New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DS,
True, but still an extension in pieces (Maasvlakte 1, then 2), rather than a completely new venture. A port does tend to benefit slightly from being next to the sea
Yes, whatever they do, there will be politics, but it has to make commercial sense too, not just in terms of can it be built to give shareholders an ROI, but also how could such an airport be built by sacrificing at least one other going concern, and still satisfy (a) the shareholders of all and (b) competition authorities.
I don't doubt that an estuary airport is technically feasible, but we don't have much precedent of doing this in the UK. History also shows that even if a plan is developed for a new superhub, the older, closer (to the city centre) airport remains open, as in SEL, TPE etc, more often than it does not.
Not an unheard of volume though, the Rotterdam extension is about 7 square miles and directly onto the North Sea.
Ultimately this is a political decision, the rest of it is just engineering and fairly well understood engineering at that.
I don't doubt that an estuary airport is technically feasible, but we don't have much precedent of doing this in the UK. History also shows that even if a plan is developed for a new superhub, the older, closer (to the city centre) airport remains open, as in SEL, TPE etc, more often than it does not.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its about time that we got real and accepted the fact that the Middle East and Euro hubs have stolen the game from under our noses, so what do we do ?
Spend Billions on a scheme to show we are the centre of the universe or let them spend their billions on superhubs, and we use their facilities.
London is never going to be a branch line regardless of what happens, capacity can be maintained by use of A380s but where compromise has to be made is this never ending desire to have point to point from London to every point on the world.
Sorry London but you are going to have to change planes for the first time in your lives
Spend Billions on a scheme to show we are the centre of the universe or let them spend their billions on superhubs, and we use their facilities.
London is never going to be a branch line regardless of what happens, capacity can be maintained by use of A380s but where compromise has to be made is this never ending desire to have point to point from London to every point on the world.
Sorry London but you are going to have to change planes for the first time in your lives
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN777,
For the time being at least, LHR is still Europe's busiest airport. London's airports combined still keep the world aviation capital title (by pax numbers).
Not feasible for shorter routes, where frequency is needed, and load times would prevent fast turnaround. But in principle I agree - larger aircraft means more pax from same runway, but still creates issues with wake, and land still needs to be found for the terminals. I think switching 737-500s to 800s, sacrificing some shorthaul frequencies for larger a/c on long haul more likely change.
This is a natural desire anywhere, and remember that whether ptp or connecting, a seat is still occupied - and the hop to AMS or CDG for conx uses MORE runway space than direct in a 777 going direct as the hop uses a smaller aicraft.
Yet, despite rising fuel costs, despite UK APD being a notch higher than everywhere else, people still want to come and go from London. LGW is seeing a big uptake in Asian routes, and it has room to expand in a way which is far more cost effective and politically do-able than either a new airport-on-sea or at LHR.
Don't forget that UK regional airports have done very well out of the growth in locost carriers - I remember EDI's route map in my days as a student there until '98, very few European cities served directly, now look at it, not to mention EWR too.
For the time being at least, LHR is still Europe's busiest airport. London's airports combined still keep the world aviation capital title (by pax numbers).
capacity can be maintained by use of A380s
never ending desire to have point to point from London to every point on the world
Yet, despite rising fuel costs, despite UK APD being a notch higher than everywhere else, people still want to come and go from London. LGW is seeing a big uptake in Asian routes, and it has room to expand in a way which is far more cost effective and politically do-able than either a new airport-on-sea or at LHR.
Don't forget that UK regional airports have done very well out of the growth in locost carriers - I remember EDI's route map in my days as a student there until '98, very few European cities served directly, now look at it, not to mention EWR too.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 69
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverstrata has a point re building on sand. The Rio-Antirrio bridge across the Gulf of Corinth is built on a level gravel/sand base. There are no piles through this as the Gulf is increasing in width by about an inch a year and therefore the bridge has to expand and move to accommodate this. The area is prone to earthquakes and since it's opening the area has suffered a quite severe earthquake with no damage to the bridge. The sand would have to be contained by a sturdy perimeter wall. In areas of very high load it would be possible to use rock etc for the island formation. Therefore by careful planning a mixed sand and rock island could be built. Areas between the runways could be sand based as well as possibly some of the terminal buildings (depending on there design). Whilst areas of higher loading could be built on rock. It would be expensive but with good design it would be possible.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdeal:
Silverstrata, you keep stating that LHR will be sold or have to close, but you consistently fail to explain WHY Ferrovial (as owners of the airport) would be inclined to either sell or close the airport.
