New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody know how this proposal would/does affect LCY?
I know the argument goes that LHR would need to close otherwise nobody would actually leave there and move to the new Boris/Silver/Britannia/Fantasy Airport, but with regards LCY surely there would be more than a little conflict in terms of airspace, and perhaps also in terms of business model seeing as the new airport would be much closer to Canary Wharf and therefore remove much of the benefit of LCY?
Happy to be enlightened...!
I know the argument goes that LHR would need to close otherwise nobody would actually leave there and move to the new Boris/Silver/Britannia/Fantasy Airport, but with regards LCY surely there would be more than a little conflict in terms of airspace, and perhaps also in terms of business model seeing as the new airport would be much closer to Canary Wharf and therefore remove much of the benefit of LCY?
Happy to be enlightened...!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article in Flight Global (London Thames Estuary airport plans unveiled) suggest that the land under which LHR is currently located could fetch $45B from land developers and support 300,000 people in apartments, condos, etc. How realistic is that? If feasible, that would certainly help with the building costs of the new airport.
I am all for moving out to the new location. The UK has to do something to preserve whatever it has left as a logistics/transportation hub. Meanwhile the Gulf States and Turkey are beating the CRAAAAP out of us with the development of mega-airport/logistics hubs.
It is also true that an airport can provide a lasting impression on visitors to your country - it is the first and last place you see on your visit. Most people believe UK airports are old, dirty and uninspiring. Sure, you shouldn't have to spend $75B to give visitors a positive impression, but the UK needs to catch up with the rest of the developing world from an infrastructure perspective. Think of all of the jobs this will create including those needed to build the rail links to London. This is a much needed UK project on several fronts and I hope it eventually moves forward...
I am all for moving out to the new location. The UK has to do something to preserve whatever it has left as a logistics/transportation hub. Meanwhile the Gulf States and Turkey are beating the CRAAAAP out of us with the development of mega-airport/logistics hubs.
It is also true that an airport can provide a lasting impression on visitors to your country - it is the first and last place you see on your visit. Most people believe UK airports are old, dirty and uninspiring. Sure, you shouldn't have to spend $75B to give visitors a positive impression, but the UK needs to catch up with the rest of the developing world from an infrastructure perspective. Think of all of the jobs this will create including those needed to build the rail links to London. This is a much needed UK project on several fronts and I hope it eventually moves forward...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
Can forsee years of litigation and some very rich lawyers.
'200,000 new jobs'?? What about the jobs lost? How many would be moving? Etcetera.
Still, it brightened up a rainy Monday afternoon
Does anybody know how this proposal would/does affect LCY?
I know the argument goes that LHR would need to close otherwise nobody would actually leave there and move to the new Boris/Silver/Britannia/Fantasy Airport, but with regards LCY surely there would be more than a little conflict in terms of airspace, and perhaps also in terms of business model seeing as the new airport would be much closer to Canary Wharf and therefore remove much of the benefit of LCY?
Happy to be enlightened...!
Happy to be enlightened...!
As for closing and replacing LHR, that particular ship sailed decades ago.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 11th Nov 2013 at 18:23.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
OK it's dishonest not to be clear and say "most certainly". New housing would go to incomers displacing the tens of thousands of locals who no longer have a job as the biggest employer in the area by far was closed. The 47 billion is over stated massively, it would be the usual suspects trousering the wonga and to Hell with the reality on the ground.
Costs would be to HAL for closure of the business, BA and Virgin for closure of multi million pound maintenance facilities and every business needing to rebuild their cargo warehouse miles away. Also if you work in the hotel trade locally just expect your P45, that's a great many low paid jobs on the scrap heap alongside every driver and manual worker unable to relocate, which is er...pretty much all of them. Still, gets your daft idea in the paper and keeps that blonde court jester's profile nice and high as he aims to be our Lord and Master as he was born to be.
Cripes !
Floreat Etona, Floreat Etona, Floreat Etona thrice!
How many hours a year would we expect an airport here to be closed by high winds, either based on recent years, or taking into account predictions of more extreme weather?
