M25 Heathrow Tunnel

[Big L]

...Fly less. No runway needed...

...what people usually mean by "fly less" is "everybody else fly less"...

...I'm 41 and have never flown...

That is textbook 'everybody else fly less' because you can't possibly.

[roadtester]

...what people usually mean by "fly less" is "everybody else fly less"...

...I'm 41 and have never flown...

That is textbook 'everybody else fly less' because you can't possibly.

True in the strict logical sense, but in fairness to Comstock at least he's not in the hypocritical position of rich famous "environmentalists" who blast around the planet in jets while lecturing everyone else on the need to cut back.

[firefly]

Comstock is right. Less flying the only sensible way forward. The aviation industry has grown beyond a reasonable level in the last two decades. It has stretched its business to areas which are unnecessary for the broader economy and in some cases even outright bonkers.
This industry needs to be cut back to a more tolerable level. The way to achieve this is a proper taxation of aviation fuel. If this would be done a third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be required at all or at least not for a foreseeable future.

[Comstock]

True in the strict logical sense, but in fairness to Comstock at least he's not in the hypocritical position of rich famous "environmentalists" who blast around the planet in jets while lecturing everyone else on the need to cut back.

Thanks. I'm not saying no flying, just less. Mum and dad have both had very full lives with just those single flights on stag/hen holidays many years ago. People don't have to go that to that extreme, but I'm far from convinced we need to fly even more than we already do......

The fact I've never flown, and only been abroad a couple of times probably accounts for my unheathy degree of nerdy knowledge of the UK road network!

[Brenley Corner]

I'm with the 'fly less' opinion on here, and that we should definitely have tax on aviation fuel; why does the aviation industry get away with tax-free fuel when most other fuel users including hauliers have to cough up? Flyers, especially those who choose to use the cut-price airlines, are being subsidised by the tax payers and should have to pay the real unsubsidised price of their chosen travel method.
As far as I am concerned I have flown less and less as the years have gone by and haven't flown at all since 2008 and have no plans to do so. Personally I have developed a fear of flying and nothing is going to get me up in a thin metal tube tens of thousands of feet up in the air - so no danger of being a hypocrite either.

Tony

[A320Driver]

Flyers, especially those who choose to use the cut-price airlines, are being subsidised by the tax payers and should have to pay the real unsubsidised price of their chosen travel method.

Do you have any proof for this assertion? Have you not heard of APD, a tax levied variously around the world but at one of the highest rates here in the UK. Given that the revenue does not get ploughed back into the aviation industry I'd argue that the industry is a net contributor to the Exchequer. On top of the £20 billion or so in economic value.

The reason why VAT isn't applied to jet fuel is simple: unless it is applied universally around the world the airlines will simply get fuel elsewhere for short haul, and place the UK at a huge disadvantage globally, quite possibly offsetting the revenue in VAT.

If capacity is restricted in the UK, then hubs in Europe will simply pick up the slack; the demand will not be suppressed, and in the process even more emissions produced. A total own-goal

Personally I'd build a runway at Heathrow AND Gatwick. The Dutch, French and Germans simply get on with it with minimal fuss, I'd be amazed if any new runway opened in the UK before 2025.

Back on topic, Heathrow Airport Ltd are coughing up for the tunnel anyway, the bulk of the highway works.

[Vierwielen]

True in the strict logical sense, but in fairness to Comstock at least he's not in the hypocritical position of rich famous "environmentalists" who blast around the planet in jets while lecturing everyone else on the need to cut back.

Thanks. I'm not saying no flying, just less. Mum and dad have both had very full lives with just those single flights on stag/hen holidays many years ago. People don't have to go that to that extreme, but I'm far from convinced we need to fly even more than we already do......

The fact I've never flown, and only been abroad a couple of times probably accounts for my unheathy degree of nerdy knowledge of the UK road network!

