New Thames Airport for London
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
That's what you said, NOT short haul and long haul, two entirely different concepts. SVO to VVO is domestic, as is CDG to FDF, but short haul?
That's what you said, NOT short haul and long haul, two entirely different concepts. SVO to VVO is domestic, as is CDG to FDF, but short haul?
Heathrow Director:
LVPs slow down traffic anywhere, not just Heathrow. There's nothing much one can do about fog, but it doesn't happen every day.
LVPs slow down traffic anywhere, not just Heathrow. There's nothing much one can do about fog, but it doesn't happen every day.
But it does not slow down traffic if you have sufficient capacity. If you have another runway you can open for Low Vis procedures, of if your average spacing is 10 nm anyway, then Low Vis procedures make no difference and there are no delays and cancellations because of fog.
And since people are trying to make a 'problem' out of this imaginary Thames fog, this is an issue that needs addressing.
.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
Which EU are you talking about? The one I know of is not a single homogenous region - you have countries that are in and out of the Eurozone, and you have countries in and out of Schengen, and also countries in EFTA and Schengen but not the EU, like Norway and Switzerland.
Which EU are you talking about? The one I know of is not a single homogenous region - you have countries that are in and out of the Eurozone, and you have countries in and out of Schengen, and also countries in EFTA and Schengen but not the EU, like Norway and Switzerland.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alton Hants
Age: 89
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverstrata gives his age as 43.
I have just reread this thread, sad I know , but then I am a fan of the concept of some form of Thames Airport.
At Post 26 Silverstrata says: "I did tell planners back in the late 1970s that the M25 needs 6 lanes a side".
Perhaps the planners ignored you because they thought you were just a precocious ten year old. But now you are older.
I have just reread this thread, sad I know , but then I am a fan of the concept of some form of Thames Airport.
At Post 26 Silverstrata says: "I did tell planners back in the late 1970s that the M25 needs 6 lanes a side".
Perhaps the planners ignored you because they thought you were just a precocious ten year old. But now you are older.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For your info, the short runways at CDG are for short-haul aircraft. You could try taking off in a 747, but the results might be interesting. Glad you are not in aviation.
Your rant about domestic access to Heathrow rather ignores the fact that English domestic flying into London almost ceased overnight when the East and West coast rail lines were upgraded. Indeed VLM's very profitable LCY-MAN and LCY-LPL ended abruptly soon after. STN-PIK has closed as has GLA-LHR on BD, which carried the codeshare of 14 STAR partners. Perhaps not a goldmine? BA's LHR-MAN is long haul feeder by any other name these days, whereas GLA and EDI have a good point to point and feeder mix.
BD's MME and LBA-LHR services also closed as the P2P traffic went to the railways where the hassle factor was much less.
Is that just my eyes, or are you talking rot again?
And yes, I have also seen a 747 landing on the short - but I did not say that, did I. I said taking off on the short, which would be most interesting.
Because LHR is so limited in arrivals, it does not have so much domestic - AND IS THEREFORE MISSING OUT ON A GREAT DEAL OF INTERLINING TRAFFIC.
Why do you think that people now fly to AMS or CDG to pick up a State-side flight? Because it is so damn difficult to get a cheap flight into LHR - whereas Easyjet and BMI-B fly direct to CDG and AMS.
Why do you think that people now fly to AMS or CDG to pick up a State-side flight? Because it is so damn difficult to get a cheap flight into LHR - whereas Easyjet and BMI-B fly direct to CDG and AMS.
And since people are trying to make a 'problem' out of this imaginary Thames fog, this is an issue that needs addressing.
But it does not slow down traffic if you have sufficient capacity. If you have another runway you can open for Low Vis procedures, of if your average spacing is 10 nm anyway, then Low Vis procedures make no difference and there are no delays and cancellations because of fog.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 22nd Nov 2011 at 12:05.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
silverstrata, the issue of fog simply isn't imaginery. It's ironic that you're arguing about this now, when much of the south-east has been shrouded in the stuff including Sheppey where you want to plonk this 
airport!!
airport!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not just about moving Heathrow, there are many businesses around the Thames valley that are there to cater for the airport. The people that work at Heathrow and these other businesses mostly live in and around that area. Closing Heathrow and building this fantasy island would mean moving the whole lot to the other side of London.
Crossrail will take people from Canary Wharf to Heathrow in 30 minutes. There is actually quite a lot of wasteland around Heathrow if you have a look. The third runway proposal seems to me the way to go. Unfortunately this would mean bulldozing a very small village and moving a few people. It is however a much more feasable plan than relocating the huge numbers as above.
I cant help feeling that the whole thames island plan is being proposed in order to show just how ludicrously expensive it will be so that the government can then revert back to the third runway plan and act as though it is saving money.
Crossrail will take people from Canary Wharf to Heathrow in 30 minutes. There is actually quite a lot of wasteland around Heathrow if you have a look. The third runway proposal seems to me the way to go. Unfortunately this would mean bulldozing a very small village and moving a few people. It is however a much more feasable plan than relocating the huge numbers as above.
I cant help feeling that the whole thames island plan is being proposed in order to show just how ludicrously expensive it will be so that the government can then revert back to the third runway plan and act as though it is saving money.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The task now, is to make it work properly, instead of it becoming another ill-planned, on-the-cheap, in-the-wrong-place construction (like the M25, the Dartford tunnel, Birmingham airport, Bristol airport, or Luton airport).
There was no great design years ago that has led to this structure.
These airports weren't suddenly built to the size and capacity they are at now, they grew over many many years from being old wartime or aircraft manufacturing airfields.
If you could start all over again that would be great and your end result would't look like it does now, but you can't.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeromad
silverstrata, the issue of fog simply isn't imaginery. It's ironic that you're arguing about this now, when much of the south-east has been shrouded in the stuff including Sheppey where you want to plonk this airport!!
silverstrata, the issue of fog simply isn't imaginery. It's ironic that you're arguing about this now, when much of the south-east has been shrouded in the stuff including Sheppey where you want to plonk this airport!!
And including LHR, which cancelled hundreds of flights.
The point is that a much larger airport, that is not capacity restricted like LHR, would not have to reduce traffic flows during Low Vis opps. Had this recent fog blanketed a much larger Thames airport, there would have been no flight cancellations.
So what is your problem?
Skipness:
Your rant about domestic access to Heathrow rather ignores the fact that English domestic flying into London almost ceased overnight when the East and West coast rail lines were upgraded. Indeed VLM's very profitable LCY-MAN and LCY-LPL ended abruptly soon after.
Your rant about domestic access to Heathrow rather ignores the fact that English domestic flying into London almost ceased overnight when the East and West coast rail lines were upgraded. Indeed VLM's very profitable LCY-MAN and LCY-LPL ended abruptly soon after.
The point is that it is now easier to interline via CDG or AMS, because many low cost carriers go there and you can easily pick up your long haul fight. Thus LHR is loosing out big time, because it has no more capacity to take the smaller and lower cost feeder airlines. And if LHR is losing out, then so (eventually) is the City of London and the UK as a whole.
A larger Thames airport would, of course, have the capacity to undercut AMS and CDG.
Skipness:
OK, please re-read what I have said above and stop insulting me, play the ball and not the man.
OK, please re-read what I have said above and stop insulting me, play the ball and not the man.
There are no "short" runways at CDG.
If you don't want to be shot down in flames, then don't overfly the flak batteries.
Skipness:
No one would want to fly GLA-LHR-CDG if they could fly GLA-CDG direct, which they can.
No one would want to fly GLA-LHR-CDG if they could fly GLA-CDG direct, which they can.
Skipness:
Against Ryanair and easyJet? Are you serious? If you are suggesting people connect via AMS and CDG to fly to the US, they use KLM or AF, not the locos you quoted.
Against Ryanair and easyJet? Are you serious? If you are suggesting people connect via AMS and CDG to fly to the US, they use KLM or AF, not the locos you quoted.
Why do you think that Schiphol went to the trouble of building a special 'terminal' for Lo-Co fliers? Why do you think that a nation of only 15 million has such a large airline? And that is all market share that LHR has lost, because it has no capacity for regional aircraft.
** They are called Lo-Co flyers for obvious reasons. I would not step on one, but then many people simply gravitate to the cheapest routes.
Skippy
(The fog) might look imaginary from LA but since I couldn't see the top of 1 Canada Square this morning, and there were a load of go arounds last night when I was at LCY (on the Thames in case you were wondering) I think it might be real...
