New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
My figure was based on buying the town out entirely for airport / related usage. I'm not sure that you could just 'bribe' people with a payment for noise, although airports do have insulation grant schemes. Either way, that would be a large group of antis to placate, it is always easier to keep noise disturbances in their current place than to move them elsewhere, even if you are proposing a net reduction in noise footprint, the politics doesn't work that way.
And can you please stop referring to these flights as being domestic / Schengen - the UK isn't part of that agreement, and is unlikely to be.
If you are suggesting that a flight transfer between two Schengen countries - e.g ARN-SSI-MAD, then fair enough, but you are still talking about splitting the airport into different zones. The Foster proposal has a lot more in common with HKG - essentially part reclaimed land, part terra firma, and from what I have seen of his diagrams much more of the latter. HKG has two runways, as does KIX, to have a 2 + 2 configuration with central terminal area, enabling sim. approaches should enable the kind of capacity such a project would need (100-150m pax pa), extending to 6 runwas and two terminal areas would nearly double the cost, not to mention the huge extra costs of building in that location.
Sadly, your two other examples are not relevant - Burj Khalifa is a tower, deep piles for a huge superstructure, airports need stable runways over a vast area. The Dutch reclaim land behind dykes, the Thames Barrier 2 would remain open most of the time.
My figure was based on buying the town out entirely for airport / related usage. I'm not sure that you could just 'bribe' people with a payment for noise, although airports do have insulation grant schemes. Either way, that would be a large group of antis to placate, it is always easier to keep noise disturbances in their current place than to move them elsewhere, even if you are proposing a net reduction in noise footprint, the politics doesn't work that way.
And can you please stop referring to these flights as being domestic / Schengen - the UK isn't part of that agreement, and is unlikely to be.
If you are suggesting that a flight transfer between two Schengen countries - e.g ARN-SSI-MAD, then fair enough, but you are still talking about splitting the airport into different zones. The Foster proposal has a lot more in common with HKG - essentially part reclaimed land, part terra firma, and from what I have seen of his diagrams much more of the latter. HKG has two runways, as does KIX, to have a 2 + 2 configuration with central terminal area, enabling sim. approaches should enable the kind of capacity such a project would need (100-150m pax pa), extending to 6 runwas and two terminal areas would nearly double the cost, not to mention the huge extra costs of building in that location.
Sadly, your two other examples are not relevant - Burj Khalifa is a tower, deep piles for a huge superstructure, airports need stable runways over a vast area. The Dutch reclaim land behind dykes, the Thames Barrier 2 would remain open most of the time.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird,
yes the German Greens were in coalition, and ask any Conservative how easily a junior coalition partner can scupper government policies! The German Greens would have had the same opportunities, rightly, it was not stopped.
Silverstrata,
Think the whole tenor of my comment implies complete opposition to a new Thames airport!!
Unfortunately, all advocates for the Thames airport consistently fail to explain (1) who will pay for it, and (2) why the airlines would leave one of the world's largest hubs (Heathrow) for a deserted backwater.
Without addressing these two basic issues, this "pie in the sky" will remain just that: "pie in the sky".
Good point about Bournemouth, it reinforces the point about the importance of hub airports for transferring passengers and therefore the neccessity expanding Heathrow.
yes the German Greens were in coalition, and ask any Conservative how easily a junior coalition partner can scupper government policies! The German Greens would have had the same opportunities, rightly, it was not stopped.
Silverstrata,
Think the whole tenor of my comment implies complete opposition to a new Thames airport!!
Unfortunately, all advocates for the Thames airport consistently fail to explain (1) who will pay for it, and (2) why the airlines would leave one of the world's largest hubs (Heathrow) for a deserted backwater.
Without addressing these two basic issues, this "pie in the sky" will remain just that: "pie in the sky".
Good point about Bournemouth, it reinforces the point about the importance of hub airports for transferring passengers and therefore the neccessity expanding Heathrow.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo:
True, if they had everything straight ahead to 5nm before turning. However, LHR SIDs split earlier, so we can get 1 minute departure separations. So we can theoretically get 60 departures airborne in 1 hour.
True, if they had everything straight ahead to 5nm before turning. However, LHR SIDs split earlier, so we can get 1 minute departure separations. So we can theoretically get 60 departures airborne in 1 hour.
In which case, Silver Island can do likewise. Not everyone will be going straight ahead, just as they don't all go straight ahead from LHR.
The only difference is the addition of the extra domestic-shengen runways. But if they do a circling departure (as you have to do from many airports, especially if terrain is a factor), then there is little or no departure conflict here.
So Silver Island would theoretically be able to get 60 flights airborne per hour from the right runway, 60 from the left, and 30 from the center.
And as an side, I have not noticed many departures from LHR doing split-arse 45 degree turns at 300 ft after take off (the one minute point). Perhaps you could explain this dichotomy. Do you have some example SIDs for us?
