By the time we have prevaricated about a third runway, Heathrow will need a fourth. It’s time we did an Amsterdam and built an additional two or three runways for future-proofing. Gatwick also needs another runway urgently.
We don't do that here. HS2 was needed 20 years ago and we're still not sure we're still going to get it as it is, nevermind has what it needs to be for now, or where it may need to be in 50/60 years
@@RunawayTrain2502 Heathrow is the hub for connecting flights though. People travel through it to other destinations. Airlines have already shown their unwillingness to use other airports such as Gatwick and if they don’t use Heathrow they’ll be looking towards other hubs across Europe. It is what it is so unfortunately we’re stuck with Heathrow
@@ashdog236 Glad that you Yanks have remembered that there are in fact other, civilised nations, outside of the +1 dialing prefix. Also, it's ALUMINIUM, coloUr, honoUr, and there's a metric system you may want to look in to. Long live Canada
I don't know but I think that a 3rd runway would decrease carbon emissions in the long run. As the situation currently is with just 2 runways (i.e. only one runway for landings), it cannot handle the huge influx of incoming aircraft. For this reason, arrivals have to circle over London before being cleared to approach and land, burning more fuel and emitting more CO2 in the process. Therefore, I think that a 3rd runway would actually be environmentally beneficial if properly and efficiently used.
I’m with KevonVideo on this, by adding a third runway they will just increase the number of flights in and out of Heathrow in line with the airport’s increased capacity.
@@jcspotter7322 More CO2 doesn't equal more plants. All living plant species today are capable of growing with *less* CO2 than is currently in the atmosphere, but they can't grow on land that is inundated by saltwater encroachment from sea level raise, and are killed by wildfire and drought. There's no scenario where expanding the amount of air traffic is a net benefit to the environment.
While I understand there are many issues, the fact that London is surrounded by so many other airports sort of demands that they be utilized. The airlines can assist in how this might be done.
If you're flying in on one flight and out on another, being told you have to get on the train to one of the other airports for the connecting flight is not going to be popular.
@@mattevans4377 well technically yes it could. however. you would need: A. A airport capable of handling that volume of traffic both by air and land. B. Have enough people with in a area to be able to staff said airport. C. Need enough airlines to want to fly to that airport above Heathrow. (you will need to incentify them) D. with all those constraints you will also need to earn back the cost of said airportrport that would still be very very expensive. Also if the result would be that the new airport becomes to expensive. you risk that airlines will just ditch your airport and go to a other European hub. (Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt) that would mean that the UK would see a lot of tax income just go away. it's a tough balance in any situation.
@@owensmith7530he’s just saying use the other airports for local non connecting travel, intra UK and Europe traffic while passengers arriving to connect to the U.S. etc use Heathrow.
It's absolutely mind boggling how long they've been dithering on adding just one runway to Heathrow. 2 runways for such an airport is way too much traffic per runway, yet it's been a decade and nothing's happening.
It's pretty hard to explain to people outside the UK how SLOW it is to travel a mile relative to countries like Canada or the US. Unless there is high speed rail out to the east, it'll never make sense to reallocate LHR's status as number one in the area. If you live on opposite sides of the city you'll know how long or expensive it is to travel the region. Personally I am all for the airport going waaaaay up the Thames estuary but the costs will be eye watering.
Thames estuary is not a choice, too far away. It takes me sometimes to travel from south London to Heathrow more than 1 hour in the morning before the traffic kicks in. Gatwick expansion is much better and cheaper option.
Don't you have these things called trains there? A sensible airport places far more emphasis on integration with the train network, not the road network - that's certainly the case in the rest of Europe. Oh, that's right - you don't think of yourselves as part of Europe.
I grew up 4 miles from LHR in the 50s and 60s when there were six runways. The shorter runways were gradually closed as aircraft got bigger and longer runways were needed. Terminal 3 was built on one runway and parking stands on another. Even in the 60s and 70s there were proposals for a third runway to the north. I worked at STN and LGW in the 80s. Neither initially had any scheduled services. I remember when American tried a service from STN to Chicago or was it Pittsburgh. Passengers arriving from the US were horrified that they had to take a bus to LHR for their onward flights. End of American service. It has taken 40 years for LGW and STN to get where they are now and airlines forced to move. I now frequently travel LGW-TPA rather than from LHR as that requires a change at MIA, CLT or PHL. While LHR continues as a principal transit hub its expansion does seem an intractable problem. I don't think I will see a solution in my lifetime.
Heathrow had its 3rd runway in the 90s! It was, like the others that were built on, only for when the landing crosswinds were too high. 3 runway operations was always entertaining! To make Heathrow catch up to the rest of the BIG international airports. It needs to have a 3rd parallel runway. This year (2023) Heathrow is scheduled to break pre covid movement records! During covid Heathrow was the only airfield in the UK to maintain over 100 movements (arrival/departures) per day. Gatwick dropped to 10!
I say replace Heathrow, Stansted, and Gatwick all with a new and improved, Manston Mega Airport that can be linked up to HS1. And then use all the space of Heathrow to solve the housing crisis.
"Farnborough" is pronounced "farn-bruh" (but it's said as one word), and not "farn-burrow". Any time you see "borough" in an English place name (or 'a burgh' in in a Scotish place name), it's always pronounced "bruh". Also, "Luton" rhymes with "gluten", exactly the same in fact, but without the 'g' at the front).
How are local carbon (dioxide) emissions a negative factor for residents? There are actual pollutants that come out of the back of jet engines that can influence air quality at ground level, but CO2 isn't one of them. BTW, it's pronounced Lut-un.
London needs a bare minimum of two more runways, and more likely three of four. IMHO, Heathrow needs two more runways, Gatwick needs one more, and Stansted one more.