Jabird:
they would still have to be paid the market value of the site as a going concern + a premium. One hell of a purchase for a closure which would not be operationally compulsory!
Silverstrata, you keep stating that LHR will be sold or have to close, but you consistently fail to explain WHY Ferrovial (as owners of the airport) would be inclined to either sell or close the airport.
Jabird:
they would still have to be paid the market value of the site as a going concern + a premium. One hell of a purchase for a closure which would not be operationally compulsory!
And if the Spanish don't want to get involved with part ownership of Silver Island, then the government ends up owning and operating (and later privatising) a huge public asset.
Jabird:
Also, for such a hub to work, it is likely that other airports might need to close too.
Also, for such a hub to work, it is likely that other airports might need to close too.
But if LGW and STN do end up with less traffic and partially closing, it's their own damn fault. They have been repeatedly offered expansion and more jobs over decades, and they have repeatedly said: "no we don't want any new investment, and we don't want any new jobs or any job security."
Ok, so if these regions want their primary employer to wither and die, and become unemployment blackspots, so be it - their choice.
Man7:
Sorry London but you are going to have to change planes for the first time in your lives ((not enough point-to-point flights from LHR))
Sorry London but you are going to have to change planes for the first time in your lives ((not enough point-to-point flights from LHR))
Can you just imagine a Germany that cornered the market in all of Europe's high tech manufacturing (as it already does), and then became Europe's primary financial center too. This would be a worrying financial and political dominance, I would say.
Flightman:
Are The Palm and The World islands sinking?
Not a good advertisement for that type of construction is it?
Jabird:
I don't doubt that an estuary airport is technically feasible, but we don't have much precedent of doing this in the UK.
Are The Palm and The World islands sinking?
Not a good advertisement for that type of construction is it?
Jabird:
I don't doubt that an estuary airport is technically feasible, but we don't have much precedent of doing this in the UK.
However, if you can imagine something like the Brighton Marina filled with clean sand, you get the idea. Constrained sand is a very good construction foundation, as we have proved, and those concrete caissons at Brighton have stood for 40 years, and will easily stand for another 60.
And the construction technique for Silver-Boris Island would be the same as at Brighton - cast a caisson on top of the last one, then winch it out and drop it in. Tried, tested, quick and effective - and you just keep going and going until you meet your start point.
The bottom line here is: Can LHR serve London, Britain and Europe for the next half century?
The answer is: No.
So what to do? LHR is irreversibly constrained in:
noise,
departure and approach safety,
surface transport links,
flight transport links,
curfews,
runway numbers,
runway separations (for parallel approaches),
taxiway space and separation (especially with A380s),
Thus a new location is a must, and so there is no argument here. The only question, is where that new location should be. Silver-Foster on Grain or Silver-Boris Island?
.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverstrata,
For the government to pass a law you imply that LHR would be nationalised, it's owner, Ferrovial, would be compensated (at taxpayers' expense), and that taxpayers' money would fund the Thames airport and associated infrastructure.
How likely is that?
The Conservative government's policy in the 1980s was to privatise airports and those owned by the government were sold off. Conservative policy has not changed, Labour is as Thatcherite as the Conservatives, so they will not take this course of action. The Libdems and other parties will never get the opportunity to take this course of action, so it will never happen.
Apart from that, it cannot be afforded, and if it could, there are more important calls on taxpayers' money.
Your comment "I already avoid the place like the plague because of previous bad experiences" is quite revealing, it suggests that your arguments are subjective rather than objective.
For the government to pass a law you imply that LHR would be nationalised, it's owner, Ferrovial, would be compensated (at taxpayers' expense), and that taxpayers' money would fund the Thames airport and associated infrastructure.
How likely is that?
The Conservative government's policy in the 1980s was to privatise airports and those owned by the government were sold off. Conservative policy has not changed, Labour is as Thatcherite as the Conservatives, so they will not take this course of action. The Libdems and other parties will never get the opportunity to take this course of action, so it will never happen.
Apart from that, it cannot be afforded, and if it could, there are more important calls on taxpayers' money.
Your comment "I already avoid the place like the plague because of previous bad experiences" is quite revealing, it suggests that your arguments are subjective rather than objective.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought Heathrow's 3rd Runway was approved and in the bag with private finance available then the current Government killed it....An act of vandalism in my book.
Strong safety argument for extra runways at all of LHR, LGW, STN in my opinion
Strong safety argument for extra runways at all of LHR, LGW, STN in my opinion
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ts called a compulsory purchase, or even nationalisation - an established political procedure. The whole of BAA is only about £4 billion (from October share sale), so about £2 bn would secure LHR.
That is exactly why I referred to LHR as a 'not operationally compulsory' purchase - in other words, LHR does not have to close for S/B Island to function.
Therefore, the proposition is a commercial one - SBI needs LHR out of the way to be viable, but FGP will take one of two actions - either they will fight it in the courts, dragging on for years, or they will say ok, yes, you can buy us out, but you have to pay top whack.
Where do you get the £4bn figure from? BAA was delisted in 06 at £10bn. T5 alone cost £4.2bn, and is a going concern. True, market has seen better days, but LHR traffic still holding up, even if malls may be suffering a bit.
Now the city is well accustomed with the concept of buying businesses and asset stripping or evaluating their component parts as being worth more than the sum of the whole, but I put it to you that LHR is very much a going concern, and worth more open than closed.
If LHR took up the kind of space that RUH or DEN do, then fine - you can fit Manhattan into the space these places take up, but LHR just isn't like that, hence the reason why it is difficult to expand. Central Area + T5 + 2 runways either side + T4 outside this is a very compact model indeed. There might be some land around the airport currently used for parking that could be better used, but that is no concern of SBI Operating Holdings Ltd / PLC.
The development and sale of LHR would gain £12 bn according to Foster, but I think it would be more than this.
I'm just not convinced that terminal building recycle easily into other structures - not the same as stations, where huge vaulted roofs can house conference / concert facilities (M-Central), Museums (Orsay, Paris) etc etc.
If that means the whole site gets flattened, including his mate Lord Rogers' T5, then I'm sure Foster would be delighted!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Foster reveals further details about his airport.
Lord Foster reveals further details about his Thames Estuary airport plan
a. The wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery, a Second World War ship packed with explosives, poses no danger.
(Spin and mirrors, obviously he knew nothing about the ship and its dangers).
b. A new study indicates that the risk of bird strikes on aircraft is not unique to the Thames Estuary and that this risk could be successfully managed.
(His researcher has been to Pprune, and seen my postings).
In addition, the airport layout has changed. Suddenly we have:
Taxiways in between the runways.
No terminal buildings at the end of the runways.
Some runways longer and some shorter.
Someone has obviously been tuning into Pprune. Eventually, we may even get the runways orientated into the prevailing wind and thus nicely offsetting the easterly approach so it is not over central London. And we may even get runways at least 1500m apart for simultaneous approaches too - you never know.
And how about the two commuter runways, Fosty? There is not much point just replicating LHR to the east of London. Would just 4 runways really give us the extra capacity that this new airport would need to justify its existence?
More details from the Foster website.
Foster + Partners
But this is how it should be done....
.
Lord Foster reveals further details about his Thames Estuary airport plan
a. The wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery, a Second World War ship packed with explosives, poses no danger.
(Spin and mirrors, obviously he knew nothing about the ship and its dangers).
b. A new study indicates that the risk of bird strikes on aircraft is not unique to the Thames Estuary and that this risk could be successfully managed.