Gonzo:
And yet you seem to be the only pilot who's complaining!!!!! We've done it that way for years. So have other airports. Where are the reports of airliners flying into the ground due to infringed ILS sensitive areas outside of 2nm from touchdown?
So you'd spend £XXbn for an airport that would not actually deliver any capacity increase.
And yet you seem to be the only pilot who's complaining!!!!! We've done it that way for years. So have other airports. Where are the reports of airliners flying into the ground due to infringed ILS sensitive areas outside of 2nm from touchdown?
So you'd spend £XXbn for an airport that would not actually deliver any capacity increase.
And on the contrary, Heathrow DOES have capacity constraints and flight cancellations, especially when low-viz procedures are in force (when 3nm spacings suddenly become 5-6nm spacings). The whole point about the 3-runway layout, is that the approach and landing capacity is sufficiently high, so there would be no difference between normal and low-viz procedures - you could always have 5-6 nm approach spacing.
And remember, Silver Island can have 24 hour operations, and that represents another 25 - 30% capacity over Heathrow.
Man7
Yes you are correct the Burj tower in Dubai is built on sand with the help of the below !!!
"Over 45,000 m3 (58,900 cu yd) of concrete, weighing more than 110,000 tonnes were used to construct the concrete and steel foundation, which features 192 piles buried more than 50 m (164 ft) deep.
Yes you are correct the Burj tower in Dubai is built on sand with the help of the below !!!
"Over 45,000 m3 (58,900 cu yd) of concrete, weighing more than 110,000 tonnes were used to construct the concrete and steel foundation, which features 192 piles buried more than 50 m (164 ft) deep.
And you may not know this, but Dutch roads are built straight on top of the sand, without any elaborate foundations. As I said before, sand is a very good foundation, if you can keep it contained and stabilised.
Man7
Having spent many an hour wandering the shoreline of the thames at low tide I can assure you that this stuff won't hold anything heavier than a seagull !!
Having spent many an hour wandering the shoreline of the thames at low tide I can assure you that this stuff won't hold anything heavier than a seagull !!
What you are describing is Thames silt and mud, not sand. For building purposes, you go out into the estuary and dredge nice clean sand, just like the Dutch do. And there is plenty of it around, which is why you have locations called 'sands' all over the estuary.
Jabird:
My figure was based on buying the town out entirely for airport / related usage. I'm not sure that you could just 'bribe' people with a payment for noise, although airports do have insulation grant schemes. Either way, that would be a large group of antis to placate.
My figure was based on buying the town out entirely for airport / related usage. I'm not sure that you could just 'bribe' people with a payment for noise, although airports do have insulation grant schemes. Either way, that would be a large group of antis to placate.
Jabird:
And can you please stop referring to these flights as being domestic / Schengen - the UK isn't part of that agreement, and is unlikely to be.
And can you please stop referring to these flights as being domestic / Schengen - the UK isn't part of that agreement, and is unlikely to be.
Anyway, as you well know, both customs and immigration are far easier for European inbounds than the rest of the world. Most European passport holders can sail though immigration without much of a second glance. So the same argument pretty much applies - a separate domestic/shengen terminal is the easier solution, rather than mixing passengers in one terminal.
Jabird:
The Dutch reclaim land behind dykes, the Thames Barrier 2 would remain open most of the time.
The Dutch reclaim land behind dykes, the Thames Barrier 2 would remain open most of the time.
And Yes - all of the runways at Schiphol are built on reclaimed land in exactly the same fashion as they will be at Silver Island, and they seem pretty stable to me. (I'll give you a clue, all of Schiphol is about 12 feet below sea level. )
Fairdeal:
Unfortunately, all advocates for the Thames airport consistently fail to explain (1) who will pay for it, and (2) why the airlines would leave one of the world's largest hubs (Heathrow) for a deserted backwater.
Unfortunately, all advocates for the Thames airport consistently fail to explain (1) who will pay for it, and (2) why the airlines would leave one of the world's largest hubs (Heathrow) for a deserted backwater.
2. Well, with LHR shut, they could either choose a brand new hub with all facilities, or use Manston.
Silver-Boris Island, with new departure tracks and sea defenses:
Silver-Foster, with new departure tracks and sea defenses:
.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
Construction is not really your subject, is it?
Why can't you debate this subject without making smart-arse patronising remarks. Its a real shame because you are obviously a highly intelligent individual with a huge amount to contribute.
I really feel like having a go back, but I won't because I am a gentleman that doesn't have a "superior, I know better than you all" attitude towards anyone that answers back.
However -
No I am not an engineer but I have spent the last 6 years specialising in construction photography, currently working on an several very large coastal defence projects, documenting engineering techniques used to stabilise sand and estuary mud !! Have you actually ever got your feet wet in the mud of numerous UK estuaries and bays ?? I have, as recently as this afternoon in fact.
Construction is not really your subject, is it?
Why can't you debate this subject without making smart-arse patronising remarks. Its a real shame because you are obviously a highly intelligent individual with a huge amount to contribute.
