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
Gordon Bennett, Honeybuzzard, that's so depressing, am off to slit my wrists now!
It's Morrisey/Smiths or Leonard Cohen all over again.
Definitely prefer your optimistic, and probably more accurate, view of things, Barling Magna.
It's Morrisey/Smiths or Leonard Cohen all over again.
Definitely prefer your optimistic, and probably more accurate, view of things, Barling Magna.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeremiah Green
By 2030, what price oil? I think we should forget any idea of airport expansion in the UK. In fact I suspect I shall live to see lots of runways and roads grubbed up to turn back into farmland. Have a look at population growth figures, and our future ability to pay for imported foodstuffs. This bubble we are living in will not last for ever. Google exponential growth. As a species the future may not be as good as the present.
By 2030, what price oil? I think we should forget any idea of airport expansion in the UK. In fact I suspect I shall live to see lots of runways and roads grubbed up to turn back into farmland. Have a look at population growth figures, and our future ability to pay for imported foodstuffs. This bubble we are living in will not last for ever. Google exponential growth. As a species the future may not be as good as the present.
Ahh, the positive thinking of your average Jeremiah Green - civilisation is about to die, and we shall accelerate that process by forcing everyone to use unreliable energy supplies that will bring the economy crashing to its knees.
Greens have a death-wish, just as Jeremiah had a death-wish, and we listen to their inane blatherings at our peril. They were a total irrelevance until they took over the BBC, so its about time the BBC licence fee was reduced to £5 a year. That would put the Lion among the Jeremiahs.
.
Back in the real world, it is now Gatwick who have thrown their hat into the ring with plans for a dual runway layout:
Gatwick Airport bosses unveil £9bn plan for second runway that could open by 2025 | Mail Online
Well, I suppose with Gatwick being the busiest single runway in the world it needs a second runway anyway. I'v had enough of 2 mile spacing on the approach and 'land afters'.
But will Gatwick become the answer to the UK capacity problem? Answer - No. We are back to the same old problem of interlining, where international passengers want to connect to 'domestic' airlines or to good TGV surface transport. I am not flying into Gatwick, to jump on a bus to Stansted to catch my commuter link to Copenhagen.
And while you might say that Gatwick has fairly good 'domestic' links already, it has several problems in that regard.
Firstly, much of that traffic is charter, which is not available to long haul interliners.
Secondly, the airport is already full. Two of the designs are for 'segregated mode' runways, and how many extra flights would that allow? And if the runways were only 700m apart, the new terminal would presumably be on the north side. That would mean crossing a runway. Have you ever tried crossing LGW's runway? You could be waiting all day. This is an airport where the take off clearance is something like: "Be ready for absolute immediate departure", "Line up and take off immediate - go now!" Yeah - how are you going to get crossing heavy traffic into that scenario?
The final option is for a 1000m spacing to allow independent parallel approaches, and what looks like a terminal in between the two. This is a better idea, but you still end up with a new Heathrow that is on the wrong side of the country for surface transport (direct rail line to Leeds anyone?) And you also end up splitting the UK's interlining hub between two airports, which is still not the answer. You would end up with both LHR and LGW having inadequate 'domestic' flights to serve long-haul customers, and if more 'domestic' destinations are served by AMS or CDG, then customers will go there.
As I said before, I met a party of tourists last month traveling AMS-BRS, having flown in from South America. Why were they using AMS instead of LHR? Because there were no flights from BRS to LHR, and so the UK capital and the UK 'national airline' loses out once again. Brain-dead planning by successive brain-dead governments, who are only interested in making easy and popular decisions, to burnish their political reputation.
The proposed LGW.
Silver
Last edited by silverstrata; 27th Jul 2013 at 08:40.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skippy:
There's no flights between LHR and BRS because there's no market for it. It's not far enough and is well served by an existing fast train.
There's no flights between LHR and BRS because there's no market for it. It's not far enough and is well served by an existing fast train.
Barling:
The M4 motorway gets you from LHR to Bristol in about an hour and a half, so you might as well hire your car in LHR rather than at BRS.
The M4 motorway gets you from LHR to Bristol in about an hour and a half, so you might as well hire your car in LHR rather than at BRS.
a. There are no flights from BRS to LHR not because there is no demand, but because there are no slots available. Or if there are slots available, they are so expensive they would double the ticket price. Thus commuter turboprops are priced out of the London hub, and thus passengers are prevented from going via LHR.**
b. The car will get you there, but the parking will be more than the ticket price. Plus not everyone wants to dice with death or risk being late, because of the diabolical M4 (or M1 or M6 or whatever).
c. The train will get you there, but an hour after the flight departs (no overnight rail services on the UK's decrepit railways.) That means an overnight in a hotel, and more expense.
The net result, is it is cheaper and easier to fly KLM to AMS (4 flights a day) and use that as a hub. And at £140 return, it is much cheaper and easier to go to AMS than take the train or car to LHR.
This is the problem with the present London hub. If you make things so difficult and so expensive, people will go elsewhere. And so London loses out, and so does BA lose out. RIP London as a business center. RIP London....
** (An early morning slot at LHR will cost you about £18 million. If you want to recoup that expense over 5 years on a commuter turboprop, it will add £165 to each ticket price, not including interest payments. Perhaps you can see why turboprops - and therefore passengers - do not frequent LHR.)
Silver
Last edited by silverstrata; 28th Jul 2013 at 11:07.
There are no flights from BRS to LHR not because there is no demand, but because there are no slots available.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it's entirely possible that both considerations apply.
Silver
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your argument is correct Silverstrata, its just that your example is wrong because LHR is linked to Bristol by the M4 which isn't at all bad as far as traffic goes westbound. It really isn't worth flying to Bristol from Heathrow. At LHR you would need to take up the transfer time to a different terminal (naturally), allowing yourself sufficient contingency, and then after a 30 minute flight (10 minutes of which is taxiing) you wind up at Lulsgate Bottom, in the middle of the Mendip Hills. After clearing customs you have to wait for a bus which takes half an hour to transport you to central Bristol where you can meet up with your fellow passengers who've avoided all the transfer hassle and the bus journey and have travelled in the comfort of their hired Ford Focus and are already on to their second daquiri at one of Bristol's exclusive cocktail lounges.
A much better example would be Exeter, or Doncaster/Sheffield, or Humberside, or even Norwich (the M25 really is a brute of a motorway)......
A much better example would be Exeter, or Doncaster/Sheffield, or Humberside, or even Norwich (the M25 really is a brute of a motorway)......
Last edited by Barling Magna; 29th Jul 2013 at 16:06.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your example is wrong because LHR is linked to Bristol by the M4 which isn't at all bad as far as traffic goes westbound.
there is also a damn good train service between London & Bristol
Please read the thread before posting. As I have just said:
Quote Silver:
b. The car will get you there, but the parking will be more than the ticket price. Plus not everyone wants to dice with death or risk being late, because of the diabolical M4 (or M1 or M6 or whatever).
c. The train will get you there, but an hour after the flight departs (no overnight rail services on the UK's decrepit railways.) That means an overnight in a hotel, and more expense.
The net result, is it is cheaper and easier to fly KLM to AMS (4 flights a day) and use that as a hub. And at £140 return, it is much cheaper and easier to go to AMS than take the train or car to LHR.
This is the problem with the present London hub. If you make things so difficult and so expensive, people will go elsewhere. And so London loses out, and so does BA lose out. RIP London as a business center. RIP London....
Endquote.
Silver
Yes, I think we get the idea - AMS serves more UK domestic destinations than LHR does.
On the other hand, LHR serves more Netherlands domestic destinations than AMS does
On the other hand, LHR serves more Netherlands domestic destinations than AMS does
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "The net result, is it is cheaper and easier to fly KLM to AMS (4 flights a day) and use that as a hub. And at £140 return, it is much cheaper and easier to go to AMS than take the train or car to LHR.
This is the problem with the present London hub. If you make things so difficult and so expensive, people will go elsewhere. And so London loses out, and so does BA lose out. RIP London as a business center. RIP London...."
A ludicrous and ridiculous situation that should not have been allowed to develop. On this we agree, Silver.
However in your recent posts you have been, probably unintentionally, making the argument for a massive LHR expansion so that:
1. the supply of slots won't be greater than the demand;
2. the slot market will disappear and so will the eye-watering costs thereof;
3. more than 2 UK carriers can afford access to LHR;
4. more domestic routes will be available at LHR, expanding choice;
5. more thin routes will be available at LHR, expanding choice;
6. more overseas markets will be available, opening up trade opportunities;
7. more opportunities for inward investment and tourism with more overseas direct links;
8. less delays so less unnecessary polution from aircraft queueing up for take off, or stacking while waiting to land;
9. LHR not at 99% capacity so enough slack in the system to cope when there is bad weather or when things go wrong;
10. more room overall so that the LHR experience becomes better for everyone, whether pax, staff, crews or visitors.
This is the problem with the present London hub. If you make things so difficult and so expensive, people will go elsewhere. And so London loses out, and so does BA lose out. RIP London as a business center. RIP London...."
A ludicrous and ridiculous situation that should not have been allowed to develop. On this we agree, Silver.
However in your recent posts you have been, probably unintentionally, making the argument for a massive LHR expansion so that:
1. the supply of slots won't be greater than the demand;
2. the slot market will disappear and so will the eye-watering costs thereof;
3. more than 2 UK carriers can afford access to LHR;
4. more domestic routes will be available at LHR, expanding choice;
5. more thin routes will be available at LHR, expanding choice;
6. more overseas markets will be available, opening up trade opportunities;
7. more opportunities for inward investment and tourism with more overseas direct links;
8. less delays so less unnecessary polution from aircraft queueing up for take off, or stacking while waiting to land;
9. LHR not at 99% capacity so enough slack in the system to cope when there is bad weather or when things go wrong;
10. more room overall so that the LHR experience becomes better for everyone, whether pax, staff, crews or visitors.
On thinner routes, there is no way I'd want an airline to operate an unprofitable service just for prestige and choice purposes. It just defeats the object; you may as well keep the money in the bank.
That's why so many US airlines have failed in recent years - massive overexpansion and continuing small regional services that just simply aren't making money, in order to defend their market against their competitors.
That's why so many US airlines have failed in recent years - massive overexpansion and continuing small regional services that just simply aren't making money, in order to defend their market against their competitors.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave:
On the other hand, LHR serves more Netherlands domestic destinations than AMS does.
On the other hand, LHR serves more Netherlands domestic destinations than AMS does.
Its called an integrated transport system - designed around the needs of the public, rather than around the needs of union bosses, lazy staff and brain-dead politicians whose only goal is to to always take the easiest option in order to chase votes.
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdeal:
However in your recent posts you have been, probably unintentionally, making the argument for a massive LHR expansion so that.
However in your recent posts you have been, probably unintentionally, making the argument for a massive LHR expansion so that.
As has been explained many times, LHR is simply too constrained and in totally the wrong location to be that new, modern, 21st century airport.
Silver
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "No, I am making the argument for a decent interlining airport with full international and domestic capability - something with four international runways and two 'domestic' runways and modern terminals and good surface transport links to match its position and size."
So, Silver, you want Six rwys in the estuary? even Boris only wants/wanted(?) four.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, a "decent interlining airport with full international and domestic capability" has to be at LHR.
You know it, I know it, Boris knows it.
Why? because the largest UK airports are in the private sector and as such have to turn a profit. An estuary airport therefore has to be a good business proposition, but it isn't, because it's all expense, expense, expense, and no return on the investment.
Premium business pax don't want an estuary airport, so the carriers don't, so it won't happen.
You have always failed to explain realistically how this can be resolved.
Comments about "closing LHR" and "government funding" are not realistic.
Even Boris is back-tracking and is moving west all the time.
First he favoured 4 rwys in the estauary, then 4 rwys on the river bank, then 3 more rwys at STN.
Next he'll cross the Greenwich meridian into the western hemisphere...
Then it will become 3 more rwys at LGW, then 3 more rwys at LTN.
Finally, reality will prevail, and it will be 2 more rwys at LHR.
Quote: "As has been explained many times, LHR is simply too constrained and in totally the wrong location to be that new, modern, 21st century airport.
Silver"
So what is to be done?
Expand LHR so that it's not too constrained, obviously.
So, Silver, you want Six rwys in the estuary? even Boris only wants/wanted(?) four.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, a "decent interlining airport with full international and domestic capability" has to be at LHR.
You know it, I know it, Boris knows it.
Why? because the largest UK airports are in the private sector and as such have to turn a profit. An estuary airport therefore has to be a good business proposition, but it isn't, because it's all expense, expense, expense, and no return on the investment.
Premium business pax don't want an estuary airport, so the carriers don't, so it won't happen.
You have always failed to explain realistically how this can be resolved.
Comments about "closing LHR" and "government funding" are not realistic.
Even Boris is back-tracking and is moving west all the time.
First he favoured 4 rwys in the estauary, then 4 rwys on the river bank, then 3 more rwys at STN.
Next he'll cross the Greenwich meridian into the western hemisphere...
Then it will become 3 more rwys at LGW, then 3 more rwys at LTN.
Finally, reality will prevail, and it will be 2 more rwys at LHR.
Quote: "As has been explained many times, LHR is simply too constrained and in totally the wrong location to be that new, modern, 21st century airport.
Silver"
So what is to be done?
Expand LHR so that it's not too constrained, obviously.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 1st Aug 2013 at 19:26.
Paxing All Over The World
The chairman of the Airports Commission on expanding the UK's airport capacity has said there is a "wide spectrum" of views on how best to proceed.
Sir Howard Davies said his panel had received "imaginative and thoughtful" responses to its consultation.
The commission has published details of some of the proposals it has received, and is inviting comments on them.
BBC News - Airports Commission boss highlights 'wide spectrum' of expansion plans
Sir Howard Davies said his panel had received "imaginative and thoughtful" responses to its consultation.
The commission has published details of some of the proposals it has received, and is inviting comments on them.
BBC News - Airports Commission boss highlights 'wide spectrum' of expansion plans
Why has no-one considered re-designing Heathrow into a North-South layout?
Or alternatively obliterating West Drayton, which some might argue would be no bad thing.
Yes, it's strange nobody else has come up with that idea.