New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Sorry, I used the USA as a example, because they are a nation that has few examples of State-Ownership
As for why much of American infrastructure is crumbling, its is because the GOP-Led Congress cannot agree on matters like those with the Democrat controled White House
I also agree that PFI/PPP was a massive mistake that needs to be fixed"
Exactly right, and it's been going on for years. The Americans rightly refer to it as "gridlock".
As for why much of American infrastructure is crumbling, its is because the GOP-Led Congress cannot agree on matters like those with the Democrat controled White House
I also agree that PFI/PPP was a massive mistake that needs to be fixed"
Exactly right, and it's been going on for years. The Americans rightly refer to it as "gridlock".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B.A.
A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government.
A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government.
Sorry, not going to happen.
Firstly, the S.E. will need to retain point-to-point airports. Thus LGW and STN will need to stay, to provide for the Low-Standards airlines and their desperate travelers. There is no point clogging up a world-class hub with harp logos, and these carriers would not want to go there anyway. Too expensive and too crowded for locos (20 minute turnaround at LHR anyone?).
As to the issue of bonds, if you set a fixed rate for the bond this simply becomes a government bond, wholly backed by the government with very little connection to the airport. And while general returns on investments are low at present, making 4% attractive, would you really want to trust your money to a European government in the present climate? I don't think many big players will, they will prefer property or overseas investments over the UK government. And if you do attract big money for this project, are you not simply extracting money from the economy and reducing economic activity in other sectors?
In the current climate, the only really way of financing such a large project, is through Quantitive Easing. The government has already printed some £300 billion, which could easily have funded Silver-Boris airport six times over. Instead, they gave the money to banksters, so they could continue paying each other fat bonuses. So when large industrial corporations get into financial trouble, often through sheer incompetence, the government sticks two fingers up at them. But when the banks get into trouble, often through sheer greed and incompetence, they get bailed out and given a bonus. It sounds very much like the USSR's failed economic model.
Did anyone here feel any benefit from all this largesse to the City of London? No. Alternatively, had this money been spent more wisely, we could already have had - a new London airport; a new nationwide TGV network; three new regional airports; four new shipping ports; and some money left over for scientific R&D. What would have been better for the economy and the people, eh? What would have provided more jobs and more economic activity, and made the UK a better place to live in - creating a first-class travel infrastructure for the UK, or another fat bonus for an incompetent bankster?
.
However, the money-printing-pill has not worked, and the BofE's finger is still hovering over the Q.E. button. If this new tranche of funding - say £50 billion of new money - were used for a new Silver-Boris airport, the entire project could be funded in a trice. And the economic result would be much better for the economy than giving more money to failed fat-cats who will have no incentive to mend their profligate ways if they are simply rewarded for failure.
And who pays for Q.E.? UK citizens do, of course, through increased inflation. But at least that 'tax' is fair and even across the board. You cannot evade inflation if you live and work in the UK, by hiding money in tax havens (or even by buying other currencies). Inflation always comes back to bite you, whether you are buying a tin of beans or a Rolls Royce.
B.A.
As for why much of American infrastructure is crumbling, its is because the GOP-Led Congress cannot agree on matters like those with the Democrat controled White House
As for why much of American infrastructure is crumbling, its is because the GOP-Led Congress cannot agree on matters like those with the Democrat controled White House
Would have to disagree with you there. The rot set into the US long before the current administration.
If you look around the US there are some fine city centers, and then there are other areas in the sticks that would not look out of place in rural Africa. And some of the general transport infrastructure is woeful. There is a huge backlog of rail and road bridges that were cheaply built in the 30s and 40s and need replacing, and it is not getting done - and that is just one small example of infrastructure rot, out of many.
If you compare US transport infrastructure to European equivalents (not the UK, because much of that is dire too), there is no comparison. European surface transport is in a different century to the US. Same goes for housing too. Americans still live in houses made of sticks, and then they complain bitterly when a hurricane or tornado blows it away. Gads, even the Three Little Pigs knew that they should build houses out of brick (or concrete, as in the Med countries).
And this is a serious matter for the UK and for the USA. I was in the USSR in the early 1990s, as the Wall came down. And it was quite apparent that the USSR failed because they let their infrastructure rot. Nothing had been built or repaired since the Revolution. Can you imagine a vast nation (in the 1990s) without any motorways, trains that could barely do 50kph, Victorian dockyards, military bases that looked like junkyards, no real banks (it was basically a cash economy), completely empty shops (an indication of how bad industry and agriculture were), and a capital city with barely a single functioning restaurant. Can you imagine the chaos? In Moscow, the best restaurant in town was the new McDonalds - Moscovite aristocrats used to dress up in their finest furs and book a table to go to the McDonalds (they had never seen such large portions, such exquisitely presented food, and such clean premises). For a Westerner, this was a real sight to behold.
