New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are airports for creating as many jobs as possible in their respective local communities or are airports for passengers that want to travel to or from a destinations as smooth as possible? I think it is the latter.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not "Blight" Frank - they just don't like all those aeroplanes over head
Why do you think Boris held his anti-Heathrow meeting (rally?) at Barnes rather than at a location such as Cranford, near the rwy threshold, where there may actually might be some aircraft noise?
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.
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.
But how serious is he in reality? He couldn't be bothered to appoint an "aviation adviser" who has any aviation experience. That says it all.
In truth, it's classic gesture politics. Chances are that this nonsense will die a death if/when Boris decides to go back into Parliament.
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.
The "American way of doing things" as far as airports are concerned is publicly owned airports, usually in local council ownership.
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?
Are airports for creating as many jobs as possible in their respective local communities or are airports for passengers that want to travel to or from a destinations as smooth as possible? I think it is the latte
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skippy:
Bumping the last post so more people read silver's appreciation for Albert Speer. 'Nuff said.
Bumping the last post so more people read silver's appreciation for Albert Speer. 'Nuff said.
So who would you prefer:
… Albert Speer, who had a grand plan for German infrastructure.
… Bliar and Moron, who have led the nation to infrastructural impoverishment.
Our airports are a disgrace; our fine old RAF airfields lie abandoned; our shipping ports are in locations with no unions and not where they should be; our trains are an overcrowded disgrace; our regional railways have been torn up; our industry has been allowed to rot; our cycle paths are non-existent; our proposed high speed rail links don't even join up; cross rail is a line from nowhere to nowhere; our towns have expanded sideways, with not a thought to the future of the nation; our roads have become cinder-tracks; our housing stock is the oldest in mainstream Europe; our city centers are boarded up.
I ask you, just what have Bliar, Moron and that cretin with a nervous twitch, done for this nation? Give us Speer any day, in preference to the cretins (some of us) have voted for.
Silver
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who would you prefer:
… Albert Speer, who had a grand plan for German infrastructure.
… Bliar and Moron, who have led the nation to infrastructural impoverishment.
Our airports are a disgrace; our fine old RAF airfields lie abandoned; our shipping ports are in locations with no unions and not where they should be; our trains are an overcrowded disgrace; our regional railways have been torn up; our industry has been allowed to rot; our cycle paths are non-existent; our proposed high speed rail links don't even join up; cross rail is a line from nowhere to nowhere; our towns have expanded sideways, with not a thought to the future of the nation; our roads have become cinder-tracks; our housing stock is the oldest in mainstream Europe; our city centers are boarded up.
I ask you, just what have Bliar, Moron and that cretin with a nervous twitch, done for this nation? Give us Speer any day, in preference to the cretins (some of us) have voted for.
Silver
… Albert Speer, who had a grand plan for German infrastructure.
… Bliar and Moron, who have led the nation to infrastructural impoverishment.
Our airports are a disgrace; our fine old RAF airfields lie abandoned; our shipping ports are in locations with no unions and not where they should be; our trains are an overcrowded disgrace; our regional railways have been torn up; our industry has been allowed to rot; our cycle paths are non-existent; our proposed high speed rail links don't even join up; cross rail is a line from nowhere to nowhere; our towns have expanded sideways, with not a thought to the future of the nation; our roads have become cinder-tracks; our housing stock is the oldest in mainstream Europe; our city centers are boarded up.
I ask you, just what have Bliar, Moron and that cretin with a nervous twitch, done for this nation? Give us Speer any day, in preference to the cretins (some of us) have voted for.
Silver
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think three or four runways may be possible but 24 hour operation is not acceptable, and I say that as very pro Heathrow. There has to be a balance, it's not a realistic thing to expect and a cruel infliction on so very many people.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe SS has summed up the UK well. Our infrastructure stinks! Heathrow is a pathetic excuse for an airport. It's in the wrong place, poorly connected and incapable of being expanded. An additional runway will do nothing to improve efficiency nor will it add any worthwhile capacity.
Why? I'll explain as simply as I can. And it is simple. When people travel, they go from where they don't want to be to somewhere where they want to be. They measure their success in price, hassle and time. Trevelling pleasure is no longer expected because has been removed by overcrowding, standardisation, oppressive security and the sheer greed of the thieves that run airports.
[The public don't expect to take three hours by road to cover 45 miles, spend an hour parking, pay £80/day for the privilege, another hour getting to check-in and then after passing the Gestapo think "Oh my! Look at that lovely baggage, I must buy some." Nor are they amazed by the price of the cameras or the standard of catering. But they are never surprised when there is a delay. But rather incredibly, there are people who believe that LHR is a worthwhile place.]
