Actually LCY is fog bound much more than LHR due to it's surroundings.
I know what you write makes good sense from LA but frankly come live in London for a bit, get to know the politics of the situation and you'll have your eyes opened.

Stansted on Sea has a nice ring to it?

What to do about Heathrow? Close it? Cut West London off from an airport where as South London has Gatwick and the East has City, Stansted and Southend? So from the M4 corridor, it's Crossrail from Reading all the way to the coast and beyond now is it?

Why would BA move? They could stay behind and make LHR what they've always wanted, a tailored monopoly. Let STAR go sailing in the North Sea, BA's clients are in West London alongwith the entire maintenance base.

OK so that won't work, for the strategy to work, you need to shut LHR. Ooops suddenly tens of thousands on the dole in West London. None of our Elite remembered that Cs, Ds and Es don't tend to commute 50+ miles to get to their jobson that kind of salary. Well at least Kensington and Richmond are jolly quiet and our masters can sit outside Starbucks listening to birdsong again.

London isn't short of runway capacity, not with SEN, LTN and STN around. Nor at STN is it short of terminal capacity as there's loads of room to expand into land rather than sea. London is short of politicians willing to tell people painful truths which is why we have the appaling Chris Huhne building windfarms everywhere.

Fair point speksoftly, I was taken in by the hype at the time it was built.

According to Wiki this is more accurate..

Silvastrata, I'm no nimby - I work at Gatwick!

I stand by my first comments. The North Sea / Estuary area is extremely prone to fog. Even if CAT3b gets all these aircraft landed, Low Vis procedures would still make taxy to and from stands difficult and slow.

The Airport itself would indeed not be a wetland, but the area is surrounded by mudflats and sandbanks which is prime Wildfowl Wetland. They would be constantly crossing the Approach & Departure Runway Climb-out Areas. Even if engines can be made to withstand the odd goose or three; they could still penetrate the Radome and end up in the Flight Deck!

Plus, the wreck of the Montgomery full of unstable explosives would have to be dealt with. Not sure where the money is going to come from.

Much cheaper to build another Runway at LHR and LGW and may be Stansted too! :)

I agree with Skipness's comments. The only thing likely to cause more outrage in West London than building a third runway (apart possibly from unlimited mixed mode operation) is closing LHR. Looks like you are stuck with a two runway Heathrow. With the new East terminal this could handle 90m pax p.a with an average of just under 200 per atm which is achievable by replacing 319s with 321s & 772s with 773s - nothing drastic really.

If the number of transfer pax remains constant that would equate to a 50% increase in terminal pax which may be 20 years growth. Its not exatly the long term planning you see in France or the Middle East, but it I suspect that we can muddle through for a while yet.

Obviously UK aviation will suffer from loosing transfer traffic - unless someone can develop MAN as a credible hub (perhaps, as suggested on the Virgin thread, it could be VS). Its interesting that the proportion of seating on KLM long haul devoted to premium is just over half that of BA so perhaps the lower business traffic base could be overcome. It would require a high proportion of premium traffic to be transfer though as O&D premium traffic outside London is low. AMS, FRA & ZRH all have environmental constraints whilst CDG is not user friendly. MUC & Berlin are ones to watch. If everywhere is environmentally constrained a "green field" transfer hub combined with more Air Transat style infrequent operations which includes secondary airports may be the way ahead.

The trouble is airline business models are based on high frequency. Championing the free market approach but constraining capacity don't go together.

As a frequent leisure traveller I worry about business traffic squeezing on leisure seats hence an increase in costs but as long as business traffic is peaked airlines will upsize to meet the peak in demand so it may not be a big an issue as I fear.

Current aviation policy - muddling through. Future aviation policy - muddling through. Don't say we don't have the experience of how to get through.

Upper Heyford / HS2
 

All completely mad - third runway at Heathrow, and/or reinstate Upper Heyford with Shanghai-type ultra-high speed monorail linking the lot to London, running beside the M40 which can be enhanced at certain points as well. Your £50 billion would go one hell of a lot further on infrastructure the right side of London. Indeed move HS2 a bit to the west and add a spur through Upper Heyford halfway to Birmingham having touched Heathrow. Heathrow 10 mins from central London, Upper Heyford 25 mins and Birmingham 45 mins.

If 45 million UK citizens need to go all the round or through the middle of London to get to a new Boris/Foster island in the north sea, that does come across as being a bit nuts?

Thank you Winniebago, at last somebody has spotted that the Emperor is starkers...

I've stared at the map of Britain and tried to work out how/why you would posiibly want to route every single passenger (who's not from east of the A1) around London to travel to a new airport when there is one there. Already. On the West bit. Where everybody lives...!

Yes the prevailing winds are a bit of a bugger and means Richmond and Barnes get the occasional whistle. But I'm completely stumped at our total inability to grasp this dilemma which hands billions in lost business to Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.

How can we, as a nation, be seriously proposing that we can justify cutting swathes across the entire country to build a double hi-speed railway (which is long overdue anyway), but not a short one-mile strip of concrete to alleviate the 20 stacked disaster that is Heathrow.

The irony is that (one of) the arguement (s) preventing the 3rd runway is environmental, yet we'd rather have Heathrow chokka with tons of aviation fuel a day wasted in the holding, circling, taxying, holding nonsense.

Ah, Great Britain. Home of procrastination and inquiries...!:rolleyes:

You are in ATC, I presume?

Low vis procedures require greater inbound spacing, and thus slow down arrivals - they very thing that LHR cannot afford to do. Less arrivals = more cancellations.



Because LHR is simply too small. The taxiways are full, the stands are full, the roads are full, the ground transport links are woeful, and there is no room left to swing a cat, let alone another 200,000 movements from another runway.

And where would these extra passengers go to? If no more international flights are possible, why bring in more interlining passengers? Do they just stay there, and make LHR their home? I don't understand.

Plus LHR has a considerable noise problem. It blights the lives of millions, and so has a highly limiting night curfew. A Thames airport would have no such restrictions, and would operate 24hr.




One of the main reasons for a new Thames airport, is so that international passengers can interline more easily. London does not serve England, it serves NW Europe. A larger Thames site (4 international runways and 2 domestic runways), and a 24hr operation, can provide routes to all of Europe - which LHR cannot do at present.

This larger airport will also provide easier links for regional passengers to fly in and interline out to the world. At present you are limited in carriers into LHR, and the last time I tried this, my bags were late and I missed my flight (bags were not even able to be checked through to destination!). LHR is a crappy, crappy airport.

And the eastern location of a Thames airport, will also allow easy TGV routes into Europe.

Anyway, from the M1 and A1, a Thames location is no different to travelling to a LHR location. Only the M3, M4 and M40 would have longer travel times (if they used a car). And why not leave a Cross-rail station and car-park on the old LHR site, to whisk you straight to the Thames terminals?




That's the whole problem, Peter, that's the whole problem. That's what New Labour did for 12 years.




I think you overstate the matter. You will have to provide some data, to support your position.

In the contrary view, an estuary site may be prone to sea fogs, but it does not get radiation fog - the bane of LHR and LGW. Those airport, sited on the Staines reservoirs and the Mole valley, are notorious for radiation fogs - which the Thames airport will not get. I seem to remember that our primary London diversion airport, in smaller aircraft days, was Southend - because it never had (radiation) fog.

And taxying? A new large airport with LGW's "follow the greens" system would be a doddle.





Because they would have to. It is the redesignation and sale of LHR as a industrial and housing estate that would pay for the Thames airport. We need the land-space - another legacy of New Labour policy. And this would provide oodles of jobs in the region.

Besides, travellers want a choice of airlines and destinations, not a monopoly carrier with limited interline destinations, operating from an out-of-date airport.


.

I dont get this shutting down Heathrow business in order to justify/finance/build a Thames estuary new four runway megahub? Why not leave Heathrow alone but reduce the throughput a tad whilst still having your four runway euro megahub in the Thames Estuary? If it's mainly for interlining for other international flights, let it focus on that, whilst Heathrow can be left for those wanting to get off and come into blighty. It just seems utterly insane to close down Heathrow - have both. Heathrow may be grim, but why on earth would you just stop using it when it has so much infrastructure that would be extraordinarily difficult to utilise/convert into anything else but an airport - absalutely insane to contemplate it becoming any kind of industrial park - what planet are they on?

In the meantime, although they're scattered about a bit, there still is quite a lot of runway capacity unused all over the southeast - Biggin, Manston, Lydd, Oxford, Cambridge, Farnborough, Southend for starters - several hundred thousand additional unused movements permissable amongst that lot. A bit of Government support and they can all persue their commercial dreams without the bucket load of red tape in the planning system.

Then you have the woefully underutilised RAF Northolt WHICH IS HEATHROW'S THIRD RUNWAY!

Then you have a raft of used and unused military sites such as Brize, Benson, Upper Heyford etc.

Silver,

I believe we may be in disagreement about timescales only.

Although you can't argue against expansion with the gem:

Haha!

Yep to this...
...but the 3rd runway was planned with an additional Terminal and it's own taxiways.

Crossrail can mitigate the road congestion and really is being built in the near to medium term. The regional bus services to T5 are actually rather remarkable.

Notwithstanding all of the above. I believe the offer was to build the extra runway to alleviate congestion for minimal expansion of actual movements. So I don't believe all your analysis is correct.

We have the congestion problems (you rightly mention) now. Here and present in glrious technicolour (or color, if you prefer).

Due to nimbyism, lobby groups, stagnant political thought etc etc etc. We have no plan. None. Nothing. That is why IAG are buying a loss making company. For slots. Meanwhile UK PLC, which desperately needs income is throwing it away.

The island airport is not a completely flawed plan. There's merit in the high speed rail links to N Europe and the 24 hour operation will be a competitive necessity in a future world with Dubai's Al Maktoum International...

But at the moment, last time I looked, at the end of the Thames there is a windfarm and a few blotches of sand.

The estuary project - if it's agreed - will need an unbelievable amount of infrastructure that doesn't even exist. Hasn't been planned, or approved, or costed. The roads to the North of London aren't exactly desolated either. Just to remind you that we're at a population of over 62 Million. I could go on, but you get the picture.

So yup, I hope we do get a new airport. But I don't see the need to crucify ourselves whilst we dither over what to do because we left it all too late! ...Groan!!!

iC ;)

If you leave LHR open, then you need to regulate massively.
Otherwise BA would simply stay and help themselves to the current traffic that currently fly with their competitors.

I live in London, I know public transport well. Making the economic driver of the M4 corridor head for the East Coast is a politicians fantasy. So if BA stays in West London, who else is "allowed" to stay? Let the fun begin!

Incidentally makes T2 and T5 all a bit of a waste of time if this was serious.....

<<You are in ATC, I presume?

Low vis procedures require greater inbound spacing, and thus slow down arrivals - they very thing that LHR cannot afford to do. Less arrivals = more cancellations.>>

Retired after 31 years dealing with Heathrow traffic. LVPs slow down traffic anywhere, not just Heathrow. There's nothing much one can do about fog, but it doesn't happen every day.

Since when are runways designated according to the traffic they serve - that is a matter for the terminals, or zones within them. To suggest such a use of runways really reveals a complete lack of knowledge of how the industry works. And you keep asking for data on fog?

Also, London already does serve Europe very well, but not every city through LHR as would be ideal, if the space was there. Last time I counted, every country in Europe that had at least one commercial airport had a link to London - except for Bosnia-Hg and Wales (if that counts!).

Some airlines have to make do with LGW or STN, but LHR still has tremendous frequency on many routes.
Not really, most of the major interline players operate through LHR, the other airports take more point to point - alhough yes, there are several players at LGW who would rather be at LHR, and some LGW BA destinations which also might otherwise be at LHR, BUT.....
Again, I'm getting you on a technicality, but it shows your lack of knowledge. The TGV does not, and cannot operate through the Channel Tunnel, due to voltage issues. CDG is a rail transfer hub because it has fast, direct links to many other cities, but also because it is a stop on routes, such as between Lille and Lyon. For services through the Channel Tunnel to be viable, they have to be able to buy the track paths, and this is easier to pay for when you have 400m long trains, but they would be hard to fill on a spur into this new airport, not to mention that given the current tax regime, flights from Thames Island would be less competitive than CDG or AMS - but by the time it was built, that may change.

And why not leave a Cross-rail station and car-park on the old LHR site, to whisk you straight to the Thames terminals?

Because Crossrail is already likely to be extremely busy by the time it opens. It makes no sense to load so much extra traffic onto London's congested rail network by sending so many people from west to east.

And that, I'm afraid is the biggest problem with the new airport - build this amazing feat of engineering and architecture, if you can get the funding AND the planning approval (I doubt it could get either), but it could only ever work commercially if LHR closed, and the displacement of so many people would not be met by a commensurate upgrade of the surface infrastructure.

Just look at the fantastic Denver Airport, still not due to get its rail link until 2015.

But there are versions of the TGV, Thalys, which operate on three or even four different voltages.

So why have DB applied for permission to operate trains considerably shorter than 400m through the Tunnel?

I also don't agree with the proposal, but when arguing against it, you need to get your facts right!

No 10 backs the new airport
 

It looks like the government is swinging its weight behind the new airport.

George Osborne backs 'Boris Island' airport | Mail Online


The task now, is to make it work properly, instead of it becoming another ill-planned, on-the-cheap, in-the-wrong-place construction (like the M25, the Dartford tunnel, Birmingham airport, Bristol airport, or Luton airport).

Let's do this properly, with proper rail links to Europe and the UK, a terminal double the size required, and a site twice as high above sea-level as the planners recommend.

.

Groundloop,

I am always happy to stand corrected, so you are right in that voltage is no longer a concern, as the LGVs, Chunnel and HS1 all use the same. I was under the impression the voltage was different in the tunnel.

However, there is a previous safety restriction about the trains needing to be able to split in the middle and for one half to exit the tunnel. As I understand it, the new Class 407 ICEs have fireproofing to enable them to meet updated regulations, but the TGV sets used in France & neighbours do not.

D-Bahn want to run a service through the tunnel which will then split / join at Brussels to form shorter sets.

Although it always seems good logic to have surface links to airports, they are not as big a traffic generator as the cities they serve - in other words, as a rail destination, LHR is much smaller than London. Therefore, running services through the tunnel, even to a mega-hub airport, which terminate at the airport, is going to be a commercially weaker proposition than running straight through to St Pancras (I'll leave hs2 for another debate).

Of course, some Eurostar services could be diverted into the new airport, and then could proceed to St Pancras, but that would add to journey time and create a security / immigration challenge. This just isn't such an issue for rail services through AMS, CDG, FRA etc as they are all operating within the Schengen zone.

The current APD regime favours people taking Eurostar or budget flights to airports like CDG or AMS in order to make cheaper long haul onward journeys, but it does not work the other way round. A new airport of this size would not be a low cost facility by any stretch of the imagination, so it would have to charge a hefty PSC, making it less competitive, compared to what we have with the devil we know at LHR.

Therefore, I stand by my point (with slight factual correction) that a new Thames Airport would not be likely to attract significant enough numbers of passengers by rail to make a direct link through the Chunnel viable.

Technically, the Eurostars are derivatives of the TGV, and the term is understood to mean high speed train, being the French acronym for that term. However, the implication of using such could be that that high speed rail is a French invention, which it is not - the first high speed 'proper' trains originated in Japan, and the first dedicated high speed lines in Europe were in Italy.

And WE still have the world steam speed record :)

Yes, but surely the whole point of a third runway at LHR is to bring extra interlining passengers into LHR. They are not visiting London, they are visiting Mumbai or L.A.

In other words, a new runway for short haul will bring extra demand for long haul, which LHR simply cannot deal with. LHR is too small, as I said.





Err, to say such a thing means you are not an aviator. Never been to CDG, have you !!! Ha, ha, ha. Oh, these threads do bring out the spotters.

For your info, the short runways at CDG are for short-haul aircraft. You could try taking off in a 747, but the results might be interesting. Glad you are not in aviation.


And the reason for having separate long-haul and short haul runways?

a. Its cheaper. Shorter runway = less cost, especially if you have to build the island to contain it.

b. Customs and immigration. It is still advantageous to separate domestic (small aircraft) and international traffic (big aircraft), for immigration reasons.

c. Wake vortex separation. If you mix heavies and lights, half of the aircraft on the approach need greater separation. A small turboprop behind an A380 needs 8 nm, while an A380 behind and A380 needs only 4 nm. It is much more efficient to have two short haul runways (and their terminal) and a separate group of long-haul runways (and their terminal).



It is a shame that idiots like Lord Foster did not ask aviators, before designing his absurd Thames airport proposal. Just how does a Saab 2000 make an approach into an airport like this?? Does the whole airport sit and wait, for ten minutes, doing nothing? Does the Saab get blown over, or its tail knocked off, as it taxies?


http://cdn.archinect.net/images/514x...32qvbhgo0l.jpg










You are wrong again.

As far as I am aware, the whole reason for the BA-Iberia marriage, is that BA was desperately short of S American routes. A larger airport could sort out that situation, but LHR is desperately short of slots for new routes - hence the absurd price placed upon a failing operator like BMI.






Oh, please do not be stupid.

The Eurostar trains that go from Paris to London are TGV373000 rolling-stock - and yes, they go through the Channel Tunnel.

Here is a TGV at London St Pancras. How do you think it got there - by boat? by air?


http://www.ivebeenthere.co.uk/front/...as-station.jpg





Yes, because you cannot catch a train from Manchester to LHR !! This is the stupidity of the UK transport 'system'.

From Manchester, you go to Euston, then walk down the road in the rain to a tube station (the Euston tube is not direct), get the tube to Paddington, then get a train to LHR. You think this is easy, with four bags falling off the trolly and three kids running down the wrong escalator and ending up in Charing Cross??

And please do not expect to make this journey to get to LHR for a 6am departure - IT AINT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Do you wonder why people drive?





.

Silverstrata stop calling people you disagree with "stupid". A few of your own opinions are demonstrably wrong.
LHR does not have a lot of domestic, it is overwhelmingly international and this is anything from a Fokker 70 / A318 to an A380, often using the same gates, split Left and Right for the smaller aircraft. There are no "short" runways at CDG, they land on the outer and depart on the inner as per LAX.

IAG runs a two hub strategy, South American focus at MAD, North American at LHR, it's already fixed.

Lord Foster is not an " idiot". Can I ask, what part of aviation are you in and how did you miss the sight of the B744 landing on the outer runways at CDG?

Silver,

I merely repeat your quote from earlier: -

That's what you said, NOT short haul and long haul, two entirely different concepts. SVO to VVO is domestic, as is CDG to FDF, but short haul?

CDG is one of the many airports I have been to, but I have also taken a twotter to SAB, and then back SXM-NEV (oh, sorry, that's international too) so I know all about short runways!

The implication in your post was of TGV branded trains, which I have since clarified. So let's get back to the viability of such services which I dispute, as I do the idea of the airport. I also question the benefits of bringing in more transfer passengers - look at ny fares, and the yield is virtually always less on the indirect service, but the costs of two take-off and landing cycles usually higher, especially for SH-SH.

And as for Lord Foster, if you knew anything about the man, you would know that he is a qualified pilot, both of helicopters and jets, aswell as the designer of many of the world's finest buildings.

As it happens, I don't agree with this proposal, nor do I understand the choice of location (surrounding hazards), or what the structures are at the end of the runways. Frankly, even the terminal itself is boxy and bland - Stansted may now be a cramped mall, but the design as originally developed was beautifully symmetrical.

