Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

Boris Island Rejected

Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Boris Island Rejected

Old 3rd Sep 2014, 07:23
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,264
Received 89 Likes on 47 Posts
Five integrated runways
Here we go again ...
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 3rd Sep 2014, 14:42
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Video: Airport expansion: what next for Heathrow and Gatwick? - Telegraph
Capetonian is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2014, 14:55
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Five integrated runways for a lot less than $70 Billion - all the right side of London
Oh God I despair.
Utterly commercially unappealing.
Scenario 1. Get off an aircraft at Schiphol, walk to gate, connect.
Scenario 2. Arrive at Upper Heyford. Get on a train. Hope your luggage makes it. Arrive LHR. get on another train to RAF Northolt. Pray your luggage makes it. connect.

Just because something is possible technically does not mean it is comercially attractive and competitive and it absolutely needs to be.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2014, 00:22
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So now we are down to 3 options for the new London area runway
Sir Howard Davies's airport commission today rejected Boris Island but let the other 3 go through
So which option will win?
I believe the extension of the LHR North runway is least likely as it would be bound to slow down the current movement rate of the existing runway whilst it was being built
The new runway to the North of 28R will demolish up to 1000 houses, that is difficult politically
So I believe Gatwick will get the nod as its the cheapest and has the least environmental problems
Credible analysis if we're taking the soft option, but that would not resolve the problem of a lack of hub capacity, so it would be a pointless decision.




Well I for one am delighted that the estuary airport has been rejected!
Me too, though it was expected.





I don't think the Thames Estuary siting is by any means dead and it's going to rear its head again in time to come.

I also happen to think it's the least bad alternative. The others are really only papering over the cracks.
Itís actually not. Not only for all the reasons listed many times, but also because LHR expansion is still needed as a stopgap between now and the 2050s. So we might as well just expand LHR and have done with it.




Sense has prevailed, with this one decision anyway.
Build an airport in an area surrounded by bird sanctuaries and prone to very thick fog in the autumn/winter (I know its not a problem for landing but it is for taxiing and parking and taking off again...collisions waiting to happen..)
What were they thinking of? Boris's vanity project I reckon.

I'm not sure why a second terminal at EGSS was not considered, there is still enough runway capacity albeit not during the morning and evening peak times, it needs some longhaul flights to take up the slow periods.

Gatwick at the moment is the best option but its "tucked away" down in Sussex and a pain for anyone north of London to get to.

IMHO they had a chance with the old Alconbury airbase a decade ago, perfect location, access from north, south, east and west (adjacent to the A1 and A14) and next to the east coast mainline railway as well! Simple to integrate into the existing airspace structure, long runway, lots of land to build a terminal, hangars, etc etc. Oh hang on though didn't John Major live a mile down the road?
A TRULY high-speed rail link directly to Manston with some new infrastructure to facilitate the flights there?
Both sites much too far away from London, 100+ mi. each (compared to 20 mi. for Heathrow), and who pays?


I hope they let LGW and LHR build one new runway each. Interesting to see if LGW can finance one if LHR have a green light too given that the majority of airlines, LCCs excepted, prefer LHR over LGW.
Ruled out some time ago.
Makes sense, ruled out or not. That which is ruled out can later be ruled in, and vice versa of course.




LGW won't get it, it's a stitch up for LHR to allow the "independent" commision to take the flack when the very tough and correct decision that the last Labour government rightly made is re-instated. No one in the business community except Gatwick Airport ltd is asking to expand LGW.
Thatís my impression too, hope itís the correct one and let's speed it up!


Four stage solution:

1) Realign Northolt (NHT) runway, extend and make parallel with LHRs (RWY No. 4) - easily done

2) Continue to build third runway north of current pair at LHR (RWY No. 3)

3) Connect NHT with LHR via underground road tunnel and overground maglev monorail

4) Reinstate Upper Heyford (RWY 5) as 'London West'/'London Oxford' - whatever, and integrate with LHR via improved M40/M25 links plus another maglev system running parallel with M40 - 20+ minutes run between the two on high speed monorail - longest runway, best for freight-24 hours, long haul etc. - half way to Midlands already, less London centric.

Five integrated runways for a lot less than $70 Billion - all the right side of London
This is a reheated "Heathwick", itís was nonsense then, itís nonsense now.

