New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also see a third runway at LHR as by far the best and realistically only option. LGW is not the right place for a new runway neither is STN or LTN. The Thames Estuary is a stupendously more expensive idea, would take absolutely years to build and somewhat unnecessary to need take the issue anywhere near that far.
Indeed the Thames Estuary could have high speed rail into London in 20 minutes, but what about those originating in the UK or not travelling to/from London? I live in the Midlands, LHR is less than 2 hours away on a good day, the Thames Estuary would be 3 hours or more! It's not the right place for an airport. Why not build a high speed underground link from LHR to London which takes less than 10 minutes?
As for LGW, what does that achieve? A split hub operation? I don't think so! FR might move to LGW, W6 might move to LGW, EZY, ZB, TCX etc. might consolidate at LGW. My point is that it would seriously endanger LTN and STN. It would destroy the London "Airport system" whilst expanding LHR would maintain it. Why?
Because LHR adds both hub and indeed point-to-point capacity in it's own right. More to the point it allows airlines from the other airports (mainly LGW) to move into LHR if that is where they want to be. The result is that it would free up slots for airlines who do actually want to fly from LGW (or STN, or LTN etc.) and are not just there because they can't fit into LHR. Effectively you've increased capacity in a more cost efficient way and helping not just LHR but all the other London airports to thrive and build stronger relations with their airline partners.
A second LGW runway would clearly not solve the problem of constrained slot capacity at LHR so you'd still have capacity taken by airlines at LGW who actually want LHR. The extra capacity a second runway would give LGW could quite easily be largely taken by airlines relocating from the north London airports and would only leave STN and LTN to cater for a lot of the "new" capacity (if they were to even survive at all). The end result is spending millions of pounds and you still haven't solved the problem you set out to achieve. It risks actually restricting growth in the longer term future just as much as doing nothing at all.
The same pretty much goes for the Thames Estuary airport unless LHR was to close down and all the business involved with it in West London would have to move! Absolutely crazy!
Indeed the Thames Estuary could have high speed rail into London in 20 minutes, but what about those originating in the UK or not travelling to/from London? I live in the Midlands, LHR is less than 2 hours away on a good day, the Thames Estuary would be 3 hours or more! It's not the right place for an airport. Why not build a high speed underground link from LHR to London which takes less than 10 minutes?
As for LGW, what does that achieve? A split hub operation? I don't think so! FR might move to LGW, W6 might move to LGW, EZY, ZB, TCX etc. might consolidate at LGW. My point is that it would seriously endanger LTN and STN. It would destroy the London "Airport system" whilst expanding LHR would maintain it. Why?
Because LHR adds both hub and indeed point-to-point capacity in it's own right. More to the point it allows airlines from the other airports (mainly LGW) to move into LHR if that is where they want to be. The result is that it would free up slots for airlines who do actually want to fly from LGW (or STN, or LTN etc.) and are not just there because they can't fit into LHR. Effectively you've increased capacity in a more cost efficient way and helping not just LHR but all the other London airports to thrive and build stronger relations with their airline partners.
A second LGW runway would clearly not solve the problem of constrained slot capacity at LHR so you'd still have capacity taken by airlines at LGW who actually want LHR. The extra capacity a second runway would give LGW could quite easily be largely taken by airlines relocating from the north London airports and would only leave STN and LTN to cater for a lot of the "new" capacity (if they were to even survive at all). The end result is spending millions of pounds and you still haven't solved the problem you set out to achieve. It risks actually restricting growth in the longer term future just as much as doing nothing at all.
The same pretty much goes for the Thames Estuary airport unless LHR was to close down and all the business involved with it in West London would have to move! Absolutely crazy!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FRatSTN - your points are well made if you only consider the airline business
if you happen to live in W London there is a whole different set of issues and there have been for years - noise, pollution, traffic.......
politically I doubt it will ever happen - so we either build up other airports in the UK or we build a completely new one far far away from people
if you happen to live in W London there is a whole different set of issues and there have been for years - noise, pollution, traffic.......
politically I doubt it will ever happen - so we either build up other airports in the UK or we build a completely new one far far away from people
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brits might ridicule them for wearing wooden shoes but just perhaps the Dutch have got something right ...
They've got 5, going on 10, runways one side of the motorway (for the big boys to play with) whilst it seems they utilise the runway on the other side of the motorway for all the City Hopper, short haul, "puddle jumper" traffic ... If only UK had such a tidy operation!
They've got 5, going on 10, runways one side of the motorway (for the big boys to play with) whilst it seems they utilise the runway on the other side of the motorway for all the City Hopper, short haul, "puddle jumper" traffic ... If only UK had such a tidy operation!
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
"whilst it seems they utilise the runway on the other side of the motorway for all the City Hopper, short haul, "puddle jumper" traffic
And a 20 minute taxi before/after take off/landing. Welcome to Heathrow's third runway.
