New Thames Airport for London
I would expect around half-a-dozen of the 58 proposals that the Commission has received to make it to the short-list.
Clearly at least one, probably a couple, of the various the Estuary Airport schemes will be included, plus Heathrow's R3 (and/or R3+R4) plan, the so-called "2+2+2" proposal, and maybe the 3/4-runway Stansted scheme.
Anyone want to suggest what other proposals will make the short-list ? Are Ladbrokes taking bets ?
Clearly at least one, probably a couple, of the various the Estuary Airport schemes will be included, plus Heathrow's R3 (and/or R3+R4) plan, the so-called "2+2+2" proposal, and maybe the 3/4-runway Stansted scheme.
Anyone want to suggest what other proposals will make the short-list ? Are Ladbrokes taking bets ?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I don't believe there is a cat in hells chance of anything else other than a 3rd RW at Heathrow.....
.... and even that is suspect given the latest appointment of a transport minister vehemently against expansion.
Stansted has bags of capacity ALREADY and if ever there was a example of an opportunity being offered and universally declined it occurred with this Essex outpost 15 years back ! Evidence enough that if there is already an airport available now which fails to attract Heathrow based airlines , then Thames is already dead !
If these faceless commissioners happen to decide on another location to the NWest of London, who in their right mind is going to actually build it with Heathrow will still hanging around like a bad smell.
You could hardly force it to close through the courts.....!
At the end of the day the market decides....
.... and even that is suspect given the latest appointment of a transport minister vehemently against expansion.
Stansted has bags of capacity ALREADY and if ever there was a example of an opportunity being offered and universally declined it occurred with this Essex outpost 15 years back ! Evidence enough that if there is already an airport available now which fails to attract Heathrow based airlines , then Thames is already dead !
If these faceless commissioners happen to decide on another location to the NWest of London, who in their right mind is going to actually build it with Heathrow will still hanging around like a bad smell.
You could hardly force it to close through the courts.....!
At the end of the day the market decides....
Last edited by Bagso; 19th Oct 2013 at 14:27.
Stansted has bags of capacity ALREADY
But that's not nearly enough capacity to support a network hub for even one, let alone all 3, of the alliances, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them has chosen to move any sizeable part of its operations to there.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The talk of the new Thames River Airport being too far a journey from Central London is a spurious argument. I currently have to journey to Amsterdam for a decent connection to where my regular destinations are and most of the UK airline passengers who live outside the M25 probably find it less hassle to fly to a European Hub Airport than using Heathrow. So, building extra runway/s at Heathrow isn't going to change that situation. Transit passengers are only interested in having onwards flights to wherever their final destination happens to be. A third runway at Heathrow doesn't solve the problem of lack of choice of airlines/destinations. 4/6 runways operating 24 hours a day does go some way towards clawing back the loss of traffic/revenue/prestige currently being lost through lack of aspiration by the usual "mediocre thinkers" who claim to want to be "the best", but who cling to outdated/outmoded ideas of advancement.
Sadly, the "uninspired mediocrity" will probably win out and the UK will wait a further 10 years for a third runway to be built at Heathrow by which time most major overseas airlines will be flying from what are now euphemistically called "regional airports".
Actually, that's not such a bad solution for those of us who don't need Heathrow.
Sadly, the "uninspired mediocrity" will probably win out and the UK will wait a further 10 years for a third runway to be built at Heathrow by which time most major overseas airlines will be flying from what are now euphemistically called "regional airports".
Actually, that's not such a bad solution for those of us who don't need Heathrow.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso:
What about the rest of us mere mortals who live across other parts of the UK ?
What about the rest of us mere mortals who live across other parts of the UK ?
That was the whole point about the discussion on this thread about HS2 and Crossrail.
If HS2 rolls into King's Cross and if the Chunnel runs from King's Cross through Silver-Boris Airport to Paris and Brussels. And Likewise if Crossrail runs through London and into Silver-Boris. Then everyone is connected.
However, if HS2 rolls into Euston, and Crossrail ends in East London, you are screwed.
