PDA

View Full Version : Heathrow - for Londoners only?



MPwannadecentincome
7th July 2009, 10:25
The Dutch have abandoned departure taxes just as the UK is about to ramp up air passenger duty (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/business/article6630134.ece)

If you have to fly and cannot go direct, changing in Europe is less hassle than Heathrow and if its cheaper too.

So other than Londoners, or people flying just to visit London, who else would want to use it?

Menelaus
7th July 2009, 10:26
Some years ago when I was flying from Edinburgh to Prague a lot I used to change planes in Amsterdam regularly.

bobhope
7th July 2009, 10:32
Do they still use that "the world's favourite connection?" Cobblers.

Zippy
7th July 2009, 10:33
Some years ago when I was flying from Edinburgh to Prague a lot I used to change planes in Amsterdam regularly.

Schiphol is nice and you can get on to the trains easily - unlike Heathrow.

Benno
7th July 2009, 10:34
I live round the corner from Leeds/Brad. Could never really understand why both KLM and Jet2 have flights to Amsterdam several times a day whereas BMI had just cancelled the Heathrow flights.

All makes sense now!

BrilloPad
7th July 2009, 10:44
I thought Dubai was trying to overtake Heathrow?

Menelaus
7th July 2009, 10:45
I thought Dubai was trying to overtake Heathrow?

Bit far away, n'est pas?

MPwannadecentincome
7th July 2009, 11:00
Schiphol is nice and you can get on to the trains easily - unlike Heathrow. Yes the trains there are fantastic - I use to commute there every week.


I live round the corner from Leeds/Brad. Could never really understand why both KLM and Jet2 have flights to Amsterdam several times a day whereas BMI had just cancelled the Heathrow flights.

All makes sense now! BMI now owned by Lufthansa - they prefer to take you to Frankfurt :laugh


I thought Dubai was trying to overtake Heathrow? Yes they are trying hard when the new aiport opens (6 runways I think) it will not be difficult provided the state goverment keeps subsidising the airline and airport (if they can afford too).


Bit far away, n'est pas? For UK to EU - yes a bit out of the way - but, if you are going to Far East or Oz, then it makes for a convenient stop. Also for travel between USA and Mid/East, Africa, India etc then cutting out London has big time saving and cost saving benefits.

swamp
7th July 2009, 11:02
Heathrow isn't very good for Londoners. It needs a proper rail connection to central London, and not the rip-off 'business class' HEX service to Paddington in the west.

And don't even think of using the Picadilly line, unless you live far out west in Acton.

MPwannadecentincome
7th July 2009, 11:04
Heathrow isn't very good for Londoners. It needs a proper rail connection to central London, and not the rip-off 'business class' HEX service to Paddington in the west.

And don't even think of using the Picadilly line, unless you live far out west in Acton.

So its no good for anyone then - can we close it down?

BrilloPad
7th July 2009, 11:04
So its no good for anyone then - can we close it down?

We cant we relocate it in the Thames Estuary? They managed similar in HK.....

swamp
7th July 2009, 11:05
I thought Dubai was trying to overtake Heathrow?

If you go to Dubai make sure you haven't stepped on a poppy seed bap, or you'll be thrown in jail for four years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234786.stm).

Menelaus
7th July 2009, 11:08
Yes the trains there are fantastic - I use to commute there every week.

BMI now owned by Lufthansa - they prefer to take you to Frankfurt :laugh

Yes they are trying hard when the new aiport opens (6 runways I think) it will not be difficult provided the state goverment keeps subsidising the airline and airport (if they can afford too).

For UK to EU - yes a bit out of the way - but, if you are going to Far East or Oz, then it makes for a convenient stop. Also for travel between USA and Mid/East, Africa, India etc then cutting out London has big time saving and cost saving benefits.

True. I think that from Dubai to the US they go straight north and over the pole rather than around?

MPwannadecentincome
7th July 2009, 11:09
We cant we relocate it in the Thames Estuary? They managed similar in HK.....

What a good idea!

Thing is, only if landings like this take place is there a "comfort and safety" incentive to relocate...

Ultimate Cross Wind Landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtnL4KYVtDE&feature=channel)

Menelaus
7th July 2009, 11:10
We cant we relocate it in the Thames Estuary? They managed similar in HK.....