That, dear leaders in Westminster, is what happens to a country when you ignore its infrastructure and spend every last penny on social security and welfare issues. Oh, yes, social spending works for a while and it probably gets you reelected, because everyone likes free goods and less work, but then the nation collapses under a blanket of inactivity. It took the USSR some 70 years to totally disintegrate, and run out of functioning infrastructure. In many respects, the USA and the UK are not that far behind.
As the old joke goes: "Liberal-Socialist governments are the best in the world, until they run out of other people's money." Just ask Blair and Brown...
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 20th Nov 2012 at 11:34.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, the S.E. will need to retain point-to-point airports. Thus LGW and STN will need to stay, to provide for the Low-Standards airlines and their desperate travelers. There is no point clogging up a world-class hub with harp logos, and these carriers would not want to go there anyway. Too expensive and too crowded for locos (20 minute turnaround at LHR anyone?).
Hence why the THA would be a white elephant even if only some of Londons other airports would remain open
If Ryanair refuse to use the THA, then they will shoot themselves in the foot by locking themselves out of the London + SE market, however I am sure Easyjet (who use serve CDG for example) and other LCCs would use this airport
Also I don't think 6 runways are enough (you would need 8, most of all when you are dealing with all of Londons air traffic) and Looking the at project itself, £50 Billion is not enough consiering the size and the need for decent transport links for this airport (you would need several HSRs for a start)
As to the issue of bonds, if you set a fixed rate for the bond this simply becomes a government bond, wholly backed by the government with very little connection to the airport. And while general returns on investments are low at present, making 4% attractive, would you really want to trust your money to a European government in the present climate? I don't think many big players will, they will prefer property or overseas investments over the UK government. And if you do attract big money for this project, are you not simply extracting money from the economy and reducing economic activity in other sectors?
In the current climate, the only really way of financing such a large project, is through Quantitive Easing. The government has already printed some £300 billion, which could easily have funded Silver-Boris airport six times over. Instead, they gave the money to banksters, so they could continue paying each other fat bonuses. So when large industrial corporations get into financial trouble, often through sheer incompetence, the government sticks two fingers up at them. But when the banks get into trouble, often through sheer greed and incompetence, they get bailed out and given a bonus. It sounds very much like the USSR's failed economic model.
Did anyone here feel any benefit from all this largesse to the City of London? No. Alternatively, had this money been spent more wisely, we could already have had - a new London airport; a new nationwide TGV network; three new regional airports; four new shipping ports; and some money left over for scientific R&D. What would have been better for the economy and the people, eh? What would have provided more jobs and more economic activity, and made the UK a better place to live in - creating a first-class travel infrastructure for the UK, or another fat bonus for an incompetent bankster?
In the current climate, the only really way of financing such a large project, is through Quantitive Easing. The government has already printed some £300 billion, which could easily have funded Silver-Boris airport six times over. Instead, they gave the money to banksters, so they could continue paying each other fat bonuses. So when large industrial corporations get into financial trouble, often through sheer incompetence, the government sticks two fingers up at them. But when the banks get into trouble, often through sheer greed and incompetence, they get bailed out and given a bonus. It sounds very much like the USSR's failed economic model.
Did anyone here feel any benefit from all this largesse to the City of London? No. Alternatively, had this money been spent more wisely, we could already have had - a new London airport; a new nationwide TGV network; three new regional airports; four new shipping ports; and some money left over for scientific R&D. What would have been better for the economy and the people, eh? What would have provided more jobs and more economic activity, and made the UK a better place to live in - creating a first-class travel infrastructure for the UK, or another fat bonus for an incompetent bankster?
