New Thames Airport for London

[PAXboy]

Boris has no opinion on this. That is, no opinion based on facts and observation of London. His only opinion is that he should be mayor until he can be PM.

[silverstrata]

.
Big news story in the London Evening Standard today, about how London will loose £100 bn if it does not upgrade its airport infrastructure in the SE.

Standard E-edition (http://standardonline.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/iphone/homepage.aspx#_title104920120521000000000010016/watitle104920120521000000000010016/1049/10492012052100000000001001/6/true)



The article does not mention the Silver-Boris Thames airport, but this is one obvious solution to the chaor that is Heathrow. Even if Silver-Boris takes years to complete, major international companies may still be induced to stay in London - instead of moving to Paris or Amsterdam - if they know that things will improve later.

Notice to politicians - This is not a decision that can be kicked into the political long grass forever. At some point London will cease to be an international center of world trade, if we do not have the infrastructure to support it. And when that happens, then the UK becomes the new Albania.

.

[PAXboy]

I refer silverstrata, to answers posted in another thread on this same report.

LN-KGL
Again wrong words are used in the media to describe this airport crisis. It will not be a cost. Britain are saving money by not investing in better airports. But Britain doesn't get any extra revenue either.

However, if Britain had invested more money in airports and other transport infrastructure, the country may have ended up with £100bn extra revenue the next 20 years. The question now would be: How much must be invested to get these £100bn in revenue? £10bn? £50bn? £100bn? On thing is for certain, you don't get anything for free.

horatio b
As the report was commissioned by BAA you would hardly expect any other conclusion.....

[Fairdealfrank]

Welcome back Silver! It's about time, where have you been?!

Quote: "Notice to politicians - This is not a decision that can be kicked into the political long grass forever. At some point London will cease to be an international center of world trade, if we do not have the infrastructure to support it. And when that happens, then the UK becomes the new Albania."

silverstrata, we have found common ground at last!

A very informative article in the London Evening Standard".

Well, well, so over half think the government should review its opposition to a third runway at LHR. Only 27% want to rule it out permanently, and a third of those against say that the government should be "open-minded" about it.

It isn't as surprising as some may think.

The message has got through that it's a third runway or mixed mode and a shorter night curfew.

Without a third rwy, the only way to squeeze (a few) more movements out of the system is for mixed mode, (take offs/landings on both runways simultaneously) even though this will not address the issue of congestion and delays on and above the airport.

Pilot schemes of mixed mode (excuse the pun) have started already and will be ramped up during the Olympics. At present with alternation (one rwy for take offs only the other just for landings, swapped over at 1500) allows a half day of peace everyday for those under the flightpath. Obviously with mixed mode, this is lost. The trials are concentrating minds.

Airport users are increasingly frustrated by the delays on takeoff and landings and by the decreasing number of destinations available from LHR.

The impact on growth generally is a point being made by business and this is becoming apparent with the lack of recovery after the recession (obviously there are many causes for the lack of recovery).

Talk of "Silver Island" reminds people of the prosperity and jobs directly and indirectly generated by the presence of LHR and the impact of its decline or closure.

We're running out of "long grass", it's time now for some political reality: let BAA have their third rwy, and a fourth preferably, do it now.

[DaveReidUK]

Pilot schemes of mixed mode (excuse the pun) have started already and will be ramped up during the Olympics.

Two additional freedoms have been announced for Phase II of the mixed-mode trial which could potentially have a significant effect on capacity/resilience.

One is an increase in TEAM intensity (mixed-mode arrivals) from the current limit of 6 to a maximum of 12 landings per hour on the departure runway.

The other is provision for reducing the gap to 1 minute between consecutive departures that would otherwise require 2 minutes separation on the same SID, presumably subject to the ICAO PANS requirement that one or both is vectored immediately after takeoff so that their tracks diverge by at least 45°.

[silverstrata]

Again wrong words are used in the media to describe this airport crisis. It will not be a cost. Britain are saving money by not investing in better airports. But Britain doesn't get any extra revenue either.

This displays a lack of business accumen.

If your shop has such difficult access and looks so shabby that nobody comes in, then you have no income and you LOOSE MONEY. Same with the UK. If the best roads we can afford are goat tracks, and our best airports can only accommodate a Piper Aztec, you will not find anyone seting up a business in the UK or comming to the UK, and we will LOOSE MONEY.


As a matter of urgency, we need investment in infrastructure and in new industry, and without this we WILL become the new Albania - poverty stricken and starving. Have you ever looked at the business pages of the Sunday Times? There has been no industrial or export news for the last four months. And all the many reports about banks, however interesting, are merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. Banking is parasitic, it does not generate wealth.


So we need new infrastructure, and we need it yesterday. Its just that the 3rd runway is not the way to go. That is merely a sticking-plaster to a much greater problem.

Oh, and we need cross-rail to join up with HS2, the Chunnel, and with Silver-Boris. If it does not do this, then we need a lamppost and some rope. Someone has to take responsibility. We have had nearly two decades of ducking and diving, with nobody taking responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in.


.

[compton3bravo]

You better get the lamppost stressed tested first before putting any rope on it!

[PAXboy]

silverstrataWe have had nearly two decades of ducking and diving, with nobody taking responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in.Correct! Having lived and worked in the UK all my adult life I confidently predict that NOTHING is going to change. Not until we have hit the bottom of the cycle with an almighty thump. That moment is still some years away.

The current set of politicians are all risk averse because (I suggest) they have grown up with that culture following in the 89/91 recession. Every business now tries to minimise their risk by off loading it on to others. Therefore, no one is going to take any risks - eventhough we now need risks to be taken. That is, to offset the risks taken by the bankers with our money during the 1995~2007 boom!

Simples. :uhoh:

[PAXboy]

Johnson goes for the island once again ...
BBC News - Johnson: Government tip-toeing back to third runway (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18242602)

Includes this statement;
Mr Johnson says he will "die in a ditch" to prevent a third runway and instead urges the government to discard the coalition agreement and consider expanding at Stansted or Gatwick as an interim solution ahead of any new airport built in the South East.

He also dismisses a suggested proposal that RAF Northolt - close to Heathrow - should be brought into use as a third runway for Heathrow.

Soooo ANOTHER return to the impractical short term fudge of STN/LGW. Well done Boris, clear headed thinking there. :hmm:

[fmgc]

3rd runway at LHR is the last thing we need.

It benefits one airline and one airline only. BA.

It will increase costs for all the other airlines operating into LTN, STN & LCY as LHR traffic always get priority increasing the track miles for all the other airports' traffic.

STN expansion has to be the priority. It is the low hanging fruit of London airport expansion.

[Ernest Lanc's]

PAXboy
Good link - I had not seen that..Hope it's true, as it will be good for LHR.London and the rest if the UK, if the coalition really is tiptoeing towards the third runway.
If Boris wants to "die in a ditch", well it's a free country.

[jabird]

Soooo ANOTHER return to the impractical short term fudge of STN/LGW. Well done Boris, clear headed thinking there.

Whatever he does is going to be a fudge, and some people aren't going to be happy. We don't have 50m2 of prairie or desert to turn into a new airport to suit ever airline's whim, so whatever gets built - if anything at all, is going to be a compromise.

There is nothing short term about building a new runway at LGW or STN - either would still take 15 years to plan and build.

[Skipness One Echo]

We don't have 50m2 of prairie or desert to turn into a new airport to suit ever airline's whim, so whatever gets built - if anything at all, is going to be a compromise.
How about demolishing Sipson and building a third runway where it helps the economy most? I mean it's a pretty awful wee place that's been dying for years, BAA own much of it anyway.

[PAXboy]

By chance, I've just stumbled across a quote attributed to Groucho Marks:

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "How about demolishing Sipson and building a third runway where it helps the economy most? I mean it's a pretty awful wee place that's been dying for years, BAA own much of it anyway."

The villages north of LHR are already blighted, regrettably, because of the on-off nature of the LHR expansion issue. This is grossly unfair on the remaining residents who cannot sell their houses on the open market if they want to leave. Many long time residents are gone and the villages' populations are becoming increasingly transient.

We don't want the same situation to develop around other south east airports or potential airports sites, so let's do what needs to be done.

[silverstrata]

Johnson goes for the island once again ...
BBC News - Johnson: Government tip-toeing back to third runway

Includes this statement;
Mr Johnson says he will "die in a ditch" to prevent a third runway and instead urges the government to discard the coalition agreement and consider expanding at Stansted or Gatwick as an interim solution ahead of any new airport built in the South East.

He also dismisses a suggested proposal that RAF Northolt - close to Heathrow - should be brought into use as a third runway for Heathrow.

Soooo ANOTHER return to the impractical short term fudge of STN/LGW. Well done Boris, clear headed thinking there.



Interesting.

You have to understand that building Silver-Boris is not within Boris' remit, he would have to get government permission and backing. The way to do that is prevent expansion at LHR (government preference) and point towards Stanstead (no one's preference) as a way of angling towards a Thames solution.

Politics is a game of push, divert, bluff, and prod. It is rarely straightforward. But Boris is right, the only option that will take us into the 22nd century is a clean-sheet Estuary option - Silver-Boris.

.

[catflap37]

Boris might not know what he is talking about but surely his colleagues in the Tory party are on the ball? Down here in the *rse end of Kent, the local MP, Roger Gale writes in the local press to tell us how he has been meeting with the aviation minister to promote the use of Manston as an alternative both to Boris Island and to expansion of Heathrow. The Leader of Kent County Council, Mr. Carter, is vehemently opposed to Boris's plans and has also been promoting the use of Manston as an alternative. Some unkind souls have suggested that Manston is a non-starter because it is in the middle of nowhere. I would describe it as East of that location. Still, what do I know? I'm just relying on my elected representatives to do their research before making suggestions that might waste millions of pounds.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "You better get the lamppost stressed tested first before putting any rope on it!"

Quite right, and don't forget the risk assessment or you'll have the health and safety boys and girls after you (yawn).

Quote: "3rd runway at LHR is the last thing we need.

It benefits one airline and one airline only. BA."

How so? Surely the extra slots that would become available would drive the price down for all and may allow more carriers to access Heathrow, particularly smaller ones that have hitherto been excluded by high slot prices.

AFAIK, the rules would give new entrants preference for allocation of the new slots over incumbents. How does that benefit BA only?


As for Boris, he can throw as many tantrums and die in as many ditches as he likes. Aviation policy is not part of his remit.

His transport responsibilities lie on and under the ground, the highest he gets is elevated railways. That is enough for him to be getting on with.

[Heathrow Harry]

Aviation policy may not be in Boris's remit but he's the leading candidate to replace Dave should he fall under a passing Coalition bus

he's just been elected, he has several years in office - can you REALLY see any Tory Govt going head to head with their own elected Mayor in the biggest electoral area in the UK?

Can you imagine the headlines???

Its time to move on from LHR

[silverstrata]

to promote the use of Manston as an alternative both to Boris Island and to expansion of Heathrow.


Unfortunately, they still don't understand what this debate is all about and what London needs. This is not about a grotty Manston to take a few flights, with connections to nowhere, it is about connecting the world.

This is NOT even about London capacity. This is about having a world-standard interlining hub. Once you control the interlining hub of Northern Europe, all transport and trade heads in your direction. All roads lead to Rome, as they used to say, which keeps your capital at the hub of the Empire. If London loses that status as the hub of Europe, it will loose its trade, business, investment, jobs, and the entire S.E. economy will collapse.

Its sink or swim time. Either London keeps its world status, or you can bank on all salaries and all economic activity across London and the S.E. being slashed by 50% in real terms. Your choice, Boris and Ca-moron.


.

[Bagso]

hmmmm .........

Still nobody seems to have addressed the issue of cronic limited airspace in the London TMA !

Can somebody elaborate ? :ugh:

[PAXboy]

silverstrataThis is about having a world-standard interlining hub. Once you control the interlining hub of Northern Europe, all transport and trade heads in your direction.Call me a doom monger but I would say that we have already lost control of that hub. It maybe that the actual numbers still show us on top but that is a lag.

Our facilities are behind many others and still falling. We all know that ANY solution will take a decade and by that time the numbers will show that we lost it between 2000 and 2010. I would go further and say that we had lost it before 2000 but that is by the by.

We retain a fair amount of trade for two reasons. Firstly, due to speaking English and the rest of Europe is improving their English all the time.

The other factor is the City of London and, for the moment, they are holding on but if we lose them (for whatever reason) there is no point in building even one more remote stand at Heathrow!

We are lucky that Schipol has not run away with the prize as KLM is now held back by AF but others will catch up and the English language alone will not save us.

[Fairdealfrank]

Silver, if (and it's a big if) your analysis is correct, the replacement airport has to be accessible to the whole country, not stuck in the middle of nowhere.

In other words it needs to be north or west of LHR and not east. Forget the nonsense about high speed links and only "20 minutes" from London.

However, there are many reasons why a replacement airport is fraught with difficulty and there is no need to mention them again here.

As for Boris, he has to be an MP before he can replace Call-Me-Dave as Conservative leader should the latter fall under the proverbial "37 bus".

He has promised to serve a full term as mayor which takes us past the next election. If he's lying about that, could he not be lying about "dying in a ditch", etc. as well?

[silverstrata]

Silver, if (and it's a big if) your analysis is correct, the replacement airport has to be accessible to the whole country, not stuck in the middle of nowhere.

In other words it needs to be north or west of LHR and not east.



You are forgetting that Silver Boris still needs to serve London, so it has to be close to London. The obvious position for Silver-Boris would be NW London, but that is simply no longer possible, both in terms of cost, land availability and noise disruption.

The only possibility in today's overcrowded environment is the Thames estuary. But remember, the new airport has to be well-connected, but not just to the UK but also to NW Europe. This is why the Thames location is an asset, because it can then link directly to Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris (by TGV).

Regards linking to the rest of the UK - if Cross-Rail and HS2 do not link up with the Chunnel line and also with the Silver-Boris in the Thames Estuary, then someone needs shooting.

Seriously - these are perhaps the biggest infrastructure projects of this century, that will effect the lives of the next five or more generations, and if some stupid planner get this wrong, the entire nation will suffer for centuries afterwards. These decisions are that important. We cannot have HS2 terminating 2km from the Chunnel, and the Chunnel terminating 2km from Cross-rail, and anyone planning such a national debacle need to face the full consequences of their stupidity.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "You are forgetting that Silver Boris still needs to serve London, so it has to be close to London."

Am forgetting nothing. Silver Island is not "close to London" (that's a description for LCY surely!). Silver Island would be further from London than Narita is from Tokyo and Incheon is from Seoul.

"But remember, the new airport has to be well-connected, but not just to the UK but also to NW Europe. This is why the Thames location is an asset, because it can then link directly to Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris (by TGV)."

You're talking about an integrated transport system. In other words, you're having a laugh! ICN has just got a rail link to Seoul after 11 years. BKK's link to Bangkok took about 3 years. Even the award-winning SIN took almost 20 years to be linked to the metro, so don't hold your breath!

By the way, who's paying for all of this? In the case of the above-mentioned new airports, it was the government. Despite Boris's bluster, is our's going to cough up for Silver Island?

Quote: "Regards linking to the rest of the UK - if Cross-Rail and HS2 do not link up with the Chunnel line and also with the Silver-Boris in the Thames Estuary, then someone needs shooting.

Seriously - these are perhaps the biggest infrastructure projects of this century, that will effect the lives of the next five or more generations, and if some stupid planner get this wrong, the entire nation will suffer for centuries afterwards. These decisions are that important. We cannot have HS2 terminating 2km from the Chunnel, and the Chunnel terminating 2km from Cross-rail, and anyone planning such a national debacle need to face the full consequences of their stupidity."

Get the firing squads ready, that is exactly what is proposed. In London, HS2 will be at Euston, HS1 is at St Pancras, and Crossrail will be about 1 mi. south, a tube ride away.

HS1 Stratford is 1 mi. from Stratford interchange, HS2 Elmdon/NEC will be 1 mi. from the existing Elmdon/NEC station.

Who knows whether HS2 will stop at Ringway or where the Manchester terminal will be, but probably not Piccadilly.

Does the use/proposed use of out of the way destinations ring any bells?

High speed rail is/will be the "Ryanair of the railways"


Quote: "The obvious position for Silver-Boris would be NW London, but that is simply no longer possible, both in terms of cost, land availability and noise disruption."

Well north or west of London certainly, not in the estuary. It cannot be In NW London obviously, but must not be so far out that it looks good to FR. The Roskill Commission (1971) suggested Cublington, Bucks, as a site for London's third airport, but that is way out.

There's a perfectly good site in Middlesex that's just 20 miles west of London and is adjacant to an existing large airport. This site already has a railway adjacant, is favoured by that airport's owner, the airlines, passengers, cargo operators, business and industry, and many who live work and make a good living in that area because of it.

[Heathrow Harry]

and 10 million people who live under the flight path hate it, it's a real dump, it can't be expanded, it's an accident waiting to happen and getting to it is a nightmare

[Skipness One Echo]

Can we please stop calling it Silver Island? Or Silver-Boris? It's taking ego to whole new levels.

and 10 million people who live under the flight path hate it, it's a real dump, it can't be expanded, it's an accident waiting to happen and getting to it is a nightmare
Where is this? If you mean Heathrow, can you account for how you have calculated this (massive) number? Everyone within the M25 can see an aircraft either inbound or out of Heathrow so I imagine you have extrapolated from that?

[Flightman]

10,000,000 live under the flight path? And how many of these didn't know there was an airport to the west of London?

[DaveReidUK]

The figure is about three-quarters of a million, according to the CAA, based on the EU's 55 Lden criterion.

[Heathrow Harry]

funnily enough a lot of people who live outside that definition still see themselves as in the Greater LHR area........

[DaveReidUK]

funnily enough a lot of people who live outside that definition still see themselves as in the Greater LHR area........

The 55 Lden contour corresponds to the World Health Organisation's definition of "severe annoyance".

The contour for 50 Lden equates to "moderate annoyance". I haven't seen this modelled for Heathrow, but it will typically be 2-3 times the area of the 55 Lden contour, though of course the relative size of the population affected won't necessarily be exactly in the same ratio.

[Skipness One Echo]

"severe annoyance".
How do they work this out given most of the locals I know grew up with it and don't care. Is it annoyance based on noise levels ignoring the above point or is there an algorithm someone cans share?

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, I think we can safely assume that those who don't care aren't counted among the severely annoyed. :O

[Skipness One Echo]

Yes, I think we can safely assume that those who don't care aren't counted among the severely annoyed.

I think you're wrong, I suspect "severe annoyance" is simply a certain decibel level. Anyone know?

[DaveReidUK]

I think you're wrong, I suspect "severe annoyance" is simply a certain decibel level. Anyone know?

Must desist from those late-night attempts at wit. :O

As I previously said:

The 55 Lden contour corresponds to the World Health Organisation's definition of "severe annoyance".

Lden is indeed a decibel value, or more accurately the weighted sum of 3 values for (d)ay, (e)vening and (n)ight.

so you are perfectly correct.

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal

Get the firing squads ready, that is exactly what is proposed. In London, HS2 will be at Euston, HS1 is at St Pancras, and Crossrail will be about 1 mi. south, a tube ride away.

HS1 Stratford is 1 mi. from Stratford interchange, HS2 Elmdon/NEC will be 1 mi. from the existing Elmdon/NEC station.



High speed rail is/will be the "Ryanair of the railways"


Did anyone in the DofT think it would be a good idea if the M6 stopped one mile short of the M1? Or the M40 stop one mile short of the M25?

Why is the UK suddenly innundated with numbskulls in government and the civil service? Is this the result of 15 years of 'enrichment', that we now get Indian civil planning?

And the TGV is far from being the Ryan Air of rail in France. It may not go to the city center, which is a bit of a pain, but there is always a bus into town. Its a good service, and I have been surprised to find it always nearly full.

.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Did anyone in the DofT think it would be a good idea if the M6 stopped one mile short of the M1? Or the M40 stop one mile short of the M25?"

In fairness, the M3 and M4 do stop well short of London (probably because they were built too late!). They also failed to complete a Paris-style "peripheral" highway that the motorways could link into!

However, bits of it were started and can be seen around Shepherds Bush, the elevated "westway" in Notting Hill, Trinity Road underpass in Wandsworth, and the north and south approaches of the Blackwall Tunnel.

That illustrates the lack of joined-up thinking so well!

Doubtless there are countless other examples up and down the country.

Quote: "Why is the UK suddenly innundated with numbskulls in government and the civil service? Is this the result of 15 years of 'enrichment', that we now get Indian civil planning?"

That's a very good question, silverstrata!

Quote: "And the TGV is far from being the Ryan Air of rail in France."

In fairness the "FR of the railways" comment referred specifically to the daft HS2 proposals as presently constituted, and the nonsense at Stratford on the Eurostar/HS1 (Javelin).

Quote: "It may not go to the city center, which is a bit of a pain, but there is always a bus into town."

At Paris-Nord, at least, the Eurostar and TGV are at the same station!

At London, they won't be. At Stratford, the Eurostar/HS1 (Javelin) and the rest of the interchange are a mile apart.

The "bus into town" concept defeats the purpose of HS rail. Time saved on travelling is lost faffing around before and after. It then becomes no different to traipsing out to the airport!

Quote: "Its a good service, and I have been surprised to find it always nearly full."

Not surprised the TGV trains are full. Unlike HS1, AFAIK, there isn't a premium payment for riding high speed trains in France, and train fares are lower anyway.


They can't get it right on the roads and railways, are we surprised they've messed it up on airports policy as well?!

[jdcg]

In Japan you pay a premium every time you want to go on an express train - be that the Shinkansen - or a rural express. Doesn't deter anyone as the journey time is so much shorter.

The only way to interchange HS2 with HS1 at St Pancras would be to tunnel HS2 deep down below the underground lines at presumably prohibitive cost, as the area is so congested. Aklternatively they could bulldoze a large residential area.

It took Tokyo years and years to build a connection in central Tokyo between the Shinkansen coming from the north to those going to the south and even now all the trains still just terminate in Tokyo. Most people travelling down HS2 won't want to go any further than London.

The only way you can really do joined-up transport policy is to create a brand new capital somewhere...

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "In Japan you pay a premium every time you want to go on an express train - be that the Shinkansen - or a rural express. Doesn't deter anyone as the journey time is so much shorter."

Good point, glad you mention Japan, it's country with much transport choice. Complimenting the Shinkansen is a huge network of domestic flights.

For example, there are about 50 flights/day (many on widebodied planes) between Tokyo's 2 airports and Osaka's 3 airports, in addition to a bullet train several times/hour.

Tokyo-Haneda is almost as busy as Heathrow and is still almost entirely domestic, there are only a handful of international flights.

Quote: "The only way to interchange HS2 with HS1 at St Pancras would be to tunnel HS2 deep down below the underground lines at presumably prohibitive cost, as the area is so congested. Aklternatively they could bulldoze a large residential area."

Or run both HS1, HS2 and the Eurostar out of London St Pancras, moving the Midland Mainline underneath with the Thameslink, or to London-Euston if neccessary. Public transport has to be convenient to get people off the roads!

Quote: "It took Tokyo years and years to build a connection in central Tokyo between the Shinkansen coming from the north to those going to the south and even now all the trains still just terminate in Tokyo.

Tokyo has just one massive station for both Shinkansen and conventional rail, with a metro interchange underneath.

Quote: "Most people travelling down HS2 won't want to go any further than London."

Maybe, maybe not, you know this how? Sounds like pure conjecture...

Quote: "The only way you can really do joined-up transport policy is to create a brand new capital somewhere... "

Forget that idea, it's hard enough to get just one runway built!

[Heathrow Harry]

Edinburgh???

[jdcg]

FDF - wrong to say that Tokyo has just one terminal. It has many - Shinjuku (a massive interchange), Ikebukuro, Ueno (where all the Shinkansens from the north used to terminate until the connector to Tokyo was built, many years later) for example.
What Japan does have is effectively a multitude of Crossrails as tube lines link up with private suburban railways.

Also Tokyo is double the size of London, japan double the size of UK.

And most people on HS2 would be heading for London and not beyond. That's where the bulk of the market has always been.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "FDF - wrong to say that Tokyo has just one terminal. It has many - Shinjuku (a massive interchange), Ikebukuro, Ueno (where all the Shinkansens from the north used to terminate until the connector to Tokyo was built, many years later) for example.
What Japan does have is effectively a multitude of Crossrails as tube lines link up with private suburban railways."


Point taken about Tokyo, doesn't mean that we should also wait many years before linked up HS1/2 in London, none of us will live that long!

You didn't mention the excellent circular line that links up the terminals you listed!

[jdcg]

Well, we do have the Circle line here in London which, for all its faults, is not so hideously crowded as the yamanote circular line in Tokyo!

[Rivet Joint]

I really hope this whole concept fades away. LHR is one of the most desirable airports in the world that airlines want and will continue to fly to regardless of how many pointless alternatives are created. Millions of private sector money has been ploughed in and BAA are proving not to rest on their laurels in terms of updating terminals, infrastructure etc yet the runways are at capacity. Are we really as a country going to throw all that to waste, ignore countless independent research proving that we stand to lose £8.5bn and embark on a massively complicated and long winded jolly to create an airport on a river bank all because of some nimby's?

If this was any other country in the world nevermind Europe the 3rd runway at LHR would be being paved as we speak day and night! Instead we have a nasty piece of work masquerading as a harmless buffoon coming to the conclusion Tracey Island is the solution to our problems :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[PAXboy]

Also with CrossRail now being dug (at long, long last!) how about taking LHR out of that? One of the (many) justifications was that CrossRail would get more pax into the airport underground, rather than by surface.

Of course, they could just not build the spur but - really? Successive UK govts have no idea on the topic of railways and airports (probably ports as well but I don't know anything about them!)

As is often said, all the folks who will have a problem with an expanded LHR get to protest but the folks who will benefit have no support group. because the promoters are those who will benefit financially, they are derided as being only in it for the money. It's Catch 22 every time in the UK.

[DaveReidUK]

If this was any other country in the world never mind Europe the 3rd runway at LHR would be being paved as we speak day and night!


You may yet get your wish.

