New Thames Airport for London

[Skipness One Echo]

silverstrata - please answer

The point is that it is now easier to interline via CDG or AMS, because many low cost carriers go there and you can easily pick up your long haul fight. Thus LHR is loosing out big time, because it has no more capacity to take the smaller and lower cost feeder airlines. And if LHR is losing out, then so (eventually) is the City of London and the UK as a whole.

This is fundametally wrong, and as a commercial analysis it's nonsense. Do you know that locos do not interline with legacy long haul? People are not booking an easyJet flight to fly KLM from AMS, I know this, I work in the commercial side of the industry. Where did you get this idea? As I stated above, only legacies interline and have been doing so for decades, AF, KL and LH etc etc.

If you don't want to be shot down in flames, then don't overfly the flak batteries

Feel free, you're supposedly a commercial aviator but expressed concern at a B747 going off the outer runways at CDG. I want you, to explain why the given distance I quoted above is a concern to you but works OK for Virgin, Air Canada, BA et al.

Eh??? Your getting close to the flak batteries again. We are talking international interlining here.

Just to repeat, the locos you quote, do not interline with long haul.

** They are called Lo-Co flyers for obvious reasons. I would not step on one, but then many people simply gravitate to the cheapest routes.

Yet you present yoursef as knowledgable enough to comment on the business but er....haven't flown one?

How the hell do you think you can do a Cat IIIb autoland from a 6 degree glideslope onto an 1100m runway of half width ?!?

Think about it, Skippy, think about it.

Again, please take the time to read what is being said to you. I comment on LCY go arounds to support the presence of fog on the Thames, something you present as "imaginary". It clearly is not and this has been put to you by numerous people.

Hey, Jabird, this is a 70-year project. For planning purposes, all of Europe is domestic.

No, it really isn't, only someone of breathtaking ignorance would think so. Ask the Swiss or the Norwegians if they agree.
I seriously don't understand how you can be a commercial airline pilot if you're worried about a B747 going off those outer runways at CDG giventhe stated length. You also don't understand the traffic pattern yet you claim to have flown through it? Added to the fact you were caught out misrepresenting your age, you don't add up sir. You're becoming more incredible by the minute. Feel free to open the flak batteries.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I think he's a Flight Sim driver. Not worth debating with.

[Skipness One Echo]

I agree, one thing about pprune is that they do have debates that teach you lot's about aviation. One mouth, two ears, in that order as my dad once said.....

[Aero Mad]

ss, you imply that you created that website. You said earlier in this thread that airports develop over time... yet you say on this website:

Heathrow is a planning error of the 60s.

Clearly this is utter rubbish, but could you possibly explain the contradiction?

[Winniebago]

Do you think Boris and Norm might look at PRUNE every now and again?

Wouldn't it be great to think that the country's single greatest infrastructure proposal could, in some way be influenced by the loons on this site.

When will all the submissions to the DfTs 'Sustainable Future for Aviation' scoping study consultation be out there in the public domain?

I bet there's one or two that haven't been released to the wider public by the originators yet. Wait for the surprises guys and girls, wait for the surprises.

[silverstrata]

Skippy

This is fundametally wrong, and as a commercial analysis it's nonsense. Do you know that locos do not interline with legacy long haul?

Err, so I now need the the permission of KLM, in triplicate, before I can take an Easy flight to AMS and pick up a flight there?

Where was your last job - North Korea?

Skippy

I comment on LCY go arounds to support the presence of fog on the Thames, something you present as "imaginary". It clearly is not and this has been put to you by numerous people.

Err, you cannot do autolands at LCY.... Is that clear enough for you? A smokey candle will close LCY.

Sippy

I seriously don't understand how you can be a commercial airline pilot if you're worried about a B747 going off those outer runways at CDG given their stated length.

A 747-400 has a TOFL of 3,000m, which is already 300m beyond the run of the outer runways at CDG (not sure of the clearways there).

But if you think any airline is going to allow you to spool up to max thrust, instead of de-rating on the 4,000 m runway just next door, you have another think coming. And if you think that any old pilots (rather than bold pilots) are going to line up on 2,700 m, when there is 4,000 m right next door, you are again very much mistaken.

If you were a pilot (and I know you are not) you would be out of the door in a trice, together with choice comments from the flight safety, engineering and financial departments.

Aero Mad

<<Heathrow is a planning error of the 60s.>>
Clearly this is utter rubbish, but could you possibly explain the contradiction?

I did not write that, but clearly the statement has merit.

In the '60s LHR was a growing airport, that sprang out of an old RAF airfield. Noisy jets were just arriving, and someone could have made a strategic decision to find a better place for a major London airport. This new location would have to allow for 24hr operations, and so....

a. The new jets needed long approaches and takeoffs, which were then over the city. So they should have looked for a location to the north or northwest of London, to prevent overflying the city (both due noise, and due safety).

b. There were no railways at the Stains site, so they could have looked for a major rail route.

c. The prevailing wind is S.W. in the UK, so they could have looked at SIDs and STARSs for southwesterly runways.


Frankly, I would have stuck my finger on a spot just south of Watford. It was open fields at the time; the flight paths to the SW and NE were clear; it was on the Great North Road, as it was then; it is on the main rail line to the north and northwest (via Rugby); and it was very close to London.

Unfortunately, the planners ducked their responsibilities, and kicked the problem into the long grass. We, unfortunately, are in that long grass, and can no longer duck the problem. A N. London site is now out of the question, but a great swathe of absolutely 'free' land in the Thames estuary, is not.



.

[Skipness One Echo]

Err, so I now need the the permission of KLM, in triplicate, before I can take an Easy flight to AMS and pick up a flight there?
Where was your last job - North Korea?

No sir, I mean no one does it as you have to pay two fares instead of one and re-check your bags. That's why no one flies loco to long haul legacy, or very few in comparison with KL, LH and AF's own services. I have explained the commercial reality and passenger behaviour. Do you have evidence that loads of people do this as I have seen little cross my desk?
Again, please stop insulting me, I am trying to explain the commercial position and why the market behaves in such away. Perhaps the view from LA is not entirely up to speed given your admission above you have never even flown on a loco. Perhaps you don't know everything?

Err, you cannot do autolands at LCY.... Is that clear enough for you? A smokey candle will close LCY.

A smokey candle won't close LCY but the fog you claim to be "imaginary" has done so on several nights this week. A real pilot would not be so flippant.

A 747-400 has a TOFL of 3,000m, which is already 300m beyond the run of the outer runways at CDG (not sure of the clearways there).

But if you think any airline is going to allow you to spool up to max thrust, instead of de-rating on the 4,000 m runway just next door, you have another think coming. And if you think that any old pilots (rather than bold pilots) are going to line up on 2,700 m, when there is 4,000 m right next door, you are again very much mistaken.

If you were a pilot (and I know you are not) you would be out of the door in a trice, together with choice comments from the flight safety, engineering and financial departments.

I have at no time claimed to be a pilot, my profile clearly states this. I will ask you again to account for the safe operation of Virgin Atlantic, British Airways. Lufthansa, KLM and Air Canada, all of which I have seen with my own eyes leave Glasgow GLA/EGPF off the main runway of 2665m with space to spare on the B747-400. The VS operation is a twice weekly GLA-MCO operation, and VS are not to my knowledge a cowboy outift in regards to passenger safety.

I really think it is clear you are a simmer wannabe, as these are real life examples of real pilots doing something you say is "interesting" blatantly implying in some way unsafe.

[jabird]

SS,

You really can't compare the financing of a motorway with a new airport almost a century later. They are totally different kettles of fish.

The closest motorway comparison would be the M6 Toll, but even this has a different metric.

So please let me know your own thoughts on:

1) How the business plan would pay (consequential benefits aren't relevant to investors, just hard cash)
2) How this new united Europe will evolve, when everything now looks like disintegrating.
3) Why this plan would be Marvellous, not Mirabel.
4) Which London airports would close, and how they would be compensated?
5) Which airlines, high or low cost, have expressed the slightest interest inthe proposal?

[silverstrata]

Skippy:

A smokey candle won't close LCY but the fog you claim to be "imaginary" has done so on several nights this week. A real pilot would not be so flippant.

But fog will not close an airfield with Cat IIIB autoland systems, which LCY does not have. Fog is NOT the big bogeyman you think it is - especially as a Thames site will not have any radiation fog. Is that clear enough?

And I am only flippant with people who are deliberately obtuse.

Skip:

I will ask you again to account for the safe operation of Virgin Atlantic, British Airways. Lufthansa, KLM and Air Canada, all of which I have seen with my own eyes leave Glasgow GLA/EGPF off the main runway of 2665m with space to spare on the B747-400.

Sorry Skip, but this is a pilot's forum, not the kindergarten. If you don't understand, then just lurk and see if you can learn something.

If you are at GLA with a shorter runway, then you have to accept the reduced length, and possibly shed some passengers and cargo too - especially on a hot day. I'm sure a 747 might even get airborne at Aberdeen, if you tried hard enough, but it would not be carrying much.

But if there is a perfectly serviceable 4,000m runway right next door, it would be almost criminal not to use it. And I would hope you might expect (being SLF yourself), that the guys up front are taking the safest and most professional options.



.

[jabird]

SS,

All I have seen is that SoE said he isn't a pilot. There are an awful lot of people on here who's main business at airports is neither as pilots nor SLF.

Can we please get back to debating the pros and cons of this airport, I'm switching off for the night, but there are 5 points for you to answer as homework

Night all.

[jackieofalltrades]

Silverstrata

LGW have a 'follow the greens to the stand' system. Its a doddle.

It's only a doddle if the lighting panel operator can actually see the taxiways. If they can't due to fog, then Low Vis procedures become operational, and thus the flow rate decreases.

Heathrow (like HD commented above) also has the follow greens. If it's such a doddle, how come Heathrow and Gatwick have reduced flow rates in fog? Aircraft can land CAT III and they can follow the greens! By your logic and argument there should be no difference to CAVOK.

If, like you say you are, a B767 pilot, I would suggest you get someone in the know at your airline to contact NATS and arrange a visit to the control tower. You might learn a thing or two how ATC actually works.

[Cyrano]

OK, I've caught up on several pages of posts. Seems to me that either Tibetan monks have just identified the reincarnation of 411A, or some dodgy Stateside mail-order pharmacy recently sent out a dud batch of thorazine.

[timzsta]

I teach at Southend. There is one thing wrong with that picture. The Southend Pier extends about four times further out into the estuary! Looking at the picture I can't see how shipping would be able to get up the Thames.

Second problem - from where the picture was taken, is a massive wind farm, that would cause major interference to ATC radar.

Third problem is that there is insufficient numbers with regard to the local population in North Kent to support a major international airport.

Anyone who watched the Commons Select Committee enquiry into the idea of an estuary airport a couple of years ago would realise this idea is a nonsense.

Finally how is it going to be paid for?

Once Mr Johnson is no longer Mayor of London, this ridiculous idea will die a death.

[controlx]

Financing new Thames Estuary Airport

Where do we want to take the money from to finance this £50 billion dream over the several years it will take to build? Take your pick:

(£ billions)
2009-10

2010-11

Benefits and Pensions
195.5
202.6
Health
99.9
104
Education
66.4
69.2
Debt interest
27.2
42.9
Defence
38.7
36.7
Local government
30.1
30.8
Scotland
25.4
26.1
Law and Order
19.6
19.6
Wales
13.6
14
Northern Ireland
9.6
9.9
EU contributions
5.6
7.9
Transport
6.4
6.4
International aid
5.5
6.2
Other departments
127.9
125.4
Total government spending
671.4
701.7

'Benefits and Pensions' might be a start? Put something into the UK economy instead of throwing it away on lard-ass layabouts - or is that a bit too politically contentious?

[silverstrata]

Jackie

It's only a doddle if the lighting panel operator can actually see the taxiways. If they can't due to fog, then Low Vis procedures become operational, and thus the flow rate decreases.

Heathrow (like HD commented above) also has the follow greens. If it's such a doddle, how come Heathrow and Gatwick have reduced flow rates in fog? Aircraft can land CAT III and they can follow the greens! By your logic and argument there should be no difference to CAVOK.

If, like you say you are, a B767 pilot, I would suggest you get someone in the know at your airline to contact NATS and arrange a visit to the control tower. You might learn a thing or two how ATC actually works.

As you say, in the old days, the 'follow the greens' system was visual. But with the advent of milimetric ground radar, I see no technical problem to doing it in fog. Any reason why not?

And regards taxying, I have not experienced any problems anyway. The delay is always sitting in the hold trying to get down, not the taxy to stand. I cannot say I have ever been delayed in the taxy, apart from taking it slow and steady - but what does that add to a taxy, 3 minutes? (Or 45 minutes at AMS )

Been to the tower many times, and seen how it works, but not for a few years due this absurd security issue. Equally, I have not seen a controller on the flight deck for decades, again due to this security issue (last company would not allow it whatsoever). Does your DofT realise they are making aviation LESS safe?

Turin

Where do we want to take the money from to finance this £50 billion dream over the several years it will take to build? Take your pick:

From the sale of Heathrow for industry and housing.

For Sale: huge new plot to the west of London:
A large new estate is now on the market, with convenient connections to motorway and easy connections to London via dedicated rail and tube lines. This west London estate has fine views over Windsor, and a number of existing building that can be utilised as high quality office space. Easy parking, with bespoke access to the M4 via an underpass. Early viewings are advisable, as this is a very desirable plot of land with planning permission.

Asking price, £60bn

New airport, £50bn


Profit? Loadsamoney....

Timsta

Third problem is that there is insufficient numbers with regard to the local population in North Kent to support a major international airport.

Undoubtedly new towns would have to be built on the north and south shores. But the government has already said it needs to create more housing in the SE (because a sudden New Labour generated rise in population), and so that is already counted for.

The site would be a bit further east than the Lord Foster abortion - directly between Shoeburyness and Sheerness.

Jabird

5) Which airlines, high or low cost, have expressed the slightest interest inthe proposal?

The major airlines would be advised to plan ahead, by advising them that LHR will be closing. The Lo-Co airlines will gravitate to where there are cheap facilities and lots of passengers. If Lo-Cos can go to CDG and AMS, it is not beyond the whit of architects to to add an old shed on one end of the airport for the Lo-Cos.

This is another reason for having two separate short haul runways and a separate short/domestic terminal (with a nice terminal at one end, and an old hangar they found on a farm in Essex at the other end, for the Lo-co fliers).


.

[silverstrata]

Turin:

A hot day? At Glasgow!!!!
Shurley shome mishtake!

I shtand corrected. "On a day when the temperature in Glasgow is above zero....."


.

[TURIN]

If you are at GLA with a shorter runway, then you have to accept the reduced length, and possibly shed some passengers and cargo too - especially on a hot day.

A hot day? At Glasgow!!!!

Shurley shome mishtake!

[jabird]

SS,

You have only answered one out of 5 questions on your homework assignment. To suggest low cost airlines would pay for this fantasy, when they have so many other London airports to choose from, built on cheaper terra firma, is madness

You score 0%

Asking price, £60bn New airport, £50bn Profit? Loadsamoney....

You mean lunacy, not loadsamoney. LHR is a tiny site, relative to its global importance. Terminal buildings are not cheap to adapt into office buildings, most airport sites that get re-used keep little of the original structures unless they have special historic value.

[Nick Thomas]

Silvastrata to paraphrase John McEnroe "you can't be serious" £60 billion for Heathrow. No chance not with land elsewhere at a far cheaper price. At say £2 million an acre you could buy 30,000 acres; one hell of a lot of land. Please also tell me how you propose to get a change of use from an airport to that of say offices or housing or industrial, and that would only result in outline planning permission. What about all the on costs of removing all the air bridges, runways and more expensively all the fuel tanks and pipes. I could go on and on but I have made my point

[Skipness One Echo]

So how many peeps on the dole in West London then? You've just closed Heathrow, stick to flying, your commercial awareness is zero.