Personally I don’t know if it’s just the American in me but I feel London Heathrow is way too big and way too busy to only have two runways one of my local airports Chicago O’Hare has it least 6, 8 total if I’m not mistaken and we don’t see nearly as much international travel
London trasit is terrible. I'm from Brazil and I haven't seen any country as expensive for mobility as the UK. Eurostar is insanely expensive, and I paid £19 to get Gatwick, that is more than a round-trip to Luton. London lack of options to its airports. If I haven't take the train to gatwick, I would've have to pay a £70 uber. In Lisbon you can get to the airport for €1, in Porto it's a €16 uber, in orlando that would be $26 if you're not already renting a car. In my city, São Paulo, we have a 30 minute train every hour for R$4,40; that's less than a pound. My currency is crap, but I truly believe even americans would be shocked by the prices, and the Luton bus is so slow. These this are very stressful because one day you have to be up at 6 in paris to get to luton at 10 but you'll only arrive at Victoria by 12. 6 hours for 400 km, and slower than going by car. I wish I had a chance to watch a game at Anfield or old Trafford, but the bus would cost £60 and take 6 hours. I can only imagine how many Easyjet, ryanair or wizz air flights I could take with that money
Problem is, I live 140 miles away from Heathrow but I am basically forced to go there because all the other airports don’t fly to anywhere useful. Trying to fly to Germany, Sweden, Austria etc I have to go to Heathrow?? I have 3 international airports closer but they only fly to Spain / France / Portugal etc! Then you get literally shafted trying to get to Heathrow for £70 on the train or hundreds if you are mad enough to park there. I’d much rather just have more route options from Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff etc…. No one is interested in helping them though
At Heathrow, without demolishing literally thousands of buildings expansion can't happen, so if more capacity in the London area is needed then expansion of the other airports needs examination. A second runway at Gatwick is possible. Stanstead and Luton have scope for expansion but both will need better links to central London and not at the present rip-off prices. Sadly present beaurocrats will talk about it for at least 20 years and will do nothing.
To me, as a passenger, the most frustrating part of any airport, is transit and taxi time. And since most existing mega-airports in Europe and in the US are either terribly designed from the beginning (JFK, Newark, Gatwick, Heathrow are prime examples of poor design), or have such complicated logistical challenges when trying to expand (surroundings, environment etc)., it seems to me, the only really logical option is to built from scratch, on land that has more or less limitless expansion possibilities. It would also give airport designer a unique opportunity to design and built a facility that optimises the whole travel experience. In the case of London, having a facility that can be open 24 hours and can handle what today's Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted airports can combined, could in the long run, be better, safer and more efficient than what exists today. Some of, if not all 4 before mentioned airports could be closed, or restricted to cargo, domestic and private operations, freeing up massive amounts of living space, which is a massive problem in and around London. It would also make ATC a helluvalot simpler than it is today.
Political inaction costs everyone money. Wilst the new airports would have been "nice" there really is no need for new builds, just more runways, certainly at Heathrow and most likely a second at Gatwick too. The one factor not given enough attention is the number of passengers who change aircraft for onwards connections, look at Dubai and weep. These passengers do not need land transport, just easy inter terminal links and facilities. As a UK resident near London I would not select Heathrow as my first choice airport; I much prefer one of the smaller airports however Heathrow offers a range of destinations second to none - for these it often requires a change of aircraft en route if departing from any other airport.
Build newer bigger and better for the future. Have one big airport and lose the small ones. Use old airports for new developments. Think of the future people and not ur butts. All the airports will need to expand with no land available. Back to one large airport to serve the future of growth.
Awesome video!! I really have no idea why they dismissed Luton or Stanstead so quickly. Both of those airports have more than enough space for expansion and connectivity to downtown London
I think it’s mostly because major airlines are already well established at Heathrow. Yes, Luton and Stansted both have opportunities for expansion. However Heathrow is already the main airport for Greater London and sees a lot of international traffic from major carriers like American, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, etc. Stansted and Luton both mostly see Low Cost Carriers that focus more on leisure travel which isn’t what London really needs. For expansion at either of those airports to be viable, many of the facilities at those airports would have to be upgraded to be able to handle more passengers and larger aircraft. It’s just more convenient to expand the airport that already specializes in those things.
Japan does it right with Tokyo Haneda and Narita. Narita is largely the international connecting flight field and Haneda is the international terminal. This isn't a rigid rule, but sort of how the division of traffic is done. In the case that a passenger is stopping or departing from Narita, there is a railway connecting to the city
It takes 22 minutes to get from central London to Heathrow on public transport. It takes 1 hour 10 minutes to get to Luton and 55 minutes to get to Stansted. Those airports aren’t appropriate for expansion.
It is a though decision. Environment or economy. I'm not familiar with the situation of people leaving around Heathrow but I do notice that all over the world communities appear around airports that eventually will grow bigger and expect the government to limit that expansion because there are too many planes going over my house. I live 15 minutes from JFK in an area that did not exist when the airport was first build. Now it grew into the major hub that it's but can't expand because of the same concerns of people living around it. Are they supposed to close a runway because too much noise from the planes?
Wanting to lived near the airport due to cheap land prices and better public transport then complained about the noise etc. Might as well shoot yourself in the foot lol
The Boris Island idea is a good one. Although it would require new transport links (roads, trains etc) what people don't realise is that once that is built, Heathrow can be demolished and sold off to developers to make up for the costs as it would be one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in whole of UK and even Europe.
They can also legislate against new building permits along its approach vectors so they don't get future noise complaints, and have room for future expansion.
The issue is the same accross the world in all hubs. Should we make hub to be endless bigger and bigger or should we regionalise a bit aviation?. I know hubs are more profitable for airlines, but for its passengers?. Perhaps the problem with LHR is not if more runways could be added but if air space around London is able be accomodate more and more planes. Interesting debate
Its about time they just got on and upgraded Heathrow, to hell with what locals think. It was a choice they made when they moved in next to a major international airport!
06:40 I don't see why the M20 relocation should cause a big disruption. (1) Just build the new Western lanes completely including tunnels, then shift northbound traffic to the new section. Connecting the new section at both ends to the rest of the motorway should be a matter of days only, if not hours. Then destroy old Western lanes. (2) Do the same with southbound eastern lanes. (3) Done. (4) I'm not saying it would be cheap, I'm just saying there wouldn't be a big disruption.
Of course it is going to take a disaster due to overcrowding and too much work for some poor air traffic controller before people get the point that a runway expansion is in the long run cheaper than the alternative. IMO most cost-benefit analyses for projects do not pay enough attention to hidden benefits like this.
Personally I think heathrow should start operating 24 hours a day on a limited service ofcourse. Aircract have become a lot quiter than they used to be and triple glazed windows are much better. They could use different approach patters/ steeper flide slopes to reduce the noise at night for the local residents. This would create so much more capacity.
Agree, I flew in to Gatwick from Argentina a few years ago landing around 3am and it was empty and a dream. Apparently only certain aircraft can but was no bother at all, but then you do see the photos at Heathrow of them so low over houses.
