New Thames Airport for London

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "B.A. want unrestricted access to a big airport with plenty of interlining capacity to European destinations, and only Silver-Boris can provide that."

No, Madrid-Barajas and Amsterdam-Schiphol could too, as could an expanded Heathrow. Madrid would also provide no competition for BA from a similar-sized carrier sharing it as hub (Iberia is owned by the same company), nor would an expanded Heathrow.

Not for second suggesting that any course of action apart from staying put at Heathrow is reasonable for BA.

Also not convinced that bankruptcy is an issue here, what would probably concern them more would be the loss of business if they upped-sticks to an estuary airport.

[Skipness One Echo]

In 48 pages of this thread, there's about 2-3 pages and then we go round and round again. Not sure there's anything new of substance that can be said at this point.

[BALHR]

Forget that to issue bonds on such a scale, and the rest of the cost from the public purse, would allow the opposition of the day to have a field day, over excessive public borrowing on a project that could not even be costed, due to the unique design.

The government could afford their share of this project, the could fix the "leaking" tax system and remember, the UKs national debt is not that bad in the current climate (76%) and we have the 2nd lowest borrowing rates, even if the current government payed for 100% with borrowed money, it would at most add 4% to that figure

Remember the Government of Japan has a very high level debt, in fact it is enough to to almost bankrupt the nation, but they manage with the fact they borrow from the general public (which is what I am suggesting), now I am not suggesting we should have a national debt of nearly 200%, but we can fund a THA project and if it was done it would create jobs and improve our connections to overseas (and our transport infrastructure)

Of course they could prevent all of this by saying "yes" to R3 and R4 at LHR

Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted and Luton etal, could soon scupper any such plans.

Not if they are all owned by the same government owned company that is also developing the THA project

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.

What happens to Heathrow and other airports is up to the people who end up owning the closed down airports, but what they cannot do is operate them as airports serving commercial traffic

As for you other idea, for that act of "protest" it would be a massive undertaking and do you mean airports in London + SE or the whole country?

Do you mean ownership? Buying out all shareholders?

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 l@ser focussed on which of the options above you will be recommending to HM Govt.

What I am calling for HM Government to set up a company called "London Airports Limited" (LAL) it will be a arms length company in the style of Network Rail, only it will be classed at a private company that is 100% owned by the DFT

They will purchase the following companies

Heathrow Airport Limited

Gatwick Airport Limited

London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (The Government can transfer the freehold from the local council to LAL)

Stansted Airport Limited

London Southend Airport Company Ltd

London City Airport Ltd.

Its may also purchase surrounding hotels and offices of those airports

Ferrovial sold a stake of 20% of BAA (now HAH) for nearly £900 million airport, now taking account of the fact they own other airport, making HAH worth £4.5 billion, LHR takes account of lets say 75% of HAH overall traffic, so the starting bid for LAL for LHR is £3.5 Billion

Gatwick was sold by BAA for around £1.5 Billion, which is more or less the current value is it today, so the starting bid for LAL for LHR is £1.6 Billion

The bid for Stansted (as be circulated is around) £1 Billion

Luton is roughly the same size as STN and can serve as much as that airport, so I would put the same value as STN, so around £1billion as well

City was sold in 2006 for £750 million, so the starting bid for LAL for City is £800 million

Overall LAL would have to spend around £7 Billion minimum to buy those airports and remember this is just a estimate based on the information I could find in the public domain and it also depends on how much airport operators want to play hardball as well

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.

I have never suggested that I was one, but I have used LGW a fair number of times, its is not that much of a great airport, but it is not as bad as LHR (though that might change), the only reason LHR trumps LGW is that it is placed at a better location, after that comes LGW and then LTN/STN in that list, BA is reluctant to leave LHR and it might as well locate to LGW since that is in a better location than THA in terms of access, if you close that airport then they would move to LTN/STN, remember it is all about location...