I agree on the fact that out economic and poltical systems are not working for the people of Britain and that the only way we can solve it is by radical reform
However, The government has not printed enough money to fund 6 Silver-Boris airports, but rather 2
Personally, I am rather unsure of funding a project on printing money, but I don’t think it is a bad idea to fund the whole project with £100+ Billion woth of QE, because unlike their previous attempts, it will be a great help to the UK economy
Plus due to the fact there is no poltical will to expand the current set of Londons Airports, this is pretty much the only way to expand out airport capacity
Look the only way we can legally make airlines to use the Thames Hub airport (THA) is to close all other airports in the area, if we just close LHR, then BA and others would spend huge amounts of money buying up slots at LGW (because it is more conveniant to use that airport than the THA), if you close both LHR and LGW, then the same will happen, only it will be both Luton and Stansted
Hence why the THA would be a white elephant even if only some of Londons other airports would remain open
Hence why the THA would be a white elephant even if only some of Londons other airports would remain open
Also I don't think 6 runways are enough (you would need 8, most of all when you are dealing with all of Londons air traffic)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways
Look the only way we can legally make airlines to use the Thames Hub airport (THA) is to close all other airports in the area, if we just close LHR, then
BA
BA
Who is going to close all the London Airports?..Boris?..He has no veto, so he is out of the equation.
The government has all but said LHR (a proper code) will be expanded, just the Liberals temporarily holding them back.
There is no airport going to be built in/on a river, for a start it would be to expensive, another reason, it would not attract investers who would never see a return for their money.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "There is no such code as (THA)...Making an imaginary code won't make a pie in the sky airport any the more realistic."
Quite right Ernest! So think WHE (white elephant) is more suitable.
Quote: "Who is going to close all the London Airports?..Boris?..He has no veto, so he is out of the equation."
Indeed, the airports of the southeast cannot "be closed", without their owners' consent. This fact by itself makes the Thames airport unviable.
Quote: "The government has all but said LHR (a proper code) will be expanded, just the Liberals temporarily holding them back."
Regretably, Call-Me-Dave won't face the Libdems down. A shame as it would interesting to see Clegg wriggle out of that one in his desperation to keep his snout in the trough.
Quote: "There is no airport going to be built in/on a river, for a start it would be to expensive, another reason, it would not attract investers who would never see a return for their money."
Exactly, airlines and pax won't use it either. If they can't use LHR, they'll be off to AMS, CDG and FRA, etc., as will the inward investment, tourism, business and trade.
Ernest, you made me fall off my seat ..... a rare bit of practical common sense in a thread of fantasy!
Quite right Ernest! So think WHE (white elephant) is more suitable.
Quote: "Who is going to close all the London Airports?..Boris?..He has no veto, so he is out of the equation."
Indeed, the airports of the southeast cannot "be closed", without their owners' consent. This fact by itself makes the Thames airport unviable.
Quote: "The government has all but said LHR (a proper code) will be expanded, just the Liberals temporarily holding them back."
Regretably, Call-Me-Dave won't face the Libdems down. A shame as it would interesting to see Clegg wriggle out of that one in his desperation to keep his snout in the trough.
Quote: "There is no airport going to be built in/on a river, for a start it would be to expensive, another reason, it would not attract investers who would never see a return for their money."
Exactly, airlines and pax won't use it either. If they can't use LHR, they'll be off to AMS, CDG and FRA, etc., as will the inward investment, tourism, business and trade.
Ernest, you made me fall off my seat ..... a rare bit of practical common sense in a thread of fantasy!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 23rd Nov 2012 at 20:39.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Indeed, the airports of the southeast cannot "be closed", without their owners' consent."
The English statute book does not go back 900 years for nothing
For a start the Govt can change the rules on noise at LHR say 40dB max, then they can close the roads and railway links, they can pull the Immigration & Customs service and security. They can pass a law allowing hundreds or thousands of old claims for "Noise injuries"
They can make the area a military flying zone requiring 24 hours notice of entrance
easiest would be to allow a big tax break for converting the whole place into a housing estate ...................... BAA would close it in 24 hours............
The English statute book does not go back 900 years for nothing
For a start the Govt can change the rules on noise at LHR say 40dB max, then they can close the roads and railway links, they can pull the Immigration & Customs service and security. They can pass a law allowing hundreds or thousands of old claims for "Noise injuries"
They can make the area a military flying zone requiring 24 hours notice of entrance
easiest would be to allow a big tax break for converting the whole place into a housing estate ...................... BAA would close it in 24 hours............
Not so sure about the coercive measures, which couldn't realistically be imposed on Heathrow without equally applying them to LGW, STN, etc, for fear of the Government otherwise being dragged through the courts.
But it's entirely conceivable that BAA could be made an offer that they couldn't refuse.
But it's entirely conceivable that BAA could be made an offer that they couldn't refuse.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's absolute nonsense. Do you really think the other London airports have the capacity to absorb more than a small proportion of Heathrow's traffic (even assuming that carriers such as BA would want to move flights from a hub to a non-hub) ?
My point is that we would have to close a fair number of airports if a THA (which should only be done only if we cannot expand LHR)
There is no such code as (THA)...Making an imaginary code won't make a pie in the sky airport any the more realistic.
