Heathrow, Brexit and the Economy

Thrugelmir

mayonnaise wrote: »

With the airport expansion decision coming up later today, one needs to wonder if we really do need extra capacity in the short term?

Resorting to selective quoting isn't healthy you know. The bottom of the article says:

However, the weaker overall demand will make little difference to the main contenders for a new runway in south-east England, with Heathrow having effectively reached capacity in 2011, and Gatwick’s subsequent rapid growth seeing it forecast to reach capacity by the next decade if not before.

Long haul international flights aren't interested in being based in Cardiff or Bournemouth or the East Midlands.

cogito

mayonnaise wrote: »

Please stay on topic.
Jet2 is a budget airline flying unwashed, toothless and drunken brexitoids from mainly northern hellholes to Ibeefa and Aiya Napa.
Nothing to do with Heathrow expansion.

Dear me. Is this the result of being educated in the Home Counties?

undetterred

mayonnaise wrote: »

Please stay on topic.
Jet2 is a budget airline flying unwashed, toothless and drunken brexitoids from mainly northern hellholes to Ibeefa and Aiya Napa.
Nothing to do with Heathrow expansion.

Awwh come on renoman / dithering dad etc, don't be so bitter.


Give us some bragging about your house and pension etc.

Graham_Devon

From the BBC - which is quite impressive for them!

We have a long way to go before the we see the proverbial shovels in the ground - there will be legal and planning challenges aplenty to come. However, with today's decision to recommend a third runway, this government has arrived at a point its predecessors failed to. From beating ourselves up for not being to build anything, the UK is suddenly building everything.

Heathrow was chosen because of the extra boost it gives to the UK economy, but it is not the only mammoth project out there. After a last-minute wobble, the £14bn Hinkley Point nuclear power station was given the green light, while and the biggest project of them all is coming down the track fast.

Construction on the £42bn HS2 is scheduled to begin next year - and that is probably not all. Chancellor Philip Hammond has hinted he may reveal some moderate borrowing to fund targeted infrastructure spending in his Autumn Statement next month. It's enough to make the Victorians sit up and take notice.

If projections for a fairly sharp post-Brexit slowdown in the economy next year are correct then we may need this spending boost. If these projects proceed on time, there is something else we will need: people to build all this stuff. With unemployment close to historic lows, it's not clear we have enough. Like the Victorians did, it seems very likely we will need to look abroad to find the workers for our golden age of infrastructure - and that, post-Brexit, will present a political rather than an engineering challenge.

Good stuff.

michaels

In general I am in favour of competition between airports, however in this case I can't help thinking a second runway at LGW and a 300mph maglev linking LHR and LGW* as effecitvely a single airport would have been the better economic and environemntal solution and might have been possible if both airports were still under the same ownership.

(*24 miles at average 150mph takes 10 minutes or a lot less than it currently takes to move between terminals at LHR. I suspect the overall cost would be less than expanding LHR, the enviromental impact smuch smaller and you would then have effecively a 4 airport runway serving more destinations than probably any other with the advantage that passengers could travel from whichever of lhr or lgw suited their needs best so no need to drive past LHR on the way to LGW and vice versa)

Conrad

Thing is michaels, I have heard dozens of different proposals (hearing more right now on radio), and each protagonist has a seemingly rock solid case, but in then end the Govt has to make a decision and one that will always annoy many.


Your proposal would have as many detract tors as supporters for sure.


Isn't this all a bit like the football fan that always 'knows' what needs doing when the club manager does not?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

From the BBC - which is quite impressive for them!

Good stuff.

Nice one - I like irony.

The politicking over Heathrow has been ongoing for decades and continues to this day. At best the runway won't be completed for another ten years. That's a long way from 'all of a sudden we're building stuff'.

The Victorians would've built airports in London, Manchester, Birmingham & Glasgow served by bullet trains between them in the time our lot have spent talking about a single 3.5km strip of tarmac.

It's embarrassing.

michaels

Conrad wrote: »

Thing is michaels, I have heard dozens of different proposals (hearing more right now on radio), and each protagonist has a seemingly rock solid case, but in then end the Govt has to make a decision and one that will always annoy many.


Your proposal would have as many detract tors as supporters for sure.


Isn't this all a bit like the football fan that always 'knows' what needs doing when the club manager does not?

You are probably right. However there was a busness interest behind LHR wanting a new runway there and doing the sums to prove their case to the govt. Similarly LGW had a business interest in expanding there. However no company with huge financial resoureces had an interest in proposing merging the two as a single entity and building a suitable costed business case so this option was never given the same level of consideration.

CLAPTON

Presumably the heathrow decision requires large amounts of taxpayers money
Does anyone actually know if the Gatwick proposal required taxpayers money?
If gatwick doesn't require public money then could we have both?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

michaels wrote: »

You are probably right. However there was a busness interest behind LHR wanting a new runway there and doing the sums to prove their case to the govt. Similarly LGW had a business interest in expanding there. However no company with huge financial resoureces had an interest in proposing merging the two as a single entity and building a suitable costed business case so this option was never given the same level of consideration.

Possibly so.
From an international POV however - and whatever the argument for LGW, for links or whatever - Heathrow is known for being (and is seen as) THE London airport. Many potential visitors would no sooner fly to Gatwick than they would to Birmingham or Manchester.
But they WOULD fly to Heathrow.

As has been said before, Heathrow was for many years the hub for countless intercontinental flights, and a new runway promises re-establishment of Heathrow as the world's biggest international travel hub.
A title lost back in 2014.

But look, it is NOT just about the title since in future that will undoubtedly change - but with the increase in traffic comes an increase in trade, just as surely as night follows day.
Trade from cargo as well as passengers.
All of which will undoubtedly benefit the UK economy.

Sadly though Wotsthat is quite correct; this needs to be dealt with NOW and not take countless years.
It IS embarassing.

Tell you what though, I'm wondering what the markets (of various types) will make of it?
Since (as GD pointed out) even the BBC are viewing this in quite a positive light, in marked contrast to their recently mostly-negative views of .......... well, pretty much everything else.