New Thames Airport for London

[jabird]

This is the Thames corridor, if anywhere can become the new silicon valley (with all the wealth and education present in that area) it is the LHR site.

In fact, you could say that LHR is a complete waste of space that is holding back the west of London from becoming the the most advanced area in Britain. Don't we have a duty to release that potential, and allow the Thames coridor to spread its wings and achieve its full potential?

I'm not sure that you can describe what is still the world's busiest international airport, and which as Skippy says is able to maintain consistently higher yields than other comparable airports, as waste of space?

You seem fixated on this idea that LHR would release vast tracts of land for re-development. For better or worse, LHR is about as compact as it is possible for such a large airport to be. Where else will you find so many large aircraft jammed in between two runways, with a few others overspilling into T4 / cargo / mainternance areas?

Unlike surface transport infrastructure, those runways enable connections to most of the globe - all within what - 6 sq miles approx?

I challenge you to come up with another airport which generates the kind of yield / economic opportunity per square mile that LHR does - as there aren't many if any that do it outright. Maybe LCY would be up there! Ans as for this Silicon Valley - they need connections too, and LHR does that.

[silverstrata]

Controix:

Silver - would suggest Upper Heyford better location than Gaydon? Gaydon too close to BHX and Coventry?

Perhaps, but I always thought that Gaydon and Bruntingthorpe, or perhaps Gaydon and Finningley (Robin Hood) were very nicely spaced and very nicely placed airports.

Far better sites than BHX and LBA.

P.S. I was not thinking about Gaydon competing with BHX and CVT, but replacing them. Just think how much dosh you could raise, if you sold BHX and CVT as industrial/housing estates...


.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Where else will you find so many large aircraft jammed in between two runways, with a few others overspilling into T4 / cargo / mainternance areas?

Thanks Jabird - you have sealed the demise and fate of LHR better than I could ever have done. A perfect description of everything that is wrong with LHR. But it would make a lovely industrial estate....

Jabird:

I can't see how LHR could be forced to close either, it would be challenged in the high courts. Govt lawyers would argue it had to close in order to protect this new national asset (owned by the Chinese). BAA/FV lawyers would say 'you can't compulsory purchase one business just to protect the future viability of another, larger, business'. That is called a monopoly!

The government can do what it likes, and it is about time that some of our senior judges got a severe slapping. The judges are failing to see the distinction between the legislative and executive roles of government, and are increasing assuming the former role instead of the latter. It is not for judges to challenge governments, if the law is clear. The courts are there to implement law, not to make it.



And there is no monopoly being made here. At present there is only one owner of Heathrow. But there is no reason why the government cannot run all the basic airport infrastructure at Silver-Boris - just like they run the basic railway tracks through Network Rail. And there is no reason why you cannot have multiple owners of one airport, just as you sometimes get abroad (each terminal having a different owner-operator).

On top of this, you have multiple handling agents, multiple retail outlets, and multiple airlines. So where is this monopoly, exactly? Is Network Rail a monopoly? Is the motorway network a monopoly?


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Jabird, not serious about Will Shakespeare airport, was just intended as an illustration as how silly all this could become! Had commented that Gaydon could be feasible, for the sake of discussion, but also pointed out that it is unnecessary. Actually agree with your comments about Elmdon 100%. Don't give Ryanair ideas about renaming BHX to "London North".

As for airport names, the best and simplest is to use accurate geographical locations: the name of the city and the name of the location. There is little point in naming airports after politicians, famous people, not-so-famous people, local heroes, etc..

This means no "Heathrow (Dick Turpin) International", but maybe "Silver International" can be an exception. There's a way to get back on-thread!

[Fairdealfrank]

Silver, government-owned airports were "off-loaded" by the Conservative government in the 1980s (along with British Airways) and had local councils sell-off their airports as well, thus cutting off a useful local stream of income to take pressure off the rates.

Yes Railtrack/Network Rail are in public ownership, but rail privatisation is not generally seen as a great success, not least because it requires a much larger government subsidy than in the British rail days. The bureaucracy involved shuffling bits of paper/invoices between the various companies is a nightmare. Let's not have airport infrastructure organised on the same basis.

On the other hand, if you're arguing for public ownership, that is a completely different agenda.

[silverstrata]

Paxboy:

Reported in The Guardian today: London slow to become the 'electric car capital of Europe' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Quote:
Nearly three years ago, the mayor of London told fellow international mayors in Seaul that he would ensure 100,000 electric vehicles were in London "as soon as possible".

Yes, but please remember that Boris-boy and most of the media are technical and scientific amoebas. If they knew anything about electric vehicles, they would have known they were a non-starter and not promoted them. So it mattered not how much Boris liked them or promoted them, they were never going to sell.


a. Electric vehicles are primarily coal and gas powered - and thus do absolutely nothing to 'Save the Planet'. (If you believe in this Green 'scientific funding' scam.) All they do is pump the pollutants into the countryside instead of the city - so you eat the pollution instead of breathing it.

b. The average turbo diesel does much better mpg than any electric vehicle (up to 30% better). The losses on making, transmitting, storing, and using electricity are enormous. Thus electric vehicles actually destroy the planet (if you believe in this Green 'scientific funding' scam).

c. The milage claims on electric vehicles are pure spin, smoke, mirrors and lies - this is New Labour technology, pure and simple. Take a 4-year old battery pack, and then go out in -5oc conditions with the lights, heater and demister on, and your 90-mile range has suddenly become 10 miles range. Suddenly, your wonderful eco-machine has become a deadly liability (especially if you are stuck in a snow-drift, with no heater).



P.S. Boris' hydrogen busses are even worse. They are powered by gas (by the gas reforming method of hydrogen production), and do some 40% less mpg than a diesel bus (energy equivalent). Now this would not be so bad if the pollutants were emitted way out on the east coast somewhere (so Denmark gets them). But no, Boris bought a mobile hydrogen generator, and it is located somewhere in central London (its exact location is a closely guarded secret) !! So the hydrogen busses actually pollute central London more than the diesel busses do (except in particulates).


Don't you love politics, and the brain-dead political classes...



.

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal:


Silver, government-owned airports were "off-loaded" by the Conservative government in the 1980s (along with British Airways) and had local councils sell-off their airports as well, thus cutting off a useful local stream of income to take pressure off the rates.

Yes, I know - an asset sale too far in my opinion.

Not because airports should generate profits - they may, they may not. But government should run some basic infrastructure, just as they run the motorways.

The complete rail sell off was another asset sale too far, and they finally realised their mistake and had to re-nationalise them (the tracks, that is). The National Grid should be government operated too.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Silver, agreed.

An addition to the grid there is a case for including the central electricity generating board, the railways, NATS, the utilities (electricity, gas and water and telecommunications companies), in other words, the "natural" monopolies and strategic infrastructure.

It doesn't necessarily need to be nationalisation for some or all of these. Municipalisation, co-operatives, not-for-profit companies, wholly publicly-owned companies are some of the other ways this could be achieved, but please, no more disasterous public-private partnerships (PPP) or private finance initiatives (PFI)!

However, it is unlikely to happen as none of the political parties are accross this agenda, and it certainly smacks too much of "socialism" to be of interest to the Labour Party.

[jabird]

P.S. I was not thinking about Gaydon competing with BHX and CVT, but replacing them. Just think how much dosh you could raise, if you sold BHX and CVT as industrial/housing estates...

Silver, you are back to the same over-inflated values of dead airports as you have with LHR!