Who is going to close all the London Airports?..Boris?..He has no veto, so he is out of the equation.
A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government
When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project
As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government
When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project
As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)
The government has all but said LHR (a proper code) will be expanded, just the Liberals temporarily holding them back.
There is no airport going to be built in/on a river, for a start it would be to expensive, another reason, it would not attract investers who would never see a return for their money.
I also accept that there would be little (if any) return on a THA project, but the question should be "how would it benefit the UK?"
Quite right Ernest! So think WHE (white elephant) is more suitable.
Indeed, the airports of the southeast cannot "be closed", without their owners' consent. This fact by itself makes the Thames airport unviable.
Exactly, airlines and pax won't use it either. If they can't use LHR, they'll be off to AMS, CDG and FRA, etc., as will the inward investment, tourism, business and trade.
But this should only be done if LHR cannot be expanded due to a lack of poltical will
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by British Airways
This is how it could be done:
A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government
When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project
As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)
It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government
When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project
As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)
Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted and Luton etal, could soon scupper any such plans.
Rather than wait to become super housing estates, or even more bizzare GA airports..I suggest they would suspend all activity, not allowing a/c to take off or land..
See how long a government would last without any aviation in London. yes the airports would fight back, and Boris and David et al. would have to start using the chunnel.
Last edited by Ernest Lanc's; 24th Nov 2012 at 16:35.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll also need an ICAO Location Indicator for ATC purposes. Now, let's see..
EGTA Thames Airport? No, that's Aylesbury/Thame.
EGWE White Elephant? No, that's Henlow.
EGNF Norman Foster? Sorry, Nether Thorpe.
EGSS Silverstrata? No chance.
How about EGSF then...Silver-Foster? That's Peterborough/Connington.
Well, how about EGBI Boris Island. Nope EGB' designators usually apply to airfields near Birmingham. Well, why not build it there then?...And you could have this fast new railway line, and no-one would care if a big part of Birmingham was demolished and the motorways, (managed), are already there and there's this clear Toll Road and The NEC and, and....
EGTA Thames Airport? No, that's Aylesbury/Thame.
EGWE White Elephant? No, that's Henlow.
EGNF Norman Foster? Sorry, Nether Thorpe.
EGSS Silverstrata? No chance.
How about EGSF then...Silver-Foster? That's Peterborough/Connington.
Well, how about EGBI Boris Island. Nope EGB' designators usually apply to airfields near Birmingham. Well, why not build it there then?...And you could have this fast new railway line, and no-one would care if a big part of Birmingham was demolished and the motorways, (managed), are already there and there's this clear Toll Road and The NEC and, and....
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I have suggested that some government body take control of Londons Main Airports as part of the THA project and thus solving that problem
Or do you mean proper strategic of the asset with ownership being listed but with control denying management accountability to shareholders?
Or do you mean public ownership? Can you put a sum on cost of nationalising?
Your years of research must surely have covered the basics on this? Please be more clear and be laser focussed on which of the options above you will be recommending to HM Govt.
"Thus solving that problem"
Next up, Israel v Palestine and others, don't dare touch that dial!
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 24th Nov 2012 at 16:55.
Paxing All Over The World
If you change that to 'hang the politicians that ignored the problem for the last three decades AND sold off EGLL' - you might get a fair bit of support!
Last edited by PAXboy; 24th Nov 2012 at 21:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA
Look the only way we can legally make airlines to use the Thames Hub airport (THA) is to close all other airports in the area, if we just close LHR, then BA and others would spend huge amounts of money buying up slots at LGW (because it is more conveniant to use that airport than the THA).
Look the only way we can legally make airlines to use the Thames Hub airport (THA) is to close all other airports in the area, if we just close LHR, then BA and others would spend huge amounts of money buying up slots at LGW (because it is more conveniant to use that airport than the THA).
Bollo.
You are not a pilot are you - certainly not one who has been into LGW regularly. Hek, man, you cannot get a sheet of paper between the inbounds and outbounds at LGW sometimes. The REAL B.A. setting up shop in LGW?? Not in a million years sonny, LGW would be their worst nightmare.
There is no airpoert in the world that could take all the trafic of the London basin, and nor would any sensibe airport want to. The international hubbers want one thing, and the loco point-to-pointers want something completely different. So let's keep them separate.
