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
Frank
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.
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.
You really don't get it sometimes, Frank.
If Stansted was given six runways and Heathrow was closed, then STN would become the de-facto UK hub. You either move your operations to the STN International Hub, or you go to AMS or CDG instead. No questions asked.
STN would work as an alternative to LHR. The question is, would Silver-Boris Thames airport be better? For many reasons, yes it would.
.
.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh?? Amsterdam is built on sand, just like the (sic) 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 methodology will have no problem with Thames alluvial deposits.
An airport is a very different type of structure to a house, both in dispersal (large and flat v tall and slender) and in scale. Airports do, however, need to be able to take substantial point loads at touchdown.
We already know that Kansai was built on the very unstabilised ROCKS, not just the sand you are warning against.
We simply cannot know what the risks are with Fantasy Island, except for the fact that we don't know them. Any attempt to put a figure on them is just pulling numbers out of a hat.
The research, funded by US university MIT, suggests Heathrow aviation pollution causes about 50 early deaths a year and this number is rising.
How exactly have they collected data, and has there been any peer review? Doesn't look like it. We have enough of our own universities to conduct such a study, and do ground level research.
The irony that any researchers coming from Boston would have to come through Heathrow to do such research is noted, not to mention Boston's own small airport problem!
By 2030, without airport expansion, the number of early deaths from airport emissions across the UK is projected to more than double to 250.
Nic Ferriday, from campaign group AirportWatch, told the BBC: "The study does match up quite well with a study that was actually done for the Greater London Authority that showed 4,000 people per year dying from air pollution.
That is the conclusion made by other reports which have previously looked into the matter. Unless one has been done more recently, it is my understanding that no peer reviewed scientific report has ever proven a link between airports themselves and significant levels of mortality, i.e. any levels over and above surrounding roads.
Noise on the other hand remains a nuisance, and a contributor to stress, although again, I think it would be a stretch to say it is actually a cause of fatalities.
Last edited by jabird; 15th Oct 2012 at 17:45.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we getting worked up about data from a US university, albeit a respectable one? Note the word suggests - ie the conclusion is meaningless.
Boris Island Airport is preferable to some, that Heathrow with a modest in comparison third runway.
The pollution study from the US is all hypothetical in any case, it also to a degree depends on, how the wind is blowing.
Lets say the go ahead is given for the airport in a river, what is going to be the cost?..Of more importance to the passengers - How would such an airport recoup their construction costs?.
What is happening is while this debate (or lack of) is dragging on..The capacity at Heathrow is eroding..(panic measures have allowed for duel use of Heathrows runways)..The real remedy which is a third runway, will come to late..Boris Island will take an age to complete, that will also be to late and costs will rise just like the RN's Queen Elizabeth carriers.
How can anyone cost a development that is going to be built on sand and sludge?. In truth they will have to play the cost be ear, if they go down that route.
After decades of planning, billions of pounds down the road..A shiny Thames Airport with no aircraft to land..They will all be in Germany and France. IMO
Last edited by Ernest Lanc's; 15th Oct 2012 at 19:52.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Stansted was given six runways
In all seriousness, and excusing the fact you are American and live in LA, what in the name of God makes you think this is even remotely possible?
Do you know the area at all?
Can you perhaps share just where we put six runways across the historic villages of rural Essex?
Are you bulldozing Stansted Mountfitchet?
Wrecking ball to Bishops Stortford?
Chucking them out their houses in Dunmow?
Perhaps we could move the M11 as well?
You either move your operations to the STN International Hub, or you go to AMS or CDG instead. No questions asked.
STN would work as an alternative to LHR.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 15th Oct 2012 at 22:11.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "You really don't get it sometimes, Frank."
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Quote: "If Stansted was given six runways and Heathrow was closed, then STN would become the de-facto UK hub. You either move your operations to the STN International Hub, or you go to AMS or CDG instead. No questions asked."
In reality, Silver, am completely accross all of it, arguably more so than you!
