Thames Estuary Airport

[colegate]

There now seem to be three informal proposals for a new airport for London in the Thames Estuary. One is the so-called Boris Island. The second is the Norman Foster proposal and the third is John Olsen's idea for an airport at Cliffe.

Fact:Government ideas about no new airport capacity in the South East are absurdly unrealistic. London is by far the largest air transport market in the world. It is about 40% bigger than its next biggest competitor- New York. LHR is pretty close to maximum utilisation and so is LGW. STN is only attractive to so-called low cost carriers.

Fact: airports are as important to a modern economy as wet ports were to the Victorians. So why is a fine airport system for London not important to this government in Britain?

Fact: LHR cannot expand because of government policy so why does not the government agree in principle that a new airport is needed to replace LHR? Does it not accept the importance of communications in the modern world?

Please let us have some debate and communication about this in this forum.

Does anyone oput there know where John Olsen can be contacted. After all one of the proposals is his. I have tried in vain to find an internet address where there might bbe any detail about his proposal and I would love to know more.

[Phileas Fogg]

London's streets became congested and they introduced a congestion charge forcing the cheapskates in to making alternative arrangements.

Introduce such a congestion charge, perhaps by increasing APD tax, for the London airports and that'll send the LoCo's running for the hills to the likes of Bournemouth, Manston, Cambridge etc. etc. etc. whilst freeing up a bucket load of capacity at LGW, STN etc. eliminating any need for any new airport for long a foreseeable future.

[Expressflight]

I remember that I forecast on this Forum in 2008 that it could be 5 years before traffic levels recovered to 2007 levels. Yet things are as uncertain now in that regard as they were then with no indication of that happening in the short term, and there is even the possibility (probability?) that growth will be extremely modest over the coming few years.
The rapid growth era is over in my view with oil prices likely to remain at least on the high side of average indefinitely and I simply cannot see the sort of investment that a Thames Estuary airport would require being forthcoming. The planning process would become bogged down in legal challenges from environmentalists and others that would go on for years.
Apart from all that if the new airport is proposed as an alternative to LHR, which would presumably close, then it is in completely the wrong place; no matter how much new transport infrastructure is put in place.

[Toxic Thrust]

I think back in our day the idea was Maplin Airport on the Maplin sands with a high speed rail link. I certainly think if that had happened there would be none of the capacity issues that we talk about today. But I agree with Expressflight that in todays world the investment will just never be forthcoming and in this age the legal challenges and environmentalist lobby would be as expensive as the building project itself.

[JSCL]

Oh I thought we already had an estuary airport, owned by a certain Stobart air? It's a stupid idea, some great potential sites near central London with existing connections to other London airports and city centre, why bother with Thames estuary when existing infrastructure is there??

[Phileas Fogg]

Much of the problem is that the Brits that travel from/to the London airports are not actually from London nor the south nor the south east, they might be from the Midlands, East Anglia, the west and south west, and all the way up country(s).

Many of these will be driving past such airports as BOH, BHX, EMA, MAN etc. on their way to the London airports, such airports that they travel past do often offer an alternative to travelling via London but much of this is ignorance by the travelling public coupled with no incentive for them to look for an alternative to travelling via London.

Were London APD to be increased and used to subsidise a regional airports APD decrease then the travelling public would soon pick up on this increasing much needed traffic at the regional airports whilst steadying, decreasing, traffic at the London airports.

[ATNotts]

Phileas:

Hear Hear!!!

[The Member]

JSCL
Oh I thought we already had an estuary airport, owned by a certain Stobart air? It's a stupid idea, some great potential sites near central London with existing connections to other London airports and city centre, why bother with Thames estuary when existing infrastructure is there??

JSCL can you expand on your idea that there are potential sites near to central London?

There needs to be a business case for building a NEW Airport and I think if we want to remin in the forefront of HUB/SPOKE operations we need a NEW Airport designed from the start to iron out the awful experience that airtravel gives to the majority of passengers prior to and post their experience in an aeroplane. There is not the time to get planning to sort out LHR/LGW and STN is not the answer.
A NEW Airport in the Thames Estuary away from built up areas and with high speed connections to STN/LGW as well as Central London is not such a daft idea.:ok:

[Phileas Fogg]

The Member,

Too much air travel to/from UK is being funnelled through a minority of airports in the south east of England.

One can travel the world from airports in the north in Scotland, all the way down England and even from CWL in Wales.

What is daft that there is no, so to speak, flow management in place, there is absolutely no need to funnel so many travellers through the neck of a funnel in the south east of England and there should be an incentive or few in place to encourage travellers to make more use of the, their local, regional airport(s).

How many UK airports do the likes of KLM, Lufthansa, Air France, SAS etc. etc. etc. operate to/from, why do so many people need to funnel through the south east of England?

The answer is "they don't" and rather than concreting over the green and pleasant land the government should come up with an incentive or few to better utilise the underused airports that already exist.

[nigel osborne]

Re "The member";

"A NEW Airport in the Thames Estuary away from built up areas and with high speed connections to STN/LGW as well as Central London is not such a daft idea.":hmm:


You seem to have forgotten about 2 million sea and wading birds living in the vacinity where the new airport would go.