That is why BA are based at LHR, not because how good it is, but is location

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.

Not currently but ATL is being upgraded so that it could cope with the combined demand for London's Airports, also Al Maktoum International Airport is being built to not only cope with that combined demand, but even more, so we can build a airport that would cope with that demand for sure, also there are many airports worldwide that can cope with both full-service and LCC traffic, we cannot make THA viable if there are airports that are in a better location still operating in the region

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

BA and other major airlines don't want to leave LHR, but that would change if they can see that expansion at that airport would not be possible and if they want to serve London, then THA is the only choice

The same goes for LCCs at LGW, STN, LTN and Southend

[DaveReidUK]

Kent island airport is 'best solution' to meet flight demand

Article on the BBC website about a submission to the Davies commission by a former economic advisor to Boris:

BBC News - Kent island airport 'best solution' to meet flight demand

It includes the intriguing suggestion that "a key element of the scheme is that the airport terminal would be at Ebbsfleet railway station", which presumably doesn't actually mean that, unless we're talking about the world's longest airbridges ...

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “The government could afford their share of this project, the could fix the "leaking" tax system and remember, the UKs national debt is not that bad in the current climate (76%) and we have the 2nd lowest borrowing rates, even if the current government payed for 100% with borrowed money, it would at most add 4% to that figure.”

What "share of this project"? Why would the government, even if had the resources of a sovereign wealth fund, or another equivelant, spend money on airports when it clearly believes this sector to be strictly part of the private sector?

In the current circumstances how could it be justified as a sensible use of taxpayers’ money?

Surely under a free market system as favoured by Labour and the Conservatives, and required by the single European market, the role of the government is not to obstruct airport expansion where the free market requires it.

Quote: “Remember the Government of Japan has a very high level debt, in fact it is enough to to almost bankrupt the nation, but they manage with the fact they borrow from the general public (which is what I am suggesting), now I am not suggesting we should have a national debt of nearly 200%, but we can fund a THA project and if it was done it would create jobs and improve our connections to overseas (and our transport infrastructure)

Japan has a system of publicly owned airports, the UK does not. Is Japan a role model to follow in this case?

Quote: “Of course they could prevent all of this by saying "yes" to R3 and R4 at LHR”

They could prevent this anyway, and almost certainly will, whether or not they approve a third rwy and/or fourth rwy at Heathrow.


Quote: “What I am calling for HM Government to set up a company called "London Airports Limited" (LAL) it will be a arms length company in the style of Network Rail, only it will be classed at a private company that is 100% owned by the DFT

They will purchase the following companies

Heathrow Airport Limited

Gatwick Airport Limited

London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (The Government can transfer the freehold from the local council to LAL)

Stansted Airport Limited

London Southend Airport Company Ltd

London City Airport Ltd.


Its may also purchase surrounding hotels and offices of those airports”

Yes, very good, but you fail to explain any reasons why the government would follow this course of action. What does it achieve? How much higher would APD, or taxes in general, have to be to pay for it all?

Quote: “Gatwick was sold by BAA for around £1.5 Billion, which is more or less the current value is it today, so the starting bid for LAL for LHR is £1.6 Billion

So LHR is only worth £0.1 billion more than LGW? You’re having a laugh!

How much over their market value would have to pay to the airport owners in order to bribe them to give up their role in the aviation industry?

Think of the compensation for BAA and others for the future profits they would be losing.

Wouldn’t it just be much easier for Call-Me-Dave to grow a backbone and a pair and allow LHR expansion?

Quote: “That is why BA are based at LHR, not because how good it is, but is location

Nonsense, BA is at LHR because its always been there and the same applies to its predecessors BOAC and BEA (apart from BEA’s move from NHT to LHR in 1953). Why waste money moving for no good reason? When BA‘s predecessors consolidated at LHR there was nowhere else to go.