From a BBC report a couple of days ago:

"But one Tory Minister has told me that the Government should lay the groundwork now for building a third runway here at Heathrow after the next election, and that the next Conservative manifesto shouldn't include any promises that would rule out future airport expansion"

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "If this was any other country in the world nevermind Europe the 3rd runway at LHR would be being paved as we speak day and night! Instead we have a nasty piece of work masquerading as a harmless buffoon coming to the conclusion Tracey Island is the solution to our problems"

As was the case in both AMS and FRA!

Quote: "As is often said, all the folks who will have a problem with an expanded LHR get to protest but the folks who will benefit have no support group. because the promoters are those who will benefit financially, they are derided as being only in it for the money. It's Catch 22 every time in the UK."

Exactly right, Rivet Joint and PAXboy you are both spot-on!

Many of the protesters do not live close to the airport and, more than likely, do not benefit directly or indirectly. As is often the case, it's a case of posturing and gesture politics (e.g. Boris "dying in a ditch", and Zac Goldsmith MP suggesting that he will not stand for election as a Conservative if Call-Me-Dave does a U-turn on LHR expansion).

Quote: "From a BBC report a couple of days ago:

"But one Tory Minister has told me that the Government should lay the groundwork now for building a third runway here at Heathrow after the next election, and that the next Conservative manifesto shouldn't include any promises that would rule out future airport expansion"

Interestingly, DaveReidUK, at Prime Ministers Questions today, Zac Goldsmith (Con, Richmond Park) asked the first question. Predictably, he enquired if the government was back-tracking on its opposition to LHR expansion. Tellingly, Call-Me-Dave did not rule it out. As his his wont, he didn't answer the question directly "yes" or "no", but left the door wide open.

[PAXboy]

"But one Tory Minister has told me that the Government should lay the groundwork now for building a third runway here at Heathrow after the next election, and that the next Conservative manifesto shouldn't include any promises that would rule out future airport expansion"Ah yes, all in the future. AFTER the next election (2015). i.e. this = Nothing.

On a related not to this thread - and sorry if it's already been flagged - I see this on the BBC and presumed that with the title is was about the Thames estury: BBC News - Jobs or birds: Turning Rio rhetoric into reality (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18421293)

Lydd expansion anyone??????

[jabird]

The only way you can really do joined-up transport policy is to create a brand new capital somewhere...

Like Berlin?

OK, not exactly new, second time around at the job, but they did managed to create the stunning new Central Station.

London already has too many terminii as it is. We can't expect to bring them into one, but it was shockingly poor thinking to use the old shed of St Pancras for the terminus of European services, instead of a through station.

A real case of style (it is beautiful) over substance, and now we get the totally botched thread of a link between HS1 and HS2, which will no doubt get quietly dropped when they realise it can't work. Ditto for LHR HS2 link.

Now Boris wants to extend Xrail out to STN and have another runway there. How many schemes has he backed now?

[Skipness One Echo]

He pays with our money and takes the credit for the hard work of others, like all financially incontinent fools who go into politics with no track record of real world or commercial delivery. Speaking of which :

Zac Goldsmith on Cameron (http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/zac-goldsmith-on-camerons-judgment-over-hunt-and-seedy-coulson-and-his-runway-betrayal-7865675.html)

A man from a family of billionaires doesn't want planes over his posh constituency. Should he not get his way, he's going to throw all his toys from the pram.

[jabird]

A man from a family of billionaires doesn't want planes over his posh constituency. Should he not get his way, he's going to throw all his toys from the pram.

Round here, one of the most prominent anti-CVT campaigners was quite happy going on record saying that we shouldn't be allowed to have flights because we weren't a "proper" airport. He only wanted to know about "proper" airports, not ones used by riff-raff carrying low cost airlines.

So where does Zac go on his hols? If LHR is beneath him, does he get a private jet from FAB?

[Fairdealfrank]

Would love know how Zac Goldsmith (and Justine Greening and some others) will justify to their constituents' the ending of their daily half-day of no aircraft noise when "mixed mode" operations become a reality and permanent and "alternation" is ended!

The truth is that these MPs cannot have it both ways: it's either a third rwy and the continuation of "alternation" on the existing rwys and a daily half-day of no aircraft noise or remaining at only 2 rwys and having mixed mode operations to squeeze in an extra 10% more movements.

The second option is "kicking the can down the road", because it doesn't end the congestion, and because the rwy issue will resurface again in the future.

The current status quo of 2 rwys with "alternation" is untenable: at Heathrow we currently put a quart into a pint pot, a gallon into a pint pot is not possible.

So, build two more rwys, keep "alternation", do it now.

[Barling Magna]

How can we expect to make sensible decisions in the whole nation's interest when people like Zac Goldsmith and Boris Johnson have influence on how the country is run? Whatever happened to needing talent to get to the top...... ?

I once thought the old order had been swept away by Wilson, Callaghan and Thatcher (with a little help from Lennon & McCartney, Jagger & Richards), but the posh boys are back in full control, and they still don't understand much about how a modern economy works - so swallow your foolish comments made earlier and build that extra runway at LHR. Please.

[VentureGo]

Quote [FairdealFrank]: "So, build two more rwys, keep "alternation", do it now."

Probably the right move if you mean 3rd & 4th Runways, (& Terminals?) to develop a true International Hub airport with excellent short haul & regional interlining on a par with the competition from Europe. At least, if proposals for a 3rd and 4th runway were promoted, building a 3rd runway would just become a compromise. No sympathy for argument from residents under the flightpath - They knew, when the bought their houses they were near the busiest International Airport - What do they expect?!

[Bagso]

Interesting debate, but the siren cries of "build a new runway are made without clear thought or indeed susbstance".

Two points;

Still no news on how we expand the airspace .......?

It isn't just Heathrow which is at capacity it is the London TMA so unless there is a mechanism to increase throughput simply building another runway will make no difference anyway !

Slots are at a premium at all the major London Airports, each airport has its own vested interests so unless one airport gives slots away to the other nothing will change !

On a second point even if the traffic throughput issue is fixed a new runway would only make a marginal difference. Assuming it will take 10 years to build capacity will still be capped at a rate well below demand based on current growth rates !

Ideally LHR needs 2 possibly 3 more runways to keep pace with demand over the longer term.

I appreciate its absurd but but the ideal situation is actually to close LGW and STN , build the 2 extra runways at LHR (WHICH is after all where people really want to go), and then give those slots to LHR.

[DaveReidUK]

20 JUNE 2012

The London Assembly today called on the Mayor to abandon his plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary, describing them as a simplistic and ill-conceived vanity project.

A motion agreed by Assembly Members urges the Mayor to abandon proposals which they warned would have a devastating effect on the west London economy, with up to 100,000 jobs at risk should Heathrow be forced to close.

They also warned that a major new airport in the estuary would create huge environmental damage to a protected area used by thousands of migrating birds as well as increase noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in south east London.

Murad Qureshi AM, who proposed the motion, said:

"With up to 100,000 jobs on the line at Heathrow it is incredible that the Mayor persists in promoting plans for a rival hub airport in the Thames Estuary. Such an airport would have a devastating effect on the west London economy as well as a serious impact on local wildlife in the estuary and a legacy of noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in south-east London.

“The message from industry, the airlines and conservationists is simple – the Mayor must drop this ridiculous vanity project.”

The full text of the motion agreed at today’s meeting reads as follows:

“This Assembly believes that the Mayor's plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary are simplistic and ill-considered and calls upon him to abandon this vanity project.

For a new airport in the Thames Estuary to be a success, Heathrow would need to close, which would have a devastating effect on London's economy, costing over 100,000 jobs in west London. The proposed airport would cause huge environmental damage to a protected area which is used by many thousands of migrating birds, creating a high risk of bird strike. It would threaten a huge increase in noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in the east and south east of London, especially in Bromley, Bexley, Havering and Barking.”

Boris airport (http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_london_assembly/boris-airport-%E2%80%98vanity-project%E2%80%99-slammed-assembly)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Probably the right move if you mean 3rd & 4th Runways, (& Terminals?) to develop a true International Hub airport with excellent short haul & regional interlining on a par with the competition from Europe. At least, if proposals for a 3rd and 4th runway were promoted, building a 3rd runway would just become a compromise."

Excellent idea, VentureGo, they should have done that originally! However, 4 rwys are really needed now. We needed 3 rwys some 20 years ago! The case for 4 rwys should be made now to save going through this farcical nonsense again later. Also 4 rwys enables alternation to be retained.

Quote: "No sympathy for argument from residents under the flightpath - They knew, when the bought their houses they were near the busiest International Airport - What do they expect?!"

As a local, and under the flightpath, quite agree with that! Have to say that house prices in my area do not reflect any disadvantages for being under a flightpath. People effectively pay a premium to live under an LHR flightpath. That says it all!

Quote: "It isn't just Heathrow which is at capacity it is the London TMA so unless there is a mechanism to increase throughput simply building another runway will make no difference anyway !"

Quote: "Ideally LHR needs 2 possibly 3 more runways to keep pace with demand over the longer term.