Who pays for (1), (3) and (4)?
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2014, 01:12
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The estuary bird life in the thames is not relevant. I live there. There are not flocks of Canadian geese size birds belting around at 500 feet. There are loads of small wading birds but to be honest there are more starlings this time of year like anywhere. The reason for not building the airport there is because its shit place to build it. Especially when all the huge airport expertise is on the m4
SARF is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2014, 03:22
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Crowle United Kingdom
Age: 49
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How coukd they put it there anyway. I'm. Not over familiar with A TV and airspace I enjoy this forum. As someone who's health prevented me from becoming a pilot .
Byt through reading the (don't flame me for admitting this) Flight sim and observing The complex movements on FR24.
So maybe somebody here with the technical knowledge can explain how they would slit it so close to.Southend Airport. Lydd ok tgats Empty at the moment but im willing to bet it will. Do.well quite quickly.
And then LCY which is in the East . Plus im.sure ive seen Stanstead and Luton bound traffic vectoring over that area.
LCY has plans for was it 6 million a year or was it 3 either way a hell of a lot. Plus extensions . And id not be surprised despite saying otherwise they'd gain a second runway or a heft extension.
Money is power and LCY in the heart of the City coukd make it happen.
Simply from an Air traffic point of view. It's going to be mayhem or would be.
And you've got as again FR24 . Shows flights to Bristol Bhx all descending there. And albiet much higher but Manchester bound stuff seems to start its decent there.
So that's a lot of existing traffic. Before you add a four or six runway superhub.
They then have to have the days when they have to approach from the west . Which means more noise for a greater swathe of London. .It would mean redrawing all those approach charts and redesign new approach paths.
Yet on the flip side Heathrow is at the end if it's usefulness.
A third runway which isn't going to be very long will be a sticking plaster at best.
The only way lit could work is to have two 12000 or longer to allow take offs and landings from the same runways to the Northwest and southwest.
Totally wiping out sips on. And other areas the southwestern runway. Wouldn't that impinge on the resouvuoir.
Then where do you put the Terminals.
And your still faced with a very fast expanding LCY and the sheer extra number of flight movements coukd mean that all the tcas in thecworkd may bit be enough in bad weather to prevent at least more than one mud air accident.
They'd be come tragically regular. I read its already on the brink now.
So Do they reopen and rebuild Northolt. Extend and give that a second runway.
Link it by high speed train or tube or Maglev to Heathrow and reroute every single uk and Irish domestic flights into there. And id probably add Amsterdam , Paris And Frankfurt in And Brussels.
Basically All Domestic and The nearest EU flights.
But how many slots woukd that give them.
Without a nrw runway?.
Or maybe the Main alternative is staring them in the face.
HS2 Is to Run directly beneath East Midlands.
If they can build a full sized underground station for cross rail they could build a stop at the airport.
I woukd look at EMA its right by the motorway . Going to be ontop of HS2 there's land a plenty to build another three runways.
The Cargo ops could shift up to DSA. THAT'S getting a full link road fro. The motorway and is attached to a new rail freight terminal.
And again perhaps with a link from there onto THE ECML some international flights especially eastern European flights eg LOT and Tarom. S7 and many others could do.well at DSA its built quite a niche with Eastern Europe .
But EMA would be an ideal half already made UK hub Airport its nearer the middle of THE UK.
Surrounded by motorways abd close to railways.
Huge Populations close by. And id bet on HS2 40 mins into central London.
Close Heathrow. Redevelope the cause and finally regenerate a terribly run down part of London .
The UK Hub Airport should not be set in stone that it has to be In London.
onyxcrowle is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2014, 04:07
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 39
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
S7 are Russian. The Russians are busy buying up London, not interested in DSA.

I can't see a network carrier like LOT being interested. Wizzair has service to DSA and that's about as much service as you're going to get from DSA.
fa2fi is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2014, 07:58
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If building new, what would be wrong with Upper Heyford?

It's not too bad for London - distance wise. It's OK for the rest of the UK

It has good communication links nearby, realign HS2

There is space and it's not hilly
peterhr is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2014, 10:37
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,264
Received 89 Likes on 47 Posts
There is space and it's not hilly
Space? For how many runways?
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 6th Sep 2014, 17:41
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bah
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LHR is used by a great swathe of the populous from Norfolk down to
Wales and the west country.

In the area south of Brum and west of LHR there's no LH capable runway
in anything like an airport friendly place. BOH, NQY and CWL (for length)
are the only ones that come to mind with long enough runways. All are geographically as appealing as Boris Island, ie in the back end of nowhere

The Commission is not meant to be partial to any particular geographical area in its terms of reference

If runway(s) are needed why not fill in the void south of Brum and west of LHR

Is the south east to have 5, 6 or 7 LH capable runways and the area described nil?

