Alibi Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Although I am an SNP member, I disagree strongly with their open support for the Heathrow expansion. Leaving aside the electoral damage that is likely from any impression of the SNP halping the Tories out of a hole, the argument that expanding Heathrow is good for Scotland is imho very weak. We were told when the channel tunnel was being built and partly funded by us that it was good for Scotland; more than 20 years later we still don't have direct rail links to Europe; not even a direct link that stops in London and then continues. You have to disembark and change stations in London. I very much doubt Scotland has gained any jobs at all from that so-called "national" infrastructure project, and ijn the real world the same will be the case with Heathrow. In fact it's probably a negative effect as the project will further skew the UK economy towards the SE of England while reducing the likelihood of proper DIRECT links to Europe and beyond. The additional cost to Scottish residents and others of having to disembark, change terminals and re-embark must be significant, and in addition two lots of APD are due. With England heading for the EU exit and Scotland likely to remain in the EU in the longer term, do we really want to be filtered through a non-EU hub with all the problems that that would cause in terms of visas and so on? The SNP should have stood back and let the Tories fight this one out themselves. If there is to be an airport expansion near London, does it really matter that much where it is? I don't accept the argument that there is a promise of more landing slots for flights from Scotland with the Heathrow scheme as firstly, we know what happens to these vows, and so the more lucrative long haul flights would undoubtedly squeeze out any Scottish routes with some feeble excuse being given, and secondly, do we really want Scotland to be treated as a minor region that sets itself up as merely a feeder to London's international hub? Should we not be trying to maximise our own direct connectivity to the rest of the world and stop filtering everything through a Londoncentric prism? It would be better if a major hub is necessary to make it Schiphol which already has 6 runways and in my experience is a far better airport to use; it is also at the heart of Europe, and that would send out a strong message rather than this decision which smacks of trying to cling on to London's coat tails. Very disappointed with the SG's stance on this one. Not to the extent of cancelling my membership but I will certainly let my MP and MSP know what I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) While I would love to see more direct flights from Scotland, it's unfortunately not in the business interests of intercontinental airlines. Therefore we do need to maximise connectivity with the European hub airports like Heathrow, Schiphol, CDG and Frankfurt. The UK airport is the only one of these that we have any political influence over, so I can understand the SNP stance. Flights from Scotland to Heathrow have dropped by 30% in the past decade. Edited October 27, 2016 by Toepoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 More funding for Scotland. Cheaper flights from Scotland to Heathrow. Some nonsense about using Prestwick. We got a decent enough deal out of supporting something that would have been built anyway. I'm more concerned that they're cutting free G&T on flights between Scotland and Heathrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Schiphol has 7 runways (5 in permanent use) and a far better joined up terminal/transport infrastructure than Heathrow. It's much easier to connect through Schiphol than it is at the abonimation that is Heathrow. Saying that, it's insane that such a massive airport only has 2 runways. You simply can't run one of the world's major airports by having 200 planes doing circles over the Channel for hours, waiting to land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 If you're not changing terminals at Heathrow it's a fantastic airport to use. Spending 50% of your flying time circling London does ware thin pretty quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDange Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Unless there are new gates or slots that are reserved for Scottish connections then how will this benefit Scotland? As already mentioned, there are plenty of other options nearby that provide good connections. Amsterdam has a similar flight time and is a much larger airport - any who really cares where they connect as they are on their journey? There's years of incompetence ahead before anything actually gets progressed here. Unfortuntately the way it seems to be here these days - I mean could you imagine if they tried to build the London Underground now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 51 minutes ago, McDange said: Unless there are new gates or slots that are reserved for Scottish connections then how will this benefit Scotland? As already mentioned, there are plenty of other options nearby that provide good connections. Amsterdam has a similar flight time and is a much larger airport - any who really cares where they connect as they are on their journey? There's years of incompetence ahead before anything actually gets progressed here. Unfortuntately the way it seems to be here these days - I mean could you imagine if they tried to build the London Underground now? Depends what way you look at it and where you want to fly. Schiphol (smaller than Heathrow actually) is good for connecting to the States because it's Delta's main European hub. If I was flying Edinburgh - Atlanta for instance, I would always pick Schiphol over Heathrow because the KLM and Delta gates in Amsterdam are never more than 5 minutes apart in a bright, modern unpacked terminal. In Heathrow you would have to change airlines/terminals, spend an hour on a bus, go through these goddam shitty 1960's corridors, up and down stairs etc etc etc. On the other hand, BA and their One World group are bigger than KLM and