I appreciate its absurd but but the ideal situation is actually to close LGW and STN , build the 2 extra runways at LHR (WHICH is after all where people really want to go), and then give those slots to LHR."

Hmmm, interesting points, Bagso, are you also implying that the London TMA could not cope with four runways in the Thames estuary? That being the case, more airports than just LHR would need to close, making the estuary airport plans even more of a non-starter.

In an ideal world you are probably right, and consolidation at an expanded LHR would not necessarily be a bad thing, but there is no need to be so drastic. STN is contracting anyway, there is no long haul now and it almost 100% no frills and charter. One would expect much of LGW traffic to migrate to LHR if the slot situation eased, as it would with 3/4 rwys. As you say LHR is where the pax want to be and so would the airlines. It's doubtful that BA and VS would remain at LGW if LHR could accomodate all their operations.

With a 4-rwy LHR, LTN remaining static(?), STN and LGW contracting (but perhaps not closing), and SEN, LCY and possibly NHT (eventually?) being small scale operations anyway, the situation may not be as bad as you describe.





Boris airport 'vanity project' slammed by Assembly

About time! pity they're powerless and like a toothless old bulldog.

Quite right though. "Vanity project" is actually a very good description for the estuary airport (sorry Silver).

[silverstrata]

.

Looks like Boris is going for the stop-gap solution, of a runway at Stanstead.

Boris Johnson backs second runway at Stansted Airport as stop-gap before creation of Thames 'hub' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161316/Boris-Johnson-backs-second-runway-Stansted-Airport-stop-gap-creation-Thames-hub.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)


While the London Assembly is not entirely in favor of the Silver-Boris airport in the Thames.
Boris Airport 'Vanity Project' Slammed By Assembly : UK Construction News (http://www.build.co.uk/construction_news.asp?newsid=146210)


All of which is going to do absolutely nothing for the interlining international passenger into Europe.

"Welcome to Heathrow, sir. Your flight to Geneva leaves in 45 minutes - from Stanstead....."



.

[silverstrata]

Murad Qureshi AM, who proposed the motion, said:

"With up to 100,000 jobs on the line at Heathrow it is incredible that the Mayor persists in promoting plans for a rival hub airport in the Thames Estuary.





Murad Qureshi is obviously not bright enough to understand that if you close one airport down, and build a replacement elsewhere, you are not actually destroying any jobs.

Just where earth do we get these politicians from? Ah, yes, the land that transports its train passengers on the roof.....


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Hey welcome back Silver! A bit of common ground?

Quote: "All of which is going to do absolutely nothing for the interlining international passenger into Europe.

"Welcome to Heathrow, sir. Your flight to Geneva leaves in 45 minutes - from Stanstead....." "

Agree 100%, but it isn't going to happen. Airlines wanting to use LHR, and find that they cannot, will not go to STN, trust me! At present they go to LGW or abroad (AMS).

An airport operating at half its capacity and contracting certainly cannot justify another rwy if the world's busiest international airport, and third busiest airport overall, is not allowed to expand. More bluff and bluster from Boris?

The "Mail Online" article posted by silverstrata revealed a subtle but significant change of emphasis of government policy:

“Mr Cameron last week repeated the position in the Coalition agreement of no Heathrow expansion until 2015. But he said MPs should not be 'blind' to the need to expand airport capacity”

Ha ha, Clegg still thinks it’s banned forever.

Doesn't “no expansion till 2015” mean that they should be building now if it’s needed in 3 years time?

Quote: "Murad Qureshi is obviously not bright enough to understand that if you close one airport down, and build a replacement elsewhere, you are not actually destroying any jobs."

Come on Silver, you can do better than that: of course 100,000 (on- airport) jobs plus many more in related and ancilliary industries would be lost and the area blighted. Surprisingly perhaps, it actually does mean jobs destroyed. The fact that similar jobs may or may not be created elsewhere is not the point.

[Skipness One Echo]

Murad Qureshi is obviously not bright enough to understand that if you close one airport down, and build a replacement elsewhere, you are not actually destroying any jobs.
Silverstrata your wish to be seen as "direct" is ahead of good judgement again. Someone with a low paid job working in West London will be in no position to move, given the many thousands of jobs involved, many would be in effect, lost. The fact that someone elae comes along and works for minimum wage in East London is no help to the population of West London C2s, Ds and Es.Quite simply, the Asian people who worked for decades at LHR from nearby Hounslow and Southall are not going to be in any position to be popping off to Fantasy Island some fifty miles away.

There will be mass redundancies if LHR closes and there is no business case for a new airport if LHR remains.

[Bagso]

The STANSTED OPTION O.M.G

Correct me if I'm wrong but expanding Stansted was supposed to be the answer to capacity in the South East 15 years ago.

NOT ONE airline has moved from LHR to STN in all that time !

Had the lo cost boom not occurred its is a glaring fact that the place would be empty, it only became an attraction when it was cross subsidised under BAA ownership, ironically by LHR.

...as soon as the subsidies stopped , the landing fees went up and the routes have since dropped away !

[Dannyboy39]

Something has to fundamentally change at Stansted anyway, because the airport is haemorrhaging airlines and routes. They've recently lost their last long haul route.

Its probably the least progressive airport in London at the moment. Is it really deserving of a new runway considering there is a vast amount of capacity not utilised at the moment.

[compton3bravo]

It just goes to show that most politicians - especially Boris Johnson - do not have a clue about aviation and how it works. I know he is playing politics - he wants to be leader of the Tory Party and subsequently Prime Minister of the UK heaven forbid - get more sense out of Orville - YES I CAN!

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal:

Come on Silver, you can do better than that: of course 100,000 (on- airport) jobs plus many more in related and ancilliary industries would be lost and the area blighted. Surprisingly perhaps, it actually does mean jobs destroyed. The fact that similar jobs may or may not be created elsewhere is not the point.




C'mon Frankie - are you in the aviation industry or not? Have you never heard of 'changing base'? Jeesss, if I had refused to change base, I would have been unemployed for the last 25 years.

Nobody is losing their jobs, they are just 'changing base' - standard industry practice, just ask O'Leary.





Skippy:

Come on Silver, you can do better than that: of course 100,000 (on- airport) jobs plus many more in related and ancilliary industries would be lost and the area blighted. Surprisingly perhaps, it actually does mean jobs destroyed. The fact that similar jobs may or may not be created elsewhere is not the point.



C'mon Skip, if a stewardess can afford to change base to the other end of the country, I am sure the baggage-loaders and refuellers (who used to earn more than me when I was an f/o) can likewise change base. And we did this at our own expence, unlike I imagine the base-change to Silver-Boris will be organised.

What you mean is that we have 150,000 'government employees' who think that have a right to a job and a base for life. Sorry, Skip, aviation is not like that. I could be unemployed and sitting on my bum in the UK right now, but like hundreds of other European pilots I have 'got on my Cessna' and changed my base (yet again).




Bagso:

NOT ONE airline has moved from LHR to STN in all that time !



Precisely.

Our politicians need to be told loud and clear that they haven't got a f*@ing clue about aviation, nor the service it provides for both London in particular and the nation in general. Expanding Stanstead will have naff-all effect on LHR's overcrowding, and naff-all effect on improving UK trade or the UK economy.

Unless they were proposing to build 6 new runways and three new terminals at Stanstead, of course, plus closing LHR. But I don't think that is what they had in mind.




Compton:

It just goes to show that most politicians - especially Boris Johnson - do not have a clue about aviation and how it works.



Possibly. But he may also be 'politicking', in proposing something unworkable in order to get something more useful. We shall see later if he is deviously artful, or terminally stupid.




Compton:

let me tell you something sunshine it was far better organised than some ´´western´´ countries



And let me tell you something, pratt-arse. Having spent a lot of time there myself, it was the most chaotic, dirty, disorganized, divided, poverty-stricken, class-ridden, racist and corrupt place I have ever visited - and I have been to a lot of places, my friend. I know your type, liberal dreamers who will tell any lie, to back up your narrow-minded point of view.

You are the same as our educationalists, who said we did not need excellence or competition in schools. Our economists who said we did not need any industry, and could rely on banking. Our industrialists, who said it would be ok to sell all our industry to overseas investors (to make a fast buck themselves). Our climatologist who still say the world is warming, when it has not warmed for 15 years. Our sociologists, who said all cultures were superior to ours. etc: etc:

Liberal dreamers whose views are as welcome as turd in a decanter.




Gonzo:

how expensive will property be to buy? And how much less will their current homes be worth due to the coming economic black hole?



Last time I looked, the estuary was the cheapest place in the southeast. And you seem to forget that the LHR site will become the southeasts largest business and technology park - the silicon airport. I would expect property values to rise there.

Besides, the nation cannot be held to ransom, simply because a few pampered employees say they might lose some money. Did anyone compensate me for any of my enforced base-changes? Why should LHR employees be any different?



.

[compton3bravo]

SILVERSTRATA - I have just recently been to the country where you say they transport rail passengers on the roof and let me tell you something sunshine it was far better organised than some ´´western´´ countries I have been too plus the staff were great. The airports and airlines were pretty good too. Just noticed you seem to reside in one of old colonies so how on earth would you know anything about running railways!:)

[Gonzo]

Not sure a Ryanair 'base change' can be compared to more than 100,000 people moving into a relatively rural part of the country. Where will they all live? And because of demand, how expensive will property be to buy? And how much less will their current homes be worth due to the coming economic black hole?

[Skipness One Echo]

What you mean is that we have 150,000 'government employees' who think that have a right to a job and a base for life. Sorry, Skip, aviation is not like that. I could be unemployed and sitting on my bum in the UK right now, but like hundreds of other European pilots I have 'got on my Cessna' and changed my base (yet again).
They're not government employees, they're on a basic wage with Servisair, Menzies, Plane Handling, Cobalt and BAA. All of whom are in a race to the bottom on term and conditions, much faster than flight deck. I think you're quite far out of the loop on what's going on here in the UK. It is financially unlikely that these people will be in any position to uproot with their families.

[Gonzo]

silverstrata,

Last time I looked, the estuary was the cheapest place in the southeast. So you don't think that building the largest airport this side of the Middle East which will require over 100,000 employees (and that's only direct employees!), and thus the demand for property, won't push house prices up?

No?

Really?

And you seem to forget that the LHR site will become the southeasts largest business and technology park - the silicon airport. I would expect property values to rise there.You take away the main transport hub of the UK, and you expect companies will flock to move in?

Please give us one good reason.

Especially given that all the commercial enterprises that depend on LHR will have to relocate too, there will be acres and acres of empty offices and warehouses in LHR area without building more!

[Fairdealfrank]

Ha ha, this is getting quite funny as there isn't a cat's chance in hell of an airport being built in the Thames estuary, at least in our lifetimes.

PS STN isn't getting a second rwy either.

[compton3bravo]

SILVERSTRATA - I say old boy there´s no need to use that sort of language, if you cannot have a discussion without resorting to crude discriptions forget it. I do hope you were not describing where you live when you talking about racist, rat infested, etc surely not!
Also you are so far off the mark regarding my political views etc but that is not for this forum.
Just a quick note how to spell STANSTED not Stanstead. Have a great day I know I will!

[silverstrata]

Gonzo:

So you don't think that building the largest airport this side of the Middle East which will require over 100,000 employees (and that's only direct employees!), and thus the demand for property, won't push house prices up?



Of course it will, but it will be the only employer in the region. Plus the estuary will never be Windsor, no matter how hard it tries, so it will always be cheaper.

As to the old LHR, I think you underestimate its position for attracting business. It is on the Thames corridor; next to Windsor and the leafy Home Counties; good motorway routes; direct line to Paddington; Cross-rail link direct to central London and the Silver-Boris airport - and no aircraft noise.

Got to be a winner, I would say. Companies would be mad not to move there.





Skip:

It is financially unlikely that these people will be in any position to uproot with their families.



You are jumping on the 'hard done by, cannot help themselves' bandwagon, promoted by the likes of the Lib Dems and the BBC. Anyone can move, even if it means walking there and finding one room in a shared house, you can move. And before you ask, been there, done that. And before you say these days are different, most of our cabin staff still do the same.

I am not endorsing the 'race to the bottom' of course. But that was the predictable result of New Labour allowing in a flood of cheap immigrants. New Labour deliberately betrayed their own voters, the blue-collar worker, by deliberately undercutting their wages with immigrants who would happily work for £2 and hour or less. If the working man and woman in Britain was too stupid to work this out for themselves, and continued to vote Labour as millions did, well sorry, I cannot help them. They made their cheap immigrant-labour bed, and they can sleep in it - shared houses and shared beds and all.

Again, we cannot shackle the entire UK economy with a non-fuctioning transport system, just because someone says they cannot move house. Tough. They should have voted for a party that liked this nation and its workers.


.

[Skipness One Echo]

LOL!!! I did actually laugh. The businesses are there BECAUSE of the airport, that you want to shut. It would be nowhere as desirable should it cease to be plugged directly into the world economy. Those companies aren't in Reading for the ambience and night life. Good heavens.

[jabird]

Ideally LHR needs 2 possibly 3 more runways to keep pace with demand over the longer term.

No we're just proposing the same fantasy, just on the existing airport site.

We are just about moving into a political environment where a 3rd runway at LHR may be on the agenda once more. That is it - forget about 4 and 5, just as we should also forget about fantasy island.

I appreciate its absurd but but the ideal situation is actually to close LGW and STN , build the 2 extra runways at LHR (WHICH is after all where people really want to go), and then give those slots to LHR.

Why should we be closing airports which do well out of loco and holiday traffic? These airlines don't want to be at LHR, and LHR doesn't want them. Leave them as they are.

As a local, and under the flightpath, quite agree with that! Have to say that house prices in my area do not reflect any disadvantages for being under a flightpath. People effectively pay a premium to live under an LHR flightpath. That says it all!

Not quite. The premium is due to being close to the airport, the blight is being under the flightpath.

They are not the same thing - you can be very close to the airport and hear next to nothing. Other regional airports employ NPR to keep aircraft away from more sensitive built up areas. That option just doesn't exist to the east of LHR because it is all built up.

NOT ONE airline has moved from LHR to STN in all that time !

No-one has moved, but AA and TK have opened routes in the past, have they not? Cyprus there until September?

So why do they dip their toe in the water and then go, EVEN if STN must offer PSCs around half of LHR?

No connecting traffic, pure and simple. Oh, and STN is well out the way in deepest Essex - just like Fantasy Island will be out of the way too.

Except of course - Fantasy Island WILL have connecting traffic, won't it? As EVERYONE is going to move from LHR - aren't they?

Or is Fantasy Island going to be the competing hub mentioned above now? If you want a competing hub, handling - say 50m pa against 90m at LHR, fine, you can have it. Would just be a great deal cheaper to do that at LGW.

[silverstrata]

Skip:

Those companies aren't in Reading for the ambience and night life. Good heavens.



Oh, yes they are.

It looks like you have been imbued with this 'race to the bottom' in the jobs market for too long.

When I started out, the prospectus (yes, companies would try to attract people with a glossy brochure) was all about the locality. The marvelous housing, villages, tourist attractions, pubs, shopping facilities, the great outdoors - all the comforts of life.

At the back of the prospectus, it might add that the company made widgets for the aerospace industry. That, was life, work, and a career, before the self-destructive unions and then New Labour immigration destroyed it all. (edited to add - Thatcher's open-borders trade policy did not help. A British worker cannot compete with a Chinaman working at 10p an hour for 100 hours a week.)

In the high tech jobs market, a glimmer of that old and more genteel world still survives. But only just, because it is about to be killed by the continuing open market with China.


.

[jabird]

In the high tech jobs market, a glimmer of that old and more genteel world still survives. But only just, because it is about to be killed by the continuing open market with China.

Silver, you can't have it both ways.

Either you want the wonderful free markets which will deliver you the £50bn investment you will need for your new airport, and all the trade that comes with it.

Or you want protectionism, trade union bullies and the 3 day week. You need this to close Heathrow.

Which one is it?

[Fairdealfrank]

　
　
Quote: “As to the old LHR, I think you underestimate its position for attracting business. It is on the Thames corridor; next to Windsor and the leafy Home Counties; good motorway routes; direct line to Paddington; Cross-rail link direct to central London and the Silver-Boris airport - and no aircraft noise.”

Good site for an airport!

Quote: “New Labour deliberately betrayed their own voters, the blue-collar worker, by deliberately undercutting their wages with immigrants who would happily work for £2 and hour or less. If the working man and woman in Britain was too stupid to work this out for themselves, and continued to vote Labour as millions did, well sorry, I cannot help them. They made their cheap immigrant-labour bed, and they can sleep in it - shared houses and shared beds and all.”

Silverstrata, you betray an ignorance of the modern party political system. Look at their record over 13 years, clearly New Labour is the party of the metropolitan elite, the “chattering classes” of Hampstead and Islington and a few token armchair “Gucci socialists”, no more no less. In no way do they represent the “blue-collar worker” as you naively suggest.
Whether Miliband will change this or not is another matter.

Quote: "No-one has moved, but AA and TK have opened routes in the past, have they not? Cyprus there until September?"

Correct, they were in addition to those at LHR, not a move from LHR to STN.

They're not there now!








　
　

[Skipness One Echo]

Silver, just for the sake of credibility, have you ever been to Reading, Slough or thereabouts? You are being serious????

[silverstrata]

Jabird:


Either you want the wonderful free markets which will deliver you the £50bn investment you will need for your new airport, and all the trade that comes with it.



That is not 'inward investment', that is 'selling the family silver'.

I have campaigned agains selling the UK's assets for 30 years, and I have been proven right, for we are now bankrupt and there is nothing left to sell. All the businesses, all the major real-estate and all of our utilities are now foreign owned, and all the profits go back to foreign nations.

