Thousands of jobs at Gatwick (From The Argus)

"Talking point: Should Gatwick get a third runway?"

What are these reporters smoking?
They haven't even got a 2nd runway yet!

The 'thousands of jobs created' will probably be balanced out by people losing their jobs over the same period.

peebee9 wrote:
The 'thousands of jobs created' will probably be balanced out by people losing their jobs over the same period.

Well in that case they'll be needed won't they? Otherwise we're going to thousands of jobs short.

Thats good. No doubt the eco mentalists will have their say!! I say build another run way here and at heathrow!! Has to be good for business to allow more planes in!! Good to secure jobs, airports employ thousands of people.

2nd runway will be very good with more jobs and business for the area. Im sure the greens will moan as dont want to see the world thats if they got time after dealing with the big problem with pink bikes being sold to girls.

Build the runway sod the greens if Gatwick does not not build one someone else will and Sussex will loose out. its already a international airport and who really cares about a few more planes flying around. if you don't like aeroplanes flying by your house don't buy a house near an airport.

How many of those jobs will go to the skilled people of 55+ who have recently lost their jobs but are expected to work to 68 or more? How many jobs will go to the 16-25 group who don't want to work as it interferes with their social life, now funded by benefits?
Most vacancies will probably be filled by persons from other EU countries to whom our minimum wage is a fortune.
When are we going to get politicians with the balls to sort this problem out?
Only one springs to mind: and she is too old to return.
Let's get out of Europe, and withdraw benefit from lazy fit young people who will not apply for jobs.

Sussex jim wrote:
How many of those jobs will go to the skilled people of 55+ who have recently lost their jobs but are expected to work to 68 or more? How many jobs will go to the 16-25 group who don't want to work as it interferes with their social life, now funded by benefits?
Most vacancies will probably be filled by persons from other EU countries to whom our minimum wage is a fortune.
When are we going to get politicians with the balls to sort this problem out?
Only one springs to mind: and she is too old to return.
Let's get out of Europe, and withdraw benefit from lazy fit young people who will not apply for jobs.

Did you just suggest we should bring back Thatcher?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Goon.

blimey, I thought this was a discussion about creating jobs!
I was in my early 20s in 1980 and I do believe unemployment increased rapidly UNDER THATCHER!
What planet do you tory t**sers live on?

The actions of Gatwick Airport to reduce their environmental impact as described in Saturday's Argus are commendable, as are the efforts of much of the air transport industry. However, this will be undone at a stroke if airports like Gatwick are increased in capacity and extra demand created.

According to a number of sources it is looking like we are heading for 4 -7 degrees C of warming by 2100 unless we change direction radically over the next few years. An increase in air traffic would pretty much make it impossible for this country to meet its international obligations all to provide capacity for journies that are hardly necessary. Then there is the blight caused to those that live in and around the airports and on the flightpaths.

We are an incredibly clever species when we want to be, I am sure we can find other ways to provide gainful employment without destroying the environment that supports us.

HJarrs wrote:
The actions of Gatwick Airport to reduce their environmental impact as described in Saturday's Argus are commendable, as are the efforts of much of the air transport industry. However, this will be undone at a stroke if airports like Gatwick are increased in capacity and extra demand created.

According to a number of sources it is looking like we are heading for 4 -7 degrees C of warming by 2100 unless we change direction radically over the next few years. An increase in air traffic would pretty much make it impossible for this country to meet its international obligations all to provide capacity for journies that are hardly necessary. Then there is the blight caused to those that live in and around the airports and on the flightpaths.

We are an incredibly clever species when we want to be, I am sure we can find other ways to provide gainful employment without destroying the environment that supports us.

hugging trees wont pay the bills....you green supporters have had your go and we all no what a good thing that has had on our town,you have spent our money put up our council tax and ******-up the roads...we need more jobs. gatwick should be, and has been a very large contributor to our economy.who cares if you have to drive 60 miles a day to go to work---your paying the tax on the fuel..and yes we are clever species its called self preservation.

ruberducker wrote:

HJarrs wrote: The actions of Gatwick Airport to reduce their environmental impact as described in Saturday's Argus are commendable, as are the efforts of much of the air transport industry. However, this will be undone at a stroke if airports like Gatwick are increased in capacity and extra demand created. According to a number of sources it is looking like we are heading for 4 -7 degrees C of warming by 2100 unless we change direction radically over the next few years. An increase in air traffic would pretty much make it impossible for this country to meet its international obligations all to provide capacity for journies that are hardly necessary. Then there is the blight caused to those that live in and around the airports and on the flightpaths. We are an incredibly clever species when we want to be, I am sure we can find other ways to provide gainful employment without destroying the environment that supports us.

hugging trees wont pay the bills....you green supporters have had your go and we all no what a good thing that has had on our town,you have spent our money put up our council tax and ******-up the roads...we need more jobs. gatwick should be, and has been a very large contributor to our economy.who cares if you have to drive 60 miles a day to go to work---your paying the tax on the fuel..and yes we are clever species its called self preservation.

Ok, so you are firmly in the "can't afford to save ourselves" camp. Are you old? Then you will peg it before too much changes.

Many of us are going to see turbulent times ahead that will ultimately cost more than any short lived financial benefit from enlarged airports.I happen to believe that we do not have to stuff the future for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren etc to have a relatively prosperous lifestyle.

Many in B&H today will be waking to cold houses, expensive to heat, let alone damaging to the environment. We could, for example, spend similar sums of money used to build runways on renovating the housing stock to be comfortable and energy efficient. That would be a decent legacy for those of us not quite ready to croak and our kids and would create more local jobs than an airport would ever provide.

you can hardly call gatwick short lived,its been an airport since 1930,it employs thousands,many from brighton,who inturn spend there salaries in brighton and hove,and if they have more airlines flying in as a result of another runway,that will also increase the need for more staff.as for the impact on the enviorment,well industry's around the world like china are having a bigger effect than gatwick and the greens are making it worse due to the ever increasing impact of the lack of forward planing for our road network in brighton.
if your cold,put on a jumper & --go ride your bike:)

It would be of greater macro-economic benefit to spend the money on high speed (HS) rail systems, this would free up the slow-speed (SS) rail system, thus allowing road damaging freight to be transferred to SS rail.
The cost benefit would remain in UK rather than being off-shored.
Building extra capacity in airports just speeds up the off-shoring of UK incomes.

farang wrote:
It would be of greater macro-economic benefit to spend the money on high speed (HS) rail systems, this would free up the slow-speed (SS) rail system, thus allowing road damaging freight to be transferred to SS rail.
The cost benefit would remain in UK rather than being off-shored.
Building extra capacity in airports just speeds up the off-shoring of UK incomes.

and just how would the goods get to the shops?

@ rubberducker - how do you think?

farang wrote:
@ rubberducker - how do you think?

no please tell me,
so your goods get to lets say birmingham"the central hub"where all road frieght is at the moment..how if you have your train deliver to brighton would you get from the station to town.....thousands of vans or hundreds of lorrys...push bike?

@ rubberducker, you're on the right 'track'.
A lot of larger stores are on town/city fringes so there would be hubs.
If you didn't know companies such as Stobarts already use railfreight.
e.g in the case of Brighton the hub could be just north of Patcham, adjacent to the A23.
One of the confounding factors at the moment is the already congested SS rail system so HS rail would relieve that.
If you didn't know, much of Europe and US?Canada are using railfreight to hub and node systems.
I guess UK will just go creaking and groaning on for another century because the naysayers seem to be more persuasive.
I suspect you have a negative response to this idea.