There has just been a report on News 24 that the White Paper to be published
in mid-December will NOT recommend a third Runway for Heathrow at this time.

Instead it will recommend a third runway at Stansted.

Had an interview with BA who were most definitiely not pleased at this news.
Their main point is that Stansted is not suitable for long haul and they
require a single hub. Then there was the usual line that long haul flights
(and hence business) will move to Paris & Frankfurt.

Maybe BA should think laterally. If they need more capacity for long haul at
Heathrow then move some of their short haul flights to the expanded
Stansted, thus freeing up landing slots.

Then put money into Crossrail to fund a connection to permit 'transfer
trains' directly between Heathrow and Stansted.

Colin

Colin wrote:
> There has just been a report on News 24 that the White Paper to be
> published in mid-December will NOT recommend a third Runway for
> Heathrow at this time.
>
> Instead it will recommend a third runway at Stansted.

Stansted has only one runway at present. The reports I've seen today talk
about one extra runway at Stansted, but no guesses about where any further
runways might be sited. Heathrow seems to be ruled out only temporarily,
until pollution estimates are lower.

> Had an interview with BA who were most definitiely not pleased at
> this news. Their main point is that Stansted is not suitable for long
> haul and they require a single hub. Then there was the usual line
> that long haul flights (and hence business) will move to Paris &
> Frankfurt.

BA are making their usual selfish noises. It was their decision to
concentrate their operations on the airport least suitable for large-scale
expansion.

"Richard J." <rjnews> wrote in message news:6978
> Colin wrote:
>
> Stansted has only one runway at present. The reports I've seen today talk
> about one extra runway at Stansted, but no guesses about where any further
> runways might be sited. Heathrow seems to be ruled out only temporarily,
> until pollution estimates are lower.
>> BA are making their usual selfish noises. It was their decision to
> concentrate their operations on the airport least suitable for large-scale
> expansion.


Can someone explain why we need a new runway anyway? The number of aircraft
movements is already getting out of hand not to mention the huge enviromental
damage they're doing. So if a new one isn't built then maybe easyjet will sell
a few less 50 quid tickets for people going on a weekend away. Tough shit.
They'll have to stay at home and watch TV.

Isn't it about time politicians started taking enviromental issues seriously
and not keep taking it up the arse from big business the whole time? Where
does it end?

B2003

"Boltar" <boltar2003> wrote in message
news:fca7
>
> Can someone explain why we need a new runway anyway? The number of
aircraft
> movements is already getting out of hand not to mention the huge
enviromental
> damage they're doing. So if a new one isn't built then maybe easyjet will
sell
> a few less 50 quid tickets for people going on a weekend away. Tough shit.
> They'll have to stay at home and watch TV.
>
> Isn't it about time politicians started taking enviromental issues
seriously
> and not keep taking it up the arse from big business the whole time? Where
> does it end?
>
Good point. We are continually bombarded with propaganda about the
environmental damage from road vehicles and railway vehicles. One afternoon
at Heathrow, watching departures, will alert anyone to the serious air
pollution being spewed out by jet airliners on a daily basis. Yet there is
never a mention of this fact in the media. All we ever hear is 'Air travel =
good; road/rail = nasty & dirty'. It's about time that the actual volume of
pollutants being discharged into the air was considered, rather than just
the volume per passenger carried. Is your air journey actually *necessary* -
or could the same be achieved by investing the money spent on business
jollies in electronic conferencing facilities?

"Richard J." <rjnews> wrote in message news:GT7yb.14947>
Stansted has only one runway at present. The reports I've seen today talk
> about one extra runway at Stansted, but no guesses about where any further
> runways might be sited. Heathrow seems to be ruled out only temporarily,
> until pollution estimates are lower.

> BA are making their usual selfish noises. It was their decision to
> concentrate their operations on the airport least suitable for large-scale
> expansion.

I live close to Stansted, and have expected the expansion all along. The
whole site was laid out with expansion in mind.

I've heard third hand that BAA have already built a second runway in secret.
I was wondering if anybody else had heard this?
Apparently a college of a friend was employed to work at the airport as a
general labourer. During lots of concrete laying for the new satellite
buildings the grass was dug up, and sections of a new runway cast. The
sections were then covered with grass once dried.

The photos on multimap were taken in 1998, before the new runway was said to
have been laid. Sounds unlikely, but you never know.
David

In message <bqa749$3i3$1$8300dec7>, Colin
<colin> writes
>Had an interview with BA who were most definitiely not pleased at this news.
>Their main point is that Stansted is not suitable for long haul and they
>require a single hub. Then there was the usual line that long haul flights
>(and hence business) will move to Paris & Frankfurt.
>
>Maybe BA should think laterally. If they need more capacity for long haul at
>Heathrow then move some of their short haul flights to the expanded
>Stansted, thus freeing up landing slots.

Huh? BA already have a second long-haul airport, that they are in the
process of running down. It's known as Gatwick.