I really feel like having a go back, but I won't because I am a gentleman that doesn't have a "superior, I know better than you all" attitude towards anyone that answers back.
However -
No I am not an engineer but I have spent the last 6 years specialising in construction photography, currently working on an several very large coastal defence projects, documenting engineering techniques used to stabilise sand and estuary mud !! Have you actually ever got your feet wet in the mud of numerous UK estuaries and bays ?? I have, as recently as this afternoon in fact.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Fairdeal:
Unfortunately, all advocates for the Thames airport consistently fail to explain (1) who will pay for it, and (2) why the airlines would leave one of the world's largest hubs (Heathrow) for a deserted backwater.
1. The sale of LHR, plus the construction costs already earmarked for the new Thames crossing and the new Thames barrier.
2. Well, with LHR shut, they could either choose a brand new hub with all facilities, or use Manston.
Silverstrata, and Ferrovial will sell LHR because.......
Fairdeal:
Unfortunately, all advocates for the Thames airport consistently fail to explain (1) who will pay for it, and (2) why the airlines would leave one of the world's largest hubs (Heathrow) for a deserted backwater.
1. The sale of LHR, plus the construction costs already earmarked for the new Thames crossing and the new Thames barrier.
2. Well, with LHR shut, they could either choose a brand new hub with all facilities, or use Manston.
Silverstrata, and Ferrovial will sell LHR because.......
Paxing All Over The World
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: No new airport will be built in the South Easth of England in the next 25 years. Island/mainland/reclaim land, makes no never mind, as it will not be built. Reasons have been detailed several times in this thread already. Now, back to the debate. 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS,
You are misunderstanding again.
The 1 minute or 2 minute departure separation refers to the time between take-offs, not the time after take off when the aircraft turns.
Ok, let me be clear on this.
You are saying that in CATIII conditions, with an arrival-arrival separation of 5-6nm you believe there's something wrong if you don't get landing clearance by the time no.2 is at 3nm?
Serious question.....do you know how long it takes to vacate a runway and be clear of the LSA in CATIII?
That is leaving arriving aircraft the same length of time as they take just to vacate the runway in normal ops!!!!
Ok, now I think you aren't really reading my posts. I never suggested at any point that LHR does not have capacity constraints. I think, having worked with them every day for 13 years, I probably have a better idea of them than most.
However, do you really want to limit the traffic to enable zero delay if we go into CATIII?
You seriously want the whole airport to constrain itself dramatically the vast majority of the time to ensure that on the rare (averaged over the year) CATIII days you get no delay?
No airport operator in the world is going to want to operate your new airport!
And as an side, I have not noticed many departures from LHR doing split-arse 45 degree turns at 300 ft after take off (the one minute point). Perhaps you could explain this dichotomy. Do you have some example SIDs for us?
The 1 minute or 2 minute departure separation refers to the time between take-offs, not the time after take off when the aircraft turns.
I have never been given a Cat III landing clearance inside 3nm. And that includes some very busy airports. And if you cannot get the landing clearance in by 3nm, when the Cat III approach spacing is about 5-6 nm, then something is wrong.
You are saying that in CATIII conditions, with an arrival-arrival separation of 5-6nm you believe there's something wrong if you don't get landing clearance by the time no.2 is at 3nm?
Serious question.....do you know how long it takes to vacate a runway and be clear of the LSA in CATIII?
That is leaving arriving aircraft the same length of time as they take just to vacate the runway in normal ops!!!!
And on the contrary, Heathrow DOES have capacity constraints and flight cancellations, especially when low-viz procedures are in force (when 3nm spacings suddenly become 5-6nm spacings). The whole point about the 3-runway layout, is that the approach and landing capacity is sufficiently high, so there would be no difference between normal and low-viz procedures - you could always have 5-6 nm approach spacing.
However, do you really want to limit the traffic to enable zero delay if we go into CATIII?
You seriously want the whole airport to constrain itself dramatically the vast majority of the time to ensure that on the rare (averaged over the year) CATIII days you get no delay?
No airport operator in the world is going to want to operate your new airport!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
It really is not the same thing to compare Dutch reclamation methods, which involve reclaiming land behind dykes, but otherwise surrounded by more land, with the construction of a completely new island in water some meters deep.
Now I don't have a Thames Estuary contour map to hand, but I put it to you that your island would be several times deeper than Foster's only partially offshore proposal at its deepest point. I still question the merits of combining Thames Barrier and crossing in same structure, as optimal points for either are not necessarily in the same place, but Foster's idea is at least much closer to the mark than yours, which could be at least twice as long as his, plus the extra cost of building at such depth, and having more depth changes in the sea bed - not so easy if the crossing goes below the barrage (as Foster's would). There is also the question of how the various Thames ports would operate if Silver barrage was closed? Locks in such a structure would be prohibitively expensive.
