's traffic will ever be as a substitute for Heathrow feeder flights.[/p][/quote]Which is why there's a move away from hub & spoke and towards point to point. That's why there'd be value in investing in extending the capacity of regional airports. In 2011, 34.6% of Heathrow's passengers were transfer passengers - so that's a third of capacity that is being used by people not visiting London and who're travelling from regional airports (or inded other airports in the World en-route to somewhere else). In terms of an "expensive" train ticket - would it matter what price it was if it was the same price as the equivalent using another form of transport? gpn01

3:56pm Mon 4 Feb 13

jayeatman says...

Would the train ticket be the same price as the alternative short hop flight? Not if London to Paris or Brussels on Eurostar is anything to go by!
Would the train ticket be the same price as the alternative short hop flight? Not if London to Paris or Brussels on Eurostar is anything to go by! jayeatman

4:00pm Mon 4 Feb 13

jayeatman says...

Heathrow has been consigned by the Tories to be unfit for future purpose, too small to be either an internationally competitive hub and spoke airport or a point to point for a big city like London. Boris may be bonkers in many ways but when it comes to airports for London, I think he's right.
Heathrow has been consigned by the Tories to be unfit for future purpose, too small to be either an internationally competitive hub and spoke airport or a point to point for a big city like London. Boris may be bonkers in many ways but when it comes to airports for London, I think he's right. jayeatman

4:03pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Buckslocal says...

I believe HS2 and a new 4 runway airport are linked a lot closer than we are currently aware.

I suspect a new major airport to replace Heathrow will be built along the HS2 route probably somewhere north-west of Aylesbury. This would mean London & Birmingham are both within 30 minutes of the airport and Manchester within the hour.

Why else would the current phase 1 route be planned so far away from the large population areas that could benefit from this?
I believe HS2 and a new 4 runway airport are linked a lot closer than we are currently aware. I suspect a new major airport to replace Heathrow will be built along the HS2 route probably somewhere north-west of Aylesbury. This would mean London & Birmingham are both within 30 minutes of the airport and Manchester within the hour. Why else would the current phase 1 route be planned so far away from the large population areas that could benefit from this? Buckslocal

4:04pm Mon 4 Feb 13

jayeatman says...

Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.
Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world. jayeatman

4:14pm Mon 4 Feb 13

jayeatman says...

Buckslocal wrote:
I believe HS2 and a new 4 runway airport are linked a lot closer than we are currently aware.

I suspect a new major airport to replace Heathrow will be built along the HS2 route probably somewhere north-west of Aylesbury. This would mean London & Birmingham are both within 30 minutes of the airport and Manchester within the hour.

Why else would the current phase 1 route be planned so far away from the large population areas that could benefit from this?
So you think the government is secretly planning to bulldoze Milton Keynes? Not a bad idea come to think of it, but be serious! Besides various schemes to expand Heathrow and Stansted, there have now been at least 3 proposals for new airports in the Thames Estuary. If there is ever a brand new airport, this is where it will be and as it is already conveniently close to HS1, it wouldn't have to wait 20 years for HS2 to turn up.
[quote][p][bold]Buckslocal[/bold] wrote: I believe HS2 and a new 4 runway airport are linked a lot closer than we are currently aware. I suspect a new major airport to replace Heathrow will be built along the HS2 route probably somewhere north-west of Aylesbury. This would mean London & Birmingham are both within 30 minutes of the airport and Manchester within the hour. Why else would the current phase 1 route be planned so far away from the large population areas that could benefit from this?[/p][/quote]So you think the government is secretly planning to bulldoze Milton Keynes? Not a bad idea come to think of it, but be serious! Besides various schemes to expand Heathrow and Stansted, there have now been at least 3 proposals for new airports in the Thames Estuary. If there is ever a brand new airport, this is where it will be and as it is already conveniently close to HS1, it wouldn't have to wait 20 years for HS2 to turn up. jayeatman

4:32pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Buckslocal says...

jayeatman wrote:
Buckslocal wrote: I believe HS2 and a new 4 runway airport are linked a lot closer than we are currently aware. I suspect a new major airport to replace Heathrow will be built along the HS2 route probably somewhere north-west of Aylesbury. This would mean London & Birmingham are both within 30 minutes of the airport and Manchester within the hour. Why else would the current phase 1 route be planned so far away from the large population areas that could benefit from this?
So you think the government is secretly planning to bulldoze Milton Keynes? Not a bad idea come to think of it, but be serious! Besides various schemes to expand Heathrow and Stansted, there have now been at least 3 proposals for new airports in the Thames Estuary. If there is ever a brand new airport, this is where it will be and as it is already conveniently close to HS1, it wouldn't have to wait 20 years for HS2 to turn up.
Not as far north as MK but my rough guess at a location would be somewhere near Quainton or Calvert(no big urban developments around there). Then add in a major new motorway to link the M40 --> New Airport --> M1.

