New Thames Airport for London

[DaveReidUK]

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

No, you are confusing two different things here.

a) R3 is added, it operates in mixed mode, and the two original runways continue to operate in segregated mode. That's where the 702K (480K+222K) ATM figure comes from.

b) No R3, and the two current runways operate in mixed mode. That's 540K (480K+60K) ATMs

There are no feasible scenarios that envisage all 3 runways operating in mixed mode.

4 runways at LHR would push number of annual movements to around 1,000,000 if they are all used for mixed mode

Not possible. See above.

[jabird]

Well the great Bearded One referred to it as "an airport in the Docklands" yesterday - clearly showing just how clued up about, and therefore interested in it, he is!

[BALHR]

There are no feasible scenarios that envisage all 3 runways operating in mixed mode

.

Not possible. See above.

Why not?

[jabird]

Jeststar

Jestar? Sounds like the joke of a post made above!

You really think Easy and Ryan would just keel over and accept the conversion of London from one of the most diverse airport markets in the world into a single behemoth of a monopoly?

Then, even if it did happen, you don't think they'd bargain hard for the best rates, or at least demand a low cost terminal like in KUL, SIN etc?

[DaveReidUK]

Why not?

Why not what ?

Are you saying that you have seen scenarios (other than your own) showing 3 LHR runways all operating simultaneously in mixed mode ?

If so, please tell us where.

I don't pretend to be an ATM expert, but NATS are and if they say it's not possible (which they do) then I'm perfectly happy to take their word for it.

[BALHR]

Why not what ?

Are you saying that you have seen scenarios (other than your own) showing 3 LHR runways all operating simultaneously in mixed mode?

If so, please tell us where.

I don't pretend to be an ATM expert, but NATS are and if they say it's not possible (which they do) then

I'm perfectly happy to take their word for it.

I was only asking since I am not expert on ATC...

If it comes from NATS, then I would take their world for it

Do you know how many movements are feasible from 4 runnways at LHR?

Jestar? Sounds like the joke of a post made above!

You really think Easy and Ryan would just keel over and accept the conversion of London from one of the most diverse airport markets in the world into a single behemoth of a monopoly?

Then, even if it did happen, you don't think they'd bargain hard for the best rates, or at least demand a low cost terminal like in KUL, SIN
etc?

Sorry, I meant to write "Jetstar" (Qantas's LCC), as for you other point, well I don't think they would accept the closure of LTN/STN/LGW lightly and they can play hardball all they like, but they will not get any special treatment and unless they want to shoot themselves in the foot by leaving the South East then they would have to use THA without speical condtions apart from relocation costs

Easyjet (as far as I know) did not complain about a similar then Berlin has done...

[DaveReidUK]

Do you know how many movements are feasible from 4 runways at LHR?

No, none of the various 4-runway scenarios that I've seen have included any attempt to model the number of movements that would be feasible.

[Skipness One Echo]

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)

This is an unafforadble fantasy for reasons that have already been explained to you. There is no such thing as LAL, it exists only in your mind. Unless you are planning on s**tting gold bricks to fund this, it's a pipe dream.

[jabird]

Easyjet (as far as I know) did not complain about a similar then Berlin has done...

Depends on your definition of complain. I don't think ANY of the airlines are happy about the delays at BBI!

Berlin is also a unique geographical and historical quirk, where 3 separate airports were used when one would have done nicely. Berlin is only going to be a minor local hub for Lufty. I'm pretty sure MOL has said he'd prefer to stay in the old SXF terminal, can anyone verify?

Both THF (was) and TXL (is) are on land deemed by the planners as both valuable for redevelopment and which was extremely sensitive in terms of noise.

Now you could argue that applies to LHR, some locals would say ditto for LCY, although a/c there are much quieter, and there are a lot less movements. It certainly does not apply to LGW or STN and most definitely does not apply to LTN.

You still haven't answered exactly how you would enact legislation to make all this happen. We're back with the same old record Silver has been playing to us for months. It would be the politicians who would be shooting themselves in the foot, not the airlines.

Finally, let's say you did get your way, and FBI was built. If Easyjet were offered exactly the same terms as BA, they'd quite possibly just take their business elsewhere. Ryanair certainly would. This would boil down to a simple question of business logic. FBI might deliver them loads of passengers, but if the PSC is so high that they can't turn a profit, it doesn't matter.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “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”

No it is not a good form of government: damned expensive for residents, bureaucratic and remote, and it encourages "personality" politics over substance.

If you think that they’ve done a good job in transport, then just a bog standard passenger transport executive should suffice.

The mayor and assembly could easily be scrapped, and for the same reason as the former Greater London Council. It is too large to be an effective unit of local government, but being so large, it can challenge and irritate central government.