(His researcher has been to Pprune, and seen my postings).
In addition, the airport layout has changed. Suddenly we have:
Taxiways in between the runways.
No terminal buildings at the end of the runways.
Some runways longer and some shorter.
Someone has obviously been tuning into Pprune. Eventually, we may even get the runways orientated into the prevailing wind and thus nicely offsetting the easterly approach so it is not over central London. And we may even get runways at least 1500m apart for simultaneous approaches too - you never know.
And how about the two commuter runways, Fosty? There is not much point just replicating LHR to the east of London. Would just 4 runways really give us the extra capacity that this new airport would need to justify its existence?
More details from the Foster website.
Foster + Partners
But this is how it should be done....
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 10th Dec 2011 at 18:12.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdeal:
For the government to pass a law you imply that LHR would be nationalised, it's owner, Ferrovial, would be compensated (at taxpayers' expense), and that taxpayers' money would fund the Thames airport and associated infrastructure. How likely is that?
Jabird:
Where do you get the £4bn figure from? BAA was delisted in 06 at £10bn. T5 alone cost £4.2bn, and is a going concern. True, market has seen better days, but LHR traffic still holding up, even if malls may be suffering a bit.
For the government to pass a law you imply that LHR would be nationalised, it's owner, Ferrovial, would be compensated (at taxpayers' expense), and that taxpayers' money would fund the Thames airport and associated infrastructure. How likely is that?
Jabird:
Where do you get the £4bn figure from? BAA was delisted in 06 at £10bn. T5 alone cost £4.2bn, and is a going concern. True, market has seen better days, but LHR traffic still holding up, even if malls may be suffering a bit.
Purchase of LHR £2 bn.
Sale of LHR as the largest business center in Europe £12 bn (Foster) £40 bn (Silver).
Kerrrching !
Jabird:
BAA was one of the worst deals in history, and Ferrovial nearly went under because of it. I could sell you my house for £2 million, but that does not mean it is worth anything like this. One thing they missed, was the poor state of the infrastructure and the £mmmm that it would cost to put things right.
The valuation comes from their most recent deal. In October Ferrovial sold 6% of BAA to Alinda Capital for €320, which values all of BAA at about €5 bn, or say £4 bn. The Spanish picked up a good deal with Nationwide Bank, but lost it all and more besides with the BAA deal.
Thus what is LHR worth - £2bn??
Foster's new comments about making LHR into one huge great business park (he's been reading Pprune again), were in the Sunday Times. He estimated it would make £12 bn for the government (obviously this would have to be a government 'kerrrching', as it would need a multitude of planning permissions. ) The article is behind a pay-wall, I'm afraid.
.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all very well, but Ferrovial makes good money running LHR. When ordered to sell two of its south east airports, LHR was not even considered. Why would a such a large business park on the LHR site be successful without a local airport? Maybe it could revert to being Hounslow Heath: a bit of green belt to replace that which would be lost in Kent/Essex with the associated infrastructure of the island airport.
Much of the business/industry in West Middlesex, and indeed in the wider Thames valley, is there because of proximity to LHR. Without it, the area could become a series of dormitory towns like the Essex commuter belt on the other side of London, and a "Thames valley gateway" regeneration programme may be needed as well as the existing "Thames gateway".
Before Ferrovial could be bribed or cajolled into selling LHR, or subject to a compulsory purchase order, etc., the alternative has to be up and running. So WHO PAYS?
Let's be realistic, even if the Thames airport is technically, architecturally and geologically feasible (which it probably is), it is a commercial, financial and political non-starter.
A second runway at LGW is prohibited. The very powerful anti-airport lobby there achieved a binding agreement to prevent airport expansion there for 40 years. this expires in 2019. LGW expansion is fraught with difficulty, and will not solve the lack of capacity at the national hub, LHR.
So there is only one answer: a third and fourth runway at LHR and associated expansion. With no capacity constraints a percentage of slots could be reserved to allow a return of “thinner“ domestic routes, much needed new destinations would become available, and increased frequency (on some routes) could be achieved. Aircraft will be much quieter and cleaner by the time the new runways are in use, it's already happening with the B787 and the A350.