Why have the government ditched plans for the Heathrow extension of HS2? There is a review at the moment about which airport option to take which will report in 2015.

There are now lots of reports of a new airport north-west of London. HS2 fits in with this nicely! (less than 30 minutes via HS2 from London). This will justify HS2 from a cost perspective

Why did the HS2 route not go near MK, Coventry, Luton airport, etc?

And phase 1 will be finished around 2024. There could easily be an airport in place a couple of years later
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buckslocal[/bold] wrote: I believe HS2 and a new 4 runway airport are linked a lot closer than we are currently aware. I suspect a new major airport to replace Heathrow will be built along the HS2 route probably somewhere north-west of Aylesbury. This would mean London & Birmingham are both within 30 minutes of the airport and Manchester within the hour. Why else would the current phase 1 route be planned so far away from the large population areas that could benefit from this?[/p][/quote]So you think the government is secretly planning to bulldoze Milton Keynes? Not a bad idea come to think of it, but be serious! Besides various schemes to expand Heathrow and Stansted, there have now been at least 3 proposals for new airports in the Thames Estuary. If there is ever a brand new airport, this is where it will be and as it is already conveniently close to HS1, it wouldn't have to wait 20 years for HS2 to turn up.[/p][/quote]Not as far north as MK but my rough guess at a location would be somewhere near Quainton or Calvert(no big urban developments around there). Then add in a major new motorway to link the M40 --> New Airport --> M1. Why have the government ditched plans for the Heathrow extension of HS2? There is a review at the moment about which airport option to take which will report in 2015. There are now lots of reports of a new airport north-west of London. HS2 fits in with this nicely! (less than 30 minutes via HS2 from London). This will justify HS2 from a cost perspective Why did the HS2 route not go near MK, Coventry, Luton airport, etc? And phase 1 will be finished around 2024. There could easily be an airport in place a couple of years later Buckslocal

4:43pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Cyclo says...

LadyOr wrote:
A new 6 runway airport, with 24 hrs flights, will instantly improve the wealth of the country by attracting foreign investment whereas HS2 will cost more money and attract far less business, that's a no brainer! The UK exists due to international business connections, have we forgotten what we are about ? How can we distribute wealth if we are in recession to Europe ? Channel Tunnel link (HS1) connecting Essex and Kent coast via the new airport, allowing people from the North and South to access the new Airport and Channel Tunnel by High-speed rail. Creating Business and Jobs from Sea, Airport, Railway, new flight paths, competitive fares, jobs in airport development, new housing, new foreign distribution import / export shops, shipping, freight, technology, medical supplies to Transport, etc Also an new modern airport in the Estuary could avoid as many problems with snow and the temperature of the water would likely melt the falling snow! Also pollution over land is a major contributor to environmental and health issues.
Where do you live?
[quote][p][bold]LadyOr[/bold] wrote: A new 6 runway airport, with 24 hrs flights, will instantly improve the wealth of the country by attracting foreign investment whereas HS2 will cost more money and attract far less business, that's a no brainer! The UK exists due to international business connections, have we forgotten what we are about ? How can we distribute wealth if we are in recession to Europe ? Channel Tunnel link (HS1) connecting Essex and Kent coast via the new airport, allowing people from the North and South to access the new Airport and Channel Tunnel by High-speed rail. Creating Business and Jobs from Sea, Airport, Railway, new flight paths, competitive fares, jobs in airport development, new housing, new foreign distribution import / export shops, shipping, freight, technology, medical supplies to Transport, etc Also an new modern airport in the Estuary could avoid as many problems with snow and the temperature of the water would likely melt the falling snow! Also pollution over land is a major contributor to environmental and health issues.[/p][/quote]Where do you live? Cyclo

5:08pm Mon 4 Feb 13

jayeatman says...

