New Thames Airport for London
Guys
This Govenment briefing document makes fascinating reading and partly explains how we've got into this mess - over the preceding 60 years.
Aviation proposals for an airport in the Thames estuary, 1945-2012 - Commons Library Standard Note - UK Parliament
This Govenment briefing document makes fascinating reading and partly explains how we've got into this mess - over the preceding 60 years.
Aviation proposals for an airport in the Thames estuary, 1945-2012 - Commons Library Standard Note - UK Parliament
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeromad:
What?? Where have they said that? I get the feeling this is more Schutzstaffel racist hype again. ..... I'm sorry SS but your rhetoric is starting to get on my wick.
Silver:
The government is always saying we need new towns to cope with the huge influx of immigrants (one new Birmingham every 5 years is the requirement).
The government is always saying we need new towns to cope with the huge influx of immigrants (one new Birmingham every 5 years is the requirement).
The official figures show that nett immigration is some 350,000. Add a very conservative 100,000 illegal and undetected immigration to that, and you get around 450,000 immigrants per anum - net. Now five years of this, equals about the population of Birmingham - which is why we need many more towns anyway, and is also one reason why we need bigger airports.
Don't get mad with me, Aeromad, it was not my policy. If you don't like it, write to your MP.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 26th Jan 2012 at 04:20.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
Oh please! When was the last time you were actually in central London? Euston effectively has 3 tube lines underneath, and 3 more a very short walk away - C/M/H&C at Euston Square. The new station will link directly to these lines, if you care to to take the time to review the plans before commenting on them.
Oh please! When was the last time you were actually in central London? Euston effectively has 3 tube lines underneath, and 3 more a very short walk away - C/M/H&C at Euston Square. The new station will link directly to these lines, if you care to to take the time to review the plans before commenting on them.
Are you saying that Euston TGV will link to the circle lines? If so, then why was this not done 50 years ago? Why wait until the nation is bankrupt, before someone decides to put in some necessary infrastucture? Nice to know that the authorities have their finger on the pulse of the nation's needs.
BTW: In the light of the UK hitting the £1 trillion debt mark, it has been announced that Edward George is seriously considering printing more £billions (I did warn of this counter-intuitive tactic a few days ago). In which case, if the government is sensible, the money may be available to build Silver-Boris without too much private investment. To do it properly, instead of on the cheap, this should be a government project anyway.
Silver - you need to take another look at the plans. The current idea is that any trains linking between HS1 and HS2 would not call at either Euston or St Pancras - and there lies the problem!
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 26th Jan 2012 at 04:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Etops:
This Govenment briefing document makes fascinating reading and partly explains how we've got into this mess - over the preceding 60 years.
This Govenment briefing document makes fascinating reading and partly explains how we've got into this mess - over the preceding 60 years.
Thanks, Etops, I'll take a read on my next flight.
.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
I'm afraid one of our biggest flaws in the UK is that we just don't do joined up thinking very well - but I'm afraid the US doesn't either, DEN is the largest airport site in the western world, but despite the huge dislocation moving out to that site caused, where is the TGV there? You'll get a tram in 2015.
So I can only comment in two ways - what is planned, or is being considered, and how I would like to do it, given the combined powers of the Mayor of London, the Treasury and the DfT.
Why hasn't Euston Square been linked before? TfL beancounters will have said 'costs too much, people who want to go there will get there anyway, so there's no revenue gain'.
However, with HS2 plan, a Euston Square link will cost perhaps £5m, peanuts to add on to an overall budget for the station which I expect will be around the £1bn mark. As for heavy bags, I'm more concerned about the constant stop-start, uneven pavements on the link in the other direction - that needs travelators too.
Given my magic want, I'd get rid of the British Library and put Euston 2.0 there. That would also grant me permanent favour with King Charles forever - but it won't happen.
I'm afraid one of our biggest flaws in the UK is that we just don't do joined up thinking very well - but I'm afraid the US doesn't either, DEN is the largest airport site in the western world, but despite the huge dislocation moving out to that site caused, where is the TGV there? You'll get a tram in 2015.
