| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Boris Island | |
| Posted by: | David Giles | |
| Date/Time: | 18/01/12 20:11:00 |
| Although Boris is to be applauded for making the proposal, I don't think Heathrow will be closed and replaced by Boris Island. Too much public and private money has been invested in Heathrow over the years and too many jobs depend on it for it to be closed down. Many Heathrow jobs are held by trade union members so I think we could expect heavy opposition to Boris Island from the trade unions. Maybe that is why Boris has made the proposal in the first place. Heathrow is also much more convenient for access from the rest of the UK, Central London and the Home Counties than an airport in the middle of the Thames Estuary. The UK Government simply does not have the money to build a new airport on the scale of Boris Island and build the silly HS2 Project as well. I wonder will the private sector be willing to invest the tens of billions required ? However there is a case for additional airport capacity in the UK and creating a hub airport (s) for international transit traffic in a less populated areas than just West of London. This would reduce the pressure on Heathrow. There are some fine big airforce bases in East Anglia which are now surplus to Cold War requirements and are not likely to be needed to bomb Germany. Right now many international travellers are flying from regional airports in the UK to locations outside the UK such as Schipol, Paris and Frankfurt to fly onwards outside Europe. Many people fly into Heathrow from Asia, Africa or the Americas to connect to flights - not to Europe or the UK- but to locations in the Americas, Africa or Asia. People outside the London and South East of England are not very well served with flights to transcontinental destinations. And of course an independent Scotland would want to develop Edinburgh and Glasgow airports (if it could find the money after having to pay for all the other costs of independence). There are all sorts of possibilities. |