Quote: “It includes the intriguing suggestion that "a key element of the scheme is that the airport terminal would be at Ebbsfleet railway station", which presumably doesn't actually mean that, unless we're talking about the world's longest airbridges …”

Yes, more nonsense.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Originally Posted by British Airways

The government could afford their share of this project, the could fix the
"leaking" tax system and remember, the UKs national debt is not that bad in the
current climate (76%) and we have the 2nd lowest borrowing rates, even if the
current government payed for 100% with borrowed money, it would at most add 4%
to that figure

The "leaking" tax system should be fixed anyway, and there are far better used for the cash, than a 'pie in the water' scheme'.
Rather than lend this cash for Boris Island, they may as well have a public owned island airport..The cost would be about the same.

Originally Posted by British Airways

Remember the Government of Japan has a very high level debt, in fact it is
enough to to almost bankrupt the nation, but they manage with the fact they
borrow from the general public (which is what I am suggesting),

It's not on in the UK, the rates of interest would have to be high, as the risk of such a scheme, would attract such high rates, or nobody would invest.
Look: In the end this project is unfundable, unless we turn the clock back, and have state owned infrastructure..Expanding LHR, even if that meant compensation some, would be a much cheaper and feasible venture, as the infrastructure is already there.

If the governed game the go ahead for BFA, which would take eons to build..What would happen at LHR, it would mean the Uk's primary airport and only hub, winding down, who knows what consequences that would bring..The airport would be to coin a phrase, be a "dead duck" airport.

[silverstrata]

.


The Sunday Times reports on a new proposal for a Thames Airport. This new design is by Douglas Oakervee, the engineer who oversaw the planning and construction of Chek Lap Kok airport in Hong Kong, and he says that his Thames airport design could be built in the same time that a third runway for LHR could be built.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1167666.ece
(May be behind a paywall)

However, since Oakervee still has his airport pointing east-west, this will have to be revised. The prevailing wind in England is southwesterly, and this orientation will also prevent overflights of London during easterly landings (one of the main reasons for building the Thames airport.) The resulting SW-NE airport layout will henceforth be known as the Silver-Oakervee Airport.

.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The Sunday Times reports on a new proposal for a Thames Airport. This new design is by Douglas Oakervee, the engineer who oversaw the planning and construction of Chek Lap Kok airport in Hong Kong, and he says that his Thames airport design could be built in the same time that a third runway for LHR could be built.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1167666.ece
(May be behind a paywall)

However, since Oakervee still has his airport pointing east-west, this will have to be revised. The prevailing wind in England is southwesterly, and this orientation will also prevent overflights of London during easterly landings (one of the main reasons for building the Thames airport.) The resulting SW-NE airport layout will henceforth be known as the Silver-Oakervee Airport."



Yawn....................really bored now!

[BALHR]

What "share of this project"? Why would the government, even if had the resources of a sovereign wealth fund, or another equivelant, spend money on airports when it clearly believes this sector to be strictly part of the private sector?

In the current circumstances how could it be justified as a sensible use of taxpayers’ money?

Surely under a free market system as favoured by Labour and the Conservatives, and required by the single European market, the role of the government is not to obstruct airport expansion where the free market requires it.

The "share" of the budget that will come from the government will have to be decided by them themselves, it might be 100% or it might be less, we would have to see, the government could afford to fund the project without too much strain on its finances

If this airport was built, then it would create jobs in terms of building this airport it would improve connections overseas to the UK, due to the fact there would be space for additional flights

So there would be quite a big benefit if it was built, but it only should be done if they refuse to expand LHR (which would cost them nothing), the Tories are being hypocrites in relation to this, they support the free-market and private enterprise, yet their interference in the running of London's Airports is of such a extent that they might as well own the airports

I'm surprised BAA/HAH is even bothering to continue owning-running LHR due to the hindrances the governments puts towards the airport

Japan has a system of publicly owned airports, the UK does not. Is Japan a role model to follow in this case?

