The 2015 Airports Commission Report looked at 3 proposals; 2 for Heathrow and 1 for Gatwick and advised the Government just to go for one of the Heathrow Options. This has informed today's vote and why the Gatwick application has not been voted on. So in 2015 it was very much Gatwick vs Heathrow.

Gatwick may still be able to get a vote on its application, but it's been kicked into the long grass for now, thanks in part to this Airports Commission Review.

A mistake IMO.

Boris quoted today in Standard as saying he doesn't think he'll need to lie in front of the Bulldozers and Heathrow will never happen. Could well be right. Doesn't mean he's not a supine invertibrate protplasmic jelly for not voting on it tonight though.

Boris being disingenuous. Well I never.

Edited by Brentmiester_General (25 Jun 2018 12.59pm)

"We love you Palace, we f@cking hate Man U, We love you Palace, we hate the brighton too, We love you Palace we play in red 'n' blue, so f@ck you, and you ...

By not voting it’s almost like he’s admitting he’s wrong. Which is something that politicians never do.

Boris Island was a nice thought, but it’s a non starter.

The cost of reclaiming the land in the Thames would be huge, as would be the risk. It’s littered with munitions, the US Montgomery is slap bang in the middle and still a huge exclusion zone. The ecological impact of building on undeveloped sites would be massive. It would impact on shipping and the hydrology of the river. There’s no existing infrastructure. Plus you’ll face far bigger opposition local opposition to moving an airport to a location where there previously wasn’t one compared to expanding an existing one (just look at all the issues with HS2). There’s further risks such as bird strikes, wind and settlement issues.

Then look at the staffing needs to service the airport. Heathrow indirectly employs over 100,000 people. You wouldn’t find staff in those numbers in Gravesend and you wouldn’t be able to move all your staff to a small town on the midway.

Taking that many jobs away from the area would kill it. It would be like Sheffield or South Wales after thatcher destroyed the unions. Go to Luton or Crawley and you’ll see how many people there are emplyed by the airport.

Heathrow has existing access from the M4, M25, Paddington, the Piccadilly line, and shortly the elizabth line. That’s 10’s of billions of pounds worth of infrastructure.

I think Schipol was smaller than Heathrow when expansion talk started. The Dutch have the advantage of a flat landscape that lends itself to building airports.

I have little simpathy for most of the local residents. It’s akin to the people who have bought houses on the Holmesdale road and complain about the noise. Unless you’ve been there since the 1920’s you should have known this was always likely.

It would be interesting to see how politicians have previously voted on this. I’m sure it’s a free vote because the can’t force MP’s to change there mine on how they previously voted on the same issues without causing mass embarrassment.

We need expansion without a doubt. I flew from London city last week. That’s becoming overcrowded already with really long queues at security. They are even flying to places such as skiathos which used to be solely from Gatwick. Too much money has been spent on Heathrow to bulldoze it. They should have made that decision before they built terminal 5 or the Heathrow express and cross rail. Gatwick has rubbish links to London. The Gatwick express and Gatwick station are an embarrassment. I agree with the Thames estuary airport as we need a 24/7 airport. I’m thinking it’s too late now and only a matter of time before Heathrow landing slots are extended into the night.

I always thought 'Boris Island' made more sense.

But it's probably a cost thing.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I wonder what the future odds are on Boris being a PM.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)