New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it will fill up almost overnight by taking traffic which would otherwise stay at Gatters
As for Gatters, look at the big players. Under no I would say :
flybe (unless they introduced the routes as per above)
easyJet (they might try it and see)
Ryanair
Thomson
Thomas Cook
Monarch
Under yes would be the likely consolidation of Virgin and long haul BA, but Aer Lingus serve LGW in their own right as do Lufthansa. We might see TAP and Air Malta consolidate at LHR but I suspect that would be it.
The new long haul troops would move to LHR, a no brainer IMHO. That's Korean, Air China and Vietnam. Hong Kong Air I suspect won't be on the route long enough to ask the question. Even if that all happened there's a fair bit of room to play with there if it's managed well. I can't believe I said that last bit with a straight face because if that were possible, well we wouldn't be here would we?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 12th Jul 2012 at 16:11.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
It will NOT go to Scotland, where it might pick up passengers from air, yet HS2 Ltd are claiming it will still take 81% - yes 81% of the WHOLE market between London and Scotland.
It will NOT go to Scotland, where it might pick up passengers from air, yet HS2 Ltd are claiming it will still take 81% - yes 81% of the WHOLE market between London and Scotland.
And yet it only makes sense is it DOES go to Scotland
The time savings from Brum are insignificant. Better from Manchester. Positively inviting if you are coming from Glasgow, Edinburgh or Newcastle.
When I use TGV, it is only as a preference to flying (I hate flying), and that means a long domestic route, to the south of France.
Jabird
It isn't sexy, it isn't ideal, but the most obvious and practical way for London to expand capacity is to add runways to its existing airports, and there is more space and less of a noise issue doing this at LGW first, then STN.
It isn't sexy, it isn't ideal, but the most obvious and practical way for London to expand capacity is to add runways to its existing airports, and there is more space and less of a noise issue doing this at LGW first, then STN.
And as we have told you, ad infinitum, that will also solve nothing.
We are looking at overcapacity at London's Wold Hub, and having inbound international passengers facing the prospect of their domestic flight departing from STN or LGW will solve absolutely nothing.
The only two choices here are:
a. Build another two runways at LHR (minimum of two). This involves demolishing all of the towns up to the railway north of the M4 - including all of W Drayton. Only then would you have enough land space, allowing for new runways either side of the M4. And you would still blight the whole of London with noise.
b. Build the new Silver-Boris airport in the Thames Estuary.
.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 12th Jul 2012 at 16:22.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only two choices here are:
a. Build another two runways at LHR
b. Build the new Silver-Boris airport in the Thames Estuary.
a. Build another two runways at LHR
b. Build the new Silver-Boris airport in the Thames Estuary.
c. Build a second or even third runway at Gatwick - not as commercially safe as LHR, but far less people to object. Over time LGW improves surface links and could even become the more dominant hub.
d. Build upto 3 new runways at Stansted, as previously proposed in 2003. It is a bit out of the way, then again so is anything in the Thames, so the construction risk is far smaller.
e. Do nothing. Not as stupid as it sounds, considering that airports are give and take, and given the likely challenges the industry faces (environmental, cost of fuel, tax gouging).
Remember that however much you dislike c. and d, they are still better options than fantasy island because any capacity added there (and of course at LHR) is a direct add and on dry land.
Faced with building on water, AND having to create 2/3rds of the infrastructure just to replace what will be lost by closing LHR, it is easy to see why the island is a non starter.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, for the sake of BHX mgt, I should have added:
f) Allow each London area airport to grow to capacity within its existing footprint (permit new terminals but no runways). As each one fills up, the low cost flights mover further and further out. Compared to (e), this might see 50mppa @ LGW & STN, 20mppa @ LTN, 5mppa @ LCY, anything towards 100mppa at LHR with mixed modes and larger fleet usage.
Eventually, as growth expands outwards, MSE becomes attractive again, LYX can take 2-10mppa, OXF, SOU & CBG handle the smaller aircraft, and Wizzair buzz off to EMA.
Somewhere in this plan, all of the high yielding business traffic that can't quite afford LHR's now exorbitant PSCs decide to decamp to BHX, rather than LGW.
I can't quite see it, can you? Unless:
g) Continue HS2 in a tunnel under Euston, then calling at Tottenham Court Road (X Rail interchange), Bank and Canary Wharf. Also divert alignment to serve BHX terminals directly. Use PSC to cross-subsidise operation, so BHX passengers can travel to and from London for free. Operate "worm train", with luggage check in and security performed on board, so passengers enter the BHX shopping mall ready to shop. Scrap Old Oak Common interchange (as that benefits LHR), giving Euston to BHX time of 30 minutes.
Now would people use BHX as a "London" airport? Still not seeing it, given that the Gatters Express also takes 30 mins.
And of course, the train from Fantasy Island to central London will also take, errrrrrrrrrrrrrr - about 30 minutes!
f) Allow each London area airport to grow to capacity within its existing footprint (permit new terminals but no runways). As each one fills up, the low cost flights mover further and further out. Compared to (e), this might see 50mppa @ LGW & STN, 20mppa @ LTN, 5mppa @ LCY, anything towards 100mppa at LHR with mixed modes and larger fleet usage.
Eventually, as growth expands outwards, MSE becomes attractive again, LYX can take 2-10mppa, OXF, SOU & CBG handle the smaller aircraft, and Wizzair buzz off to EMA.
Somewhere in this plan, all of the high yielding business traffic that can't quite afford LHR's now exorbitant PSCs decide to decamp to BHX, rather than LGW.
I can't quite see it, can you? Unless:
g) Continue HS2 in a tunnel under Euston, then calling at Tottenham Court Road (X Rail interchange), Bank and Canary Wharf. Also divert alignment to serve BHX terminals directly. Use PSC to cross-subsidise operation, so BHX passengers can travel to and from London for free. Operate "worm train", with luggage check in and security performed on board, so passengers enter the BHX shopping mall ready to shop. Scrap Old Oak Common interchange (as that benefits LHR), giving Euston to BHX time of 30 minutes.
Now would people use BHX as a "London" airport? Still not seeing it, given that the Gatters Express also takes 30 mins.
And of course, the train from Fantasy Island to central London will also take, errrrrrrrrrrrrrr - about 30 minutes!
Last edited by jabird; 12th Jul 2012 at 19:27.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be the likes of INV, JER, IOM, GCI and the possibility of adding MME, NQY and maintaining LBA. This would allow LHR to directly benefit the regions with one stop to the world and would be served by modern and quiet aircraft.
As for Gatters, look at the big players. Under no I would say :
flybe (unless they introduced the routes as per above)
As for Gatters, look at the big players. Under no I would say :
flybe (unless they introduced the routes as per above)
Virtually all the airports you mention above are indeed already served from LGW, therefore the opportunity to serve LHR and to benefit from that connectivity would no doubt be taken up if it could.
Or, we allow LGW to be the one doing the expansion, in which case BE evolve further as a network carrier. Remember, they are so far the only airline to have expressed any interest in an island airport, and they have done so for the very reasons you mention.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Seems unusual for an MP to flatten half his own constituency! Or at least plan to.“
Indeed it does! Although the two towns are in different constituencies.
Quote: “In a certain irony, this would be more likely to go through with a Labour government given that most of the local area are Tory voters.“
Not so, Bedfont and Stanwell contain a high proportion of Labour voters. There was a time when these towns were Labour strongholds, maybe Blair put paid to that(?).
Quote: “It could be, of course, that the Free Enterprise Group have just graduated en masse from Negotiating 101 - demand more than you want and then the other side is relieved when you agree to settle for half of your original request.
I think that is almost certainly what it is, and also the reason why the Estuary airport is being proposed as the alternative.
Shall we build a third runway, at a fraction of the cost, or build a mega expensive new airport in the middle of a wild fowl sanctuary on the other side of London?! “
Of course, it could all be bluff and counter bluff. However the best one is to make expansion look like the best bet by threatening the objectors with permanent mixed mode so that those under the flight path lose their daily half-day of peace. Oh wait a minute, that won’t work, all the vocal objectors live miles away from the airport, they won’t be affected.
Quote: “The third runway starts to look like the best option... “
Not “starts to look like“, it IS the best option, by far!
Quote: “Gideon may have to pull his finger out and make a decision, but Milliband is playing a very clever game at the moment.
As we know, the last Labour government actually approved a third runway, but the current Edd & Edd iteration has given no indication where it stands.
The significance of course is that if it were to support a third runway (as is the logical thing to do) then Gideon wouldnt need to worry about Clegg and the Liberal loonies think. However, if they are to go it alone then the Lib Dems opinion actually counts, as the Tories need their support in the coalition.
My suspicion is that Labour would support the runway, but will do everything in their power to avoid saying that right up until election time for fear of handing the upper hand to the Tories. “
This is a very good analysis!
The question is: why did it take Labour 6 years to approve the third rwy? Good grief, it could have been up and running by now!
Miliband does not to need to say anything just now.
Who knows why Call-Me-Dave allows the teaboy (Cleggover) to call the tune. The Libdems will never walk, they’ve got their noses in the trough for the first time in 80 years!
Even if they did, Call-Me-Dave is more than able to run a minority government. Neither Labour nor the Libdems would bring him down and risk an early election.
The former can’t afford it, the latter would be annihilated! AND we’d all benefit from the Conservatives pursuing moderate policies, just in case!
Quote: “I would take issue with the word "will", as a proper strategic review would ring fence within the British Isles (yes I KNOW!), to be safegaurded and built upon.
That would be the likes of INV, JER, IOM, GCI and the possibility of adding MME, NQY and maintaining LBA. This would allow LHR to directly benefit the regions with one stop to the world and would be served by modern and quiet aircraft."
And probably several other destinations. Quite right too! Much of the country needs regeneration and inward investment, this connectivity would help immensely.
Quote: As for Gatters, look at the big players. Under no I would say :
flybe (unless they introduced the routes as per above)
easyJet (they might try it and see)
Ryanair
Thomson
Thomas Cook
Monarch
Under yes would be the likely consolidation of Virgin and long haul BA, but Aer Lingus serve LGW in their own right as do Lufthansa. We might see TAP and Air Malta consolidate at LHR but I suspect that would be it.
The new long haul troops would move to LHR, a no brainer IMHO. That's Korean, Air China and Vietnam. Hong Kong Air I suspect won't be on the route long enough to ask the question. Even if that all happened there's a fair bit of room to play with there if it's managed well. I can't believe I said that last bit with a straight face because if that were possible, well we wouldn't be here would we?"
Another excellent analysis, this thread’s getting better!
Even with a third rwy, LHR will not attract the no frills and charter operators. Maybe BE and BD regional(?) on thin domestic routes, but not FR and doubtful U2.
Indeed it does! Although the two towns are in different constituencies.
Quote: “In a certain irony, this would be more likely to go through with a Labour government given that most of the local area are Tory voters.“
Not so, Bedfont and Stanwell contain a high proportion of Labour voters. There was a time when these towns were Labour strongholds, maybe Blair put paid to that(?).
Quote: “It could be, of course, that the Free Enterprise Group have just graduated en masse from Negotiating 101 - demand more than you want and then the other side is relieved when you agree to settle for half of your original request.
I think that is almost certainly what it is, and also the reason why the Estuary airport is being proposed as the alternative.
Shall we build a third runway, at a fraction of the cost, or build a mega expensive new airport in the middle of a wild fowl sanctuary on the other side of London?! “
Of course, it could all be bluff and counter bluff. However the best one is to make expansion look like the best bet by threatening the objectors with permanent mixed mode so that those under the flight path lose their daily half-day of peace. Oh wait a minute, that won’t work, all the vocal objectors live miles away from the airport, they won’t be affected.
Quote: “The third runway starts to look like the best option... “
Not “starts to look like“, it IS the best option, by far!
Quote: “Gideon may have to pull his finger out and make a decision, but Milliband is playing a very clever game at the moment.
As we know, the last Labour government actually approved a third runway, but the current Edd & Edd iteration has given no indication where it stands.
The significance of course is that if it were to support a third runway (as is the logical thing to do) then Gideon wouldnt need to worry about Clegg and the Liberal loonies think. However, if they are to go it alone then the Lib Dems opinion actually counts, as the Tories need their support in the coalition.
My suspicion is that Labour would support the runway, but will do everything in their power to avoid saying that right up until election time for fear of handing the upper hand to the Tories. “
This is a very good analysis!
The question is: why did it take Labour 6 years to approve the third rwy? Good grief, it could have been up and running by now!
Miliband does not to need to say anything just now.
Who knows why Call-Me-Dave allows the teaboy (Cleggover) to call the tune. The Libdems will never walk, they’ve got their noses in the trough for the first time in 80 years!
Even if they did, Call-Me-Dave is more than able to run a minority government. Neither Labour nor the Libdems would bring him down and risk an early election.
The former can’t afford it, the latter would be annihilated! AND we’d all benefit from the Conservatives pursuing moderate policies, just in case!
Quote: “I would take issue with the word "will", as a proper strategic review would ring fence within the British Isles (yes I KNOW!), to be safegaurded and built upon.
That would be the likes of INV, JER, IOM, GCI and the possibility of adding MME, NQY and maintaining LBA. This would allow LHR to directly benefit the regions with one stop to the world and would be served by modern and quiet aircraft."
And probably several other destinations. Quite right too! Much of the country needs regeneration and inward investment, this connectivity would help immensely.
Quote: As for Gatters, look at the big players. Under no I would say :
flybe (unless they introduced the routes as per above)
easyJet (they might try it and see)
Ryanair
Thomson
Thomas Cook
Monarch
Under yes would be the likely consolidation of Virgin and long haul BA, but Aer Lingus serve LGW in their own right as do Lufthansa. We might see TAP and Air Malta consolidate at LHR but I suspect that would be it.
The new long haul troops would move to LHR, a no brainer IMHO. That's Korean, Air China and Vietnam. Hong Kong Air I suspect won't be on the route long enough to ask the question. Even if that all happened there's a fair bit of room to play with there if it's managed well. I can't believe I said that last bit with a straight face because if that were possible, well we wouldn't be here would we?"
Another excellent analysis, this thread’s getting better!
Even with a third rwy, LHR will not attract the no frills and charter operators. Maybe BE and BD regional(?) on thin domestic routes, but not FR and doubtful U2.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 12th Jul 2012 at 19:58.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suppose Heathrow didn't exist, try writing a proposal for it as we stand today. There is no way it would ever happen.
An airport will be built somewhere in the Thames Estuary and it will become a major European hub. This will happen eventually as the political will gradually builds. It will be privately funded and the major airlines will have no choice but to go there - whatever they say in public.
It will take 20+ years, so I may see it in my lifetime (64).
An airport will be built somewhere in the Thames Estuary and it will become a major European hub. This will happen eventually as the political will gradually builds. It will be privately funded and the major airlines will have no choice but to go there - whatever they say in public.
It will take 20+ years, so I may see it in my lifetime (64).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Suppose Heathrow didn't exist, try writing a proposal for it as we stand today. There is no way it would ever happen."
Obviously, it would either be an urban area, or green belt!
Quote: "An airport will be built somewhere in the Thames Estuary and it will become a major European hub. This will happen eventually as the political will gradually builds. It will be privately funded and the major airlines will have no choice but to go there - whatever they say in public.
It will take 20+ years, so I may see it in my lifetime (64)."
Your evidence for this is?
Obviously, it would either be an urban area, or green belt!
Quote: "An airport will be built somewhere in the Thames Estuary and it will become a major European hub. This will happen eventually as the political will gradually builds. It will be privately funded and the major airlines will have no choice but to go there - whatever they say in public.
It will take 20+ years, so I may see it in my lifetime (64)."
Your evidence for this is?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Seems unusual for an MP to flatten half his own constituency! Or at least plan to."
It's reminiscent of the old washing powder adverts:
"obliterates Staines"
It's reminiscent of the old washing powder adverts:
"obliterates Staines"
Paxing All Over The World
S.O.E.
Ah, yes, the vital words. Given that British govts have spent 25 years telling BAA to do what it thinks is right - and then cussing them for making the wrong choice! As well as so weighting the charges at make them make more money out of the shopping mall ... I can't see any change happening. The suggestions you make are all very sensible and therein lies the problem!
The standard British SOP (Hold An Enquiry - Then Do Nothing) is a viable option. The current recession and changes long since entrained by Euro hubs and the ME carriers will create enormous changes across the next 25 years.
So, I agree that LHR3 will soak up capacity and, as I have repeated before, if there was a regulation to cap the holding time to a maximum of ten minutes under normal operating conditons (as might be expected from the planned timetable and not yet affected by weather or closed runway) THEN the capacity is (probably) almost already accounted for! Capping holding times is a real win for the green lobby and pax - but I bet no one mentions it.
... if it's managed well.
The standard British SOP (Hold An Enquiry - Then Do Nothing) is a viable option. The current recession and changes long since entrained by Euro hubs and the ME carriers will create enormous changes across the next 25 years.
So, I agree that LHR3 will soak up capacity and, as I have repeated before, if there was a regulation to cap the holding time to a maximum of ten minutes under normal operating conditons (as might be expected from the planned timetable and not yet affected by weather or closed runway) THEN the capacity is (probably) almost already accounted for! Capping holding times is a real win for the green lobby and pax - but I bet no one mentions it.
Last edited by PAXboy; 12th Jul 2012 at 22:22.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suppose Heathrow didn't exist, try writing a proposal for it as we stand today. There is no way it would ever happen.
Obviously, it would either be an urban area, or green belt!
Now as almost all the land in the SE is either already built on, or is fiercely protected greenbelt, so the easiest option is to expand sites that have already been used as airports.
You could make a similar claim for what might we do if no airports existed, that the plane was invented tomorrow, and that we needed just one hub airport for all flights.
That is the only scenario I could paint for which the 2003 Rugby Airport proposal might have had some merit, but I suggest that even if we were in that situation, the "single" airport would still end up being much closer to London, because the UK's centre of economic gravity is still somewhere around Milton Keynes, not further north.
So actually, given the "one airport for London" with none others existing, I'm still not sure we'd be using the Thames Estuary, because it is too far east, and because it would be so much hassle to connect it to the road and rail networks.
But at least if this was the challenge, Fantasy Island wouldn't have to worry about what to do with LHR, as it wouldn't exist!
Last edited by jabird; 12th Jul 2012 at 21:51. Reason: I was making my own thread drift
Paxing All Over The World
Add this item to the mix. It's another vote for LHR 3. 
BBC News - £500m Heathrow link to cut times on Great Western line
A new link into the central area from Slough and pax from the West. Who's going to write off £500mill?
Amusingly, it's announced by our good friend Transport Secretary Justine Greening.
This extract contains two gems:
BBC News - £500m Heathrow link to cut times on Great Western line
A new link into the central area from Slough and pax from the West. Who's going to write off £500mill?
Amusingly, it's announced by our good friend Transport Secretary Justine Greening.
This extract contains two gems:
Stuart Cole, professor of transport at the University of Glamorgan, said the scheme would cut a sizeable chunk off journey times.
"The downside is that Cardiff Airport might become less competitive because Heathrow will be that much easier to get to," he added.
Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan said: "The Wales Office has always supported and recognised the importance of connectivity to Heathrow as a major UK air hub for Welsh business and Welsh passengers.
"The new rail link will not only provide a more convenient link, but will also be a key driver of growth for the region."
"The downside is that Cardiff Airport might become less competitive because Heathrow will be that much easier to get to," he added.
Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan said: "The Wales Office has always supported and recognised the importance of connectivity to Heathrow as a major UK air hub for Welsh business and Welsh passengers.
"The new rail link will not only provide a more convenient link, but will also be a key driver of growth for the region."
Last edited by PAXboy; 12th Jul 2012 at 22:45.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Seems unusual for an MP to flatten half his own constituency! Or at least plan to.“
Do we really think there are many Tory voters in Stanwell?
Surely this is a safe way of increasing his majority!
Do we really think there are many Tory voters in Stanwell?
Surely this is a safe way of increasing his majority!
Last edited by rareair; 12th Jul 2012 at 23:03.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The extra £500m on an improved rail spur from Slough to LHR can be added to the £9bn or whatever it was for Crossrail as infrastructure invested with LHR explicitly in mind. Add in a spur from the (ficitonal?) HS2 line, and it looks even more ridiculous to suggest closing LHR at any point.
The logical thing to do would build a new 4 runway airport somewhere north of London, on the HS2 line, between the M1 and and the M40. Plenty of space, good connection, and no birds. Unfortunately, lots of historic village and the Chilterns, so lets all just accept that whilst LHR is no perfect, its the least bad option of all these things and get on with it!
The logical thing to do would build a new 4 runway airport somewhere north of London, on the HS2 line, between the M1 and and the M40. Plenty of space, good connection, and no birds. Unfortunately, lots of historic village and the Chilterns, so lets all just accept that whilst LHR is no perfect, its the least bad option of all these things and get on with it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
The Daily Mail comes out in favor of the Silver-Boris airport.
London has a vision for new airport capacity. Now all it needs is the Victorian spirit to get it built and paid for | Mail Online
.
The Daily Mail comes out in favor of the Silver-Boris airport.
London has a vision for new airport capacity. Now all it needs is the Victorian spirit to get it built and paid for | Mail Online
.
Quote from the Mail article:
"Planning permission, even with new fast track procedures, could alone take several years given the degree of opposition in middle class neighbourhoods like Richmond, where I happen to live. But as the new runway is North-South existing neighbourhoods should not be affected".
Clearly they've assigned their top aviation journalist on this story ...
"Planning permission, even with new fast track procedures, could alone take several years given the degree of opposition in middle class neighbourhoods like Richmond, where I happen to live. But as the new runway is North-South existing neighbourhoods should not be affected".
Clearly they've assigned their top aviation journalist on this story ...
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two quotes interest me;
.The Norman Foster plan eventually proposes that the land at Heathrow could be turned over to housing and other development releasing cash for the Thames Estuary project.
Yeah because Im sure BAA will just sell one of the world's most commercially successful airports for housing!
And secondly;
But it would be worth retaining some private jet capacity at Heathrow as well to deal with the building corporate traffic, especially along the M4 corridor.
So you're going to keep LHR open after all then and not build housing on it?! We all know there is no way that you can justify a 4 runway estuary airport without closing LHR, because airlines simply wont go there. So if we keep LHR open, it has to have three or ideally four runways.
If we propose the estuary airport, then LHR must be closed. Quite how you convince BAA to do that, remains to be seen though!
.The Norman Foster plan eventually proposes that the land at Heathrow could be turned over to housing and other development releasing cash for the Thames Estuary project.
Yeah because Im sure BAA will just sell one of the world's most commercially successful airports for housing!
And secondly;
But it would be worth retaining some private jet capacity at Heathrow as well to deal with the building corporate traffic, especially along the M4 corridor.
So you're going to keep LHR open after all then and not build housing on it?! We all know there is no way that you can justify a 4 runway estuary airport without closing LHR, because airlines simply wont go there. So if we keep LHR open, it has to have three or ideally four runways.
If we propose the estuary airport, then LHR must be closed. Quite how you convince BAA to do that, remains to be seen though!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Suppose Heathrow didn't exist, try writing a proposal for it as we stand today. There is no way it would ever happen."
On the other hand, apart from Heathrow village growing to become an urban area, or the area being part of green belt Hounslow Heath, there is a third possibility: we'd all be arguing about expansion at Heston Airport which would probably have been what Heathrow is now.
Quote: "Do we really think there are many Tory voters in Stanwell?
Surely this is a safe way of increasing his majority! "
No need, he has a pretty safe and consistent Conservative seat.
Quote: "The logical thing to do would build a new 4 runway airport somewhere north of London, on the HS2 line, between the M1 and and the M40."
Sounds very much like the conclusion of the 1971 Royal Commission on the "third" London airport. They recommended Cublington, Bucks.. Indeed, it's obvious that any new airport site has to be west or north west of London, and not in the Thames estuary. It was the same in 1971: the Royal Commission rejected Foulness/Maplin, Essex.
Quote: "Plenty of space, good connection, and no birds. Unfortunately, lots of historic village and the Chilterns, so lets all just accept that whilst LHR is no perfect, its the least bad option of all these things and get on with it! "
Quite.
Quote: "The Daily Mail comes out in favor of the Silver-Boris airport.
London has a vision for new airport capacity. Now all it needs is the Victorian spirit to get it built and paid for | Mail Online"
That's a relief! Expect this campaign will be as successful as the one to have weekly bin collections reinstated. For those who remember, just one council (Stoke-on-Trent) has done this, and that was the result of a bribe from Eric Pickles.
Quote: " Quote from the Mail article:
"Planning permission, even with new fast track procedures, could alone take several years given the degree of opposition in middle class neighbourhoods like Richmond, where I happen to live. But as the new runway is North-South existing neighbourhoods should not be affected".
Clearly they've assigned their top aviation journalist on this story ... "
Er, what's all this about north-south rwys? Where would they go and how would that increase capacity? Desperation, or more sloppy journalism?
Quote: "So you're going to keep LHR open after all then and not build housing on it?! We all know there is no way that you can justify a 4 runway estuary airport without closing LHR, because airlines simply wont go there. So if we keep LHR open, it has to have three or ideally four runways.
If we propose the estuary airport, then LHR must be closed. Quite how you convince BAA to do that, remains to be seen though!"
Precisely the reason why the estuary airport (whether Silver Island or Foster's Folly), apart from all the other considerations, is a complete non-starter.
On the other hand, apart from Heathrow village growing to become an urban area, or the area being part of green belt Hounslow Heath, there is a third possibility: we'd all be arguing about expansion at Heston Airport which would probably have been what Heathrow is now.
Quote: "Do we really think there are many Tory voters in Stanwell?
Surely this is a safe way of increasing his majority! "
No need, he has a pretty safe and consistent Conservative seat.
Quote: "The logical thing to do would build a new 4 runway airport somewhere north of London, on the HS2 line, between the M1 and and the M40."
Sounds very much like the conclusion of the 1971 Royal Commission on the "third" London airport. They recommended Cublington, Bucks.. Indeed, it's obvious that any new airport site has to be west or north west of London, and not in the Thames estuary. It was the same in 1971: the Royal Commission rejected Foulness/Maplin, Essex.
Quote: "Plenty of space, good connection, and no birds. Unfortunately, lots of historic village and the Chilterns, so lets all just accept that whilst LHR is no perfect, its the least bad option of all these things and get on with it! "
Quite.
Quote: "The Daily Mail comes out in favor of the Silver-Boris airport.
London has a vision for new airport capacity. Now all it needs is the Victorian spirit to get it built and paid for | Mail Online"
That's a relief! Expect this campaign will be as successful as the one to have weekly bin collections reinstated. For those who remember, just one council (Stoke-on-Trent) has done this, and that was the result of a bribe from Eric Pickles.
Quote: " Quote from the Mail article:
"Planning permission, even with new fast track procedures, could alone take several years given the degree of opposition in middle class neighbourhoods like Richmond, where I happen to live. But as the new runway is North-South existing neighbourhoods should not be affected".
Clearly they've assigned their top aviation journalist on this story ... "
Er, what's all this about north-south rwys? Where would they go and how would that increase capacity? Desperation, or more sloppy journalism?
Quote: "So you're going to keep LHR open after all then and not build housing on it?! We all know there is no way that you can justify a 4 runway estuary airport without closing LHR, because airlines simply wont go there. So if we keep LHR open, it has to have three or ideally four runways.
If we propose the estuary airport, then LHR must be closed. Quite how you convince BAA to do that, remains to be seen though!"
Precisely the reason why the estuary airport (whether Silver Island or Foster's Folly), apart from all the other considerations, is a complete non-starter.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.21 We believe that the role of the Government should be largely confined to facilitating a competitive aviation market
Fantasy Island cannot be built without shutting down its competitors, therefore it cannot be built. End of discussion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino:
Yeah because Im sure BAA will just sell one of the world's most commercially successful airports for housing!
Yeah because Im sure BAA will just sell one of the world's most commercially successful airports for housing!
Have you never heard of a compulsory purchase order?
Jabird:
Fantasy Island cannot be built without shutting down its competitors, therefore it cannot be built. End of discussion.
Fantasy Island cannot be built without shutting down its competitors, therefore it cannot be built. End of discussion.
Which is exactly why it WILL be built. What developer could not resist getting their hands on the most valuable piece of real-estate in Britain.
Jabird:
Remember that however much you dislike c. and d, they are still better options than fantasy island because any capacity added there (and of course at LHR) is a direct add and on dry land.
Remember that however much you dislike c. and d, they are still better options than fantasy island because any capacity added there (and of course at LHR) is a direct add and on dry land.
You are rather forgetting that one of the MAIN attractions of Silver-Boris, is that it is NOT on dry land. The UK is, thanks to the efforts of New Labour to bury the UK under 500 million people, the most densely populated nation in Europe.
We NEED landspace, and the relocation of LHR will not only give us extra landspace, it will place much of the noise nuisance of Europe's biggest airport out in the estuary. That is not a drawback, it is a selling-point. And throwing sand up to make the world's biggest sand-castle is hardly an engineering challenge - in fact, it is probably the easiest and cheapest part of the whole construction project.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 13th Jul 2012 at 20:57.