Now as to the runway separation - indeed I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have a reasonable knowledge of European politics, as do most contributors on this thread. So UK domestic and Schengen would still be separate zones. And the runway still doesn't care about the nationality of the pax using it, just a question of whether takeoff / landing can be achieved, yes or no. Yes, I agree, you could build shorter runways to serve the local traffic, but better to use the island terminal + 2 runways each side widely used elsewhere, and proposed by Foster. And even if you are going to use 4L + 2S, surely your island needs to spin the other way round - most of the local traffic would cross the LH otherwise.
It really is not the same thing to compare Dutch reclamation methods, which involve reclaiming land behind dykes, but otherwise surrounded by more land, with the construction of a completely new island in water some meters deep.
Now I don't have a Thames Estuary contour map to hand, but I put it to you that your island would be several times deeper than Foster's only partially offshore proposal at its deepest point. I still question the merits of combining Thames Barrier and crossing in same structure, as optimal points for either are not necessarily in the same place, but Foster's idea is at least much closer to the mark than yours, which could be at least twice as long as his, plus the extra cost of building at such depth, and having more depth changes in the sea bed - not so easy if the crossing goes below the barrage (as Foster's would). There is also the question of how the various Thames ports would operate if Silver barrage was closed? Locks in such a structure would be prohibitively expensive.
Now as to the runway separation - indeed I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have a reasonable knowledge of European politics, as do most contributors on this thread. So UK domestic and Schengen would still be separate zones. And the runway still doesn't care about the nationality of the pax using it, just a question of whether takeoff / landing can be achieved, yes or no. Yes, I agree, you could build shorter runways to serve the local traffic, but better to use the island terminal + 2 runways each side widely used elsewhere, and proposed by Foster. And even if you are going to use 4L + 2S, surely your island needs to spin the other way round - most of the local traffic would cross the LH otherwise.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now so much of this thread has been about LHR v Boris / George / Norm / Silver Island (Silver, I hope you feel honoured in such company, but you did start the thread
).
There has been little mention of the much more obvious option of a massive expansion of LGW.
Now, please don't get me wrong - I am not talking about the pointless Heathwick suggestion, which would burn £5bn of cash, without adding any extra capacity.
Currently, around 30-40% of LHR traffic is transfer, but out of that, a very large percentage must surely be BA-BA, or at least within Oneworld? Taking bmi out of the equation removes the case for Star having a signficant hub operation at LHR, just a number of disparate connections between their European, Asian and North American members.
The whole model of killing one airport and moving to a megahub has been tested elsewhere, and we know it is fraught with risk, especially in a city with so many airports. Therefore, we have to ask where the dual hub model works.
Surely, if there is one city London wants to compete with in the world stage, forget about lesser European rivals, forget about chaotic Asian upstarts with none of the history, surely it is still New York?
Now New York might be a long way off from being the perfect city in terms of transport, but it does have TWO intercontintal hub airports, sprawling JFK with its separate terminals initially planned for each airline and the much better organised EWR, a major hub for Continental (/United).
Now is JFK really the New York airport in terms of snob value? Maybe we should think of the appropriate British character, and rename Gatwick after him or her? Suggestions please?
What else would it take to bribe the non-Oneworld airlines from LHR to LGW? A truly iconic terminal (Foster has had his turn, how about Calatrava, or even Gehry for anything non-functional - maybe a hotel / office complex adjacent to the terminal). Instead of a link between LHR-LGW, taking what would be relatively small numbers of transfer pax if traffic between the two was split between the airline alliances, why not concentrate on improving surface links between LGW and London? Crossrail improves E-W links, whereas Crossrail2 seems more like a regional service - considering all the tunneling done for HS1, why not continue HS2 through London and terminate at LGW? (I could elaborate on my critique of HS2, and go into other options on this, but appreciate this is an aviation forum, so I'll simply say that £5bn on surface access from LGW into London, NOT to LHR would go a very long way).
Consider LGW v LHR or B / G / N / S Island:
1) Substantially cheaper to build
2) Much lower noise footprint than LHR
3) Already plugs in to extensive road and rail network
4) Reasonably close to high income populations
).There has been little mention of the much more obvious option of a massive expansion of LGW.
Now, please don't get me wrong - I am not talking about the pointless Heathwick suggestion, which would burn £5bn of cash, without adding any extra capacity.
Currently, around 30-40% of LHR traffic is transfer, but out of that, a very large percentage must surely be BA-BA, or at least within Oneworld? Taking bmi out of the equation removes the case for Star having a signficant hub operation at LHR, just a number of disparate connections between their European, Asian and North American members.
The whole model of killing one airport and moving to a megahub has been tested elsewhere, and we know it is fraught with risk, especially in a city with so many airports. Therefore, we have to ask where the dual hub model works.
Surely, if there is one city London wants to compete with in the world stage, forget about lesser European rivals, forget about chaotic Asian upstarts with none of the history, surely it is still New York?
Now New York might be a long way off from being the perfect city in terms of transport, but it does have TWO intercontintal hub airports, sprawling JFK with its separate terminals initially planned for each airline and the much better organised EWR, a major hub for Continental (/United).
