Last week's poll: how can the UK best meet future air capacity needs?

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

• John | 6 Sep 2012 2:25 pm

  Londoners should remember that there is life north of Watford Gap (even if we do have whippets and wear flat caps) It would make much more sense to spread the international flights, I hate having to travel to Heathrow, it is a real pain.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• David Claxton | 7 Sep 2012 3:35 pm

  I am against an airport in the Thames Estuary as I'd much prefer an integrated and economic rail systems linking existing facilities and improved runway utilisation. Living in Hampshire it is a nightmare accessing the London Airports or even Eurostar via the exisiting rail network. Then look at the utilisation of runways at Bournemouth, Southampton and even Farnborough - plenty of opportunities given trains that can carry luggage as well as passengers - unlike SWT's current rolling stock.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Richard | 7 Sep 2012 3:43 pm

  Flying anywhere out of Heathrow is a pain. It has no proper rail links to the rest of the country. When it emulates Amsterdam in it facilities and infrastructure then it may be worth using. Until then its best avoided by one and all so that the need for any more runways is nullified.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Adrian Wallis | 7 Sep 2012 4:30 pm

  I agree with the economic theories for the over use of airports in the South East, especially Heathrow.
  
  The variety of direct flights, sensible flight times and lower prices mean that I travel from Aberystwyth to London for most of my flights, especially far eastern destinations.
  
  This over supply in London must be due to the economics of the airline industry and this should be investigated first, before adding new runways near London. Cheaper Air Passenger Duty away from London?
  
  The other point is why does London Heathrow have to be the "hub" airport, for foreign travelers transferring to other European destinations? It can not matter to transit passengers if it is not near London, especially as it would avoid congested air space in South East so could be quicker.
  
  The sensible answer is to expand Birmingham airport, especially if HS2 is built. Even now it has a huge catchment area, good rail links and is fairly close to London. Transit visitors would not even notice, particularly if we called it North London airport.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Economics | 7 Sep 2012 4:55 pm

  Comments claiming some sort of anti-northern bias are merely shows of economic illiteracy. The airlines want to fly where they'll make the most money i.e. where their customers (ever heard of them?) want to go. That happens to be London and the south-east.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 10 Sep 2012 7:37 pm

  How about Birmingham? Second largest city, with railway connection to London, Wales, the Southwest and the North, and some industry and lots of empty buildings in and around Coventry.
  The expansion shouldn't be too difficult.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• JohnK | 11 Sep 2012 10:12 am

  Airlines want full planes with lowest costs to all destinations. This alone defines the location and size of airports.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• JohnL | 11 Sep 2012 1:25 pm

  Along with City, Heathrow should be designated primarily a business airport (by raising the landing fees). This would reduce traffic and noise but increase value. BA will have to swallow this or get more productive. But R3 at LHR is necessary for safety reasons above all else. When the BA B777 crashed a couple of Januarys ago, it must have been a nightmare re-routing traffic when the capacity dropped 50%.
  
  Gatwick, Stansted, Luton should be tourist airports, all linked by decent high speed rail connections to each other. Additional runways are needed in both of these as well, as much for safety as capacity as larger jets come into service.
  
  Building Boris Island would take too long, cost too much, signal to the many businesses around Heathrow that it is dying so they would decamp to Frankfurt, CDG or wherever, is an environmental nightmare given the sites of special interest not to mention the risk from birds to the aircraft and the flight paths intersect with Schipol too much.
  
  HS2 is an expensive folly that will take years to finish. A nice idea but it doesn't really make business sense at all. Better to concentrate on increasing the size of the rolling stock over the present routes, an opportunity missed when the West Coast line was upgraded. That way we can move to larger, longer and less frequent trains. Three max 600 capacity trains an hour from Manchester to London is silly - we need 1200 capacity which will cut the cost.
  
  Regional airports like Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh/Glasgow should be encouraged by lower landing fees as well as better communication. They should also be encouraged to become hubs in their own rights with long haul etc. You can get to most places from Manchester and the airport is well situated and not too intrusive (I live under an occasional flight path).
  
  All this needs to be done asap because it affects the UK's ability to work internationally. It really isn't rocket science - offering a reduction in Heathrow noise must be a vote winner!

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 13 Sep 2012 1:26 pm

  How about removing the ludicrous subsidy that air transport receives in having virtually tax-free fuel. This would reduce demand somewhat, help global warming,etc, etc,etc.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Andrew the Taxpayer | 17 Sep 2012 9:21 am

  Manston is too far from Chatham, let alone the rest of Britain. Boris Island and the Isle of Grain have similar issues.
  
  My solution? Build on old Cold War bases like Upper Heyford, north of Oxford.
  
  Existing 3km runway with space for a second; 2km from M40 junction 10; 1.5km from London-Birmingham rail line; enough real estate to build a 2nd runway; no wetland birds nearby; nobody under the flightpath. I say 'nobody', I mean very few people. David Cameron, Rebekah Brooks, Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Curtiss, etc probably don't like being called 'nobody'.
  
  Failing to relocate and expand Bristol Airport to Filton is a crime against the regional economy. Living in Hereford it would be my 'airport of choice'.
  If we were really thinking ahead we should have moved Heathrow to Greenham Common in the mid 90's.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment