New Thames Airport for London
Paxing All Over The World
Boris has no opinion on this. That is, no opinion based on facts and observation of London. His only opinion is that he should be mayor until he can be PM.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Big news story in the London Evening Standard today, about how London will loose £100 bn if it does not upgrade its airport infrastructure in the SE.
Standard E-edition
The article does not mention the Silver-Boris Thames airport, but this is one obvious solution to the chaor that is Heathrow. Even if Silver-Boris takes years to complete, major international companies may still be induced to stay in London - instead of moving to Paris or Amsterdam - if they know that things will improve later.
Notice to politicians - This is not a decision that can be kicked into the political long grass forever. At some point London will cease to be an international center of world trade, if we do not have the infrastructure to support it. And when that happens, then the UK becomes the new Albania.
.
Big news story in the London Evening Standard today, about how London will loose £100 bn if it does not upgrade its airport infrastructure in the SE.
Standard E-edition
The article does not mention the Silver-Boris Thames airport, but this is one obvious solution to the chaor that is Heathrow. Even if Silver-Boris takes years to complete, major international companies may still be induced to stay in London - instead of moving to Paris or Amsterdam - if they know that things will improve later.
Notice to politicians - This is not a decision that can be kicked into the political long grass forever. At some point London will cease to be an international center of world trade, if we do not have the infrastructure to support it. And when that happens, then the UK becomes the new Albania.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 22nd May 2012 at 07:35.
Paxing All Over The World
I refer silverstrata, to answers posted in another thread on this same report.
LN-KGL
Again wrong words are used in the media to describe this airport crisis. It will not be a cost. Britain are saving money by not investing in better airports. But Britain doesn't get any extra revenue either.
However, if Britain had invested more money in airports and other transport infrastructure, the country may have ended up with £100bn extra revenue the next 20 years. The question now would be: How much must be invested to get these £100bn in revenue? £10bn? £50bn? £100bn? On thing is for certain, you don't get anything for free.
horatio b
As the report was commissioned by BAA you would hardly expect any other conclusion.....
LN-KGL
Again wrong words are used in the media to describe this airport crisis. It will not be a cost. Britain are saving money by not investing in better airports. But Britain doesn't get any extra revenue either.
However, if Britain had invested more money in airports and other transport infrastructure, the country may have ended up with £100bn extra revenue the next 20 years. The question now would be: How much must be invested to get these £100bn in revenue? £10bn? £50bn? £100bn? On thing is for certain, you don't get anything for free.
horatio b
As the report was commissioned by BAA you would hardly expect any other conclusion.....
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome back Silver! It's about time, where have you been?!
Quote: "Notice to politicians - This is not a decision that can be kicked into the political long grass forever. At some point London will cease to be an international center of world trade, if we do not have the infrastructure to support it. And when that happens, then the UK becomes the new Albania."
silverstrata, we have found common ground at last!
A very informative article in the London Evening Standard".
Well, well, so over half think the government should review its opposition to a third runway at LHR. Only 27% want to rule it out permanently, and a third of those against say that the government should be "open-minded" about it.
It isn't as surprising as some may think.
The message has got through that it's a third runway or mixed mode and a shorter night curfew.
Without a third rwy, the only way to squeeze (a few) more movements out of the system is for mixed mode, (take offs/landings on both runways simultaneously) even though this will not address the issue of congestion and delays on and above the airport.
Pilot schemes of mixed mode (excuse the pun) have started already and will be ramped up during the Olympics. At present with alternation (one rwy for take offs only the other just for landings, swapped over at 1500) allows a half day of peace everyday for those under the flightpath. Obviously with mixed mode, this is lost. The trials are concentrating minds.
Airport users are increasingly frustrated by the delays on takeoff and landings and by the decreasing number of destinations available from LHR.
The impact on growth generally is a point being made by business and this is becoming apparent with the lack of recovery after the recession (obviously there are many causes for the lack of recovery).
Talk of "Silver Island" reminds people of the prosperity and jobs directly and indirectly generated by the presence of LHR and the impact of its decline or closure.
We're running out of "long grass", it's time now for some political reality: let BAA have their third rwy, and a fourth preferably, do it now.
Quote: "Notice to politicians - This is not a decision that can be kicked into the political long grass forever. At some point London will cease to be an international center of world trade, if we do not have the infrastructure to support it. And when that happens, then the UK becomes the new Albania."
silverstrata, we have found common ground at last!
A very informative article in the London Evening Standard".
Well, well, so over half think the government should review its opposition to a third runway at LHR. Only 27% want to rule it out permanently, and a third of those against say that the government should be "open-minded" about it.
It isn't as surprising as some may think.
The message has got through that it's a third runway or mixed mode and a shorter night curfew.
Without a third rwy, the only way to squeeze (a few) more movements out of the system is for mixed mode, (take offs/landings on both runways simultaneously) even though this will not address the issue of congestion and delays on and above the airport.
Pilot schemes of mixed mode (excuse the pun) have started already and will be ramped up during the Olympics. At present with alternation (one rwy for take offs only the other just for landings, swapped over at 1500) allows a half day of peace everyday for those under the flightpath. Obviously with mixed mode, this is lost. The trials are concentrating minds.
Airport users are increasingly frustrated by the delays on takeoff and landings and by the decreasing number of destinations available from LHR.
The impact on growth generally is a point being made by business and this is becoming apparent with the lack of recovery after the recession (obviously there are many causes for the lack of recovery).
Talk of "Silver Island" reminds people of the prosperity and jobs directly and indirectly generated by the presence of LHR and the impact of its decline or closure.
We're running out of "long grass", it's time now for some political reality: let BAA have their third rwy, and a fourth preferably, do it now.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 22nd May 2012 at 23:47.
Pilot schemes of mixed mode (excuse the pun) have started already and will be ramped up during the Olympics.
One is an increase in TEAM intensity (mixed-mode arrivals) from the current limit of 6 to a maximum of 12 landings per hour on the departure runway.
The other is provision for reducing the gap to 1 minute between consecutive departures that would otherwise require 2 minutes separation on the same SID, presumably subject to the ICAO PANS requirement that one or both is vectored immediately after takeoff so that their tracks diverge by at least 45°.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again wrong words are used in the media to describe this airport crisis. It will not be a cost. Britain are saving money by not investing in better airports. But Britain doesn't get any extra revenue either.
If your shop has such difficult access and looks so shabby that nobody comes in, then you have no income and you LOOSE MONEY. Same with the UK. If the best roads we can afford are goat tracks, and our best airports can only accommodate a Piper Aztec, you will not find anyone seting up a business in the UK or comming to the UK, and we will LOOSE MONEY.
As a matter of urgency, we need investment in infrastructure and in new industry, and without this we WILL become the new Albania - poverty stricken and starving. Have you ever looked at the business pages of the Sunday Times? There has been no industrial or export news for the last four months. And all the many reports about banks, however interesting, are merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. Banking is parasitic, it does not generate wealth.
So we need new infrastructure, and we need it yesterday. Its just that the 3rd runway is not the way to go. That is merely a sticking-plaster to a much greater problem.
Oh, and we need cross-rail to join up with HS2, the Chunnel, and with Silver-Boris. If it does not do this, then we need a lamppost and some rope. Someone has to take responsibility. We have had nearly two decades of ducking and diving, with nobody taking responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in.
.
Paxing All Over The World
silverstrata
Correct! Having lived and worked in the UK all my adult life I confidently predict that NOTHING is going to change. Not until we have hit the bottom of the cycle with an almighty thump. That moment is still some years away.
The current set of politicians are all risk averse because (I suggest) they have grown up with that culture following in the 89/91 recession. Every business now tries to minimise their risk by off loading it on to others. Therefore, no one is going to take any risks - eventhough we now need risks to be taken. That is, to offset the risks taken by the bankers with our money during the 1995~2007 boom!
Simples.
We have had nearly two decades of ducking and diving, with nobody taking responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in.
The current set of politicians are all risk averse because (I suggest) they have grown up with that culture following in the 89/91 recession. Every business now tries to minimise their risk by off loading it on to others. Therefore, no one is going to take any risks - eventhough we now need risks to be taken. That is, to offset the risks taken by the bankers with our money during the 1995~2007 boom!
Simples.
Paxing All Over The World
Johnson goes for the island once again ...
BBC News - Johnson: Government tip-toeing back to third runway
Includes this statement;
Mr Johnson says he will "die in a ditch" to prevent a third runway and instead urges the government to discard the coalition agreement and consider expanding at Stansted or Gatwick as an interim solution ahead of any new airport built in the South East.
He also dismisses a suggested proposal that RAF Northolt - close to Heathrow - should be brought into use as a third runway for Heathrow.
Soooo ANOTHER return to the impractical short term fudge of STN/LGW. Well done Boris, clear headed thinking there.
BBC News - Johnson: Government tip-toeing back to third runway
Includes this statement;
Mr Johnson says he will "die in a ditch" to prevent a third runway and instead urges the government to discard the coalition agreement and consider expanding at Stansted or Gatwick as an interim solution ahead of any new airport built in the South East.
He also dismisses a suggested proposal that RAF Northolt - close to Heathrow - should be brought into use as a third runway for Heathrow.
Soooo ANOTHER return to the impractical short term fudge of STN/LGW. Well done Boris, clear headed thinking there.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3rd runway at LHR is the last thing we need.
It benefits one airline and one airline only. BA.
It will increase costs for all the other airlines operating into LTN, STN & LCY as LHR traffic always get priority increasing the track miles for all the other airports' traffic.
STN expansion has to be the priority. It is the low hanging fruit of London airport expansion.
It benefits one airline and one airline only. BA.
It will increase costs for all the other airlines operating into LTN, STN & LCY as LHR traffic always get priority increasing the track miles for all the other airports' traffic.
STN expansion has to be the priority. It is the low hanging fruit of London airport expansion.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAXboy
Good link - I had not seen that..Hope it's true, as it will be good for LHR.London and the rest if the UK, if the coalition really is tiptoeing towards the third runway.
If Boris wants to "die in a ditch", well it's a free country.
Good link - I had not seen that..Hope it's true, as it will be good for LHR.London and the rest if the UK, if the coalition really is tiptoeing towards the third runway.
If Boris wants to "die in a ditch", well it's a free country.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soooo ANOTHER return to the impractical short term fudge of STN/LGW. Well done Boris, clear headed thinking there.
There is nothing short term about building a new runway at LGW or STN - either would still take 15 years to plan and build.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't have 50m2 of prairie or desert to turn into a new airport to suit ever airline's whim, so whatever gets built - if anything at all, is going to be a compromise.
Paxing All Over The World
By chance, I've just stumbled across a quote attributed to Groucho Marks:
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx
Groucho Marx
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "How about demolishing Sipson and building a third runway where it helps the economy most? I mean it's a pretty awful wee place that's been dying for years, BAA own much of it anyway."
The villages north of LHR are already blighted, regrettably, because of the on-off nature of the LHR expansion issue. This is grossly unfair on the remaining residents who cannot sell their houses on the open market if they want to leave. Many long time residents are gone and the villages' populations are becoming increasingly transient.
We don't want the same situation to develop around other south east airports or potential airports sites, so let's do what needs to be done.
The villages north of LHR are already blighted, regrettably, because of the on-off nature of the LHR expansion issue. This is grossly unfair on the remaining residents who cannot sell their houses on the open market if they want to leave. Many long time residents are gone and the villages' populations are becoming increasingly transient.
We don't want the same situation to develop around other south east airports or potential airports sites, so let's do what needs to be done.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johnson goes for the island once again ...
BBC News - Johnson: Government tip-toeing back to third runway
Includes this statement;
Mr Johnson says he will "die in a ditch" to prevent a third runway and instead urges the government to discard the coalition agreement and consider expanding at Stansted or Gatwick as an interim solution ahead of any new airport built in the South East.
He also dismisses a suggested proposal that RAF Northolt - close to Heathrow - should be brought into use as a third runway for Heathrow.
Soooo ANOTHER return to the impractical short term fudge of STN/LGW. Well done Boris, clear headed thinking there.
BBC News - Johnson: Government tip-toeing back to third runway
Includes this statement;
Mr Johnson says he will "die in a ditch" to prevent a third runway and instead urges the government to discard the coalition agreement and consider expanding at Stansted or Gatwick as an interim solution ahead of any new airport built in the South East.
He also dismisses a suggested proposal that RAF Northolt - close to Heathrow - should be brought into use as a third runway for Heathrow.
Soooo ANOTHER return to the impractical short term fudge of STN/LGW. Well done Boris, clear headed thinking there.
Interesting.
You have to understand that building Silver-Boris is not within Boris' remit, he would have to get government permission and backing. The way to do that is prevent expansion at LHR (government preference) and point towards Stanstead (no one's preference) as a way of angling towards a Thames solution.
Politics is a game of push, divert, bluff, and prod. It is rarely straightforward. But Boris is right, the only option that will take us into the 22nd century is a clean-sheet Estuary option - Silver-Boris.
.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thanet
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boris might not know what he is talking about but surely his colleagues in the Tory party are on the ball? Down here in the *rse end of Kent, the local MP, Roger Gale writes in the local press to tell us how he has been meeting with the aviation minister to promote the use of Manston as an alternative both to Boris Island and to expansion of Heathrow. The Leader of Kent County Council, Mr. Carter, is vehemently opposed to Boris's plans and has also been promoting the use of Manston as an alternative. Some unkind souls have suggested that Manston is a non-starter because it is in the middle of nowhere. I would describe it as East of that location. Still, what do I know? I'm just relying on my elected representatives to do their research before making suggestions that might waste millions of pounds.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "You better get the lamppost stressed tested first before putting any rope on it!"
Quite right, and don't forget the risk assessment or you'll have the health and safety boys and girls after you (yawn).
Quote: "3rd runway at LHR is the last thing we need.
It benefits one airline and one airline only. BA."
How so? Surely the extra slots that would become available would drive the price down for all and may allow more carriers to access Heathrow, particularly smaller ones that have hitherto been excluded by high slot prices.
AFAIK, the rules would give new entrants preference for allocation of the new slots over incumbents. How does that benefit BA only?
As for Boris, he can throw as many tantrums and die in as many ditches as he likes. Aviation policy is not part of his remit.
His transport responsibilities lie on and under the ground, the highest he gets is elevated railways. That is enough for him to be getting on with.
Quite right, and don't forget the risk assessment or you'll have the health and safety boys and girls after you (yawn).
Quote: "3rd runway at LHR is the last thing we need.
It benefits one airline and one airline only. BA."
How so? Surely the extra slots that would become available would drive the price down for all and may allow more carriers to access Heathrow, particularly smaller ones that have hitherto been excluded by high slot prices.
AFAIK, the rules would give new entrants preference for allocation of the new slots over incumbents. How does that benefit BA only?
As for Boris, he can throw as many tantrums and die in as many ditches as he likes. Aviation policy is not part of his remit.
His transport responsibilities lie on and under the ground, the highest he gets is elevated railways. That is enough for him to be getting on with.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation policy may not be in Boris's remit but he's the leading candidate to replace Dave should he fall under a passing Coalition bus
he's just been elected, he has several years in office - can you REALLY see any Tory Govt going head to head with their own elected Mayor in the biggest electoral area in the UK?
Can you imagine the headlines???
Its time to move on from LHR
he's just been elected, he has several years in office - can you REALLY see any Tory Govt going head to head with their own elected Mayor in the biggest electoral area in the UK?
Can you imagine the headlines???
Its time to move on from LHR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to promote the use of Manston as an alternative both to Boris Island and to expansion of Heathrow.
Unfortunately, they still don't understand what this debate is all about and what London needs. This is not about a grotty Manston to take a few flights, with connections to nowhere, it is about connecting the world.
This is NOT even about London capacity. This is about having a world-standard interlining hub. Once you control the interlining hub of Northern Europe, all transport and trade heads in your direction. All roads lead to Rome, as they used to say, which keeps your capital at the hub of the Empire. If London loses that status as the hub of Europe, it will loose its trade, business, investment, jobs, and the entire S.E. economy will collapse.
Its sink or swim time. Either London keeps its world status, or you can bank on all salaries and all economic activity across London and the S.E. being slashed by 50% in real terms. Your choice, Boris and Ca-moron.
.