Now is JFK really the New York airport in terms of snob value? Maybe we should think of the appropriate British character, and rename Gatwick after him or her? Suggestions please?
What else would it take to bribe the non-Oneworld airlines from LHR to LGW? A truly iconic terminal (Foster has had his turn, how about Calatrava, or even Gehry for anything non-functional - maybe a hotel / office complex adjacent to the terminal). Instead of a link between LHR-LGW, taking what would be relatively small numbers of transfer pax if traffic between the two was split between the airline alliances, why not concentrate on improving surface links between LGW and London? Crossrail improves E-W links, whereas Crossrail2 seems more like a regional service - considering all the tunneling done for HS1, why not continue HS2 through London and terminate at LGW? (I could elaborate on my critique of HS2, and go into other options on this, but appreciate this is an aviation forum, so I'll simply say that £5bn on surface access from LGW into London, NOT to LHR would go a very long way).
Consider LGW v LHR or B / G / N / S Island:
1) Substantially cheaper to build
2) Much lower noise footprint than LHR
3) Already plugs in to extensive road and rail network
4) Reasonably close to high income populations
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think LHR is politically tricky, LGW is worse. The Tory mutiny over HS2 is the prelude to the firestorm for concreting the Home Counties if they tried to double LGW ! Can't see it ever happening.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipless,
I beg to differ. Look at the area around LGW - significantly less populated than LHR, fewer people to object. Of course that doesn't mean it would get an easy ride, every airport has its anti-groups, and there is the wider green lobby to deal with.
Also, being purely cynical on the politics, the seats around LHR are more marginal, therefore MPs can see gain if they oppose its development. Much more blue around LGW. Now when it comes to HS2, yes there will be backlash from MPs on route (or not on route as case is here in Coventry), but it has cross party support. Therefore, if HS2 falls down, it will be due to its exorbitant cost per mile, and treasury re-evaluating case for it. If LGW is expanded using private funds, this is not an issue.
What is your solution to the problem? (Please don't say do nothing, there is an argument to be had saying the industry faces numerous challenges, but that is perhaps for another thread. For the purposes of this debate, we are assuming some level of growth, at least from Far East, so please include at least one new runway in your proposals).
I beg to differ. Look at the area around LGW - significantly less populated than LHR, fewer people to object. Of course that doesn't mean it would get an easy ride, every airport has its anti-groups, and there is the wider green lobby to deal with.
Also, being purely cynical on the politics, the seats around LHR are more marginal, therefore MPs can see gain if they oppose its development. Much more blue around LGW. Now when it comes to HS2, yes there will be backlash from MPs on route (or not on route as case is here in Coventry), but it has cross party support. Therefore, if HS2 falls down, it will be due to its exorbitant cost per mile, and treasury re-evaluating case for it. If LGW is expanded using private funds, this is not an issue.
What is your solution to the problem? (Please don't say do nothing, there is an argument to be had saying the industry faces numerous challenges, but that is perhaps for another thread. For the purposes of this debate, we are assuming some level of growth, at least from Far East, so please include at least one new runway in your proposals).
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is your solution to the problem?
LGW is almost but not quite green field, with lots of nice areas nearby and lots of rich, powerful and influential people who would go all NIMBY as this would be a significant impact of noise on areas thus far unaffected. I think this is pretty unfair, the same goes for Stansted.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy is correct, no new airport will be built in the south east in the forseeable.
Jabird's idea to expand LGW is probably the only alternative to expanding LHR although it is fraught with difficulty. It is reminiscent of the "second force" policy of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s when it was government policy to build up LGW while criminally neglecting to sufficiently expand LHR, and putting us in the position we find ourselves in today.
Successive privately owned airlines were set up at LGW to take on state- owned BOAC and BEA, and despite being handed routes on a plate including those taken away from BOAC/BEA, were still unable to make a success of it. Everything was regulated and "bi-lateral" at the time so governments decided which carriers were on each route. British United, British Caledonian, Laker and Virgin atlantic were all intended as the "second force", LGW-based British carriers.
All failed except VS, and that was because VS saw the writing on the wall and got access to LHR as soon as it could. BD was always LHR-based and was a success for a long time, giving BA a run for it's money on shorthaul.
Even today LGW has relatively little transfer traffic, despite being a base for some very large airlines. It is an oddity and fairly unique:
(1) It serves as an overspill for long haul carriers who cannot gain access to Heathrow, e.g. Vietnam Airlines, and loses them once they do, e.g. Omanair;
(2) It is a base for point-to-point carriers such as U2, FR and BE;
(3) It is a base (secondary hub??) for BA for limited shorthaul and mostly leisure long haul (e.g. west Indies), again, predominantly point-to-point;
(4) It is a major charter/holiday company base (e.g. Monarch, Thomas Cook), again, point-to-point.
Like LHR it is almost full and has expansion issues, a new runway cannot be considered before 2019.
Not sure that non-Oneworld transfer traffic could be tempted to LGW. There is no incentive for the airlines to move especially as LHR is grouping the alliances together for ease of transfer.