Livingstone did this with Thatcher and later with Blair, and Johnson is doing it with Cameron.

It‘s exactly the same at the devolution level. Why is there no English Parliament? because it would be large enough to give Westminster a hard time".

Quote: “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”

We should not be naming airports after people, it makes more sense to name them according to their geographical location.

Quote: “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”

It isn’t going to happen! There will be no permanent mixed mode on the existing Heathrow rwys. If opposition to a third rwy scares politicians, do you really think that they would dare to bring in permanent mixed mode?

It could be mooted of course, but only as a threat to make more rwys look the better option (which it is).

Quote: “When it does open, I have changed my mind on the matter and I feel it should be called “London Ken Livingstone Airport”


Why?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Easyjet (as far as I know) did not complain about a similar then Berlin has done... "

What "Berlin has done" is to put a second rwy and a new terminal at one of its airports, renamed it, and shut the other two. At least that was the plan.

It is nothing like the London situation where a brand new airport may be built, but probably won't be built, in the middle of nowhere.

[BALHR]

This is an unafforadble fantasy for reasons that have already been explained to you. There is no such thing as LAL, it exists only in your mind. Unless you are planning on s**tting gold bricks to fund this, it's a pipe dream.

Firstly, remember I made it clear what I wrote is what I would do if I was running government policy in relation to aviation (where I had to find a way to expand airport capacity in the South East and LHR was not a option)

Also LAL (or London Airports Limited) is part of a proposal to make THA possible

First the term “fantasy” is used to describe things that are not technically or physically possible (like teleporting); THA does not into that category, projects like this have been done before (on a smaller scale however) and we have built airports the size of what I think is needed for THA to cope with London’s air traffic

I would also disagree on the matter if THA being “unaffordable”, while a bill for Ł100-200 Billion is a massive amount of money; it is not impossible for the Government/LAL though money from the budget, bond aimed at the general public or even Q.E (of which the BoE has done enough currently to fund THA and some unrelated projects on the side)

If we borrowed the amount of money that would take to build THA, worse case it would add the equitant of 10% of GDP to the national debt (which would still be less than most other developed nations, bar a few) and remember it would create a lot of jobs though building the airport and from better connections to new markets and for our airlines to be able to expand

The question we should all be asking is do we need to spend a lot of money to build THA, I would say not if we can expand and upgrade LHR, but if we can’t, then we don’t have much of a choice

Depends on your definition of complain. I don't think ANY of the airlines are happy about the delays at BBI!

Berlin is also a unique geographical and historical quirk, where 3 separate airports were used when one would have done nicely. Berlin is only going to be a minor local hub for Lufty. I'm pretty sure MOL has said he'd prefer to stay in the old SXF terminal, can anyone verify?

Both THF (was) and TXL (is) are on land deemed by the planners as both valuable for redevelopment and which was extremely sensitive in terms of noise.

Now you could argue that applies to LHR, some locals would say ditto for LCY, although a/c there are much quieter, and there are a lot less movements. It certainly does not apply to LGW or STN and most definitely does not apply to LTN.

You still haven't answered exactly how you would enact legislation to make all this happen. We're back with the same old record Silver has been playing to us for months. It would be the politicians who would be shooting themselves in the foot, not the airlines.

Finally, let's say you did get your way, and FBI was built. If Easyjet were offered exactly the same terms as BA, they'd quite possibly just take their business elsewhere. Ryanair certainly would. This would boil down to a simple question of business logic. FBI might deliver them loads of passengers, but if the PSC is so high that they can't turn a profit, it doesn't matter.

What I mean to say was that no airline is against the closure of TXL enough to pull out completely, even if MOL/FR was against the closure of the former SXT terminal, they have no plans to pull out/reduce ops and seem to be content to use the new BBI terminal (unless he wants to share the terminal with the German Government fleet, with all the high security that will bring)

Also I would prefer to call the planned Lufthansa/Germanwings base as a “focus city”

Getting back to London, its not just LHR and LCY that face problems with noise, but LGW, LTN, STN and even Southend (before they upgraded the airport), so really the government simply has not got the government will to expand our existing airports and yet they have no choice (under pressure from various supports backers, lobbyists etc) but to allow expansion overall within London + SE

So really unless they are prepared to change their position on LHR expansion or they get voted out in favour of a government that is more in favour of LHR expansion (or has less to lose) then THA is the only choice

Dave and his band of idiots have nothing to lose in terms of loosing MP’s; because THA would not require the homes to be knocked down; it would not have a flight path over residential areas, the cost of THA while huge, would not be impossible and they could also claim that unlike most government spending, it is being done to create jobs and to generate economic growth, along with vast improvements to our transport links
So if they can their PR right and plan it properly, then it could be a massive political boost to this government, so they will have no problem enacting the laws needed (mainly setting up LAL and buying all the relevant airports) to process

Then we get to Ryanair and Easyjet, now they will without a doubt want special treatment (beyond relocation costs) and LAL (if I was running it) would refuse, then it would be up to them to leave, but the problem for them is where to go?

