quote: "If a new airport by the Thames is built, then this is how it will be funded (if I was deciding this):
A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government
When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project
As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)
As for if it will be profitable, well if we were looking for the most profitable solution, then we would be expanding our airports ASAP, but we cannot, because of all the political related s**t and the fact there has been no proper planning and co-ordination for London (and the South East) regions aviation infrastructure, in other words, if you want to see some returns on a new Thames Airport project, it will be in the long-term
Plus a new airport will be a massive boost for the economy, since it will create jobs and improve our airport capacity (however this project can only be done if the government cannot have the balls to approve a 3rd, 4th and maybe even 5th and 6th runway at LHR)"
Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me, apologies if this sounds negative. You appear to suggesting a massive nationalisation/public ownership programme. No political party capable of being in government favours such a course of action.
Who would buy these bonds? Can the government, at present, afford to pay 4% and put up 40%? What if interest rates rise (in the long term they can hardly fall)? How will 4% look if interest rates are higher?
Why would the government be inclined to do all this when the private sector will finance Heathrow expansion?
Quote: "If we are going to make Heathrow work effectively (and work for the UK as a whole), its needs a 3rd and 4th runway and those 4 runways must be able to work simultaneously, only then will it be able to cope with the demands of the UK economy, in return (to please local residents) LHR should put further restrictions on nosier and older aircraft"
A 4-rwy LHR would need to be on segregated mode: two rwys for takeoffs, two rwys for landings, using alternation with a changeover daily at 1500 to allow some quiet for those under the flightpath. Those with quiet in the morning, would have quiet in the afternoon the next day and vice versa and so on.
Quote: "This will allow over 1 million flight movements and expand LHR maximum capacity to around 150 million passengers a year. If work started shortly after 2015, then it can be finished in the early 2020s"
It doesn't take this long to construct two rwys.
Remember, if LHR expands it will free up space at LGW, because all the Non-LCC/Charter traffic will want to move to LHR, starting with BA and VS, this in turn means that LCCs and Charter carriers can move services from Luton and Stansted (because there are higher yields at LGW), which in turn frees up space at those airports. Overall a bigger Heathrow will benefit all of London’s airports"
Indeed, expanding hub capacity at LHR frees up point-to-point capacity at LGW with inturn frees up point-to-point capacity at other airports.
To quote Delboy Trotter: "Everyone's a winner, you know it makes sense".
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 12th Nov 2012 at 20:08.