When people say an airport should be built on the east side of London or South they forget most infrastructure to transport people is to the west of London. Extending Heathrow is the best option. It is far cheaper and less nature destruction than building new infrastructure to a new airport or expanding others it would be better to close one or two of the others and concentrating on Heathrow. And with the new HS2 connections and with the newly opened Elizabeth Line connections to Heathrow it needs to happen. Also the connection to Manchester Airport with 50minutes on the train will be even better.
The original judgment in the judicial review action against the UK Government in respect of the proposed Heathrow expansion was overturned in October 2020, on an appeal brought by the owners of Heathrow Airport to the UK Supreme Court.
@@B-A-LIt's the mentality which is the problem mate, not the land. If UK cities can be all planned like in Netherlands or if people are willing to lived in apartments and condominiums there'll be plenty of land for airport expansion. Just asked the Japanese or the Dutch
I remember when I worked for Ford in Essex, and Ford Air was Stansted’s biggest user and received priority clearance when taking off. Talking about a new site south of Southend on Sea, Southend airport is also now called London Southend and is considered London’s 6th airport. Also, as a child, there was the Maplin Sands sea and airport project, which was never realised.
from a cursery glance at all secondary london airport expansion options, stansted seems the most practical, it has ample room to the east for a parallel runway and a new terminal complex, mirroring the existing and room for efficient taxiway routings to connect both sides... departure and approach routes of the new runway would also hardly overfly any densly populated towns and there is already a raillink which of course should be a priority to optimize/expand if this solution is considered
I don't understand why they don't try to distribute the load from LHR to the other airports in the area around London? Surely it would be cheaper to add facilities to Stansted and Gatwick. Or even Southend. Gatwick is literally surrounded by fields and farmlands. And Stansted has huge tracks of fields all around it that can be bought for use.
Luton and South End are hardly London big airports and no one goes anywhere apart from Gatwick or Heathrow. Gatwick should get second runway and put a high speed rail link between the two
also Heathrow have historically bad management and excessive waste. Gatwick is run much better and is all round the best idea from someone who lives in the area.
I never understood why it was a competition, with only one airport getting the new runway. We only have one airport with more than one runway which is a sad story. Why not have a massive investment with Gatwick, Heathrow, Stanstead, Birmingham and Manchester. Make Britain great again.
Here's a radical proposal. Reopen Wisley (2km runway at A3/M25 junction), link it, Heathrow & Gatwick with some form of high-speed transit and run all 3 with common ATC. They are all E/W runways so coordinating ATC shouldn't be an issue. Of course this would never work as Heathrow & Gatwick have different owners and an extra runway at one is a licence to print money!
I like the idea but as an air traffic controller that is absolutely crazy. In no world would that ever be possible. They are already incredibly busy and controllers there have to be super skilled, coordinating between the two airports via one atc would quite literally be impossible I’m afraid
@@benr970 Thanks for your reply. For my education, why is it difficult/impossible to operate 2 runways sya 10 miles appart. You would need 2 different ground controlers but why not a single approach/departure controler? How is this much different from operating with 2 paralell runways a mile appart? Thanks for your insight.
@@FasterLower I think it’s purely the size of the operation. Gatwick and Heathrow approach are already done remotely from a place called terminal controller on the south coast and the training for each individually takes a very long time. Nothing would really change controllers would only be allowed to train and be signed off on one airport or one half so it would be a little bit pointless.
Extending 27 *RIGHT* (it is *not* 27 “R”) seems idiotic. A runway overrun would prove very costly, possibly closing down two runways. What are the go-around procedures? If an aircraft is taking off while an aircraft is landing, and the landing aircraft performs a go around, especially if it’s single engine, how will a mid-air collision be avoided?
Tbf it does read stupid at first but what it means is they won’t be clearing the aircraft for take off until they’ve seen the aircraft land. It will save lots of time as you then don’t have to wait for the aircraft to slow all the way down and vacate the runway. Would increase the movements massively
@@LizardDoggo I get what you are saying but this logic can be applied to any part of aviation, what ifs. Stop ends and over runs are there to ensure an aircraft has space to come to a hault in time
If we were a serious nation and ambitious about our global position we would close Heathrow, and Gatwick and instead build 6 runways as the Thames Estuary airport, connected with high-speed rail to the city within 30 minutes. London City should remain for the city and business.
Taking into account all of London’s several airports, the city is by far the busiest metropolitan aviation hub in the world. I think Stansted would be an obvious option. It’s gone from nothing to saturation in 30 years and has the land. I think London will never have a single mega airport, it has many benefits for people to have several different airports around the south east of England as is now. For example when I fly Stansted to AMS, it takes me door to door in 3 hours. Doing that (for me) from Heathrow and it adds another 2 hours just getting there. Airlines are probably avoiding both Gatwick and Stansted because both are single runway operations and running near full capacity. There’s no logic for airlines to build operations at both.
Wrong. The London area is not the busiest metro av hub in the world. The Chinese airports in the Pearl River Delta area is the busiest air transport complex in the world.
@@John-nc4bl Not wrong. Close .... but no cigar. If you consider all London airports (adding in data for London Stansted, Luton, and Southend), the total is just over 175 million which makes the London area the busiest metro aviation hub in the world.
@@John-nc4bl"Pearl River Delta area is busiest air transport complex in the world" lolololol Mate you're drunk AF. No airports in Pearl River Delta area has ever been on the list of top 10 busiest airports in the world, let alone be the world's busiest even though they include Hong Kong and Guangzhou 😂😂😂
Too many (though valid considerations) for aviation upgrade for London. What if Manchester airport was expanded to include a third runway with complimentary facilities and then a sizeable slize of new connecting flights are routed through Manchester. Since all six airports in the London area cannot be upgraded without all these considerations. That's on the assumption that Manchester airport doesn't have is own share of limitations for expansion.
I live in Manchester and I couldn’t see it having anymore than it’s current 2 runways. Plus not really much space to build a 3rd and we aren’t nearly as busy as LHR.
The NIMBYism is ludicrous. Adding 2 more runways to LHR should not be a problem. It's not like they are bulldozing pristine forest or parts of the main city. As already commented, it'll help reducing some CO2 because of less circling of the planes waiting to land. Meanwhile India is doubling their number of airports.
