Feasibility for a New Airport in the South of England (Not Thames)

[ShyTorque]

Quite so. In fact following the ban on GA movements during the Olympics last year, there have been hardly any since, apart from the usual Middle Eastern royals with their Boeings, Airbuses and Gulfstreams.

Correct. Failing to remove the £1500 "Olympics security charge" that was imposed prior to the Olympics has something to do with that.

[DaveReidUK]

It, according to your quoted report would have been 30ft lower and horizontal, (quite a good thing for a runway).

Well, nearly.

The runway would be almost completely horizontal, with a small decrease in height at each end.

Still, if it's good enough for LBA ...

But before I make my eye test appointment, perhaps you could humour me and point out the page in the report that explains how the NNE/SSW runways are going to be built. Would they be on stilts, or in a cutting?

[Facelookbovvered]

Given that most who visit and post on the hallowed pages of PPrune have some understanding of the air transport industry I'm amazed at the diversity of views on here re additional airport capacity.

I have to confess that when in opposition the Conservative party said that if they won the 2010 election they would bin R3 i was gobbed smacked and to me it showed the naivety of DC & Co, airport expansion is always going to be politically difficult, but Labour had already given the go ahead, why pick a fight you don't need to?

Before the coalition kicked it into the long grass I had very clearly come to the conclusion that in spite of everything else there was only one practical place to increase hub capacity and that was at LHR, i have read in full the interim report from the Davies Commission and I have seen nothing that changes my view, in fact it only reinforces my view.

You have to view this from a passengers point of view, be it business or VFR, if you are visiting London (inside the M25) then only LHR/LGW cut it, from an airline/passenger perspective you need high frequency, you need London to Geneva/Paris/Berlin/Amsterdam every hour and JFK/DBX/LAX/LAS at least the same, that cannot and will not happen outwith a hub and that means LHR.

LGW does a great job, the worlds busiest single runway airport and i don't buy their argument that they can't fund another runway if LHR R3/R4 get the go ahead, LGW is is with lean low cost Easyjet/Norwegian.

With best will in world EMA/BHX is just too far away, if i go to visit a capital city i don't want more than 20-30 mins to the city centre, you need a bullet train from EMA for that, FFS it doesn't even have a train station and the HS2 plans to go underneath (150m !!!)

So lets bury the politics, tell Zac Goldsmith to get a life ditto Jan Greening and stop fanny'ing around and get some D9's on the ground (bulldozers not DC 9'S)

[DaveReidUK]

LGW does a great job, the worlds busiest single runway airport and I don't buy their argument that they can't fund another runway if LHR R3/R4 get the go ahead

Well, as the saying goes, they would say that, wouldn't they?

Come to that, Heathrow mailed all their supporters a few weeks ago claiming that a second runway at Gatwick "could lead to the decline or even closure of Heathrow".

[jumpseater]

DRuk Still, if it's good enough for LBA ...

Have you checked Lutons charts recently?

DRuk But before I make my eye test appointment, perhaps you could humour me and point out the page in the report that explains how the NNE/SSW runways are going to be built.

No I can't, it isn't in there. But still go anyway.

[DaveReidUK]

No I can't, it isn't in there.

Thanks for the confirmation that I'm still able to read - you had me worried, just for a moment.

[jumpseater]

Excellent Dave, you found the bit about indicative alignment then. I forgot to ask, where was all the 'hilarity'?

[LadyL2013]

I still don't get why Manston is never utilised more.

It's got a long runway, terminal and parking with not a very densely populated area.

They could at some expense, extend HS1 to Manston and improve the road. Improving the infrastructure wouldn't be cheap, but a hell of a lot cheaper than a whole new airport. At HS1 speeds on an express service you could be in Central London in just over half an hour.

You'll always have NIMBY's but most of the arrivals and departures would be over the sea, plus that area of Kent needs massive regrowth.

[DaveReidUK]

You're in luck - the Airports Commission did consider a proposal in respect of Manston:

"Policy initiatives and surface transport improvements to develop Manston as a ‘reliever’ airport for London and the South East, freeing up capacity at more congested airports, and reducing the need for new runway capacity to be built."

Their verdict:

"This proposal presents some potential as a reliever airport, but does not address the larger question of London & South East capacity. The concept of reliever airports is considered in short and medium term work. Please see Appendix 1 for further information."

[Fairdealfrank]

Who needs Eefrow?, apart from those big, soft, Southern Jessie's.

70,000,000 pax apparently.
　　

Given that most who visit and post on the hallowed pages of PPRuNe have some understanding of the air transport industry I'm amazed at the diversity of views on here re additional airport capacity.

I have to confess that when in opposition the Conservative party said that if they won the 2010 election they would bin R3 i was gobbed smacked and to me it showed the naivety of DC & Co, airport expansion is always going to be politically difficult, but Labour had already given the go ahead, why pick a fight you don't need to?

Yes, they should have left it alone and treated it as a “fait accompli”

Before the coalition kicked it into the long grass I had very clearly come to the conclusion that in spite of everything else there was only one practical place to increase hub capacity and that was at LHR, i have read in full the interim report from the Davies Commission and I have seen nothing that changes my view, in fact it only reinforces my view.

You have to view this from a passengers point of view, be it business or VFR, if you are visiting London (inside the M25) then only LHR/LGW cut it, from an airline/passenger perspective you need high frequency, you need London to Geneva/Paris/Berlin/Amsterdam every hour and JFK/DBX/LAX/LAS at least the same, that cannot and will not happen outwith a hub and that means LHR.

LGW does a great job, the worlds busiest single runway airport and i don't buy their argument that they can't fund another runway if LHR R3/R4 get the go ahead, LGW is is with lean low cost Easyjet/Norwegian.

With best will in world EMA/BHX is just too far away, if i go to visit a capital city i don't want more than 20-30 mins to the city centre, you need a bullet train from EMA for that, FFS it doesn't even have a train station and the HS2 plans to go underneath (150m !!!)

So lets bury the politics, tell Zac Goldsmith to get a life ditto Jan Greening and stop fanny'ing around and get some D9's on the ground (bulldozers not DC 9'S)

All very good points, and well put! Common sense really.

Maybe Zac should turn his attention to the possibility of fracking - in Richmond Park.

Well, as the saying goes, they would say that, wouldn't they?

Come to that, Heathrow mailed all their supporters a few weeks ago claiming that a second runway at Gatwick "could lead to the decline or even closure of Heathrow".

Posturing and spin, the truth is that 1 or 2 more rwys at LHR means less urgency for another at LGW, because it’s "Heathrow waiting room"/Heathrow overspill functions would end.

No more rwys at LHR, whether LGW has another or not, means a loss of more traffic to AMS, CDG, FRA, etc.. Simple as that really.
　

I still don't get why Manston is never utilised more.

It's got a long runway, terminal and parking with not a very densely populated area.

MSE is too far from London to be considered by the Commission.

[anothertyke]

In the event that the politicians decide the answer is do nothing and let the existing capacity fill up, the likes of Manston and Southend will have a significant role to play. But Davies has decided expansion at either or both of Heathrow and Gatwick is preferable so he clearly sees spreading the point to point around to all points of the compass as a last resort if all else fails.

[LadyL2013]

I read that. I don't see why it could only be a reliever airport though. It's not too far away from the proposed Boris Island and Isle of Grain proposals and would require less infrastructure work.

I think if Ryanair or Easyjet could make a successful thing out of Manston other airlines might follow.

[DaveReidUK]

I think if Ryanair or Easyjet could make a successful thing out of Manston other airlines might follow.

The Davies Commission makes the point in relation to Gatwick (but it applies equally, if not more, to somewhere like Manston) that the probability of any of the alliances moving there from LHR is extremely remote. Add to that the non-allied carriers who depend significantly on interline traffic from the big 3, and that leaves very few airlines indeed who would be likely to volunteer to leave Heathrow for an airport in the sticks.

[Skipness One Echo]

I still don't get why Manston is never utilised more.

People don't want to fly from Manston. It's that simple. The market had a look and gave a decisive "no thanks". You can have all the shiny new terminals and new runways you like after spending millions of pounds, however the market may not want to use them. * hint this is exactly what happened when STN was rebuilt in the late 1980s.

Attempts to force airlines to move failed and to deliver business, it was eventually gifted to Ryanair, a loco airport instead of a new hub for London. If you can explain why Manston, so very far from the M4 corridor would not be repeating that same mistake? It's a shame but there it is I think.

[Barling Magna]

Given that most who visit and post on the hallowed pages of PPRuNe have some understanding of the air transport industry I'm amazed at the diversity of views on here re additional airport capacity.

I have to confess that when in opposition the Conservative party said that if they won the 2010 election they would bin R3 i was gobbed smacked and to me it showed the naivety of DC & Co, airport expansion is always going to be politically difficult, but Labour had already given the go ahead, why pick a fight you don't need to?

Sadly another example of a political party placing their own perceived interests above those of the nation they claim to serve. The Tories rejected Labour's third runway at LHR because they were desperate to maintain/win seats in the area - and in the event, in their narrow thinking, they were right to do so because they were unable to gain a majority despite this action and despite facing one of the country's least popular PMs in Gordon Brown. The icing on the cake is that they deliberately delay the Airports Commission report until after the next election because they can't face the flak, and Red Ed then goes back on support for the 3rd runway. Since the most likely result of the next election is a Lab/Lib Dem coalition the whole business will no doubt rumble on without any conclusion......... SO depressing....

[Trossie]

Quote:
EMA is the place to build a proper British hub.
Though strangely its owners don't seem to share your view - they didn't bother submitting a proposal to the Airports Commission.

They wouldn't have bothered submitting any proposal because it would have been a waste of time with all the 'London-centric' thinking that there is on all of this.

