Heathrow expansion won't happen
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You still haven't rubbished Manston properly.
Valfire asked;
A question I've been asking for years, especially when they start talking bo11ocks about Heathrow3. But Andy S opened accurate triple A and shot him down.
Good shooting Andy, but name one. Better option that is.
As far as I know, Manston has one of the longest runways in the south and conveniently built more or less 09/270. Google Earth suggests this could be extended westwards almost a far as you want, without bulldozing a picturesque village, an iron age fort or the habitat of the Smoke Tailed Bonfire Bird.
Further Google action shows a motorway or motorway standard road a couple of miles West and a high speed rail link a couple of miles North. Now expensive they may be, but a couple of miles of each transport system is a hell of a lot cheaper than building an island in the Thames estuary.
Unless Customs or BAA conspired to get in everyone's way, there is a severe risk of passengers arriving in St. Pancras in about an hour or Heathrow in an hour and a quarter. The motorway system would get you anywhere in the southeast in a couple of hours, just like LGW, LCY and LHR, but not Luton. So what's different?
I don't know enough about ATC to be certain, but since I live under quite a lot of it, it seems to me Manston would be a piece of cake. 09 departures would be largely over the sea with a moderate turn to the south and 270 departures are over open farm land. And it's a long way from the meat mincer over my house. (South London)
So, I will reiterate Valfire's very reasonable question and hope that someone, Andy S even, can tell us exactly why Manston wouldn't give us a lot more bang for our very few available bucks. And why we should be considering Galactic amounts of money on mimicing Hong Kong or trying to build a runway where ATC can't push any more aeroplanes?
No one seems to mention Manston, well rarely. What's the problem, apart from the locals moaning about noise? Enlighten me!!
Too far from London. Out on a limb, geographically. Not particularly brilliant transport links.
If you're going to expand an existing airport, there are better options.
If you're going to expand an existing airport, there are better options.
As far as I know, Manston has one of the longest runways in the south and conveniently built more or less 09/270. Google Earth suggests this could be extended westwards almost a far as you want, without bulldozing a picturesque village, an iron age fort or the habitat of the Smoke Tailed Bonfire Bird.
Further Google action shows a motorway or motorway standard road a couple of miles West and a high speed rail link a couple of miles North. Now expensive they may be, but a couple of miles of each transport system is a hell of a lot cheaper than building an island in the Thames estuary.
Unless Customs or BAA conspired to get in everyone's way, there is a severe risk of passengers arriving in St. Pancras in about an hour or Heathrow in an hour and a quarter. The motorway system would get you anywhere in the southeast in a couple of hours, just like LGW, LCY and LHR, but not Luton. So what's different?
I don't know enough about ATC to be certain, but since I live under quite a lot of it, it seems to me Manston would be a piece of cake. 09 departures would be largely over the sea with a moderate turn to the south and 270 departures are over open farm land. And it's a long way from the meat mincer over my house. (South London)
So, I will reiterate Valfire's very reasonable question and hope that someone, Andy S even, can tell us exactly why Manston wouldn't give us a lot more bang for our very few available bucks. And why we should be considering Galactic amounts of money on mimicing Hong Kong or trying to build a runway where ATC can't push any more aeroplanes?
Manston has one of the longest runways in the south and conveniently built more or less 09/270. Google Earth suggests this could be extended westwards almost a far as you want
Paxing All Over The World
It's all too late.
By the time we have ANY expansion at LHR, leave alone a new hub (irrespective of location) it will be too late.
I am not in the business but have paxed since 1965, and LHR has been my local field since 1979. I have lived in other countries and seen how they do it.
By the time we have ANY expansion at LHR, leave alone a new hub (irrespective of location) it will be too late.
- The big west European hubs are so far ahead of us that we can never catch up.
- The influence (=$$$) of the USA is falling rapidly and their great desire to txfer at an English speaking hub is diminishing.