It is possible that IAG may keep BD and BA separate (like IB and Vueling, or LH, LX, OS and SN, or AF and KL for example) because of integration, and staffing levels, pay, and seniority issues, at least in the short term, in which case there is no reason why BD would not remain in Star, while route swapping, codesharing and schedule synchconisation take place. IAG, Like LANTAM, could have airlines in, and make money from, membership of more than one alliance, especially if it buys more Star Alliance carriers, such as TAP.
New York is very different from London. Much of JFK and EWR traffic is domestic, as is all of LGA's, and transfer traffic is domestic-domestic or domestic-international. International-international transferring does not really exist in the USA, one has to arrive (visa or ESTA, border control/customs) and then depart (check in/security), which, of course, is to be avoided wherever possible. LHR on the other hand has 30-40% transfer traffic, much of it international-international.
Do like the idea of HS2 extending to LGW, would also suggest that it should also link to LHR. HS2 should also pass through London St Pancras rather than London-Euston to connect with the Eurostar, that would be joined up thinking. Still unconvinced that HS2 will be (or should be) built, but that could stray off-topic.
Jabird's idea to expand LGW is probably the only alternative to expanding LHR although it is fraught with difficulty. It is reminiscent of the "second force" policy of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s when it was government policy to build up LGW while criminally neglecting to sufficiently expand LHR, and putting us in the position we find ourselves in today.
Successive privately owned airlines were set up at LGW to take on state- owned BOAC and BEA, and despite being handed routes on a plate including those taken away from BOAC/BEA, were still unable to make a success of it. Everything was regulated and "bi-lateral" at the time so governments decided which carriers were on each route. British United, British Caledonian, Laker and Virgin atlantic were all intended as the "second force", LGW-based British carriers.
All failed except VS, and that was because VS saw the writing on the wall and got access to LHR as soon as it could. BD was always LHR-based and was a success for a long time, giving BA a run for it's money on shorthaul.
Even today LGW has relatively little transfer traffic, despite being a base for some very large airlines. It is an oddity and fairly unique:
(1) It serves as an overspill for long haul carriers who cannot gain access to Heathrow, e.g. Vietnam Airlines, and loses them once they do, e.g. Omanair;
(2) It is a base for point-to-point carriers such as U2, FR and BE;
(3) It is a base (secondary hub??) for BA for limited shorthaul and mostly leisure long haul (e.g. west Indies), again, predominantly point-to-point;
(4) It is a major charter/holiday company base (e.g. Monarch, Thomas Cook), again, point-to-point.
Like LHR it is almost full and has expansion issues, a new runway cannot be considered before 2019.
Not sure that non-Oneworld transfer traffic could be tempted to LGW. There is no incentive for the airlines to move especially as LHR is grouping the alliances together for ease of transfer.
It is possible that IAG may keep BD and BA separate (like IB and Vueling, or LH, LX, OS and SN, or AF and KL for example) because of integration, and staffing levels, pay, and seniority issues, at least in the short term, in which case there is no reason why BD would not remain in Star, while route swapping, codesharing and schedule synchconisation take place. IAG, Like LANTAM, could have airlines in, and make money from, membership of more than one alliance, especially if it buys more Star Alliance carriers, such as TAP.
New York is very different from London. Much of JFK and EWR traffic is domestic, as is all of LGA's, and transfer traffic is domestic-domestic or domestic-international. International-international transferring does not really exist in the USA, one has to arrive (visa or ESTA, border control/customs) and then depart (check in/security), which, of course, is to be avoided wherever possible. LHR on the other hand has 30-40% transfer traffic, much of it international-international.
Do like the idea of HS2 extending to LGW, would also suggest that it should also link to LHR. HS2 should also pass through London St Pancras rather than London-Euston to connect with the Eurostar, that would be joined up thinking. Still unconvinced that HS2 will be (or should be) built, but that could stray off-topic.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR + Northolt + HS2 + Upper Heyford
I like the sound of one of the options/alternatives tabled earlier in this thread:
Make better use of RAF Northolt which is barely utilised - have a five mile tunnel linking LHR and Northolt underground - road and rail/M40 + M4 inner ring road effectively.
Then go and re-use Upper Heyford with a bigger junction (No. 10) on the M40 (immediately adjacent to Upper Heyford) and divert the HS2 line westwards at that stage to follow more closely the M40 - or have a spur coming off feeding that new airport. If HS2 was to take 45 minutes from London to Birmingham, it will take just twenty-something minutes from London to Upper Heyford. Ideally have HS2 go via LHR in the first place.
LHR + Northolt + HS2 + Upper Heyford then gives the industry two extra interlinked runways which already exist - no new tarmac, one of which is massive - 2.2 miles long.
It has its limitations, but (a) it's one hell of a lot cheaper than some alternatives and (b) both extra runways are the right side of London for the demand that exists and (c) one wouldn't have to wait two decades for this to be instigated - we could be there in just ten, perhaps less?
