New Thames Airport for London

[Ernest Lanc's]

Skipness One Echo

Can we merge these threads into a Heathrow Futures thread?

This thread is about an alternative to London Heathrow, many posts would be off topic if merged IMO.

This thread name:-

New Thames Airport for London

[PAXboy]

silverstrata

As to the expense, what do you mean we cannot afford it? The UK has spent £350 billion on the banks, which has done absolutely nothing for jobs, infrastructure or national efficiency. Instead, it went towards increasing bonuses for failed fat-cats, who could not run a coffee shop let alone a multinational financial institution.

I do agree with you on that one! First the Labour Party did it and then the Conservatives. So there is no hope it will stop.

[jabird]

This thread is about an alternative to London Heathrow, many posts would be off topic if merged IMO.

Agreed. I tried a "London - ALL airports" thread, but it didn't, err, exactly take off.

Although I disagree with the proposal, an island airport in the Thames is a totally separate concept to expanding Heathrow, and needs to be kept as such, even if that means a bit of repetition.

The UK has spent £350 billion on the banks, which has done absolutely nothing for jobs, infrastructure or national efficiency.

There would have been consequences if they didn't bail them out too. That's one for JB, but you can't just go round saying "£350bn was wasted on the banks, in which case let's waste another £100bn+ on airport and high speed rail infrastructure (approx £70bn+34bn respectively)".

That truly is the economics of the madhouse - if you did that, the NHS would be asking for more hospitals, Education would be wanting brand new universities (as if we didn't have enough educated fools as Coolidge would have called them), where would it end? You'd be on to a trillion worth of profligate spending before you even started.

So back to reality - can this airport stand on its own merits? Can a case be prepared which at least says, if the government were to go back to investing in airports, and if it could do so without all the existing privately operated airports claiming unfair competition, then how could it come up with a case that justifies this investment.

At least if it done this way (Silver, please note - VERY big if still), then you can create a case on overall BCR (benefit cost ratio), rather than the airport having to make a direct operating profit.

However, look how badly HS2 has come unstuck, because the government has been unable to provide a convincing case, based on BCR ratios. Incidentally, the case for the second part of HS2 is MUCH stronger than the first, but the project has been split because of an initial desire to be seen "not to be costing more each year than Crossrail".

HS2, for all its flaws, runs up at least to Leeds and Manchester. How will you get northern MPs to back such spending on what would be seen as a London project? HS2 is also pitched on the claim that it is a safe investment, because they are building a new route, and not encountering the risks of operating on a live line, as they did with the WCML upgrade.

You are talking here about a new airport - sinking sands with all manor of geological risks which have never been undertaken before on this scale in the UK. Rail is also a growth industry, despite the recession. Aviation faces huge challenges.

So even if we did go down the government route, I think you will have no end of political problems getting it through, unless of course Silver, you are really a socialist after all, and you just want to throw caution to the wind entirely.

[On the beach]

"sinking sands with all manor of geological risks"

You'll have to explain that, it's gobbledegook. A bit like the rest of jabirds' post.

[jabird]

"sinking sands with all manor of geological risks"

You'll have to explain that, it's gobbledegook. A bit like the rest of jabirds' post.

Do you really want me to do you the courtesy, or do you want to go and hang back in the Spotters' forum?

Frankly, if you don't understand the concept of sinking sands, or what a geological risk is, I really can't be bothered.

[Ernest Lanc's]

jabird

Originally Posted by silverstrata

As to the expense, what do you mean we cannot afford it? The UK has spent £350 billion on the banks, which has done absolutely nothing for jobs, infrastructure or national efficiency. Instead, it went towards increasing bonuses for failed fat-cats, who could not run a coffee shop let alone a multinational financial institution.

jabird
I certainly am no socialist, but I agree with the above..Which BTW was funded by Gordan Brown and Mr Darling...I doubt very much that the banks would have gone under without that funding.

Originally Posted by silverstrata

Had we diverted £100 billion of that into Silver-Boris Thames airport, it could already have been under construction[...]it could print another £100 bn, put it into the 'Silver-Boris' bank account, and we will start construction next week.

Tony Benn could not have said it better.

As Jabird pointed out, there are unknown technical and geological problems even before the first shovel of dirt is dug..If we are going to print money, better than borrowing..Then it should be to extend the provan infrastructure at Heathrow, with a third runway.
The cost would be modest compared to Borisville, and most of the cost would find it's way back to the exchequer - via money saved taking bodies of the dole, income tax, corporation tax and VAT when worker previously unemployed find they have spending power.

Originally Posted by On the beach

You'll have to explain that, it's gobbledegook. A bit like the rest of jabirds' post.

I think that and jabird will pull me up if I am wrong, you took one sentence out of a paragraph and quoted out of context..I am sure I know what Jabird means..he used the term "sinking sands" loosely..

[jabird]

I doubt very much that the banks would have gone under without that funding.

Ernest - you might well be right, I merely said that was a discussion for JetBlast, not here. I didn't defend the bank bailouts, I just said there would have been other issues if they weren't done.