If we're landing up to 240 planes an hour at a future mega-airport, where do they all divert to if the fire brigade walk out?
How might the schedules change with unrestricted 24 hour operations?
If we're landing up to 240 planes an hour at a future mega-airport, where do they all divert to if the fire brigade walk out?
How might the schedules change with unrestricted 24 hour operations?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IVAR,
In reality how long would it take to get to central London from Boris Island. Would probably quicker to catch HS2 from Birmingham if it was ever built.
I cannot see any piers on the new drawings ,so whats the plan ,surely not underground when the seas their ?
Nigel
In reality how long would it take to get to central London from Boris Island. Would probably quicker to catch HS2 from Birmingham if it was ever built.
I cannot see any piers on the new drawings ,so whats the plan ,surely not underground when the seas their ?
Nigel
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It amazes me that anyone thinks they will be able to cease operations at Heathrow.
That is not to say that it is the best place for a hub (when starting from scratch), obviously it isn't but for the current infrastructure to be ripped up and moved all the way over to the Estuary is just pie in the sky.
What gets me is the amount of money that is being paid to 'consultants' of all varieties to come up with semi-plausible schemes that will never see the turf cut. All before they decide Heathrow is the cheapest 'Hub' option and come up with the Aviation strategy to expand there as they were always going to anyway.
Methinks the 'consultants' just made a load of money for talking
That is not to say that it is the best place for a hub (when starting from scratch), obviously it isn't but for the current infrastructure to be ripped up and moved all the way over to the Estuary is just pie in the sky.
What gets me is the amount of money that is being paid to 'consultants' of all varieties to come up with semi-plausible schemes that will never see the turf cut. All before they decide Heathrow is the cheapest 'Hub' option and come up with the Aviation strategy to expand there as they were always going to anyway.
Methinks the 'consultants' just made a load of money for talking
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lost in Space
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They move to a new airport in Hong Kong in 97 and to me looked a good move, I fly to both Heathrow and Hong Kong and I am impressed with Hong Kong but not with Heathrow which saddens as I am a proud Brit, the Heathrow ATC are brilliant and the best in the world,checkin staff are friendly, Security are horrible and when you travel on the crew bus through the back roads you see a ram shackled assortment of buildings.
Sorry if I upset the Heathrow supporters, just my observation.
Sorry if I upset the Heathrow supporters, just my observation.
Reach the aircraft by underground shuttle trains that rise up on lifts when they reach the a/c, presumably to give level access to the plane, though that isn't clear.
Sounds perfect to me, if it works.
Sounds perfect to me, if it works.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cardiff
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume Testrad have come up with a nice NATS and Eurocontrol-reviewed template for reorganising all the airspace around this part of Europe with their six runways and the need for several new holding stacks? I'm sure the French, Germans and Dutch will be entirely compliant with our needs to hijack great chunks of their 'space' to make this work.
And what is this about there being no birds????!!!! There's more birds around there than a Hitchcock movie. And they're on the larger side too quite often.
And what is this about there being no birds????!!!! There's more birds around there than a Hitchcock movie. And they're on the larger side too quite often.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here's more birds around there than a Hitchcock movie
To date, I have just about got the concept of an island airport, although I disagree with it.
Now I hear:
It said £47bn would be recouped from the real estate value and closure of Heathrow.
So Boris is trying to play airport monopoly by valuing Kai Tak, sorry Heathrow as if it is Mayfair with hotels, but he doesn't even hold the title deeds to anything.Surely this is one of the biggest ponzi proposals in history?
As for the layout itself, is there a larger image anywhere, other than the Catseye on Thames map in the bbc article?
I simply don't understand how you can have 2+2 runways pointing right at each other. Surely that is a recipe for Tenerife all over again?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How might the schedules change with unrestricted 24 hour operations?
'200,000 new jobs'?? What about the jobs lost? How many would be moving? Etcetera.
