New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be worth remembering what Ms Greening had to say on the issue recently:
So we are using the claim that Heathrow isn't safe to promote a runway layout with serious questions over its own safety. Not to mention that if you get into trouble but don't make the runway, you are straight into water.
I wouldn't usually want to bring up safety as an issue, as it is the last thing that should concern an incredibly safe industry, but I'm really not convinced terminals at ends of runways are going to work.
What about MAD? Would there not have been an 18C/36C left open if this proposition was a safe one? Where might Spanair 5022 have ended up if it had departed 18R?
So we are using the claim that Heathrow isn't safe to promote a runway layout with serious questions over its own safety. Not to mention that if you get into trouble but don't make the runway, you are straight into water.
I wouldn't usually want to bring up safety as an issue, as it is the last thing that should concern an incredibly safe industry, but I'm really not convinced terminals at ends of runways are going to work.
What about MAD? Would there not have been an 18C/36C left open if this proposition was a safe one? Where might Spanair 5022 have ended up if it had departed 18R?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cardiff
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to think there are proponents of Northolt being used to back up Heathrow with it non-existent RESAs, A40 dual carriageway at one end, petrol station at the other with fully laden Gulfstreams and Globals and even the odd BBJ popping in and out across the Atlantic full of fuel.
Remember that Spanish Learjet stopping the traffic on the A40 in the 1990s?
Funny how they get away with that as a military aerodrome, despite being completely dominated by civil aircraft use.
And as for obstacle clearances!
Remember that Spanish Learjet stopping the traffic on the A40 in the 1990s?
Funny how they get away with that as a military aerodrome, despite being completely dominated by civil aircraft use.
And as for obstacle clearances!
If it's any consolation, I can't think of any either.
Any accident on departure from the central runways will be pointing away from the terminal.
Any accident on arrival would have to go straight along 4000m of runway without falling into the sea before it reached the terminal area.
No doubt the ends of the runway would be equipped with aircraft-catching nets or soft gravel to stop any runaway planes.
Any accident on arrival would have to go straight along 4000m of runway without falling into the sea before it reached the terminal area.
No doubt the ends of the runway would be equipped with aircraft-catching nets or soft gravel to stop any runaway planes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
Not to mention that if you get into trouble but don't make the runway, you are straight into water.
Not to mention that if you get into trouble but don't make the runway, you are straight into water.
Silver
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet whatever challenges LHR faces, they are tiny compared to the big shiny new airport.
So I can only ask the same questions I asked last week:
1) How exactly is this place going to be laid out? Looks like 2 sets of runways pointing straight at each other.
2) How will you pay for Fantasy Island by releasing money from developing Heathrow, which is a private asset? Sounds like a big Ponzi scheme to me, and although there are plenty of other things I'd like to have a go at Boris about this week, he shouldn't be spouting this sort of thing without a challenge.
So I can only ask the same questions I asked last week:
1) How exactly is this place going to be laid out? Looks like 2 sets of runways pointing straight at each other.
2) How will you pay for Fantasy Island by releasing money from developing Heathrow, which is a private asset? Sounds like a big Ponzi scheme to me, and although there are plenty of other things I'd like to have a go at Boris about this week, he shouldn't be spouting this sort of thing without a challenge.
Maybe Silver has the answers?
Silver has never had any answers before, so don't count on it.
It might be worth remembering what Ms Greening had to say on the issue recently:
Quote:
Justine Greening: Expand Heathrow and we risk a plane crash in London - Transport - News - London Evening Standard
So we are using the claim that Heathrow isn't safe to promote a runway layout with serious questions over its own safety. Not to mention that if you get into trouble but don't make the runway, you are straight into water.
Quote:
Justine Greening: Expand Heathrow and we risk a plane crash in London - Transport - News - London Evening Standard
So we are using the claim that Heathrow isn't safe to promote a runway layout with serious questions over its own safety. Not to mention that if you get into trouble but don't make the runway, you are straight into water.