Much of the business/industry in West Middlesex, and indeed in the wider Thames valley, is there because of proximity to LHR. Without it, the area could become a series of dormitory towns like the Essex commuter belt on the other side of London, and a "Thames valley gateway" regeneration programme may be needed as well as the existing "Thames gateway".
Before Ferrovial could be bribed or cajolled into selling LHR, or subject to a compulsory purchase order, etc., the alternative has to be up and running. So WHO PAYS?
Let's be realistic, even if the Thames airport is technically, architecturally and geologically feasible (which it probably is), it is a commercial, financial and political non-starter.
A second runway at LGW is prohibited. The very powerful anti-airport lobby there achieved a binding agreement to prevent airport expansion there for 40 years. this expires in 2019. LGW expansion is fraught with difficulty, and will not solve the lack of capacity at the national hub, LHR.
So there is only one answer: a third and fourth runway at LHR and associated expansion. With no capacity constraints a percentage of slots could be reserved to allow a return of “thinner“ domestic routes, much needed new destinations would become available, and increased frequency (on some routes) could be achieved. Aircraft will be much quieter and cleaner by the time the new runways are in use, it's already happening with the B787 and the A350.
Forewarned is Forearmed
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new study indicates that the risk of bird strikes on aircraft is not unique to the Thames Estuary and that this risk could be successfully managed.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, surly it would be more sensible to look further afield across the country instead of just focusing on London's airports? The HUGE investment required for a brand new airport would surly be better spent on providing the infrastructure for the airports we already have but are struggling eg. Doncaster - Opened in 2005, the 3rd longest runway in the UK (sufficient length for A380's) and perhaps some others up north.
It is a common place perception that for anyone living up north wanting to further than eg. Spain, then (with the exception of Manchester) they have to travel south to a London airport.
If the infrastructure was there, then perhaps the northern airports would be able to alleviate a lot of the congestion from London's airports for only a fraction of the cost of a brand new airport?
It is a common place perception that for anyone living up north wanting to further than eg. Spain, then (with the exception of Manchester) they have to travel south to a London airport.
If the infrastructure was there, then perhaps the northern airports would be able to alleviate a lot of the congestion from London's airports for only a fraction of the cost of a brand new airport?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By all means put a new airport in the Thames with 8 runways it is by far the best remedy BUT surely you still have to close down all the other airports in the South East to free up the airspace ?
Are there not too many conflicts for arr and dep traffic from the other airports in the South East ?
Are there not too many conflicts for arr and dep traffic from the other airports in the South East ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much research has Lord Fester done into how the ATC system will cope with this, and how it will interface with EHAM, EBBR, EGKK, EGLC and EGMC etc?
Bear in mind that as the oil runs out, (and it is doing), airlines, no-matter where they are flying to and from, will be demanding more optimum vertical and horizontal profiles.
Bear in mind that as the oil runs out, (and it is doing), airlines, no-matter where they are flying to and from, will be demanding more optimum vertical and horizontal profiles.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
Whilst I fully accept the concept of a business being worth more dead than trading, I just don't accept this as the case in respect of LHR. Afaik, the land on which LHR is also property of BAA, not the govt, so hypothetically, any asset stripper could go round buying up airports and selling the land on.
Getting planning permission on any land formerly used as airport, considering the noise caused by aircraft and the air pollution issues (more due to the road traffic around the airport than the a/c), would be the relatively easy part.
PLH has closed and is likely to be turned into houses, but not LHR. Why not? I suggest because it's value as an airport is more than its value as housing or offices. So I don't buy the £12bn figure and certainly not £40bn. However, one difference between retaining an airport on this site and a brand new city is that the tallest structure at LHR is the control tower, whereas LHR City could theoretically have no height constrainst, if they could get past the nimby lobby, who would be dealt a mammoth positive in not having an airport there (not that they'd appreciate that though, they never do).