The article in Flight Global (London Thames Estuary airport plans unveiled) suggest that the land under which LHR is currently located could fetch $45B from land developers and support 300,000 people in apartments, condos, etc. How realistic is that? If feasible, that would certainly help with the building costs of the new airport.
That equates to a population of about 700,000+, a similar population to that of Glasgow, in an area a little bit bigger than that of Isleworth (pop. 30,000).
They move to a new airport in Hong Kong in 97 and to me looked a good move, I fly to both Heathrow and Hong Kong and I am impressed with Hong Kong but not with Heathrow which saddens as I am a proud Brit, the Heathrow ATC are brilliant and the best in the world,checkin staff are friendly, Security are horrible and when you travel on the crew bus through the back roads you see a ram shackled assortment of buildings.
Chek Lap Kok is Hong Kong's equivelant of Heathrow, not the estuary. Like Heathrow, Chek Lap Kok is about 20 mi. west of the city centre, has 2 rwys, and a terminal with an appearance similar to Heathrow-5.
The fact that Chek Lap Kok is on an island is purely because of geography. Most of Hong Kong is hilly and forested, the available flat land is already covered in high rises.
The move to Chek Lap Kok was made because Kai Tak could not be expanded or made safe. It is quite different in the UK where Heathrow can and must be expanded.
It is best to compare like with like.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Fantasy Island development is to be funded by the sale of the land under Heathrow, what happens in the interim whilst the new place is being created?
Do we need a generation of amphibian airliners or flying boats that can use the estuary whilst the dry facilities are being constructed?
if heathrow is not to be closed until the new place opens, where is the extra capacity to be provided in the interim, or does expansion just stop, with all new growth happening abroad?
Perhaps the growth of transatlantic and Gulf capacity at Manchester (and at other places in the UK) hints at an alternative. Facilities to handle international transit passengers are already being introduced in T3 at MAN, so the powers that be seem to have some expectation of a growth in hubbing. Will it all be left to foreigners, or might Virgin start looking east and BA reverse its descent into "Londial Radial Airways". Willie W must have some ideas about what IAG will do if Heathrow is not expanded. He surely cannot be thinking that we will all take the train to Madrid!
Do we need a generation of amphibian airliners or flying boats that can use the estuary whilst the dry facilities are being constructed?
if heathrow is not to be closed until the new place opens, where is the extra capacity to be provided in the interim, or does expansion just stop, with all new growth happening abroad?
Perhaps the growth of transatlantic and Gulf capacity at Manchester (and at other places in the UK) hints at an alternative. Facilities to handle international transit passengers are already being introduced in T3 at MAN, so the powers that be seem to have some expectation of a growth in hubbing. Will it all be left to foreigners, or might Virgin start looking east and BA reverse its descent into "Londial Radial Airways". Willie W must have some ideas about what IAG will do if Heathrow is not expanded. He surely cannot be thinking that we will all take the train to Madrid!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if heathrow is not to be closed until the new place opens, where is the extra capacity to be provided in the interim, or does expansion just stop, with all new growth happening abroad?
Even if the estuary airport (or any other greenfield site) is the preferred option, LHR expansion is STILL needed to take up the slack in the 20 years or so until it opens.
That being the case, why not just do LHR expansion, and enough of it (2 more rwys).
Perhaps the growth of transatlantic and Gulf capacity at Manchester (and at other places in the UK) hints at an alternative. Facilities to handle international transit passengers are already being introduced in T3 at MAN, so the powers that be seem to have some expectation of a growth in hubbing.
The problem is that not enough carriers believe they can make sufficient money at MAN, so if they can't get more LHR slots, that extra capacity goes to AMS.
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 whole subject of Heathrow expansion is, I'm afraid dead. It is now far too late to rescue a crumbling infrastructure and try to pretend it is still World Class. IT ISN'T. And it never will be.
I have used Heathrow many times in the past and Terminal 3 was always a disgrace, Terminal 4 is on another airport, never used Terminal 5, but then I rarely fly BA. Terminals 1 & 2 were adequate. Nowadays, Heathrow is not necessary for those of us who live outside the M25, there are much better alternatives.
If Londoners want an airport to be proud of and which caters for the 21st. Century traveller, then they need an airport that operates 24/7 and has flights to most of the World (most Chinese cities are not catered for by flights from LHR). It would be instructive to know how many flights (scheduled) are being turned down by LHR on a daily basis due to capacity limitations. I'd hazard a guess that in excess of 200 flights a day are being denied access to LHR due to "capacity constraints".
Meanwhile, the airlines that LHR needs are scheduling more and more flights to airports outside of London to satisfy demand.
So, from the perspective of an ex-Heathrow user, please continue to promote Heathrow as the only "sensible" alternative and the rest of us will rejoice in the addition of new airlines and destinations to our humble "regional" airports.
HEATHROW IS DEAD, LONG LIVE HEATHROW.
I have used Heathrow many times in the past and Terminal 3 was always a disgrace, Terminal 4 is on another airport, never used Terminal 5, but then I rarely fly BA. Terminals 1 & 2 were adequate. Nowadays, Heathrow is not necessary for those of us who live outside the M25, there are much better alternatives.
If Londoners want an airport to be proud of and which caters for the 21st. Century traveller, then they need an airport that operates 24/7 and has flights to most of the World (most Chinese cities are not catered for by flights from LHR). It would be instructive to know how many flights (scheduled) are being turned down by LHR on a daily basis due to capacity limitations. I'd hazard a guess that in excess of 200 flights a day are being denied access to LHR due to "capacity constraints".
Meanwhile, the airlines that LHR needs are scheduling more and more flights to airports outside of London to satisfy demand.
So, from the perspective of an ex-Heathrow user, please continue to promote Heathrow as the only "sensible" alternative and the rest of us will rejoice in the addition of new airlines and destinations to our humble "regional" airports.
HEATHROW IS DEAD, LONG LIVE HEATHROW.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the Beach,
I have used T5 a number of times and I have been very impressed very spacious, and modern, perhaps we were very lucky, but I would use it again.
As for the rest of the airport ,doesn't the brand new T2 open soon and aren't they then turning there attention to T3, so not sure some of your critisisms of no plan to modernize is completely valid.
Re China ,British and Chinese meeting in Jan to lift number of rotations between the two countries past the current 31. BA alone want to fly to 6 or 7 new Chinese destinations,probably swapping some current slots for short haul for long.
Nigel
I have used T5 a number of times and I have been very impressed very spacious, and modern, perhaps we were very lucky, but I would use it again.
As for the rest of the airport ,doesn't the brand new T2 open soon and aren't they then turning there attention to T3, so not sure some of your critisisms of no plan to modernize is completely valid.
Re China ,British and Chinese meeting in Jan to lift number of rotations between the two countries past the current 31. BA alone want to fly to 6 or 7 new Chinese destinations,probably swapping some current slots for short haul for long.
Nigel
Paxing All Over The World
On the beach That is what I have been saying for the last five years. 
EGLL is a fine example of 'market forces' but not in a way that the Tories envisaged. For, in the past 20 years we have seen:
On that, I saw an amusing story on BBC London TV news on Friday 15th giving the estimate of how much it will cost to relocate the Isle of Grain Natural Gas terminal out of the way of the estury site = £3 Billion.
You will not be surprised to hear that the Mayor's airport advisor (forget his name) said that it would not cost that much and could be done without too much difficulty.
The folks who run the terminal then listed the problems:
So they would have to pay (quote) £3Bil. to replicate the gas terminal - but provide nothing new for that money? Irrespective of whether it was commercail money or govt money - no one is going to handout £3Bil and not want a lot of interest back on top.
EGLL is a fine example of 'market forces' but not in a way that the Tories envisaged. For, in the past 20 years we have seen:
- Demand outstrip supply
- Trading of previously 'free' slots to the detriment of new entries
- Removal of national air links from EGLL
- Due to consistent demand, we stack incoming to the most ridiculous degree that wastes fuel, time and money
- North American Eastern Seaboard now serving direct to Regionals BRS/MAN/GLA
- Middle East carriers now serving direct to MAN
- European carriers (+ LCCs) linking to AMS/FRA/CDG/MUC/MAD
- Diminishing competition
- WW has stated publicly that IAG presumes EGLL will not expand
On that, I saw an amusing story on BBC London TV news on Friday 15th giving the estimate of how much it will cost to relocate the Isle of Grain Natural Gas terminal out of the way of the estury site = £3 Billion.
You will not be surprised to hear that the Mayor's airport advisor (forget his name) said that it would not cost that much and could be done without too much difficulty.
The folks who run the terminal then listed the problems:
- a deep water port for tankers to dock
- build a new storage site
- provide duplicate terminations of the network of underground pipe routes that take the gas across the whole of the south east
- change over
- dismantle the old site and the old network terminations
- clean the site available for development
- without interrupting service
So they would have to pay (quote) £3Bil. to replicate the gas terminal - but provide nothing new for that money? Irrespective of whether it was commercail money or govt money - no one is going to handout £3Bil and not want a lot of interest back on top.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Removal of national air links from EGLL
North American Eastern Seaboard now serving direct to Regionals BRS/MAN/GLA
Middle East carriers now serving direct to MAN
The market has moved and cannot be recalled by EGLL or any Thames project.
You will not be surprised to hear that the Mayor's airport advisor (forget his name)
I have used Heathrow many times in the past and Terminal 3 was always a disgrace, Terminal 4 is on another airport, never used Terminal 5, but then I rarely fly BA. Terminals 1 & 2 were adequate. Nowadays, Heathrow is not necessary for those of us who live outside the M25, there are much better alternatives.
and the rest of us will rejoice in the addition of new airlines and destinations to our humble "regional" airports.
Which airport are you referring to?
Paxing All Over The World
Skipness
Indeed. I didn't think I was suggesting subsidised fares, what I thought I meant was that the lack of capacity has driven the regional flights out due to the lower profits to be made from them.
Had we have had the 3rd optimised for Short Haul across the past 20 years then, I suggest, LHR could have been more of a hub because the regions from PLH to INV. Those routes got thrown out and are one (only one) of the reasons for the traffic going elsewhere.
Naturally, the LCCs have done a fantastic job of providing alternative routes and connections - but EGLL is the poorer because no one was in charge of keeping a national hub capable of taking the demand. The lack of good rail connections also features.
With regards to the M.E. carriers serving all of Europe: I had not mentioned Continental Europe but I am well aware that they are cleaning up there as well.
I think that the LHR market has been moved by a lack of capacity that drove out the regions. Then the LCCs weighed in. The Euro hubs and M.E. hubs have seen the opportunity. And all credit to them.
BUT
Whatever the reasons - LHR might get 3rd but I doubt and certainly not more. The end result will be another fudge with LGW-2 and STN-2 being back in the frame.
I have lived within 30km (19mi) of LHR for 35 years so I am biased in it's favour.
There's no such thing as a "national air link". In the UK we run most routes commercially for profit.
Had we have had the 3rd optimised for Short Haul across the past 20 years then, I suggest, LHR could have been more of a hub because the regions from PLH to INV. Those routes got thrown out and are one (only one) of the reasons for the traffic going elsewhere.
Naturally, the LCCs have done a fantastic job of providing alternative routes and connections - but EGLL is the poorer because no one was in charge of keeping a national hub capable of taking the demand. The lack of good rail connections also features.
With regards to the M.E. carriers serving all of Europe: I had not mentioned Continental Europe but I am well aware that they are cleaning up there as well.
I think that the LHR market has been moved by a lack of capacity that drove out the regions. Then the LCCs weighed in. The Euro hubs and M.E. hubs have seen the opportunity. And all credit to them.
BUT
Whatever the reasons - LHR might get 3rd but I doubt and certainly not more. The end result will be another fudge with LGW-2 and STN-2 being back in the frame.
I have lived within 30km (19mi) of LHR for 35 years so I am biased in it's favour.