Last edited by Pandy; 6th Sep 2014 at 17:49. Reason: typos
Pandy is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2014, 23:51
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Crowle United Kingdom
Age: 49
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why not double the size of EMA. Add thee runways.
It has HS2 beneath it. They could build a dedicated station.
Short distance by tgst train to central London.
Move a. The freight ops to DSA which is about to be connected to a major rail freight hub and massive business park and cargo facility.
Even build a station at DSA linked to the ECML.
And perhaps persuade some EU carriers Eg Lufthansa and German wings . For example to shift spme uk destined flights there.
Not every flight neefs to Land at LHR.
But EMA is Right off the M1 and close to MR M62.
Has an already large catchment.
With the frieght ops moved to Dsa which is geared toward major freight ops has we hour ops.
It would free up the old Cargo terminals at EMA to become new state of the art passenger terminals.
It has a dedicated station now.
So why can't we make it the UK hub.
Encompassing Scotland and Wales its central for the whole UK.
With all cargo relocated to DSA. and it's not vastly bust slots and airspace are not an issue.
Granted Ryanair would need to move out. But again they can go to DSA.
Any holiday routes can do the same Eg Thomson .
Monarch have left already.
DSA can support more movements and I see cargo being a big thing.
EMA is perfectly placed as a hub.
Thers open fields galore to build all the runways and taxiway you'd ever need.
Ok the M1 woukd need widening again to D5 which would mean widening toward Kegworth.
Might be tricky v but achive able.
Perhaps a new Airport junction and Motorway spur From.the M1 would help.
And it keeps this London centric old boys network of everything must go.through London or the world will end quiet because in the end they would see it makes sense.
Close LHR and regenerate that area.
But vastly improve the line upto Nottingham and push through HS2 extension asap.
There's too much dithering.
London airspace is so crowded .
What with noise and pollution.
Plus All the Surrounding London airports including LCY there has to be a point where there can be no more airspace capacity.
onyxcrowle is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2014, 07:03
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,264
Received 89 Likes on 47 Posts
East Midlands didn't bother making even an initial submission to the Airports Commission.

Hint:
Who owns EMA? Who owns Stansted?
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2014, 08:01
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
interestingly there is a growing amount of comment asking WHO is going to pay for this expansion (where ever it is) - lots of people thinking it the airlines should stump up up front if they want it....................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2014, 08:09
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 7,842
Received 22 Likes on 15 Posts
So the airlines pay for somebody else's asset - interesting approach.
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2014, 08:11
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
as long as it isn't the taxpayer
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2014, 16:58
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is space and it's not hilly
Space? For how many runways?
How many runways do you want?
There's lots of lovely green fields just waiting for the concrete - build four runways to start with.
Reserve the space for two more, call it car parking, warehouse space - anything that is cheap to tear down ... whatever happens don't use the space for housing or as prime office space and always declare that runways will be built there so the nimbys cant complain when the build starts
peterhr is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2014, 18:03
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,264
Received 89 Likes on 47 Posts
build four runways to start with
I suggest you take a long, hard look at the Upper Heyford site on a topographical map. The surrounding terrain drops on all 4 sides (steeply, in the case of the western boundary):

"The former RAF Upper Heyford air base occupies about 505 hectares on an exposed plateau above the Cherwell Valley"

Cherwell District Council - Interactive Local Plan

Last edited by DaveReidUK; 7th Sep 2014 at 21:21.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2014, 17:03
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
didn't have much problem in Hong Kong terra forming space for a major airport...............

But it's a non -starter - you have to drive past LHR & Birmingham to get there
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2014, 19:45
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
interestingly there is a growing amount of comment asking WHO is going to pay for this expansion (where ever it is) - lots of people thinking it the airlines should stump up up front if they want it....................
Indeed there are. People come up with all these grand schemes for airports miles away from London then bang on about high speed rail links, etc., etc., as if thatís all the infrastructure that would be needed. They fail to spell out who pays.

Back in the real world, it clearly wonít be the private sector, as a business case cannot be made for any of these.

It certainly wonít be the airlines, surely you know that they ALL want LHR expansion.

So who does that leave? Yes youíve guessed it, the good old taxpayers.


didn't have much problem in Hong Kong terra forming space for a major airport...............
HKG isnít comparable, itís about as far from Hong Kong as LHR is from London - about 20 mi., not 100+mi. like some of these suggestions.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2014, 20:55
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And of course the last brick of the new expansion, wherever it is finally located, will be laid as the price of fuel/peak oil etc renders the whole exercise superfluous and futile.......
BARKINGMAD is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.