CVT's value as an airport isn't much - unlike LHR or BHX it isn't a going concern - but there may be some useful minerals under the runway. I'll leave that for the CVT thread if anyone fancies going there, we're pretty good at sending ourselves to Coventry these days - home of the jet engine but no commercial flights, home of the bike but no bike lanes and soon to be the largest city in Europe with high speed rail on our doorstep but no station

As for BHX, you have to look at the site as a whole - very much an early adopter of the 'airport city' concept everyone else is trying to follow. Airport + NEC + arena + station + hotels + biz park - the sum of the whole is greater than the parts.

And ditto of course for the way LHR interacts with its surroundings. Yes, it is crowded, but being so makes it an exceptional user of land on a gross value add per square mile basis.

There's nothing in the Foster Island plans for any kind of significant commercial development to support the airport - just warehousing for cargo ops, very much a CTRL C + CTRL P from HKG - very different geography, different government, different economics.

That's why Foster / Boris / Silver Island remains weak.

[PAXboy]

Yes indeed silverstrata, I only mentioned the egregious Boris for a laugh!

[silverstrata]

Paxboy:

Yes indeed silverstrata, I only mentioned the egregious Boris for a laugh!

Frank:

Silver, agreed.

Two posts agreeing with me? Sorry, I'll have to sit down for a rest, to calm the palpitations. I must have said something wrong here....



.

[jabird]

First silverstrata turns into a commie, then people start to agree with him

I'm getting worried too? Maybe he's got a rescue plan for Malev - the first tenant for Silver Island?

[Fairdealfrank]

Thought as much, Silver, as John McEnroe would say: "you cannot be serious". Have long suspected that you've been playing devil's advocate throughout this thread and winding it up. LOVE IT!

[jabird]

Thought as much, Silver, as John McEnroe would say: "you cannot be serious". Have long suspected that you've been playing devil's advocate throughout this thread and winding it up. LOVE IT!

There's no harm in that, this project needs to be debated within the industry. Apart from Flybe, no airlines seem to be taking it seriously, but the government clearly is.

Now, back to the arguments...

Silver, remind me how much space you'd have between the two inner runways.

I can't get a scale plan of the Foster proposals, but the general format for a midfield terminal between parallel runways seems to be to go for around 1km.

If 1.5k is needed for widespaced operations, this seems to be workable when a four runway pattern of 2 + 2 is used.

The Foster proposals seem to be pasted from HKG, whose two runways are about 1k apart -and ditto for KIX. That has to be the precedent, as they use reclaimed land. Even ATL's inner runways are only about 1k from each other.

The exception seems to be CDG - for all its faults, still well ahead of its time. There's a good 2k between the inner runways here - but that is much easier when you're the centrally controlled French government, and you have the land.

So Silver, I refer you back to the point I made about LHR being crowded - runways there are also only about 1.2k apart.

I know you've proposed 6 runways and two terminal areas, but if we are going to have a serious debate, we have to run with what Foster has suggested.

What is the difference between the overall amount of space for terminals between Foster Island and Heathrow? Granted, two extra runways, but you need the terminals to handle the traffic.

Otherwise, Flybe's aim to offer feeders in to this airports is just as much a fantasy as the project itself.

Disclaimer - this should be my last post before winding down for the weekend. Any measurements above are crude estimates only!

[Fairdealfrank]

No harm in it all, Jabird, Silver is proving to be an excellent devil's advocate and as you say, it's needed.

Have doubts about Flybe's willingness to pay the exhorbitant airport charges that the Silver Island owners would doubtless have to charge in order to recoup its investment.

Does or could BE's business model include feeding the nation's hub airport? Is it just the cost of acquiring enough landing slots that stops Flybe offering feeders at LHR (bearing in mind their links with BA)? Put it another way, would an expanded, less slot-constrained LHR attract other UK airlines?

If so feeding Silver Island could be feasible for BE and other UK carriers because APD and issues associated with operating out of the nation's hub airport would apply equally to LHR and Silver Island. However, as the airlines won't leave LHR, there is nothing to feed.

As for the government, it cancelled LHR expansion a little prematurely without thinking it through properly and has got itself into one hell of a mess on aviation policy.