I want to know why they haven't finished terminal 2 yet. I was supposed to have been built/extended on the terminal 1 site. But terminal 1 is still standing.
Oh I also forgot to tell you I also like the idea of extending runway 27R instead of a third runway Because the third runway is met with extremely stern criticism
Gatwick is in a stupid place being difficult to get to from anywhere north of London. Expanding Gatwick would be ridiculous. I live in Cambridge so not far north of London and my heart sinks if a package holiday I've booked flies from Gatwick.
The Heathrow is not fit for flight transfers. Going from one international terminal to another international/domestic flight requires going thru customs. What a drag. I will never go thru Heathrow for flight transfers again.
I say replace Heathrow, Stansted, and Gatwick all with a new and improved, Manston Mega Airport that can be linked up to HS1. And then use all the space of Heathrow to solve the housing crisis.
The cost and disruption by moving Motorways and building tunnels around LHR with a 3rd runways is a cause for concern. There is a very cost effective and timely plan to move the LGW taxiway a few meters (3.5 Metres) north and use this as a 2nd runway for short haul aircraft thus freeing up the main runway for wide body jets. There are numerous Long haul airlines using LGW. -BA, TUI, NORSE, Emirates, Qatar, Delta, Air Transat, Air Arabia, Air China, Air India, Air Mauritius, Bamboo Airways, China Eastern, Ethiopian airlines, Jet Blue, and Royal Air Maroc, etc. LGW is the busiest single runway airport in the world. So all that is needed in the short term is an improved rail link to LHR via Reading which is mainly in place but needs upgrading. The LHR expansion is urgently needed but there is little Budget or the desire to endure the disruption.
People need to understand that it’s not just about “why don’t they just expand …” Because NONE of the London airports have hub status like Heathrow. And airlines have no interested in shifting their operations from Heathrow to Gatwick or even Stansted, because they can charge a premium to fly to Heathrow due to its connectivity. Aviation contributes around 2% to global greenhouse gas emissions. What Heathrow really needs is significant passenger and rail cargo links to take pressure off the roads.
By the time we have prevaricated about a third runway, Heathrow will need a fourth. It’s time we did an Amsterdam and built an additional two or three runways for future-proofing. Gatwick also needs another runway urgently.
Absolutely
At this point, expanding where there's room (Stansted for example) and then distributing flights between all of them wouldn't be a bad idea actually.
We don't do that here.
HS2 was needed 20 years ago and we're still not sure we're still going to get it as it is, nevermind has what it needs to be for now, or where it may need to be in 50/60 years
@@RunawayTrain2502 Heathrow is the hub for connecting flights though. People travel through it to other destinations. Airlines have already shown their unwillingness to use other airports such as Gatwick and if they don’t use Heathrow they’ll be looking towards other hubs across Europe.
It is what it is so unfortunately we’re stuck with Heathrow
Again a new four runway airport in the Thames estuary would have fixed all this.
Oh man American's trying to pronounce English towns.
honestly if they just watch english pronounciations for 3 minutes....
@@Jmaster009 my point exactly. These people are trying to promote themselves educating others when they can't even educate themselves.
Some of them get it but some are just, well it is like my way or the highway
Like Brits trying to pronounce Yosemite and Michigan!
@@edwardjones4870 I like to think I do alright with them.
Imagine building a house or choosing to live near an airport and then getting mad about what happens at an airport…
A lot of the houses were there before the airport tho.. & some people have lived there before the airports creation
@@lizzyxo9015 heathrow opened in 1946 so i doubt anyone who was living there before that is still living there now
@@lizzyxo9015 No, the airport was built in open farmland back in the 40s. Heathrow was there before anyone else.
@@lizzyxo9015 Whatta silly comment
@@shchorss Except for those who lived in Sipson, Harmondsworth, Harlington, Colnbrook, Stanwell, Ashford, Cranford, Bedfont, Poyle etc.
Outstanding pronunciation of Luton and Gillingham. Top stuff!
And Farnborough. 😂
Lu-tawn sounds so posh.😂
@@CallieMasters5000 NO American accent sounds posh lol
It’s AI and isn’t it crazy how there’s people in this world who aren’t British? Insane 😂
@@ashdog236 Glad that you Yanks have remembered that there are in fact other, civilised nations, outside of the +1 dialing prefix. Also, it's ALUMINIUM, coloUr, honoUr, and there's a metric system you may want to look in to. Long live Canada
I don't know but I think that a 3rd runway would decrease carbon emissions in the long run. As the situation currently is with just 2 runways (i.e. only one runway for landings), it cannot handle the huge influx of incoming aircraft. For this reason, arrivals have to circle over London before being cleared to approach and land, burning more fuel and emitting more CO2 in the process. Therefore, I think that a 3rd runway would actually be environmentally beneficial if properly and efficiently used.
That would only be true if the number of landings would remain the same. Which we all know is not true.
@@jcspotter7322 😂
@@jcspotter7322 CO2 isn't the problem? Best go back to Elementary School if you believe that.
I’m with KevonVideo on this, by adding a third runway they will just increase the number of flights in and out of Heathrow in line with the airport’s increased capacity.
@@jcspotter7322 More CO2 doesn't equal more plants. All living plant species today are capable of growing with *less* CO2 than is currently in the atmosphere, but they can't grow on land that is inundated by saltwater encroachment from sea level raise, and are killed by wildfire and drought. There's no scenario where expanding the amount of air traffic is a net benefit to the environment.
While I understand there are many issues, the fact that London is surrounded by so many other airports sort of demands that they be utilized. The airlines can assist in how this might be done.
The problem with that is the economic requirement to use Heathrow as a hub & the UK's location at the edge of Europe makes it ideal for this.
If you're flying in on one flight and out on another, being told you have to get on the train to one of the other airports for the connecting flight is not going to be popular.
@@TheRip72 Could the hub be in another city? If you are just passing through, why does it need to be in London?
@@mattevans4377 well technically yes it could. however. you would need:
A. A airport capable of handling that volume of traffic both by air and land.
B. Have enough people with in a area to be able to staff said airport.
C. Need enough airlines to want to fly to that airport above Heathrow. (you will need to incentify them)
D. with all those constraints you will also need to earn back the cost of said airportrport
that would still be very very expensive.
Also if the result would be that the new airport becomes to expensive. you risk that airlines will just ditch your airport and go to a other European hub. (Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt) that would mean that the UK would see a lot of tax income just go away.
it's a tough balance in any situation.