- The mid Eastern hubs are expanding rapidly and will continue to do so (such as QF linking with EK)
I am not in the business but have paxed since 1965, and LHR has been my local field since 1979. I have lived in other countries and seen how they do it.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, a disclaimer, I haven't read every post on here so I may be retreading similar arguments but here goes: it's fecking Gatwick! Good links. Plenty of undeveloped real estate. An established business model. Yes, I know there's a moratorium on new runways until 2019 but given this administration's never-never attitude to making meaningful decisions, that doesn't seem so far off. Build a second (and third?) runway at Gatwick and conduct a progressive transfer of hub status. Build the fast rail-link between the two to create the virtual hub.
Enough of this fantastical nonsense of creating Tracy Island or Boris Island or whatever you want to call it and put an end to ridiculous notions of pouring a quart into the pint-pot that is Heathrow. The only similarly urban airport that I can think of was Kai Tak and that had it's illustrious but ultimately anachronistic fate resolved in a very decisive fashion. This nation needs to grow up and devise an appropriately grown-up scheme for civil aviation in this century.
Enough of this fantastical nonsense of creating Tracy Island or Boris Island or whatever you want to call it and put an end to ridiculous notions of pouring a quart into the pint-pot that is Heathrow. The only similarly urban airport that I can think of was Kai Tak and that had it's illustrious but ultimately anachronistic fate resolved in a very decisive fashion. This nation needs to grow up and devise an appropriately grown-up scheme for civil aviation in this century.
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
Disregarding entirely, the above post, what about that almost unbelievably empty piece of land across the water from Canvey Island? Over 50,000 feet long, and mostly out of the water.
Where was that explosives ship again?
Where was that explosives ship again?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What with all the defence cuts et al why not utilise some of the government owned land for the purpose of building another airport?
Salisbury Plain? Rail/road connections could be easily modified for north and south access to this vast piece of real-estate.
Salisbury Plain? Rail/road connections could be easily modified for north and south access to this vast piece of real-estate.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all the ills that you list why is a new runway OK for Gatwick and not Heathrow ?
West London - you are talking of many thousands of houses being affected and it's not really possible to relocate people a fair distance. With house prices in that area being well into 7 digit figures that could turn out a very big bill to foot.
Of course Gatwick is also not ideal.
This island out in the estuary - have any proposals been put forward as to how it would be built? Would it involve depositing sand/gravel on the ocean floor or would it by some kind of pylon based or perhaps even floating structure?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 72
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I make (mercifully rare) visits to the UK, I travel to somewhere called "not London". If I fly in to Heathrow, I have to travel through or around London. Gatwick (not that I have that choice) would involve travelling through, or around London. Boris Island would also require that I travel through or around London. For those of us from "not London" and travelling to "not London", it would be nice to avoid London.
Wow! I really seem to have got under your skin!!
A simple question. Are you talking about Manston as additional runway capacity, i.e. to relieve the strain on Heathrow? Or as a new hub?
If the former, fine. But there’s absolutely nothing to stop airlines using it now. And yet they don’t……
If the latter, then there are many many reasons why Manston is not practical. But in a nutshell – as someone else pointed out – location, location, location……
For the record, my remarks about there being better options for expansion related to taking an existing airport and turning it into a replacement hub for Heathrow.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy S
Ah, you are talking replacement hub for Heathrow, I was responding to what I understood to be a shortage of capacity at Heathrow. I think someone else has pointed out the utter folly of trying to replace Heathrow and create an all encompassing hub. We could buy Belgium for the price!
At this stage in the game, I would have thought a relatively cheap method of increasing capacity into southern UK - which is what we are talking about - would have far more support and far higher likelyhood of it ever happening. Boris Island is a very good idea, that's how they replaced Kai Tak, but which economy could withstand a cost like that, jobs and prosperity notwithstanding?
We have suggested Manston because it is doable and doable in, say, five years maybe less. Anything else and the lead time stretches into 2020 - 2025 and probably irrelevant by then. The costs are minimal, but would provide employment and investment in an area sorely in need. I suspect the airlines don't use Manston at present, because getting to and from it is a bit rural, but the infrastructure is very near by and, as mentioned, I think the ATC issues would be dealt with relatively easily.
Almost anywhere else and anything else, becomes a very, very long term project with trailing zeros being added with every passing month.
