Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

Heathrow Plans (Merged)

Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Heathrow Plans (Merged)

Old 21st Sep 2008, 10:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London Under EGLL(LHR) 27R ILS
Age: 28
Posts: 495
Heathrow Plans (Merged)

‘Boris Island’ airport may replace Heathrow

The London mayor plans to shut down the city’s main airport and build a new four-runway hub in the Thames estuary


Now his officials are drawing up proposals to close it and replace it with a 24-hour airport located on an artificial island in the Thames estuary.
Why can't he just think about the amount of people who will loose Jobs and how hard it will be for those who mostly live Near Heathrow to travel across not just one side of London but that and Kent.

Yeah there is the Eurostar that stops near by and could be extended... But Bohoo. That wont work as everyone has to go through Central/city of London to get there.

How the does a Runway cost this much to build?

The government is expected to decide by the end of the year whether to allow a controversial third runway to be built at Heathrow, at a cost of up to £13 billion.
Terminal 5 looks better than a Runway at just £3BN

How many think this will never happen, i believe it wont.

‘Boris Island’ airport may replace Heathrow - Times Online
HeathrowAirport is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 10:50
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 649
If they can do it in Hong Kong why shouldn't it be possible in London? I can see Boris's point there. Joblosses? BS, just a longer commute for people who live close to LHR now. It would deconflict a lot of things I guess.
Longhitter is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 10:51
  #3 (permalink)  
Fly Conventional Gear
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,599
Essential problem for Boris is that he doesn't have the power to close Heathrow or build a new airport. The decision has to be made by the Government and I think it's pretty unlikely they are going to do that in the near future....although the idea does have some advantages...
Contacttower is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 11:27
  #4 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 71
Posts: 2,109
The sooner LHR is a thing of the past, the better. Every experience there is a nightmare. (Of course it will never happen).

Kong Kong, Osaka and other have already proven the viability of such an airport relocation.
ZFT is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 11:51
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 2,286
Perhaps Boris had better have a word in God's ear, because the site somewhere on the Maplin Sands is a bird migratory route and perhaps due to the changing weather systems a permanent bird nesting area. Can you imagine trying to get insurance cover for aircraft movements if the risk of bird ingestion were so high ?

The idea of placing the main airport away from the city is a sound one and will/would be made without thought to the business health of west London, but for the business health of London as a whole and the surrounding regions. As for whether this might happen in our lifetime is debatable. My guess is that they will build the 3rd runway and curse another section of this massive city to
near permanent noise pollution. I don't believe that the UK governments (whichever) are capable of making the huge infrastructure decisions that are apparent in many other countries in the world. We will see.


Regards


SHJ
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 11:52
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 76
Posts: 507
Smile safety improved too .. . . . . . . . . . .

Now his officials are drawing up proposals to close it and replace it with a 24-hour airport located on an artificial island in the Thames estuary
About time too ! I've espoused this idea for a long time, and especially after BA038 in Jan. What if the failure had happened just minutes earlier ? Large jets full of people over central London all day every day is just ASKING for a tragedy to happen eventually.

UK's prevailing winds are usually westerly, so great majority of approaches would be over open water. Distance wise it would not be much further from central London than Gatwick or Stansted.

What an opportunity to plan, design, and build an airport for the Capital which really could serve for most of the next millennium !
AMEandPPL is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 12:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 40
Posts: 6,168
God is this airliners.net? Speaking as someone who lives in London as opposed to the spotters view from a 1000 miles away I say stop getting all excited! This is political posturing as you all ought to know. They are not going to destroy the habitats of a myriad of rare and priceless birds and concrete half way across the East Coast. Really. Having given the go ahead for Heathrow East, Terminal 5 and the Heathrow Express that's a lot of captial gone to waste in the past ten years!