THere are lots of "ifs" in your post: STN won't be "given" 6 rwys and LHR is not closing, not even in your wildest dreams.
Quote: "STN would work as an alternative to LHR. The question is, would Silver-Boris Thames airport be better? For many reasons, yes it would."
You forgot to add "...so there" on the end of your last sentence.
Meanwhile, back in the real world....
STN does not have a cat's chance in hell of becoming a hub, nor does Boris's vanity project (it won't ever be built). The airlines and pax will not move out of LHR, it's as simple as that!
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Quote: "If Stansted was given six runways and Heathrow was closed, then STN would become the de-facto UK hub. You either move your operations to the STN International Hub, or you go to AMS or CDG instead. No questions asked."
In reality, Silver, am completely accross all of it, arguably more so than you!
THere are lots of "ifs" in your post: STN won't be "given" 6 rwys and LHR is not closing, not even in your wildest dreams.
Quote: "STN would work as an alternative to LHR. The question is, would Silver-Boris Thames airport be better? For many reasons, yes it would."
You forgot to add "...so there" on the end of your last sentence.
Meanwhile, back in the real world....
STN does not have a cat's chance in hell of becoming a hub, nor does Boris's vanity project (it won't ever be built). The airlines and pax will not move out of LHR, it's as simple as that!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STN would work as an alternative to LHR. The question is, would Silver-Boris Thames airport be better? For many reasons, yes it would.
Really I know, most of pprune posters know and David Cameron knows that in the end, LHR will have to have it's third runway, or traffic will leach to the continent.
Just my opinion..But LHR has been given permission to make the most of their two runways..How long before LHR gets it's third runway?.
No need to answer..the question is hypothetical..When the Tories are rid of the Liberals.
But LHR has been given permission to make the most of their two runways
In fact the coalition government has confirmed, on a number of occasions, that neither mixed mode nor a relaxation of the night flight restrictions is likely in the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK - The rules have been relaxed for at least a year.
Thursday August 23, 2012
Concerns over increased aircraft noise due to a trial of new runway rules at Heathrow Airport are starting to soar, according to a prominent London council.
West London residents living under the Heathrow flight path are starting to voice more concerns over the current ‘Operational Freedoms’ trial which allows the airport's operator, BAA, to use runways simultaneously under certain circumstances.
Complaints soar over Heathrow runway trials - Hammersmith & Fulham
Wandsworth Council - Noticed changes in aircraft noise?
Complaints soar over Heathrow runway trials
Thursday August 23, 2012
Concerns over increased aircraft noise due to a trial of new runway rules at Heathrow Airport are starting to soar, according to a prominent London council.
West London residents living under the Heathrow flight path are starting to voice more concerns over the current ‘Operational Freedoms’ trial which allows the airport's operator, BAA, to use runways simultaneously under certain circumstances.
BAA is now conducting a flight pattern trial at Heathrow airport which means more planes can come into land over Wandsworth during half day ‘respite’ periods when residents would normally expect a break from overhead planes.
The 'operational freedoms' tests were approved by the Government but local councils were not given a say in the planning process.
The 'operational freedoms' tests were approved by the Government but local councils were not given a say in the planning process.
DaveReidUK - The rules have been relaxed for at least a year
It's those latter two measures which various proponents are lobbying for as a means of maximising the capacity of the existing runways, and permission to deploy them has most definitely not been granted.
Well not yet, anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sticking plaster approach is what the UK seems to do with regard to any transport problem and has been doing so for the last 50 years.
Proper hubs are on mainland EU and are well established. A new runway / terminal wherever will not compensate for that business that is long gone. LHR is stiill poor for ground transportation and we need fast connections to the EU by rail, even that prospect is a long way off, as there is little or no rail capacity left from LHR or anywhere else into the London terminals.
Any major runway / airport build can only be funded by government and would have to be written off. Is that not the reason for airline amalgamations thus to ensure that where you fly to and on which ever airline they all share the pot. In the end it does matter in which country the main hubs are.