@@owensmith7530he’s just saying use the other airports for local non connecting travel, intra UK and Europe traffic while passengers arriving to connect to the U.S. etc use Heathrow.
"We hate every option and just want to complain." Got it.
That is the way........
This was said by an Am---с*an, because he doesn’t care about the residents of the London suburbs!
They definitely need to complain and not remain silent, like an ewe to the slaughter, otherwise the corporacrats will sit on these people’s heads.
Silence and resignation are signs of servility, sycophancy and slavish thinking.
Brit here. FYI, the expansion of Heathrow is absolutely NOT one of the most controversial issues we’ve got. It is important to the
It's absolutely mind boggling how long they've been dithering on adding just one runway to Heathrow. 2 runways for such an airport is way too much traffic per runway, yet it's been a decade and nothing's happening.
Their climate agenda had an unintended consequence 🤔
Yet they've squandered billions on test and trace
A bit more than a decade! More like 5 decades.
That's British beaurocracy and red tape for you though.
In Mumbai we operate almost same capacity, on Single operating Runway.
It's pretty hard to explain to people outside the UK how SLOW it is to travel a mile relative to countries like Canada or the US. Unless there is high speed rail out to the east, it'll never make sense to reallocate LHR's status as number one in the area. If you live on opposite sides of the city you'll know how long or expensive it is to travel the region. Personally I am all for the airport going waaaaay up the Thames estuary but the costs will be eye watering.
You've never driven across Toronto during commute times :)
Thames estuary is not a choice, too far away. It takes me sometimes to travel from south London to Heathrow more than 1 hour in the morning before the traffic kicks in. Gatwick expansion is much better and cheaper option.
I’ve travelled it and you’re exaggerating, it’s really not that bad
Though I now live in the north and travelling a miles pretty quick
@@UraFlight I always thought that the Gatwick option was the most sensible.
Don't you have these things called trains there? A sensible airport places far more emphasis on integration with the train network, not the road network - that's certainly the case in the rest of Europe. Oh, that's right - you don't think of yourselves as part of Europe.
Aside from a couple of mispronounced towns, I found this video entertaining, well-researched and historically accurate.
Farnbruh and ̶g̶ luten 🙂
@@Aeronaut1975 "Loo-Tonn" was hilarious.
Good for you lol
I don’t understand how people buy properties close to airports and then complain about noise and air pollution.
Because people like to complain.
Because most of the villagers have been built before the airport
@@andmos1001still, if you dont like it just move away. An airports gotta be somewhere
And this is why we have poor economic growth. We dither when it comes to new projects
I grew up 4 miles from LHR in the 50s and 60s when there were six runways. The shorter runways were gradually closed as aircraft got bigger and longer runways were needed. Terminal 3 was built on one runway and parking stands on another. Even in the 60s and 70s there were proposals for a third runway to the north.
I worked at STN and LGW in the 80s. Neither initially had any scheduled services.
I remember when American tried a service from STN to Chicago or was it Pittsburgh. Passengers arriving from the US were horrified that they had to take a bus to LHR for their onward flights. End of American service.
It has taken 40 years for LGW and STN to get where they are now and airlines forced to move. I now frequently travel LGW-TPA rather than from LHR as that requires a change at MIA, CLT or PHL.
While LHR continues as a principal transit hub its expansion does seem an intractable problem. I don't think I will see a solution in my lifetime.
Virgin now flies to Tampa from LHR!
@@prachyavandegevel7176 Thanks. I was aware of them starting the service but the Virgin rate from LHR is 50% more at the moment than BA from LGW.
Heathrow had its 3rd runway in the 90s! It was, like the others that were built on, only for when the landing crosswinds were too high. 3 runway operations was always entertaining! To make Heathrow catch up to the rest of the BIG international airports. It needs to have a 3rd parallel runway. This year (2023) Heathrow is scheduled to break pre covid movement records! During covid Heathrow was the only airfield in the UK to maintain over 100 movements (arrival/departures) per day. Gatwick dropped to 10!
Heathrow originally had 7 runways IIRC
I say replace Heathrow, Stansted, and Gatwick all with a new and improved, Manston Mega Airport that can be linked up to HS1. And then use all the space of Heathrow to solve the housing crisis.
Just go ahead and do it. The NIMBYs will always be there
Pronunciation of Luton was amazing! Loo-ton!
"Farnborough" is pronounced "farn-bruh" (but it's said as one word), and not "farn-burrow". Any time you see "borough" in an English place name (or 'a burgh' in in a Scotish place name), it's always pronounced "bruh". Also, "Luton" rhymes with "gluten", exactly the same in fact, but without the 'g' at the front).
Love that you have the SS Montgomery marked on your map! Let's not build too close to her... just in case.
why not. it would have to get the let the aircrafts fly very fast very quickly.
Like it or not, Heathrow needs another runway, the same for Gatwick
How are local carbon (dioxide) emissions a negative factor for residents? There are actual pollutants that come out of the back of jet engines that can influence air quality at ground level, but CO2 isn't one of them.
BTW, it's pronounced Lut-un.
London needs a bare minimum of two more runways, and more likely three of four. IMHO, Heathrow needs two more runways, Gatwick needs one more, and Stansted one more.
They need 4 parallel runways and 24/7 like LAX so they can run traffic all the time.
Personally I don’t know if it’s just the American in me but I feel London Heathrow is way too big and way too busy to only have two runways one of my local airports Chicago O’Hare has it least 6, 8 total if I’m not mistaken and we don’t see nearly as much international travel
O’Hare mostly narrow body flights and it reserved a huge land for expansion, Heathrow doesn't have.
Your local airport isn’t a local airport, o’Hare is the most connected airport in the world
Missed out London's sixth Airport London Southend(SEN) also Luton(LTN) LewTon is pronounced Lewten!
Lew tawn
Growth is no longer an acceptable paradigm for today’s world.
Not in a lot of western economies - will soon be ruled over by the Chinese, so no worries..........
