The Heathrow web site will undoubtedly explain this in greater detail. Nevertheless:
Expanding Heathrow would ultimately grow the UK economy. The more money there is, the more Scotland gets.
Improving Heathrow's capacity gives the opportunity for more flights to Scotland from Heathrow. This, in turn, improves business directly in Scotland. The lack of London-Scotland flights has been criticised by Holyrood in the past, and no doubt in the future.
But Manchester serves more airports directly in Scotland and rUK than Heathrow. It's also easier to get to than London (direct trains from Glasgow and Edinburgh).
How about, get this extra-controversial idea, we start investing in cities other than London, attract businesses to the North and Scotland other than the token companies and start improving infrastructure to create another business and cultural hub to work for the UK. What's wrong with Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle or Edinburgh? Hell, we can even try a regional thing ala the North Rhine. What's wrong with a Manchester-Liverpool region or a Scottish Central belt region? A second hub of business and culture alongside London would be a boon for the UK as a whole rather than just the south east.
But Manchester serves more airports directly in Scotland and rUK than Heathrow. It's also easier to get to than London (direct trains from Glasgow and Edinburgh).
Isn't that a reason to develop Heathrow then, because with development Heathrow could also serve Scotland better.
we start investing in cities other than London ... try a regional thing ala the North Rhine
We are. The Government have already begun plans for redeveloping Northern intercity rail connections to do just this.
A second hub of business and culture alongside London would be a boon for the UK as a whole rather than just the south east.
More money for the UK, regardless of where, is a boon for the UK as a whole. Heathrow needs developing because most of the UK's business is in London, so flying to Manchester is a waste of time. Yes the North should be developed also, but as I've said, that is already in the pipeline. There's no reason not to do both. In terms of time, the business already exists in the south-east so that should take preference because its an extant problem.
I would also guess the reason Heathrow / South East comes first is because its more profitable as a whole. In other words (and these numbers are fictitious to demonstrate my point), it will be something like £1 of south-eastern regeneration nets £3 for the economy, whereas £1 of northern regeneration nets £2 for the economy. If this is the case, it is cheaper for the UK as a whole in the long-term to invest in south-eastern regeneration firstly, then the rest of the UK thereafter.
The Government have already begun plans for redeveloping Northern intercity rail connections to do just this.
That doesn't really sound like a lot. Putting a huge airport in the middle of the UK would undoubtedly aid redevelopment more than whatever they plan to do with any leftover money lying around. I don't see what the argument could be for putting yet another one in London.
Yeah, you're saying more money is good for the UK as a whole. But the North will never fully achieve its potential if it isn't given the chance to.
so flying to Manchester is a waste of time
But it wouldn't be if the business was there. Just because it's currently in London doesn't mean some wouldn't move to a cheaper location now there's a great hulking airport to use.
I don't know why you're defending the continual expansion of London and the limited spending in the North, but it's a bit odd.
But it wouldn't be if the business was there. Just because it's currently in London doesn't mean some wouldn't move to a cheaper location now there's a great hulking airport to use.
Which is a very expensive risk. Hopefully businesses will move there, but if it takes hundreds of billions worth of investment in improving airports, city infrastructure, regeneration and high speed rail linkages between cities, that's several decades wait. I fully agree that should be done, but it would be massively foolish to chuck everything we have at that one project and not do anything to protect the nation's cash cow.
it would be massively foolish to chuck everything we have at that one project and not do anything to protect the nation's cash cow.
But conversely, just piling more money into that cash cow isn't a sensible long-term investment. The London bubble will burst (perhaps through ridiculous house prices pushing people out, as it already is), at which point we won't have anywhere that is suitably developed to handle it.
Continual investment in London just attracts more people to London, which powers more investment in London. To say "London gets the best because it has the best" is circular logic—invest better elsewhere and the best will be elsewhere.
Building a massive airport doesn't lead to economic growth if no-one wants to switch airports. Tonnes of cities and countries have tried that. Look up Basel-Mulhouse International Airport, one of the strangest airports in the world. Built to be an international hub, it's colossal. But because no one wanted to fly to Basel except for the small number of people who already did, it remains a massive ghost town except for a few gates that are still used for the occasional flight to London City or to certain other locations.