Good programme on BBC4 over the weekend about the plans to move the main London airport away from LHR in the 60s and 70s and to Foulness in the Thames Estuary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_estuary_airport, approved in 1973, scrapped in 1974.

Cyberman
7th July 2009, 11:12
At a time when BA are obviously struggling it's pretty stupid of HMG to add 150 quid to the cost of a long-haul flight. :laugh

swamp
7th July 2009, 11:13
So its no good for anyone then - can we close it down?

Heathrow actually has very good road connections, which suits me fine.

Thames estuary is an absolute joke of an idea. The proposed site in the middle of nowhere. Or more precisely, in the middle of the sea in the middle of nowhere. The 'idea' is to simply build a big road tunnel and a train tunnel way out there.... Like that's going to happen! FFS they can't even build a simple rail connection between Heathrow and London. :suicide:

MPwannadecentincome
7th July 2009, 11:14
At a time when BA are obviously struggling it's pretty stupid of HMG to add 150 quid to the cost of a long-haul flight. :laugh

Oh that's ok they can use the extra tax revenue to pay the dole money to the ex BA employees !

RichardCranium
7th July 2009, 11:26
The last time I flew anywhere I went from
I live round the corner from Leeds/Brad.to
both KLM and Jet2 have flights to Amsterdam several times a dayand found the process quick and easy. Having arrived

Schiphol is nice and you can get on to the trains easilygetting to Amsterdam was an easy doddle, even with rucksacks and suitcases.

Menelaus
7th July 2009, 11:28
Heathrow actually has very good road connections, which suits me fine.

Thames estuary is an absolute joke of an idea. The proposed site in the middle of nowhere. Or more precisely, in the middle of the sea in the middle of nowhere. The 'idea' is to simply build a big road tunnel and a train tunnel way out there.... Like that's going to happen! FFS they can't even build a simple rail connection between Heathrow and London. :suicide:

True.

The site of the original plan in the 1970s (Foulness) is now an artillery range :eek

Moscow Mule
7th July 2009, 11:49
Crossrail is going to have a spur to Heathrow.

Heathrow is lovely for me as I live about 15-45 minute drive away (depending on time of day).

You can pretty much fly anywhere from Heathrow and it makes no sense for me to go via any other European hub.

That said, if you live North of the Watford gap you'll most likely get a cheaper flight to almost anywhere going via Amsterdam of Frankfurt.


Question for the Northerners:
If there was a train line to Heathrow, from Newcastle (or Manchest or Liverpool) which would get you directly to the airport in under 2 hours, would you use it? I'm thinking of a high speed line, from the north through Heathrow and into Paddington.

expat
7th July 2009, 12:00
Crossrail is going to have a spur to Heathrow.

Heathrow is lovely for me as I live about 15-45 minute drive away (depending on time of day).

You can pretty much fly anywhere from Heathrow and it makes no sense for me to go via any other European hub.

That said, if you live North of the Watford gap you'll most likely get a cheaper flight to almost anywhere going via Amsterdam of Frankfurt.


Question for the Northerners:
If there was a train line to Heathrow, from Newcastle (or Manchest or Liverpool) which would get you directly to the airport in under 2 hours, would you use it? I'm thinking of a high speed line, from the north through Heathrow and into Paddington.Well, I live south of the Watford Gap but north of Watford, and I'd welcome a way of getting directly to the airport in under 2 hours!

swamp
7th July 2009, 12:24
Crossrail is going to have a spur to Heathrow.

True, Heathrow will eventually be connected to Kings Cross, which is the main station for London and indeed England.

Shame we'll have to wait 20 years. :rolleyes:

Sysman
7th July 2009, 12:35
Question for the Northerners:
If there was a train line to Heathrow, from Newcastle (or Manchest or Liverpool) which would get you directly to the airport in under 2 hours, would you use it? I'm thinking of a high speed line, from the north through Heathrow and into Paddington.

At today's rail prices, probably not. If I need to hit Heathrow, the plane is a better bet.

Sysman
7th July 2009, 12:44
So other than Londoners, or people flying just to visit London, who else would want to use it?