Even if we take £4bn for BAA, I put it to you that the value of LHR is still more than 50% - combine SOU, GLA, ABZ, STN, you still get barely half the traffic from LHR, and the ability to generate revenue from this traffic is lower still.
FV's lawyers would no doubt see this potential though - so they'd fight for a higher valuation if going down the CP route, otherwise the govt would have to nationalise the whole company - then we're into the kind of territory only entered by the very socialist governments you so ardently despise.
FDF,
Foster has stated that he has spoken to 'stakeholders', including private sources who would back the construction and running of the airport. I'd like to know which airlines are keen on the idea, and how people expect a return, but even going on ther figure of £10bn for LHR, this is still only 1/5th of the £50bn price tag for the overall scheme (airport + barrage + road / rail links).
I have asked SS before though and I will ask again - given £30bn of the above project costs on airport and related infra, given an unknown fee for buying out LHR, at what rate would you set the PSC in order to have a profitable operation and get a return on capital? Afaik, LHR sh PSC is around £27, already one of the highest in Europe. Remember upto 65m pax pa, you are just replacing LHR, not adding any new capacity.
This is a very key point, again one which SS keeps glossing over. There have been cases - Stapleton > DEN eg, where one airport has been closed down, and everything moved overnight to start fresh in the morning. But moving across from LHR to Thames Island? No move of an airport this size has been done before.
Therefore, chances are that such a move would take place in stages. And as with many before, closing down LHR would prove much harder than expected.
Exactly, 2019! Considering how long LHR T5 took to get through planning, there's no way any new runway in the SE will start build before 2020 at the earliest.
LGW expansion is politically easier than LHR, as there are less marginal seats, and less people full stop.
I question how much of the appeal of LHR is due to all the majors being there, and hence other airlines wanting me-too, and how much is because of proximity to London.
I just don't see any UK govt present or future backing LHR R3, and as for a fourth, I'd sooner see a huge invasion of Danish bacon winging its way across from the farms of Jutland.
So, the question is - can expansion at LGW be done in a way as to mitigate these two disadvantages?
1) Offer swanky new terminals at LGW for Star (no more feeder to LHR after bmi sale) and Skyteam. The likes of Flybe can provide some domestic feeders, dare I see that as Easy moves more and more towards being a 'proper' airline, they may be a possibility of deals there too for s/h connects?
2) Assuming that most LHR connects are indeed within same airline or alliance as I suspect (if you have figs to contrary, please provide), LGW could then be established as viable connection hub in its own right too (way beyond its limited facilities at present).
3) Save the £5bn earmarked for pointless Heathwick line, and upgrade rail links from LGW to London. Billions on Crossrail will improve E-W travel across London, but this is still just a regional link, doesn't even serve LHR5, or the long distance station complex either side of the British Library. At the very least, implement something along the lines of Crossrail3, enabling through service between Brighton, Gatwick, Central London (xrail tfer at TC Road), Watford, Milton Keynes and points north. Probably the most expensive tunnel in history by cost per mile, but it is only c. 3 miles between Euston and Victoria.
Daft? Unworkable? Look at New York - JFK handles c. 46m pax pa with terminals for each player, whereas EWR is the 'hub', with c 33m pax pa, dominated by United / Continental. Which is 'the' New York Airport? Personally, I prefer EWR as it is a neater design, and better connected by rail throughout NE corridor. Ditto for LGW's potential - but restore the xcountry link through Reading as an easier, non sexy win too!
Also, nothing is more silly than the current arrangement with same airline (BA-BA) connections having to sometimes go between LHR & LGW.
Whilst I fully accept the concept of a business being worth more dead than trading, I just don't accept this as the case in respect of LHR. Afaik, the land on which LHR is also property of BAA, not the govt, so hypothetically, any asset stripper could go round buying up airports and selling the land on.
Getting planning permission on any land formerly used as airport, considering the noise caused by aircraft and the air pollution issues (more due to the road traffic around the airport than the a/c), would be the relatively easy part.