So you had better give Boris a call, and find out what he is planning.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surely it would be better if HS2 was connected directly by undersea rail to EHAM/EBBR and LFPG, with EGLL acting as an East Atlantic Offshore Hub.
Cuts out unnecessary middlemen.
Cuts out unnecessary middlemen.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davies has to answer two different high level questions
1. Future hub capacity for the UK.
2. Future total capacity for London and South East in particular.
Given that, I would agree with Dave Reid's list but add an option of 3 at Heathrow, 2 at Gatwick and 1 at Stansted. If you believe the forecasts, the London system as a whole will be very short of total capacity even with R3.
The comments on HS2 are unbelievably negative. Currently the time to allow from Leeds or Sheffield station to Heathrow airport door by rail is around 4.5 hours--- 2.5 to London plus 1 to the airport plus 1 for things to go wrong. Via Old Oak Common that should roughly halve.
Get the Western curve from LHR towards Reading done now, get HS2 done, get the Northern Hub scheme done in Manchester and that combination will make a big difference to access from most places north of Watford to the international network.
1. Future hub capacity for the UK.
2. Future total capacity for London and South East in particular.
Given that, I would agree with Dave Reid's list but add an option of 3 at Heathrow, 2 at Gatwick and 1 at Stansted. If you believe the forecasts, the London system as a whole will be very short of total capacity even with R3.
The comments on HS2 are unbelievably negative. Currently the time to allow from Leeds or Sheffield station to Heathrow airport door by rail is around 4.5 hours--- 2.5 to London plus 1 to the airport plus 1 for things to go wrong. Via Old Oak Common that should roughly halve.
Get the Western curve from LHR towards Reading done now, get HS2 done, get the Northern Hub scheme done in Manchester and that combination will make a big difference to access from most places north of Watford to the international network.
Paxing All Over The World
silverstrata
I could not agree more. Except that he won't tell you!
He is a superb politician and watching/listening to him being interviewed (on any subject) is a lesson on how to say what you want and avoid answering any question. The man is VERY intelligent, VERY quick witted and wants to be Prime Minister.
Of itself, that is not a problem and we need PMs who are intelligent but Johnson is as good at not answering questions as Blair. That is not good.
As far as I know, Johnson has never said on the record about how LHR would be closed, who would pay for it and how all the companies and people put out of of business will pay to relocate etcetera etcetera. He sweeps those questions away as meere detail and stays with the big idea. He does not even let his staff answer the detailed questions.
If he answered any of these questions in a serious manner, it might be possible to evaluate the island - but he doesn't so it isn't.
So you had better give Boris a call, and find out what he is planning.
He is a superb politician and watching/listening to him being interviewed (on any subject) is a lesson on how to say what you want and avoid answering any question. The man is VERY intelligent, VERY quick witted and wants to be Prime Minister.
Of itself, that is not a problem and we need PMs who are intelligent but Johnson is as good at not answering questions as Blair. That is not good.
As far as I know, Johnson has never said on the record about how LHR would be closed, who would pay for it and how all the companies and people put out of of business will pay to relocate etcetera etcetera. He sweeps those questions away as meere detail and stays with the big idea. He does not even let his staff answer the detailed questions.
If he answered any of these questions in a serious manner, it might be possible to evaluate the island - but he doesn't so it isn't.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy:
Of itself, that is not a problem and we need PMs who are intelligent but Johnson is as good at not answering questions as Blair. That is not good.
As far as I know, Johnson has never said on the record about how LHR would be closed.
Of itself, that is not a problem and we need PMs who are intelligent but Johnson is as good at not answering questions as Blair. That is not good.
As far as I know, Johnson has never said on the record about how LHR would be closed.
Boris is better than Blair in one crucial respect, he does appear to want to get things done in terms of industry and infrastructure (even if such projects are politically sensitive). In great contrast, because Blair wanted to be nice to everyone, he did nothing. Blair's main infrastructure projects in his ten years in office included ..... and possibly ...... and then there was ......
Still thinking on that one. Any ideas?