However, it is the job of architects to come up with imaginative schemes, so the engineers, the planners, the politicians and the accountants can work out which ones will get built. It is a shame that this plan is only imaginative because of the price tag and the engineering, for big terminal architecture that impresses, I'll go back to Denver, or on to Beijing.

Because LHR is so limited in arrivals, it does not have so much domestic - AND IS THEREFORE MISSING OUT ON A GREAT DEAL OF INTERLINING TRAFFIC.

Why do you think that people now fly to AMS or CDG to pick up a State-side flight? Because it is so damn difficult to get a cheap flight into LHR - whereas Easyjet and BMI-B fly direct to CDG and AMS.




And regards the layout of CDG, this was the situation the last time I went there.


http://www.landingshort.com/wp-conte...axiout-big.jpg



Now sorry, but looking at that Jeppy, I distinctly see long runways and short runways. Is that just my eyes, or are you talking rot again?

And yes, I have also seen a 747 landing on the short - but I did not say that, did I. I said taking off on the short, which would be most interesting.


And the logic still stands. Separating light and heavy traffic speeds up arrivals to an airport. And so anyone who designs a nice new airport with all the runways so close together that there cannot be any separation, is, well, stupid. Foster included.

In addition, Foster's absurd creation appears to have runways so close together, that you could not do simultaneous approaches. Do you think that is a good idea? Do you think Foster should get a plastic medal for creating an airport that may actually end up as a complete White Elephant??







I am not calling people who disagree with me 'stupid'. I am calling people who present wholly incorrect or even deceitful information 'stupid'.

Plus Lord Foster, who appears to have used lawyers and media consultants to advise on the construction of a new airport - instead of pilots, controllers and airport managers. Now THAT is 'stupid'.



.

Europe is both 'short haul' and 'domestic'. Or did you forget the EU?





But it does not slow down traffic if you have sufficient capacity. If you have another runway you can open for Low Vis procedures, of if your average spacing is 10 nm anyway, then Low Vis procedures make no difference and there are no delays and cancellations because of fog.

And since people are trying to make a 'problem' out of this imaginary Thames fog, this is an issue that needs addressing.



.

Silver,

Which EU are you talking about? The one I know of is not a single homogenous region - you have countries that are in and out of the Eurozone, and you have countries in and out of Schengen, and also countries in EFTA and Schengen but not the EU, like Norway and Switzerland.

Silverstrata gives his age as 43.
I have just reread this thread, sad I know , but then I am a fan of the concept of some form of Thames Airport.
At Post 26 Silverstrata says: "I did tell planners back in the late 1970s that the M25 needs 6 lanes a side".
Perhaps the planners ignored you because they thought you were just a precocious ten year old. But now you are older.

silverstrata, this is what you said. The outer runways are NOT for short haul aircraft, they are for landing aircraft as I said. You could take off a B744 from the short runway depending how far it was going. There is no absolute distinction in the runways between short and long haul aircraft though they use mixed mode as well.

Your rant about domestic access to Heathrow rather ignores the fact that English domestic flying into London almost ceased overnight when the East and West coast rail lines were upgraded. Indeed VLM's very profitable LCY-MAN and LCY-LPL ended abruptly soon after. STN-PIK has closed as has GLA-LHR on BD, which carried the codeshare of 14 STAR partners. Perhaps not a goldmine? BA's LHR-MAN is long haul feeder by any other name these days, whereas GLA and EDI have a good point to point and feeder mix.
BD's MME and LBA-LHR services also closed as the P2P traffic went to the railways where the hassle factor was much less.

OK, please re-read what I have said above and stop insulting me, play the ball and not the man.
It seems the "short" runway is 2700m long. Are you really a B767 pilot? The reason I ask is that, for the East Coast US, that would do? We have the B747-400 going as far as GLA-MCO off 2665m every week, including cargo. Believe me sir, it doesn't lift off on the piano keys either so I am baffled why a real professional pilot wouldn't know that. *cough*

No one would want to fly GLA-LHR-CDG if they could fly GLA-CDG direct, which they can. The market does not behave like this anymore and trying to expand based on cheap flights from Europe to the regions is not commercially viable. Against Ryanair and easyJet? Are you serious? If you are suggesting people connect via AMS and CDG to fly to the US, they use KLM or AF, not the locos you quoted, so what you're saying is dislocated and not accurate as BMI baby and easyJet are in no way relevant to flying to the US, you cannot connect on either airline.

It might look imaginary from LA but since I couldn't see the top of 1 Canada Square this morning, and there were a load of go arounds last night when I was at LCY (on the Thames in case you were wondering) I think it might be real...

You are seriously suggesting we have a spare runway, we use maybe one weeka year? Is there any way perhaps that the South East of England is NOT in any way like DFW? Please stop using CAPs as well, being shouty doesn't make you right.

silverstrata, the issue of fog simply isn't imaginery. It's ironic that you're arguing about this now, when much of the south-east has been shrouded in the stuff including Sheppey where you want to plonk this :mad: airport!!