Many "free-market" nations have state owned airports, as are most airports in the "regions" over here, remember it is the governments fault that London's Airports are in such a mess, considering that they failed to plan for the development of London's aviation infrastructure Post-WW2 when they where in charge of those airports and the fact they are stopping expansion and thus hindering the running and operation of the now privately-owned airports to a great extent

So really it is up to the government to either allow the expansion of LHR or deal with it itself with THA

They could prevent this anyway, and almost certainly will, whether or not they approve a third rwy and/or fourth rwy at Heathrow.

They wish they could, in fact that is what they promised in 2010, but since then the pressure from businesses, airlines, their backers and even their own supporters/MPs is such that they cannot do nothing, that is why they have launched the commission in relation to this

But the trouble is that the pressure is not big enough to make a final decision now, what happens to LHR and other airports depends on who wins the election in 2015, if Labour win they are pretty much give the go head for expansion, they have nothing to lose politically doing that (the area around LHR, LGW etc is not exactly full of Labour supporters)

Yes, very good, but you fail to explain any reasons why the government would follow this course of action. What does it achieve? How much higher would APD, or taxes in general, have to be to pay for it all?

They would have to this to make sure a THA can happen, otherwise it would just down the drain or you would have difficulties with the owners of those airports, this would only happen of course if they cannot find the potlical will to expand LHR

If I was running things, I would not increase APD (it is already too high and needs to come down), it would come from tax reclaimed from evaders and avoiders and maybe some tax rises like on income/corporation etc

So LHR is only worth £0.1 billion more than LGW? You’re having a laugh!

How much over their market value would have to pay to the airport owners in order to bribe them to give up their role in the aviation industry?

Think of the compensation for BAA and others for the future profits they would be losing.

Wouldn’t it just be much easier for Call-Me-Dave to grow a backbone and a pair and allow LHR expansion?

Sorry I meant LGW was worth £1.6 Billion and LHR £3.5 billion, that £7 Billion figure does not include GA airports that would have to be bought as well (along with SOU) so that they cannot compete with THA in London + SE

Remember the final figure would depend on what the surveyor's values those airports and how much the owners want to play hardball, but it is likely to be a fair bit higher

Hence it would be easier to just allow expansion of LHR, trouble is that they have not the political will to do so and that is unlikely to change, so LHR future would be decided what Labour would do once they get into power, they are more likely to approve the project however

Nonsense, BA is at LHR because its always been there and the same applies to its predecessors BOAC and BEA (apart from BEA’s move from NHT to LHR in 1953). Why waste money moving for no good reason? When BA‘s predecessors consolidated at LHR there was nowhere else to go.

Because it is in the best location out of all of London's Airports, hence they are not going to leave unless if it is shut down, If Croydon was still around and they where allowed to expand/upgrade it to today's standard, then BA and other airlines would be based there

If LHR was never built and Croydon was shut, then BA (and its predecessors) would have moved to Gatwick and would have a large presence there even before they bought BCal

[BALHR]

The "leaking" tax system should be fixed anyway, and there are far better used for the cash, than a 'pie in the water' scheme'.
Rather than lend this cash for Boris Island, they may as well have a public owned island airport..The cost would be about the same.

I am suggesting that the airport should be public owned in the style of Network Rail

It would also be mostly funded by the government as well, the rest coming from bonds to the general public or QE

It's not on in the UK, the rates of interest would have to be high, as the risk of such a scheme, would attract such high rates, or nobody would invest.
Look: In the end this project is unfundable, unless we turn the clock back, and have state owned infrastructure..Expanding LHR, even if that meant compensation some, would be a much cheaper and feasible venture, as the infrastructure is already there.

If the governed game the go ahead for BFA, which would take eons to build..What would happen at LHR, it would mean the Uk's primary airport and only hub, winding down, who knows what consequences that would bring..The airport would be to coin a phrase, be a "dead duck" airport.

