Never say never, the office of mayor, the toothless assembly, and all the hangers-on is a very expensive form of local government. When people get fed up with the endless rate rises and nothing to show for it, who knows?
Why would the airport be named after a mayor anyway? It’s nothing to do with the mayor, not in their remit, not in their jurisdiction.
I am not saying “never” but the GLA and the mayor is a rather good form of government for London, the only problems with it is that they don’t have enough tax raising powers, need to expand the area that they govern and have powers transferred from Westminster and local boroughs
There is a lot to show that the GLA has done since 2000 (most of all in transport) and if they don’t like it then they should stop electing that posh idiot time and time again
The reason I suggested the last 2 mayors is because they are well known for that they did for London, if we are to name airports, then name them after local people
Also what “rates” are you talking about (council tax or transport fares?)
No chance, it's not like HKG. If anything is fast tracked it will be LHR (eventually).
Mixed mode is not the answer. While it could provide, at most, 10% more slots, it will not address the congestion and delays.
If flight path residents lose their daily half-day of quiet because of mixed mode, do you not think that there would be some objections from residents and anti airports groups and massive political fallout?
Do you really think that politicians that run scared of approving LHR expansion would agree to this?
Think it through, please.
The government could fast track any project, but only if they want do; THA does not face the same problems that an expansion to LHR faces in terms of its impact to local residents, so the government loses nothing politically if they approve THA, in fact with the benefits economically, they might help them
With that in mind, they could approve “mixed-mode” as a stop gap while telling residents that it would not past for too long and soon they would no longer suffer any aircraft noise
Yes, the consensus appears to be that mixed mode on the existing runways would provide around 60,000 additional ATMs pa, which works out at about a 12% increase on current capacity.
And you are correct in that it would make little, if any, difference to delays or resilience.
Of course you could also argue that R3, too, would only have a limited, short-term effect on congestion, given what we're told is the scale of currently constrained demand for slots, and that traffic would grow in due course back to 99% of available capacity if allowed to.
We need to deal with constrained demand now and the only way we can deal that right now is Mixed Mode, however for the medium term we need to build both R3 and R4 sooner rather than later and around the same time
Yes, it would have to, until such time as a fourth rwy was built. AFAIK, they estimate 702,000 annual movements with 3 rwys, that's a fairly significant extra 222,000. Whether it's enough in the long term is anyone's guess, if not, start planning the 4th rwy now.
Doe’s that figure include the 60,000 that would come from mixed mode from the current 2 runway?
I personally feel BAA/HAH need to start seriously considering adding a 4th runway to their expansion plans, maybe even build it at the same time as R3, 4 runnways at LHR would push number of annual movements to around 1,000,000 if they are all used for mixed mode
I think that would be enough for London’s needs for the next few decades, what happens after that, who knows?
Sure - let's use the examples of Failed & Failed Co to teach success for airport building!
Those are the most recent examples of state nationalisations, frankly due to the governments interfering in expansion; they might as well run London’s Airports
Remember, we learn from past mistakes…
That's only because the mandarins haven't been asked to do so yet, because it is just Boris' folly and the DfT know it is a non starter. TfL are more likely to back Brum than this fantasy island, especially as Brum isn't in their patch, and it boosts the case for HS2.
Well if Dave refuses to expand LHR and businesses and airlines are screaming for expansion and the fact this economy badly needs it, then THA would end up being the only choice
Only if the market is already locked by closing it to competition between rival airport operators.
Under my plan, LAL is aiming to buy all airports and airfields (both general and civil) within the counties of Greater London, Essex, Hertfordshire, Suffolk, Cambridge, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Dorset, Surrey, Kent, Sussex and Wiltshire, it would also take ownership of all RAF bases within those counties and lease it back to the RAF (on the condition they forbid all commercial flying out of those bases)
It would be interesting to see how Ryanair what airport would use to serve London, if they use Birmingham for example, then their customers would have to a lot of money just to get to that so called “cheap” flight
I don’t think MOL is stupid enough to lose his entire London customer base, if he wants to keep those customers and for the benefit of his business, he would base its London base at THA if it was built
In many cases, the tatty older terminals (MAD) or low cost remote fingers (AMS). Even when they are "in" with the majors, they will still have negotiated a rate they are happy with. No chance of that happening at FBI airport - just as it hardly happens at LHR at the moment.
Well under my plans, LBL would charge the same rate for all airlines, like I said, If Easyjet is prepared to shoot themselves in the foot by handing their London + South East customer base to other airlines than its up to them
So if they have business sense, I expect them to be there at THA if it is built, if not then I either their customers use BA (or other airlines) or Jeststar/Vueling UK (if BA use the opportunity to try a second attempt to set up a LCC)
Will you attend the naming ceremony when it opens?
For now, I'm sticking with FBI - Fantasy Boris Island, and about as intelligent as the "other" FBI
For a start this idea was not the idea of Boris Johnson in the first place, it has been for decades and thus should not be named after him, secondly it is not a Fantasy in the tradition of the Grimm Brothers, nobody is disputing that it is impossible to be built, the question is should it be built in the first place
We should not give a particular name for this airport (for reasons of neutrality) until it is built (like Silver…), until then we should call it THA or Thames Hub Airport
When it does open, I have changed my mind on the matter and I feel it should be called “London Ken Livingstone Airport”