Heathrow, Brexit and the Economy

Herzlos

Heathrow expansion will certainly be handy for all the Bankers coming home for the weekend

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Heathrow expansion will certainly be handy for all the Bankers coming home for the weekend

Care to provide figures of exactly how many that will be, please?

Heathrow is now fact.
You post speculation.

StevieJ

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?

According to IATA, a 'hard' brexit would lead to an imminent loss of demand.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/18/hard-brexit-reduce-need-airport-expansion-heathrow

I believe there's a case to be made to hold off on any expansion decisions until we know what kind of brexit we'll get. If it's a hard one, maybe 1 runway will suffice.

May already knows what kind of Brexit we will achieve and that will be a 'soft one' She will trying to squeeze as many concessions out of the EU as possible by not showing her hand upfront.,

Conrad

StevieJ wrote: »

May already knows what kind of Brexit we will achieve and that will be a 'soft one' She will trying to squeeze as many concessions out of the EU as possible by not showing her hand upfront.,

+ We will allow immigration, managed numbers though


+ We will not be paying into the EU


+ We will allow them to enjoy our continued out-seized military and intelligence commitment


+ We will allow access to Londons deep capital markets to enable Europe to function


+ Trade will continue, probably tariff free for the most part


+ We will offer continued fishing water access, but a bit more in our favour

Sapphire

I must say that for residents living in the area affected by the proposed expansion of Heathrow (a large, very densely populated area), this is not a good thing at all, in terms of the horrendous pollution and noise. (And what happened to the Conservative's promise that there would be no expansion of Heathrow?) I think Gatwick should have been chosen and developed as a second airport with Heathrow's capacity.

Moto2

Just build 2 more runways and be done with it

lisyloo

Sapphire wrote: »

I must say that for residents living in the area affected by the proposed expansion of Heathrow (a large, very densely populated area), this is not a good thing at all, in terms of the horrendous pollution and noise. (And what happened to the Conservative's promise that there would be no expansion of Heathrow?) I think Gatwick should have been chosen and developed as a second airport with Heathrow's capacity.

If they lived there before there was an airport then I have sympathy.
If they chose to live near an airport then that was a risk they took.
Perhaps they should have chosen to live in the stix and commute further if they dislike noise and pollution?

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

If they lived there before there was an airport then I have sympathy.
If they chose to live near an airport then that was a risk they took.
Perhaps they should have chosen to live in the stix and commute further if they dislike noise and pollution?

very few residents lived there before the airport.
most live there because there is a lot of jobs there, many of course as a result of the airport.

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

+ We will allow immigration, managed numbers though


+ We will not be paying into the EU


+ We will allow them to enjoy our continued out-seized military and intelligence commitment


+ We will allow access to Londons deep capital markets to enable Europe to function


+ Trade will continue, probably tariff free for the most part


+ We will offer continued fishing water access, but a bit more in our favour

I'll be surprised if we get as many as 3 of those 6.

Sapphire

lisyloo wrote: »

If they lived there before there was an airport then I have sympathy.
If they chose to live near an airport then that was a risk they took.
Perhaps they should have chosen to live in the stix and commute further if they dislike noise and pollution?

The noise pollution, for example, spreads very far – it is not just local to the airport. If you live in Richmond, as does my sister, the noise of planes going over is deafening. This will spread to other local areas if there are even more planes. There will also be enormous traffic pollution and even greater traffic jams. Much of the pollution is invisible, but it is toxic and should not to be ignored. The airport is big enough already and other options (like Gatwick) should be considered. It is also questionable whether such an already huge airport should be expanded in such a densely populated area.

In any case, it will be years before the airport is expanded (if it is at all), because there will be numerous legal challenges.