New London Airport

[Billhook]

Just wondered what the great minds of Arbtalk thought about air travel in general.

We seem to have a troubled World where the choice of destination is becoming more and more limited, vindicated by the amount of people choosing to take their holidays in the UK.

Northern Africa is mostly out, Middle East not good, Russia, Paris, Southern France and now any Church. This is a project fear that really works however brave a face politicians want to put on it.

 

With all this in mind and the fears of global warming, pollution and energy conservation will we be looking at any expansion of any airport as a complete folly in the future?

[difflock]

I favour Boris's Thames estuary island airport at least the money spent thereon would not be entirely wasted.

RE the future of air travel, I despair at the heaving masses jetting off cattle-class, to bespoil ever more newly discovered/developed, previously unspoilt areas.

Leaving a trail of litter in their wake.

Jet fuel should attract the same punitive taxation as road going fuel.

Simples!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I wasn't really familiar with Farnborough as an airport until I spent some time there in 2012.

 

Since then, and mindful of the various arguments for UK air travel expansion, I've wondered why Farnborough doesn't seem to have featured in the discussions.

 

Given that the arguments against expansion / increased air traffic must be pretty much equal for Farnborough & LHR, I wonder why Farnborough isn't ramped up to take some of the pressure off LHR. It's already licensed to take up to 737 sized planes (with restrictions on timings / numbers.) Maybe reconfigure LHR as the hub with Farnborough as a spoke serving SW UK?

 

Limited construction / infrastructure cost, limited resource, environmental and disturbance implications (in relation to expansion at LHR or Boris Island.)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnborough_Airport

 

Certainly agree that destination selection is a key factor at the moment! We've just done Tenerife - not too long a flight with the nipper, comfortable climate, relatively advanced infrastructure and comparable social/cultural/religious mechanisms.

 

The days of random pick a flight, grab a day sack and take off for an adventure disappeared when the nipper arrived on the scene.

 

It seems they can barely give Turkey away as a destination at the moment!

Edited July 28, 2016 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Mick Dempsey]

Put the new runway at Gatwick.

[Woodworks]

RE the future of air travel, I despair at the heaving masses jetting off cattle-class, to bespoil ever more newly discovered/developed, previously unspoilt areas.

Leaving a trail of litter in their wake.

Jet fuel should attract the same punitive taxation as road going fuel.

Simples!

 

 

Couldn't agree more. No tax on aviation fuel is truly bonkers.

[Goaty]

North of London makes more sense to expand airports geographically the travelling to get to any London airport can be hassle. I know this from the time we set off from central London one Saturday about 2 o clock to LHR. 22miles took over 4 hours and we got the plane with under 10 mins to spare. The Wombles had the m4 shut down, but no mention of it in the media ever.

If a major terrorist threat or event happened London would be stuck with more people in it than nessasary due to international travellers.

Manchester, Leeds, Doncaster. Birmingham could shift a heck of a lot of air travel. But the powers that be seem to want to funnel through the overpriced bottleneck.

Personally as an experienced long haul flight passenger I don't care where the lands/connects. I just want the least hassle.

London is hassle and is only going to get worse if they keep piling it on.

[matelot]

 

Couldn't agree more. No tax on aviation fuel is truly bonkers.

 

The problem of taxing aviation fuel is that airplanes would just get fuelled up when they land in foreign airports where there is no fuel tax... The government has a tax (air passenger duty) on air tickets but it's not high enough imho....

 

Nicola Sturgeon plans to reduce air passenger duty for Scottish airports. It would be good for Scottish airports but is hardly environmentally friendly.

 

For a lot of British people it's hard to get to London. Any new airport should be in the centre of the country next to a high speed rail line.

[Woodworks]

The problem of taxing aviation fuel is that airplanes would just get fuelled up when they land in foreign airports where there is no fuel tax... The government has a tax (air passenger duty) on air tickets but it's not high enough imho....

 

 

If they wanted to I am sure they could sort something. We have all sorts of global agreements on trade etc. Where there is a will there is a way and there is no will to tax aviation fuel.

[matelot]

If they wanted to I am sure they could sort something. We have all sorts of global agreements on trade etc. Where there is a will there is a way and there is no will to tax aviation fuel.

 

I know where you are coming from. However a lot of the Middle East carriers get free/ cheap fuel...

 

It is preposterous that someone filing their chainsaw up with petrol pays more fuel tax than someone filling up their 747.

[Ukulian]

Move the freight from LHR to Manston in Kent, which already has a runway capable of taking any aircraft presently flying. It has dual carriageway roads to London and beyond, and a high speed rail link passing the airfield.

Only problem is the owners bought it and closed it down in order to build houses on. Houses they can't get planning permission for! Oh, and the local council are too lily-livered to slap a compulsory purchase order on it.