New Thames Airport for London

[PAXboy]

Fairdealfrank

So 2 more rwys at LHR is the only sensible and viable option, and "do-nothing" the most likely outcome?

In my view - Yes.

Everything I have seen in UK politics and media (still pretty much one and the same!) in my adult life, point to no action taken until it is too late. At that point the project may still go ahead but it's viability will be tarnished and lead to the triumph of the "I told you so" variety. Whereas, 30 years earlier, that would not have been true.

Another example: HS2 ...

[DaveReidUK]

So 2 more rwys at LHR is the only sensible and viable option?

It's interesting that the Airports Commission ruled out not only the full-scale 4-runway LHR option, but also the variant of Heathrow's own northwest R3 proposal that would have accommodated an eventual NW R4 as well.

That, combined with the dismissal of the SW runway option (the only site that would be left to add a 4th runway) because of the impact on the reservoirs and the flood plain, would suggest that there is no political will for 2 more runways, with consequent pressure on Davies to rule out any such option.

[silverstrata]

Discussion on the beeb (R5) has suggested that the growth in recent years has been attributable to LoCos. Diverting these to Gatwick (and Stansted) - with, perhaps, a further runway for Gatwick, might release sufficient slots from Heathrow to obviate the need for expansion there.

Even if there were any LoCos in LHR, moving them out would DEFEAT the object.

We do not need more runways in the S.E., we need an interlining hub. There is no point arriving at Heathrow on your super A380, if you then have to take a taxi to Bordeaux. Although I hate LoCos, connectivity is the whole basis for a hub - both surface and air connectivity.

This is why LHR is the last place you want to arrive at, because once there, you are stuck. Tube to central London, and that is about it. A Silver-Boris Estuary airport (if designed properly) could whisk you by TGV to all nearby points of the compass, while 'domestic' flights could cover most of Europe - all from the same (two) terminals.

Boris is right. Expanding Heathrow would be perpetuating a planning error made 60 years ago, and will lead to the impoverishment of the S.E. and the UK as a whole.

Silver

[silverstrata]

Paxboy:

How do you calculate the cost of court cases / compensation for:

>> The 'blue collar' workers who cannot move their families across the city.

If you cannot be bothered to move, you don't deserve a job. If I as a captain have been forced by aviation to have eight homes in fifteen years, I don't see why a loader should get a better deal.




>>All the companies along the M4 corridor (100+ miles)

Likewise. Sh!t happens in business, and you deal with it. How many airlines have had to relocate their bases at the drop of a hat, because economic conditions have changed or some predatory airline has set up shop next door?



>>All the houses that have suddenly depreciated in value.

Most will appreciate in value, not depreciate. There is something like a 50% discount over normal prices, for houses blighted by noise nuisance.




>>All the residents of those houses who use LHR frequently
>>and would find themselves on the wrong side of London for the airport.

That is what CrossRail is for. If CrossRail does not link up the LHR site, with the Kings Cross HS2, and with the new Silver-Boris airport, then there are plenty of lampposts around for the architects of such a disaster.



>>All the other airlines forced to move.

Every airline moves all the time - bases here, bases there. Why do you think I have had eight homes in fifteen years? If any legacy carrier is so fat dumb and happy to not want to move, they don't deserve to be in business.


Silver

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal:

The entire concept of the viability of an estuary airport makes the assumption that the owners of LHR Ltd. would agree to close their very profitable airport, and sell the asset for non-airport use.

WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS?

Because you compulsory purchase LHR and give the Churchillian salute to the owner. You then sell off the old LHR site to a property and business developer, and pocket a £5 billion profit on the deal. Job done.

Next question.


Silver

[Hobo]

silverstrata

Well said.

In any case, under what power could court cases be brought for most, if not all, of paxboy's examples?

[DaveReidUK]

Because you compulsory purchase LHR and give the Churchillian salute to the owner.

Which, ironically, is exactly what happened to those living in the hamlets of Heath Row and Perry Oaks in 1944.

[c52]

If I were the shareholders of Heathrow, I'd be rather interested in the notion that it could be sold for redeveloment for £45bn.