Remember their business model rely solely on local the local O&D market, they cannot access that market since LAL would own pretty much every airport, RAF base and General Aviation airport in Greater London, Essex, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Hampshire, Dorset, Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex and Kent, so they cannot use airports within the local area

So they would have to go pretty far, airports like Bristol, Birmingham and Norwich and to get to those airports from London and the surrounding area would be quite long and more importantly more expensive, thus making their fares in effect, become much higher

As for what their passengers will do, well unless some other airline (LCC or otherwise) is more willing to serve THA, then those passengers will have to pay more to use BA (or VS if they are still around), which would be good news for them, but bad news for passengers used to low fares
So really they have a choice, pay a bit more to use THA or be locked out of a market that contains 25% of the UK’s population (and the biggest contributor to the UK economy) , for them it would be depend which is better in term of financiers

As for the cost of using THA, well it would depend on many factors, but if I was in charge of this project I would keep it the same as LHR (the last thing we need is higher airport fees, APD is too high for a start)

No it is not a good form of government: damned expensive for residents, bureaucratic and remote, and it encourages "personality" politics over substance.

If you think that they’ve done a good job in transport, then just a bog standard passenger transport executive should suffice.

The mayor and assembly could easily be scrapped, and for the same reason as the former Greater London Council. It is too large to be an effective unit of local government, but being so large, it can challenge and irritate central government.

Livingstone did this with Thatcher and later with Blair, and Johnson is doing it with Cameron.

It‘s exactly the same at the devolution level. Why is there no English Parliament? because it would be large enough to give Westminster a hard time".

So you would have rather have dozens of local councils running things to their own personal interest without co-ordination?

Not a good idea for a city that is home to 8.5 million people, for a city that big you need 1 local authority running things that work for the whole city, not for their own local area

Also “personality” politics is at all levels of government these days, not just city hall, otherwise we would not have the idiots in government that we have today

You say a PTE would do the same job, but the trouble is that unlike now when TFL has to deal with 1 authority, it would then have to deal with 33, who might all have conflicting interests with each other

The problem with the GLA is that it lacks enough authority in the first place; there are areas such as waste that could be better dealt from City Hall rather than the Town Hall

In other words all that Local Boroughs would have to do is manage service on behalf of the GLA and advise City Hall on policy and services in relation to how it should be done for their local area

Also we need to accepts London is a vastly different to the rest of the UK, hence I suggest London + South East should breakaway from England and become the “5th” region of London, with similar devolution of powers to Scotland (which would include powers in relation to airports)
The GLA should not be seen as a “local” government, but a “regional” government

Lastly, I also feel that the GLA should expand its boundaries to cover the rest of the Home Counties, because remember many of the people who work in London live just outside that and that number is increasing
As for an English Parliament, well the case for not having one is weakening as time goes by, I would expect the rest of the UK demand more devolution or even independence if Scotland votes yes, or even if they vote no

We should not be naming airports after people, it makes more sense to name them according to their geographical location.

I agree on that one...

It isn’t going to happen! There will be no permanent mixed mode on the existing Heathrow rwys. If opposition to a third rwy scares politicians, do you really think that they would dare to bring in permanent mixed mode?

It could be mooted of course, but only as a threat to make more rwys look the better option (which it is).

The government can no longer delay the enviable (which they have done for 60 years), there is too much pressure for their political backers and the fact our 2 main airports are full

Why?

Because Boris is a idiot and he has made little contribution to the aid of London in his time in office

What "Berlin has done" is to put a second rwy and a new terminal at one of its airports, renamed it, and shut the other two. At least that was the plan.

It is nothing like the London situation where a brand new airport may be built, but probably won't be built, in the middle of nowhere.

My point is that it had been done before on smaller scale in Europe and for the same reasons as why it should be done here

[Ernest Lanc's]

First the term “fantasy” is used to describe things that are not technically
or physically possible (like teleporting);

Wrong...."Fantasy" means "imagining things that are impossible or improbable.".
The key word here is "Improbable"..Fair to say that described the financing and the building of the 'Boris Fantasy Airport'.

Much cheaper and technically feasibly, unlike an airport built on water, sand, slush or whatever. Would be to expand LHR, even if house owners had to be compensated.
The Thames airport would be revolutionary and not possible to cost, building aircraft carriers is a proven technology, but the two UK Carriers under construction, have not met the original estimates.
Impossible to cost.not even sure when it would be ready if it was possible to build, and the buying of all the London Airports is far fetched.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "So you would have rather have dozens of local councils running things to their own personal interest without co-ordination?