(The fog) might look imaginary from LA but since I couldn't see the top of 1 Canada Square this morning, and there were a load of go arounds last night when I was at LCY (on the Thames in case you were wondering) I think it might be real...
Come off it Skippy - you are right overhead the flack batteries with that comment, and I am sorely tempted to open fire.
How the hell do you think you can do a Cat IIIb autoland from a 6 degree glideslope onto an 1100m runway of half width ?!?
Think about it, Skippy, think about it.
Jabird
Which EU are you talking about? The one I know of is not a single homogenous region.
Which EU are you talking about? The one I know of is not a single homogenous region.
Gordon
Silverstrata gives his age as 43.
Silverstrata gives his age as 43.
Prophead
I cant help feeling that the whole thames island plan is being proposed in order to show just how ludicrously expensive it will be so that the government can then revert back to the third runway plan and act as though it is saving money.
I cant help feeling that the whole thames island plan is being proposed in order to show just how ludicrously expensive it will be so that the government can then revert back to the third runway plan and act as though it is saving money.
London does not have an inalienable right to be the financial center of Europe, and if it becomes a nightmare to get there, and to get anywhere else from there, then London will become a financial backwater. And if that happens, then the UK sinks without trace - especially as successive governments have destroyed our once fine manufacturing industries.
As I said before - a nation that stands still, is going backwards. And the UK has been going backwards for a couple of decades now.
Rather than being a 'fantasy island', a central hub that combines air, rail, road, and potentially even sea links, could generate the UK a great deal of money.
.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that a much larger airport, that is not capacity restricted like LHR, would not have to reduce traffic flows during Low Vis opps. Had this recent fog blanketed a much larger Thames airport, there would have been no flight cancellations.
Toronto Pearson: 5 runways, has to cease use on at least on of them (24L/06R) when they are operating in Low Vis. And consequently flow rates decrease.
Detroit: 6 runways, 4 of which are parallel and able to normally operate simultaneously. It is not yet at saturation like Heathrow, but flow rates drastically drop when in Low Vis.
This is because it's all being well landing an aircraft on the runway, but they have to then taxi from the runway to stand. This isn't easy when the fog is so bad the controller can't see the plane, and the pilots can't see much further than the end of their nose.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fgm:
Your understanding of history is wanting I am afraid.
There was no great design years ago that has led to this structure. If you could start all over again that would be great and your end result would't look like it does now, but you can't.
Your understanding of history is wanting I am afraid.
There was no great design years ago that has led to this structure. If you could start all over again that would be great and your end result would't look like it does now, but you can't.
And that is the whole problem, isn't it? There was no planning, there was no thinking, there was no foresight.
>>Even when fine airports like Gaydon or became available, nobody thought of using them. Its no problem, we can hack the cross-winds and the dodgy flightpath directly over the city.
>>When Finningly became available, they still put money into the grotesque amusement arcade known as Leeds (anyone for a roller-coaster landing?? £5 extra, if we bounce more than once.....)
>>When Filton became available, they still used an airfield that had been designed for bad weather practice.
>>When MAN wanted a new terminal, they put it on the wrong side; and when they wanted a new runway, they put it too close to the old runway. So now you have an airport that cannot do parallel approaches, and has absolutely no spare stands (and nowhere to put any new stands) - oh, just wait for 45 minutes, before a stand becomes available. Brilliant.
>>And Luton. Oh, just don't mention Luton. Tell me of any other airport in the world, that has built a terminal without any windows?
>>Liverpool? Lesson number one in how to completely disfigure and destroy a brand new terminal. And you wonder why I question the sanity of architects...
Just because there were (many) mistakes and a distinct lack of foresight in the past, does not mean that we desperately need to bury our heads in the sand now. Tell me what would happen to UK Plc, if LHR became a small regional airport, because all the heavies had moved to AMS and CDG? What would the great City of London become then?
Bold action is required (not something the previous or present governments would know much about).
The Leeds amusement arcade.
Paddy Air, at Leeds. The runway is towards the bottom left, chaps.
This is the Chinese approach at Leeds (Whun-wing Low).
The dodgems ride, is in the car park (drivers with flat caps, you understand)
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 22nd Nov 2011 at 17:18.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find most of the arguments on this thread ridiculous.
As FGMC says, "These airports weren't suddenly built to the size and capacity they are at now, they grew over many many years from being old wartime or aircraft manufacturing airfields.
If you could start all over again that would be great and your end result would't look like it does now, but you can't"
The best thing to do IMHO would be to accept that South East England already has enough airports, whatever their problems and limitations, and concentrate simply on first building a proper rail network, integrated into the normal rail ticketing at standard prices, to link all four London airports together. Then runways and development can take place at each of them and passengers can transfer between them for connecting flights or catch trains to a final UK destination. A properly designed rail ring will connect to all main lines east west north and south, benefiting everyone with a journey to make even if not by air.
Heathrow needs to be linked to Clapham Junction and to Gatwick so that long haul passengers can reach it from south and east of London. Also build a spur to Feltham and acquire the Heathrow Express extension from BAA and integrate into the national rail ticketing scheme. Right now connections north, south and south east of Heathrow are pitiful. A properly financed rail network (not one built on the cheap ... the British way) linking all airports to and also preferably through London would provide the infrastructure that the country needs. Yes it's expensive but look at the cost of not doing this.
This idea of a new airport somewhere east of London is just absurd. Build a proper ring of rail connections and it no longer matters where the airports are. Certainly no need to build more.
As FGMC says, "These airports weren't suddenly built to the size and capacity they are at now, they grew over many many years from being old wartime or aircraft manufacturing airfields.
If you could start all over again that would be great and your end result would't look like it does now, but you can't"
The best thing to do IMHO would be to accept that South East England already has enough airports, whatever their problems and limitations, and concentrate simply on first building a proper rail network, integrated into the normal rail ticketing at standard prices, to link all four London airports together. Then runways and development can take place at each of them and passengers can transfer between them for connecting flights or catch trains to a final UK destination. A properly designed rail ring will connect to all main lines east west north and south, benefiting everyone with a journey to make even if not by air.
Heathrow needs to be linked to Clapham Junction and to Gatwick so that long haul passengers can reach it from south and east of London. Also build a spur to Feltham and acquire the Heathrow Express extension from BAA and integrate into the national rail ticketing scheme. Right now connections north, south and south east of Heathrow are pitiful. A properly financed rail network (not one built on the cheap ... the British way) linking all airports to and also preferably through London would provide the infrastructure that the country needs. Yes it's expensive but look at the cost of not doing this.
This idea of a new airport somewhere east of London is just absurd. Build a proper ring of rail connections and it no longer matters where the airports are. Certainly no need to build more.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS,
As you have correctly pointed out, building an island airport is an expensive operation. Therefore, two sets of parallel wide spaced runways would be far more expensive than two sets of close ones. The terminal should provide sufficient separation to allow simultaneous approaches on each side of it, but all we have for now is a concept sketch, not a detailed plan unless you can give us a link for one?
Exactly, you are shunting the entire Thames Valley 180deg, and shoving millions of people through London to get to an airport the other side. This isn't just an engineering challenge on the site in question, it presents an enourmous overloading on the surface transport network throughout the SE.
This is surely a matter for the terminal designers - granted, that is more Foster's field, I would be interest to see if Arups have made a public comment on this, I know they have slammed the routing alignments for hs2.
I am still puzzled that you claim to be a 76 jockey. I will admit I am no pilot, but I have never come across the concept of a domestic runway. A runway is a strip of (insert material of choice) - it does not care who is inside the plane, or where it is going. Either the plane can take off or it cannot, based on:
a) The aircraft size / weight.
b) The load, including fuel.
c) Weather conditions.
d) Elevation (obviously not an issue here).
e) Engine configuration.
Now as a general rule, larger aircraft operate longer routes, and international routes are longer than domestic ones, but this is by no means cast in stone. I have done BHX-EWR in a 757, and LHR-FRA in a 767, and let's not even start on Japan!
And I'm sorry, we have to consider a proposal against the politics of now, and even looking ahead, these aren't the EUs best days. Arriving into the UK, you have red, green and the EU blue channels, then you have domestic flights from IOM & Channel Is (not sure about GIB?) subject to customs allowances, not to mention the Canaries, and where do you label Morocco? It all gets very very messy, and that is for the terminal designers to sort out. If there are any specifically designated domestic runways (as opposed to airports restricted to domestic only flights), please do go ahead and name them.
And the logic still stands. Separating light and heavy traffic speeds up arrivals to an airport. And so anyone who designs a nice new airport with all the runways so close together that there cannot be any separation, is, well, stupid. Foster included.
Its not just about moving Heathrow, there are many businesses around the Thames valley that are there to cater for the airport. The people that work at Heathrow and these other businesses mostly live in and around that area.
b. Customs and immigration. It is still advantageous to separate domestic (small aircraft) and international traffic (big aircraft), for immigration reasons.
I am still puzzled that you claim to be a 76 jockey. I will admit I am no pilot, but I have never come across the concept of a domestic runway. A runway is a strip of (insert material of choice) - it does not care who is inside the plane, or where it is going. Either the plane can take off or it cannot, based on:
a) The aircraft size / weight.
b) The load, including fuel.
c) Weather conditions.
d) Elevation (obviously not an issue here).
e) Engine configuration.
Now as a general rule, larger aircraft operate longer routes, and international routes are longer than domestic ones, but this is by no means cast in stone. I have done BHX-EWR in a 757, and LHR-FRA in a 767, and let's not even start on Japan!
And I'm sorry, we have to consider a proposal against the politics of now, and even looking ahead, these aren't the EUs best days. Arriving into the UK, you have red, green and the EU blue channels, then you have domestic flights from IOM & Channel Is (not sure about GIB?) subject to customs allowances, not to mention the Canaries, and where do you label Morocco? It all gets very very messy, and that is for the terminal designers to sort out. If there are any specifically designated domestic runways (as opposed to airports restricted to domestic only flights), please do go ahead and name them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackie
That is utter balderdash. Look at, for example, Schiphol: 6 runways operating notably under maximum capacity. Fog there today and recently, lots of significant delays and cancellations.
That is utter balderdash. Look at, for example, Schiphol: 6 runways operating notably under maximum capacity. Fog there today and recently, lots of significant delays and cancellations.
Yes.
a. Mainly because aircraft cannot get out of, or into, other airports.
If an aircraft is having trouble with (say) LGW earlier in the day, it is not going to be at AMS for the evening rotation - or even for the next morning's rotation. And some Lo-Co airlines are renowned for not having any spare crew, when the previous crew go out of hours, and so the next AMS rotation is cancelled - but that has nothing to do with AMS inbounds.
b. Some airlines still insist on buying Boeing short haulers, which cannot land in thick fog (only Cat IIIa). Again, nothing to do with AMS.
The holding patterns are rarely used at AMS, which makes it a bit of a shock when ATC suddenly says 'take up the hold'. The main delays are very strong westerlies at AMS, because it is then down to one landing runway. Luckily that does not happen too often.
Jackie
This is because it's all being well landing an aircraft on the runway, but they have to then taxi from the runway to stand. This isn't easy when the fog is so bad the controller can't see the plane, and the pilots can't see much further than the end of their nose.
This is because it's all being well landing an aircraft on the runway, but they have to then taxi from the runway to stand. This isn't easy when the fog is so bad the controller can't see the plane, and the pilots can't see much further than the end of their nose.
LGW have a 'follow the greens to the stand' system. Its a doddle.
.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS,
Let's not go round dismissing every single airport in the UK, that really just opens this into a rather messy and pointless rant. Or do you want me to start on JFK - I mean, how many terminals? ATL? Enough!
Back to the history of new, out of the way, mega-airports - generally a very messy game, with so much that can go wrong - and that is just the ones that don't sink.
Is it not fair to say that those that work do so because they have not just space to grow, but also because they are not hindered by other airports in their hinterland.
Consider - DEN, HKG, MUC and the new BER - replacing previous airports, shut down, gone.
Good lobbying has held DAL back against DFW.
Then there's good old Mirabel!
Now imagine you are pitching this airport idea in the Dragon's Den - remember, UK Govt Plc would need a serious rights issue to fund this one!
Look at the risks:
-No guarantee demand for air travel will continue to rise - LHR traffic has -barely moved in last 10 years, despite T5.
-UK highest taxation rates for air travel in world - especially long haul
-Oil more likely to go up in cost, not down.
-Concerns over climate change likely to limit growth of aviation market.
Then if you want your SWAT analysis, consider the opposition:
-For GNB Island (George, norm & Boris) to work, how many London areas would be asked, or made to close? None? Welcome to Mirabel 2.0. Just LHR? how about LCY? Or all of them? A political and financial nightmare to put so many separate companies out of business, especially as BAA has been forced to sell LGW and EDI.