The bonds are aimed at savers in this country, but most or even all of the funding will come from the government, private investors would not be funding this airport

Look, I am not suggesting that LHR should close now, I feel that it should be expanded to at least 4 (and later 6) runways and upgraded (which could be done by the mid-2020s), once it has 6 runways and if it is still not adequate to cope with demand, then we should build a 8-10 runway THA (which would be finished in the 2030s) and close other airports in London when THA opens

But if the government cannot find the political will to expand LHR, then we would have to bring forward the THA project

This would mean the closure of LHR and other airports in the region, this will be a gradual process lasting 1-2 years, it would mean that employees would have to move and I suggest that LAL would buy the homes of those employees (depending on various factors) and sell them to housing associations to ease the burden on relocating

However in is place would be a "new" hub airport, once that can cope with all of London aviation demands and some more, once which would be among the worlds best, and it is called London Livingstone-Johnson Airport (as I would call it) or as it is currently known THA (or whatever other users call it)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "However in is place would be a "new" hub airport, once that can cope with all of London aviation demands and some more, once which would be among the worlds best, and it is called London Livingstone-Johnson Airport (as I would call it) or as it is currently known THA (or whatever other users call it)"

It certainly wouldn't be called "Livingstone-Johnson". If this fantasy airport ever opens, those two individuals will be long forgotten, and twenty or so mayors will have been and gone (unless that office gets scrapped).

You know it's called SILVER ISLAND!

[Ernest Lanc's]

Originally Posted by British Airways

I am suggesting that the airport should be public owned in the style of
Network Rail

It would also be mostly funded by the government as well,
the rest coming from bonds to the general public or QE

OK - Funded by the government = more borrowing.

Bonds from the general public, is that not another way of borrowing?.

QE - Printing money, not a bad idea if you are like me sick of your savings attracting little interest..as inflation will creep in and interest rates will creep up, for savers also.

But take the three combined,,We will be in hock for centuries and inflation will hit the roof, because a project like Boris Island will cost billions, and original estimates like the two aircraft carriers will always keep being revised upwards.
There a thought, use the carriers in conjunction with LHR, that would be cheap.

The bonds are aimed at savers in this country,

Another way of borrowing, and at what rate of interest?.

But if the government cannot find the political will to expand LHR, then we
would have to bring forward the THA project

The government will have to find the political will to expand LHR..

1) How long to get the THA on and off the drawing board?.
2) How much will it cost?
3) How long before it is built, IMO with the combination of these three factors, it will be no use building a HUB, the business will have been long gone to mainland Europe.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The government will have to find the political will to expand LHR.."

Agreed, Ernest, and to do it now.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank

Agreed, Ernest, and to do it now.

It will happen FDF..Question is when?..Most of the cabinet IMO (bar Liberals) are in favour. Problem is in the LHR area where the 3rf/4th runway(s) would be constructed, MPs of all persuasions would object.
Just a matter of time before David Cameron has to act, or London will suffer..
That's the problem with the Boris Island Airport, would take to long to plan/finance and then construct.

[BALHR]

It certainly wouldn't be called "Livingstone-Johnson". If this fantasy airport ever opens, those two individuals will be long forgotten, and twenty or so mayors will have been and gone (unless that office gets scrapped).

You know it's called SILVER ISLAND!

If built, THA would be built in the mid-2020s, by then (the office of the Mayor is not going to scraped, otherwise it would be 1986 all over again) there would have been at most 2 mayors since then

I also strongly doubt that Ken + Boris would have been forgotten by then, Livingstone has been around for the past 40 years (and has done a lot of good for London) and has spend most of that time annoying both the Tories and Labour, Boris would also be remembered, for all the wrong reasons

Also I only added his name so that it would not look poltically bias and THA should not be named after a stage name of a internet forum user

OK - Funded by the government = more borrowing.

Bonds from the general public, is that not another way of borrowing?.

QE - Printing money, not a bad idea if you are like me sick of your savings attracting little interest..as inflation will creep in and interest rates will creep up, for savers also.