I recall as many of you will the push by BA to get KLM and thus get the Dutch hub which is perfect for dispersal by ground transport within the EU, apart from the UK.
I fear it will require more than a change of Uk government to get any improvement. Surely the push for T5 had more to do with the desperate need to bulldoze T 1 2 which were so far past there sell by date. T 3 and 4 are fast approaching that and new frontage has done little to improve them.
Proper hubs are on mainland EU and are well established. A new runway / terminal wherever will not compensate for that business that is long gone. LHR is stiill poor for ground transportation and we need fast connections to the EU by rail, even that prospect is a long way off, as there is little or no rail capacity left from LHR or anywhere else into the London terminals.
Any major runway / airport build can only be funded by government and would have to be written off. Is that not the reason for airline amalgamations thus to ensure that where you fly to and on which ever airline they all share the pot. In the end it does matter in which country the main hubs are.
I recall as many of you will the push by BA to get KLM and thus get the Dutch hub which is perfect for dispersal by ground transport within the EU, apart from the UK.
I fear it will require more than a change of Uk government to get any improvement. Surely the push for T5 had more to do with the desperate need to bulldoze T 1 2 which were so far past there sell by date. T 3 and 4 are fast approaching that and new frontage has done little to improve them.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK
Yes, I'm well aware of the trials.[...]It's those latter two measures which various proponents are lobbying for as a means of maximising the capacity of the existing runways, and permission to deploy them has most definitely not been granted.[...]Well not yet, anyway
"Well not yet, anyway" is the key here..The government have conceded the trials, they are in a corner.
It's either a third runway and being more flexible about runway utilisation, or Boris Island.
This government no way is going to sanction an expensive pie in the sky airport..So Heathrow IMO will be expanded..The only question is - When?
Yes, I'm well aware of the trials.[...]It's those latter two measures which various proponents are lobbying for as a means of maximising the capacity of the existing runways, and permission to deploy them has most definitely not been granted.[...]Well not yet, anyway
It's either a third runway and being more flexible about runway utilisation, or Boris Island.
This government no way is going to sanction an expensive pie in the sky airport..So Heathrow IMO will be expanded..The only question is - When?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Really I know, most of pprune posters know and David Cameron knows that in the end, LHR will have to have it's third runway, or traffic will leach to the continent."
Indeed, even good old Silver knows it!
Quote: "Just my opinion..But LHR has been given permission to make the most of their two runways..How long before LHR gets it's third runway?.
No need to answer..the question is hypothetical..When the Tories are rid of the Liberals."
What happens if (when) the Commission recommends Heathrow expansion? Tories should be shot of the Libdems by then. With luck, we all will!
Quote: " "Well not yet, anyway" is the key here..The government have conceded the trials, they are in a corner.
It's either a third runway and being more flexible about runway utilisation, or Boris Island.
This government no way is going to sanction an expensive pie in the sky airport..So Heathrow IMO will be expanded..The only question is - When?"
It had to happen, they can't have it both ways. They blocked expansion, so something has to give. Pretty obvious really, but it isn't a proper remedy, just a short term panic measure.
Quote: "I fear it will require more than a change of Uk government to get any improvement. Surely the push for T5 had more to do with the desperate need to bulldoze T 1 2 which were so far past there sell by date. T 3 and 4 are fast approaching that and new frontage has done little to improve them. "
LHR-3 (1961) certainly, LHR-1 is newer (1969). LHR-2 (1955) was the oldest by a long way. LHR-4 (1986) still has some mileage left.
Indeed, even good old Silver knows it!
Quote: "Just my opinion..But LHR has been given permission to make the most of their two runways..How long before LHR gets it's third runway?.
No need to answer..the question is hypothetical..When the Tories are rid of the Liberals."
What happens if (when) the Commission recommends Heathrow expansion? Tories should be shot of the Libdems by then. With luck, we all will!
Quote: " "Well not yet, anyway" is the key here..The government have conceded the trials, they are in a corner.
It's either a third runway and being more flexible about runway utilisation, or Boris Island.
This government no way is going to sanction an expensive pie in the sky airport..So Heathrow IMO will be expanded..The only question is - When?"
It had to happen, they can't have it both ways. They blocked expansion, so something has to give. Pretty obvious really, but it isn't a proper remedy, just a short term panic measure.
Quote: "I fear it will require more than a change of Uk government to get any improvement. Surely the push for T5 had more to do with the desperate need to bulldoze T 1 2 which were so far past there sell by date. T 3 and 4 are fast approaching that and new frontage has done little to improve them. "
LHR-3 (1961) certainly, LHR-1 is newer (1969). LHR-2 (1955) was the oldest by a long way. LHR-4 (1986) still has some mileage left.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 17th Oct 2012 at 22:10.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway 3 at EGLL, (used mainly for small/medium vortex-wake categories) and runway 2 at EGKK. Both coming soon to an area near you.
Got to make sense really. Most of the surface infrastructure to support them is already there and the workforces are in place
Both achieved with relatively little re-structuring of the south-east's ATC system.
Got to make sense really. Most of the surface infrastructure to support them is already there and the workforces are in place
Both achieved with relatively little re-structuring of the south-east's ATC system.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 18th Oct 2012 at 00:15.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I originally put this over in the Gatwick thread, but I think it's probably equally/more relevant here.
From yesterday's (17th 0ct) London Evening Standard editorial re: Gatwick expansion,
"Indeed, a new hub in the east is looking increasingly attractive as a long term solution. The Mayor's favourite Thames Estuary option would create fewer problems for densely populated areas than expansion at Heathrow, for instance. It would also meet the gradual shifting of gravity in the capital eastwards, something that the completion of Crossrail will expedite."
Err?
Sounds very similar to the case set out by a certain PPRuNer!
Maybe all the people moving east can swap places with the bird populations in the estuary?
Now, this isn't my opinion by any stretch, as I'm fully aware of the business case for 1 or 2 extra runways at Heathrow & maybe a 2nd at Gatwick in addition to that, but I reckon the government will actually only ever look at two options: Silver/Boris Island or Stanstead (That's for you Silver!)
Some politicians, also Boris mentioned it, still seem to be fixated on the idea that Stansted is well placed for future expansion. If ever there was a white elephant, it's over in Essex!
From yesterday's (17th 0ct) London Evening Standard editorial re: Gatwick expansion,
"Indeed, a new hub in the east is looking increasingly attractive as a long term solution. The Mayor's favourite Thames Estuary option would create fewer problems for densely populated areas than expansion at Heathrow, for instance. It would also meet the gradual shifting of gravity in the capital eastwards, something that the completion of Crossrail will expedite."
Err?
Sounds very similar to the case set out by a certain PPRuNer!
Maybe all the people moving east can swap places with the bird populations in the estuary?
Now, this isn't my opinion by any stretch, as I'm fully aware of the business case for 1 or 2 extra runways at Heathrow & maybe a 2nd at Gatwick in addition to that, but I reckon the government will actually only ever look at two options: Silver/Boris Island or Stanstead (That's for you Silver!)
Some politicians, also Boris mentioned it, still seem to be fixated on the idea that Stansted is well placed for future expansion. If ever there was a white elephant, it's over in Essex!
Last edited by Airlift21; 18th Oct 2012 at 00:36.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just checked the UK Bird Concentration Area maps in the NATS AIP.
In an estuarine environment like the Thames, I think Silver-Foster-Boris-Fantasy-Island, (floating or non-floating), would be hard to justify on safety grounds.
In an estuarine environment like the Thames, I think Silver-Foster-Boris-Fantasy-Island, (floating or non-floating), would be hard to justify on safety grounds.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Really I know, most of PPRuNe posters know and David Cameron knows that in the end, LHR will have to have it's third runway, or traffic will leach to the continent."
A sticking-plaster that will be past its sell-by-date within ten years.
.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sticking-plaster that will be past its sell-by-date within ten years.