-You talk of 'interlining' between loco and long haul at CDG & AMS. I wouldn't call that interlining, people who do this are making two entirely seperate bookings, attemtping to avoid UK long haul APD. But this is often a false economy, as there is no comeback if any one (of at least 4) legs of the overall trip is delayed. Either way, this leakage is down to tax difference rather than infrastructure. Most loco AMS and CDG traffic is PTP, in case you weren't aware, they both happen to be rather attractive cities to visit. Why would investors want to put billions in to a new airport facility to go after this market, when price sensitive travellers would just continue to usee STN, LTN etc.
Now in very crude figures - if, and it is a very big if, you could build this airport for £50bn, and the airport could make a clean PROFIT (not PSC) of £10 out of each one, unless my calculator is having a very bad day, I make that 50 years to pay back at 0% APR.
Do you know any good banks which would support this deal, I will move my mortgage to them!
Let's not go round dismissing every single airport in the UK, that really just opens this into a rather messy and pointless rant. Or do you want me to start on JFK - I mean, how many terminals? ATL? Enough!
Back to the history of new, out of the way, mega-airports - generally a very messy game, with so much that can go wrong - and that is just the ones that don't sink.
Is it not fair to say that those that work do so because they have not just space to grow, but also because they are not hindered by other airports in their hinterland.
Consider - DEN, HKG, MUC and the new BER - replacing previous airports, shut down, gone.
Good lobbying has held DAL back against DFW.
Then there's good old Mirabel!
Now imagine you are pitching this airport idea in the Dragon's Den - remember, UK Govt Plc would need a serious rights issue to fund this one!
Look at the risks:
-No guarantee demand for air travel will continue to rise - LHR traffic has -barely moved in last 10 years, despite T5.
-UK highest taxation rates for air travel in world - especially long haul
-Oil more likely to go up in cost, not down.
-Concerns over climate change likely to limit growth of aviation market.
Then if you want your SWAT analysis, consider the opposition:
-For GNB Island (George, norm & Boris) to work, how many London areas would be asked, or made to close? None? Welcome to Mirabel 2.0. Just LHR? how about LCY? Or all of them? A political and financial nightmare to put so many separate companies out of business, especially as BAA has been forced to sell LGW and EDI.
-You talk of 'interlining' between loco and long haul at CDG & AMS. I wouldn't call that interlining, people who do this are making two entirely seperate bookings, attemtping to avoid UK long haul APD. But this is often a false economy, as there is no comeback if any one (of at least 4) legs of the overall trip is delayed. Either way, this leakage is down to tax difference rather than infrastructure. Most loco AMS and CDG traffic is PTP, in case you weren't aware, they both happen to be rather attractive cities to visit. Why would investors want to put billions in to a new airport facility to go after this market, when price sensitive travellers would just continue to usee STN, LTN etc.
Now in very crude figures - if, and it is a very big if, you could build this airport for £50bn, and the airport could make a clean PROFIT (not PSC) of £10 out of each one, unless my calculator is having a very bad day, I make that 50 years to pay back at 0% APR.
Do you know any good banks which would support this deal, I will move my mortgage to them!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is APD worth around £2.5 billion a year to the UK? If so, channel all that into the new airport fund along with all the new ETS revenue from aviation, all the fuel duty, tax, all the UK visa revenue, and you could build it in the next decade - all paid for by the aviation industry directly - everybody's happy!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 70
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winniebago. All the money raised on different aviation tax is already accounted for. So spending it on a new airport will result in further cuts elsewhere. Not very likely.
globetrotter2 you idea re rail links is in my view a good one. What is needed is an integrated transport policy that takes account of all the different interests, ie road,rail and aviation.
A project the size of the proposed Thames airport would require consideration of the transport issues, but also socio economic, environmental issues etc. I guess Silvestrata will claim that this is a New Labour philosophy. I disagree, we have a history since the second world war of taking account of these issues. Most of the population don't give a dam about aviation and why should they. So if you wish to spend £50 billion of public funds you will need to produce a very convincing case. Something SS has failed to do especially as his answer to any criticism of his views tends to either insult the poster, or post photos of planes landing. I know that SS will disagree with my views as am an Architect and therefore not only brain dead but also of questionable sanity.