PLH has closed and is likely to be turned into houses, but not LHR. Why not? I suggest because it's value as an airport is more than its value as housing or offices. So I don't buy the £12bn figure and certainly not £40bn. However, one difference between retaining an airport on this site and a brand new city is that the tallest structure at LHR is the control tower, whereas LHR City could theoretically have no height constrainst, if they could get past the nimby lobby, who would be dealt a mammoth positive in not having an airport there (not that they'd appreciate that though, they never do).
Even if we take £4bn for BAA, I put it to you that the value of LHR is still more than 50% - combine SOU, GLA, ABZ, STN, you still get barely half the traffic from LHR, and the ability to generate revenue from this traffic is lower still.
FV's lawyers would no doubt see this potential though - so they'd fight for a higher valuation if going down the CP route, otherwise the govt would have to nationalise the whole company - then we're into the kind of territory only entered by the very socialist governments you so ardently despise.
FDF,
Before Ferrovial could be bribed or cajolled into selling LHR, or subject to a compulsory purchase order, etc., the alternative has to be up and running. So WHO PAYS?
I have asked SS before though and I will ask again - given £30bn of the above project costs on airport and related infra, given an unknown fee for buying out LHR, at what rate would you set the PSC in order to have a profitable operation and get a return on capital? Afaik, LHR sh PSC is around £27, already one of the highest in Europe. Remember upto 65m pax pa, you are just replacing LHR, not adding any new capacity.
Before Ferrovial could be bribed or cajolled into selling LHR, or subject to a compulsory purchase order, etc., the alternative has to be up and running.
Therefore, chances are that such a move would take place in stages. And as with many before, closing down LHR would prove much harder than expected.
A second runway at LGW is prohibited. The very powerful anti-airport lobby there achieved a binding agreement to prevent airport expansion there for 40 years. this expires in 2019. LGW expansion is fraught with difficulty, and will not solve the lack of capacity at the national hub, LHR.
LGW expansion is politically easier than LHR, as there are less marginal seats, and less people full stop.
I question how much of the appeal of LHR is due to all the majors being there, and hence other airlines wanting me-too, and how much is because of proximity to London.
I just don't see any UK govt present or future backing LHR R3, and as for a fourth, I'd sooner see a huge invasion of Danish bacon winging its way across from the farms of Jutland.
So, the question is - can expansion at LGW be done in a way as to mitigate these two disadvantages?
1) Offer swanky new terminals at LGW for Star (no more feeder to LHR after bmi sale) and Skyteam. The likes of Flybe can provide some domestic feeders, dare I see that as Easy moves more and more towards being a 'proper' airline, they may be a possibility of deals there too for s/h connects?
2) Assuming that most LHR connects are indeed within same airline or alliance as I suspect (if you have figs to contrary, please provide), LGW could then be established as viable connection hub in its own right too (way beyond its limited facilities at present).
3) Save the £5bn earmarked for pointless Heathwick line, and upgrade rail links from LGW to London. Billions on Crossrail will improve E-W travel across London, but this is still just a regional link, doesn't even serve LHR5, or the long distance station complex either side of the British Library. At the very least, implement something along the lines of Crossrail3, enabling through service between Brighton, Gatwick, Central London (xrail tfer at TC Road), Watford, Milton Keynes and points north. Probably the most expensive tunnel in history by cost per mile, but it is only c. 3 miles between Euston and Victoria.
Daft? Unworkable? Look at New York - JFK handles c. 46m pax pa with terminals for each player, whereas EWR is the 'hub', with c 33m pax pa, dominated by United / Continental. Which is 'the' New York Airport? Personally, I prefer EWR as it is a neater design, and better connected by rail throughout NE corridor. Ditto for LGW's potential - but restore the xcountry link through Reading as an easier, non sexy win too!
Also, nothing is more silly than the current arrangement with same airline (BA-BA) connections having to sometimes go between LHR & LGW.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
BAA was one of the worst deals in history, and Ferrovial nearly went under because of it. I could sell you my house for £2 million, but that does not mean it is worth anything like this. One thing they missed, was the poor state of the infrastructure and the £mmmm that it would cost to put things right.'
