Last week's poll: how can the UK best meet future air capacity needs?
Share
Airport expansion in the Southeast is in the news again. Of the options on the table what’s the best way to ensre that the UK has the capacity it needs for the future?
The largest group of respondents to our survey (39.7 %) said that a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary (popularly known as “Boris Island”) represented the best option. The next largest group ( 22.3%) believe that there is no need for airport expansion in the Southeast, while 19.3% would like to see a short third runway at Heathrow. This was closely followed by the smallest group (18.5%) which would like to see a new terminal and runway at Stanstead.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (23)
Harold Birtwistle | 5 Sep 2012 1:49 pm
I think that the ludicrous number of airports and runways round London is due to the rest of the UK having to fly to London to be able to get to many overseas destinations. Utter waste of time and money for us provincials, waste of fuel, increase in pollution.
Why is Britain divided into two parts, London and the rest?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Keith Thompson | 5 Sep 2012 1:56 pm
I am pleased that the Thames Estuary proposal has found such favour, such a project could be such a fantastic gateway to the UK, connected, in time, to a high speed rail network to both major UK cities and Europe via the Channel Tunnel. Having visited several new airports in the Far East, the impression of the whole country is raised by that first impression. Just adding to an overcrowded facility at Heathrow just puts more stress onto people who do not deserve it. Go Thames Gateway!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John | 5 Sep 2012 2:00 pm
I don't see how people think it is a good idea to have a new airport even further into the south east of the country. As Harold correctly notes, a lot of people live outside of the London area, and even for those who do, making the airport harder to reach seems a fool's errand. That (along with politics) is what killed Montreal Mirabel airport. Sound familiar?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mathias | 5 Sep 2012 3:06 pm
Contrary to the above post, I and many other northeners favour more airports in the southeast. Let these poor souls suffer increased air traffic and its associated noise and pollution.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Leigh Gubb | 5 Sep 2012 6:33 pm
There is an alternative to more runways in the Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted area. What about Manston in Kent? Part of the problem seems to be that businesspeople wish to get to London quickly. Why not move a lot of the holiday flights to Manston in Kent from Gatwick to free Gatwick up for business personnel? The runway already exists and I feel is currently under utilised. Rail links would need to be improved but they already exist to a large extent and the high speed rolling stock already travels there.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fred | 5 Sep 2012 7:04 pm
Who took this poll? Obviously no one who has researched the issues with the Estuary airport.
London is NOT the only place in England. Why not move the 4 hub airport north? The business would boom, jobs would be made in areas that desperately want and need them, and it would all around be a place where the country as a whole would benefit.
I'll tell you why. Because LONDONERS don't want the inconvenience of traveling north. The only reason the estuary is a "good idea" for anyone is because it's close to London. Pro-estuary airport supporters seems to forget that KENT doesn't want it.
We have dozens and dozens of underused and unused airports in this country without the need to build a massive, overly expensive hub airport right now.
NO TO THE ESTUARY AIRPORT.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
I'm Sorry | 5 Sep 2012 7:08 pm
I'm sorry, but just because 39% of a single group want the estuary airport, doesn't mean it's the most accepted idea. Looks more to me that 61% are against it, and would rather see other alternatives.
I think this was a slight misreading of the statistics to prove a point.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Graham Reed | 5 Sep 2012 10:03 pm
My Bro & I reckon that Heathrow should only be for international destinations - all domestic flights go into the other five [?] London airports plus proper integrated rail [a la Amsterdam which is Brill!] to link transfer passengers.
Also - clear all the buildings in the centre of Heathrow to make space for THE 3rd RW!
Put everything on the land used as peripheral carparks, both above and underground
Use the rest of UK as departures / destinations without overcharging us for flights
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fred Smith | 6 Sep 2012 9:22 am
I entirely agree with Harold Birwistle's comments and also add that its about time the rest of the countries infrastructure had an influx of cash that somehow always finds its way into the pockets of the southeast developers, and a big hike in the costs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Lawton | 6 Sep 2012 10:11 am
The loudest voice for a third runway at Heathrow is Britisih Airways but international travellers from the North West of England do NOT want to go through Heathrow. There are many international flights from manchester,six a day to the USA, five to the Middle East, but how many by BA? Not a one - there is at least part of the answer to Heathrow congestion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment