Feasibility for a New Airport in the South of England (Not Thames)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feasibility for a New Airport in the South of England (Not Thames)
The feasibility for the Thames airport in London has been discussed already on these forums, however whilst it has been recognised that additional capacity will be needed, I haven't seen much mention of other potential sites. I'm not dismissing Thames as a poor option, but it seems like other options haven't been discussed to the same length. (Obviously I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I have used the search function...
)
I understand that realistically any potential site should to be in the southern regions of the UK, to be able to satisfactorily relieve congestion at Heathrow/Gatwick, and support Stansted/Luton.
For example, there seems to be a fairly open stretch between Biggin Hill and Rochester. To me, that would be able to integrate well into the traffic flows of City, Gatwick and Heathrow, better than the proposed Thames airport. Not to mention the advantageous position to HS1.
I know this is a very simple way of thinking at the most basic level, however this idea is firstly there to be shot down, secondly to promote some more ideas.
)I understand that realistically any potential site should to be in the southern regions of the UK, to be able to satisfactorily relieve congestion at Heathrow/Gatwick, and support Stansted/Luton.
For example, there seems to be a fairly open stretch between Biggin Hill and Rochester. To me, that would be able to integrate well into the traffic flows of City, Gatwick and Heathrow, better than the proposed Thames airport. Not to mention the advantageous position to HS1.
I know this is a very simple way of thinking at the most basic level, however this idea is firstly there to be shot down, secondly to promote some more ideas.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best location has to be NWest of London, off the proposed HS line and near the M40.
It always amused me with Boris Island that no thought was given to this with the line stopping well short of the airport...you could not make it up !
Same with the STN option although that is now dead in the water.
The Davies commission kept harping on about a UK hub but seems to have completely forgotten about its remit.
In my view somewhere near White Waltham ?
Still commutable for Heathrow workers...!
Far enough away from London so no need to overfly
Close to M40 / A404M for Midlands
Next to M4 for West
Close enough to HS for short branch line re NWest
If its an airport for the UK make it, "for the UK" not just London !
It always amused me with Boris Island that no thought was given to this with the line stopping well short of the airport...you could not make it up !
Same with the STN option although that is now dead in the water.
The Davies commission kept harping on about a UK hub but seems to have completely forgotten about its remit.
In my view somewhere near White Waltham ?
Still commutable for Heathrow workers...!
Far enough away from London so no need to overfly
Close to M40 / A404M for Midlands
Next to M4 for West
Close enough to HS for short branch line re NWest
If its an airport for the UK make it, "for the UK" not just London !
Best location has to be NWest of London, off the proposed HS line and near the M40.
That'll be 'Cublington' then. Done, dusted, opportunity missed. If it had gone ahead it would likely have met all the requirements we need today, and have had a beneficial impact on UK PLC.
That'll be 'Cublington' then. Done, dusted, opportunity missed. If it had gone ahead it would likely have met all the requirements we need today, and have had a beneficial impact on UK PLC.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: derbyshire
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need 2 new runways, they need to be near Heathrow because the airport staff live near there and that is where passengers want to fly to.
I was watching the film Midway over Christmas and noticed that the Japanese aircraft carriers were ordinary ships with runways stuck on top. This gave me the idea that 2 runways could be put on top of the 2 already at Heathrow. Planes taking off would use the lower runways and planes landing would use the upper runways. This would solve the runway capacity problem
Is this a daft idea and has anyone already thought of this?
I was watching the film Midway over Christmas and noticed that the Japanese aircraft carriers were ordinary ships with runways stuck on top. This gave me the idea that 2 runways could be put on top of the 2 already at Heathrow. Planes taking off would use the lower runways and planes landing would use the upper runways. This would solve the runway capacity problem
Is this a daft idea and has anyone already thought of this?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no-one WANTS to fly to LHR - they go there because they have no choice
But anyone who thinks there is any chance of a new greenfield inland airport anywhere in Southern or Central England is off their rocker
They couldn't do it in the '60's and they certainly can't do it now
But anyone who thinks there is any chance of a new greenfield inland airport anywhere in Southern or Central England is off their rocker
They couldn't do it in the '60's and they certainly can't do it now
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: derbyshire
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People do have a choice where they fly. Many people fly to LHR because they want to go on to somewhere else. On a recent trip from Vancouver I spoke to several passengers who were going to get on other planes to go to Stockholm, Copenhagen, Moscow and Newcastle. So they don't want to fly to Stansted or Gatwick if they have to be transported to another airport in the UK.
I can't see why my double decker runway scheme could not work. As far as I can see it would save hundreds of houses and having to move the residents. If they can dig a tunnel under the Channel, why not dig 2 runways under the current ones?
I might ring Boris on monday and by tuesday it will be his idea!!!
I can't see why my double decker runway scheme could not work. As far as I can see it would save hundreds of houses and having to move the residents. If they can dig a tunnel under the Channel, why not dig 2 runways under the current ones?
I might ring Boris on monday and by tuesday it will be his idea!!!
Is this a daft idea and has anyone already thought of this?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Develop East Mids (EGNX). It already has one big runway with plenty of space to build more. It is just off the M1 and apparently HS2 will go nearby too. Uncluttered airspace, uncluttered with urban areas. Lots of 'hi-tech' industries already in the area. Far more suitable for most of the rest of Britain than anything near London.
Leave the airports that already exist in the south of England to become 'London regionals'.
Leave the airports that already exist in the south of England to become 'London regionals'.
Last edited by Trossie; 11th Jan 2014 at 17:44. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Develop BHX. It is under capacity, well served by road links and public transport and if HS2 happens, may be better served. It has a huge catchment area and loads of potential.
All they need to do is teach the natives to speak English so that the rest of us can understand them!
