My frustration with the lack of any policy for avaition by the current government provoked me to come in to Lord Spicer’s question with the following supplementary:
Lord Soley: Is not the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, really that, in future, South American flights will go to Madrid, Indian and Chinese flights will go to Frankfurt and Schiphol and the rest will go to Paris? If the Government are determined to advertise that Britain is closed for business, I can hardly think of a better deterrent than the current aviation policy, with the possible exception of the reintroduction of biplanes.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that we cannot arrange for every flight coming into Europe to land at Heathrow.
I think the answer shows that the Government has not yet fully grasped the importance of air travel in the emerging global economy.
Policy is the same as all other government policy.
Lets tax it, because we’re up the proverbial creek in debt.
What’s the cost of upgrading Heathrow compared to a high-speed rail link between it, Stansted and Gatwick, and possibly Luton?
The direct line between Heathrow and Gatwick is about 24 miles, which should take less time than it takes to clear immigration on a bad day.
By distributing the air traffic between airports you’ve suddenly made it much more tolerant to problems if aircraft have to divert, you allow those from the north to park at Stansted or Luton and be at Heathrow in under an hour, saving all that M25 traffic and you reduce the problems of too many aircraft in too small an airspace by allowing connecting flights from other airports.
Which strategic plan will best ensure we are starting to live within our, and the Earth’s, means ?
Come the collapse of Lifesupports, and come Martia law, the only air traffic will be “military, emergency and essential services only” –
(so in the interim I like Dave H’s solution)
The problem Dave, is that hub airports allow people to interchange for other destinations world wide. Currently a business man from Japan seeking to add to their investment in Liverpool would have to fly to Heathrow and get the train to Liverpool (or to Luton and fly from there). What they are actually doing is flying to Amsterdam’s Schipol airport and getting a plane straight to Liverpool. The same is happening for very many of the UK city’s. Heathrow is being marginalised and passengers will continue to use the continental hubs where they will also make their investment decisions.
Heathrow can fly you to 180 destination, Frankfurt can fly you to 307. Where would you invest?
Lord Blagger highlighted the advantage – throughput. There’s no point arriving at an airport (or even circling for 20 minutes over Bovingdon), getting to your connecting flight and then having to wait an extra hour or two before it can leave the ground. A decent rail link would shift you to another airport within 30 minutes where your connecting flight could depart much earlier due to less congestion all round.
I think the distributed system has a lot going for it in terms of flexibility and the overall transit experience and is worth looking at compared to one large central point of failure and congestion.
No doubt in the early days you’d be on the train to Stansted while your luggage headed off to Gatwick, but then they did eventually fix Terminal 5.
And a Frankfurt you will spend 2 hours taxing to your gate. No thanks.
Personally I prefer city airport. My personal record for the handbrake going on, to the taxi moving off, is two and a half minutes. That included passport control customs, and a bag checked in the hold.
The wife of a district ciouncil executive has been employed for some time round here to ensure that there is no opposition to the development of Bournemouth hurn airport as an international airport. The old trick of putting people under the flight path on early (0500) flights so that they do not complain about them, is doubtless being used.
The ploy (and it is a macro-planning ploy)
of campaigning vigorously against ANY local noise, when the real issue of airport noise is assiduously avoided, has been exceptionally successful in Dorset, (it is not a particularly quiet county in the East, due to military training noises)
Airport planners must have considered the trouble due to anti- campaigners was worth investing against by employing such unprincipled people to create public side steps.
It may be that our regional (small as our regions are) airports and hub airports are in contention in some way. I wonder there are various “ploys” at work, of which Lord Soley is unaware or even an unwitting contributor to?
Airport policy is yet another very good reason for regional government, and by default there is no democracy (at a different level)involved at all.
It is Macro-planning decisions such as this
that make the loss of the Regional government development plans so much more unfortunate for the orderly, and good development of the
Global village Great Britain limited.
Much of it is dis-organised chaos. not even planned chaos.
The true horror of airports to the people living beneath them is not the noise, but the jet polution they breath 24/7.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/
And why won’t the Lord Soley’s of this world find out ‘why’ these ‘world flyers’ avoid Heathrow when they can? Why do they choose not to land in Britain if they don’t have to? Could it be the place is considered unmodernised and filthy. Akin to a third world stop off they cannot abide? A chaotic mess and inconsiderate nincompoops out to make life a misery should they be fool enough to stop there?
How long it it since you have really looked at the UK entry as if you were a new comer or visitor? Without the rose coloured lenses that is.
Isn’t Terminal 2 earmarked for demolition and a rebuild? Upgrade in stages, no doubt T1 and T3 will get their turn eventually.
As for entry, is it much worse than the US? Pick the wrong airport and time there and the queues can be bad, with a grumpy immigration official at the end, although if you pick the right airport and time, no queue and a friendly and chatty official.
@Dave H: why are you comparing a civilised European country, the UK, with what you would expect in the US?
Anyone who goes to that place is asking for it! Nowhere on earth treats it’s entrants with such crude disrespect, except Israel that is.
And your handbook of Globally-Economic English phrases versus getting by with the up-to-date improved on-the-ground modern England English people themselves;
inni’;
an’ usin yer pla’es of mea’ sigh’seein’ Grea’ Bri’n’s glorious hissorical pre-industrial byways –
naturally and civilisationally a business person wants to ‘cut to the chase’ on the ‘bottom line’
The national geo evidence is not the least bit convincing. If they took their evidence from mortality of airport workers and residents very nearby, it would be a little more sensible.Then it would be no pie in the sky.
==============================
Most of the traveller problems of the Uk would be solved very rapidly indeed if Caravan breakers, were obliged to register, with criminal/finacial penalties for non registration.
Car breaking is a highly technical and machine costly exercice but it does rake in the money from the scrap itself.
There is far less metal in the caravans, but my estimate is that one breaker can earn himself £6000-10,000 per year cash from “torching” caravans on public property, usually forestry property during the night.
Nearly all the sites with derelict caravans on them are merely storage places for caravans ready to be torched, made to look like places of abode for homeless people, which they certainly are not.
There are several Caravan breakers in Dorset, all breaking in this way, but then there are lots of caravans.
=======================================
===============================
Regards, Jo Public
Hey I’ve found something to agree with Lord Blagger on. Yes the City Airport is absolutely fantastic, great service.
Someone’s been reading 🙂
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15227879
Hi Clive – I am glad to see this site – about 5 years ago we debated a lot about this and you were always very courteous despite our differences.
It is straight choice: either expand Heathrow or build a new London East Airport (releasing Heathrow for overspill legacy carriers and low cost carriers).
It strikes me that some of the groups that once opposed the third runway at Heathrow have effectively turned into militant anti-aviation groups: does HACAN condone or reject disruptive direct action by groups like Plane Stupid?
It does no-one any favours to have choreographed clutter of aircraft circling in the sky over London waiting to land. Sure we should make High Speed Rail a useful alternative (if the fares were cheaper) but frankly the idea that all we need to do is have some High Speed Lines and hey presto we can cut lots of flights is pure fantasy.
The Government has to take a pragmatic and long term view: if it believes high speed rail is essential to the economy, it also follows that building a proper hub airport for London OR expanding Heathrow is the major choice this side of 2030. There are many excellent reasons why business come to Britain that can transcend our transport weaknesses – but that is a finite argument at best. If flying to London means stacking for 35 minutes before landing at an aiport bursting at the seams then one day an investor might well go elsewhere. I personally maintain we need a new airport capable of 4 runway operation.
But doing nothing – the current status quo is very damaging. And ‘Heathwick’ is really an expensive means of ducking the real decisions.