Equally, if the bank bailouts were throwing good after bad, then why on earth should we do the same for airports?

.If we are going to print money, better than borrowing..Then it should be to extend the provan infrastructure at Heathrow, with a third runway.

There should be no need for either, if private funding is available for Heathrow's 3rd runway.

he used the term "sinking sands" loosely..

Thankyou - very loosely. A casual reference to the parable of building a house on the rock versus building on the sand. The point is that the risks of building in the Thames, contrary to what Silver would like us to believe, are unknown. These risks are compounded further by the need to develop a huge amount of transport infrastructure to support the new airport.

[silverstrata]

Jabird

The point is that the risks of building in the Thames, contrary to what Silver would like us to believe, are unknown.

Cods. As was pointed out previously, the Dutch have been doing it for centuries. Amsterdam is built on wooden piles, which appear to be still doing their job even after a few hundred years.


And regards giving the Q.E. to the banks. This simply rewarded the very people who had made the worst decisions, thereby eliminating 'moral hazard'. It means that as a banker or investor, you can be as incompetent as you like and the government (the people) will bail you out.

In addition, this is throwing good money after bad, so it does nothing for the economy. Had that £350 billion been thrown at infrastructure and R&D projects, there would be a million people involved in building things that will be useful (and wealth generating) for the next hundred years.

Instead it was given to the banks and the banksters, who tuck the money away in tax havens, or spend it fast cars, yachts, electrical gizmos etc: This, of course does nothing for the UK. the UK doesn't make anything, so this spending provides no employment, no taxes, and simply worsens an already woeful balance of trade.

[jabird]

Amsterdam is built on wooden piles

Do you not mean Venice? Are the canals of Amsterdam not dug out?

Either way - by all means correct me on the above, you are simple not comparing like with like.

The only country that has invested significantly in entirely off-shore airports is Japan. Kansai in particular shrunk far more than was anticipated, and don't get me started on the costs of any of these facilities.

Yet, we do actually still have the land to build elsewhere.

[Ernest Lanc's]

silverstrata

Cods. As was pointed out previously, the Dutch have been doing it for centuries. Amsterdam is built on wooden piles, which appear to be still doing their job even after a few hundred years.

"A few hundred" years ago. silverstrata: the Dutch have had to re-claim land. A few hundred years ago the the "wooden piles" would have cost a fraction of what they today.

For a start labour would have been cheap, with no trade unions shackling the powers that be those days.
The UK does not need to built an airport on a river, we are British with British needs, not Dutch.

Private money might be attracted to a modest by comparison third runway at Heathrow..No chance of attracting capital on a Boris fantasy.

In addition, this is throwing good money after bad, so it does nothing for the economy. Had that £350 billion been thrown at infrastructure and R&D projects, there would be a million people involved in building things that will be useful (and wealth generating) for the next hundred years.

You are living in the past...Cameron's government did not give £350 billion to the bankers which I agree was wrong, but done by a socialist government.

If you think the Cameron/Osborne double act are going to waste public money on a Boris fantasy airport - Well it ain't gonna happen.

[Skipness One Echo]

You all say that the recapitalisation was wrong in that it rewarded bankers, all true, however I am still keen to discover what the alternative was. Had they not been rescued, RBS first in the line, would have failed. Tens of thousands would have lost their life savings and the contagion would have rippled out like a tsunami.
The complaint ought to be about under regulation of bankers, the action of saving the banks was essential. Obama and Bush are far from being Socialists but the Fed also threw money at the problem.

Am I correct that Fantasy Island is going to be built by 18th Century Dutchmen? Awesome plan, just my tuppence worth (he lied....).

[Ernest Lanc's]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

You all say that the recapitalisation was wrong in that it rewarded bankers, all true, however[...] I am still keen to discover what the alternative was.

£350 billion went where?. I was a short term prop.

The bankers did not channel all the money where it should have gone..Did the banks start lending again..Rhetorical as we know they did not.

Did the bank's start to invest in small business as was the idea?..Again rhetorical as we know they did not.

This was taxpayers money helping the greedy bankers become even greedier.

Had they not been rescued, RBS first in the line, would have failed. Tens of thousands would have lost their life savings and the contagion would have rippled out like a tsunami.

No the RBS would have had to slim down, the talk that the entire banking system would have collapsed, was as credible IMO as Boris Island. Maybe there is to many banks in the UK..Or in the world for that matter.

I am still keen to discover what the alternative was.

With hindsight - If so much taxpayers money was involved..The Bank Of England should have administered the banks use of the bailout cash, so the money would have gone to where it ought to have gone.

Bet the bill would have been half the £350 billion that WE coughed up.

Back to Boris island..While there is land in the UK to build either runways or airports, there is no point in building on stilts or on reclaimed land like the Dutch.

[Fairdealfrank]

Drifting off the topic again aren't we? Plenty of diversions here, maybe it's because Silver doesn't want to answer the question(?).

It's very simple: the Thames airport will not happen, Heathrow will be expanded. the only variable is when.