All they need to do is teach the natives to speak English so that the rest of us can understand them!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another threat discussing a problem in the SE but not actually addressing the problem. Build as many airports in the SE as you like but it won't solve anything. Hub being the word and that's what LHR is and both new runways should be build there. Locals have put up with so much noise already, more won't do any harm for the benefit they get and its not as if runways are active 24/7. Not sure if its already in place but a residential housing ban should be in place around the proposed flight paths for the new runways to stop problems in future as I believe at least 1 more runway will be build the only delay is MEP's are sacred to sanction it but instead are wasting taxpayers money prolonging the inevitable.
I have read such rubbish about expanding just about every airport in the UK apart form Scotland's at some point, capacity needs to be in area to run efficient hubs and not across the UK.
Quote:
no-one WANTS to fly to LHR - they go there because they have no choice
Everybody has a choice.
I have read such rubbish about expanding just about every airport in the UK apart form Scotland's at some point, capacity needs to be in area to run efficient hubs and not across the UK.
Quote:
no-one WANTS to fly to LHR - they go there because they have no choice
Everybody has a choice.
Not sure if its already in place but a residential housing ban should be in place around the proposed flight paths for the new runways to stop problems in future
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another threat discussing a problem in the SE but not actually addressing the problem. Build as many airports in the SE as you like but it won't solve anything. Hub being the word and that's what LHR is and both new runways should be build there. Locals have put up with so much noise already, more won't do any harm for the benefit they get and its not as if runways are active 24/7. Not sure if its already in place but a residential housing ban should be in place around the proposed flight paths for the new runways to stop problems in future as I believe at least 1 more runway will be build the only delay is MEP's are sacred to sanction it but instead are wasting taxpayers money prolonging the inevitable.
I have read such rubbish about expanding just about every airport in the UK apart form Scotland's at some point, capacity needs to be in area to run efficient hubs and not across the UK.
I have read such rubbish about expanding just about every airport in the UK apart form Scotland's at some point, capacity needs to be in area to run efficient hubs and not across the UK.
Now the rest of you, google "Montreal Mirabel".
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many London airports are there already, and we still haven't got it right? Or have we, like it or lump it Heathrow remains the only logical place for new runways. So lets get on with it and not fall further behind.
Paxing All Over The World
Capetonian
I lived near the Euston~Birmingham railway for 14 years (88~02). During that time, I was regularly travelling on biz and pleasure. My closest was LTN and LHR after that.
On mnay occaisions, I checked prices out of BHX and then included the cost of road or rail (I could have taken a taxi to Berkhamsted station and the direct train in under an hour to BHX station) and not once did the cost every add up. It was always cheaper in money - or easier in time, to use LTN and LHR.
I have lived within 90 minutes of STN and BHS (East and West) and used STN a couple of times but never BHX. To make it work, someone will have to change their prices.
Develop BHX. It is under capacity, well served by road links and public transport and if HS2 happens, may be better served. It has a huge catchment area and loads of potential.
On mnay occaisions, I checked prices out of BHX and then included the cost of road or rail (I could have taken a taxi to Berkhamsted station and the direct train in under an hour to BHX station) and not once did the cost every add up. It was always cheaper in money - or easier in time, to use LTN and LHR.
I have lived within 90 minutes of STN and BHS (East and West) and used STN a couple of times but never BHX. To make it work, someone will have to change their prices.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget BHX. It doesn't have the space for extra runway capacity. EMA (EGNX) does.
Of course they have a choice. AMS. Beats other hubs in the area hands down. Who really needs those 'London regionals' other than Londoners?
EMA is the place to build a proper British hub.
Quote:
no-one WANTS to fly to LHR - they go there because they have no choice
Everybody has a choice.
no-one WANTS to fly to LHR - they go there because they have no choice
Everybody has a choice.
EMA is the place to build a proper British hub.
EMA is the place to build a proper British hub.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: u.k.
Age: 56
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" EMA is the place to build a proper British hub"
If you are a parcel yes!
To be honest does a metropolis the size of London need another airport? It already has 6 not counting some that pretend to be by having London in front of their name. Do something about the overcapacity first. having 2 of the alliances hubbing at one airport does not help . New York has got it right with 3 airports and I think London could manage with the same.
If you are a parcel yes!
To be honest does a metropolis the size of London need another airport? It already has 6 not counting some that pretend to be by having London in front of their name. Do something about the overcapacity first. having 2 of the alliances hubbing at one airport does not help . New York has got it right with 3 airports and I think London could manage with the same.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 285ft agl
Age: 35
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My idea:
The Government actually make a decision for once and allow LHR, LTN, LGW & STN to build 1 extra runway each. Forget noise issues and planning issues, forget only building a possible extra 1 runway at LHR or LGW or building a Thames Airport then closing LHR because whatever decision they make now is only going to be ready in 15-20 years time.
There probably isn't a huge need for 4 extra runways but there will be in years to come and if it's going to take another 15-20 years to build 1 runway we might as well put the work in now so we don't have a similar situation in years to come.
We don't need new airports, we just need the existing ones to develop further to help our economic growth. The longer it takes for our Government to finally make a decision the further we get left behind.
The Government actually make a decision for once and allow LHR, LTN, LGW & STN to build 1 extra runway each. Forget noise issues and planning issues, forget only building a possible extra 1 runway at LHR or LGW or building a Thames Airport then closing LHR because whatever decision they make now is only going to be ready in 15-20 years time.
There probably isn't a huge need for 4 extra runways but there will be in years to come and if it's going to take another 15-20 years to build 1 runway we might as well put the work in now so we don't have a similar situation in years to come.
We don't need new airports, we just need the existing ones to develop further to help our economic growth. The longer it takes for our Government to finally make a decision the further we get left behind.