Two independent reports have already stated that even if most of these birds could be slaughtered, huge numbers would still live around the edges, making bird strikes "extremely likely on a regular basis"for aircraft using such a location"

For that reason alone an estuary airport was deemed not viable.:sad:

This topic seems to be being used by politicians to score points.

As another member rightfully says LGW,STN , and even BHX should be used to better effect.

Nigel

[jdcg]

Would an estuary airport really be viable unless we closed LHR? Everyone seems to think this hub airport is desperately important but airlines didn't rush to STN when there was a ton of capacity there and those that start up at LGW soon de-camp to LHR if they can afford the slots. Why would any airline move its ops to an estuary airport -a location even less accessible to the majority of the UK than STN? The only remote possibility that this might happen is if the airport was 24h and permitted loads of domestic flights and super-short-haul - unlikely to be any Gov policy in the foreseeable future.
The only airline that would hub from the UK is BA (IAG) and they have stated that the idea is bonkers. The Gov would have to compel them to move somehow.
Let's face it most of the affluent classes live closer to heathrow than the Thames estuary - who wants to spend hours on the M25 everytime they fly away on business?
In a way, airports in London resemble the situation in Tokyo. Everyone basically wants to fly from Haneda rather than Narita, but have been compelled to use Narita. Now they are having to pack it with LCCs because the mainline carriers all want to ease into Haneda if they can.
Boris' interest in the project is purely to gratify his supporters in West London who suffer from noise pollution and to keep him in the headlines with a contentious mega-project idea (not that he has any trouble with publicity with the Evening Standard now serving as his de facto mouthpiece).

[Facelookbovvered]

Dave & Nick screwed up on this one, LHR R3 should have been given the go ahead even if restrictions on it use were put in place. If they are saying no never, then the should releae the land set aside for development, if not swallow hard say they called it wrong and get on with it, we need the jobs, the investment, ensure that x number of slots are given over to domestic routes where train services are 2:30 or more away. It very likely that bmi will finish all domestic and short haul services into LHR from next Summer, we are hardly going help the North out of recession if business people can't get there and no prizes for guess what will happen where BA have the only LHR flights if Glasgow is anything to go by.

A go ahead before the year is out could see diggers on the ground next spring, there is no political danger for the coalition Labour had approved it and Nick Glegg is f****d what ever he does, they could even rename the place Gordon Brown international now, being grey, dull, ineffective and expensive, changing it to GB international after a revamp and R3 is built, time to put up or shut up with regards to the set aside land!

[Skipness One Echo]

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/460434-boris-island.html

Mirabel-on-Sea
Quote:
So should we completely ignore a proposal from someone who is one of the world's most accomplished architects, aswell as being a (crossbench) peer?
Yes he likes to build shiny new things and raise the profile of his profession. Not the same thing as a rigorous cost analysis coupled with a decent business case.

The current "strategy" talks of taking the strain off Heathrow. Unless you legislate to remove the critical mass of connectivity OUT of LHR and move it no this facility, then the business case is empty. Without regulation, you won't have anyone moving to a facility further out than STN and LTN even if it is well connected to London. Gatwick is a piece of cake to get to from London but can't compete with LHR on that level.

Either build a new airport and shut LHR completely or expand LHR. There is no comprehensible case for a middle ground argument here as existing capacity exists at STN already and a second runway could be built much cheaper than UK PLC shelling out to build and massive new island on a Western European economic cost base.

I would remind people once again that LHR suffers from being surrounded by urban sprawl to the South and *one* slightly rubbish village to the North. The major issues is NIMBY-ism in well-to-do West London. Anyone talking of taking the "strain off Heathrow" with this vanity project has no understanding of why LHR succeeds as a hub with critical mass and connectivity. I might add that closing LHR cuts off the the huge econimic driver of the M4 corridor from the air transport network and not closing LHR makes Boris Island Mirabel-on-Sea for our times.

Meanwhile London burns.....

[Occams Razor]

I think that finding the site for a new airport and getting the appropriate planning permissions will be a walk in the park compared to the LTMA redesign required to fit it all in.

[controlx]

Upper Heyford with a Shanghai-type maglev monorail down alongside the M40 into the west end - 20-25 minutes max.

Sorted.

Much, much cheaper, the right side of London, no chance of hitting a zillion birds every time one takes off and could be built by all the little b'stards Boris wants to put into national service.........a little diversion of HS2 is the alternative to the maglev - half way to the Midlands and onwards to Scotland

[cjhants]

Whenever I fly over Greenham Common at 1500-2000ft, I always think about the missed opportunity to re-locate LHR 25 years ago. I know about the "common" and the nimby issues, but it was ideally situated for the Thames Valley catchment, is also close enough to Oxford, Bristol, Southampton etc, as well as the main West Coast Rail line.

There was never going to be the political will to force it through.

[Phileas Fogg]

Is 'Swampy' still dug in down that way or does Newbury have a by-pass now? :)

[cjhants]

I think they buried him in the A34 foundations.