It is now desperately trying to square a circle it knows that it can't. Hence it is finally taking Silver Island/Foster "seriously" (allegedly) and coming up with daft nonsense like "Heathwick", and the Northolt satelite/overspill airport idea. It's done what all governments do: kicked it into the "long grass" in the form of the consultation in March.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

I can't get a scale plan of the Foster proposals, but the general format for a midfield terminal between parallel runways seems to be to go for around 1km.

This is one of the big problems with Foster, which I have been trying to tell them about for months. The minimum requirement for simultaneous opps is 1.5 km between the runways, and this is why Heathrow has a problem, being only 1.4 km between the runways.

So Foster is not only proposing an airport that cannot run simultaneous opps, he is also inviting the same huge LHR problems of narrow taxiways and not enough stands. Not sure if you are all aware, but B747s were not allowed to taxi on the LHR inner until 1995, because there was no room. And even after the amended the layout to allow it, I always got the feeling that someone not on the centerline would take our tail off.

If we are designing an airport for the next century, we need as much room as possible, which is why I had the 5-6 runway layout, and an airport at least 4 km across (three groups of runways with 2km between each group).


Plus, of course, this layout will allow separation of domestic short-haul mediums and long-haul heavies - for greater traffic flow. And also for overcoming this mad idea that someone coming in international, and going out international has to clear customs and immigration. Why? Nobody has explained to me why so many countries do this. With a fully international terminal, someone coming in from the States and going out to the Middle East could stay airside with no checks (apart, perhaps, from a security screen.)


Foster is simply not looking ahead enough. Simply moving LHR to the Isle of Grain, while retaining all the limitations and restrictions that LHR has, will not help anyone.


.

[ZOOKER]

If we are designing an airport for the next century, we first need a viable alternative to Jet A1.

[jabird]

If we are designing an airport for the next century, we need as much room as possible, which is why I had the 5-6 runway layout, and an airport at least 4 km across (three groups of runways with 2km between each group).

If we want another DEN, we'll have to find the land to build it, which we haven't got. In which case, we have to make do with an island or partially reclaimed land.

Because the amount of space is constrained, the airport will be too - although I had assumed airports like HKG & KIX would have been built for parallel ops. So ATL too - can only do so on the two outers - correct? Surely, tht is what Foster is thinking of?

My issue is that with only around 1k between the runways, total available space for terminals is about 4 sq kms. We've discussed LHR, HKG would need to fill the midfield to move towards 80/100m pax pa.

Silver, I remind you that the proposal on the table is Fosters, not yours (when you say you've been telling Foster, have you pointed him to this thread? )

CDG looks like a better model, but how do you pay for the extra approx 4km sq?

And also for overcoming this mad idea that someone coming in international, and going out international has to clear customs and immigration.

My understanding is that this is an American problem, not a British one. Fly BA BOS-LHR-AUH, if it's all through T5, do you not stay airside? If you have to fly, say, IAD-LHR 3 (UA), then LHR (1) - NCE (BD), then if the only way between them is landside, you could 'escape' into the UK, so you have to go through the checks.

Afaik, any airside transfer would not warrant further security checks. I've been checked twice at LGW to go to ATL, then again just for the privilege of arriving at ATL - afaik, the second checks don't take place anymore?

[jabird]

If we are designing an airport for the next century, we first need a viable alternative to Jet A1.

Maybe, but we could have a whole debate about this and the other challenges the industry faces. I think we've done pretty well on this thread so far to all work on the assumption that the demand is there, and that the technology will be there to meet it.

[PAXboy]

If this recession turns into the 2ns Great Depression, there will not be any demand! The Western Economies are in deep trouble and, in my view, some way yet to go. Until the Euro and Southern European States issue is resolved - no one knows what will happen next.

Talk by all means, but sit tight and wait to see if the West has an economy where people are able to pay even a LoCo fare.