So I can only comment in two ways - what is planned, or is being considered, and how I would like to do it, given the combined powers of the Mayor of London, the Treasury and the DfT.
Why hasn't Euston Square been linked before? TfL beancounters will have said 'costs too much, people who want to go there will get there anyway, so there's no revenue gain'.
However, with HS2 plan, a Euston Square link will cost perhaps £5m, peanuts to add on to an overall budget for the station which I expect will be around the £1bn mark. As for heavy bags, I'm more concerned about the constant stop-start, uneven pavements on the link in the other direction - that needs travelators too.
Given my magic want, I'd get rid of the British Library and put Euston 2.0 there. That would also grant me permanent favour with King Charles forever - but it won't happen.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
permanent favour with King Charles forever - but it won't happen.
permanent favour with King Charles forever - but it won't happen.
That's because he will be King George
.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver, try googling Harry + Hewitt.
Now can we get back to airports now?
I still await your business plan. UK govt will never pay for this, but they may, against their better judgement pay for the ground access, and let these sovereign wealth funds pay for the island and the airport that sinks, sorry, stands on top of it.
How will they get their money back? What would you set PSC at to make it work? How would you woo BA, who have clearly said they won't budge? Or are we going down the 2 hub system now, in which case why go to all the expense when you could just add a runway at LGW or STN?
Now can we get back to airports now?
I still await your business plan. UK govt will never pay for this, but they may, against their better judgement pay for the ground access, and let these sovereign wealth funds pay for the island and the airport that sinks, sorry, stands on top of it.
How will they get their money back? What would you set PSC at to make it work? How would you woo BA, who have clearly said they won't budge? Or are we going down the 2 hub system now, in which case why go to all the expense when you could just add a runway at LGW or STN?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
I'm afraid one of our biggest flaws in the UK is that we just don't do joined up thinking very well - but I'm afraid the US doesn't either, DEN is the largest airport site in the western world, but despite the huge dislocation moving out to that site caused, where is the TGV there? You'll get a tram in 2015.
I'm afraid one of our biggest flaws in the UK is that we just don't do joined up thinking very well - but I'm afraid the US doesn't either, DEN is the largest airport site in the western world, but despite the huge dislocation moving out to that site caused, where is the TGV there? You'll get a tram in 2015.
America is a Capitalist free-for all where nothing is planned, and it simply does not work. The USSR was Socialist control-freakery, and that did not work either. Somewhere in the middle will do just fine.
Jabird:
Why hasn't Euston Square been linked before? TfL beancounters will have said 'costs too much, people who want to go there will get there anyway, so there's no revenue gain'.
Why hasn't Euston Square been linked before? TfL beancounters will have said 'costs too much, people who want to go there will get there anyway, so there's no revenue gain'.
Jabird:
Given my magic want, I'd get rid of the British Library and put Euston 2.0 there. That would also grant me permanent favour with King Charles forever - but it won't happen.
Given my magic want, I'd get rid of the British Library and put Euston 2.0 there. That would also grant me permanent favour with King Charles forever - but it won't happen.
But whatever the decision: you cannot have two TGV termini serving the same TGV line!! That would be like placing the new international aviation hub on Silver-Boris Island, and placing the new commuter-aircraft hub at Manston (with a travellator between the two).
No, no, I did not say that (I should not give these numbskulls any bright ideas).
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
Silver, try googling Harry + Hewitt.
Silver, try googling Harry + Hewitt.
Yes, I know the conspiracy theory, which is inviting, but it is also a truism that nearly all the British Monarchs from William the Conquerer onwards were redheads. William the Conquerer was a Scando-Viking, the Stuarts were Scando-Scots and William III was Saxon-Dutch. (Hint, the later monarchs often wore wigs.)
And yes, airports are more interesting.
.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And therein lies the Capitalist-Socialist conundrum.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways won't abandon Heathrow for 'Boris Island' - Telegraph
This is the only one that really matters.