Location also has a bit to do with it. I live in the South-East. A few years ago I was discussing the possibility of taking a contract in Brussels. The other person expressed concern about the travelling time. I asked how they would feel about working in Scotland. "no problem" was the answer. "So what's wrong with Brussels then?" I asked - "it is quicker to get to Brussels than Edinburgh". I checked with viaMichelin: home to Brussels: 4:56, home to Edinburgh: 7:55. Even allowing for viaMichelin allowing 48 minutes for the Channel Tunnel, Brussels is still a lot closer than Edinburgh.

[XC70]

Anyway, getting off topic (and I am to blame)- I might start a thread on Unleashed about comparitive standards of living at some stage

Go for it, instead of commenting on the thread we could write our replies on parchment and have a messenger deliver them.

I am going to send my replies by pigeon....

[roadtester]

Anyway, getting off topic (and I am to blame)- I might start a thread on Unleashed about comparitive standards of living at some stage

Go for it, instead of commenting on the thread we could write our replies on parchment and have a messenger deliver them.

I am going to send my replies by pigeon....

Nah - let's just grunt at each other and settle it with our clubs if we can't agree.

[MattJackson]

It looks like Heathrow runway three will get the go ahead from the Government soon.

You've made my day!

[Phil]

On the other hand, when work dried up for me in the UK, I spent three years contracting in the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. My routine was to commute fortnightly by air. Now had there been decent rail services between the Netherlands and London and between Frankfurt and London, I would probably have used rail.

That's due to scandalous under-exploitation of Eurotunnel for longer through journeys outside the main London, Brussels and Paris set-up - partly, I suspect, because of the UK's insistence on aviation-style security screening and static passport controls.

This is quite true, but until the majority of the UK population decides its worth joining the Schengen area (hell will freeze over before that happens), tight border controls and strict separation between domestic and UK bound passengers must remain with any attempts to relax it being pounced on by the right wing press as opening the floodgates to terrorists, benefit scroungers, criminals and an open door stance on immigration.

This is what killed the idea if Manchester - Europe direct services, because even after HS2, the number of passengers wanting to travel to Europe is minuscule compared to the capacity of the trains. The only way such a service would work is if you could mix domestic & international passengers as far as Stratford (thus allowing the train to double up as an ordinary Manchester - London service.

In Europe this is precisely what happens, Trains between Brussels and Cologne carry both international and domestic passengers making the economics work.

You should note that any international rail service that doesn't start in Paris or Brussels (where UK border checking facilities are installed) are required to stop at Lille so EVERYBODY PLUS THEIR LUGGAGE can get off, troop upstairs, get processed by UK border personnel, before rejoining the train to the UK.

[B1018 A120 M11]

It looks like Heathrow runway three will get the go ahead from the Government soon.

So, er...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35011620

[mapalex]

It looks like Heathrow runway three will get the go ahead from the Government soon.

So, er...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35011620

Ah...

[Rubberduck]

On the other hand, when work dried up for me in the UK, I spent three years contracting in the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. My routine was to commute fortnightly by air. Now had there been decent rail services between the Netherlands and London and between Frankfurt and London, I would probably have used rail.

That's due to scandalous under-exploitation of Eurotunnel for longer through journeys outside the main London, Brussels and Paris set-up - partly, I suspect, because of the UK's insistence on aviation-style security screening and static passport controls.

This is quite true, but until the majority of the UK population decides its worth joining the Schengen area (hell will freeze over before that happens), tight border controls and strict separation between domestic and UK bound passengers must remain with any attempts to relax it being pounced on by the right wing press as opening the floodgates to terrorists, benefit scroungers, criminals and an open door stance on immigration.

This is what killed the idea if Manchester - Europe direct services, because even after HS2, the number of passengers wanting to travel to Europe is minuscule compared to the capacity of the trains. The only way such a service would work is if you could mix domestic & international passengers as far as Stratford (thus allowing the train to double up as an ordinary Manchester - London service.

In Europe this is precisely what happens, Trains between Brussels and Cologne carry both international and domestic passengers making the economics work.