Its not just about moving Heathrow, there are many businesses around the Thames valley that are there to cater for the airport. The people that work at Heathrow and these other businesses mostly live in and around that area. Closing Heathrow and building this fantasy island would mean moving the whole lot to the other side of London.

Crossrail will take people from Canary Wharf to Heathrow in 30 minutes. There is actually quite a lot of wasteland around Heathrow if you have a look. The third runway proposal seems to me the way to go. Unfortunately this would mean bulldozing a very small village and moving a few people. It is however a much more feasable plan than relocating the huge numbers as above.

I cant help feeling that the whole thames island plan is being proposed in order to show just how ludicrously expensive it will be so that the government can then revert back to the third runway plan and act as though it is saving money.

Your understanding of history is wanting I am afraid.

There was no great design years ago that has led to this structure.

These airports weren't suddenly built to the size and capacity they are at now, they grew over many many years from being old wartime or aircraft manufacturing airfields.

If you could start all over again that would be great and your end result would't look like it does now, but you can't.

And including LHR, which cancelled hundreds of flights.

The point is that a much larger airport, that is not capacity restricted like LHR, would not have to reduce traffic flows during Low Vis opps. Had this recent fog blanketed a much larger Thames airport, there would have been no flight cancellations.

So what is your problem?




LCY has nothing to to do with Heathrow. Of course it is quicker by train to London, but it is NOT quicker by train to LHR (because of all the changes, see my earlier post).

The point is that it is now easier to interline via CDG or AMS, because many low cost carriers go there and you can easily pick up your long haul fight. Thus LHR is loosing out big time, because it has no more capacity to take the smaller and lower cost feeder airlines. And if LHR is losing out, then so (eventually) is the City of London and the UK as a whole.

A larger Thames airport would, of course, have the capacity to undercut AMS and CDG.




What you said was:
There are no "short" runways at CDG.

If you don't want to be shot down in flames, then don't overfly the flak batteries.




Eh??? Your getting close to the flak batteries again. We are talking international interlining here.




You're way behind the drag-curve on this one, Skippy. One of the big markets now is Lo-Co** flyers jumping into Schippy And Charlie to go Stateside (or elsewhere).

Why do you think that Schiphol went to the trouble of building a special 'terminal' for Lo-Co fliers? Why do you think that a nation of only 15 million has such a large airline? And that is all market share that LHR has lost, because it has no capacity for regional aircraft.

** They are called Lo-Co flyers for obvious reasons. I would not step on one, but then many people simply gravitate to the cheapest routes.





Come off it Skippy - you are right overhead the flack batteries with that comment, and I am sorely tempted to open fire.

How the hell do you think you can do a Cat IIIb autoland from a 6 degree glideslope onto an 1100m runway of half width ?!?

Think about it, Skippy, think about it.




Hey, Jabird, this is a 70-year project. For planning purposes, all of Europe is domestic.



Never ask a lady or a pilot their age - you might get an answer you don't like, especially if you are the SLF just settling down to a G&T.




There are some of that opinion jumping on the bandwagon. But I can assure you that Boris is quite sincere in this proposal.

London does not have an inalienable right to be the financial center of Europe, and if it becomes a nightmare to get there, and to get anywhere else from there, then London will become a financial backwater. And if that happens, then the UK sinks without trace - especially as successive governments have destroyed our once fine manufacturing industries.

As I said before - a nation that stands still, is going backwards. And the UK has been going backwards for a couple of decades now.

Rather than being a 'fantasy island', a central hub that combines air, rail, road, and potentially even sea links, could generate the UK a great deal of money.




.

That is utter balderdash. Look at, for example, Schiphol: 6 runways operating notably under maximum capacity. Fog there today and recently, lots of significant delays and cancellations.

Toronto Pearson: 5 runways, has to cease use on at least on of them (24L/06R) when they are operating in Low Vis. And consequently flow rates decrease.

Detroit: 6 runways, 4 of which are parallel and able to normally operate simultaneously. It is not yet at saturation like Heathrow, but flow rates drastically drop when in Low Vis.

This is because it's all being well landing an aircraft on the runway, but they have to then taxi from the runway to stand. This isn't easy when the fog is so bad the controller can't see the plane, and the pilots can't see much further than the end of their nose.

My understanding of history is second to none.

And that is the whole problem, isn't it? There was no planning, there was no thinking, there was no foresight.

>>Even when fine airports like Gaydon or became available, nobody thought of using them. Its no problem, we can hack the cross-winds and the dodgy flightpath directly over the city.
>>When Finningly became available, they still put money into the grotesque amusement arcade known as Leeds (anyone for a roller-coaster landing?? £5 extra, if we bounce more than once.....)
>>When Filton became available, they still used an airfield that had been designed for bad weather practice.
>>When MAN wanted a new terminal, they put it on the wrong side; and when they wanted a new runway, they put it too close to the old runway. So now you have an airport that cannot do parallel approaches, and has absolutely no spare stands (and nowhere to put any new stands) - oh, just wait for 45 minutes, before a stand becomes available. Brilliant.
>>And Luton. Oh, just don't mention Luton. Tell me of any other airport in the world, that has built a terminal without any windows?
>>Liverpool? Lesson number one in how to completely disfigure and destroy a brand new terminal. And you wonder why I question the sanity of architects...