Returning to where we started: You might as well place London's third runway in Belgium for all the good it will do. The only realistic thing London can do is build a new airport somewhere new, build it quick and then bulldoze Heathrow. Gatwick, Luton, Stansted will remain as the airport equivalents of clip joints; squeezing as much cash out of point-to-point leisure travellers as they can.
My job depends on Heathrow not being viable as a UK hub. But I'm not worried. I'm convinced I'll keep my job because of our worthless politicians, greedy bankers, NIMBYs and a travelling public who are prepared to accept sub-standard airports. This public convenience will provide me with employment for years.
Why? I'll explain as simply as I can. And it is simple. When people travel, they go from where they don't want to be to somewhere where they want to be. They measure their success in price, hassle and time. Trevelling pleasure is no longer expected because has been removed by overcrowding, standardisation, oppressive security and the sheer greed of the thieves that run airports.
[The public don't expect to take three hours by road to cover 45 miles, spend an hour parking, pay £80/day for the privilege, another hour getting to check-in and then after passing the Gestapo think "Oh my! Look at that lovely baggage, I must buy some." Nor are they amazed by the price of the cameras or the standard of catering. But they are never surprised when there is a delay. But rather incredibly, there are people who believe that LHR is a worthwhile place.]
Returning to where we started: You might as well place London's third runway in Belgium for all the good it will do. The only realistic thing London can do is build a new airport somewhere new, build it quick and then bulldoze Heathrow. Gatwick, Luton, Stansted will remain as the airport equivalents of clip joints; squeezing as much cash out of point-to-point leisure travellers as they can.
My job depends on Heathrow not being viable as a UK hub. But I'm not worried. I'm convinced I'll keep my job because of our worthless politicians, greedy bankers, NIMBYs and a travelling public who are prepared to accept sub-standard airports. This public convenience will provide me with employment for years.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the bit you missed out is there is nowhere else viable to build a new airport. By all means we can all go a bit Victor Meldrew now and again but there isn't a site available to the ideal, so that's why LHR is the only realistic and affordable option. It's the best of a bad lot.
Banging on about the mistakes of people who are likely now dead is fine, perhaps better fitted to JetBlast but it does not move the issue on one bit.
Unless David Cameron is suddenly ****ting gold bullion, the money (we don't actually have as we're still borrowing) is better spent on more pressing issues than buying and demolishing airports and compensating shareholders. Some reality please?
Banging on about the mistakes of people who are likely now dead is fine, perhaps better fitted to JetBlast but it does not move the issue on one bit.
Unless David Cameron is suddenly ****ting gold bullion, the money (we don't actually have as we're still borrowing) is better spent on more pressing issues than buying and demolishing airports and compensating shareholders. Some reality please?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people know, in their hearts, that LHR needs to become a 4-Runway, 24hr airport, if we want to keep up with the Rest. Who is going to make it happen?
I think three or four runways may be possible but 24 hour operation is not acceptable, and I say that as very pro Heathrow. There has to be a balance, it's not a realistic thing to expect and a cruel infliction on so very many people.
With 3 or 4 rwys more respite for residents can be provided for these extra early arrivals: overflight only 1 in 3 or 4 days.
I believe SS has summed up the UK well. Our infrastructure stinks! Heathrow is a pathetic excuse for an airport. It's in the wrong place, poorly connected and incapable of being expanded. An additional runway will do nothing to improve efficiency nor will it add any worthwhile capacity.
Returning to where we started: You might as well place London's third runway in Belgium for all the good it will do.
The only realistic thing London can do is build a new airport somewhere new, build it quick and then bulldoze Heathrow. Gatwick, Luton, Stansted will remain as the airport equivalents of clip joints; squeezing as much cash out of point-to-point leisure travellers as they can.
By the way, when you say "the only realistic thing London can do is build a new airport somewhere new", do you mean London local government, London business, London what?
Meanwhile, back in the real world......
These airports make money for their owners/shareholders, so they won't sell to any potential "bulldozer operators". Therefore none of these airports is closing any time soon. It really is as simple as that.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe time and tax payers money are still being wasted on the feasibility of an estuary airport. It's absolutely ridiculous.
People say our airports, especially Heathrow are a disgrace and that LHR is in the wrong place. Seriously?? Any Thames airport would be in the wrong place, for sure. It's also extremely damaging to wildlife (and added risk of birdstrikes) and the cost of an airport and associated infrastructure in that location is way off the scale. We can't afford it and shouldn't pay for it. The whole estuary airport thing is a stupid dream. Those who suggest that people and all of the businesses should up sticks and move to the East of London when Heathrow shuts need a reality check. How pointless.
It's also obvious that those who promote the notion of an estuary airport are showing their complete lack of understanding of business, infrastructure, aviation and also of the environment. Get real.