And a 20 minute taxi before/after take off/landing. Welcome to Heathrow's third runway.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Thames estuary airport will be attached to Kent. Anyone travelling from the north or west to our nations hub airport , Which is pretty much everyone...
will at some stage have to cross the Thames. Now you could take the maglev or use the star trek transporter which will be available ten years earlier ..
Other wise you need the A 130 to become a motorway n cross the river at canvey or pitsea. The a13 and a127 will both need two more lanes each way and the M11 will need a five lane spur via Chelmsford into the estuary.
Numerous tunnels under the Thames ,, oh what's the point. Heathrow runway 3 and 4. Just get on with it
will at some stage have to cross the Thames. Now you could take the maglev or use the star trek transporter which will be available ten years earlier ..
Other wise you need the A 130 to become a motorway n cross the river at canvey or pitsea. The a13 and a127 will both need two more lanes each way and the M11 will need a five lane spur via Chelmsford into the estuary.
Numerous tunnels under the Thames ,, oh what's the point. Heathrow runway 3 and 4. Just get on with it
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dodging Flybe at EHASC
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Thames Airport is not going to happen. As much as I hate the idea the railway infrastructure planning which is going on is pointing to an expansion of the Heathrow on it's current site.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London
Age: 31
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its safe to say that what Lord Foster (I think thats his name) has pitched is a very ambitious idea.
The HS train that will run from the airport will also cost a fortune to travel on. As most of you are probably aware, the Gatwick Express costs a huge amount of money to travel on, and the journey is still quite long. The London Underground connection at Heathrow means people can travel to London for a much cheaper fare (although its still not so cheap).
The HS train that will run from the airport will also cost a fortune to travel on. As most of you are probably aware, the Gatwick Express costs a huge amount of money to travel on, and the journey is still quite long. The London Underground connection at Heathrow means people can travel to London for a much cheaper fare (although its still not so cheap).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baltasound - you are assuming joined up thinking in the Transport industry - in BRITAIN???????? 
the same people who sold the land on the WCML held back for the Heathrow Express extension chord to Reading...........................
the same people who sold the land on the WCML held back for the Heathrow Express extension chord to Reading...........................
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a 20 minute taxi before/after take off/landing. Welcome to Heathrow's third runway.
Paxing All Over The World
Thread drift, I recall a particular evening leaving JFK when there was heavy traffic and much 'shuffling forward'. From Push to turning on to the active was 55 minutes.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
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).
Heathrow is 20 mi. west of London, the estuary airport is 40-70 mi. east, depending on the site.
But a Thames airport could feasibly be less than 20 minutes away by high speed train/maglev...
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
if you happen to live in W London there is a whole different set of issues and there have been for years - noise, pollution, traffic.......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boris still pushing
Boris:
Well, the Mayor is still pushing for a Thames Airport, despite all the controversy. Which I have to say is a brave thing for a politician to do in this era of vacuous popularity-politics. Blair would have just gone along with the latest opinion poll - anything an opportunity to give that inane grin and gain a vote or two.
This time Boris has got himself likened to Ado!f H!tler and Albert Speer, and their grandiose vision for Berlin:
Boris Johnson's plan to replace Heathrow with £65bn Thames Estuary airport are as 'grandiose as Hitler's' | Mail Online
However, I find this a strange attitude. Of all the many gross and deplorable errors of the Third Reich, having a grand vision for your nation, cities and your people was not one of them.
Oh that we had had an equivalent of Albert Speer who could have:
• Put Birmingham Airport in the right place outside the city.
• Orientated Birmingham airport runway in the correct direction (into wind and not over the city).
• Put LHR in the correct location to the NW of London (Watford-ish), with runways orientated to the SW (into wind and not over the city).
• Laughed out loud, when someone suggested expanding Leeds.
• Had apoplexy when someone suggested that expanding Bristol Lulsgate was better than expanding Bristol Filton.
• Questioned ministers' sanity, when they suggested selling off viable RAF airfields, instead of converting them to civil use (after all we, the people, had spent a lot of money on these airfields).
• Built the new terminal at Manch, on the correct (south) side of the runway. (It was obvious that any new runway would have to be south side.) The current layout is a Tenerife disaster waiting to happen.
So where was our 1950s Boris Speer-Johnson - an architect or politician with vision, who could have righted the many wrongs of present UK aviation? Why did politicians blunder on with so many worthless projects, because they were not man enough or brave enough to put their heads above the parapet. (Resulting in the UK being the only major nation in Europe without a high speed train system). The self-serving idiots of Westminster have cost this nation dear.
Silver
Well, the Mayor is still pushing for a Thames Airport, despite all the controversy. Which I have to say is a brave thing for a politician to do in this era of vacuous popularity-politics. Blair would have just gone along with the latest opinion poll - anything an opportunity to give that inane grin and gain a vote or two.