Didn't you know that it is every Englishman's dream to live in London?

At least that's what the propaganda machine that is London (Beeb, rest of the meedja etc) has been telling me all my life.

I beg to differ.

BoredBloke
7th July 2009, 12:57
Crossrail is going to have a spur to Heathrow.

Heathrow is lovely for me as I live about 15-45 minute drive away (depending on time of day).

You can pretty much fly anywhere from Heathrow and it makes no sense for me to go via any other European hub.

That said, if you live North of the Watford gap you'll most likely get a cheaper flight to almost anywhere going via Amsterdam of Frankfurt.


Question for the Northerners:
If there was a train line to Heathrow, from Newcastle (or Manchest or Liverpool) which would get you directly to the airport in under 2 hours, would you use it? I'm thinking of a high speed line, from the north through Heathrow and into Paddington.


No I'd probably use Manchester or Leeds as the cost of the train would probably be more than the cost of the flight.

swamp
7th July 2009, 13:00
Didn't you know that it is every Englishman's dream to live in London?

At least that's what the propaganda machine that is London (Beeb, rest of the meedja etc) has been telling me all my life.

I beg to differ.

London is England. Well, in simple terms there are some fields and stuff known as the 'countryside' which starts somewhere past Richmond in the west and Watford in the north.

Fred Bloggs
7th July 2009, 13:01
No I'd probably use Manchester or Leeds as the cost of the train would probably be more than the cost of the flight.

Given that the tax on flights often exceeds the cost of the flight itself, then the actual flight is the smallest part of such a trip. Only Gordon Brown and nulabour could ever bring that about, but he has. Having a tax that exceeds the cost of the purchase is immoral IMO.

pmeswani
7th July 2009, 14:15
So its no good for anyone then - can we close it down?

You are more than welcome to close down the Picadilly Line.... but I am ok with Heathrow.. 1 bus journey from where I live to Heathrow in 1 hour... or a car journey (courtesy of my parents) in 30 minutes. No need to scrap Heathrow thanks.

MPwannadecentincome
7th July 2009, 14:27
You are more than welcome to close down the Picadilly Line.... but I am ok with Heathrow.. 1 bus journey from where I live to Heathrow in 1 hour... or a car journey (courtesy of my parents) in 30 minutes. No need to scrap Heathrow thanks.

OK we'll leave it open just for you.

And me - I'm flying from T5 next week :wink

Clippy
7th July 2009, 14:42
Good programme on BBC4 over the weekend about the plans to move the main London airport away from LHR in the 60s and 70s and to Foulness in the Thames Estuary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_estuary_airport, approved in 1973, scrapped in 1974.

It was part of a (very good) series called The Secret Life of the Airport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lbnkh).

Worth checking out on iplayer if still available.

pzz76077
8th July 2009, 07:39
The biggest problem that UK residents have is that you live on an island and you are pretty much stuck with flying just about anywhere outside the UK. That and the public transport is crap and expensive and the roads are always congested around popular centres.

In contrast, mainland Europe has an excellent public transport systems and a road network to match. This gives European folk travel options.

For example, I drove down from my house in The Hague to Vienna on Sunday in about 8 hours, 70 Euros in fuel, no body searches, train/taxi costs, baggage to carry etc.
If I flew, then 3 hours wasted getting to the airport, checking in ,1 and a half hours for the flight, another hour at the other end waiting for my baggage, taxi to the center of Vienna- not much of a time saving, considerably more hassle and cost.

Flying does not have many advantages for mainland Euope travellers, its the getting from UK to anywhere else that is the main issue IMO.

PZZ

BoredBloke
8th July 2009, 07:48
The biggest problem that UK residents have is that you live on an island and you are pretty much stuck with flying just about anywhere outside the UK. That and the public transport is crap and expensive and the roads are always congested around popular centres.

In contrast, mainland Europe has an excellent public transport systems and a road network to match. This gives European folk travel options.

For example, I drove down from my house in The Hague to Vienna on Sunday in about 8 hours, 70 Euros in fuel, no body searches, train/taxi costs, baggage to carry etc.
If I flew, then 3 hours wasted getting to the airport, checking in ,1 and a half hours for the flight, another hour at the other end waiting for my baggage, taxi to the center of Vienna- not much of a time saving, considerably more hassle and cost.