We need to make use of existing airports and expand those sites.
One good example of this would be the infrastructure that serves LGW. It's becoming a bit of a transport hub in itself. The railway station redevelopment and the amount of trains that will serve the airport (a train every 2.5 mins to London) by 2019 is testimony to that. I believe a prunner stated not too long ago that trains only serve the South Terminal, so it certainly isn't ideal. The transit will get you to the North Terminal in a matter of minutes, so it's irrelevant.
The point I'm trying to make is that there IS plenty of investment going into Heathrow (in the right location) and also Gatwick (also happens to be in the right location). Both airports need more runways. In the case of LGW, it has the busiest single runway operation in the world. This means that it could do with a 2nd runway. FACT. The capacity is there and it will certainly grow.
Likewise with LHR. Both of these airports are ideally located to serve the southeast and its future capacity problems. Lay the runways at both of these sites and it's problem solved. Simple as that.
It's a lot simpler than moving London to the east as some would suggest. That's just plain crazy!
We have airports. Let's not pointlessly build more to satisfy a few people's uninformed desires.... Boris, Silver etc.
People say our airports, especially Heathrow are a disgrace and that LHR is in the wrong place. Seriously?? Any Thames airport would be in the wrong place, for sure. It's also extremely damaging to wildlife (and added risk of birdstrikes) and the cost of an airport and associated infrastructure in that location is way off the scale. We can't afford it and shouldn't pay for it. The whole estuary airport thing is a stupid dream. Those who suggest that people and all of the businesses should up sticks and move to the East of London when Heathrow shuts need a reality check. How pointless.
It's also obvious that those who promote the notion of an estuary airport are showing their complete lack of understanding of business, infrastructure, aviation and also of the environment. Get real.
We need to make use of existing airports and expand those sites.
One good example of this would be the infrastructure that serves LGW. It's becoming a bit of a transport hub in itself. The railway station redevelopment and the amount of trains that will serve the airport (a train every 2.5 mins to London) by 2019 is testimony to that. I believe a prunner stated not too long ago that trains only serve the South Terminal, so it certainly isn't ideal. The transit will get you to the North Terminal in a matter of minutes, so it's irrelevant.
The point I'm trying to make is that there IS plenty of investment going into Heathrow (in the right location) and also Gatwick (also happens to be in the right location). Both airports need more runways. In the case of LGW, it has the busiest single runway operation in the world. This means that it could do with a 2nd runway. FACT. The capacity is there and it will certainly grow.
Likewise with LHR. Both of these airports are ideally located to serve the southeast and its future capacity problems. Lay the runways at both of these sites and it's problem solved. Simple as that.
It's a lot simpler than moving London to the east as some would suggest. That's just plain crazy!
We have airports. Let's not pointlessly build more to satisfy a few people's uninformed desires.... Boris, Silver etc.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hartlepool
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Airlift21 totally...
I still cannot get my head around why so much public money is being spent researching an idea for an airport which is quite frankly ridiculous and being promoted by a guy who has no idea what he is doing.
A Thames estuary airport would be a disaster on so many levels; astronomical cost, job impacts due to closing of Heathrow, business impact (200 of top 300 UK companies within 20 miles of LHR), environmental impact, the time to complete it etc.. there are endless reasons why it is such a bad idea and it just makes no sense at all.
Heathrow and Gatwick both need a new runway, LHR ideally 2 new runways. They both would be, in the main, privately funded (some additional transport infrastructure would be required at LHR which may be government funded) and completed much much quicker than any estuary airport idea; alongside of course protecting thousands of jobs.
Also... a minor point, but Boris says 190,000 homes would be created if Heathrow would be closed down. Now I know Heathrow is big, having connected there several times but 190,000!? That seems far too optimistic for a site even as big as Heathrow surely?
I still cannot get my head around why so much public money is being spent researching an idea for an airport which is quite frankly ridiculous and being promoted by a guy who has no idea what he is doing.
A Thames estuary airport would be a disaster on so many levels; astronomical cost, job impacts due to closing of Heathrow, business impact (200 of top 300 UK companies within 20 miles of LHR), environmental impact, the time to complete it etc.. there are endless reasons why it is such a bad idea and it just makes no sense at all.
Heathrow and Gatwick both need a new runway, LHR ideally 2 new runways. They both would be, in the main, privately funded (some additional transport infrastructure would be required at LHR which may be government funded) and completed much much quicker than any estuary airport idea; alongside of course protecting thousands of jobs.
