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 9th Sep 2014, 07:19
  #41 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 75
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As I understand it one of the rationales for this airport expansion is that the UK is losing out because it does not have a decent expandable hub airport.
I have just read that DXB is about to build a second airport. Clearly its not needed for the local population so therefore does it matter that the new London hub airport is actually close to London.
On this point Boris Island does have some merit.?
Walnut is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 00:25
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As I understand it one of the rationales for this airport expansion is that the UK is losing out because it does not have a decent expandable hub airport.
I have just read that DXB is about to build a second airport. Clearly its not needed for the local population so therefore does it matter that the new London hub airport is actually close to London.
On this point Boris Island does have some merit.?
Er yes! it's a hub airport, so it has point to point pax AND transfer pax. The presence of potential transfer pax makes some routes viable that would not be purely on point to point traffic. So they all have to be at the same airport, i.e. Heathrow only. It really isn't rocket science.

Boris Island makes no sense on ANY point.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 21:32
  #43 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 75
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You missed the point if these multi R/w airports can spring up in the desert without any discernible local traffic then so too could Boris Island. The problem is we are trying to make it face both ways. A true hub like Dxb feeds on itself hunreds of interconnecting flights with 95% transfer traffic.
London is now missing out to this traffic , people use Ams Cdg Fra etc as it's easier to interconnect. If the 3rd r/w is built there will be yet another terminal associated with it leading to yet more complexity. I am not sure this will make travelling through Lhr any easier
Walnut is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 22:09
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You missed the point if these multi R/w airports can spring up in the desert without any discernible local traffic then so too could Boris Island. The problem is we are trying to make it face both ways. A true hub like Dxb feeds on itself hunreds of interconnecting flights with 95% transfer traffic.
London is now missing out to this traffic , people use Ams Cdg Fra etc as it's easier to interconnect.
Don't think so, the major difference is that each of the "desert" airports have a major carrier providing the hub functions: EK at DXB, EY at AUH, QR at DOH. Boris Island clearly will not have this.

BTW the desert "multi R/w airports" have 2 rwys each.

Boris Island has more in common with YMX rather than DXB, AUH, DOH.

If the 3rd r/w is built there will be yet another terminal associated with it leading to yet more complexity. I am not sure this will make travelling through Lhr any easier
Another terminal with a third rwy will be effectively an annex of LHR-5 mainly for one world carriers currently in LHR-3, so it's not particularly complex, it will make things much easier.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 22:50
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,636
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 13 Posts
Boris Island has more in common with YMX rather than DXB, AUH, DOH.
You're joking, of course. Even Boris wouldn't be daft enough to want to re-invent Mirabel.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 23:25
  #46 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 66
Posts: 9,783
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
DXB is in the cross roads of Euope / Mid-East / Far Aast /Oz + NZ. Boris would not be.

DXB can be justified (almost) on the hub alone. LHR or Boris cannot be.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 12:03
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You're joking, of course. Even Boris wouldn't be daft enough to want to re-invent Mirabel.
Don't count on it. He may not intend to, but it could be the result.

Boris is working on the assumption that he can close Heathrow. The truth is that Heathrow isn't closing, hence the owners investing in new terminals. Unfortunately, proposed investment in new rwys is blocked.

Boris cannot force Heathrow to close, consequently no carrier and none of the premium business would to ill move to Boris Island. So it could very much resemble Mirabel.


DXB is in the cross roads of Euope / Mid-East / Far Aast /Oz + NZ. Boris would not be.

DXB can be justified (almost) on the hub alone. LHR or Boris cannot be.
Nor should LHR be justified "on the hub alone", it is much more than that.

LHR is at the crossroads of the world, as are AMS, CDG and FRA of course.
Most routes via DXB, AUH and DOH are on one hell of a long "dog-leg".
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 12:51
  #48 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 66
Posts: 9,783
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
But it's a dog leg that has huge backing and a desire to win.

Amongst many other factors.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 16:55
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 74
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Whilst the politicians procrastinate the only interim solution is for Heathrow to go to 24 hour unlimited operations with mixed mode on both runways. That should allow another 12 months of increase in traffic, after that........

The problem with a third (and sensibly a fourth) runway is that construction should have started at least 5 years ago.

Never mind. Scotland will most likely vote YES next week. The tories will win the election next year having got shot of the West Lothian Brigade. Cameron will be ousted having "lost" Scotland, Boris will be elected PM and ...........sanity will be restored to the world of aviation.
On the beach is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 19:27
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Most routes via DXB, AUH and DOH are on one hell of a long "dog-leg".
They will become more important if Tzar Putin (the expansionist) closes Russian airspace to European airlines.
peterhr is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 20:16
  #51 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 75
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whilst I am not particularly a supporter of Boris Island I do think one has to wonder if LHR really knows where it's going. Trying to squeeze more into a tiny plot has little future, just to build one R/w is going to be mega disruptive Circa 1000 homes distroyed and hellish transport problems with M25 put into a tunnel widened to 10 lanes whilst it remains the major road artery around London. The disruption will be hellish, not just to London but the airport itself. Then there is another terminal with links. By the time it's finished in say 10yrs it will be swamped with traffic
So what then?
This is where Boris has vision, it may be nice for all the vested interests to just think LHR but sensibly we do have to move on
Walnut is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 20:47
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Crowle United Kingdom
Age: 49
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whst about making Manchester a hub.
It has a huge investment from the Chinese.
I'm sure they coukd double the size.
It can be linked to HS2 if they start next year on HS2 and it's northern arms at the same time Eg Start HS2 In the North and South Simultaneously .
Give Manchester two more runways and new terminals.
Bring BA up lock stock and Barell .
Manchester like EMA is in the physical middle of the map.
In real terms its not too far from Most of England , Wales and Scotland.
Granted there woukd have to be serious investments and slits from Newquay and Exeter perhaps reopening Plymouth to give the Southwest equal accsess to it by means if regular feeder traffic
Heathrow can continue to be a large airport but if you had another UK hub mainly for the UK carriers it it would surely Free up LHR to a host of new routes and international carriers.
Perhaos even the likes of Ryanair with no bother of expansion .
I just dont see how continously expanding Heathrow is the answer.
It can't be.
Because sooner or later yiyr going to.run out of safe airspace
onyxcrowle is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 21:45
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,636
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 13 Posts
What about making Manchester a hub.
Another airport (like EMA) that didn't feature in any of the proposals made to the Airports Commission.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 22:31
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whilst the politicians procrastinate the only interim solution is for Heathrow to go to 24 hour unlimited operations with mixed mode on both runways. That should allow another 12 months of increase in traffic, after that........
Guess it's one way to "persuade" the anti-Heathrow expansion vocal minority that a 3rd and 4th rwy are needed.

Trouble is that much of the vocal minority live miles away and are unaffected by aircraft noise.

The problem with a third (and sensibly a fourth) runway is that construction should have started at least 5 years ago
Should have been completed 5 years ago!

Never mind. Scotland will most likely vote YES next week. The tories will win the election next year having got shot of the West Lothian Brigade. Cameron will be ousted having "lost" Scotland, Boris will be elected PM and ...........sanity will be restored to the world of aviation.
It's not cut and dried. If the Scots vote "yes", then all bets are off.

Expect an early election and new party leaders - oh, and the Airports Commission reporting several months earlier.


Whilst I am not particularly a supporter of Boris Island I do think one has to wonder if LHR really knows where it's going. Trying to squeeze more into a tiny plot has little future, just to build one R/w is going to be mega disruptive Circa 1000 homes distroyed and hellish transport problems with M25 put into a tunnel widened to 10 lanes whilst it remains the major road artery around London. The disruption will be hellish, not just to London but the airport itself. Then there is another terminal with links. By the time it's finished in say 10yrs it will be swamped with traffic
So what then?
This is where Boris has vision, it may be nice for all the vested interests to just think LHR but sensibly we do have to move on
Yes, yes all very visionary, but what do we do in the intervening 50 years?

Nothing?

Realistically, LHR would have to be expanded in the interim anyway, so let's just concentrate on that site only and do it properly.

Whst about making Manchester a hub.
It has a huge investment from the Chinese.
I'm sure they coukd double the size.
It can be linked to HS2 if they start next year on HS2 and it's northern arms at the same time Eg Start HS2 In the North and South Simultaneously .
Give Manchester two more runways and new terminals.
Bring BA up lock stock and Barell .
Manchester like EMA is in the physical middle of the map.
In real terms its not too far from Most of England , Wales and Scotland.
Granted there woukd have to be serious investments and slits from Newquay and Exeter perhaps reopening Plymouth to give the Southwest equal accsess to it by means if regular feeder traffic
Heathrow can continue to be a large airport but if you had another UK hub mainly for the UK carriers it it would surely Free up LHR to a host of new routes and international carriers.
Perhaos even the likes of Ryanair with no bother of expansion .
I just dont see how continously expanding Heathrow is the answer.
It can't be.
Because sooner or later yiyr going to.run out of safe airspace
Great idea - if we were under a "command economy" system.

We aren't, most of aviation and related industry is in the private sector, and therefore any scheme has to be a good business proposition.

Another airport (like EMA) that didn't feature in any of the proposals made to the Airports Commission.
Hmmm, EMA, MAN, STN, any one noticed what they have in common?
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 07:41
  #55 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 75
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote --- so what do we do in the next 50yrs---
Build Boris Island which has much the same time scale with far less disruption
& link Northolt to LHR with a monorail making it a purely domestic hub thus eliminating all the immigration and customs headaches.
Walnut is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 08:56
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,636
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 13 Posts
a purely domestic hub
If it only serves domestic routes, it's not a hub.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 17:35
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
try telling US airlines that - the definition of a hub airport is one where a major airline concentrates traffic for inter-lining

it doesn't need to be international
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 19:44
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,636
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 13 Posts
try telling US airlines that - the definition of a hub airport is one where a major airline concentrates traffic for inter-lining

it doesn't need to be international
My comment was specifically in relation to a UK "domestic hub", which clearly is a non-starter.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 20:07
  #59 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 75
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Clearly I did not explain myself clearly
Heathrow is 98% full. I am unsure of its domestic movements but even if its only 10% & all domestic flts are shipped to Northolt with decent connections to LHR, maybe HS2 could route through it too, then that buys 3yrs of growth at 3% pa, not much I know but it buys time.
Walnut is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 21:22
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote --- so what do we do in the next 50yrs---
Build Boris Island which has much the same time scale with far less disruption
& link Northolt to LHR with a monorail making it a purely domestic hub thus eliminating all the immigration and customs headaches.
Here we go again, banging on about grandoise infrastructures that business won't fund and nor will the government. Tweeking the number 90 bus route to go via LHR-1/2/3 and extending it from Northolt station may be the only way to link NHT and LHR.

NHT would only work as a small local airport like LCY and SEN for thin routes and possibly for "no-frills" operations to serve the large area west of London.

Without rwy realignment it would be a very limited operation. It has no role as a LHR third rwy on a "Heathwick" style arrangement.

Ho ho, and how do you think Boris MP would react to an expanding airport in his constituency.

Oh, he's up for selection this evening.


If it only serves domestic routes, it's not a hub.
try telling US airlines that - the definition of a hub airport is one where a major airline concentrates traffic for inter-lining

it doesn't need to be international
Correct in the USA, Canada, China, Russia and other big countries, but in European countries, the chances are that any hub would be international.


Clearly I did not explain myself clearly
Heathrow is 98% full. I am unsure of its domestic movements but even if its only 10% & all domestic flts are shipped to Northolt with decent connections to LHR, maybe HS2 could route through it too, then that buys 3yrs of growth at 3% pa, not much I know but it buys time.
You're having a laugh! The days of 10% domestic operations at LHR are long gone. You said it: LHR is 98% full, pretty obvious then that it should have been expanded years ago.

LHR needs expansion urgently. The case is answerable. Let's get on with it.

Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 15th Sep 2014 at 18:26.
Fairdealfrank 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.