Runways end-to-end
I think some people here are getting a bit excited about the idea of having a runway end-to-end with another. It's really not an issue and is in fact one of the proposed improvements to LHR (http://heathrowhub.com/#sthash.dd9AdMMF.dpbs) aswell as being used around the world.
The missed-approaches simply turn away from the field immediately. Problem solved. And if you're worried about overruns and undershoots, well, you'd have to be worried everywhere then.
There are actual problems with this idea, however. That's why Sir Davies is getting paid a lot of money to pick the best of a bad bunch of options. For that then to be ignored by government :/
I think some people here are getting a bit excited about the idea of having a runway end-to-end with another. It's really not an issue and is in fact one of the proposed improvements to LHR (http://heathrowhub.com/#sthash.dd9AdMMF.dpbs) aswell as being used around the world.
The missed-approaches simply turn away from the field immediately. Problem solved. And if you're worried about overruns and undershoots, well, you'd have to be worried everywhere then.
There are actual problems with this idea, however. That's why Sir Davies is getting paid a lot of money to pick the best of a bad bunch of options. For that then to be ignored by government :/
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 29th Nov 2013 at 19:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver-Boris airport proposal still alive.
The government seems to have ruled out a Silver-Boris airport in the new report out today, and incongruously come down in favour of a third runway at LHR:
New Runways For Gatwick And Heathrow Airports
But this recommendation is rather surprising, since the government had previously ruled out a third LHR runway as being politically unacceptable. So the report's recommendation is for a runway expansion that cannot and will not go ahead. Someone should have had a word with them, before they started.
They ruled out BHX and STN. Ruling out BHX is obvious, as it is a ridiculous airport pointing in completely the wrong direction, with even less room for expansion than LHR. But ruling out STN? Why?
However, Boris Johnson has ridiculed the report and come out strongly in favour of the Silver-Boris airport once more, saying:
Quote:
Expansion at Heathrow would "entrench a grievous planning error" and require the closure of the M25 for five years as the new runway was built.
Thames estuary airport plan not dead yet, Boris Johnson declares | Environment | theguardian.com
Contrary to expectations this new report has actually increased the likelihood that Silver-Boris will be built in the Thames Estruary. It has ruled out the only real competitor to Silver-Boris (STN) and recommended an expansion that cannot happen (LHR). The result of this impasse, is that the only viable option is Silver-Boris.
Was this their intention, one wonders? Like god, UK politics does work in mysterious ways at times.
Silver
New Runways For Gatwick And Heathrow Airports
But this recommendation is rather surprising, since the government had previously ruled out a third LHR runway as being politically unacceptable. So the report's recommendation is for a runway expansion that cannot and will not go ahead. Someone should have had a word with them, before they started.
They ruled out BHX and STN. Ruling out BHX is obvious, as it is a ridiculous airport pointing in completely the wrong direction, with even less room for expansion than LHR. But ruling out STN? Why?
However, Boris Johnson has ridiculed the report and come out strongly in favour of the Silver-Boris airport once more, saying:
Quote:
Expansion at Heathrow would "entrench a grievous planning error" and require the closure of the M25 for five years as the new runway was built.
Thames estuary airport plan not dead yet, Boris Johnson declares | Environment | theguardian.com
Contrary to expectations this new report has actually increased the likelihood that Silver-Boris will be built in the Thames Estruary. It has ruled out the only real competitor to Silver-Boris (STN) and recommended an expansion that cannot happen (LHR). The result of this impasse, is that the only viable option is Silver-Boris.
Was this their intention, one wonders? Like god, UK politics does work in mysterious ways at times.
Silver
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Discussion on the beeb (R5) has suggested that the growth in recent years has been attributable to LoCos. Diverting these to Gatwick (and Stansted) - with, perhaps, a further runway for Gatwick, might release sufficient slots from Heathrow to obviate the need for expansion there.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Which LoCos operate into Heathrow?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But this recommendation is rather surprising, since the government had previously ruled out a third LHR runway as being politically unacceptable. So the report's recommendation is for a runway expansion that cannot and will not go ahead. Someone should have had a word with them, before they started.