You should note that any international rail service that doesn't start in Paris or Brussels (where UK border checking facilities are installed) are required to stop at Lille so EVERYBODY PLUS THEIR LUGGAGE can get off, troop upstairs, get processed by UK border personnel, before rejoining the train to the UK.

You're right that the British public will never support joining the Schengen area, and it's precisely because of the reasons you say - we'd lose all control over our borders allowing terrorists, illegal immigrants and other criminals to come and go completely unhindered all for the very minor benefit of allowing people who can afford a Eurostar ticket not to have to go through border controls.

Direct services between Manchester (or anywhere that isn't London) and Europe will never happen because of the ridiculous decision not to link HS2 directly to HS1 (which also means that £210 million Stratford International station won't ever serve any international destinations!), as well as the complete lack of demand. Most Brits just aren't interested in international train travel when flights are cheap, easy and quick.


Oh and I wish they'd just make a decision re a new runway in the south east. They've been talking about it for over 25 years and probably still will be in another 25 years!

[roadtester]

You make it sound like a Eurostar ticket is a rich man's privilege like a private jet!

Virtually anyone in the UK can afford one if they book fairly early.

Not having fixed passport controls at stations doesn't mean open doors for terrorists. Most international train journeys including, back in the day, a lot across the iron curtain, have relied on on-train checks on the move, which can also be rigorous.

And without more streamlined border procedures, an HS1 to HS2 link is a waste of money. That's why it's not being built.

[c2R]

It looks like Heathrow runway three will get the go ahead from the Government soon.

So, er...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35011620

Ah...

Good. We need high speed rail, not more aeroplanes.

[roadtester]

Good. We need high speed rail, not more aeroplanes.

I agree very much - but HS2 is probably at least as controversial in terms of attracting opposition as the third Heathrow runway, and expansion for international is a non-starter until border controls are made more efficient, with all the fuss that would cause.

It's not necessarily a less-pain alternative, unfortunately!

[c2R]

Good. We need high speed rail, not more aeroplanes.

I agree very much - but HS2 is probably at least as controversial in terms of attracting opposition as the third Heathrow runway, and expansion for international is a non-starter until border controls are made more efficient, with all the fuss that would cause.

It's not necessarily a less-pain alternative, unfortunately!

True, true... but even if we could stop/reduce internal flights between the major cities it would help matters

[roadtester]

Good. We need high speed rail, not more aeroplanes.

I agree very much - but HS2 is probably at least as controversial in terms of attracting opposition as the third Heathrow runway, and expansion for international is a non-starter until border controls are made more efficient, with all the fuss that would cause.

It's not necessarily a less-pain alternative, unfortunately!

True, true... but even if we could stop/reduce internal flights between the major cities it would help matters

Yes. Even without HS2, I far prefer to take the train for most UK journeys. It's competitive time wise for most domestic journeys, and even where it takes a bit longer - eg London to Glasgow or Edinburgh, it's usually much nicer.

For various complicated reasons beyond my control, I've flown between London and Manchester a couple of times and for the life of me I can't see why anyone wouldn't do that journey on the train if they had the choice - apart from LHR connections.

[Chris Bertram]

Yes. Even without HS2, I far prefer to take the train for most UK journeys. It's competitive time wise for most domestic journeys, and even where it takes a bit longer - eg London to Glasgow or Edinburgh, it's usually much nicer.

For various complicated reasons beyond my control, I've flown between London and Manchester a couple of times and for the life of me I can't see why anyone wouldn't do that journey on the train if they had the choice - apart from LHR connections.

Up to a point on this one. Going to London it's the train every time, but a few years back I had to make a trip every month or so to Newcastle from Birmingham. I did it by train the first time. Getting on for four hours each way, then a Metro journey out to Jesmond for my meeting. It made for a very very long day. I flew after that, Eastern Airways from Birmingham to Newcastle, 30 mins in the air, even with check-in and baggage collection it saved a lot of time, plus the Metro from the airport went to Jesmond anyway. It was much easier, apart from the one time when the plane took off from Newcastle with our baggage still on the tarmac rather than in the hold.