But take the three combined,,We will be in hock for centuries and inflation will hit the roof, because a project like Boris Island will cost billions, and original estimates like the two aircraft carriers will always keep being revised upwards.
There a thought, use the carriers in conjunction with LHR, that would be cheap.

The BofE has done £300 Billion worth of QE and that has had little impact on both economic growth and inflation, since THA would at most cost £200 Billion, I doubt if it would have major impact on inflation, certainly not as much as lets say a attack on Iran

As for borrowing it, if the Government funded the project 100% with borrowing, the most it would add would be 10%, which would leave us with less debt in proportion to GDP than Italy, Belgium, Canada and even Germany

Plus when you factor in the the fact a lot of that new debt would be held within the UK, it would not make too much of a impact

By the way, I am with you in terms of savings

Another way of borrowing, and at what rate of interest?.

It would depend on many factors, but I suggested 4%, which is the same as Government Bonds

The government will have to find the political will to expand LHR..

1) How long to get the THA on and off the drawing board?.
2) How much will it cost?
3) How long before it is built, IMO with the combination of these three factors, it will be no use building a HUB, the business will have been long gone to mainland Europe.

Yes, but remember we are dealing with a 21st century version with Major, add to that they are in government with the Lib Dems and the Tories cannot afford to lose any more seats that what they have, I cannot see them finding the poltical will

We would have to wait and see if Labour win with a big enough majority to cope with the fallout from approval, remember they have not got a hope in hell in winning those seats near the airports

As for how long it is going to take, if they fast track it and have enough resources (like in the case of HKIA), then I could see it being built in 10 years, hence it would open in the mid-2020s, until then we should allow mixed-mode and raise the threshold in how many slots BA can own to manage until THA opens

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “It will happen FDF..Question is when?..Most of the cabinet IMO (bar Liberals) are in favour. Problem is in the LHR area where the 3rf/4th runway(s) would be constructed, MPs of all persuasions would object.
Just a matter of time before David Cameron has to act, or London will suffer..”

Think you’re right Ernest, Labour and Conservative MPs are beginning to develop a sense of reality. The Libdems are against any and all airport expansion just for the sake of it.

The third rwy already has a location mapped out, a fourth could go between the third and the existing 10L/27R, extending on to open land west of the M25.




Quote: “If built, THA would be built in the mid-2020s, by then (the office of the Mayor is not going to scraped, otherwise it would be 1986 all over again) there would have been at most 2 mayors since then”

Never say never, the office of mayor, the toothless assembly, and all the hangers-on is a very expensive form of local government. When people get fed up with the endless rate rises and nothing to show for it, who knows?
Why would the airport be named after a mayor anyway? It’s nothing to do with the mayor, not in their remit, not in their jurisdiction.

Quote: “As for how long it is going to take, if they fast track it and have enough resources (like in the case of HKIA), then I could see it being built in 10 years, hence it would open in the mid-2020s, until then we should allow mixed-mode and raise the threshold in how many slots BA can own to manage until THA opens”

No chance, it's not like HKG. If anything is fast tracked it will be LHR (eventually).

Mixed mode is not the answer. While it could provide, at most, 10% more slots, it will not address the congestion and delays.

If flight path residents lose their daily half-day of quiet because of mixed mode, do you not think that there would be some objections from residents and anti airports groups and massive political fallout?

Do you really think that politicians that run scared of approving LHR expansion would agree to this?

Think it through, please.

[DaveReidUK]

Mixed mode is not the answer. While it could provide, at most, 10% more slots, it will not address the congestion and delays.

Yes, the consensus appears to be that mixed mode on the existing runways would provide around 60,000 additional ATMs pa, which works out at about a 12% increase on current capacity.

And you are correct in that it would make little, if any, difference to delays or resilience.