Make better use of RAF Northolt which is barely utilised - have a five mile tunnel linking LHR and Northolt underground - road and rail/M40 + M4 inner ring road effectively.
Then go and re-use Upper Heyford with a bigger junction (No. 10) on the M40 (immediately adjacent to Upper Heyford) and divert the HS2 line westwards at that stage to follow more closely the M40 - or have a spur coming off feeding that new airport. If HS2 was to take 45 minutes from London to Birmingham, it will take just twenty-something minutes from London to Upper Heyford. Ideally have HS2 go via LHR in the first place.
LHR + Northolt + HS2 + Upper Heyford then gives the industry two extra interlinked runways which already exist - no new tarmac, one of which is massive - 2.2 miles long.
It has its limitations, but (a) it's one hell of a lot cheaper than some alternatives and (b) both extra runways are the right side of London for the demand that exists and (c) one wouldn't have to wait two decades for this to be instigated - we could be there in just ten, perhaps less?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how Northolt would work in practice, it's not taxiabale to the central area so there's no actual connectivity. I mean someone landing at Northolt connecting at LHR would surely find it quicker at AMS or CDG and FRA. It's a competitive disadvantage. Connection times would be much higher.
There's enough moans about coming all the way in from T5C to the UK Border, a five mile train journey is not something you could sell in the market.
There's enough moans about coming all the way in from T5C to the UK Border, a five mile train journey is not something you could sell in the market.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man7:
Why can't you debate this subject without making smart-arse patronising remarks.
Have you actually ever got your feet wet in the mud of numerous UK estuaries and bays ?? I have, as recently as this afternoon in fact.
Why can't you debate this subject without making smart-arse patronising remarks.
Have you actually ever got your feet wet in the mud of numerous UK estuaries and bays ?? I have, as recently as this afternoon in fact.
Actually, I used to be in mineral surveying, so i know a little about this. And I don't even know why we are debating this subject, because building on land reclaimed with sand is a known technique. it has been used for over 500 years, and is still being used to this day.
This is Dutch land reclamation today - using clean sand and not alluvial muds:
And this is the Palm Resort similarly being reclaimed from the sea with sand:
In other words this technique is a known factor, and it works. Although the Palm Resort's idea of leaving the sand 'uncontained' (because it looks nicer) is stretching the technique to its limits. As I said before, the sand needs to be stabilised and contained (preferably within a concrete wall). As anyone who has built a sand-castle will know, if you leave sand unbounded and uncontained it - well - disperses quite rapidly.
Jabird:
Now I don't have a Thames Estuary contour map to hand, but I put it to you that your island would be several times deeper than Foster's only partially offshore proposal at its deepest point.
Now I don't have a Thames Estuary contour map to hand, but I put it to you that your island would be several times deeper than Foster's only partially offshore proposal at its deepest point.
Yes, the Silver-Foster proposal on the Isle of Grain has little or no reclamation required, it is true. But you have still not proposed how you overcome the Greens and their endangered fibonacci snail. How do you deal with tented encampments sitting there for decades? Lampposts and ropes might do the trick, but that is not very PC.
And is the noise factor for local communities in Gravesend and Chatham acceptable or not? (Although the extra jobs for these fairly run-down communities might be a big bribe.)
Jabird:
There is also the question of how the various Thames ports would operate if Silver barrage was closed? Locks in such a structure would be prohibitively expensive.
There is also the question of how the various Thames ports would operate if Silver barrage was closed? Locks in such a structure would be prohibitively expensive.
But note that the current proposal for a new London barrage is from Sheerness to Southend - in other words exactly where Silver Island is located (hence my suggestion for this location in the first place). And if you are going to build such a huge barrier across the Thames estuary, then why not stick a motorway on top of it, and an airport right beside it? Seems reasonable to me....
Bear in mind, however, that these locks can be left open most of the time. The present barrage only closes about 5 times a year, and I expect the new one will operate similarly.
PAX:
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: No new airport will be built in the South Easth of England in the next 25 years. Reasons have been detailed several times in this thread already. Now, back to the debate.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: No new airport will be built in the South Easth of England in the next 25 years. Reasons have been detailed several times in this thread already. Now, back to the debate.
And all of this is lost traffic and lost income to UK PLC. If it is easier to have a head office near Schiphol, then that is where the money will go. And the UK will wither and die alongside LHR.
And divided or fractured hubs is not really what is needed. Yes there will always be domestic traffic and cheaper traffic to LGW and STN, but the premium intercontinental traffic wants a large hub with very good ground and air communications into London/Britain/Europe.
That is what LHR is supposed to be providing, but providing very badly. It is a shame that LHR is in such a rotten place; but with no possibility of expansion it will have to close.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverstrata, you keep stating that LHR will be sold or have to close, but you consistently fail to explain WHY Ferrovial (as owners of the airport) would be inclined to either sell or close the airport. Bearing in mind it's a damned good earner for them, you really do need to properly explain your thinking on this issue.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
Maplin Sands is to the east of Southend, so you would need to park your island just off the coast, and I think you would have just enough space for 2 wide spaced parallels, running roughly NE-SW, but I wouldn't like to see local reaction to such a proposal. Margate is well to the east, so you might aswell use Manston and give Iran Air some company. If you log on to Ordnance Survey, you can see the locations of these sand banks.