Flying does not have many advantages for mainland Euope travellers, its the getting from UK to anywhere else that is the main issue IMO.

PZZ

That has a lot to do with the extensive town planning which the Germans instigated in the forties.

Sysman
8th July 2009, 17:28
That has a lot to do with the extensive town planning which the Germans instigated in the forties.

It's not just town planning . Apparently the Germans instigated this business of registering with your local town hall within so many days of moving to a new address. When they go kicked out of France, the French thought that the system was quite good so kept it. I suspect that the priority from the right rule when driving was originated by the Germans too.

Sysman
8th July 2009, 17:34
In contrast, mainland Europe has an excellent public transport systems and a road network to match. This gives European folk travel options.

For example, I drove down from my house in The Hague to Vienna on Sunday in about 8 hours, 70 Euros in fuel, no body searches, train/taxi costs, baggage to carry etc.
If I flew, then 3 hours wasted getting to the airport, checking in ,1 and a half hours for the flight, another hour at the other end waiting for my baggage, taxi to the center of Vienna- not much of a time saving, considerably more hassle and cost.

Flying does not have many advantages for mainland Euope travellers, its the getting from UK to anywhere else that is the main issue IMO.

It gets better when you are in central Europe, though the drive back to the UK is obviously more of a grind. There are also night sleeper trains, which I fancy trying out just for fun (Agatha Christie being an obvious choice for reading material:)).

NickFitz
8th July 2009, 17:36
I live round the corner from Leeds/Brad.


Yeadon (http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.865081,-1.681595&spn=0.032342,0.067463&t=h&z=14)? :eek:

NickFitz
8th July 2009, 17:39
The biggest problem that UK residents have is that you live on an island and you are pretty much stuck with flying just about anywhere outside the UK. That and the public transport is crap and expensive and the roads are always congested around popular centres.

In contrast, mainland Europe has an excellent public transport systems and a road network to match. This gives European folk travel options.


If only they'd do something like, say, build a tunnel under the Channel.

expat
8th July 2009, 17:40
It's not just town planning . Apparently the Germans instigated this business of registering with your local town hall within so many days of moving to a new address. When they go kicked out of France, the French thought that the system was quite good so kept it. I suspect that the priority from the right rule when driving was originated by the Germans too.I doubt it, Napoleon operated a level of authoritarian control that even the Third Reich could only dream of. The influence is evident in France to the present day: the government are the officers, the civil servants are the NCOs and are about as much "civil" and "servants" as any NCOs are, and the people are the cannon fodder. Go to a compulsory interview at a French government office and you will feel it.

MPwannadecentincome
8th July 2009, 20:44
It gets better when you are in central Europe, though the drive back to the UK is obviously more of a grind. There are also night sleeper trains, which I fancy trying out just for fun (Agatha Christie being an obvious choice for reading material:)).

Just beware of people breaking in with chloroform and having to wake up finding your wallet, credit cards and expensive camera and phone have disappeared.

pzz76077
8th July 2009, 20:47
If only they'd do something like, say, build a tunnel under the Channel.

Still far too much hassle and cost compared with the rest of Europe.

PZZ

Sysman
8th July 2009, 22:10
I doubt it, Napoleon operated a level of authoritarian control that even the Third Reich could only dream of. The influence is evident in France to the present day: the government are the officers, the civil servants are the NCOs and are about as much "civil" and "servants" as any NCOs are, and the people are the cannon fodder. Go to a compulsory interview at a French government office and you will feel it.

If that is indeed the case, I was told porkies.

(not actually surprise given the source)

MPwannadecentincome
13th October 2009, 11:11
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23755747-even-with-no-new-runway-heathrow-is-still-far-too-big.do

Even with no new runway Heathrow is still far too big
Simon Jenkins
13.10.09 So is it victory? Sensational weekend reports that the British Airports Authority has abandoned its bid for a third runway at Heathrow remain unconfirmed, and indeed denied by the company.

But the indications are clear, as is the Tory promise to rescind the bid. The time-honoured pledge that Heathrow would not grow was reneged on by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Now it might be reasserted, and the threat of jet-scream lifted from hundreds of thousands of London residents.