I think you need to look deeper into it and see exactly why Ferrovial bought BAA. Who do you think is doing these improvements? Who is building a large chunk of Crossrail?
BAA was one of the worst deals in history, and Ferrovial nearly went under because of it. I could sell you my house for £2 million, but that does not mean it is worth anything like this. One thing they missed, was the poor state of the infrastructure and the £mmmm that it would cost to put things right.'
I think you need to look deeper into it and see exactly why Ferrovial bought BAA. Who do you think is doing these improvements? Who is building a large chunk of Crossrail?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prophead,
LHR has always been an entangled mess, but on the plus side, T5 was brand new, and that in itself was a £4bn investment.
From what I see, there are numerous different contracts for different sections of tunnel, then again for the stations and surface work. Ferrovial are just one of many players here, all the big construction firms seem to be represented, not sure I see a connection between that and LHR.
If FV are willing to sell LHR at a 'reasonable' price - as they will then get major part of construction contract or ownership in the new Thames Airport, then that would be a major step forward. However, for the time being, that is purely hypothetical. I still repeat - even using back of envelope stuff, what is the business case? How many passengers pa would be needed at a PSC of £x, spending an additional £y in terminal and other spin-offs to make it work? Even with BAA/FV on board / out the way, Island Airport is further from the centre of London than Heathrow, meaning LGW becomes potentially just as attractive, and it can easily undercut on PSCs. Sure, attach Thames Island to Crossrail, but that stops virtually everywhere en route, ok, add a link straight into St Pancras, but is there the platform space. Now as said before, these problems are not insurmountable, but they could push the costs up still further. The Foster rail link around the edge of London would also add a few billion, and create a number of additional technical challenges.
LHR has always been an entangled mess, but on the plus side, T5 was brand new, and that in itself was a £4bn investment.
I think you need to look deeper into it and see exactly why Ferrovial bought BAA. Who do you think is doing these improvements? Who is building a large chunk of Crossrail?
If FV are willing to sell LHR at a 'reasonable' price - as they will then get major part of construction contract or ownership in the new Thames Airport, then that would be a major step forward. However, for the time being, that is purely hypothetical. I still repeat - even using back of envelope stuff, what is the business case? How many passengers pa would be needed at a PSC of £x, spending an additional £y in terminal and other spin-offs to make it work? Even with BAA/FV on board / out the way, Island Airport is further from the centre of London than Heathrow, meaning LGW becomes potentially just as attractive, and it can easily undercut on PSCs. Sure, attach Thames Island to Crossrail, but that stops virtually everywhere en route, ok, add a link straight into St Pancras, but is there the platform space. Now as said before, these problems are not insurmountable, but they could push the costs up still further. The Foster rail link around the edge of London would also add a few billion, and create a number of additional technical challenges.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBT.
Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, surly it would be more sensible to look further afield across the country instead of just focusing on London's airports?
Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, surly it would be more sensible to look further afield across the country instead of just focusing on London's airports?
Bagso.
BUT surely you still have to close down all the other airports in the South East to free up the airspace ? Are there not too many conflicts for arr and dep traffic from the other airports in the South East ?
BUT surely you still have to close down all the other airports in the South East to free up the airspace ? Are there not too many conflicts for arr and dep traffic from the other airports in the South East ?
AMS and BRU are too far away to be effected. LGW is more of a problem, but if you have a SW facing Silver-Foster airport (the closest to LGW), the westbounds can be funnelled through the present N Downs gap (between present LHR and LGW) due westwards.
Southbounds are far enough from LGW to run through their inbounds, although there will have to be set airway airspace and altitude/ flight level restrictions on passing the LGW centerline.
Jabird.
at what rate would you set the PSC in order to have a profitable operation and get a return on capital?
at what rate would you set the PSC in order to have a profitable operation and get a return on capital?
The benefit is that business works better, and the nation prospers. The same will be true for a Silver Airport - the basic infrastructure can be government owned, and leased out to various private operators for a nominal ( or usual ) rent. The benefit to the UK will be felt and 'repaid' at the national level.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 12th Dec 2011 at 21:03.