Why have the government ditched plans for the Heathrow extension of HS2? Mainly stupidity and lack of joined-up thinking! Far to many Tory seats in that area of the country. It's going to be the Thames Estuary or nowhere: Seabirds don't have votes!
Why have the government ditched plans for the Heathrow extension of HS2? Mainly stupidity and lack of joined-up thinking! Far to many Tory seats in that area of the country. It's going to be the Thames Estuary or nowhere: Seabirds don't have votes! jayeatman

6:01pm Mon 4 Feb 13

s6blr says...

Comparing ANY idea to Frankfurt airport is a complete bad-acid-dream-night
mare!

Frankfurt is second only to Heathrow as the most hated airport to do transfers in and the extreme distances cause many a traveller to miss their flight.
Comparing ANY idea to Frankfurt airport is a complete bad-acid-dream-night mare! Frankfurt is second only to Heathrow as the most hated airport to do transfers in and the extreme distances cause many a traveller to miss their flight. s6blr

7:50pm Mon 4 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

s6blr wrote:
Comparing ANY idea to Frankfurt airport is a complete bad-acid-dream-night
mare!

Frankfurt is second only to Heathrow as the most hated airport to do transfers in and the extreme distances cause many a traveller to miss their flight.
Disagree. Have flown via Frankfurt on many occasions and have never had a problem. Fantastic too, like Amsterdam's Schiphol just how easy it is to then catch a train.
[quote][p][bold]s6blr[/bold] wrote: Comparing ANY idea to Frankfurt airport is a complete bad-acid-dream-night mare! Frankfurt is second only to Heathrow as the most hated airport to do transfers in and the extreme distances cause many a traveller to miss their flight.[/p][/quote]Disagree. Have flown via Frankfurt on many occasions and have never had a problem. Fantastic too, like Amsterdam's Schiphol just how easy it is to then catch a train. gpn01

12:00am Tue 5 Feb 13

LadyOr says...

I agree Schiphol is eating up Heathrow's business day by day, if we don't build a new airport then nearly all global airline business will be lost to Europe where we will be forced to transfer as operators drop the expensive connection.

Heathrow has no room for 6 runways and cannot operate 24 hour flights.
We need to expand North and South Birmingham, Manchester and the Thames Estuary, finally connected by HS2 via HS1..... simple!?!
I agree Schiphol is eating up Heathrow's business day by day, if we don't build a new airport then nearly all global airline business will be lost to Europe where we will be forced to transfer as operators drop the expensive connection. Heathrow has no room for 6 runways and cannot operate 24 hour flights. We need to expand North and South Birmingham, Manchester and the Thames Estuary, finally connected by HS2 via HS1..... simple!?! LadyOr

7:39pm Tue 5 Feb 13

tom.marlow2 says...

jayeatman wrote:
Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.
Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.[/p][/quote]Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country). tom.marlow2

1:19pm Wed 6 Feb 13

jayeatman says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.
Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).
Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages:
1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected.
2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.[/p][/quote]Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).[/p][/quote]Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches. jayeatman

1:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

jayeatman wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.
Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).
Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.
And even if you don't make money out of the coffees you sell to the interline passengers you do gain from passenger transfer tax and selling fuel to the airlines.
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.[/p][/quote]Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).[/p][/quote]Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.[/p][/quote]And even if you don't make money out of the coffees you sell to the interline passengers you do gain from passenger transfer tax and selling fuel to the airlines. gpn01

2:21pm Wed 6 Feb 13

tom.marlow2 says...

jayeatman wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.
Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).
Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages:
1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected.
2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.
So which of those 2 points doesnt apply to heathrow now?

You can fly direct to most major destinations and the major operator is BA
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.[/p][/quote]Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).[/p][/quote]Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.[/p][/quote]So which of those 2 points doesnt apply to heathrow now? You can fly direct to most major destinations and the major operator is BA tom.marlow2

2:30pm Wed 6 Feb 13

tom.marlow2 says...

gpn01 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.
Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).
Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.
And even if you don't make money out of the coffees you sell to the interline passengers you do gain from passenger transfer tax and selling fuel to the airlines.
Aviation fuel is tax free (across the entire EU).