London trasit is terrible. I'm from Brazil and I haven't seen any country as expensive for mobility as the UK. Eurostar is insanely expensive, and I paid £19 to get Gatwick, that is more than a round-trip to Luton. London lack of options to its airports. If I haven't take the train to gatwick, I would've have to pay a £70 uber. In Lisbon you can get to the airport for €1, in Porto it's a €16 uber, in orlando that would be $26 if you're not already renting a car. In my city, São Paulo, we have a 30 minute train every hour for R$4,40; that's less than a pound. My currency is crap, but I truly believe even americans would be shocked by the prices, and the Luton bus is so slow. These this are very stressful because one day you have to be up at 6 in paris to get to luton at 10 but you'll only arrive at Victoria by 12. 6 hours for 400 km, and slower than going by car. I wish I had a chance to watch a game at Anfield or old Trafford, but the bus would cost £60 and take 6 hours. I can only imagine how many Easyjet, ryanair or wizz air flights I could take with that money
Do people not watch other videos that would probably feature correct pronunciations to research information before making these videos?
Problem is, I live 140 miles away from Heathrow but I am basically forced to go there because all the other airports don’t fly to anywhere useful. Trying to fly to Germany, Sweden, Austria etc I have to go to Heathrow?? I have 3 international airports closer but they only fly to Spain / France / Portugal etc! Then you get literally shafted trying to get to Heathrow for £70 on the train or hundreds if you are mad enough to park there. I’d much rather just have more route options from Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff etc…. No one is interested in helping them though
At Heathrow, without demolishing literally thousands of buildings expansion can't happen, so if more capacity in the London area is needed then expansion of the other airports needs examination. A second runway at Gatwick is possible. Stanstead and Luton have scope for expansion but both will need better links to central London and not at the present rip-off prices. Sadly present beaurocrats will talk about it for at least 20 years and will do nothing.
*Stansted*
To me, as a passenger, the most frustrating part of any airport, is transit and taxi time. And since most existing mega-airports in Europe and in the US are either terribly designed from the beginning (JFK, Newark, Gatwick, Heathrow are prime examples of poor design), or have such complicated logistical challenges when trying to expand (surroundings, environment etc)., it seems to me, the only really logical option is to built from scratch, on land that has more or less limitless expansion possibilities. It would also give airport designer a unique opportunity to design and built a facility that optimises the whole travel experience. In the case of London, having a facility that can be open 24 hours and can handle what today's Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted airports can combined, could in the long run, be better, safer and more efficient than what exists today. Some of, if not all 4 before mentioned airports could be closed, or restricted to cargo, domestic and private operations, freeing up massive amounts of living space, which is a massive problem in and around London. It would also make ATC a helluvalot simpler than it is today.
Heathrow actually does rather well in transit time - 15 minutes to the city centre with the Heathrow express, running every quarter hour
JFK is fine
Political inaction costs everyone money. Wilst the new airports would have been "nice" there really is no need for new builds, just more runways, certainly at Heathrow and most likely a second at Gatwick too. The one factor not given enough attention is the number of passengers who change aircraft for onwards connections, look at Dubai and weep. These passengers do not need land transport, just easy inter terminal links and facilities. As a UK resident near London I would not select Heathrow as my first choice airport; I much prefer one of the smaller airports however Heathrow offers a range of destinations second to none - for these it often requires a change of aircraft en route if departing from any other airport.
Just so you know it’s LUTUN, FARNBRUH and JILLING-UM
Build newer bigger and better for the future. Have one big airport and lose the small ones. Use old airports for new developments. Think of the future people and not ur butts. All the airports will need to expand with no land available. Back to one large airport to serve the future of growth.
Awesome video!!
I really have no idea why they dismissed Luton or Stanstead so quickly. Both of those airports have more than enough space for expansion and connectivity to downtown London
I think it’s mostly because major airlines are already well established at Heathrow. Yes, Luton and Stansted both have opportunities for expansion. However Heathrow is already the main airport for Greater London and sees a lot of international traffic from major carriers like American, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, etc. Stansted and Luton both mostly see Low Cost Carriers that focus more on leisure travel which isn’t what London really needs. For expansion at either of those airports to be viable, many of the facilities at those airports would have to be upgraded to be able to handle more passengers and larger aircraft. It’s just more convenient to expand the airport that already specializes in those things.
Japan does it right with Tokyo Haneda and Narita. Narita is largely the international connecting flight field and Haneda is the international terminal. This isn't a rigid rule, but sort of how the division of traffic is done. In the case that a passenger is stopping or departing from Narita, there is a railway connecting to the city
Mostly major airlines don’t want to operate at STN or LTN. It’s as simple as that.
They're both dominated by Low cost airlines, Heathrow is more convenient and Stansted is already hell in terms of delays.
It takes 22 minutes to get from central London to Heathrow on public transport. It takes 1 hour 10 minutes to get to Luton and 55 minutes to get to Stansted. Those airports aren’t appropriate for expansion.
It is a though decision. Environment or economy. I'm not familiar with the situation of people leaving around Heathrow but I do notice that all over the world communities appear around airports that eventually will grow bigger and expect the government to limit that expansion because there are too many planes going over my house. I live 15 minutes from JFK in an area that did not exist when the airport was first build. Now it grew into the major hub that it's but can't expand because of the same concerns of people living around it. Are they supposed to close a runway because too much noise from the planes?
Wanting to lived near the airport due to cheap land prices and better public transport then complained about the noise etc. Might as well shoot yourself in the foot lol
The Boris Island idea is a good one. Although it would require new transport links (roads, trains etc) what people don't realise is that once that is built, Heathrow can be demolished and sold off to developers to make up for the costs as it would be one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in whole of UK and even Europe.
It would have been the easiest one to build etc
They can also legislate against new building permits along its approach vectors so they don't get future noise complaints, and have room for future expansion.
Nice history video!
Thanks!
“The expansion of Heathrow Airport is one of the most controversial issues in the United Kingdom”
Bit dramatic 😅
Gatwick airport need to expand the south terminal is dated Gatwick needs a new runway
There will be no third runway, this is Britain, where all we do is talk.
The issue is the same accross the world in all hubs. Should we make hub to be endless bigger and bigger or should we regionalise a bit aviation?. I know hubs are more profitable for airlines, but for its passengers?.
Perhaps the problem with LHR is not if more runways could be added but if air space around London is able be accomodate more and more planes. Interesting debate
The nonsensical net zero policy is likely to scupper everything…for no gain!
Its about time they just got on and upgraded Heathrow, to hell with what locals think. It was a choice they made when they moved in next to a major international airport!