Also... a minor point, but Boris says 190,000 homes would be created if Heathrow would be closed down. Now I know Heathrow is big, having connected there several times but 190,000!? That seems far too optimistic for a site even as big as Heathrow surely?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: england
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interim findings have been announced. NOT including any option for a Thames Estuary Development! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...interim-report 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow and Gatwick both need a new runway, LHR ideally 2 new runways. They both would be, in the main, privately funded (some additional transport infrastructure would be required at LHR which may be government funded) and completed much much quicker than any estuary airport idea; alongside of course protecting thousands of jobs.
Also... a minor point, but Boris says 190,000 homes would be created if Heathrow would be closed down. Now I know Heathrow is big, having connected there several times but 190,000!? That seems far too optimistic for a site even as big as Heathrow surely?
Forget Boris's fantasies, Heathrow won't be closed: there is no way its owners would sell such a profitable enterprise. The board would be lunatics to consider it, the shareholders would never sanction it, so let's put this particular nonsense to bed.
We need to make use of existing airports and expand those sites.
One good example of this would be the infrastructure that serves LGW. It's becoming a bit of a transport hub in itself. The railway station redevelopment and the amount of trains that will serve the airport (a train every 2.5 mins to London) by 2019 is testimony to that. I believe a prunner stated not too long ago that trains only serve the South Terminal, so it certainly isn't ideal. The transit will get you to the North Terminal in a matter of minutes, so it's irrelevant.
The point I'm trying to make is that there IS plenty of investment going into Heathrow (in the right location) and also Gatwick (also happens to be in the right location). Both airports need more runways. In the case of LGW, it has the busiest single runway operation in the world. This means that it could do with a 2nd runway. FACT. The capacity is there and it will certainly grow.
Likewise with LHR. Both of these airports are ideally located to serve the southeast and its future capacity problems. Lay the runways at both of these sites and it's problem solved. Simple as that.
One good example of this would be the infrastructure that serves LGW. It's becoming a bit of a transport hub in itself. The railway station redevelopment and the amount of trains that will serve the airport (a train every 2.5 mins to London) by 2019 is testimony to that. I believe a prunner stated not too long ago that trains only serve the South Terminal, so it certainly isn't ideal. The transit will get you to the North Terminal in a matter of minutes, so it's irrelevant.
The point I'm trying to make is that there IS plenty of investment going into Heathrow (in the right location) and also Gatwick (also happens to be in the right location). Both airports need more runways. In the case of LGW, it has the busiest single runway operation in the world. This means that it could do with a 2nd runway. FACT. The capacity is there and it will certainly grow.
Likewise with LHR. Both of these airports are ideally located to serve the southeast and its future capacity problems. Lay the runways at both of these sites and it's problem solved. Simple as that.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the interim Davis commission report i thought it was fairly clear what needs doing, but obviously the remit is to report back after the general election in May 2015......
LHR is bursting at the seams and LGW is heading the same way, leaving aside LCY the other so called London airports have spare capacity but that's not where people or airlines ideally want to fly from.
I just hope (fat chance) that if Davis recommends two runways at LHR & an additional one at LGW that whatever colour the new Government (RED/PURPLE/BLUE) that they have the balls to get on with.
LHR is bursting at the seams and LGW is heading the same way, leaving aside LCY the other so called London airports have spare capacity but that's not where people or airlines ideally want to fly from.
I just hope (fat chance) that if Davis recommends two runways at LHR & an additional one at LGW that whatever colour the new Government (RED/PURPLE/BLUE) that they have the balls to get on with.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR is bursting at the seams and LGW is heading the same way, leaving aside LCY the other so called London airports have spare capacity but that's not where people or airlines ideally want to fly from.
It's all about yield, so the answer is always LHR.
I just hope (fat chance) that if Davis recommends two runways at LHR & an additional one at LGW that whatever colour the new Government (RED/PURPLE/BLUE) that they have the balls to get on with.
Does the purple in "new government" represent UKIP?
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Europe
Age: 12
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err..wrong forum for political drum-bashing, wether they will or won't
the statement made was of an alternative political party,fortunately
not for just the likes of you to decide..
Keep it aviation related please.
the statement made was of an alternative political party,fortunately
not for just the likes of you to decide..
Keep it aviation related please.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UKIP wont win a seat in 2015...
However the level of UKIP support and the amount of votes they are able take away from incumbent MPs in marginal seats will determine the outcome of the election.
The Conservatives are well aware of this, but Labour have still not yet woken up to the fact that they are equally vulnerable!
Of course if it all goes wrong on 18th september, all bets are off.
Err..wrong forum for political drum-bashing, wether they will or won't
the statement made was of an alternative political party,fortunately
not for just the likes of you to decide..
Keep it aviation related please.
the statement made was of an alternative political party,fortunately
not for just the likes of you to decide..
Keep it aviation related please.