And mark my words, if Silver-Boris was being constructed, and LHR had been earmarked as a technology park, B.A. and all the other majors would be gleefully making plans to relocate to the Thames. In reality, LHR is the old grandma at the teenagers party - nice and cuddly and everyone is still fond of her, but everyone also knows that she is completly out of touch with the modern world, way past her sell-by date, and frankly a bit of a pain in the arse.
.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are not a pilot are you - certainly not one who has been into LGW regularly. Hek, man, you cannot get a sheet of paper between the inbounds and outbounds at LGW sometimes.
And mark my words, if Silver-Boris was being constructed, and LHR had been earmarked as a technology park, B.A. and all the other majors would be gleefully making plans to relocate to the Thames.
Let's list the commercial supporters :
1) Nobody
2) Nobody else
3) Disregard this and keep dreaming...------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 24th Nov 2012 at 23:56.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “"Indeed, the airports of the southeast cannot "be closed", without their owners' consent."
The English statute book does not go back 900 years for nothing
For a start the Govt can change the rules on noise at LHR say 40dB max, then they can close the roads and railway links, they can pull the Immigration & Customs service and security. They can pass a law allowing hundreds or thousands of old claims for "Noise injuries"
They can make the area a military flying zone requiring 24 hours notice of entrance
easiest would be to allow a big tax break for converting the whole place into a housing estate ...................... BAA would close it in 24 hours.........…”
Yes of course this is all theoretically possible, especially on this fantasy thread, but do you really think that in the real world, this course of action would be taken?
Have to say that this thread is very entertaining, surpassing itself with expert opinion on ancient Enlish law statutes, a return of hanging for directors and/or politicians, imaginary airport codes, etc.. Listen to yourselves!
Best of all is the idea of putting a housing estate in place of Heathrow to house all the workers whose jobs have gone off to the estuary. Brilliant!
Would also not bet my last pound on all the Heathrow traffic going off to the estuary in the event of its closure, suspect that much of it would drift off to Europe as would much of inward investment and business opportunities.
"Old grandma at the teenagers party" or not, don't write off Heathrow just yet, reports of its impending demise could be very premature indeed. If we're using old women as illustrations in this thread, Heathrow could have the longevity of the former Queen Mother.
The English statute book does not go back 900 years for nothing
For a start the Govt can change the rules on noise at LHR say 40dB max, then they can close the roads and railway links, they can pull the Immigration & Customs service and security. They can pass a law allowing hundreds or thousands of old claims for "Noise injuries"
They can make the area a military flying zone requiring 24 hours notice of entrance
easiest would be to allow a big tax break for converting the whole place into a housing estate ...................... BAA would close it in 24 hours.........…”
Yes of course this is all theoretically possible, especially on this fantasy thread, but do you really think that in the real world, this course of action would be taken?
Have to say that this thread is very entertaining, surpassing itself with expert opinion on ancient Enlish law statutes, a return of hanging for directors and/or politicians, imaginary airport codes, etc.. Listen to yourselves!
Best of all is the idea of putting a housing estate in place of Heathrow to house all the workers whose jobs have gone off to the estuary. Brilliant!
Would also not bet my last pound on all the Heathrow traffic going off to the estuary in the event of its closure, suspect that much of it would drift off to Europe as would much of inward investment and business opportunities.
"Old grandma at the teenagers party" or not, don't write off Heathrow just yet, reports of its impending demise could be very premature indeed. If we're using old women as illustrations in this thread, Heathrow could have the longevity of the former Queen Mother.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 24th Nov 2012 at 23:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best of all is the idea of putting a housing estate in place of Heathrow to house all the workers whose jobs have gone off to the estuary. Brilliant!
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skip
Bollocks as ever, outwith peak times there are more than a few gaps.
Bollocks as ever, outwith peak times there are more than a few gaps.
You think B.A. will agree to only fly outside peak hours, when they 'relocate to LGW' ?? I think you are more out of touch with aviation than we thought.
B.A. want unrestricted access to a big airport with plenty of interlining capacity to European destinations, and only Silver-Boris can provide that.
But perhaps one of the reasons why B.A. are so fearful of the move, is that they have bolstered their accounts and share price with the value of LHR slots. Which is legalised false accounting taken to its extreme (but served Michael Bishop very well, as the Germans believed him). If you strip out the 'asset price' attributed to LHR slots, B.A. will make stupendous losses for a couple of years and their share price will drop like a stone. B.A. is currently searching behind the company sofa for every last penny to fund a slow and painful fleet renewal of their decrepit fleet, and suddenly several hundred million £ will be wiped off their asset base. Could a move to Silver-Boris invite bankruptcy? Is this what B.A. is worried about??
.