New London airport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New London airport
In yesterday's Sunday Times (page 10 News). M.P. Boris Johnson has suggested that the idea of building a new London Airport in the Thames Estuary just off Canvey Island be re-examined.
Can anyone here explain to me why this would NOT be the best and (probably in the long run) cheapest solution for the future of air transportation for London?
Several months ago details of all the options for the four major London Airports were published and all the proposals (as I recall) generated an out-pouring of protest particularly from those who currently live close by or under the various flight paths.
To me the proposed additional runways at each of the existing airports would indicate an excessive amount of taxi time in order to get aircraft from (and back to) the terminal buildings.
A new London airport in the Thames Estuary with dedicated road/rail tunnel links as well as proximity to London City, Southend and Manston for feeder links would seem to be an ideal solution.
Can anyone here explain to me why this would NOT be the best and (probably in the long run) cheapest solution for the future of air transportation for London?
Several months ago details of all the options for the four major London Airports were published and all the proposals (as I recall) generated an out-pouring of protest particularly from those who currently live close by or under the various flight paths.
To me the proposed additional runways at each of the existing airports would indicate an excessive amount of taxi time in order to get aircraft from (and back to) the terminal buildings.
A new London airport in the Thames Estuary with dedicated road/rail tunnel links as well as proximity to London City, Southend and Manston for feeder links would seem to be an ideal solution.
Yes.
1. Airports built far out from the city they serve have a universal approach of being panned by their customers. Look at the waste of money at Montreal Mirabel (now closed) for a classic example. Fortunately for Air Canada they had Toronto which became their centre of operations to fall back on. It played a significant part in Montreal's loss of being the commercial centre of Canada in the 1970s-80s.
2. Passengers do not just go to/from the city centre. Look at Heathrow, only a minority do. What proportion of those going to Heathrow use the Heathrow Express from Paddington ? 5-10% ? Why else does the M4 spur out of Heathrow have 2 lanes turning west along the main M4 and only one lane towards London ?
3. Many passengers, most notably those in premium classes, have located their homes and to quite some extent their workplaces (where they can influence such things) to be close to the transport links at Heathrow. Only a limited number of business sectors (Finance, some media) now locate their offices in Central London.
4. Airports far out are commercially impractical for domestic operations, and these services depend on 50% connecting to overseas flights and 50% local domestic passengers (including many day returners). Split this market and you can lose the whole lot.
5. There would be just as much opposition to the proposal, particularly to its surface links, new town developments, etc, as there is to the current locations.
6. As a recent failed operator based at Manston will tell you, the lower Thames estuary/seawards has very little hinterland demand for air travel. 75% of the catchment area is water.
1. Airports built far out from the city they serve have a universal approach of being panned by their customers. Look at the waste of money at Montreal Mirabel (now closed) for a classic example. Fortunately for Air Canada they had Toronto which became their centre of operations to fall back on. It played a significant part in Montreal's loss of being the commercial centre of Canada in the 1970s-80s.
2. Passengers do not just go to/from the city centre. Look at Heathrow, only a minority do. What proportion of those going to Heathrow use the Heathrow Express from Paddington ? 5-10% ? Why else does the M4 spur out of Heathrow have 2 lanes turning west along the main M4 and only one lane towards London ?
3. Many passengers, most notably those in premium classes, have located their homes and to quite some extent their workplaces (where they can influence such things) to be close to the transport links at Heathrow. Only a limited number of business sectors (Finance, some media) now locate their offices in Central London.
4. Airports far out are commercially impractical for domestic operations, and these services depend on 50% connecting to overseas flights and 50% local domestic passengers (including many day returners). Split this market and you can lose the whole lot.
5. There would be just as much opposition to the proposal, particularly to its surface links, new town developments, etc, as there is to the current locations.
6. As a recent failed operator based at Manston will tell you, the lower Thames estuary/seawards has very little hinterland demand for air travel. 75% of the catchment area is water.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Can anyone here explain to me why this would NOT be the best and (probably in the long run) cheapest solution for the future of air transportation for London?
Because there are already three airports with four runways which are capable of high-capacity, long-haul aircraft. Two such airports are capable of handling 24-hour ops. Both airports have sufficient room for another runway each (one already has a kind-of half-a second runway anyway). One has lots of room for planned terminal expansion. Both have existing road and rail links into central London which could easily and quickly be upgraded to a world-class service. Both are closer to non-London catchment areas which are at least as big as that around Canvey.