Regards LHR, Boris said on this Hong Kong trip that the old LHR site must be redeveloped immediately, to inject economic confidence in the area. (He was musing over Hong Kong's failure to redevelop the old airport site).
Silver
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The talk of the new Thames River Airport being too far a journey from Central London is a spurious argument. I currently have to journey to Amsterdam for a decent connection to where my regular destinations are and most of the UK airline passengers who live outside the M25 probably find it less hassle to fly to a European Hub Airport than using Heathrow. So, building extra runway/s at Heathrow isn't going to change that situation.
So building more rwys COULD easily change that situation: as demand would no longer outstrip supply, the artificial slot market, and thus the high prices of slots, would be ended. Thin domestic routes would once again become viable.
Transit passengers are only interested in having onwards flights to wherever their final destination happens to be. A third runway at Heathrow doesn't solve the problem of lack of choice of airlines/destinations. 4/6 runways operating 24 hours a day does go some way towards clawing back the loss of traffic/revenue/prestige currently being lost through lack of aspiration by the usual "mediocre thinkers" who claim to want to be "the best", but who cling to outdated/outmoded ideas of advancement.
Sadly, the "uninspired mediocrity" will probably win out and the UK will wait a further 10 years for a third runway to be built at Heathrow by which time most major overseas airlines will be flying from what are now euphemistically called "regional airports".
Actually, that's not such a bad solution for those of us who don't need Heathrow.
Actually, that's not such a bad solution for those of us who don't need Heathrow.
It's actually a bad situation all round, even for those of you who "don't need Heathrow". Why? because if the same amount of connections were available over LHR as there are over AMS, you can be assured that the prices would be lower.
As for "what are now euphemistically called "regional airports"", in most cases, some bi-laterals apart, there's nothing to stop major overseas airlines flying to/from BHX, MAN, GLA, etc. already. They just need convincing that there's money to be made, and that won't change if LHR has 2, 3 or 4 rwys.
That was the whole point about the discussion on this thread about HS2 and Crossrail.
If HS2 rolls into King's Cross and if the Chunnel runs from King's Cross through Silver-Boris Airport to Paris and Brussels. And Likewise if Crossrail runs through London and into Silver-Boris. Then everyone is connected.
However, if HS2 rolls into Euston, and Crossrail ends in East London, you are screwed.
So you had better give Boris a call, and find out what he is planning.
If HS2 rolls into King's Cross and if the Chunnel runs from King's Cross through Silver-Boris Airport to Paris and Brussels. And Likewise if Crossrail runs through London and into Silver-Boris. Then everyone is connected.
However, if HS2 rolls into Euston, and Crossrail ends in East London, you are screwed.
So you had better give Boris a call, and find out what he is planning.
But rest assured, it's not going to any "London" airports.
As for Boris, he'll be long gone by then....
Given that, I would agree with Dave Reid's list but add an option of 3 at Heathrow, 2 at Gatwick and 1 at Stansted. If you believe the forecasts, the London system as a whole will be very short of total capacity even with R3.
3-1-1 was needed ages ago. 4-1-1 is needed now, 4-2-1 soon, and possibly 4-2-2 in the long term.
The comments on HS2 are unbelievably negative. Currently the time to allow from Leeds or Sheffield station to Heathrow airport door by rail is around 4.5 hours--- 2.5 to London plus 1 to the airport plus 1 for things to go wrong. Via Old Oak Common that should roughly halve.
Get the Western curve from LHR towards Reading done now, get HS2 done, get the Northern Hub scheme done in Manchester and that combination will make a big difference to access from most places north of Watford to the international network.
Paxing All Over The World
silverstrata
Sure, it is astounding that they have not done anything big. I had presumed that an enormous waterfont development would mushroom.
If Boris told us HOW he proposed to close LHR and redevelop (at the very least massive bridging loans) then we could begin to debate it.
Fairdealfrank is right to say that the 3rd 9at leaste) could improve UK doemstic. Because of the slot limit, BA bought the small, regional airlines, offloaded them to LGW and gave themselves lovely slots on the cheap. Not least when they later off loaded them to others. The did that to the Isle of Man TWICE!
No admonishment was possible because the govt (both) said that the market would deal with it. It dealt with it by outting it out of business for the big numbers of long haul. So, the European carriers (nc the LCCs) started lifting the pax to AMS/CDG/FRA and some services go direct to the US East Coast or via DUB.
Lastly, the Mid East carriers started to use MAN and other points to take folks directly. Simples. Yes, the market fixed it OK.
Is it too late to retrieve that situation? I think it is. The investment needed for regionals to expand again to handle the routes (both new and redirected to LHR) is big money. Folks have got used to changing in AMS/etc and of the directs now available.
Regards LHR, Boris said on this Hong Kong trip that the old LHR site must be redeveloped immediately, to inject economic confidence in the area. (He was musing over Hong Kong's failure to redevelop the old airport site).
If Boris told us HOW he proposed to close LHR and redevelop (at the very least massive bridging loans) then we could begin to debate it.
Fairdealfrank is right to say that the 3rd 9at leaste) could improve UK doemstic. Because of the slot limit, BA bought the small, regional airlines, offloaded them to LGW and gave themselves lovely slots on the cheap. Not least when they later off loaded them to others. The did that to the Isle of Man TWICE!
No admonishment was possible because the govt (both) said that the market would deal with it. It dealt with it by outting it out of business for the big numbers of long haul. So, the European carriers (nc the LCCs) started lifting the pax to AMS/CDG/FRA and some services go direct to the US East Coast or via DUB.
Lastly, the Mid East carriers started to use MAN and other points to take folks directly. Simples. Yes, the market fixed it OK.
Is it too late to retrieve that situation? I think it is. The investment needed for regionals to expand again to handle the routes (both new and redirected to LHR) is big money. Folks have got used to changing in AMS/etc and of the directs now available.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted on the the Manchester thread I think this subject is worthy of wider debate.
See lukewarm support of Manchester compared to Stansted re Davies Commission
CAPA analysis spports the view.
Manchester Airport route network expansion becomes an interesting model for the industry. Part 1 | CAPA - Centre for Aviation
Whilst appreciating MAN cannot take up the slack can Stansted?
*Where are MAG expecting growth to come from down there, is it really airlines at Lhr or lgw
Utter reliance on RYR seems folly and and the recent deal smacks of desperation , and in truth contradicts the implication given at the enquiry that STN could become a major long haul hub that n reality is what MAG are after is it not ?
Have they in effect played their hand ?
Which airline CEO in their right mind is likely to contemplate for more than a few seconds diluting service at Heathrow in order to move to Fortress Ryanair, Essex
What is in MAGs thinking or indeed the Australian backers that suggests an avalanche from elsewhere?
If the commission supports Heathrow expansion HAL wil pay but if it suggests using Stansted in a wider sense I just cannot see what the catalyst will be to move.
Legislation won't work and commercially it would be suicide to go up against RYR.
See lukewarm support of Manchester compared to Stansted re Davies Commission
CAPA analysis spports the view.
Manchester Airport route network expansion becomes an interesting model for the industry. Part 1 | CAPA - Centre for Aviation
Whilst appreciating MAN cannot take up the slack can Stansted?
*Where are MAG expecting growth to come from down there, is it really airlines at Lhr or lgw
Utter reliance on RYR seems folly and and the recent deal smacks of desperation , and in truth contradicts the implication given at the enquiry that STN could become a major long haul hub that n reality is what MAG are after is it not ?
Have they in effect played their hand ?
Which airline CEO in their right mind is likely to contemplate for more than a few seconds diluting service at Heathrow in order to move to Fortress Ryanair, Essex
What is in MAGs thinking or indeed the Australian backers that suggests an avalanche from elsewhere?
If the commission supports Heathrow expansion HAL wil pay but if it suggests using Stansted in a wider sense I just cannot see what the catalyst will be to move.
Legislation won't work and commercially it would be suicide to go up against RYR.
Last edited by Bagso; 23rd Oct 2013 at 07:36.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted on the the Manchester thread I think this subject is worthy of wider debate.
See lukewarm support of Manchester compared to Stansted re Davies Commission
CAPA analysis spports the view.
See lukewarm support of Manchester compared to Stansted re Davies Commission
CAPA analysis spports the view.
Davies is dealing with a lack of hub capacity in the UK and that means Heathrow.
Paxing All Over The World
Here is an interesting comparison: Another major London infrastructure project being proposed:
London's £4.1bn 'super sewer' is kicking up a stink as campaigners label it a 'monster' - Home News - UK - The Independent
In the article, it is reported that 85% of Londoners know that a new sewer is needed but the folks who are protesting - and could stop it - are those where the building works would be 'in their back yards'.
The fact that the company will restore the above ground places to their original after the construction does not seem to be part of the NIMBYs equation.
Read the details about raw serage outfalls into the Thames both now and projected. Even if the company are oversating things - there cannot be many people who think that a 150 year old sewer system does not need to be replaced ...
London's £4.1bn 'super sewer' is kicking up a stink as campaigners label it a 'monster' - Home News - UK - The Independent
In the article, it is reported that 85% of Londoners know that a new sewer is needed but the folks who are protesting - and could stop it - are those where the building works would be 'in their back yards'.
The fact that the company will restore the above ground places to their original after the construction does not seem to be part of the NIMBYs equation.
Read the details about raw serage outfalls into the Thames both now and projected. Even if the company are oversating things - there cannot be many people who think that a 150 year old sewer system does not need to be replaced ...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The HUB concept is worthy of wider debate.
Who benefits ?
BA and Virgin almost certainly, well they aint going to vote for a move to be wiped out an Irish fortress in the middle of Essex are they, who would !
For every 4 passengers using LHR at least 1 could be classed as purely an international to international transfer passenger using the airport by way of convenience.
I supported additional runway (s) at LHR many moons ago, 4 possibly 6 runways and close Gatwick, but that was under BAA by splitting ownership is the momentum lost ?
Have the Government scored a major own goal ?
Funnily enough "Convenience" is an apt term as the local residents may feel they are being somewhat peeeed on, it is they, NOT the vociferous commentators on here who are having their homes levelled to facilitate a major undertaking for these "transfer" passengers.
They might well scratch their heads and say hang on a minute, LHR is somewhat incredibly still growing, airlines still fight vigorously for slots, not sure anybody has ever lost a job through redundancy, so what is the problem !
By shutting LGW (back in the day) and combining to build a mega airport you would at least be providing real benefit to a much larger percentage of purely UK bound citizens !
Transfer pax at LGW is miniscule by comparison, the passengers using LGW are at least inbound or are leaving from London !
It could then be argued that homes have not been flattened in vain !
Its also much safer to have one airport with say 4 runways than have two airports with 3, 40 miles apart.
Incidentally international to international passengers fly in and fly out without any contribution to the treasury unless of course you include VAT on a McDonalds, but maybe just buying a burger is an example of what is meant by job creation opportunities ?
But what to do ?
If you tax transfer pax then they presumably they will avail themselves of Paris, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt....
It's a shambles !
Who benefits ?
BA and Virgin almost certainly, well they aint going to vote for a move to be wiped out an Irish fortress in the middle of Essex are they, who would !
For every 4 passengers using LHR at least 1 could be classed as purely an international to international transfer passenger using the airport by way of convenience.
I supported additional runway (s) at LHR many moons ago, 4 possibly 6 runways and close Gatwick, but that was under BAA by splitting ownership is the momentum lost ?
Have the Government scored a major own goal ?
Funnily enough "Convenience" is an apt term as the local residents may feel they are being somewhat peeeed on, it is they, NOT the vociferous commentators on here who are having their homes levelled to facilitate a major undertaking for these "transfer" passengers.
They might well scratch their heads and say hang on a minute, LHR is somewhat incredibly still growing, airlines still fight vigorously for slots, not sure anybody has ever lost a job through redundancy, so what is the problem !
By shutting LGW (back in the day) and combining to build a mega airport you would at least be providing real benefit to a much larger percentage of purely UK bound citizens !
Transfer pax at LGW is miniscule by comparison, the passengers using LGW are at least inbound or are leaving from London !
It could then be argued that homes have not been flattened in vain !
Its also much safer to have one airport with say 4 runways than have two airports with 3, 40 miles apart.
Incidentally international to international passengers fly in and fly out without any contribution to the treasury unless of course you include VAT on a McDonalds, but maybe just buying a burger is an example of what is meant by job creation opportunities ?
But what to do ?
If you tax transfer pax then they presumably they will avail themselves of Paris, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt....
It's a shambles !
Last edited by Bagso; 3rd Nov 2013 at 21:07.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The direct benefit of more int/int traffic to the UK economy is probably pretty low. But the standard argument is that the indirect benefit of the int/int traffic on frequency and range of destinations out of London is one of the elements which justifies hub capacity as opposed to point to point. Is the price right? That's the Davies question.
On another of Bagso's points I wonder what Willie's tactics are in saying it will never happen and whether he would be saying that if he thought BA and Virgin would really be the big winners out of expansion at LHR. Can someone explain the mechanism by which the new slots would get allocated please. I believe a slot auction is not legal under EU rules--is that correct?
On another of Bagso's points I wonder what Willie's tactics are in saying it will never happen and whether he would be saying that if he thought BA and Virgin would really be the big winners out of expansion at LHR. Can someone explain the mechanism by which the new slots would get allocated please. I believe a slot auction is not legal under EU rules--is that correct?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidentally international to international passengers fly in and fly out without any contribution to the treasury unless of course you include VAT on a McDonalds, but maybe just buying a burger is an example of what is meant by job creation opportunities ?
On another of Bagso's points I wonder what Willie's tactics are in saying it will never happen and whether he would be saying that if he thought BA and Virgin would really be the big winners out of expansion at LHR. Can someone explain the mechanism by which the new slots would get allocated please. I believe a slot auction is not legal under EU rules--is that correct?
Clearly, the price that these slots change hands illustrates the extent that LHR is the airport of choice for carriers and it is so because it is the airport of choice for their pax, especially those paying the first and business class premiums.
Yet another London Thames estuary airport design
Anybody else see a possible flaw in this one........
Rival airport plan unveiled for 'Boris Island' | London - ITV News
Rival airport plan unveiled for 'Boris Island' | London - ITV News
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Rival" or same thing? Depends on whose report you read: BBC News - 'Boris Island' London Airport designs to be unveiled!!
Love the bit about
Coastal regions, and an 'island' airport will have a lot of its own coastline, have lots of birds!!
Love the bit about
... the island scheme avoided the problems of other land-based airport developments. ... A spokeswoman said those included ... bird strikes...
Paxing All Over The World
This document and blurb makes for much amusing reading. I suggest keeping to match with how the future actually turns out. 
What they don't say (natch) is how much they expect to have to pay OUT to close EGLL. Would you like to start the bidding as to what BA (+ One World) and VS and Star and Team would want to pay for their costs and loss of business??
'200,000 new jobs'?? What about the jobs lost? How many would be moving? Etcetera.
Still, it brightened up a rainy Monday afternoon.
The consortium has said that although Heathrow would probably have to close, the opportunities for new housing, employment and economic regeneration were huge.
It said £47bn would be recouped from the real estate value and closure of Heathrow.
Testrad said there could be a new London borough in the Heathrow area with 300,000 new houses and about 200,000 new jobs, along with economic regeneration of east London, Kent and Essex.
It said £47bn would be recouped from the real estate value and closure of Heathrow.
Testrad said there could be a new London borough in the Heathrow area with 300,000 new houses and about 200,000 new jobs, along with economic regeneration of east London, Kent and Essex.
'200,000 new jobs'?? What about the jobs lost? How many would be moving? Etcetera.
Still, it brightened up a rainy Monday afternoon.