There will be no Fantasy Island named after Silverstrata or Bojo the Bonking ex journalist. Let's put this thread to bed at last.
Which LoCos operate into Heathrow?
Discussion on the beeb (R5) has suggested that the growth in recent years has been attributable to LoCos. Diverting these to Gatwick (and Stansted) - with, perhaps, a further runway for Gatwick, might release sufficient slots from Heathrow to obviate the need for expansion there.
Contrary to expectations this new report has actually increased the likelihood that Silver-Boris will be built in the Thames Estruary. It has ruled out the only real competitor to Silver-Boris (STN) and recommended an expansion that cannot happen (LHR).
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 17th Dec 2013 at 19:46.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Divert was, perhaps, the wrong word - the suggestion was that LoCo flights would be moved out of Heathrow to Gatwick.
Ideally, only connecting flights would be permitted to use Heathrow, but how would you arrange that? Ticketing only allowed for through flights? That would mean no passengers originating from Heathrow and none arriving. Transit only.
Ideally, only connecting flights would be permitted to use Heathrow, but how would you arrange that? Ticketing only allowed for through flights? That would mean no passengers originating from Heathrow and none arriving. Transit only.
Paxing All Over The World
OK, for the last time ...
How do you calculate the cost of court cases / compensation for:
Oh yes, and how do you prevent the extreme profiteering on property/land in that new area?
How do you calculate the cost of court cases / compensation for:
- All the 'blue collar' workers who cannot move their families across the city (and should not be asked to do so. Social cohesion does mean something)
- Quote Wikipedia: "The airport sustains 76,600 jobs directly and around 116,000 indirectly in the immediate area"
- All the companies along the M4 corridor (100+ miles) that have based themselves there BECAUSE of LHR
- All the houses in the North West / West / South West of London and Berkshire (et al) that have suddenly depreciated in value.
- All the residents of those houses who use LHR frequently and would find themselves on the wrong side of London for the airport. But what if their company moved elsewhere (UK/afield)?
- All the other airlines forced to move, would charge and/or sue for every single penny of their relocation costs. Start with BA and then add VS and EVERY other carrier - Wikipedia says "over 90 carriers"
Oh yes, and how do you prevent the extreme profiteering on property/land in that new area?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now all we need to do is elect politicians capable of making a decision.
HA HA HA, ROFL.
Oh, was that another pig flying by the window.
Oh well, it's off to Amsterdam we go again, until after 2020 something. I'm getting to quite like Amsterdam. Probably won't bother with Heathrow again!
HA HA HA, ROFL.
Oh, was that another pig flying by the window.
Oh well, it's off to Amsterdam we go again, until after 2020 something. I'm getting to quite like Amsterdam. Probably won't bother with Heathrow again!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned in post # 1253:
See post #1,254 for confirmation.
Despite the commission's idea to keep it on the back-burner, it is obvious that Silver Island won't happen. As for the entire concept of estauary airport plans in general, that particular ship sailed decades ago when (1) there were no ownership issues at airports (they were state-owned) and could be closed and relocated at the government's will; and (2) when the government rejected Foulness/Maplin and opted for Stansted as London's THIRD airport.
No, it's the other way around!
A third/fourth rwy at LHR would release sufficient slots at LGW as it would lose it's "LHR overflow" and "LHR waiting room" functions.
The entire concept of the viability of an estuary airport makes the assumption that the owners of LHR Ltd. would agree to close their very profitable airport, and sell the asset for non-airport use.
WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS?
A question never asked to Boris by the media and others, and one even he would find hard to answer.....and yet another occasion where Silver also has no answer.
A return to the real world would be very welcome.
Silver has never had any answers before, so don't count on it.
Despite the commission's idea to keep it on the back-burner, it is obvious that Silver Island won't happen. As for the entire concept of estauary airport plans in general, that particular ship sailed decades ago when (1) there were no ownership issues at airports (they were state-owned) and could be closed and relocated at the government's will; and (2) when the government rejected Foulness/Maplin and opted for Stansted as London's THIRD airport.