I suppose if Nigel's blackshirts get their way and we withdraw entirely from Europe we could start taxing it, but that hardly going to encourage people to use our airports is it.

Not sure what proportion of GDP comes from airport passenger taxes but I doubt its that big.

Its all very well to make sweeping claims about the "economic benefits" of airports and their expansion, but when it comes down to it there's not a lot beyond the rhetoric.

We need airports in the same way as we need bus stops and train stations, but thats all they are. They are not some sort of economic magic bullet.
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.[/p][/quote]Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).[/p][/quote]Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.[/p][/quote]And even if you don't make money out of the coffees you sell to the interline passengers you do gain from passenger transfer tax and selling fuel to the airlines.[/p][/quote]Aviation fuel is tax free (across the entire EU). I suppose if Nigel's blackshirts get their way and we withdraw entirely from Europe we could start taxing it, but that hardly going to encourage people to use our airports is it. Not sure what proportion of GDP comes from airport passenger taxes but I doubt its that big. Its all very well to make sweeping claims about the "economic benefits" of airports and their expansion, but when it comes down to it there's not a lot beyond the rhetoric. We need airports in the same way as we need bus stops and train stations, but thats all they are. They are not some sort of economic magic bullet. tom.marlow2

2:31pm Wed 6 Feb 13

jayeatman says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.
Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).
Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages:
1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected.
2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.
So which of those 2 points doesnt apply to heathrow now?

You can fly direct to most major destinations and the major operator is BA
Right now they both do, but Heathrow is 98% full: There are already many destinations in would like to serve but can't because the slots aren't there. So to maintain it's position as a leading world hub and continue to create wealth it has to be allowed to grow or be replaced by something bigger and better. The current government has kicked this decision into the long grass and instead turned to HS2 which will cost too much, take too long and have far less effect on the country's economy.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.[/p][/quote]Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).[/p][/quote]Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.[/p][/quote]So which of those 2 points doesnt apply to heathrow now? You can fly direct to most major destinations and the major operator is BA[/p][/quote]Right now they both do, but Heathrow is 98% full: There are already many destinations in would like to serve but can't because the slots aren't there. So to maintain it's position as a leading world hub and continue to create wealth it has to be allowed to grow or be replaced by something bigger and better. The current government has kicked this decision into the long grass and instead turned to HS2 which will cost too much, take too long and have far less effect on the country's economy. jayeatman

3:11pm Wed 6 Feb 13

tom.marlow2 says...

jayeatman wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.
Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).
Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages:
1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected.
2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.
So which of those 2 points doesnt apply to heathrow now?

You can fly direct to most major destinations and the major operator is BA
Right now they both do, but Heathrow is 98% full: There are already many destinations in would like to serve but can't because the slots aren't there. So to maintain it's position as a leading world hub and continue to create wealth it has to be allowed to grow or be replaced by something bigger and better. The current government has kicked this decision into the long grass and instead turned to HS2 which will cost too much, take too long and have far less effect on the country's economy.
So tell us then, how does it create wealth, and for whom?
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.[/p][/quote]Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).[/p][/quote]Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.[/p][/quote]So which of those 2 points doesnt apply to heathrow now? You can fly direct to most major destinations and the major operator is BA[/p][/quote]Right now they both do, but Heathrow is 98% full: There are already many destinations in would like to serve but can't because the slots aren't there. So to maintain it's position as a leading world hub and continue to create wealth it has to be allowed to grow or be replaced by something bigger and better. The current government has kicked this decision into the long grass and instead turned to HS2 which will cost too much, take too long and have far less effect on the country's economy.[/p][/quote]So tell us then, how does it create wealth, and for whom? tom.marlow2

3:19pm Wed 6 Feb 13

tom.marlow2 says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.
Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).
Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages:
1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected.
2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.
So which of those 2 points doesnt apply to heathrow now?