To have any hope of persuading people to back the Thames airport proposal SS you will have to stop insulting people but rather listen to their views, something you have shown little willingness to do so far.
globetrotter2 you idea re rail links is in my view a good one. What is needed is an integrated transport policy that takes account of all the different interests, ie road,rail and aviation.
A project the size of the proposed Thames airport would require consideration of the transport issues, but also socio economic, environmental issues etc. I guess Silvestrata will claim that this is a New Labour philosophy. I disagree, we have a history since the second world war of taking account of these issues. Most of the population don't give a dam about aviation and why should they. So if you wish to spend £50 billion of public funds you will need to produce a very convincing case. Something SS has failed to do especially as his answer to any criticism of his views tends to either insult the poster, or post photos of planes landing. I know that SS will disagree with my views as am an Architect and therefore not only brain dead but also of questionable sanity.
To have any hope of persuading people to back the Thames airport proposal SS you will have to stop insulting people but rather listen to their views, something you have shown little willingness to do so far.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
Now in very crude figures - if, and it is a very big if, you could build this airport for £50bn, and the airport could make a clean PROFIT (not PSC) of £10 out of each one, unless my calculator is having a very bad day, I make that 50 years to pay back at 0% APR.
Now in very crude figures - if, and it is a very big if, you could build this airport for £50bn, and the airport could make a clean PROFIT (not PSC) of £10 out of each one, unless my calculator is having a very bad day, I make that 50 years to pay back at 0% APR.
More importantly, what was the increase in the GNP (and quality of life) that the M1 provided?
These are the questions that need to be answered.
Globetrotter:
The best thing to do IMHO would be to accept that South East England already has enough airports, whatever their problems and limitations, and concentrate simply on first building a proper rail network, integrated into the normal rail ticketing at standard prices, to link all four London airports together.
The best thing to do IMHO would be to accept that South East England already has enough airports, whatever their problems and limitations, and concentrate simply on first building a proper rail network, integrated into the normal rail ticketing at standard prices, to link all four London airports together.
Jabird
The terminal should provide sufficient separation to allow simultaneous approaches on each side of it, but all we have for now is a concept sketch, not a detailed plan unless you can give us a link for one?
The terminal should provide sufficient separation to allow simultaneous approaches on each side of it, but all we have for now is a concept sketch, not a detailed plan unless you can give us a link for one?
Here is the primary proposal.
Thames Estuary Airport
You will have to forgive the website, as a shortage in funds meant that much of it was put together by Shoeburyness Primary School. And many of their crayons were broken. But you will get the idea.
Like every successful British enterprise, the plan was made on the back of an envelope ... I think I still have it, but if not, it will be down the back of the sofa
Please forgive the deliberate error of the runways being too close together, and the terminals located at the end of the runways. We were just testing Boris' sense of humour.
.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
globetrotter,
When you say 4, I take it you exclude LCY and SEN?
Problem is, the rail network is built around major stations, essentially in and out of central London. There is direct FCC LGW-LTN service, but largely by accident of the Thameslink project, not a specific plan to link them.
There are certain elements of the rail orbital you talk of planned by TfL, but not on the scale you suggest, again the cost would be billions.
Also, most traffic at STN and LTN is point to point, so is a good chunk at LGW - the high value, high yield stuff goes through LHR anyway, so it will always be cheaper to let the others take buses.
As for simple rail improvements at London airports? A spur to LTN? And why oh why was £1.8bn spent on a mile or two tunneling into LHR, but not 'left turn' to the major rail junction of Reading provided?
When you say 4, I take it you exclude LCY and SEN?
Problem is, the rail network is built around major stations, essentially in and out of central London. There is direct FCC LGW-LTN service, but largely by accident of the Thameslink project, not a specific plan to link them.
There are certain elements of the rail orbital you talk of planned by TfL, but not on the scale you suggest, again the cost would be billions.
Also, most traffic at STN and LTN is point to point, so is a good chunk at LGW - the high value, high yield stuff goes through LHR anyway, so it will always be cheaper to let the others take buses.
As for simple rail improvements at London airports? A spur to LTN? And why oh why was £1.8bn spent on a mile or two tunneling into LHR, but not 'left turn' to the major rail junction of Reading provided?