This new white elephant would be beyond the Heathrow catchment area which could fragment to closer airports and is way out of my way as a Heathrow customer. Politicians talk the talk, Cameron indulges Zac Goldsmith but the Conservatives will come under IMMENSE pressure from people to approve the building of a new runway at Heathrow.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 12:49
  #8 (permalink)  
Too mean to buy a long personal title
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
Speaking as someone who lives in London as opposed to the spotters view from a 1000 miles away I say stop getting all excited! This is political posturing as you all ought to know. They are not going to destroy the habitats of a myriad of rare and priceless birds and concrete half way across the East Coast. Really.
Exactly. I don't know how Boris can possibly think that there is any realistic prospect that this idea will float (or fly) this time, when it's got exactly the same problems as have killed the idea every single time it's previously been mooted.
Globaliser is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 13:16
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The UK
Posts: 15
I am unsure as to how they came up with £13 Billion! A 12 mile, 4 lane bypass has recently been opened close to me and the cost of this was £52 million. It's lit most of the distance and has been dug approx 40ft lower than the surrounding ground so I cant see how a runway would cost 25 times that amount! I appreciate it would take a lot more abuse from several hundred tonne planes every few minutes, but I would be interested to see how they justify this cost.
Rocky1987 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 13:48
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 40
Posts: 6,168
About time too ! I've espoused this idea for a long time, and especially after BA038 in Jan. What if the failure had happened just minutes earlier ? Large jets full of people over central London all day every day is just ASKING for a tragedy to happen eventually.
Hysterical nonsense. I lived near a town where a B747 crashed and demolished an entire street. A plane crash is a tragedy anywhere. Presumably you advocate closing London City at once? Or would a 146 into Canary Wharf be OK?
Gatwick outbounds also fly over central London as do the long hauls from Europe. Let's send them the long way round as well? I think perspective is becoming an endangered species these days

ANYONE with any experience of project managing a large construction project within the UK KNOWS that the figures quoted are absurdly low. Look at the Olympics, pitch a low imaginary figure, close the sale and then double, triple it and then keep climbing with the quotes. This would be the biggest construction project in Europe, as we head into recession, in the middle of a sea lane home to a huge amout of rare and protected species. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Dust off the Maplin brochures and go back to sleep. A properly regulated Runway 3 and more control on BAA would fix a lot of Heathrow's problems. Terminal 5 HAS started a long slow transformation process which Heathrow East will build upon.

As for noise? Well I hardly think there's many people that didn't know the bloody airport was there when they moved in voluntarily.

1960s : B707 / B727 / DC8 / DC9 / BAC111 / VC10 / Trident / Caravelle

1970s : B747 / L1011 / DC10 / Concorde

1980s : B757 / B767 / A310 / A320

1990s : B737NG / A330 / A340 / MD11 / EMBs

2000s : A380

Think of a taxy-ing Viscount and then whinge about "NOISE!!!!"

P E R S P E C T I V E

Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 21st Sep 2008 at 15:48.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 14:26
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 2,286
Think of a taxy-ing Viscount and then whinge about "NOISE!!!!"
Ah nostalgia! What's a dart between friends ? I remember as a young boy lying in bed at night and the late evening departure of a VC-10 heading eastwards across the city would reverberate sometimes for up to 10mins if the atmospherics were helpful.....that was loud. Nowdays it's just a brief rise in noise and then it's gone, it really is all about perspective, as Skipness states.

Also, as stated, the amount spent (finally after decades of dithering) on needed infrastructure at LHR was for a reason. Why do you think that the area to the north west of LHR was never built on in any meaningful way ? The plan has always been for a third runway and it will be implemented no matter how many protests from residents and interested parties.

It is said that you can judge a country by it's airport (main) and that being the case LHR does the job nicely I'll leave it up to you to provide the interpretation.


Regards


SHJ
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 15:14
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 465
1960s : B707 / B727 / DC8 / DC9 / BAC111 / VC10 / Trident / Caravelle
IL62 and a few more.

and how many have bought houses in the area since the 60s?

I lived close to the outer marker between 28L /28R for 15 years with no double glazing in my house. I bought the house in 65 and survived.

I was one of the few who saw Concorde on its first ( unscheduled ) approach to LHR. Noise protests? What noise protests?

I miss the last RAF VC10s out of LHR. It was an opportunity to remind the moaners what "normal" aircraft used to sound like rather them using Concorde as an example.

The cost of the Olympics will kill off any thoughts of Maplin for decades.
Add the Crossrail costs and although this would make Maplin closer ( in journey time) for many it will also suck up funds.

The sooner the new runway is built the better.
beamender99 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 15:50
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London Under EGLL(LHR) 27R ILS
Age: 28
Posts: 495
Gatwick outbounds also fly over central London as do the long hauls from Europe.
Only LAM and CLN SID's

I also live in London to be exact, i live exactly below the ILS for 27R and noise is not a Problem.. I don't know what pollution does to us but the noise is not much. I would like to see something like Atlanta in the UK, busy as that.. I seen the ILS on Airnav and there's like 15-20 a/c on 5 Runways ILS. As for moving an airport... That's going to make Heathrow ten times as worse as there will be no ivestment into the Airport.