Of course you could also argue that R3, too, would only have a limited, short-term effect on congestion, given what we're told is the scale of currently constrained demand for slots, and that traffic would grow in due course back to 99% of available capacity if allowed to.

Incidentally, R3 is planned to operate permanently in mixed mode from the outset, serving both T6 arrivals and departures.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Incidentally, R3 is planned to operate permanently in mixed mode from the outset, serving both T6 arrivals and departures."

Yes, it would have to, until such time as a fourth rwy was built. AFAIK, they estimate 702,000 annual movements with 3 rwys, that's a fairly significant extra 222,000. Whether it's enough in the long term is anyone's guess, if not, start planning the 4th rwy now.

[jabird]

Sorry everyone, it's been a couple of weeks so I'm going back to mid Nov:

It keeps me in mind of that BBC docudrama back in 2003 " The day Britain stopped" , It dramatized the events after a meltdown of the transport network and the effects on over worked Atc .

One of the most ridiculous, overblown, scaremongering fantasy programmes I have ever watched. IIRC, the whole crash was based on an arriving and departing aircraft colliding with each other. Now that might have happened in India in the mid 90s, but LHR just doesn't do things that way, period.

Well that can be done in the way they did with "Railtrack" in which it was a nationalization in all but name for a start, which we also did with 2 of our biggest banks,

Sure - let's use the examples of Failed & Failed Co to teach success for airport building!

Luckily nobody's suggested a PFI or PPP arrangement for Boris's folly!

That's only because the mandarins haven't been asked to do so yet, because it is just Boris' folly and the DfT know it is a non starter. TfL are more likely to back Brum than this fantasy island, especially as Brum isn't in their patch, and it boosts the case for HS2.

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.

Where is the case for 3 regional airports? Which regional airports are currently full to bursting?

If Ryanair refuse to use the THA, then they will shoot themselves in the foot by locking themselves out of the London + SE market

Only if the market is already locked by closing it to competition between rival airport operators.

I am sure Easyjet (who use serve CDG for example) and other LCCs would use this airport

In many cases, the tatty older terminals (MAD) or low cost remote fingers (AMS). Even when they are "in" with the majors, they will still have negotiated a rate they are happy with. No chance of that happening at FBI airport - just as it hardly happens at LHR at the moment.

The resulting SW-NE airport layout will henceforth be known as the Silver-Oakervee Airport.

Will you attend the naming ceremony when it opens?
For now, I'm sticking with FBI - Fantasy Boris Island, and about as intelligent as the "other" FBI.

[BALHR]

Never say never, the office of mayor, the toothless assembly, and all the hangers-on is a very expensive form of local government. When people get fed up with the endless rate rises and nothing to show for it, who knows?
Why would the airport be named after a mayor anyway? It’s nothing to do with the mayor, not in their remit, not in their jurisdiction.

I am not saying “never” but the GLA and the mayor is a rather good form of government for London, the only problems with it is that they don’t have enough tax raising powers, need to expand the area that they govern and have powers transferred from Westminster and local boroughs

There is a lot to show that the GLA has done since 2000 (most of all in transport) and if they don’t like it then they should stop electing that posh idiot time and time again

The reason I suggested the last 2 mayors is because they are well known for that they did for London, if we are to name airports, then name them after local people

Also what “rates” are you talking about (council tax or transport fares?)

No chance, it's not like HKG. If anything is fast tracked it will be LHR (eventually).

Mixed mode is not the answer. While it could provide, at most, 10% more slots, it will not address the congestion and delays.

If flight path residents lose their daily half-day of quiet because of mixed mode, do you not think that there would be some objections from residents and anti airports groups and massive political fallout?

Do you really think that politicians that run scared of approving LHR expansion would agree to this?

Think it through, please.

