Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 11:13:04 GMT
A situation that makes the Heathrow farce look positively logical and cheap. Over half a million 'faults'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Jun 30, 2019 15:04:59 GMT
I was wondering what happened to it. I thought they simply forgot about the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 30, 2019 15:26:26 GMT
Reading about it does give you a warm fuzzy feeling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 16:56:33 GMT
I was wondering what happened to it. I thought they simply forgot about the whole thing. I bet they are wishing they could. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jun 30, 2019 17:10:07 GMT
Seeing as I am flying to Berlin in 4 months time...
actually this was in the news last year or the year before because of the farce it has become. Maybe it was on the TV because I recall watching video of some of the issues being demonstrated, including air ducts in the fire suppression system, ghost trains at the rail connection and display screens that were already worn out, plus nobody knew how to turn them off as they were designed to be operating 24/7/365
EDIT: Plus the airport was going to be named "Willy Brandt" but his family have objected since it will be associated with how NOT to manage a project, so I suppose that means a whole load of new signs have had to be ordered too......
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 1, 2019 9:15:12 GMT
Reading about it does give you a warm fuzzy feeling. It does but then you get to the end where they say the cost will end up at 6 Billion Euros. For a BRAND NEW airport though and then you remember that the cost to add 1 runway plus buildings to Heathrow is currently mooted at £25 Billion (so lets say £40B by the time its finished) and suddenly that warm feeling goes away  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jul 1, 2019 9:25:41 GMT
Reading about it does give you a warm fuzzy feeling. It does but then you get to the end where they say the cost will end up at 6 Billion Euros. For a BRAND NEW airport though and then you remember that the cost to add 1 runway plus buildings to Heathrow is currently mooted at £25 Billion (so lets say £40B by the time its finished) and suddenly that warm feeling goes away Well, it's actually mooted at £14bn, which includes £2.5bn in compensation payments plus the enormous infrastructure costs which include burying the M25 in a tunnel. It's easier and cheaper to build new than work around existing facilities. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jul 1, 2019 9:30:40 GMT
.... and it's not a wholly brand new airport, it's based at the existing Shoenefeld airport and will use the existing runways plus looks like 1 or 2 additional runways that have been built as part of the project (and not sure if they already may be in use or not)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 11:00:35 GMT
As far as I know the Schoenfeld site is only a small part of the new airport. Heathrow is still a mistake imho.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jul 1, 2019 14:35:57 GMT
Heathrow is still a mistake imho. You're not alone; I still maintain that Greenham Common should have become the next London Airport when the cold war planes were retired. A short link road to the M4 and you're on the main east-to-west motorway network, and a high speed rail link could have been build alongside the motorway giving access to Heathrow in about 15 minutes, and then onwards to central London... or going west, joining up with the existing high speed lines to go into Wales. Instead it appears to have become a modern-ish "business park" when land for airports in the UK is in very short supply |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jul 1, 2019 14:51:37 GMT
Heathrow is still a mistake imho. You're not alone; I still maintain that Greenham Common should have become the next London Airport when the cold war planes were retired. A short link road to the M4 and you're on the main east-to-west motorway network, and a high speed rail link could have been build alongside the motorway giving access to Heathrow in about 15 minutes, and then onwards to central London... or going west, joining up with the existing high speed lines to go into Wales. Instead it appears to have become a modern-ish "business park" when land for airports in the UK is in very short supply Greenham Common is used as the Rebel Base in Star Wars so they couldn't have built it there in case it advantaged The Empire. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 15:07:52 GMT
Well, the empire does have a habit of striking back, even if only by puking the current farce on us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 1, 2019 15:51:12 GMT
Heathrow is still a mistake imho. You're not alone; I still maintain that Greenham Common should have become the next London Airport when the cold war planes were retired. A short link road to the M4 and you're on the main east-to-west motorway network, and a high speed rail link could have been build alongside the motorway giving access to Heathrow in about 15 minutes, and then onwards to central London... or going west, joining up with the existing high speed lines to go into Wales. Instead it appears to have become a modern-ish "business park" when land for airports in the UK is in very short supply No, Brum airport should be the next London airport, it would at least help to justify HS2 a little bit. |
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jul 7, 2019 7:20:48 GMT
No, Brum airport should be the next London airport, it would at least help to justify HS2 a little bit. Of course it would make even more sense if HS2 went to Heathrow on the way to Brum, but that would be far too sensible. And the HS2 interchange station that is intended to serve Birmingham airport is not actually at the airport - it is a few miles away so they will either have to build a link line or run buses as far as I can see. Just excellent joined up thinking of course as usual....... |
|