06:40 I don't see why the M20 relocation should cause a big disruption. (1) Just build the new Western lanes completely including tunnels, then shift northbound traffic to the new section. Connecting the new section at both ends to the rest of the motorway should be a matter of days only, if not hours. Then destroy old Western lanes. (2) Do the same with southbound eastern lanes. (3) Done. (4) I'm not saying it would be cheap, I'm just saying there wouldn't be a big disruption.
why is there a hill at 1:38 that's 3 hours from London?
As busy as it is, how does LHR function with only two runways?! It truly boggles my mind!
Lots and lots of air traffic flow delays… and a crap load of holding patterns
Of course it is going to take a disaster due to overcrowding and too much work for some poor air traffic controller before people get the point that a runway expansion is in the long run cheaper than the alternative. IMO most cost-benefit analyses for projects do not pay enough attention to hidden benefits like this.
They have no choice
Personally I think heathrow should start operating 24 hours a day on a limited service ofcourse. Aircract have become a lot quiter than they used to be and triple glazed windows are much better. They could use different approach patters/ steeper flide slopes to reduce the noise at night for the local residents.
This would create so much more capacity.
Agree, I flew in to Gatwick from Argentina a few years ago landing around 3am and it was empty and a dream. Apparently only certain aircraft can but was no bother at all, but then you do see the photos at Heathrow of them so low over houses.
When people say an airport should be built on the east side of London or South they forget most infrastructure to transport people is to the west of London. Extending Heathrow is the best option. It is far cheaper and less nature destruction than building new infrastructure to a new airport or expanding others it would be better to close one or two of the others and concentrating on Heathrow.
And with the new HS2 connections and with the newly opened Elizabeth Line connections to Heathrow it needs to happen. Also the connection to Manchester Airport with 50minutes on the train will be even better.
The original judgment in the judicial review action against the UK Government in respect of the proposed Heathrow expansion was overturned in October 2020, on an appeal brought by the owners of Heathrow Airport to the UK Supreme Court.
LuTAWN and FarnBUHROWWW 🤢
Carbon Emissions what a crock!
LUTAAN 🤔
Heathrow should have 6 runways at least according to the amount of air traffic.
Would be nice if we had as much spare land as America has.
@@B-A-LIt's the mentality which is the problem mate, not the land. If UK cities can be all planned like in Netherlands or if people are willing to lived in apartments and condominiums there'll be plenty of land for airport expansion. Just asked the Japanese or the Dutch
The only need 4 parallel runways and operate 24/7 like LAX. That would more than double what they handle now.
I remember when I worked for Ford in Essex, and Ford Air was Stansted’s biggest user and received priority clearance when taking off. Talking about a new site south of Southend on Sea, Southend airport is also now called London Southend and is considered London’s 6th airport. Also, as a child, there was the Maplin Sands sea and airport project, which was never realised.
from a cursery glance at all secondary london airport expansion options, stansted seems the most practical, it has ample room to the east for a parallel runway and a new terminal complex, mirroring the existing and room for efficient taxiway routings to connect both sides... departure and approach routes of the new runway would also hardly overfly any densly populated towns and there is already a raillink which of course should be a priority to optimize/expand if this solution is considered
They should just expand Heathrow as Gatwick and some other airports are much further away from central London
I don't understand why they don't try to distribute the load from LHR to the other airports in the area around London? Surely it would be cheaper to add facilities to Stansted and Gatwick. Or even Southend. Gatwick is literally surrounded by fields and farmlands. And Stansted has huge tracks of fields all around it that can be bought for use.
That is not how you get an enhanced hub.
Luton and South End are hardly London big airports and no one goes anywhere apart from Gatwick or Heathrow. Gatwick should get second runway and put a high speed rail link between the two
also Heathrow have historically bad management and excessive waste. Gatwick is run much better and is all round the best idea from someone who lives in the area.
and the rail line is fine not really that close to capacity
They should have expanded both Heathrow and Gatwick and strengthen the link between the twins instead of wasting time tailspinning.
I never understood why it was a competition, with only one airport getting the new runway. We only have one airport with more than one runway which is a sad story. Why not have a massive investment with Gatwick, Heathrow, Stanstead, Birmingham and Manchester. Make Britain great again.
Here's a radical proposal. Reopen Wisley (2km runway at A3/M25 junction), link it, Heathrow & Gatwick with some form of high-speed transit and run all 3 with common ATC. They are all E/W runways so coordinating ATC shouldn't be an issue. Of course this would never work as Heathrow & Gatwick have different owners and an extra runway at one is a licence to print money!
I like the idea but as an air traffic controller that is absolutely crazy. In no world would that ever be possible. They are already incredibly busy and controllers there have to be super skilled, coordinating between the two airports via one atc would quite literally be impossible I’m afraid
@@benr970 Thanks for your reply. For my education, why is it difficult/impossible to operate 2 runways sya 10 miles appart. You would need 2 different ground controlers but why not a single approach/departure controler? How is this much different from operating with 2 paralell runways a mile appart? Thanks for your insight.
@@FasterLower I think it’s purely the size of the operation. Gatwick and Heathrow approach are already done remotely from a place called terminal controller on the south coast and the training for each individually takes a very long time. Nothing would really change controllers would only be allowed to train and be signed off on one airport or one half so it would be a little bit pointless.
@@benr970 Many thanks for the explanation.
What is Runway “Twenty-seven R?” or “Oh Nine L?” How about “Two Seven Right,” and “Zero Nine Left?” Great video otherwise.
The reason the expansion is delayed is that the English do nothing but complain and never get anything done.
It's not pronounced lute-on, but Loo-tun.
Extending 27 *RIGHT* (it is *not* 27 “R”) seems idiotic. A runway overrun would prove very costly, possibly closing down two runways. What are the go-around procedures? If an aircraft is taking off while an aircraft is landing, and the landing aircraft performs a go around, especially if it’s single engine, how will a mid-air collision be avoided?
Tbf it does read stupid at first but what it means is they won’t be clearing the aircraft for take off until they’ve seen the aircraft land. It will save lots of time as you then don’t have to wait for the aircraft to slow all the way down and vacate the runway. Would increase the movements massively
@@benr970 Brake failure? What will save it then?
@@LizardDoggo I get what you are saying but this logic can be applied to any part of aviation, what ifs. Stop ends and over runs are there to ensure an aircraft has space to come to a hault in time
How about we invest massively in SAF to shut these climate campaigners up, then we can add more runways to Heathrow, Gatwick
If we were a serious nation and ambitious about our global position we would close Heathrow, and Gatwick and instead build 6 runways as the Thames Estuary airport, connected with high-speed rail to the city within 30 minutes. London City should remain for the city and business.