You can fly direct to most major destinations and the major operator is BA
Right now they both do, but Heathrow is 98% full: There are already many destinations in would like to serve but can't because the slots aren't there. So to maintain it's position as a leading world hub and continue to create wealth it has to be allowed to grow or be replaced by something bigger and better. The current government has kicked this decision into the long grass and instead turned to HS2 which will cost too much, take too long and have far less effect on the country's economy.
So tell us then, how does it create wealth, and for whom?
and, I've just had an email from BA telling me about their new routes to Seoul, Chengdu and Hannover
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.[/p][/quote]Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).[/p][/quote]Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.[/p][/quote]So which of those 2 points doesnt apply to heathrow now? You can fly direct to most major destinations and the major operator is BA[/p][/quote]Right now they both do, but Heathrow is 98% full: There are already many destinations in would like to serve but can't because the slots aren't there. So to maintain it's position as a leading world hub and continue to create wealth it has to be allowed to grow or be replaced by something bigger and better. The current government has kicked this decision into the long grass and instead turned to HS2 which will cost too much, take too long and have far less effect on the country's economy.[/p][/quote]So tell us then, how does it create wealth, and for whom?[/p][/quote]and, I've just had an email from BA telling me about their new routes to Seoul, Chengdu and Hannover tom.marlow2

5:21pm Wed 6 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
jayeatman wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.
Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).
Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.
So which of those 2 points doesnt apply to heathrow now? You can fly direct to most major destinations and the major operator is BA
Right now they both do, but Heathrow is 98% full: There are already many destinations in would like to serve but can't because the slots aren't there. So to maintain it's position as a leading world hub and continue to create wealth it has to be allowed to grow or be replaced by something bigger and better. The current government has kicked this decision into the long grass and instead turned to HS2 which will cost too much, take too long and have far less effect on the country's economy.
So tell us then, how does it create wealth, and for whom?
It creates wealth by increasing trading opportunities with business in other countries.

Often the CARGO hold in a passenger aircraft contains.....cargo and this translates to products being bought and sold across international boundaries. So, if I'm a widget maker in UK and it's possible to sell my widgets to a new market in, say, Kuala Lumpur then it's rather nice to be able to ship it for arrival next day. That increases my sales = increase in production = employment opportunity in UK.

On the passenger side, being UK (well, London) based means that a business person can travel around the globe building up relationships with other companies (= sales of both products and services).

It all aids international trade = wealth for british companies = wealth for employees and this (occasionally!) even leads to increased revenue for HMG via taxation (VAT, Income Tax, etc).

Fundamentally, airports = increased opportunity for international transactions = derive income from other countries. domestic railway = primarily redistribution of domestic money (i.e. no gain for UK economy).
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: Expand regional airports as point to point airports by all means but they will never be hubs. Unless London has a decent hub it will lose out to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the country's economy will suffer as a consequence. As LadyOr pointed out we are a trading nation and our prosperity depends on our links to the world.[/p][/quote]Why ?. The point of a hub airport is that you change planes there. That doesn't really bring much economic benefit other than sales of coffee and sandwiches (and we know how much certain coffee vendors contribute to the country).[/p][/quote]Having your own hub airport has two major economic advantages: 1. The airport will be able to sustain more destinations than if it were just a point-to-point benefit. Your city will therefore benefit from being better connected. 2. The major operator in a hub airport is always the national airline. This good for their employment & profits. So it isn't just coffee and sandwiches.[/p][/quote]So which of those 2 points doesnt apply to heathrow now? You can fly direct to most major destinations and the major operator is BA[/p][/quote]Right now they both do, but Heathrow is 98% full: There are already many destinations in would like to serve but can't because the slots aren't there. So to maintain it's position as a leading world hub and continue to create wealth it has to be allowed to grow or be replaced by something bigger and better. The current government has kicked this decision into the long grass and instead turned to HS2 which will cost too much, take too long and have far less effect on the country's economy.[/p][/quote]So tell us then, how does it create wealth, and for whom?[/p][/quote]It creates wealth by increasing trading opportunities with business in other countries. Often the CARGO hold in a passenger aircraft contains.....cargo and this translates to products being bought and sold across international boundaries. So, if I'm a widget maker in UK and it's possible to sell my widgets to a new market in, say, Kuala Lumpur then it's rather nice to be able to ship it for arrival next day. That increases my sales = increase in production = employment opportunity in UK. On the passenger side, being UK (well, London) based means that a business person can travel around the globe building up relationships with other companies (= sales of both products and services). It all aids international trade = wealth for british companies = wealth for employees and this (occasionally!) even leads to increased revenue for HMG via taxation (VAT, Income Tax, etc). Fundamentally, airports = increased opportunity for international transactions = derive income from other countries. domestic railway = primarily redistribution of domestic money (i.e. no gain for UK economy). gpn01

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree