Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
1 February 2011
10:2490944Boris Island.
Good old Bungling Boris, you can always rely on him to cheer us up and show us just how out of touch they are with reality. Estimated £70 Billion on a floating airport. Just what we need to rescue us from this crisis.
Medway Council has already united in opposing what councilors describe as a "pie in the sky" proposal
Kent County Council, says the estuary airport is undeliverable, unaffordable and unnecessary.
Even big Airlines like Virgin are against it. But Boris bungles on.
Who thinks Manston Airport would be more appropiate?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
1 February 2011
11:0490949Two things here. Ive always found Boris to be the oddest choice as London Mayor. I just cant take him seriously at all. But rather surprisingly people voted for him en masse, seduced by his hapless but charming tv image. The elections are all won in the TV studio these days....clearly. Obviously he is extremely bright but of course coming from good rich shire Bullingham stock he was always going to have his head in the 'unrestrained on financial matters' clouds.
But the rich rule these days and no mistake. Anyone see Andrew Neils programme last week on Posh Boys. We have to bite the bullet.. for now.
The second point though is Nimbyism. We all suffer from it. Me as much as anyone else. Manston Airport would be a great choice but alas alas the people there dont want jets taking off night and day on their doorstep, so they want the airport to clear off somewhere else. Look at the fuss for example being made over the Lydd expansion!
Hence the estuary idea. Whats to be done?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
1 February 2011
11:4490951simple,bring back red ken and some sencible ideas.
kind regards karl marx.
1 February 2011
11:5290953I'll admit I'm no expert on these matters but so far no-one seems to have mentioned the loaded munitions ship sitting on the sea bed between Sheerness and Southend. I know the MCA check it regularly and seem to think it's not a danger at present, but what if a plane crashed on it? What if the vibration from planes taking off and landing disturbed this deadly cargo? A lot of damage would be caused, a lot of lives would be lost and I've read somewhere that if the ship did go up the resulting tidal wave could flood the London barrier. Has all this been considered? It worries the life out of me because I spend a lot of time in that area.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 February 2011
12:5390965i think the whole thing is just something to keep boris in the headlines, when he is asked questions about cost and logistics he just comes up with a mish mash of statements.
the mayor of london has to be a very public figure, ken livingstone was one and could only be beaten by an equally up front character like boris.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
1 February 2011
13:2990977Alf,
If a plane did crash on it, which is highly unlikely, I don't think it would worry the passengers, or explode the ammunitions.
There are many actions that could be taken, to prevent a disaster but none are deemed necessary at this time.
I think flooding the LB is a bit of a myth but no one can really predict the outcome, that accurately.
PaulB.
With the longest runway in Europe, new terminal building, new road infrastructure, it seems a complete waste of money to spend £billions elsewhere. I know it would upset some residents but look at the benefits it would bring to this area.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
1 February 2011
18:3391022Longest runway in UK is Campbeltown airport, formerly RAF Machrihanish in Argyllshire, at just under 3 1/2 miles. Manston is probably the widest though.
For the record I agree with Boris. Heathrow is well past its sell by date and we need the estuary airport to see us through to the end of this century. Building such facilities on land which has a current use is crass.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
1 February 2011
18:4691024A lot of people DO want Manston to 'take off' - they seem to forget that it wasn't that long ago that the ole noisy Hercules were in and out of there all the time !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
1 February 2011
19:4691041Maybe the answer is to get all the jets to fly at landing and takeoff height over the area and then guage public opinion on a new airfield.
Improve Manston and the links to London.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
2 February 2011
08:0591109I think that more use should be made of Manston; it is very close to the coast, so will go over much fewer properties.
Good road and rail infrastructure should be invested in and the area promoted for tourism purposes down this way; we have more than enough to satisfy the traveller - group or independant.
I think Boris Island is so totally unnecessary and would not benefit us here in East Kent as much as Manston would.
Roger
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
2 February 2011
08:1291110Roger
I agree. Manston is under used I have just received an email from them to advise that Newmarket Travel Group are running holidays to various European Sunny destinations again this year. It might be worth a butchers at Manstons site 'Kent International Airport'.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
2 February 2011
09:0791116I have done Marek and they go to an increasing number of destinations - sadly not enough in my view, but I guess if they gradually increase, it will help.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
2 February 2011
09:3591119My view is that aeroplanes are responsible - together with other forms of pollution, for climatic change.
Could it be that the ozone layer in the southern hemisphere is being damaged because of constant over-pollution and that this is causing the catastrophic floods and cyclones hitting Australia?
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
2 February 2011
11:5091149Alex D
Are advocating the banning of all flights? Cos that won't happen....
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
2 February 2011
13:5191157When the subject comes up about building a new airport, or expanding existing ones, the question might arise if climatic change is also caused by aircraft flying through the clouds, and over them, and causing chemicle particles to directly enter the air.
There is a scientific study about the ozone layer over the southern hemisphere being destroyed and ultra-violet sunrays entering in greater amounts, causing skin cancer and possibly having an effect on the ice of the Antarctic.
Scientists are probably unable to explain exactly what pollution causes and if or how it affects huricanes, cyclones and causes disastrous floods. But it seems that there are two versions regards climatic change. I think that it is influenced by massive chemicle pollution.
It would be better to travel by train, bus and ship, and to introduce electric engines for buses.