I don't think the Dutch polders are comparable, the Zuiderzee is shallower and surely calmer, being an inlet and behind coastal islands.
Combining projects might lower some costs, but only if the location for each is optimal in the same location. The barrage you mention is merely a report, I don't think there has been that much investigation into the matter, or a costing of such a mammoth undertaking.
Any barrage to the east of the major ports could not be crossed by simply placing a bridge on top - the structure would have to be very much higher to enable ships to pass under, then you would have the challenge of what you would do with a road and railway crossing at height, then needing to dip to avoid conflict with the runways. The Oresund crossing, situated near CPH airport, uses a combination of bridge and tunnel, but there is no barrage. I think that is why Foster's answer puts the road and rail link through a tunnel. This would be much more expensive further out, especially if the surface is uneven.
Would need to see a cross-section of the estuary at this point, which I don't think either of us have easy access to, but this is part of the fundamental problem with building here - it is both expensive, and risky. If it wasn't, all the house builders in the country would have been trying it long ago, not just the flashy show off builders in Dubai, where they have (or had) the money.
Such a structure and wall would also need to be high enough so the site was above the tides, and that is quite some volume on the 6 runway site you propose.
Maplin sands (north coast) is about 1 fathom over a large area, and Margate sands (south shore) is about 2 fathoms over an even wider area. I may have Silver Island too far north, and thus dropping the northerly two runways into the main channel, which would not be a good idea - in which case the island may need to drift south a little, or put the domestic runways on the south side.
I don't even know why we are debating this subject, because building on land reclaimed with sand is a known technique.
Combining projects might lower some costs, but only if the location for each is optimal in the same location. The barrage you mention is merely a report, I don't think there has been that much investigation into the matter, or a costing of such a mammoth undertaking.
Any barrage to the east of the major ports could not be crossed by simply placing a bridge on top - the structure would have to be very much higher to enable ships to pass under, then you would have the challenge of what you would do with a road and railway crossing at height, then needing to dip to avoid conflict with the runways. The Oresund crossing, situated near CPH airport, uses a combination of bridge and tunnel, but there is no barrage. I think that is why Foster's answer puts the road and rail link through a tunnel. This would be much more expensive further out, especially if the surface is uneven.
Would need to see a cross-section of the estuary at this point, which I don't think either of us have easy access to, but this is part of the fundamental problem with building here - it is both expensive, and risky. If it wasn't, all the house builders in the country would have been trying it long ago, not just the flashy show off builders in Dubai, where they have (or had) the money.
As I said before, the sand needs to be stabilised and contained (preferably within a concrete wall)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDF,
I can only presume that for such an act to happen, the govt would have to pass a law forcing it from them. They would, of course, resist vigourously, and it would be a long drag through the courts, and even then, they would still have to be paid the market value of the site as a going concern + a premium. One hell of a purchase for a closure which would not be operationally compulsory!
Also, for such a hub to work, it is likely that other airports might need to close too, so then you have separate cases to close down multiple owners - otherwise, faced with the inevitably high PSC for using Island Airport, and it no longer having the competitive advantage that LHR has by being closer to London, more operators would just switch to LGW.
So much as though I love the concept - or at least Foster's slightly more workable version as an engineering challenge, I can't see the politics or the finances ever working.
On the other hand, a new runway at Gatwick and sizeable midfield terminal giving an overall capacity in the region of 80m would be workable financially if there was also a suitable improvement in surface access. The politics would be tricky, but even if there are some big home owners in the vicinity, it is still a far easier sell than LHR's 3rd runway.
Silverstrata, you keep stating that LHR will be sold or have to close, but you consistently fail to explain WHY Ferrovial (as owners of the airport) would be inclined to either sell or close the airport. Bearing in mind it's a damned good earner for them, you really do need to properly explain your thinking on this issue.
Also, for such a hub to work, it is likely that other airports might need to close too, so then you have separate cases to close down multiple owners - otherwise, faced with the inevitably high PSC for using Island Airport, and it no longer having the competitive advantage that LHR has by being closer to London, more operators would just switch to LGW.
So much as though I love the concept - or at least Foster's slightly more workable version as an engineering challenge, I can't see the politics or the finances ever working.
On the other hand, a new runway at Gatwick and sizeable midfield terminal giving an overall capacity in the region of 80m would be workable financially if there was also a suitable improvement in surface access. The politics would be tricky, but even if there are some big home owners in the vicinity, it is still a far easier sell than LHR's 3rd runway.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such a structure and wall would also need to be high enough so the site was above the tides, and that is quite some volume on the 6 runway site you propose.
Ultimately this is a political decision, the rest of it is just engineering and fairly well understood engineering at that.