New Thames Airport for London
Paxing All Over The World
Silver I hear your situation and do not doubt it but Pay / Salary levels are falling for the great majority of work levels across the Western world. Those on basic (mostly) have a 'floor' that is held and those on the top have no ceiling. The reasons are well documented. 
I am self employed in a very specific area. I am highly experienced (22 + years) and have been an accredited trainer to others (equiivalent to both 'SIM' and Line Training) I am recognised as being in the top 5 of the profession in my geographic area.
BUT ... I have difficulty raising my fees - even in line with inflation - as there are others undercutting me. I won't bore you with the numbers but, across the last five years, my income has not kept pace with inflation in the UK.
The West wanted untramelled free markets? They got it.
To return to the topic:
Irrespective of whether an island is the correct solution - the UK cannot afford it and thus (following the American capitalist method) it will not be built.
I am self employed in a very specific area. I am highly experienced (22 + years) and have been an accredited trainer to others (equiivalent to both 'SIM' and Line Training) I am recognised as being in the top 5 of the profession in my geographic area.
BUT ... I have difficulty raising my fees - even in line with inflation - as there are others undercutting me. I won't bore you with the numbers but, across the last five years, my income has not kept pace with inflation in the UK.
The West wanted untramelled free markets? They got it.
To return to the topic:
Irrespective of whether an island is the correct solution - the UK cannot afford it and thus (following the American capitalist method) it will not be built.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdeal:
Aparently the FR pilot was on 124,000 euros/year, what's that, about £100,000? Still lousy treatment though.
Aparently the FR pilot was on 124,000 euros/year, what's that, about £100,000? Still lousy treatment though.
But the point still stands.
Saying you cannot build Silver-Boris in the Thames estuary because some lard-arse cannot move house, is the poorest excuse ever. In fact, if that were a legitimate reason for not creating new infrastructure or developing a new company, then you may as well just close down the entire nation. Turn off the lights, and all move to Africa - because I hear that the Liberal Party wants everyone to live in mud-huts 'in-tune-with-nature' anyway.
Silver
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So British or American? For the umpteenth time and why so evasive?
You're intentionally mixing up your own off target career with everyone in the industry. Some people did better, I think you know that.
Also to dismiss tens of thousands of workers as "lard arses" simply because they won't move housing and schools 60 miles across some of the most expensive land in Europe makes you sound almost cold and uncharitable.
I want to give you a wee Christmas hug and tell you it'll all be OK!
However for the record, not only will we not build this crazy folly, we're not going to name it after you. You should know that.
You're intentionally mixing up your own off target career with everyone in the industry. Some people did better, I think you know that.
Also to dismiss tens of thousands of workers as "lard arses" simply because they won't move housing and schools 60 miles across some of the most expensive land in Europe makes you sound almost cold and uncharitable.
I want to give you a wee Christmas hug and tell you it'll all be OK!
However for the record, not only will we not build this crazy folly, we're not going to name it after you. You should know that.
Paxing All Over The World
silverstrata
It isn't and you know it! 
Many of us have listed ten good reasons why it won't be built and the jobs of the 'blue collar' workers is only one of them. However, regular PPRuNers know that you continually move your argument and fail to debate these points. I have tried to engage you in discussion, I really have but now you can congratulate yourself that yet another feeble Brit has caved in and your non-arguments rule triumphant.
Go and buy a chunk of the Isle of Grain and wait for the positive selection of the area for the Island and make your money. Then you won't have to complain about being a poor person who is still employed in the biggest dperession era - since the Depression era. (All the result of unfettered capitalism and the ghastly politicians on both sodes of the Atlantic who let them have their wicked way with out salaries and pensions. NO, I am not a Socialist, just to save you the trouble. NO, I am not a Conservative and NO the Liberals have also got it wrong.)
Saying you cannot build Silver-Boris in the Thames estuary because some lard-arse cannot move house, is the poorest excuse ever.
Many of us have listed ten good reasons why it won't be built and the jobs of the 'blue collar' workers is only one of them. However, regular PPRuNers know that you continually move your argument and fail to debate these points. I have tried to engage you in discussion, I really have but now you can congratulate yourself that yet another feeble Brit has caved in and your non-arguments rule triumphant.
Go and buy a chunk of the Isle of Grain and wait for the positive selection of the area for the Island and make your money. Then you won't have to complain about being a poor person who is still employed in the biggest dperession era - since the Depression era. (All the result of unfettered capitalism and the ghastly politicians on both sodes of the Atlantic who let them have their wicked way with out salaries and pensions. NO, I am not a Socialist, just to save you the trouble. NO, I am not a Conservative and NO the Liberals have also got it wrong.)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saying you cannot build Silver-Boris in the Thames estuary because some lard-arse cannot move house, is the poorest excuse ever. In fact, if that were a legitimate reason for not creating new infrastructure or developing a new company, then you may as well just close down the entire nation. Turn off the lights, and all move to Africa - because I hear that the Liberal Party wants everyone to live in mud-huts 'in-tune-with-nature' anyway.
