• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

In other news finally a new runway might be built, think it's more a desperate throw to spark things off rather than something they actually wanted to do but I've always been in favour of infrastructure. I'd like to see HS2 and HS3 fully built as well.
 
P.D. said:
In other news finally a new runway might be built, think it's more a desperate throw to spark things off rather than something they actually wanted to do but I've always been in favour of infrastructure. I'd like to see HS2 and HS3 fully built as well.
Click to expand...

I think M67 to M1 and M1 to M23 road tunnels would be my infrastructure priorities.
 
P.D. said:
In other news finally a new runway might be built, think it's more a desperate throw to spark things off rather than something they actually wanted to do but I've always been in favour of infrastructure. I'd like to see HS2 and HS3 fully built as well.
Click to expand...

The abandoned plans for a high speed rail route through Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton would have been interesting, but probably ridiculously expensive.
 
Jordinho said:
The abandoned plans for a high speed rail route through Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton would have been interesting, but probably ridiculously expensive.
Click to expand...
When they built the M25 they should have built a railway track alongside it at the same time. Probably wouldn't cost much extra (considering the net gain) And besides just passengers....a game changer for freight.
 
Jordinho said:
The abandoned plans for a high speed rail route through Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton would have been interesting, but probably ridiculously expensive.
Click to expand...
Gatwick and Heathrow are pretty close as the crow flies (25 miles). You could tunnel some of it and have it like a dedicated non-stop tube line, effectively making it one airport and stopping people having to come through London
 
Gutter Boy said:
Gatwick and Heathrow are pretty close as the crow flies (25 miles). You could tunnel some of it and have it like a dedicated non-stop tube line, effectively making it one airport and stopping people having to come through London
Click to expand...


Why would you want to connect airports?
 
Gutter Boy said:
1 to speed up transfers
2 to provide extra flexibility to airlines re slots, and with things like car parking provision
Click to expand...

Yep, increase +1 stops in the airline network which makes us a hub for UK and beyond.

About 50m people fly in and out of the UK per quarter and the US market uses us as a stop over into Europe and vice versa to the US. Heathrow is a Medium to long haul hub where as Gatwick and Stansted with their regional carriers are short to medium, so the links often match better traveling onwards form elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Gutter Boy said:
1 to speed up transfers
2 to provide extra flexibility to airlines re slots, and with things like car parking provision
Click to expand...


I still don't get it. Who wants to travel between Gatwick and Heathrow? Makes no sense. Why transfer between the 2? It will be a tiny fraction of a fraction who want to travel to Heathrow then get a connection from Gatwick the same day. Just get a taxi for the maybe 30 people a week that need to do this trip on the same day.

Bugger building a personal railway for them.
 
Batspur said:
I still don't get it. Who wants to travel between Gatwick and Heathrow? Makes no sense. Why transfer between the 2? It will be a tiny fraction of a fraction who want to travel to Heathrow then get a connection from Gatwick the same day. Just get a taxi for the maybe 30 people a week that need to do this trip on the same day.

Bugger building a personal railway for them.
Click to expand...

Say you might be flying from Cork to San Francisco. Cork plane comes into Gatwick, San Francisco plane leaves from Heathrow. Not just things like that that already happen, but which can happen much more, meaning services can be consolidated.

Also someone living in Brighton, needs to fly from Heathrow. Park at 'London South terminal', 30 minute free shuttle service to gate; rather than additional 90 minute drive to 'London West terminal'.
 
Grays_1890 said:
The routes currently are fairly decent now TBH, the Lizzy line is a game changer, Thameslinks are regular and run fairly well in my experience
Click to expand...

Yeah I think the through rates are a game changer, much better and also open up more options for people to live. Shame they abandoned the HS2 spur to Heathrow and I think Birmingham airport. Could have connected up Heathrow, Birmingham and Manchester airports with a bit more planning and even connected up to HS1 so you could go Manchester to Paris. It's been so badly planned that a lot of the opportunities will have been lost - we should have been travelling on it 20 years ago.
 
Gutter Boy said:
No, travel is good. It cures ignorance. Zero emissions flying is what we need. Solar planes, with something else to help with take-offs.

Although private planes should be banned, as they probably do about 80% of the damage
Click to expand...
Sure, broadening your mind is good, but as we have no scalable solutions for flying, doing one of the most harmful things to the climate shouldn't be encouraged—quite the opposite. So for now we need less of it, not more. If they come up with some emission-free aviation fuel then fly to your heart's content.
 
Last edited:
Rorschach said:
Sure, broadening your mind is good, but as we have no scalable solutions for flying, doing one of the most harmful things to the climate shouldn't be encouraged—quite the opposite. So for now we need less of it, not more. If they come up with some emission-free aviation fuel then fly to your heart's content.
Click to expand...
20% of all emissions are from private planes. 40% of commercial flights are empty because, well, capitalism. Get rid of both of them and that's most of the job done
 
Gutter Boy said:
20% of all emissions are from private planes. 40% of commercial flights are empty because, well, capitalism. Get rid of both of them and that's most of the job done
Click to expand...
Those percentages don't look right to me. Certainly, the first one seems high. I'm off to Dunning-Kruger these numbers.

I might add that private jets should be banned instantly. The lowest-hanging fruit there was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back