Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#31

Post by Moto7451 »

supernova87a wrote: post #22

I for one have never understood (aside from the network effect and lack of choice) why anyone actively chooses to connect through LHR. The taxes on airfare are extortionate just because they can, you have to pay (!) for on-airport hotel shuttle buses, the facilities are dilapidated and designed with, um, British sensibilities, and transferring / security is an ordeal given how cheaply they choose to (under)staff the…

I’ve only ever flown into Gatwick and it surprises me that they haven’t expanded it with the aim of taking more business from Heathrow. If you’re operating as a transit hub, it doesn’t matter that you’re a train ride away from London. The network effect must be really strong.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#32

Post by pjc50 »

smashah wrote: post #7

I live right next to Heathrow and am starting a micromobility company to tackle air pollution in this end of town, and hold an (albeit expired) PPL. Air quality is bad here for humans on the ground due to the dilapidated 10 year old diesel buses that tfl allow in West London, and the vast amount of Single occupancy vehicles that commute to and from Heathrow every single day. With the disaster that is Brexit on the ho…

> With the disaster that is Brexit on the horizon it's definitely not a good idea to scrap the expansion of LHR.

Wait, what? This doesn't follow at all. And expanding LHR will naturally increase the amount of ground traffic, including diesels?

The UK's increasing immigration tightness is difficult to reconcile with airport expansion, and an economic contraction is likely to hit demand for air travel. As is all question of global warming: from building a new runway you could estimate e.g. one plane landing every 5 minutes 12 hours a day is how much additional CO2 emissions?

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#34

Post by pjc50 »

Moto7451 wrote: post #31
supernova87a wrote: post #22

I for one have never understood (aside from the network effect and lack of choice) why anyone actively chooses to connect through LHR. The taxes on airfare are extortionate just because they can, you have to pay (!) for on-airport hotel shuttle buses, the facilities are dilapidated and designed with, um, British sensibilities, and transferring / security is an ordeal given how cheaply they choose to (under)staff the…

I’ve only ever flown into Gatwick and it surprises me that they haven’t expanded it with the aim of taking more business from Heathrow. If you’re operating as a transit hub, it doesn’t matter that you’re a train ride away from London. The network effect must be really strong.

Gatwick have their own plan for this: https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/publicationfiles...

But effectively it's centrally planned and only one of them is going to get the permission. Transport links between the two aren't as great as you'd like either.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#35

Post by asplake »

toyg wrote: post #28
supernova87a wrote: post #22

I for one have never understood (aside from the network effect and lack of choice) why anyone actively chooses to connect through LHR. The taxes on airfare are extortionate just because they can, you have to pay (!) for on-airport hotel shuttle buses, the facilities are dilapidated and designed with, um, British sensibilities, and transferring / security is an ordeal given how cheaply they choose to (under)staff the…

It’s not terribly worse than most major hubs in the area. The only one I would rate higher, more or less in the same range from US east coast (which I guess is the major market for hub-like traffic in LHR) is Schiphol, but that’s another sprawl that probably cannot grow much more. Munich is nice but it’s so much smaller and significantly further afar from the US. CDG is an utter dump. I don’t know about the Spanish o…

There’s also Frankfurt, for those who like a good long walk

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#36

Post by asplake »

Moto7451 wrote: post #31
supernova87a wrote: post #22

I for one have never understood (aside from the network effect and lack of choice) why anyone actively chooses to connect through LHR. The taxes on airfare are extortionate just because they can, you have to pay (!) for on-airport hotel shuttle buses, the facilities are dilapidated and designed with, um, British sensibilities, and transferring / security is an ordeal given how cheaply they choose to (under)staff the…

I’ve only ever flown into Gatwick and it surprises me that they haven’t expanded it with the aim of taking more business from Heathrow. If you’re operating as a transit hub, it doesn’t matter that you’re a train ride away from London. The network effect must be really strong.

I choose Gatwick over Heathrow now. Even coming from well north of London it’s easier to get to and a much smoother experience

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#37

Post by pintxo »

lonelappde wrote: post #16
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can clean up buses, trains, cars etc. It doesn't look like we will ever be able to make air travel carbon neutral.

Nuclear powered jet planes, like submarines?

It has been considered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#38

Post by VBprogrammer »

pjc50 wrote: post #32
smashah wrote: post #7

I live right next to Heathrow and am starting a micromobility company to tackle air pollution in this end of town, and hold an (albeit expired) PPL. Air quality is bad here for humans on the ground due to the dilapidated 10 year old diesel buses that tfl allow in West London, and the vast amount of Single occupancy vehicles that commute to and from Heathrow every single day. With the disaster that is Brexit on the ho…

> With the disaster that is Brexit on the horizon it's definitely not a good idea to scrap the expansion of LHR. Wait, what? This doesn't follow at all. And expanding LHR will naturally increase the amount of ground traffic, including diesels? The UK's increasing immigration tightness is difficult to reconcile with airport expansion, and an economic contraction is likely to hit demand for air travel. As is all questi…

> one plane landing every 5 minutes 12 hours a day is how much additional CO2 emissions

That's quite a reductionist view point. Operating Heathrow at something near 100% capacity, as it currently does, means that aircraft spend a huge amount of time queueing on the ground (burning a surprising fraction of the fuel they'd use in the air), going around a holding pattern or being vectored all over the sky.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#39

Post by ppf »

mansoor_ wrote: post #24
spodek wrote: post #23

People have gotten so used to flying they can't see how dependent and entitled they've become. When I share that I'm about to start my fifth year without flying, everyone tells me how impossible it is for them but they never try. If they tried, they'd realize how much flying is spreading their lives and communities thin, undermining community. A flight will bring you to a distant loved one. Flying in general disperse…

Please tell me you're not driving the same journey?

Indeed. The mpg per person for a modern passenger plane is better than the average US car (assuming a single-person journey by car). The most important factor here is miles travelled, not the mode of transport used.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#40

Post by rjsw »

pjc50 wrote: post #29
hordeallergy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heathrow should be scrapped and replaced with the estuary airport.

Isn't that the one that would require digging up the SS Richard Montgomery and its thousand tons of waterlogged explosives? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery

There is also likely to be a seabird problem in that location.
Post reply on HN