This time Boris has got himself likened to Ado!f H!tler and Albert Speer, and their grandiose vision for Berlin:
Boris Johnson's plan to replace Heathrow with £65bn Thames Estuary airport are as 'grandiose as Hitler's' | Mail Online
However, I find this a strange attitude. Of all the many gross and deplorable errors of the Third Reich, having a grand vision for your nation, cities and your people was not one of them.
Oh that we had had an equivalent of Albert Speer who could have:
• Put Birmingham Airport in the right place outside the city.
• Orientated Birmingham airport runway in the correct direction (into wind and not over the city).
• Put LHR in the correct location to the NW of London (Watford-ish), with runways orientated to the SW (into wind and not over the city).
• Laughed out loud, when someone suggested expanding Leeds.
• Had apoplexy when someone suggested that expanding Bristol Lulsgate was better than expanding Bristol Filton.
• Questioned ministers' sanity, when they suggested selling off viable RAF airfields, instead of converting them to civil use (after all we, the people, had spent a lot of money on these airfields).
• Built the new terminal at Manch, on the correct (south) side of the runway. (It was obvious that any new runway would have to be south side.) The current layout is a Tenerife disaster waiting to happen.
So where was our 1950s Boris Speer-Johnson - an architect or politician with vision, who could have righted the many wrongs of present UK aviation? Why did politicians blunder on with so many worthless projects, because they were not man enough or brave enough to put their heads above the parapet. (Resulting in the UK being the only major nation in Europe without a high speed train system). The self-serving idiots of Westminster have cost this nation dear.
Silver
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Brits don't believe in big planning. We favour incremental development. Boris is an unusual politician and doing Boris's Island would be very much out of character for Britain. The difficulties have been greatly accentuated with the privatisation of both airlines and airports which produces a strong pattern of vested commercial interests against fundamental change. Even doing runway 3 (or R2 at Gatwick) will be a big ask of the system.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hitler 's grandiose visions for his country and.it's infrastructure were entirely predicated on the misappropriation / theft of other country's resources and the use of slave labour for construction. All to serve his own megalomania.
While Johnson appears not to have the same criminal tendencies as Hitler, he seems to share his love of gestural politics, which actually make no economic sense at all.
While Johnson appears not to have the same criminal tendencies as Hitler, he seems to share his love of gestural politics, which actually make no economic sense at all.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone use the Hitler card, this person shows he has lost the discussion it is said - sorry Sir Terry.
You can blame the nazis for monstrous many awful things, but if you look at what they did to their infrastructure before the war, some of this plays an important part of the German infrastructure of today. Large parts of today's German motorway stucture is based on what was started in 1925 under the Weimar Government and further refined under the nazis after 1933. The nazis said they needed these Reichsautobahns to move men and material, but they never played a vital role in the war effort something Speer concluded with, after Todt died in February 1942, and stopped at 2,400 miles of them.
To bring this back to London and its airports. Except for London City Airport, all of today's airports played a vital role during the Second World War as RAF airfields. After the war this was a vital advantage and head start for Britain and London. Today these airports are major restraints for a futher development of Britain's aviation industry and for London to play a vital part in the world economy in the future. The only conclusion for me is to find one location for one London airport that can be used for the next 60 years - an airport that can play a vital role in uniting Britain.
You can blame the nazis for monstrous many awful things, but if you look at what they did to their infrastructure before the war, some of this plays an important part of the German infrastructure of today. Large parts of today's German motorway stucture is based on what was started in 1925 under the Weimar Government and further refined under the nazis after 1933. The nazis said they needed these Reichsautobahns to move men and material, but they never played a vital role in the war effort something Speer concluded with, after Todt died in February 1942, and stopped at 2,400 miles of them.
To bring this back to London and its airports. Except for London City Airport, all of today's airports played a vital role during the Second World War as RAF airfields. After the war this was a vital advantage and head start for Britain and London. Today these airports are major restraints for a futher development of Britain's aviation industry and for London to play a vital part in the world economy in the future. The only conclusion for me is to find one location for one London airport that can be used for the next 60 years - an airport that can play a vital role in uniting Britain.
Paxing All Over The World
anothertyke, Yes I think that's right. But, since WWII, we have slavishly followed the American way of doing things.
So the 'hands-off let the market decide' along with "Surely, we can get this for less?" and "Surely, we can get more money for this?" has not helped.
So the 'hands-off let the market decide' along with "Surely, we can get this for less?" and "Surely, we can get more money for this?" has not helped.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LN-KGL are you suggesting the throughout of LHR/LGW/STN/LTN/LCY et al can be put through one site within travelling distance of London without costing tens of thousands of direct and indirect job losses around each airport and all along the M4 corridor to Bristol?