Why? because there is no alternative.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank

It's very simple: the Thames airport will not happen, Heathrow will be expanded. the only variable is when.

Why? because there is no alternative.

There are alternatives..Such as expanding another London Airport..In truth Heathrow is the crown jewel of British airports and should be expanded by right.
it is the hub we all know, also the hub that foreigners know - an airport on stilts is not the answer.

Fairdealfrank - Action on the third runway has to be soon, or Heathrow will become a second class airport IMO..With all the implications that would entail.

Back on topic..Boris Island is a dream, that if started will become a financial nighmare IMHO.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "There are alternatives..Such as expanding another London Airport.."

No, expanding another London airport will not work, Ernest Lanc's, the problem is lack of hub capacity, that is why it has to be Heathrow.

There is plenty of capacity at other UK airports, except at Gatwick at peak times, and that would be sorted by adequate capacity at Heathrow.

Quote: "In truth Heathrow is the crown jewel of British airports and should be expanded by right.
it is the hub we all know, also the hub that foreigners know - an airport on stilts is not the answer."

Exactly right, and 70,000,000 pax/year cannot be wrong!

[silverstrata]

Do you not mean Venice? Are the canals of Amsterdam not dug out?

Eh?? Amsterdam is built on sand, just like the Tthames Estruary. If you know anything about proverbs, you will know that sand needs to be stabilised before you build on it. This has worked at Amsterdam for some 500 years (using wood), and so modern methedology will have no problem with Thames alluvial deposits.

No, expanding another London airport will not work, Ernest Lanc's, the problem is lack of hub capacity, that is why it has to be Heathrow.

Not so. You could easilt take Stanstead and give it six runways and a vast new terminal, turning it into the NW European hub.

An enlarged Stanstead would be much better than an enlarged Heathrow, but would it be as good as a Thames airport. Not in my view.

Stanstead would not get rid of the noise problem, and nor would its location be as good for ground transportation. It may be closer to the Midlands, if you build new road and rail links, but its usefullness as a European hub, with rail links to northern Europe, would be severely diminished.

Stanstead is a possibility, but Silver-Boris would be more logical. In addition, Silver-Boris simultaneously solves the Thames Barage and the Thames Crossing problems too. These would still have to be constructed, if one opted for Stanstead as a hub.

.

[Skipness One Echo]

Silver how come you're such an expert on a place you can't spell?
It's Stansted, there's no 'a' and the business community would move operations abroad before lowering themselves to use Essex Intl.

Much of the land around STN is rathet beautiful and would be missed greatly. This is not true of Sipson.

[Dannyboy39]

I wouldn't want to have no green space or live in concrete country, but why does everyone insist every last inch of countryside is beautiful. Its fields of grass and crops. There's plenty more to go around!

[Ernest Lanc's]

Heathrow third runway may mean more pollution deaths, study says

The research, funded by US university MIT, suggests Heathrow aviation pollution causes about 50 early deaths a year and this number is rising.
That figure may climb to 150 if a third runway is built, the study claims.
If Heathrow closed and an airport was built in the Thames Estuary, there would be 50 deaths annually, it said.

He told the BBC: "Because of the location of the [Thames estuary] airport, such an airport would be further away from major population centres so fewer people would be exposed to pollution from that airport.
"Another important factor is the winds in London are south-westerly, so towards the north-east, so pollution from Heathrow gets blown over London.
"If you instead had an airport in the Thames Estuary, that pollution would get blown over the English Channel and North Sea," he added.

BBC News - Heathrow third runway may mean more pollution deaths, study says

I wonder if Boris comissioned this study?.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Not so. You could easilt take Stanstead and give it six runways and a vast new terminal, turning it into the NW European hub.

An enlarged Stanstead would be much better than an enlarged Heathrow, but would it be as good as a Thames airport. Not in my view."

It would certainly be emptier! Does this make it better? Doubtful, unless you're a Libdem.

At present, Stansted, with just one rwy is haemorrhaging pax and carriers. There is no justification for more rwys.

Again you miss the point: it's a chronic shortage of hub capacity that is the problem, not capacity in general.

Quote: "Stanstead would not get rid of the noise problem, and nor would its location be as good for ground transportation. It may be closer to the Midlands, if you build new road and rail links, but its usefullness as a European hub, with rail links to northern Europe, would be severely diminished.

What noise problem? You should have lived under the flightpath in the 1960s to hear real aircraft noise! Todays aircraft are increasingly quieter, cleaner and fuel-efficient.

Stansted is also on the wrong side of London with less than adequate connections to the rest of the UK. Oh what a surprise, so is Boris Vanity Project White Elephant Island (BVPWEI).

Quote: "Stanstead is a possibility, but Silver-Boris would be more logical. In addition, Silver-Boris simultaneously solves the Thames Barage and the Thames Crossing problems too. These would still have to be constructed, if one opted for Stanstead as a hub."

For reasons well documented in this and other threads, neither Stansted or BVPWEI will ever be a hub, trust me.