Quote: "I suspect that the real reason why the whole Eurotunnel project has not been a financial success is that the projections of passenger numbers were over stated (as they are for modal shift from air to HS2), and the costs were under-stated - as they tend to be on major engineering projects, because there are always unquantifiable risks."
Indeed, and will be the same with Fantasy Island.
Quote: "An estuary airport will never be built by private funds alone - way too much and way too long term for a commercial return. The public purse is going to get involved one way or another and for a nationally important infrastructure project so it should - especially if it's going to have to build a barrage anyway. Some projects just are not suited to commercial funds - railways, tunnels, airports, Olympic sites and, I suspect, nuclear power stations being among them. At some point, governments will have to recognise the fact."
Governments know this, they also aware of the stick they will get for approving a yet another private sector undertaking that ends up being bailed out (it's too soon after the Channel Tunnel, various banks, etc.).
Could this be why all the fantasy island proposals, going back to 1958, have been ignored by sucessive governments?
Quote: "Even with Runways 3 and 4, lhr just will not do. Wrong place, bad design and etc.
People such as BA and their pax only use it because they have to.
Build Boris island."
Not so, BA are in no hurry to go: they have stated quite catergorically that they will not leave LHR. Why should they? When cutting costs, why pile a load of unnecessary costs on the business?
The same applies to VS, and indeed, any carrier using LHR, especially those that have paid millions for slots, which is most of them.
Apart from that, if BA won't leave, nor will the rest, they would not want to leave BA with such a competitive advantage.
Pax have plenty of choice: AMS is only 217 mi. from LHR and linked to over 20 UK airports. Ditto DUB at 288 mi. from LHR, plus there's CDG and FRA for those who want an "LHR bypass".
Yet 70,000,000 pax use LHR, a success story by any account, and this success is being stifled.
Quote: "2. Recognising that LHR is not viable indefinitely, in parallel a longterm solution for a 4,5 or 6 runway replacement hub airport should begin in the Thames estuary or wherever. When it is finally built, LHR should be closed, as was Kai Tak."
Who owned Kai Tak? Who owns Heathrow?
Exactly. How many times: Heathrow cannot be closed without the owners' agreement, or with millions of taxpayers' money wasted on compensation and years of litigation.
Quote: "What is most important is for the politicians to think beyond the next election for a change and come up with a strategy that is best for UK plc as a whole. But for me, to preserve any chance of maintaining our role as a major world hub, we need to build rwy 3 soonest."
Yes, and rwy 4 soon after.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 20th Sep 2012 at 20:41.