their Sky Team group, and with more flights between Edinburgh and London they'll offer more destinations worldwide (especially the middle and far east) than KLM do out of Amsterdam. And as Deecie says, if you can fly into and out of Terminal 5 then it generally is a pretty smooth process. In return for SNP support, it looks like Heathrow have guaranteed Scottish airports more flights. That can only be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wee-toon-red Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 3 hours ago, deecie said: If you're not changing terminals at Heathrow it's a fantastic airport to use. Spending 50% of your flying time circling London does ware thin pretty quick. If you're flying into T5 from outside the EU and have to go through passport control before your connecting flight, even though it's from the same terminal, it can be an absolute shambles as they've rarely got enough officers on duty. Flying back from the US earlier this year the queue was huge and only two officers were checking passports. When people complained that they were in danger of missing connections the supervisor told them to "contact the Home Office, it isn't our problem". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny's Yard Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 29 minutes ago, wee-toon-red said: If you're flying into T5 from outside the EU and have to go through passport control before your connecting flight, even though it's from the same terminal, it can be an absolute shambles as they've rarely got enough officers on duty. Flying back from the US earlier this year the queue was huge and only two officers were checking passports. When people complained that they were in danger of missing connections the supervisor told them to "contact the Home Office, it isn't our problem". Agreed, I like T5 but connecting from an International flight to domestic is a nightmare. Although not as bad as connecting International to Domestic at LAX, that is hell on earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariokempes56 Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 1 hour ago, wee-toon-red said: If you're flying into T5 from outside the EU and have to go through passport control before your connecting flight, even though it's from the same terminal, it can be an absolute shambles as they've rarely got enough officers on duty. Flying back from the US earlier this year the queue was huge and only two officers were checking passports. When people complained that they were in danger of missing connections the supervisor told them to "contact the Home Office, it isn't our problem". Correct - I detest Heathrow for transit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Denny's Yard said: Agreed, I like T5 but connecting from an International flight to domestic is a nightmare. Although not as bad as connecting International to Domestic at LAX, that is hell on earth. I'm all in favour of Heathrow as I live 10 miles from it, it really works for me. Then again I've only ever had to transit a couple of times. The worst transit I've ever had was a couple of years ago when I flew from Chicago to Heathrow via Toronto. I had about an hour and a half connection time which I thought would give me plenty of time to have a pint or two before getting on the flight to Heathrow, especially as when the flight parked on stand, I could see the BA 747 parked up on the next pier. Despite being in transit and having checked my bags in all the way through, I had to clear Canadian Immigration, collect my bags, clear Canadian customs, check my bags back in and then clear security. I got to the gate as the flight was boarding. Never again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyDenoon Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Unless terminal 2 has upped its game, landing there from Poland a couple of years ago was murder. Took about an hour to get through passport control and this was at about 9pm so not exactly stupid o'clock. Then miles to walk to actually exit the building. The fact that a black cabbie then wanted £45 to take me to my hotel 2 miles away once I'd been through all that put the tin lid on it for me. Never use that terminal again unless I have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 12 hours ago, Alibi said: Although I am an SNP member, I disagree strongly with their open support for the Heathrow expansion. Leaving aside the electoral damage that is likely from any impression of the SNP halping the Tories out of a hole, the argument that expanding Heathrow is good for Scotland is imho very weak. We were told when the channel tunnel was being built and partly funded by us that it was good for Scotland; more than 20 years later we still don't have direct rail links to Europe; not even a direct link that stops in London and then continues. You have to disembark and change stations in London. I very much doubt Scotland has gained any jobs at all from that so-called "national" infrastructure project, and ijn the real world the same will be the case with Heathrow. In fact it's probably a negative effect as the project will further skew the UK economy towards the SE of England while reducing the likelihood of proper DIRECT links to Europe and beyond. The additional cost to Scottish residents and others of having to disembark, change terminals and re-embark must be significant, and in addition two lots of APD are due. With England heading for the EU exit and Scotland likely to remain in the EU in the longer term, do we really want to be filtered through a non-EU hub with all the problems that that would cause in terms of visas and so on? The SNP should have stood back and let the Tories fight this one out themselves. If there is to be an airport expansion near London, does it really matter that much where it is? I don't accept the argument that there is a promise of more landing slots for flights from Scotland with the Heathrow scheme as firstly, we know what happens to these vows, and so the more lucrative long haul flights would undoubtedly squeeze out any Scottish routes with some feeble excuse being given, and secondly, do we really want Scotland to be treated as a minor region that sets itself up as merely a feeder to London's international hub? Should we not be trying to maximise our own direct connectivity to the rest of the world and stop filtering everything through a Londoncentric prism? It would be better if a major hub is necessary to make it Schiphol which already has 6 runways and in my experience is a far better airport to use; it is also at the heart of Europe, and that would send out a strong message rather than this decision which smacks of trying to cling on to London's coat tails. Very disappointed with the SG's stance on this one. Not to the extent of cancelling my membership but I will certainly let my MP and MSP know what I think. I haven't followed in detail but I also didn't understand why they have been so obviously taking sides (including Heathrow sponsored corporate stuff at conference? - which makes it look way too cosily corporate) I don't think it's really Scotland's fight. If it was a HS2 line slowly pushing north, at least it is infrastructure permanently pointing at Scotland, and reducing journey times for part of the journey. But airline slots seems such a fickle political investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bzzzz Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 I think it was a mistake to voice support for it, I too fail to see the advantages of us spending £bns on a london airport, our country needs the investment far more. Yes again westminster wasting our money for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 I heard that the government had offered Barnet consequentials for the Heathrow investment. Normally we wouldn't get these because it's national infrastructure but presumably they'll fudge that by saying that parallel infrastructure investments need to be made in the 'regions' but how that is spent is a devolved matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolaaand Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Has the SNP support for Heathrow expansion really done any electoral damage though? As far as connections and business links for Scotland are concerned then Heathrow is better for us than Gatwick. I don't think it does any harm that the Scottish Government said so. There is plenty of capacity at Scotland's airports so if the long haul airlines wanted to fly here,they would. They don't though,they fly to major hubs so for the SG to voice its support for the hub that works best for Scotland is just fine. Bigger picture wise. The UK government should have allowed expansion at Heathrow,Gatwick and Stansted to cope with future demand. London is being left behind in aviation terms by its European and Gulf competitors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flumax Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 On 28/10/2016 at 11:14 PM, biffer said: I heard that the government had offered Barnet consequentials for the Heathrow investment. Normally we wouldn't get these because it's national infrastructure but presumably they'll fudge that by saying that parallel infrastructure investments need to be made in the 'regions' but how that is spent is a devolved matter. This must be the case . I can't see why would SG gives a monkey's otherwise. I'm sure it benefits individuals , can't see it being in Scotland's overall interests otherwise. Most people I know just as likely to use AMS , FRA , DUB , CPH , CDG as LHR . When I go to London I much prefer LCY or even LGW. I still think we should moving away from domestic flights. Is central Glasgow /Edinburgh to central London really that much quicker by flights than train? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 On 27/10/2016 at 9:40 AM, Alibi said: Although I am an SNP member, I disagree strongly with their open support for the Heathrow expansion. Leaving aside the electoral damage that is likely from any impression of the SNP halping the Tories out of a hole, the argument that expanding Heathrow is good for Scotland is imho very weak. We were told when the channel tunnel was being built and partly funded by us that it was good for Scotland; more than 20 years later we still don't have direct rail links to Europe; not even a direct link that stops in London and then continues. You have to disembark and change stations in London. I very much doubt Scotland has gained any jobs at all from that so-called "national" infrastructure project, and ijn the real world the same will be the case with Heathrow. In fact it's probably a negative effect as the project will further skew the UK economy towards the SE of England while reducing the likelihood of proper DIRECT links to Europe and beyond. The additional cost to Scottish residents and others of having to disembark, change terminals and re-embark must be significant, and in addition two lots of APD are due. With England heading for the EU exit and Scotland likely to remain in the EU in the longer term, do we really want to be filtered through a non-EU hub with all the problems that that would cause in terms of visas and so on? The SNP should have stood back and let the Tories fight this one out themselves. If there is to be an airport expansion near London, does it really matter that much where it is? I don't accept the argument that there is a promise of more landing slots for flights from Scotland with the Heathrow scheme as firstly, we know what happens to these vows, and so the more lucrative long haul flights would undoubtedly squeeze out any Scottish routes with some feeble excuse being given, and secondly, do we really want Scotland to be treated as a minor region that sets itself up as merely a feeder to London's international hub? Should we not be trying to maximise our own direct connectivity to the rest of the world and stop filtering everything through a Londoncentric prism? It would be better if a major hub is necessary to make it Schiphol which already has 6 runways and in my experience is a far better airport to use; it is also at the heart of Europe, and that would