Whilst both airports are well-established, one has left its expansion a bit late such that there are now zillions of nearby residents who would scream blue murder at further major expansion. The other has lots of open land and less locals around it and could expand before it gets built-in.
If the pollies had the cojones to get the ball rolling and made it cost-feasible for a few majors to go there...
Actually while we're at it, all this talk about EGLL getting a 'third' runway - it used to have six (and until quite recently, still had a 'third' - 23). OK, it was a cross-strip, but a bit of decent co-ordination and it could relieve a bit of pressure on the other two, surely? Eg. launch some RJs and 319s off it? Even extend the T/O starting-point to the north-west of 27R to get clearance over the buildings to the south on warm days?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Boris said you could build an entire new airport on reclaimed land in the Thames estuary for less than the cost of putting in the third parallel runway at EGLL. Hmmm - and this is the man who wants to run London's budgets?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was one of the options looked at in the Seventies during the search for 'London's Third Airport'. With Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Manston, London City, Biggin Hill and Farnborough serving the capital, this would be an ideal site for London's Ninth Airport 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boris might be nearer the truth than one might think Torquelink. How much will it cost in reparations, relocations, compensation etc etc etc for all those who will need to bought out or relocated in order to provide the space for the new runway and terminal buildings at Heathrow?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ireland nowadays
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not?
There are underused runways already at Sothend and Manston. If you're going that far out, those would be cheaper. Cheaper again may be putting money in to speed up the rail links to Birmingham and Southampton - bring those travel times to under an hour and they become feasible. Considering a high speed link to Birmingham and Manchester will have to be under consideration now the Channel Tunnel one is finished, diverting it through Birmingham Airport wouldn't be too much of a hassle.
There's another problem with building in the Thames Estuary and that is that we don't know what sea levels will be like in the future. In that case you have to build for a worst case scenario, which means lots and lots of money.
Ultimately, it'll go to the most economically effective solution and I can't see that being in the Thames estuary.
There are underused runways already at Sothend and Manston. If you're going that far out, those would be cheaper. Cheaper again may be putting money in to speed up the rail links to Birmingham and Southampton - bring those travel times to under an hour and they become feasible. Considering a high speed link to Birmingham and Manchester will have to be under consideration now the Channel Tunnel one is finished, diverting it through Birmingham Airport wouldn't be too much of a hassle.
There's another problem with building in the Thames Estuary and that is that we don't know what sea levels will be like in the future. In that case you have to build for a worst case scenario, which means lots and lots of money.
Ultimately, it'll go to the most economically effective solution and I can't see that being in the Thames estuary.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
840,
What such fast rail links will make feasible, is wiping out much of the (pointless) domestic air travel into various London airports - hence freeing up capacity at pretty well all of them. If all point-to-point domestic travel were by ground, I suggest you'd have loads of empty seats. Aggregate two or three A319s into a single 321 (or 767) from each of the main domestic airports timed to meet the main wave of evening intercontinental departures (for connecting traffic) and you've suddenly saved yourself a load of slot pairs.
Or, take the Dutch and Swiss model and have good, regular high-speed trains out of the airport railway station to each of, say, Manchester, Birmingham, etc. and likewise you're freeing up capacity. No-one flies long-haul into Amsterdam and then changes planes for Rotterdam; you go downstairs and get on a train.
BA could even consider code-sharing onto rail services (and this should be made easier as European rail operators move beyond Stephenson's Rocket and co-ordinate things a bit). Imagine being able to check-in for your flight to say, Sydney or LA at Gare du Nord, or Midi, or Centraal, 2 hours or so later be at Heathrow and just clear security and onto your flight. Easy. Probably time saved over having to schlep out to Roissy, Zaventem or Schiphol, do security, wait, taxi out to the Polderbaan (ie. drive half-way to London), stack over Biggin, land, taxi, go to the FCC, etc.
What such fast rail links will make feasible, is wiping out much of the (pointless) domestic air travel into various London airports - hence freeing up capacity at pretty well all of them. If all point-to-point domestic travel were by ground, I suggest you'd have loads of empty seats. Aggregate two or three A319s into a single 321 (or 767) from each of the main domestic airports timed to meet the main wave of evening intercontinental departures (for connecting traffic) and you've suddenly saved yourself a load of slot pairs.