At this stage in the game, I would have thought a relatively cheap method of increasing capacity into southern UK - which is what we are talking about - would have far more support and far higher likelyhood of it ever happening. Boris Island is a very good idea, that's how they replaced Kai Tak, but which economy could withstand a cost like that, jobs and prosperity notwithstanding?
We have suggested Manston because it is doable and doable in, say, five years maybe less. Anything else and the lead time stretches into 2020 - 2025 and probably irrelevant by then. The costs are minimal, but would provide employment and investment in an area sorely in need. I suspect the airlines don't use Manston at present, because getting to and from it is a bit rural, but the infrastructure is very near by and, as mentioned, I think the ATC issues would be dealt with relatively easily.
Almost anywhere else and anything else, becomes a very, very long term project with trailing zeros being added with every passing month.
Last edited by Landroger; 17th Sep 2012 at 10:12.
increasing capacity into southern UK - which is what we are talking about
As the thread title suggests, we're talking about hub capacity - be it at Heathrow or elsewhere.
Hub = step off on flight onto another.
An hour's train journey or more between flights doesn't qualify as a hub in anyone's book.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we need a hub
There is a big difference here between what airlines like and what the country needs.
Britain is an end of line destination at the edge of europe.
There is no significant gain for the economy to have transit passengers hopping from one flight to another, they might spend a few pounds in the shopping mall but this is insignificant.
What BRITAIN needs is an airport with rapid access to the entire country, this is best acheived by a large airport somewhere around the midlands with rapid rail access to all major cities and connecting short haul flights where this is not available.
So - a national hub not a global hub - leave that to more centrally located countries.
Britain is an end of line destination at the edge of europe.
There is no significant gain for the economy to have transit passengers hopping from one flight to another, they might spend a few pounds in the shopping mall but this is insignificant.
What BRITAIN needs is an airport with rapid access to the entire country, this is best acheived by a large airport somewhere around the midlands with rapid rail access to all major cities and connecting short haul flights where this is not available.
So - a national hub not a global hub - leave that to more centrally located countries.
I was responding to what I understood to be a shortage of capacity at Heathrow.......At this stage in the game, I would have thought a relatively cheap method of increasing capacity into southern UK - which is what we are talking about - would have far more support and far higher likelyhood of it ever happening.
Actually, Manston is doable tomorrow. It is a functional airport. It’s just that no airlines particularly want to fly there. I don’t think the ‘rural’ location is what puts them off – more likely the lack of connecting flights.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An hour's train journey or more between flights doesn't qualify as a hub in anyone's book.
If there was a way to do it without having to go through passport control, security screening, etc. - would you still hold that view?
It’s just that no airlines particularly want to fly there. I don’t think the ‘rural’ location is what puts them off – more likely the lack of connecting
flights.
flights.
Proponents who simply ignore the synergy that a hub provides by virtue of the choice of connecting flights available, are missing the point.
Whether transfer passengers spend money in the airport shops isn't relevant. Whether the 1 in 3 connecting pax on every flight make it viable to operate that route at that frequency, or at all, is.
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
Panic over - LCY to the rescue.
So, an extra 150 movements a day (except for the half-day weekends). Could be a bit noisy down on the "Eastenders" set.
Now, let me see, where can I hub to through London City?
And why is LCY so under-utilised?
But, as they say; "Every little helps".
Meanwhile back in the real world......I shall be flying from EDI to AMS (8 flights a day) on a foreign airline to hub to HKG (hub), on another foreign airline via DXB (another hub).
Who gains? AMS, DXB and a couple of foreign airlines. Says it all really.
Roll on a UK Aviation Policy.
So, an extra 150 movements a day (except for the half-day weekends). Could be a bit noisy down on the "Eastenders" set.
Now, let me see, where can I hub to through London City?
And why is LCY so under-utilised?
But, as they say; "Every little helps".
Meanwhile back in the real world......I shall be flying from EDI to AMS (8 flights a day) on a foreign airline to hub to HKG (hub), on another foreign airline via DXB (another hub).
Who gains? AMS, DXB and a couple of foreign airlines. Says it all really.
Roll on a UK Aviation Policy.
