Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

It wasn't an ideal site as it is buit on gravel pits, which is why its general dampness causes so much fog in the area. My mother remembered digging potatoes in WWII where the main runway is while she was in the Land Army. Until Heathrow, the London airport was Croydon which is now just a flying club and airport for light aircraft.

I would choose Heathrow due to connection into Central London. There is the Gatwick express, but road connection into London is appalling. There is plenty of land around Heathrow after you have flattened a few houses. If we could afford it, I would build at both places and Stanstead.

It looks certain to be Heathrow, so it is pretty much academic what we think.

No you would not build at Stansted. :-))

At least 2 more runways at Stanstead. Plenty of land and a few houses to flatten!

stanstead is a real dog's bottom to access

Perhaps not first choice due to the distance from London.

i guess that's also one of the probs with an estuary airport ..... there are many other valid objections too

I like Stanstead and have used it more than any other airport. It depends on were you live. The M11 is great and there is the Stanstead Express right into the airport. Heathrow is good for me, but Gatwick means crossing London North to South or going half way round M25 with risks of jams making you miss your flight. Gatwick is good if you don't have your car with you.

the prob is M25+M11, though i agree there is a link from L'pool Street if i remember correctly

in many ways, i like the idea of the estuary airport, though the amount of infrastructure that would need to be inserted is not only daunting, but the time it would take, could be measured in decades ..... there are of course a number of other considerations, not least being ecological

Janner snuffs it now http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

David Cameron must exercise “strong leadership” and have a third runway atHeathrow airport built, the president of Britain’s biggest lobby group will say on Monday.
CBI president Paul Drechsler will increase pressure in the contentious debate on Heathrow’s expansion by urging the government to end “the cycle of politicisation and procrastination” that he says has plagued British infrastructure for decades.

Welcoming the government’s new national infrastructure commission, Mr Drechsler will tell theCBI’s annual conference that the government must not duck pressing infrastructure decisions, such as airport capacity.
He will say: “On airport capacity, we need strong political leadership and
action from government. Britain needs that new runway, so let’s get it built.”



Probably, means Heathrow doesn't have a cat in hells chance meaning!

Of course, unless the "Out of Europe" brigade wins and Dodgy Dave resigns or loses a vote of confidence.

What about Manston in Kent?

11000ft runway, avionics, no need to fly over London, good road/rail links.


It's got to be better than expanding Heathrow, as is almost any of the other suggestions.

Anyone been on the M25 lately?

Beat me to it Max, also a link to the channel tunnel can be laid in place to Manston.

Off out now but please feel free to carry on the discussion -):

Boris Johnson has said in the past that Manston airport is too far from London.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/19/30-per-cent-labour-supporters-jeremy-corbyn-not-leader-election

Jeremy Corbyn: 30% of Labour voters do not think he will lead party at next election – poll

100 days into his leadership, a new Opinium/Observer poll has found a majority of likely voters do not expect Corbyn to be in charge in 2020

Almost a third of Labour supporters do not think that Jeremy Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, according to a new Opinium/Observer poll to mark the Labour leader’s first 100 days in office.

A majority of likely voters (57%) – including 30% of Labour supporters – said they did not expect Corbyn to be in charge at the 2020 election.

Many of the survey’s findings will make grim reading for Labour MPs and supporters, three and a half months after Corbyn won an extraordinary mandate from party supporters in the leadership election to succeed Ed Miliband.

He reaches the 100th day of what has been a turbulent start to his leadership on Monday.

When asked who they believed would make the best prime minister, 41% of all questioned named Cameron, compared with just 20% who chose Corbyn. Only 54% of Labour voters thought Corbyn would be the best PM, whereas 91% of Tory voters selected Cameron.

The poll put the Conservatives on 38%, eight points ahead of Labour, which is on 30%. A month ago the gap was 7%.

The UK Independence party (Ukip), on 16%, has dropped only one point since last month, despite rumblings over the leadership of Nigel Farage.

The SNP and the Liberal Democrats are unchanged since November on 6% and 5% respectively, while the Greens have risen two percentage points to 5% in a month. An Opinium poll on 17 December 2010, at almost the same stage of Ed Miliband’s leadership, showed Labour and the Conservatives tied on 37%.

However, while the poll reflects widespread doubts over Corbyn’s electability as prime minister, it shows that the Islington North MP has characteristics that appeal to the public. Over half of voters think that he stands by his principles: 56% of respondents agreed that Jeremy Corbyn “sticks to his principles rather than just saying what people want to hear”, compared with 24% who disagreed. Only 34% of likely voters felt the statement was true of David Cameron.

Johnson's irrelevant D/C.

The day of airports around built up areas is nuts, Again links to europe via Rail and vice versa and high speed rail to and from St. Pancras and Sratford (London). Then we have the security aspect, Manston is nearer the sea so less flying overland for planes being brought down from eastern Areas.

If people bother to think about it, it's a no brainer.

Too far out of London. Planes from the US will still be going over land and from North and South Ireland.

Again that's relatively irrelevant for the other gains.

I see very few gains. The location is the main problem. The majority of potential passengers live closer to Gatwick, Heathrow or Stanstead. Only a few people in Kent live closer. That means it would not be the airport of choice for most people. Gatwick and the others have slots connecting to most places in the world. Mansion would need to attract airlines and their routes otherwise it could not compete as an interchange hub. It would do little to lessen demands on Gatwick or Heathrow as passengers would expect to be able to change onto planes to other destinations.

Everyone living west of the River Medway is closer to Gatwick or Stansted than they are to Manston. As the main bases for easyJet and Ryanair respectively, these airports offer cheap flights to a vast range of destinations across Europe.

Manston has tried flying routes to Europe when Flybe operated there. It was a failure.

Manston has many gains as illustrated, London is just to crowded it's as simple as that.