Just because there were (many) mistakes and a distinct lack of foresight in the past, does not mean that we desperately need to bury our heads in the sand now. Tell me what would happen to UK Plc, if LHR became a small regional airport, because all the heavies had moved to AMS and CDG? What would the great City of London become then?

Bold action is required (not something the previous or present governments would know much about).



The Leeds amusement arcade.

Paddy Air, at Leeds. The runway is towards the bottom left, chaps.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/a...2_1374817a.jpg



This is the Chinese approach at Leeds (Whun-wing Low).

http://www.nsitt.com/jackscafe/wp-co...g-bradford.jpg



The dodgems ride, is in the car park (drivers with flat caps, you understand) :)




.

I find most of the arguments on this thread ridiculous.

As FGMC says, "These airports weren't suddenly built to the size and capacity they are at now, they grew over many many years from being old wartime or aircraft manufacturing airfields.

If you could start all over again that would be great and your end result would't look like it does now, but you can't"

The best thing to do IMHO would be to accept that South East England already has enough airports, whatever their problems and limitations, and concentrate simply on first building a proper rail network, integrated into the normal rail ticketing at standard prices, to link all four London airports together. Then runways and development can take place at each of them and passengers can transfer between them for connecting flights or catch trains to a final UK destination. A properly designed rail ring will connect to all main lines east west north and south, benefiting everyone with a journey to make even if not by air.

Heathrow needs to be linked to Clapham Junction and to Gatwick so that long haul passengers can reach it from south and east of London. Also build a spur to Feltham and acquire the Heathrow Express extension from BAA and integrate into the national rail ticketing scheme. Right now connections north, south and south east of Heathrow are pitiful. A properly financed rail network (not one built on the cheap ... the British way) linking all airports to and also preferably through London would provide the infrastructure that the country needs. Yes it's expensive but look at the cost of not doing this.

This idea of a new airport somewhere east of London is just absurd. Build a proper ring of rail connections and it no longer matters where the airports are. Certainly no need to build more.

SS,

As you have correctly pointed out, building an island airport is an expensive operation. Therefore, two sets of parallel wide spaced runways would be far more expensive than two sets of close ones. The terminal should provide sufficient separation to allow simultaneous approaches on each side of it, but all we have for now is a concept sketch, not a detailed plan unless you can give us a link for one?

Exactly, you are shunting the entire Thames Valley 180deg, and shoving millions of people through London to get to an airport the other side. This isn't just an engineering challenge on the site in question, it presents an enourmous overloading on the surface transport network throughout the SE.

This is surely a matter for the terminal designers - granted, that is more Foster's field, I would be interest to see if Arups have made a public comment on this, I know they have slammed the routing alignments for hs2.

I am still puzzled that you claim to be a 76 jockey. I will admit I am no pilot, but I have never come across the concept of a domestic runway. A runway is a strip of (insert material of choice) - it does not care who is inside the plane, or where it is going. Either the plane can take off or it cannot, based on:

a) The aircraft size / weight.
b) The load, including fuel.
c) Weather conditions.
d) Elevation (obviously not an issue here).
e) Engine configuration.

Now as a general rule, larger aircraft operate longer routes, and international routes are longer than domestic ones, but this is by no means cast in stone. I have done BHX-EWR in a 757, and LHR-FRA in a 767, and let's not even start on Japan!

And I'm sorry, we have to consider a proposal against the politics of now, and even looking ahead, these aren't the EUs best days. Arriving into the UK, you have red, green and the EU blue channels, then you have domestic flights from IOM & Channel Is (not sure about GIB?) subject to customs allowances, not to mention the Canaries, and where do you label Morocco? It all gets very very messy, and that is for the terminal designers to sort out. If there are any specifically designated domestic runways (as opposed to airports restricted to domestic only flights), please do go ahead and name them.

Yes.

a. Mainly because aircraft cannot get out of, or into, other airports.
If an aircraft is having trouble with (say) LGW earlier in the day, it is not going to be at AMS for the evening rotation - or even for the next morning's rotation. And some Lo-Co airlines are renowned for not having any spare crew, when the previous crew go out of hours, and so the next AMS rotation is cancelled - but that has nothing to do with AMS inbounds.

b. Some airlines still insist on buying Boeing short haulers, which cannot land in thick fog (only Cat IIIa). Again, nothing to do with AMS.


The holding patterns are rarely used at AMS, which makes it a bit of a shock when ATC suddenly says 'take up the hold'. The main delays are very strong westerlies at AMS, because it is then down to one landing runway. Luckily that does not happen too often.



LGW have a 'follow the greens to the stand' system. Its a doddle.



.

SS,

Let's not go round dismissing every single airport in the UK, that really just opens this into a rather messy and pointless rant. Or do you want me to start on JFK - I mean, how many terminals? ATL? Enough!