Discussion on the beeb (R5) has suggested that the growth in recent years has been attributable to LoCos. Diverting these to Gatwick (and Stansted) - with, perhaps, a further runway for Gatwick, might release sufficient slots from Heathrow to obviate the need for expansion there
No, it's the other way around!
A third/fourth rwy at LHR would release sufficient slots at LGW as it would lose it's "LHR overflow" and "LHR waiting room" functions.
OK, for the last time ...
How do you calculate the cost of court cases / compensation for:
Oh yes, and how do you prevent the extreme profiteering on property/land in that new area?
How do you calculate the cost of court cases / compensation for:
- All the 'blue collar' workers who cannot move their families across the city (and should not be asked to do so. Social cohesion does mean something)
- Quote Wikipedia: "The airport sustains 76,600 jobs directly and around 116,000 indirectly in the immediate area"
- All the companies along the M4 corridor (100+ miles) that have based themselves there BECAUSE of LHR
- All the houses in the North West / West / South West of London and Berkshire (et al) that have suddenly depreciated in value.
- All the residents of those houses who use LHR frequently and would find themselves on the wrong side of London for the airport. But what if their company moved elsewhere (UK/afield)?
- All the other airlines forced to move, would charge and/or sue for every single penny of their relocation costs. Start with BA and then add VS and EVERY other carrier - Wikipedia says "over 90 carriers"
Oh yes, and how do you prevent the extreme profiteering on property/land in that new area?
The entire concept of the viability of an estuary airport makes the assumption that the owners of LHR Ltd. would agree to close their very profitable airport, and sell the asset for non-airport use.
WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS?
A question never asked to Boris by the media and others, and one even he would find hard to answer.....and yet another occasion where Silver also has no answer.
A return to the real world would be very welcome.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 17th Dec 2013 at 23:59.
Paxing All Over The World
WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS?
£££
The court case that would try to resolve the compulsory purchase of LHR, lock, stock and two smoking runways is beyond words. It would be:
- the nationalisation of the airport.
- the redevelopment by the govt.
- the selling off to try and get the money back.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, Fairdealfrank! The answer being: fabulously large amounts of
£££
The court case that would try to resolve the compulsory purchase of LHR, lock, stock and two smoking runways is beyond words. It would be:
£££
The court case that would try to resolve the compulsory purchase of LHR, lock, stock and two smoking runways is beyond words. It would be:
- the nationalisation of the airport.
- the redevelopment by the govt.
- the selling off to try and get the money back.
Remain unconvinced that they would sell: a choice between one-off cash or continuing dividends long term. Selling kills off the goose that lays the golden egg over and over again.
Do they have an idea how profitable LHR is? Who on earth has the required amounts of money to buy it for non-airport use?
Re. 1 and 2, how would a government justify that use of public money and expect to be re-elected?
Re. 3, would it be like the nationalisation and potential resale of the Royal Bank Of Scotland and the others?
Governments don't do nationalisation any more. When or if this changes, there are many other priorities for public ownership.
Of course you mentioned court cases, the litigation would go on for years, making the lawyers very rich.
It is not only LHR (closure required to make the estuary airport viable), but also LCY, MSE, SEN and possibly STN (closure required for air traffic congestion reasons) that would be in court.
As mentioned above, a return to the real world would be very welcome.
Paxing All Over The World
Governments don't do nationalisation any more.
- a commercial company to close and
- hundreds of companies to relocate
- thousands of staff to relocate/find other work
- thousands of companies irritated and out of pocket
- millions of people irritated and out of pocket
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. This is one of the reasons, I humbly suggest, that the closure of LHR is just not feasible. Whether you either issue a compulsory purchase order or any other document, it means the govt forcing
- a commercial company to close and
- hundreds of companies to relocate
- thousands of staff to relocate/find other work
- thousands of companies irritated and out of pocket
- millions of people irritated and out of pocket