Or, take the Dutch and Swiss model and have good, regular high-speed trains out of the airport railway station to each of, say, Manchester, Birmingham, etc. and likewise you're freeing up capacity. No-one flies long-haul into Amsterdam and then changes planes for Rotterdam; you go downstairs and get on a train.
BA could even consider code-sharing onto rail services (and this should be made easier as European rail operators move beyond Stephenson's Rocket and co-ordinate things a bit). Imagine being able to check-in for your flight to say, Sydney or LA at Gare du Nord, or Midi, or Centraal, 2 hours or so later be at Heathrow and just clear security and onto your flight. Easy. Probably time saved over having to schlep out to Roissy, Zaventem or Schiphol, do security, wait, taxi out to the Polderbaan (ie. drive half-way to London), stack over Biggin, land, taxi, go to the FCC, etc.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ireland nowadays
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some ways I agree, but that would seem to suggest a no growth scenario and even if domestic travel declines, I can see international, particularly long-haul increasing in future years. That would fill up any capacity freed from domestic services.
Also, I can't see any more than a London-Birmingham-Manchester/Liverpool high speed link being built in the next 15 years, so we won't see all domestic capacity moving on to the rails.
It has always struck me as particularly dumb that when the Heathrow Express rail link was built they didn't allow for trains that could go to Reading and on to Bristol/Cardiff or Oxford/Birmingham.
Also, I can't see any more than a London-Birmingham-Manchester/Liverpool high speed link being built in the next 15 years, so we won't see all domestic capacity moving on to the rails.
It has always struck me as particularly dumb that when the Heathrow Express rail link was built they didn't allow for trains that could go to Reading and on to Bristol/Cardiff or Oxford/Birmingham.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great idea - close to the new container port in the Estuary, close to the high-speed rail link, Crossrail can be extended from Abbey Wood, fewer people living in the area to complain.
Then again, we shouldn't be subject to mass planning by politicians - let the markets decide if there is demand for it...
Then again, we shouldn't be subject to mass planning by politicians - let the markets decide if there is demand for it...
There are underused runways already at Sothend and Manston.
The reality is that what we need is one world class purpose built airport, conveniently close to London yet sufficiently far away that the layout can be planned for maximum efficiency and minimum stress rather than dictated by site constraints. 4 runways, with room for at least one more, and 2-3 terminals with room for more if needed, but designed with ease of transfer in mind.
Personally I'm with those who say we should expand an existing airport rather than start over. And while Taildragger was a bit cryptic, if he was hinting at Stansted then I would agree. Unfortunately it would take a huge amount of political balls to bite the bullet and wind Heathrow down, and the infrastructure investment needed would be immense. But the alternative would be to stick with an increasingly unpleasant and congested alternative.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Andy S has implied, trying to build a new large airport without closing Heathrow just wouldn't work. However if it was closed, AND the necessary infrastructure such as road and rail was in place when the new airport opened, instead of a few years later then it could work. WHBM mentioned the lanes heading west on the M4 out of Heathrow - bear in mind that a lot of that traffic then swings north for the M40 and M1, so an airport to the east of London that had efficient road and rail links serving the north would be viable. The traffic isn't all heading for Wales and Cornwall!
One thing we all agree on - it'll never happen for both political and cost reasons.
One thing we all agree on - it'll never happen for both political and cost reasons.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
Great idea - close to the new container port in the Estuary, close to the high-speed rail link, Crossrail can be extended from Abbey Wood, fewer people living in the area to complain.
Also means no staff to work there!
Great idea - close to the new container port in the Estuary, close to the high-speed rail link, Crossrail can be extended from Abbey Wood, fewer people living in the area to complain.
Also means no staff to work there!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Glasvegas, Scotland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of code sharing with rail services, I remember way back in 1993 turning up at the train station in The Hague and being able to check in for my flight from Schipol, on Air UK, later that morning.
Can't be too difficult to arrange in today's information age, surely???
Can't be too difficult to arrange in today's information age, surely???
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tortola
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA also used to let you check in at Victoria before boarding the Gatwick Express, was a great service, you got rid of the luggage early and went straight to departures at the airport.