Not a good idea for a city that is home to 8.5 million people, for a city that big you need 1 local authority running things that work for the whole city, not for their own local area

Also “personality” politics is at all levels of government these days, not just city hall, otherwise we would not have the idiots in government that we have today

You say a PTE would do the same job, but the trouble is that unlike now when TFL has to deal with 1 authority, it would then have to deal with 33, who might all have conflicting interests with each other

The problem with the GLA is that it lacks enough authority in the first place; there are areas such as waste that could be better dealt from City Hall rather than the Town Hall"


It's not what I think or prefer. Look at the facts, this is the FOURTH version of Greater London government. Why do they keep changing it? Because they cannot get it to work. Maybe the status quo ante would be better! This option should at least be looked at.


Quote: "In other words all that Local Boroughs would have to do is manage service on behalf of the GLA and advise City Hall on policy and services in relation to how it should be done for their local area"


Then why have them at all? Under your scheme you may as well have a New York City structure: a mayor and bureaucracy plus a city council and 59 community boards with a right to be "consulted" on local issues.

It makes a mockery of the word "local", even the boroughs we have now are too remote.


Quote: "Also we need to accepts London is a vastly different to the rest of the UK, hence I suggest London + South East should breakaway from England and become the “5th” region of London, with similar devolution of powers to Scotland (which would include powers in relation to airports)
The GLA should not be seen as a “local” government, but a “regional” government."


Please, no regional government, what we have already is too big, too bureaucratic, too expensive and too remote. At least the citizens of the north east had the good sense to chuck it out in a referendum when it was proposed them.

We should not go down the route of regional government. Look at the trouble in Spain, where the "autonomous communities" (regions) are asking the Spanish government for bailouts, and one, Catalonia, wants a bailout and independence at the same time!

Quote: "Lastly, I also feel that the GLA should expand its boundaries to cover the rest of the Home Counties, because remember many of the people who work in London live just outside that and that number is increasing
As for an English Parliament, well the case for not having one is weakening as time goes by, I would expect the rest of the UK demand more devolution or even independence if Scotland votes yes, or even if they vote no"


No the GLA wants scrapping not expanding, we certainly do not want or need a fifth version!


The case for an English parliament has always been strong while there is devolution in the rest of the country: it's the only way to answer the West Lothian question. However, it is obviously not going to happen for the reason mentioned previously.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Fairdealfrank

The case for an English parliament has always been strong while there is
devolution in the rest of the country: it's the only way to answer the West
Lothian question. However, it is obviously not going to happen for the reason
mentioned previously.

First I think Scotland will vote no..However when Scotland was devolved it then only became a matter of time before the UK became federal.

England is the only UK country without a parliament.

[Skipness One Echo]

Also LAL (or London Airports Limited) is part of a proposal to make THA possible

No it's a fantasy that only exists in your head. As has been explained to you, your proposal is not remotely likely given the austerity of the current economic climate.

[Aero Mad]

LAL would own pretty much every airport, RAF base and General Aviation airport in Greater London, Essex, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Hampshire, Dorset, Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex and Kent

I've just realised that not only is BALHR a loony, he's also a loony lefty. The notion that one giant nationalised company, whether you wish to call it LAL or otherwise, should manage everything from Gatwick to Damyns Hall was not even in Clement Attlee's wildest dreams. How can it expect to do this efficiently? Lessons learnt way back in the 1970s showed us and the rest of Europe that government control on this scale simply couldn't work. Your apparent desire for more government authority and sweeping statements that Boris is an 'idiot' don't show you in the best light.

Look, if you are indeed 21 then I am significantly younger than you. Even I have one request. Please, get a grip and listen to the advice of Skipness One Echo and a number of others. You're wasting your time here: go and look at the real world, learn some stuff and then come back presenting realistic and informed opinions.

[PAXboy]

BALHR is not 'left' or 'right' and almost certainly not 21 - he's just a simple little Troll.

[SWBKCB]

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)

Thanks for cheering up my weekend - what a laugh!

[silverstrata]

.
Boris is now planning a four runway Stansted.

Boris Johnson to put Stansted back on the agenda for airport expansion | Mail Online

Actually, I think this proposal is a spoiler. In reality, Boris wants to scare the people of Bishops Stortford into campaigning for a Silver-Boris Thames airport. And there is nothing that scares the burghers of Bishops Stortford more than a 4-runway Stansted (check out where that northerly runway ends).


There are many reasons why a simple expansion of Stansted would not work. The primary being that if LHR was closed, and moved to Stansted, there would not be enough capacity in the London basin for all the lo-co airlines and their lo-co passengers. You would have to build another Stansted to take up the demand for quick turnaround point-to-point work.


.