That's absolute nonsense. Do you really think the other London airports have the capacity to absorb more than a small proportion of Heathrow's traffic (even assuming that carriers such as BA would want to move flights from a hub to a non-hub) ?
It depends on what you define as "London Airports", what I am suggesting is that airlines like Easyjet would sell their slots to BA for example and that would lead to a lot of airline moves around Londons Airports
My point is that we would have to close a fair number of airports if a THA (which should only be done only if we cannot expand LHR)
There is no such code as (THA)...Making an imaginary code won't make a pie in the sky airport any the more realistic.
It is not a imaginary code, it is short for "Thames Hub Airport"
Who is going to close all the London Airports?..Boris?..He has no veto, so he is out of the equation.
This is how it could be done:
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)
The government has all but said LHR (a proper code) will be expanded, just the Liberals temporarily holding them back.
If only if it was that simple, I agree that LHR can be expands to take on another 2 runnways, the question is that is there enough poltical will to do that (from both Tories and Lib Dems) and what would Labour do if they get back in government
There is no airport going to be built in/on a river, for a start it would be to expensive, another reason, it would not attract investers who would never see a return for their money.
I agree it will be very, very expensive (likely to be the most expensive airport project of all time), but it will mainly be funded by government and the general public (mainly savers) or even (as Silver suggested) though QE
I also accept that there would be little (if any) return on a THA project, but the question should be "how would it benefit the UK?"
Quite right Ernest! So think WHE (white elephant) is more suitable.
In the event of it being built, then it will depend on what this airport would be called, for example if it is called London Medway Airport, then it could be LME or LMA for example
Indeed, the airports of the southeast cannot "be closed", without their owners' consent. This fact by itself makes the Thames airport unviable.
Well I have suggested that some government body take control of Londons Main Airports as part of the THA project and thus solving that problem
Exactly, airlines and pax won't use it either. If they can't use LHR, they'll be off to AMS, CDG and FRA, etc., as will the inward investment, tourism, business and trade.
Well its depends on if the fees of using the airport are reasonable and if the transport links are good (and if you close all of londons other airports), if you get those right and you build a decent world-class airport, then it is likely to work
But this should only be done if LHR cannot be expanded due to a lack of poltical will