[Skipness One Echo]

If you cannot be bothered to move, you don't deserve a job. If I as a captain

Spoken like a man in a high income bracket sir. Tens of thousands of blue collar workers would lose their jobs with a LHR closure. I assume when all have to move like you did, there will be affordable schools and housing?

We're not interested in what you did, we need to address the real, likely and quantifiable fall out from the proposal you are putting forward. I am assuming you are American btw with that attitude? Sod the poor and less well off, they can rot?

You should try living in London instead of being a keyboard fantasist sometimes.
I despair at the simplicity of some people on here.

If I were the shareholders of Heathrow, I'd be rather interested in the notion that it could be sold for re-develoment for £45bn.

Who's going to live here? You've just closed the major local employer, chucked tens of thousands of blue collar workers on the dole and now you want to build nice new shiny houses for incomers to watch their asset value appreciate whilst doing little more than living in a house unaffordable to the masses you have just made unemployed? I say this as something of a right winger but let's please learn from the mistakes of the 1980s and not repeat them? Social cohesion is breaking down all across London, made worse by the (correct decision) to cap benefits. This just makes that very reall social issue much, much worse.

"Mortgage Sir? Oh you lost your job? Shame, too bad, move on please..."

Why do you think I have had eight homes in fifteen years?

So ' cos your life is a disorganised mess everyone should be forced to share your pain? Sort yourself out Captain Calamity! One assumes a long list of employers thought your attitude deserved the old

Churchillian salute

?

[PAXboy]

Hobo

In any case, under what power could court cases be brought for most, if not all, of paxboy's examples?

The 'power' or 'law' or 'objection' could be chosen at random - the only objective would be to get more money! They would aim to push the govt into court to get more negative publicity and to delay the project. Once they get bought off they would stop.

Money, nothing else.

[c52]

Telstra (?) or whoever is behind one East London airport scheme is claiming that LHR could net £45 bn.

Boris Johnson said in an interview with last night's Standard that the population of London has risen by 600,000 since he became mayor, so there are some people who'd maybe buy new housing.

But I do agree that the social upheaval of closing down all the LHR jobs is unimaginable. Unlike others, I find an additional runway, and even the continuing existence of the airport, equally appalling.

[PAXboy]

Looks like this was a success ... Boris Johnson's £60m cable cars used regularly by just four commuters - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

[Skipness One Echo]

Unlike others, I find an additional runway, and even the continuing existence of the airport, equally appalling.

Genuine question, why? You're not local so just curious.

[c52]

I run a lot in London, and just about everywhere there's a steady whine of jet engines.

My daughter lives exactly under the approach to 27L at Barnes with a great view of landing planes through the skylight in her bathroom, and it's not much quieter when they're on 27R.

I see 747s landing at 04:30 on FR24, and think, the 300 people in that thing are possibly disturbing the sleep of 100,000 people or more. It's just not right.

Add the fear that a plane will crash somewhere on its approach and the whole thing is a nightmare.

And as a passenger, the journey to LHR is misery, unless you happen to live in Paddington.

In my own mind, I would swap a third runway for the airport opening hours being changed to strictly 0700-2230.

And living where I do, 6 miles N of Gatwick, there's more noise from Heathrow traffic than from Gatwick's.

[dc9-32]

It makes no sense to expand (or try to expand) Heathrow. There is no room and moving the M25 is just another idiotic idea from the people who are allegedly running this country. MP's are clueless and come up with these ideas just to keep themselves in jobs.


Stansted is by far the most sensible airport to expand as it already has most of the infrastructure in place, has room for expansion and would cost the tax payer much less money and disruption.


Mind you, nobody will listen to anything anyone says as it does not suit the MP's !

[Skipness One Echo]

I see 747s landing at 04:30 on FR24, and think, the 300 people in that thing are possibly disturbing the sleep of 100,000 people or more. It's just not right.

Fair point, how about a third runway and a 6am cut off point then? There's only 10-12 arrivals before 6am anyway, and as I said, the airport has been there since 1947. Incidentally I have a lot of friends in Richmond / Twickenham to whom it's all just background noise and get's zoned out. Much of the fuss is genuinely from newcomers.

