PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - New Thames Airport for London
View Single Post
Old 16th Jul 2012, 23:09
  #671 (permalink)  
Fairdealfrank
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote: "No, but with LHR still open, how do you attract airlines to Fantasy Island?"

Another question that Silver needs to answer properly but won't, probably can't. Nonsense about compulsory purchase orders is not answering it!

Quote: "You would be left with a phased approach - let's start with one runway, like Kansai.

Hang on a minute, investors get jitters - that is still going to cost us £20bn.

How much did you say that 2nd runway at Gatters was going to cost? £2bn? Ah!"

A phased approach won't work, no carrier at LHR wants to go to the estuary, whether with one rwy or four. It's the same argument for not expanding STN, and to a lesser extent, LGW. Indeed at LGW, the movement is from LGW to LHR when slots become available.

Quote: "Yes, very good point. As already mentioned, this is very much along the lines of "ask for 4, accept 3"."

Could be, or else reality is setting in, and minds are being concentrated:

1. four rwys are needed, and needed now, the third was needed years ago;
2. four rwys allow the continuation of alternation - necessary to placate local residents;
3. if a fourth rwy is asked for later, there will another twenty years of nonsense, best get it over and done with at the same time as a third rwy;
4. the area north of the airport needs to be planned very carefully for 2 more rwys and the associated infrastructure (there will not be a rwy south of the airport), so do it together.

It's more likely that incremental moves to mixed mode are the ploy to make expansion more palatable to local residents, rather than the "ask for 4 and accept 3" strategy.

Quote: "I also suspect that this lobby is a response to the Fantasy Island promotion also gaining steam."

Maybe, but not convinced that the fantasy is gaining credibility.

Quote: "Back in 03, when Cliffe was proposed, it was widely accepted that this was so the govt could say "well we aren't building Cliffe, LHR 3 is quite reasonable in comparisosn".

Had they done this in 03, instead of prevaricating for 6 years, the third rwy would be up and running by now!

Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 16th Jul 2012 at 23:13.
Fairdealfrank is offline