send out a strong message rather than this decision which smacks of trying to cling on to London's coat tails. Very disappointed with the SG's stance on this one. Not to the extent of cancelling my membership but I will certainly let my MP and MSP know what I think. On 27/10/2016 at 9:40 AM, Alibi said: Although I am an SNP member, I disagree strongly with their open support for the Heathrow expansion. Leaving aside the electoral damage that is likely from any impression of the SNP halping the Tories out of a hole, the argument that expanding Heathrow is good for Scotland is imho very weak. We were told when the channel tunnel was being built and partly funded by us that it was good for Scotland; more than 20 years later we still don't have direct rail links to Europe; not even a direct link that stops in London and then continues. You have to disembark and change stations in London. I very much doubt Scotland has gained any jobs at all from that so-called "national" infrastructure project, and ijn the real world the same will be the case with Heathrow. In fact it's probably a negative effect as the project will further skew the UK economy towards the SE of England while reducing the likelihood of proper DIRECT links to Europe and beyond. The additional cost to Scottish residents and others of having to disembark, change terminals and re-embark must be significant, and in addition two lots of APD are due. With England heading for the EU exit and Scotland likely to remain in the EU in the longer term, do we really want to be filtered through a non-EU hub with all the problems that that would cause in terms of visas and so on? The SNP should have stood back and let the Tories fight this one out themselves. If there is to be an airport expansion near London, does it really matter that much where it is? I don't accept the argument that there is a promise of more landing slots for flights from Scotland with the Heathrow scheme as firstly, we know what happens to these vows, and so the more lucrative long haul flights would undoubtedly squeeze out any Scottish routes with some feeble excuse being given, and secondly, do we really want Scotland to be treated as a minor region that sets itself up as merely a feeder to London's international hub? Should we not be trying to maximise our own direct connectivity to the rest of the world and stop filtering everything through a Londoncentric prism? It would be better if a major hub is necessary to make it Schiphol which already has 6 runways and in my experience is a far better airport to use; it is also at the heart of Europe, and that would send out a strong message rather than this decision which smacks of trying to cling on to London's coat tails. Very disappointed with the SG's stance on this one. Not to the extent of cancelling my membership but I will certainly let my MP and MSP know what I think. Let's be honest, if LHR already had 5 runways and this proposal was to build a third at AMS, you'd be all for it. Or if the new runway was at DUB or CDG, for that matter. You don't support it because it's in England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 6 hours ago, flumax said: This must be the case . I can't see why would SG gives a monkey's otherwise. I'm sure it benefits individuals , can't see it being in Scotland's overall interests otherwise. Most people I know just as likely to use AMS , FRA , DUB , CPH , CDG as LHR . When I go to London I much prefer LCY or even LGW. I still think we should moving away from domestic flights. Is central Glasgow /Edinburgh to central London really that much quicker by flights than train? Fastest trains from Glasgow/Edinburgh to London are about 4 1/2 hours which is probably not much longer than flying if your going from City centre to City Centre. That said, I always think that's a bit meaningless as that misses the point that generally people either have to get to the City Centre first and/or have an onward journey when they arrive. I'd say that if you have reasonable access to one of London's airports then it's quicker to fly, if you don't then train is probably better. Big problem with the trains IMHO, is that unless you get one of the really cheap restricted tickets, it's generally quicker to fly. This decision was between Heathrow and Gatwick, not Heathrow, Gatwick, nothing, Boris Island, Manchester or Prestwick. On balance, Heathrow is probably better for Scotland than Gatwick, more available slots, wider choice of onward flights, better public transport access to London and surrounding areas. When Crossrail is finished in a couple of years you will be able to get to the City of London direct from Heathrow in around 30 minutes. So, I can understand why the SNP are backing it and no doubt they've managed to extract some form of concessions for supporting it. Expanding Heathrow doesn't mean that the SG shouldn't look at increasing the number of flights and destinations from Scotland though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddybuc16 Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 As a consequence of the money brought in from the 3rd runway being built at heathrow, The queen could be set to receive millions of pounds to soundproof windsor castle. No being funny, but considering it doesn't open until 2025, is that go be her problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 9 hours ago, rolaaand said: Has the SNP support for Heathrow expansion really done any electoral damage though? Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 1 hour ago, daddybuc16 said: As a consequence of the money brought in from the 3rd runway being built at heathrow, The queen could be set to receive millions of pounds to soundproof windsor castle. No being funny, but considering it doesn't open until 2025, is that go be her problem? Of course it will be, the noise could ruin her 100th birthday party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, Toepoke said: Of course it will be, the noise could ruin her 100th birthday party. "Pardon? Speak up, young man." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.