This is the only one that really matters.
From the RAeS
Not so fast, Boris – the CAA and UK airport debate
Proponents of airport expansion in SE England have felt bolstered by a new report from the CAA this week on the future of aviation and air traffic capacity issues in the UK. But should they be that confident?
The Government ruling out expansion at Heathrow has increased attractiveness of a new Thames Airport.
Headlines like ‘Regulator adds thrust to airport capacity debate’ seemed to indicate that the UK’s independent aviation regulator had suddenly taken sides and confirmed there was a need for a new airport or runways in UK. However a closer reading of its report, ‘Aviation Policy for the Future’ showed that the CAA’s observation were a lot more subtle and nuanced.
It is true that it did point out the obvious (namely that there is a capacity issue, and that without action, growth in the long-term will suffer) but it stopped short of recommending a particular solution – whether it be a third runway at Heathrow, Gatwick expansion or the much-hyped ‘Boris International’ airport concept on the Thames – now given extra weight thanks to a proposal from Lord Foster, the architect behind other reclaimed airport projects.
However – it did deal a blow to hopes that regional airports might take up the slack – noting that the UK regional airports are unlikely to provide the ‘hub & spoke system’ needed for a true hub in the future.
But missed by most of the commentators was a hint that given the Single European Sky, perhaps the solution could be found in networked hubs with other European countries. This in fact already happens to some extent. The UK, for example, because of its geographic location is the natural entry/exit point to North America. Similarly (and because of historic cultural ties as well) Spain’s Madrid airport has become the European gateway to South America. Indeed, the decline in domestic services at Heathrow means already that those from the north of the country are in some cases finding it easier to hub and connect using continental hubs.
Says the report: “The UK’s geographical position on the North-West of Europe means that airlines operating out of London can offer competitive journey times for connections to North America compared to other European hubs. Geography, and other factors such as economic, historical and cultural links, would suggest that other European airports might represent more convenient transfer points for routes to other world regions such as Asia, Africa and South America.”
It goes on: “There may therefore be merit in considering a network approach in order to ensure connections for UK regional consumers to a variety of hubs. Such an approach would better take account of the cross-border nature of some of the challenges facing UK aviation in meeting the needs of consumers and would also be consistent with the joined-up approach taken with the Single European Sky airspace initiative.”
The CAA, then seems to be saying that one solution (which would not involve building new airports or runways) would be to use Europe’s existing hubs more efficiently, so that passengers heading East or West would land at the nearest main hub within Europe, before transiting (by air or train).
However, two problems emerge with this. Firstly could the political compromise be found for Heathrow to swap its Singapore services for say Frankfurt’s New York slots? Who would get the most benefit from these trades? Especially given the fastest-growing markets are now to the east of Europe in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.
Second, what happens to the airports in the middle? This seems to indicate that a Europe with a peripheral ring of mega hubs would be the ideal solution, yet in reality the biggest hubs, London, Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt are situated geographically quite close. Would this create new megahubs on the outskirts of Europe?
Finally it could be argued that the northern countries (such as the UK) might also have better access to the Far East (Hong Kong for example) because of new extended ETOPS regulations which will allow long-range twins to forge routes over the north pole, cutting flight times by going direct. The world is, after all, a sphere.
That said, the report by the CAA, and its warnings over future growth, has only intensified the debate further on the future of UK airport, capacity issues and the need for some sort of long-term aviation strategy.
Not so fast, Boris – the CAA and UK airport debate
Proponents of airport expansion in SE England have felt bolstered by a new report from the CAA this week on the future of aviation and air traffic capacity issues in the UK. But should they be that confident?
The Government ruling out expansion at Heathrow has increased attractiveness of a new Thames Airport.
Headlines like ‘Regulator adds thrust to airport capacity debate’ seemed to indicate that the UK’s independent aviation regulator had suddenly taken sides and confirmed there was a need for a new airport or runways in UK. However a closer reading of its report, ‘Aviation Policy for the Future’ showed that the CAA’s observation were a lot more subtle and nuanced.