This simply makes the modern Briton slaves to the rest of the world, who cream off our profits; instead of the Victorian era where we were masters of the world. The Chinese, who decided to produce instead of selling their assets, have gone from abject slaves to masters of the world in just 20 years.


So, to answer your question - we should use the £300 bn of newly printed money the government has just announced, and use it to build assets and infrastructure, instead of giving it to the banks, who will scatter it to the four winds.

Banks are parasitic - they produce nothing. Thus the government's present policy is like rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic - it may look productive, but it is ultimately useless. Instead, we need to plug the hole in the sinking ship. That means new investment in industry, new investment in technology, and new investment in infrastructure - including the Silver-Boris airport. And with £300 bn to play with, that is easily done from our own resources.



.

[silverstrata]

Frank:

Good site for an airport!



Yes, except that it is too small; it cannot expand; none of the inter-city or inter-European trains go there; and it is disastrously arranged so that all aircraft fly over the capital.





Frank:

Silverstrata, you betray an ignorance of the modern party political system. Look at their record over 13 years, clearly New Labour is the party of the metropolitan elite, the “chattering classes” of Hampstead and Islington and a few token armchair “Gucci socialists”, no more no less. In no way do they represent the “blue-collar worker” as you naively suggest.



You failed to see my point. Yes, New Labour became the daaarrrling of the hopelessly out of touch chattering classes, who needed a pet-political party to implement their dreamland policies, but it was not the chattering classes who kept Blair and co in power.

The 'liberal intelligentsia' ** represent 0.005% of the voting public. Thus New Labour was kept in power by blue collar workers, who were too thick to understand that Blair was selling them down the river by flooding the country with cheap workers who would undercut every working man in the nation.

Note that is was not the jobs of the 'intelligentsia' that were threatened through rampant immigration. It was not the politicians, senior civil servants, senior social workers, headmasters, BBC reporters, Guardian editors or any of the many other hand-wringling liberals who supported immigration, who's jobs were on the line. No, it was the plumbers, brickies, cleaners, porters, factory workers, shop assistants, drivers, and hospitality workers who lost their jobs or took savage pay cuts.

And you did not see the liberal 'intelligentsia' or the BBC mentioning the 'savage cuts' to blue-collar salaries once. But now the cuts are biting into once sacrosanct BBC and civil service jobs, you hear 'savage cuts' every two minutes on the BBC. The BBC is the ultimate government-funded pressure group, whose clientele are anyone and everyone who has never done a day's work in their life...



** an oxymoron if ever their was one.




.

[Skipness One Echo]

for we are now bankrupt
You are mixing up ia high level of public debt with insolvency, to be clear, we are in no way bankrupt. Also, I asked you ages ago, are you British? I keep seeing you mix up we / you / they a lot.

Yes, except that it is too small; it cannot expand; none of the inter-city or inter-European trains go there; and it is disastrously arranged so that all aircraft fly over the capital.
It's not ideal, however it can in no way be described as a disaster. London City also has approach paths over the capital, lower than Heathrow in the centre of town. London has a bigger population than Scotland and there is no realistic new site to put a new airport which is why the politicos with a shelf life of five years at a time are talking of an offshore man made floating island.

blue collar workers, who were too thick to understand
Speaking as a something of right wing Tory supporter, I do understand why these people do not want to vote for us, Thatcher for all her good put a lot of good people on the scrapheap. It is grossly insulting and arrogant to dismiss such people in the infalmatory manner in which you do. I also voted for Tony Blair incidentally, as did so many other good people before Iraq.

Your silence incidentaly on my question of whether you had so much as set foot in Berkshire suggests that for all your words, you don't know the area you speak of?

[jabird]

Quote:
Jabird:


Either you want the wonderful free markets which will deliver you the £50bn investment you will need for your new airport, and all the trade that comes with it.

That is not 'inward investment', that is 'selling the family silver'.

You cannot sell what you do not have, nor can you just print money to buy assets with a future value as the money with which you are trying to buy them will have no value!

And I don't make any claims to be an economist, but I think we all understand that one, apart from you.

So I ask you again, which is it - the capitalism which will build you an airport or the communism which will give it the protectionism it would need?

And whilst I'm at it (as I still haven't heard back from you on this) - what would the typical PSC be in this new airport - (a) with LHR still open and (b) with LHR closed?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Our politicians need to be told loud and clear that they haven't got a f*@ing clue about aviation, nor the service it provides for both London in particular and the nation in general. Expanding Stanstead will have naff-all effect on LHR's overcrowding, and naff-all effect on improving UK trade or the UK economy.

Unless they were proposing to build 6 new runways and three new terminals at Stanstead, of course, plus closing LHR. But I don't think that is what they had in mind."

Wouldn't put in the same way, but essentially, this is spot on!

Quote: “Not quite. The premium is due to being close to the airport, the blight is being under the flightpath.”

The blight is near the thresholds of the rwys, at places like Poyle and Cranford, and even those properties are not cheap! Any one living under the wider flight path will tell you, if they’re being honest, that the noise is not nearly as bad as the protest groups would have us believe, and certainly not in Putney and Clapham for heaven‘s sake! The noisy jets of the 1960s are long gone, and those that aren‘t are banned from all European airspace.

Quote: “You failed to see my point. Yes, New Labour became the daaarrrling of the hopelessly out of touch chattering classes, who needed a pet-political party to implement their dreamland policies, but it was not the chattering classes who kept Blair and co in power.”

What kept Labour in power for 13 years was a useless Conservative opposition with unelectable policies and unelectable leaders. Call it the credibility gap if you like. Exactly the same situation in reverse kept Labour out of power for 18 years.

It could said that those oppositions at those times badly let the electorate down, ironically leaving the House of Lords to be the guardian of democracy.

Quote: “The 'liberal intelligentsia' ** represent 0.005% of the voting public. Thus New Labour was kept in power by blue collar workers, who were too thick to understand that Blair was selling them down the river by flooding the country with cheap workers who would undercut every working man in the nation”

No, it was/is pressure from big business as unskilled immigration drives wages down. The present government faces the same pressures and takes the same actions. It‘s exactly the same all over Europe and North America.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

You cannot sell what you do not have, nor can you just print money to buy assets with a future value as the money with which you are trying to buy them will have no value!



'tis true, you are not an economist.


If you expand an economy with imaginary money (£300 bn worth), you will keep people working for the next five years as they absorb that extra income.


If you spend that money on the parasitic elements of society (civil service wages, tax cuts, social security, health expenditure etc: ), then that money will simply add to the balance of trade deficit, devalue the currency, and result in hyper inflation.


But if you spend that money on new industries that produce something (especially for export), and new infrastructure that makes the economy more efficient, you will pay back that investment in the coming years.


Think of this in terms of domestic finances. It is the difference between borrowing money for a holiday - and borrowing money for a new printing-press for your small publishing company. See the difference? Imaginary money can produce real wealth, if you use it wisely.


How do you think we got ourselves out of the Great Depression? It was not by sticking to the Gold Standard, that's for sure.




Frank:

No, it was/is pressure from big business as unskilled immigration drives wages down. The present government faces the same pressures and takes the same actions. It‘s exactly the same all over Europe and North America.



I disagree. Politicians can easily resist big business.

The pressure came from the BBC and the Grauniad, who branded anyone who championed the rights of our domestic workers as racists and bigots. It was a very effective media campaign, by a pressure group funded from our enforced taxes, and it reflected and promoted the dream-world of the liberal 'intelligentsia' rather than the hopes, dreams and livelihoods of our domestic workers.

But the liberal Labour intelligentsia have always despised and spat upon the uncouth and unwashed working classes, and the working classes were too thick to understand that their new political masters (New Labour, as opposed to Old Labour) despised them.



.

[jabird]

If you spend that money on the parasitic elements of society (civil service wages, tax cuts, social security, health expenditure etc: ), then that money will simply add to the balance of trade deficit, devalue the currency, and result in hyper inflation.

White elephant transport projects can be far more parasitic than any of the above.

Besides -

Civil servants - needed to keep government working, although we could do with less of them.
Tax cuts - can certainly stimulate the economy, do you mean tax dodgers?
Social security - a welfare net is needed to help people back up, there is some fat here, but it is much harder to identify and cut out than you claim.
Health - well we need a health system, otherwise we die and we can't produce anything from 6 feet under. Focus needs to be on prevention not late cures, but that means more civil servants and nannying, you can't win on this one!

the working classes were too thick to understand that their new political masters

Sure, anyone who is working class is automatically thick!

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Civil servants - needed to keep government working, although we could do with less of them.
Tax cuts - can certainly stimulate the economy, do you mean tax dodgers?
Social security - a welfare net is needed to help people back up, there is some fat here, but it is much harder to identify and cut out than you claim.
Health - well we need a health system, otherwise we die and we can't produce anything from 6 feet under. Focus needs to be on prevention not late cures, but that means more civil servants and nannying, you can't win on this one!