Recession, which means poverty, is yielding ever more green linings. Kent's new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth has been halted. Iconic skyscrapers are withering on the drawing board.

The extravagant Crossrail project is again in doubt. But nothing is greener than opposition to millions of tons of concrete being poured over Harmondsworth meadows so that more jumbo jets can roar over anywhere in London with a W in its postcode.

Heathrow has been a textbook case of rotten government ever since it became the main London airport in succession to Croydon after the war.

Two runways were eventually built and a categorical promise given to those under the flight path that this was enough "for all time".

The promise was given again with the approval of Terminal 4 in 1978, when an absolute cap of 275,000 flights was added.

Since then every promise has been broken. Terminal 5 was added and the cap revised upwards to 480,000 flights.

When the new terminal was supposedly about to open in 2006, the Labour Transport Minister, Ruth Kelly, was totally captured by the Big Carbon lobby of BAA and the national carrier, BA, and by "predict and provide" planning.

She claimed that the capital's economy needed a third runway after all, but that it would be small and its flights would only be to the west over countryside.

Three years later her successor, Geoff Hoon, reneged on that. He said he would allow not just a third runway but a sixth terminal and a new cap of 700,000 flights. The whole saga has been one of corporate and political mendacity.

Londoners should never believe a word from an air industry executive or a minister for planning. They lie.

With an eye to the main chance, the Tories have opposed the third runway at Heathrow and warned BAA not to sign contracts for a project they will stop.

Boris Johnson has added his pennyworth (or billions-worth) and revived the once-dead idea of a �9 billion airport on an island in the Thames Estuary.

His deputy, Kit Malthouse, has even discovered that it can be built without public money - and doubtless used for landing flying pigs.

The concept of responsibility has simply evaporated from public life. For better or worse, new runways do not feature in the Mayor's new transport strategy announced yesterday.

Those old enough to have lived through the horrors of "London's third airport" in the Seventies will recall that anything to do with airports is horrible.

The infrastructure is massive - and energy-guzzling.

The congestion and noise pollution is extensive and opposition is certain to be bitter. That is why the biggest new airports these days are built by dictators.

Back in 1973 the then Tory government decided to put a third London airport on Maplin Sands at the mouth of the Thames Estuary in Essex.

It now seems a visionary option, but then it was dismissed as too far away and a threat to (and from) birds. Airlines demanded somewhere closer.

Stansted was chosen instead, with added pledges not to expand Stansted or Gatwick, in addition to Heathrow.

These non-expansion pledges have been honoured while that to Heathrow has been broken. Honour in business is a matter of profit.

Hoon, who gave permission for the Heathrow third runway in January, now has egg all over his face. Those who live by subordinating long-term planning to short-term profit tend to die by it.

London airport planning is a victim of classic British government cynicism. On any showing it is in a mess.

The Thames Estuary airport could conceivably be London's version of Hong Kong's new Chek Lap Kok airport, the most costly modern building project on earth.

But with London government still trying to swallow the Olympics and having, against its better judgment, to continue planning Crossrail, the idea of another so-called lumpy project consuming money and political energy is more than anyone can bear.

Assuming the Government does not impose swingeing taxes on air travel, demand will continue to rise.

In which case there is little alternative to pricing Heathrow out of its current overcrowding and into sanity by removing the bulk of its UK tourism flights and dumping them ever farther from the capital.

Two thirds of Heathrow's users are leisure travellers and their presence in west London is hardly a personal or commercial necessity - let alone "vital to London's economy", as aviation lobbyists chant.

I might be annoyed to be denied Heathrow's convenient half-hour drive to my front door but I cannot honestly expect that this convenience should be at the expense of the amenity of hundreds of thousands of west London residents. Tourist destinations should be served from elsewhere.

If green policy is to mean anything it must curb mobility. Curbing will be in part by congestion, as practised daily on the streets of London. But mostly it will be by price.

For burning carbon by internal combustion people must be charged sufficiently to make them go by muscle-power or not at all - or at least go from outside London.

Heathrow is essentially an urban airport imposing severe external costs on its city. It should be made very expensive to use.

It would be good to know if the Government agrees.