It is true that it did point out the obvious (namely that there is a capacity issue, and that without action, growth in the long-term will suffer) but it stopped short of recommending a particular solution – whether it be a third runway at Heathrow, Gatwick expansion or the much-hyped ‘Boris International’ airport concept on the Thames – now given extra weight thanks to a proposal from Lord Foster, the architect behind other reclaimed airport projects.
However – it did deal a blow to hopes that regional airports might take up the slack – noting that the UK regional airports are unlikely to provide the ‘hub & spoke system’ needed for a true hub in the future.
But missed by most of the commentators was a hint that given the Single European Sky, perhaps the solution could be found in networked hubs with other European countries. This in fact already happens to some extent. The UK, for example, because of its geographic location is the natural entry/exit point to North America. Similarly (and because of historic cultural ties as well) Spain’s Madrid airport has become the European gateway to South America. Indeed, the decline in domestic services at Heathrow means already that those from the north of the country are in some cases finding it easier to hub and connect using continental hubs.
Says the report: “The UK’s geographical position on the North-West of Europe means that airlines operating out of London can offer competitive journey times for connections to North America compared to other European hubs. Geography, and other factors such as economic, historical and cultural links, would suggest that other European airports might represent more convenient transfer points for routes to other world regions such as Asia, Africa and South America.”
It goes on: “There may therefore be merit in considering a network approach in order to ensure connections for UK regional consumers to a variety of hubs. Such an approach would better take account of the cross-border nature of some of the challenges facing UK aviation in meeting the needs of consumers and would also be consistent with the joined-up approach taken with the Single European Sky airspace initiative.”
The CAA, then seems to be saying that one solution (which would not involve building new airports or runways) would be to use Europe’s existing hubs more efficiently, so that passengers heading East or West would land at the nearest main hub within Europe, before transiting (by air or train).
However, two problems emerge with this. Firstly could the political compromise be found for Heathrow to swap its Singapore services for say Frankfurt’s New York slots? Who would get the most benefit from these trades? Especially given the fastest-growing markets are now to the east of Europe in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.
Second, what happens to the airports in the middle? This seems to indicate that a Europe with a peripheral ring of mega hubs would be the ideal solution, yet in reality the biggest hubs, London, Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt are situated geographically quite close. Would this create new megahubs on the outskirts of Europe?
Finally it could be argued that the northern countries (such as the UK) might also have better access to the Far East (Hong Kong for example) because of new extended ETOPS regulations which will allow long-range twins to forge routes over the north pole, cutting flight times by going direct. The world is, after all, a sphere.
That said, the report by the CAA, and its warnings over future growth, has only intensified the debate further on the future of UK airport, capacity issues and the need for some sort of long-term aviation strategy.
Firstly could the political compromise be found for Heathrow to swap its Singapore services for say Frankfurt’s New York slots?
The idea is a non-starter commercially............
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting piece from the RAeS but, as long-suffering SLF, if I want to go from London to, say, Buenos Aires I'd take the direct non-stop flight offered by any competent carrier rather than connect through Madrid (or anywhere else) which is why I can't get my head around this multi-hub strategy - whether BA's or anyone else's. If there are no direct services then there are a myriad of potential connections through other hubs which are at least as convenient as Madrid, some of which are feasibly accessible by HST, so there's no guarantee that (in this example) IAG would retain my custom. And if there's a single reason why BA needs considerably more slots it's that - business travellers at least want frequent direct services. So WW ought not to be so dogmatic about staying at LHR - provided that if he moved to Boris Island for virtually unlimited slots, LHR would then close.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torquelink:
Interesting piece from the RAeS but, as long-suffering SLF, if I want to go from London to, say, Buenos Aires I'd take the direct non-stop flight offered by any competent carrier rather than connect through Madrid (or anywhere else) which is why I can't get my head around this multi-hub strategy - whether BA's or anyone else's. If there are no direct services then there are a myriad of potential connections through other hubs which are at least as convenient as Madrid
Interesting piece from the RAeS but, as long-suffering SLF, if I want to go from London to, say, Buenos Aires I'd take the direct non-stop flight offered by any competent carrier rather than connect through Madrid (or anywhere else) which is why I can't get my head around this multi-hub strategy - whether BA's or anyone else's. If there are no direct services then there are a myriad of potential connections through other hubs which are at least as convenient as Madrid
If hubs are more efficient, and thus cheaper, people will use them.