I say just expand Heathrow so there's room to accomodate more traffic.
HeathrowAirport is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 16:07
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 40
Posts: 6,168
Only LAM and CLN SID's

I also live in London to be exact, i live exactly below the ILS for 27R and noise is not a Problem.. I don't know what pollution does to us but the noise is not much. I would like to see something like Atlanta in the UK, busy as that.. I seen the ILS on Airnav and there's like 15-20 a/c on 5 Runways ILS. As for moving an airport... That's going to make Heathrow ten times as worse as there will be no ivestment into the Airport.

I say just expand Heathrow so there's room to accomodate more traffic.
Atlanta has S P A C E. In London, there is little room in both airspace and on the ground but it can be done if done intelligently. However this is Britian after 10 years of Nanny Labour! Therefore it's a rather bigger ask than in other countries.
You are a Heathrow Fan clearly, and on a good day I can be too. However last Friday I had to sprint the full length of the domestic pier at T1, ( why I wasn't arrested for behaving suspiciosly I don't know, I mean FULL SPRINT all the way to Gate 8, anyhow I digress ). The security muppet forgot to take my piccy and so I therefore couldn't prove that I wasn't an asylim seeker from Africa trying to get around immigration by flying on domestically to Aberdeen.... I loved the lecture from mr Rude BAA Man that it was in my own interests to carry my passport when flying domestically as I am now forced to use the Mall on T1 as dedicated domestic search has been withdrawn.

You can't keep ramming so many passengers through without the proper investment. BAA has NOT invested as it was in their interests to sweat the retail assets rather than invest in proper passenger facilities. Hence the reason so many connecting passengers now use Schipol, CDG or Dubai.
Heathrow is not supposed to be a plane spotters / enthusiasts wet dream, it is supposed to be a functioning facility that gets me from A to B without fuss, not my local shopping nightmare.
BAA are trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Let's not let them.

Incidentally neither Clacton or Lambourne SIDS are routed over central London.......


Oooh forgot Tu-134 / TU154, Mercures (?) and Comets in the 1960s and onwards.....

Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 21st Sep 2008 at 16:26.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 17:21
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
They will be lucky to put a new runway in for £13bn, sure the runway on its own won't cost that but it has to be linked to the main airport, so that will be major work to get Bath road under it at least twice and then there will be terminal 6 or 7. After that there is compensation for relocation and additional sound proofing for however many?

Another air traffic control tower, ILS power supplies, water sewage, road links, rail links, think £20bn?!! a new site won't cost anymore and you have the growth to cope with it.

It will only make any sense if LHR is closed other wise most operators will stay put, BTW it will probably finish LCY off as well, but the land will be worth a fortune by then

$million dollar question, will happen, i doubt it, but LHR will get R3 is my bet
Facelookbovvered is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 18:13
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 46
Posts: 1,946
Does everyone really have such short memories?

I'm all for recycling, but Boris has plagiarised the Cliffe Airport proposal, dismissed for good reason, and passed it off as his own, just to grab a few headlines to steal the limelight from hash Gordon, who is trying to single handedly take the credit for reducing the price of oil!
jabird is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 18:33
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
There is no chance at all of this happening. After 10 plus years of Brown UK plc is bust and already the man is saying he is going to borrow even more.
Hong Kong had the money, plus a largely Korean workforce on fixed rates, no scams and a with a dynamic work ethic who worked 24/7/365 whereas on T5 there was little or no night or weekend working. Can you see that being "allowed" to happen here?
Skylion is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 19:39
  #18 (permalink)  

Mach 3
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
LHR needs 2 or 3 extra runways if its to handle forecast growth for any significant period.

It is pointless adding only 1.

When did LHR first become constrained by capacity?

1 year ago? 5 years ago? 10 years ago?

What this government calls investment is merely rearguard action to ameliorate demand which has been constrained for years.

Investment means an airport which will operate at substantially less than 100% capacity for a significant period of time henceforth....

Personally, we should build a new one.

LHR is a national disgrace.
SR71 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 20:02
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Aberdeen Scotland
Age: 81
Posts: 6
Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee to Close

A new Airport at Stirling is on th cards and three will close EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, and DUNDEE. It makes sense for Scotland .
jonnymac is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2008, 20:21
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 46
Posts: 1,946
Yeah, and let's build a new airport between Rugby and Coventry whilst we're at it.

All looked at in the White Paper, all dismissed - we can't even get a new terminal here, and that's just to handle 2m pax per year without any investment needed on the kind of scale mentioned above.

New airports on greenfield (or muddy marsh) sites in the UK?

Who will pay? No-one
How will they get past the nimby and the green lobby? They won't

Pigs will sprout wings before any of these proposals leave the drawing board.
jabird is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.