20 years later we're still discussing whether we should have a third runway.
Taking into account all of London’s several airports, the city is by far the busiest metropolitan aviation hub in the world. I think Stansted would be an obvious option. It’s gone from nothing to saturation in 30 years and has the land. I think London will never have a single mega airport, it has many benefits for people to have several different airports around the south east of England as is now. For example when I fly Stansted to AMS, it takes me door to door in 3 hours. Doing that (for me) from Heathrow and it adds another 2 hours just getting there.
Airlines are probably avoiding both Gatwick and Stansted because both are single runway operations and running near full capacity. There’s no logic for airlines to build operations at both.
Wrong.
The London area is not the busiest metro av hub in the world.
The Chinese airports in the Pearl River Delta area is the busiest air transport complex in the world.
@@John-nc4bl I’ve never heard of a city called Pearl River Delta.
@@John-nc4bl Not wrong. Close .... but no cigar. If you consider all London airports (adding in data for London Stansted, Luton, and Southend), the total is just over 175 million which makes the London area the busiest metro aviation hub in the world.
@@John-nc4bl"Pearl River Delta area is busiest air transport complex in the world" lolololol
Mate you're drunk AF. No airports in Pearl River Delta area has ever been on the list of top 10 busiest airports in the world, let alone be the world's busiest even though they include Hong Kong and Guangzhou 😂😂😂
Too many (though valid considerations) for aviation upgrade for London.
What if Manchester airport was expanded to include a third runway with complimentary facilities and then a sizeable slize of new connecting flights are routed through Manchester. Since all six airports in the London area cannot be upgraded without all these considerations.
That's on the assumption that Manchester airport doesn't have is own share of limitations for expansion.
I live in Manchester and I couldn’t see it having anymore than it’s current 2 runways. Plus not really much space to build a 3rd and we aren’t nearly as busy as LHR.
London Heathrow Airport wants to expand even more with the runway to extend and to go over the M25 London Orbital Motorway near Staines.
The NIMBYism is ludicrous. Adding 2 more runways to LHR should not be a problem. It's not like they are bulldozing pristine forest or parts of the main city. As already commented, it'll help reducing some CO2 because of less circling of the planes waiting to land. Meanwhile India is doubling their number of airports.
As much I would love to see this come into fruition but I think it will takes years as well as billions to build, et cetera 👍
I want to know why they haven't finished terminal 2 yet. I was supposed to have been built/extended on the terminal 1 site. But terminal 1 is still standing.
Omg Luton pronunciation is really making me frustrated watching this video
Is a half empty train at capacity? I’ve been on the HS1 trains and half the seats are empty. So how the fuck is that at capacity?????????
Oh I also forgot to tell you
I also like the idea of extending runway 27R instead of a third runway
Because the third runway is met with extremely stern criticism
You should consult Lopez Obrador. The brilliant mexican president who solved mexican air traffic problem .
Irony
Or, just leave London airports and England alone. Global airlines can set up in airports at other more favorable European country/Cities.
mate, luton aint some fancy place that needs to be pronuonced like that, its a shite hole XD
Gatwick is in a stupid place being difficult to get to from anywhere north of London. Expanding Gatwick would be ridiculous. I live in Cambridge so not far north of London and my heart sinks if a package holiday I've booked flies from Gatwick.
30 mins on train from London Victoria is not difficult.
@@johnguidetti5839 And you expect me to do that by train from Cambridge with suitcases and a 79 year old mother? Not going to happen.
LUUUTE UNNN
American's trying to pronounce English town names is a whole vibe. Luton. FML.
The Heathrow is not fit for flight transfers. Going from one international terminal to another international/domestic flight requires going thru customs. What a drag. I will never go thru Heathrow for flight transfers again.
Gillingham: pronounced Jill-ing-um. A soft G and no emphasis on the ham. 🙄😖
this country is such a joke, they want economic growth but refuse to invest in any infrastructure project. Lmao. Doomed.
All these hindrances in building infrastructures actually holding back european economies. And cost to spiral.
Heathrow already has a third runway, cunningly disguised as RAF Northolt.
I say replace Heathrow, Stansted, and Gatwick all with a new and improved, Manston Mega Airport that can be linked up to HS1. And then use all the space of Heathrow to solve the housing crisis.
If you are making a video about the UK, you could try learning how to pronounce place names properly
Luuuutoann lol
IMHO , Gatwick should have had the go-ahead for expansion , NOT Heathrow
Constantly speaking about 6 airports, while showing only 5 in the map is a bit irritating ;-)
If you're going to make a video at least try and pronounce places properly.
Sorry but HS1 is really not at capacity yet, like 4 trains use it every hour from St Pancras
They should build the runways at Heathrow & Gatwick
This problem would have been over by now if they had built a new airport in the Thames estuary 15 years ago.
The cost and disruption by moving Motorways and building tunnels around LHR with a 3rd runways is a cause for concern. There is a very cost effective and timely plan to move the LGW taxiway a few meters (3.5 Metres) north and use this as a 2nd runway for short haul aircraft thus freeing up the main runway for wide body jets. There are numerous Long haul airlines using LGW. -BA, TUI, NORSE, Emirates, Qatar, Delta, Air Transat, Air Arabia, Air China, Air India, Air Mauritius, Bamboo Airways, China Eastern, Ethiopian airlines, Jet Blue, and Royal Air Maroc, etc. LGW is the busiest single runway airport in the world. So all that is needed in the short term is an improved rail link to LHR via Reading which is mainly in place but needs upgrading. The LHR expansion is urgently needed but there is little Budget or the desire to endure the disruption.
Where is this loo ton ? China ?
People need to understand that it’s not just about “why don’t they just expand …”
Because NONE of the London airports have hub status like Heathrow. And airlines have no interested in shifting their operations from Heathrow to Gatwick or even Stansted, because they can charge a premium to fly to Heathrow due to its connectivity. Aviation contributes around 2% to global greenhouse gas emissions. What Heathrow really needs is significant passenger and rail cargo links to take pressure off the roads.
This is a phenomenal video. It has everything you need to know! Love it
thank you so much!
@@AirwaysMagazine just your pronunciations are a little comical 😂
Everything in this video has been covered b4, nothing new here. Just copied and pasted from other sources