The only caveat here, is the hassle. Why do I have to 'enter' a country if I am not going there? If I am inbound international and outbound international two hours later, why cannot I just jump from one aircraft to the next? (Perhaps with a security screen.)
.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So WW ought not to be so dogmatic about staying at LHR - provided that if he moved to Boris Island for virtually unlimited slots, LHR would then close.
Now I am not trying to be awkward, but what commercial reason would make BA wish to give this up? They have been seeking a LHR to themselves my whole life. They could consolidate at even LHR and close LGW.
What commercial independent analysis has been undertaken to see what happens to the high yields that London's hub needs if the operation is split between this new place and LHR?
Would BA's LHR yields improve if they stayed and everyone who has fought for LHR access for decades got kicked out? Is that even legal?
Also, please stop calling it Boris Island, or Silver-Boris. Boris may be about to lose the mayoral election as he's so complacent with one eye on his natural destiny at Number 10, added to the fact he cannot do detailed policy ( i.e. the hard work bit) in any way shape or form. This is not about some blonde sex-mad yet loveable buffoon, this is people's livelihoods and jobs.
If BA stay in West London, the case for a new hub airport, upon which this project rests completely, is nonsense. No other carrier hubs in London. What's left is then a great new and expensive airfield out at sea, for who?
STAR? They're moving into the new world class Heathrow Terminal 2 in 2013.
Skyteam? Seem happy in the refurbished T4. We do have runway capacity at Stansted already in place and expansion is possible for a fraction of the cost of Fantasy Island.
If not the alliances, then who? All of this for Ryanair? They wouldn't pay the fees. easyJet?
I honestly do not understand how this stands up commercially. Who decides who gets turfed out of LHR if they don't close it and if they do, God help anyone standing in a West London seat as a mass of often low paid jobs disappears.
Those in favour? Architects who stand to make millions and politicians with no commercial experience and a five year fixed strategy of saying one thing and doing something possibly different.
Those against? The very businessmen who run the airlines upon which this depends. Anyone working at or near Heathrow. I am genuinely baffled and I have been reading this thread with interest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
It looks like Boris Island does have one airline backer - I suppose the one with the most to gain. Any guesses before I paste the link?
It looks like Boris Island does have one airline backer - I suppose the one with the most to gain. Any guesses before I paste the link?
Skippy
Also, please stop calling it Boris Island, or Silver-Boris. Boris may be about to lose the mayoral election as he's so complacent with one eye on his natural destiny at Number 10, added to the fact he cannot do detailed policy ( i.e. the hard work bit) in any way shape or form. This is not about some blonde sex-mad yet loveable buffoon, this is people's livelihoods and jobs.
Also, please stop calling it Boris Island, or Silver-Boris. Boris may be about to lose the mayoral election as he's so complacent with one eye on his natural destiny at Number 10, added to the fact he cannot do detailed policy ( i.e. the hard work bit) in any way shape or form. This is not about some blonde sex-mad yet loveable buffoon, this is people's livelihoods and jobs.
Welcome back, Skippy, you were missed.
And I disagree. Every project needs a catchy title. "Project Alpha 957" is going nowhere, but "Silver-Boris Island" stands a fighting chance.
Plus, as I said before, I cannot believe Boris is doing this for political gain. As you rightly pointed out, the proposal is contentious and will meet with lots of opposition. Politicians who just want to be elected, like Tony Blair*, do not do 'contentious' projects.
* Blair's Iraqi expedition was indeed contentious, but there were other imperatives for this crazy adventure.
.