| Topic: | I'm all for Heathrow contraction. | |
| Posted by: | Martin James Bleach | |
| Date/Time: | 29/11/07 18:33:00 |
| Interestingly, this argument - that ‘Hubs’ are dead and ‘Point to point’ needs smaller planes - is why Boeing pulled out of the Super-jumbo project and left Airbus to build it alone. On “use less fuel” though, 30 cars use much more fuel than 1 coach; not a good thing environmentally. Anyway. You scale down from “all for expansion” to “as big as it needs to be”. I’d take it a bit further. In 15 years time when - Aviation fuel is taxed at the same level as petrol - Business communication migrates from 747s to the internet - and first class tickets stop subsidising the rest - Airlines have to buy ‘Carbon Credits’ to cover their flights that is, when passengers start paying a realistic price for flights, Heathrow will be much too big - even without Runway 3 and Terminal 6. If they go ahead, they will very quickly resemble the deserted level crossings and bridges I remember after Beaching’s railway cuts. Do you think BAA will volunteer to dig up Runway 3 and put Sipson back? Martin Bleach Green Party Candidate - Riverside By-Election (Dec 13) |