The government could fast track any project, but only if they want do; THA does not face the same problems that an expansion to LHR faces in terms of its impact to local residents, so the government loses nothing politically if they approve THA, in fact with the benefits economically, they might help them
With that in mind, they could approve “mixed-mode” as a stop gap while telling residents that it would not past for too long and soon they would no longer suffer any aircraft noise

Yes, the consensus appears to be that mixed mode on the existing runways would provide around 60,000 additional ATMs pa, which works out at about a 12% increase on current capacity.

And you are correct in that it would make little, if any, difference to delays or resilience.

Of course you could also argue that R3, too, would only have a limited, short-term effect on congestion, given what we're told is the scale of currently constrained demand for slots, and that traffic would grow in due course back to 99% of available capacity if allowed to.

We need to deal with constrained demand now and the only way we can deal that right now is Mixed Mode, however for the medium term we need to build both R3 and R4 sooner rather than later and around the same time

Yes, it would have to, until such time as a fourth rwy was built. AFAIK, they estimate 702,000 annual movements with 3 rwys, that's a fairly significant extra 222,000. Whether it's enough in the long term is anyone's guess, if not, start planning the 4th rwy now.

Doe’s that figure include the 60,000 that would come from mixed mode from the current 2 runway?

I personally feel BAA/HAH need to start seriously considering adding a 4th runway to their expansion plans, maybe even build it at the same time as R3, 4 runnways at LHR would push number of annual movements to around 1,000,000 if they are all used for mixed mode

I think that would be enough for London’s needs for the next few decades, what happens after that, who knows?

Sure - let's use the examples of Failed & Failed Co to teach success for airport building!

Those are the most recent examples of state nationalisations, frankly due to the governments interfering in expansion; they might as well run London’s Airports
Remember, we learn from past mistakes…

That's only because the mandarins haven't been asked to do so yet, because it is just Boris' folly and the DfT know it is a non starter. TfL are more likely to back Brum than this fantasy island, especially as Brum isn't in their patch, and it boosts the case for HS2.

Well if Dave refuses to expand LHR and businesses and airlines are screaming for expansion and the fact this economy badly needs it, then THA would end up being the only choice

Only if the market is already locked by closing it to competition between rival airport operators.

Under my plan, LAL is aiming to buy all airports and airfields (both general and civil) within the counties of Greater London, Essex, Hertfordshire, Suffolk, Cambridge, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Dorset, Surrey, Kent, Sussex and Wiltshire, it would also take ownership of all RAF bases within those counties and lease it back to the RAF (on the condition they forbid all commercial flying out of those bases)

It would be interesting to see how Ryanair what airport would use to serve London, if they use Birmingham for example, then their customers would have to a lot of money just to get to that so called “cheap” flight

I don’t think MOL is stupid enough to lose his entire London customer base, if he wants to keep those customers and for the benefit of his business, he would base its London base at THA if it was built

In many cases, the tatty older terminals (MAD) or low cost remote fingers (AMS). Even when they are "in" with the majors, they will still have negotiated a rate they are happy with. No chance of that happening at FBI airport - just as it hardly happens at LHR at the moment.

Well under my plans, LBL would charge the same rate for all airlines, like I said, If Easyjet is prepared to shoot themselves in the foot by handing their London + South East customer base to other airlines than its up to them
So if they have business sense, I expect them to be there at THA if it is built, if not then I either their customers use BA (or other airlines) or Jeststar/Vueling UK (if BA use the opportunity to try a second attempt to set up a LCC)

Will you attend the naming ceremony when it opens?
For now, I'm sticking with FBI - Fantasy Boris Island, and about as intelligent as the "other" FBI

For a start this idea was not the idea of Boris Johnson in the first place, it has been for decades and thus should not be named after him, secondly it is not a Fantasy in the tradition of the Grimm Brothers, nobody is disputing that it is impossible to be built, the question is should it be built in the first place
We should not give a particular name for this airport (for reasons of neutrality) until it is built (like Silver…), until then we should call it THA or Thames Hub Airport
When it does open, I have changed my mind on the matter and I feel it should be called “London Ken Livingstone Airport”