Back to the history of new, out of the way, mega-airports - generally a very messy game, with so much that can go wrong - and that is just the ones that don't sink.

Is it not fair to say that those that work do so because they have not just space to grow, but also because they are not hindered by other airports in their hinterland.

Consider - DEN, HKG, MUC and the new BER - replacing previous airports, shut down, gone.

Good lobbying has held DAL back against DFW.

Then there's good old Mirabel!

Now imagine you are pitching this airport idea in the Dragon's Den - remember, UK Govt Plc would need a serious rights issue to fund this one!

Look at the risks:

-No guarantee demand for air travel will continue to rise - LHR traffic has -barely moved in last 10 years, despite T5.
-UK highest taxation rates for air travel in world - especially long haul
-Oil more likely to go up in cost, not down.
-Concerns over climate change likely to limit growth of aviation market.

Then if you want your SWAT analysis, consider the opposition:

-For GNB Island (George, norm & Boris) to work, how many London areas would be asked, or made to close? None? Welcome to Mirabel 2.0. Just LHR? how about LCY? Or all of them? A political and financial nightmare to put so many separate companies out of business, especially as BAA has been forced to sell LGW and EDI.
-You talk of 'interlining' between loco and long haul at CDG & AMS. I wouldn't call that interlining, people who do this are making two entirely seperate bookings, attemtping to avoid UK long haul APD. But this is often a false economy, as there is no comeback if any one (of at least 4) legs of the overall trip is delayed. Either way, this leakage is down to tax difference rather than infrastructure. Most loco AMS and CDG traffic is PTP, in case you weren't aware, they both happen to be rather attractive cities to visit. Why would investors want to put billions in to a new airport facility to go after this market, when price sensitive travellers would just continue to usee STN, LTN etc.

Now in very crude figures - if, and it is a very big if, you could build this airport for £50bn, and the airport could make a clean PROFIT (not PSC) of £10 out of each one, unless my calculator is having a very bad day, I make that 50 years to pay back at 0% APR.

Do you know any good banks which would support this deal, I will move my mortgage to them!

Is APD worth around £2.5 billion a year to the UK? If so, channel all that into the new airport fund along with all the new ETS revenue from aviation, all the fuel duty, tax, all the UK visa revenue, and you could build it in the next decade - all paid for by the aviation industry directly - everybody's happy!

As is your modesty.

Winniebago. All the money raised on different aviation tax is already accounted for. So spending it on a new airport will result in further cuts elsewhere. Not very likely.
globetrotter2 you idea re rail links is in my view a good one. What is needed is an integrated transport policy that takes account of all the different interests, ie road,rail and aviation.
A project the size of the proposed Thames airport would require consideration of the transport issues, but also socio economic, environmental issues etc. I guess Silvestrata will claim that this is a New Labour philosophy. I disagree, we have a history since the second world war of taking account of these issues. Most of the population don't give a dam about aviation and why should they. So if you wish to spend £50 billion of public funds you will need to produce a very convincing case. Something SS has failed to do especially as his answer to any criticism of his views tends to either insult the poster, or post photos of planes landing. I know that SS will disagree with my views as am an Architect and therefore not only brain dead but also of questionable sanity.
To have any hope of persuading people to back the Thames airport proposal SS you will have to stop insulting people but rather listen to their views, something you have shown little willingness to do so far.

And what was the pay-back time for the M1?
More importantly, what was the increase in the GNP (and quality of life) that the M1 provided?

These are the questions that need to be answered.




Taking the price of land-space around London into account, I think you will find that this 'solution' costs three times as much as a new Thames airport. The advantage of Boris Island, is that the freehold on the land is 'free'.





Here is the primary proposal.

Thames Estuary Airport

You will have to forgive the website, as a shortage in funds meant that much of it was put together by Shoeburyness Primary School. And many of their crayons were broken. But you will get the idea.

Like every successful British enterprise, the plan was made on the back of an envelope ... I think I still have it, but if not, it will be down the back of the sofa :O

Please forgive the deliberate error of the runways being too close together, and the terminals located at the end of the runways. We were just testing Boris' sense of humour.



.

<<LGW have a 'follow the greens to the stand' system. Its a doddle.>>

As does Heathrow...

globetrotter,

When you say 4, I take it you exclude LCY and SEN?

Problem is, the rail network is built around major stations, essentially in and out of central London. There is direct FCC LGW-LTN service, but largely by accident of the Thameslink project, not a specific plan to link them.

There are certain elements of the rail orbital you talk of planned by TfL, but not on the scale you suggest, again the cost would be billions.

Also, most traffic at STN and LTN is point to point, so is a good chunk at LGW - the high value, high yield stuff goes through LHR anyway, so it will always be cheaper to let the others take buses.

As for simple rail improvements at London airports? A spur to LTN? And why oh why was £1.8bn spent on a mile or two tunneling into LHR, but not 'left turn' to the major rail junction of Reading provided?