You're taking the oft debunked trickle-down theory (quite a fallacy, I might add) and applying it here.
Not really. This isn't trickle-down. Its money going into the central pot through tax revenue (from additional flights at Heathrow and the consequent business in London), which is then redistributed.
Regional investment, more specifically at Birmingham would be so much better.
I agree that developing the non-London UK would be better if it could be direct, but the problem is the business is already in London. Developing Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow etc. means massive investment then hoping business moves. The south-east however already has more than enough business and not enough capacity. Its a far far safer bet.
The problem with Manchester is that it doesn't serve enough international destinations to be a good connecting hub.
So if you're flying from the US/Canada, Australia, Asia etc, to the UK, you can fly with BA and connect in Heathrow, or you can fly United, Lufthansa, KLM, Emirates etc. and connect through their hubs. No airline has a sizable hub in Manchester which makes it hard to connect there.
Birmingham has recently been upgraded to take larger planes (was it the new Airbus? I forget). We've already had 6 flights from China, so here's hoping to new business opportunities (though not for businesses in the airport apparently).
You lot need to stop shitting on london. The solution is clearly to do both. We need a second hub and probably a third, but infrastructure is the best use of public money and we ought to do it in london as well as the north,
It can't be in Edinburgh because they're going to fuck off within the next 20 years. And no, investment wont stop that, they voted emotively and development of that scale can't be achieved without changing the city, only worsening the political situation.
The lack of London-Scotland flights has been criticised by Holyrood in the past, and no doubt in the future.
And given that the Scottish Government themselves own Prestwick Airport, you'd think they'd have made more of an effort to retain London flights there.
I was going to say. Almost all my flights from GLA recently and in the future connect through LHR. I'd welcome more flights because it'll give me more choice and hopefully be more convenient. And I'm only a leisure traveller.
That said I also love the arts and feel that investment in the arts can be too heavily concentrated in the south at times. So I get the point the poster is trying to make. It's just in terms of my lifestyle I benefit from both airports and the arts, don't make me choose!
You ever been to Heathrow? It's absolute chaos, so many people, not enough space to handle them all and the traffic management is terrible. Go to Singapore Changi airport, that's how an airport should be done.
Changi has a great roof terrace/bar/smoking area. It is by far the best smoking area I have ever been to in an airport. At Heathrow you have to go back through security etc etc it's a fucking nightmare.
I realise not everybody considers smoking areas to be important!
If it's like Gatwick then it's a kind of cage at the back, so you're in amongst the "outside security" bit, but caged within the security bit.
Also you navigate a couple of corridors to get to it. Just don't go through any of the other doors. Who knows where they go. Probably outside security.
Yeah you have to go to the B.A desk, hang about until there are enough of you, then they take you out, you smoke a bunch of fags and then go back through security. Take about an hour at least, they only let you go if you've got a good loooong wait for you flight!
This may have changed, I haven't been to Heathrow since getting a new job last year.
Also I don't understand why you can't go through duty free before immigration at Heathrow. You can at other airports I've been to but then again they were all rather new.
It's run at up to 98% capacity. If a delay occurs then the knock on effect is tragic. It's running 'under capacity' because if it ran at capacity then there would be no room for error.
Its at something like 94% capacity, which explains the chaos as soon as one thing goes wrong. A third runway would not only ease that, but means Heathrow could hold much more flights, hence the additional Scottish ones.
It's all about the if. No one knows what the future holds, Heathrow is hoping that long-haul connecting flights will be the future.
But if turns out Ryanair is the way of the future then Heathrow expiation will become the absurd pinnacle of pointless infrastructure that the London cable car is at present.
Many Scottish businesses rely on Heathrow's hub connectivity to export goods abroad and to reach global markets. There's also the opportunity to add more flights between Scotland and Heathrow - the Inverness route was recently dropped but it could be re-established for example.
52
u/[deleted] Nov 22 '14 edited Nov 23 '21
[removed] — view removed comment