NO, I am not a Socialist, just to save you the trouble. NO, I am not a Conservative and NO the Liberals have also got it wrong.)
Perhaps it comes under "Conservative". Apart from the wars of choice, it's difficult to tell the difference.
Think most of us would be regarded as "none of the above" these days.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Doncaster
Age: 63
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if Silver-Boris' will be connected to the capital by Lord Fester's ingenious aerial-cycleway?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boris is still pushing the Silver-Boris airport proposal.
Some interesting quotes from Boris' representative:
He said it was "absurd" that Johnson's office was treated "on a par with a private company motivated by commercial interests" when planning for expansion of London's infrastructure was a key part of the mayor's powers and responsibilities.
The decision had to involve the mayor, who was the only politician "articulating the public interest" among the private firms, he said, adding that: "while the commission was supposed to be independent, it was in danger of becoming independent of the real world".
Moylan said Johnson was "profoundly unsettled" by the interim report in December, which drew up a shortlist of possible airport expansion plans. This contained two different runway options at Heathrow and another at Gatwick, while rejecting the mayor's proposals for a four-runway Stansted – "for flimsy reasons", said Moylan – and promising only to continue reviewing evidence for a Thames estuary option – a concession widely seen as a last-minute political fudge.
Boris Johnson: commission's stance on airport expansion contradictory | Politics | The Guardian
I get the impression that Cameron does not want this major and controversial airport proposal and decision hanging over the next election, and so he has squashed it by getting the commission to reject Boris' proposals - which leaves both Boris and his proposals hanging out to dry.
So once more we get decisions made for political expediency rather than the national interest. It is like Blair who said we needed new nuclear power stations back in '98, and then did nothing for the next 14 years because it was a political hot-potato. So because Blair wanted to be nice to the electorate, and get reelected - and because Cameron wanted to be nice to the electorate, hug a few huskies, and get elected - the lights will start going out in 2018.
This is not lions being led by donkeys, it is lions being led by amoebas with a nice smile.
Silver
Some interesting quotes from Boris' representative:
He said it was "absurd" that Johnson's office was treated "on a par with a private company motivated by commercial interests" when planning for expansion of London's infrastructure was a key part of the mayor's powers and responsibilities.
The decision had to involve the mayor, who was the only politician "articulating the public interest" among the private firms, he said, adding that: "while the commission was supposed to be independent, it was in danger of becoming independent of the real world".
Moylan said Johnson was "profoundly unsettled" by the interim report in December, which drew up a shortlist of possible airport expansion plans. This contained two different runway options at Heathrow and another at Gatwick, while rejecting the mayor's proposals for a four-runway Stansted – "for flimsy reasons", said Moylan – and promising only to continue reviewing evidence for a Thames estuary option – a concession widely seen as a last-minute political fudge.
Boris Johnson: commission's stance on airport expansion contradictory | Politics | The Guardian
I get the impression that Cameron does not want this major and controversial airport proposal and decision hanging over the next election, and so he has squashed it by getting the commission to reject Boris' proposals - which leaves both Boris and his proposals hanging out to dry.
So once more we get decisions made for political expediency rather than the national interest. It is like Blair who said we needed new nuclear power stations back in '98, and then did nothing for the next 14 years because it was a political hot-potato. So because Blair wanted to be nice to the electorate, and get reelected - and because Cameron wanted to be nice to the electorate, hug a few huskies, and get elected - the lights will start going out in 2018.
This is not lions being led by donkeys, it is lions being led by amoebas with a nice smile.
Silver
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New York
Age: 44
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Know everybody
Boris Island fails to make Airports Commission shortlist.
Blow for the Mayor of London as his proposal of a Thames Estuary airport is excluded as "there are too many uncertainties and challenges".
Blow for the Mayor of London as his proposal of a Thames Estuary airport is excluded as "there are too many uncertainties and challenges".
Boris Island fails to make Airports Commission shortlist.
Blow for the Mayor of London as his proposal of a Thames Estuary airport is excluded as "there are too many uncertainties and challenges".
Blow for the Mayor of London as his proposal of a Thames Estuary airport is excluded as "there are too many uncertainties and challenges".
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
landing over water
For those of you who want a UK hub where aircraft land over water (yes, that's you Silver), just wait till Heathrow is next on easterly operations and you've got it it.
Paxing All Over The World
In the plans for Boris island - what allowance did they make for water level increase????
I know that on eplanned included another Thames Barrier but can anyone point me to where they gave an allowance for estury heights?
I know that on eplanned included another Thames Barrier but can anyone point me to where they gave an allowance for estury heights?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New report (commissioned by TfL 
) just released which seeks to make the case for Boris Island, or at least for a brand-new four-runway hub.
A bit of bait-and-switch argumentation on Page 6. The argument is that a new hub is necessary to provide enough capacity for connections to the UK regions. The heading is "Why does domestic air connectivity matter?" but the discussion goes on to describe why connectivity matters in general. In other words, good connectivity via AMS (for example) would deliver most of the same benefits.
The report is trying to make the case that new UK regional services would be possible, but it looks like magical thinking to me. For example, it proposes that a new Durham Tees Valley service would be feasible, 4 times a day, with 450,000 passengers a year by 2050. Most of these would be connecting because "the London-bound market is relatively weak given the level of rail competition", but all the same, despite this 4/day 450,000 passenger hub connection, "the viability of other hub services from Durham Tees Valley is not expected to be significantly affected." Hmm. That's convenient - let's just avoid the displacement argument by assuming there is none.
Given the nice graphics and the emphasis on economic benefits for the UK regions, expect lots of news stories in the regional press in the coming days about how a brand new hub such as Boris Island is a great idea (which is undoubtedly the purpose of producing the report).
) just released which seeks to make the case for Boris Island, or at least for a brand-new four-runway hub.A bit of bait-and-switch argumentation on Page 6. The argument is that a new hub is necessary to provide enough capacity for connections to the UK regions. The heading is "Why does domestic air connectivity matter?" but the discussion goes on to describe why connectivity matters in general. In other words, good connectivity via AMS (for example) would deliver most of the same benefits.
The report is trying to make the case that new UK regional services would be possible, but it looks like magical thinking to me. For example, it proposes that a new Durham Tees Valley service would be feasible, 4 times a day, with 450,000 passengers a year by 2050. Most of these would be connecting because "the London-bound market is relatively weak given the level of rail competition", but all the same, despite this 4/day 450,000 passenger hub connection, "the viability of other hub services from Durham Tees Valley is not expected to be significantly affected." Hmm. That's convenient - let's just avoid the displacement argument by assuming there is none.
Given the nice graphics and the emphasis on economic benefits for the UK regions, expect lots of news stories in the regional press in the coming days about how a brand new hub such as Boris Island is a great idea (which is undoubtedly the purpose of producing the report).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agreed on the regional airports - with Darlington a lot less than 3 hours from Kings X by train the only passengers you'd see at either LHR or Boris Island would be interlining
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report is trying to make the case that new UK regional services would be possible, but it looks like magical thinking to me. For example, it proposes that a new Durham Tees Valley service would be feasible, 4 times a day, with 450,000 passengers a year by 2050. Most of these would be connecting because "the London-bound market is relatively weak given the level of rail competition", but all the same, despite this 4/day 450,000 passenger hub connection, "the viability of other hub services from Durham Tees Valley is not expected to be significantly affected." Hmm. That's convenient - let's just avoid the displacement argument by assuming there is none.
The document is fatuous piece of nonsense with no evidence to back up it's assertions. Their airports advisor has no background in aviation, so this is to be expected.
Airports policy is not the remit of TFL/mayor/assembly, it is the province of central government. Time to stop wasting ratepayers' money.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London
Age: 31
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally believe that the third runway option at Heathrow is the best proposal in terms of expansion. The Thames Estuary airport seems to be quite a long way from London. One of the great things about Heathrow airport is that it is situated not so far from London. (Roughly 40 min).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The great thing (if you are using it) about LHR is that it is close to W London
The bad thing (if you live there) about LHR is that it is close to W London
When you think of all the new airports built worldwide since the 60's (Changi, Jakarta, HK, CDG, Oslo, Atlanta, DFW.....) it's a dreadful shame we didn't close LHR in the late 60's
The bad thing (if you live there) about LHR is that it is close to W London
When you think of all the new airports built worldwide since the 60's (Changi, Jakarta, HK, CDG, Oslo, Atlanta, DFW.....) it's a dreadful shame we didn't close LHR in the late 60's
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But a Thames airport could feasibly be less than 20 minutes away by high speed train/maglev...
Particular attention to all the business, of which I work for one who rely on the proximity of LHR for international connections and based all the way from Canary Wharf from Canary Wharf to Bristol. A "High Speed Rail Link" is going to be little use. Also such an uncosted undertaking is dangerous. HS2 is already a massive capital expenditure in itself and we really need Crossrail 2, so the idea of another expensive train set going from Fantasy Island connecting all those other places it needs to and not just central London is frankly ball breakingly expensive even in the best of times.
These are not the best of times......
The taxpayer makes millionaires of enough railway fatcat already (Hi Richard!), thanks very much.
Main problem is political airheads with no project management credibility or real world experience. Boris Johnson has never once in his life held down what we would recognise as a "real job". Even editing The Spectator was more of a hobby.