Add the fear that a plane will crash somewhere on its approach and the whole thing is a nightmare.

I think that's a little extreme, but that's life. I think we need to be grown up and deal with the risks, quantify them and live with what we can afford. Lockerbie was not on the approach to any airport and the Korean B747 that crashed departing out of Stansted could have crashed anywhere.

I live at Canary Wharf so I get LHR arrivals putting on the power to turn final and LCY departures. My ideal would be a lot quieter but I think we need to be pragmatic and accept our ideals were mortgaged years ago and we're now mired in debt. Just last week Network Rail's debt was added back onto the books after being "off books" debt under the magical Gordon Brown. I think we have to live within our means.

Stansted is by far the most sensible airport to expand as it already has most of the infrastructure in place, has room for expansion and would cost the tax payer much less money and disruption.

The market won't use it. No one wants to fly from there, it was built in 1991 and has sat semi empty for 22 years, it's now the best equipped Ryanair airport anywhere. How can STN be the answer to hub capacity? You're making the classic error of mixing together airport capacity with hub capacity and connectivity, they linked but separate concepts.

[Heathrow Harry]

One of the guys who was involved in the old Roskill report wrote itneh Times yesterday that the aviation industry needs to find some way of compensating people affected by noise


but of course they can't afford to so they won't and so everyone is against them

[The SSK]

I wonder how the property valued per m2 in Barnes, Chiswick, Richmond etc compare with, say, Ealing, Hanworth, Wembley?

[Fairdealfrank]

Cublington or Hadenham - 4 runway airport somewhere near Aylesbury is the answer. It would have been easy of we started 40 years ago

Like Foulness/Maplin, Cublington was intended as a THIRD London airport, not a Heathrow replacement. Anyway it's way too far out: can't have an airport named "London-Cublington" if one named "London-Oxford" is criticised.

Apart from technical, environmental, strategic and other issues, the estuary airport's case fails mainly because it cannot survive if Heathrow remains.

Even if there were any LoCos in LHR, moving them out would DEFEAT the object.

Can't be done, EU openskies won't allow it. No frills carriers can and do operate at hub airports. The reasons they are not currently at LHR are commercial, not regulatory.

Because you compulsory purchase LHR and give the Churchillian salute to the owner. You then sell off the old LHR site to a property and business developer, and pocket a £5 billion profit on the deal. Job done.

Next question.

No one has the money for this, Churchillian salutes notwithstanding, it's also not a good use of public money.

No one has the time for costly legal challenges, public enquiries and years of litigation (expect top lawyers, of course).

It's true, Silver, you really don't have any answers!

Incidentally I have a lot of friends in Richmond / Twickenham to whom it's all just background noise and get's zoned out. Much of the fuss is genuinely from newcomers.

Who really cannot really pretend not to know about aircraft noise when they spent their extensive wedges to buy under the flightpath.

I wonder how the property valued per m2 in Barnes, Chiswick, Richmond etc compare with, say, Ealing, Hanworth, Wembley?

Indeed, if it's so bad living under the flightpath, why are properties there so expensive?!

By the way, although not in the same property-price league as the flightpath towns, Ealing, Hanworth, Wembley are not exactly cheap either.

[PAXboy]

I have lived:

1. Under the Westerly approach to LHR 1979-1984 (inc Concorde and the older generation of jets!) There was also a railway line at the bottom of the garden!
2. Under the Westerly climb out from LTN 1988-2002 (more night flights than LHR!)
3. Under the Easterly climb out from LHR 2012-2013
4. Currently living under the northerly London turn-in over Finchley area

In all of these locations, the greatest noise and disturbance to me has been from:

• cars
• lorries reversing
• emergency vehicle sirens
• children/youths/drunks in the street outside
• parties in the neighbours house
• people kocking on the door to sell me things or desirous of converting me to their religion
• refuse collection trucks at 05:30 are closer and louder than a/c overhead AND the truck is around longer.

That is life. Scottish islands are available for rent ...