A British hub doesn't need to be near London. It does need to be somewhere that has good transport links to as much of Britain as possible and being on the HS2 route should be a requirement (that will rule out anywhere that is cut off from the rest of Britain by that great barrier to free-flowing travel known as 'London'!). It requires space for two runways to be able to carry out independent simultaneous instrument approaches in order to be able to maintain arrival rates in poor visibility (that will rule out places like BHX). But most importantly, it needs to happen fast in order to avoid air travel simply by-passing Britain (a dramatic reduction in that stupid APD would be a help).

Although I dislike the place, the only common sense option that could be available soonest is LHR. It needs that extra runway very, very soon in order to be able to maintain arrival rates and avoid cancellations whenever it is foggy. It needs HS2 to go via LHR (the way that the main Amsterdam to Brussels and Paris high-speed line goes via AMS). APD needs to be dramatically reduced.

Forget the 'noise lobby'. Aeroplanes are getting quieter all the time; anyone who was happy to live there in the 1960s and 1970s with the extremely noisy aeroplanes that flew then should be happy with the quieter aeroplanes that fly now. The everyday background noise of delivery lorries, buses, police sirens, trains and helicopters in London is immensely more than the quiet modern aeroplanes that will be the future air traffic into LHR and the third runway there will dilute the concentrations of that sound even more.

Britain needs an airport with at least two runways that can carry out independent simultaneous instrument approaches in order to be able to deal with the varieties of north-western European weather. Moreover, Britain needs to have modern air travel ambitions and intentions that match up to its level of modern development; backward-thinking places like Brighton should be left to rot back to the middle ages under their piles of Green waste but they should be ignored when it comes to the proper modern development of the country.

Forget any 'new airport'. That would just take too long to happen.

[Skipness One Echo]

A British hub doesn't need to be near London.

You seriously think a UK hub remote from one of the largest destinations on Earth is going to be a good idea? A British hub most certainly does need to be very much coupled into London which is why no serious people are actually thinking about building it in Birmingham. God help us !

[LadyL2013]

I completely agree with you.

I guess I'm just wondering why the expansion and infrastructure of Manston seems to be a more ludicrous idea (or at least that's my impression of how it's viewed) than Boris island considering the locations aren't too far away.

Personally in terms of specifically SE development I'd favour a Gatwick runway, better utilisation of Stansted with improved infrastructure and then in third place another runway at LHR.

Realistically I would bet money LHR will get another runway just out of sheer convenience.

[DaveReidUK]

It [a British hub] requires space for two runways to be able to carry out independent simultaneous instrument approaches in order to be able to maintain arrival rates in poor visibility (that will rule out places like BHX).

Although I dislike the place, the only common sense option that could be available soonest is LHR. It needs that extra runway very, very soon in order to be able to maintain arrival rates and avoid cancellations whenever it is foggy.

I'm confused. Does a hub need two runways or three ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Sadly another example of a political party placing their own perceived interests above those of the nation they claim to serve. The Tories rejected Labour's third runway at LHR because they were desperate to maintain/win seats in the area - and in the event, in their narrow thinking, they were right to do so because they were unable to gain a majority despite this action and despite facing one of the country's least popular PMs in Gordon Brown.

Its too simplistic and naïve to suggest that constituencies change hands on the basis of airport policy, even seats near an airport. If that was the case, HACAN or similar organisations would field candidates and win.

The fact that only two seats near Heathrow changed hands in 2010 says more about the disastrous end of Gordon Brown’s government than Heathrow expansion, and, in the case of Brentford and Isleworth, possible disapproval of the previous MP’s perceived role in the expenses scandal.

The icing on the cake is that they deliberately delay the Airports Commission report until after the next election because they can't face the flak, and Red Ed then goes back on support for the 3rd runway.

That is the Conservative party’s own fault for picking a fight where there wasn't one (have an argument with an empty room?), Labour had already made the decision, it was a done deal.

They used exactly the same reasoning, to renege on their “cast iron guarantee”, the Lisbon constitution referendum.

Since the most likely result of the next election is a Lab/Lib Dem coalition the whole business will no doubt rumble on without any conclusion......... SO depressing....

Is it? Way to early to say. Do you really think that "not-so-red-these-days" Ed will make it to Downing Street?

However if such a coalition ever materialised, agree that it would be extremely depressing. It would be a Guardian readers’ “wet dream”: all about pointless and damaging constitutional reform and more Europe, and no concern for the "bread and butter" issues that matter to people.

Personally in terms of specifically SE development I'd favour a Gatwick runway, better utilisation of Stansted with improved infrastructure and then in third place another runway at LHR.

Why? How does that solve the shortage of hub capacity?

Realistically I would bet money LHR will get another runway just out of sheer convenience.

Let’s hope so, but don’t hold your breath.

I'm confused. Does a hub need two runways or three ?

In the case of Heathrow, four.