Civil servants are generally parasitic. They produce nothing that we can consume, sell or that keeps us alive or keeps us happy. Civil servants are alike bankers. A small number of bankers lubricates the economy, while a large number of very wealthy bankers (or civil servants) are like a tumor growing on the back of UK PLC.

Tax cuts merely stimulate more imports from China, which makes the Chinese richer and us poorer. Until we start producing something from factories (remember those?), tax cuts actually hurt our economy.

Social security simply makes people lazy. The Poles are hard workers because they do not have a safety-net, whereas we have entire cities that live on the government teat and do naff-all for the country.

Health care. Sad to say, but very little of our health service is about patching up productive workers and sending them back to work. Most of it is employed in treating the permanently sick (unemployed scroungers who get more money by playing sick) or the retired. It might sound heartless to reduce health expenditure, but a country can only treat what it can afford - go to a third world country, and see what their health systems are like. A failing economy naturally means a reduction in health expenditure.





Jabird:

Sure, anyone who is working class is automatically thick!



No. only the ones who cut their own wages and made themselves unemployed, by repeatedly voting for New Labour.



.

[PAXboy]

Well, this last set of exchanges saves me the trouble of returning to this thread. We started out being able to discuss the idea of a new airport without screaming at each other. Please go and be petty elsewhere. Sheesh.

[Torquelink]

I think these recent posts almost redefine the concept of "thread creep" but all very fascinating nonetheless.

As has been discussed before, it seems that politicians in this country have a complete inability to put short term political considerations aside and focus - and agree - on long term strategic projects whether they be new nuclear power stations or airports. Consequently, every five years or so, policies and programmes are abandoned, delayed, changed. Other countries e.g. France seem to be able to put political differences aside when nationally important issues are at stake and agree on long term national priorities. Also, countries such as France would never countenance selling off the "family silver" to foreign companies which are frequently controlled by foreign governments. Successive UK governments have claimed that this is just the free market operating but foreigners must be utterly slack jawed in amazement that we would let flagship company after flagship company be sold to offshore buyers, not to mention critical parts of our infrastructure. Almost more important than the lost profits is the gradual seepage away of intellectual property and know-how and the dearth of inspirational national champions with which to attract new young blood into e.g. aircraft engineering.

Our politicians just slope their shoulders and say that capitalism means no state interference and it doesn't matter where the IP and technology reside. But they are pretty much the only politicians who do think that way - look how France, Germany, Italy and others support their core technology and engineering industries and would never ever countenance them being foreign controlled - while we just flog them ours.

We once had world-leading aircraft manufacturing, nuclear technology and electronic companies but, in association with bad management on more than one occasion, short term political considerations and deliberate neglect have resulted in the disappearance of many of them. And, to get back on-thread, it is exactly the same attitude by craven, self-interested politicians which has got us into a position where the world's leading financial centre can no longer be connected to emerging world economies because these spineless wastrels have ensured that no new runway has been built in southern england for sixty years and, the way things seem tio be going, may not be built for another 60 years!

Ah - feel better for getting that of my chest! :)

[silverstrata]

Torqy:

As has been discussed before, it seems that politicians in this country have a complete inability to put short term political considerations aside and focus - and agree - on long term strategic projects whether they be new nuclear power stations or airports. Consequently, every five years or so, policies and programmes are abandoned, delayed, changed. Other countries e.g. France seem to be able to put political differences aside when nationally important issues are at stake and agree on long term national priorities. Also, countries such as France would never countenance selling off the "family silver" to foreign companies which are frequently controlled by foreign governments. Successive UK governments have claimed that this is just the free market operating but foreigners must be utterly slack jawed in amazement that we would let flagship company after flagship company be sold to offshore buyers, not to mention critical parts of our infrastructure. Almost more important than the lost profits is the gradual seepage away of intellectual property and know-how and the dearth of inspirational national champions with which to attract new young blood into e.g. aircraft engineering.




Agreed, agreed, agreed. You are not a sock-puppet for Silverstrata, are you? ;-)

It is also worth mentioning that the three terms of New Labour in the naughties had nothing to do with the betterment of the UK - it was all about social engineering for a certain political ideology. So Blair and co did not give a stuff about what happened to the UK, as long as they could change our society and extinguish any thoughts of pride or patriotism.


So you are 100% correct, Torqy, and this is why we have ended up with no high speed rail network, no new nuclear power stations, precious little new housing (despite another 5 million people), no new roads, no new ports, no new industries - and no new airports.


Thus LHR has stagnated into the dire position it is in now, because of all of the reasons given above. This is why we need to make a break with past fudging and kicking the problem down the road a bit - and we need to build an entirely new piece of world-class infrastructure.

If we don't we are completely lost as a nation. We are half lost already, and if you think the economy is dire now, then just wait until all the international banks in London jump-ship to Amsterdam, because London has become so difficult to get to.



.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "I think these recent posts almost redefine the concept of "thread creep" but all very fascinating nonetheless.

As has been discussed before, it seems that politicians in this country have a complete inability to put short term political considerations aside and focus - and agree - on long term strategic projects whether they be new nuclear power stations or airports. Consequently, every five years or so, policies and programmes are abandoned, delayed, changed. Other countries e.g. France seem to be able to put political differences aside when nationally important issues are at stake and agree on long term national priorities. Also, countries such as France would never countenance selling off the "family silver" to foreign companies which are frequently controlled by foreign governments. Successive UK governments have claimed that this is just the free market operating but foreigners must be utterly slack jawed in amazement that we would let flagship company after flagship company be sold to offshore buyers, not to mention critical parts of our infrastructure. Almost more important than the lost profits is the gradual seepage away of intellectual property and know-how and the dearth of inspirational national champions with which to attract new young blood into e.g. aircraft engineering.

Our politicians just slope their shoulders and say that capitalism means no state interference and it doesn't matter where the IP and technology reside. But they are pretty much the only politicians who do think that way - look how France, Germany, Italy and others support their core technology and engineering industries and would never ever countenance them being foreign controlled - while we just flog them ours.

We once had world-leading aircraft manufacturing, nuclear technology and electronic companies but, in association with bad management on more than one occasion, short term political considerations and deliberate neglect have resulted in the disappearance of many of them. And, to get back on-thread, it is exactly the same attitude by craven, self-interested politicians which has got us into a position where the world's leading financial centre can no longer be connected to emerging world economies because these spineless wastrels have ensured that no new runway has been built in southern england for sixty years and, the way things seem tio be going, may not be built for another 60 years!"

Interesting analysis, it illustrates well the Thatcherite chickens are still coming home to roost. Regretably, there is no indication that the "neo-con" Thatcher-Blair hegemony is over.

Quote: "Thus LHR has stagnated into the dire position it is in now, because of all of the reasons given above."

This is true, but it is not the entire story. It has to be said that the "stagnation" of Heathrow, if that it what it is, started before 1979.

In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, governments were obsessed with building up Gatwick as a hub for a private longhaul airline, (BUA, Bcal, Laker and Virgin), whilst state-owned BEA and BOAC hubbed at Heathrow.

This "second force" policy was a disaster, as the Gatwick-based carriers all failed except for Virgin. Virgin survived because it was able to shift its hub to Heathrow when this policy collapsed. Back then Heathrow developped a need for a third parallel rwy. Was it forthcoming, was it hell!

Quote: "we need to build an entirely new piece of world-class infrastructure."

Maybe, but not in the Thames estuary. In the intervening fifty years the "new piece of world-class infrastructure" would have to be at Heathrow.

Quote: "then just wait until all the international banks in London jump-ship to Amsterdam, because London has become so difficult to get to."

Frankfurt and Paris would be ahead of Amsterdam, but it won't happen. They wouldn't want to put up with EU regulations and the "banking union", "fiscal union" and "federal superstate" (more Europe) that the Brussels bureaucrats and some heads of government have planned for the "eurozone". Markets and financial industries like stability, there's none in the "eurozone" at present!

[silverstrata]

Frank:

In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, governments were obsessed with building up Gatwick as a hub for a private longhaul airline,



No.

In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, governments were obsessed with not making any big strategic decisions that may effect their popularity at the next election. Thus successive governments have tinkered with transport policy, instead of grasping the bull (and the unions) by the horns.

Thats why we ended up with no high speed rail network.
That's why we ended up with no planned, clean-sheet airports.
Thats why we ended with no world-class London airport.
Thats why we ended up with our largest sea-port on a lonely stretch of coastline with no road or rail links. (and all the formerly big ports idle or closed).

The whole half century has been a complete shambles, because nobody in government had any vision, and nobody had any balls.





Frank:

Interesting analysis, it illustrates well the Thatcherite chickens are still coming home to roost. Regretably, there is no indication that the "neo-con" Thatcher-Blair hegemony is over.



Thatcher's chickens??? !! You mean Labour's chickens.

It was the Labour administrations that allowed the unions to get the whip hand in industry, and it was the unions who destroyed our manufacturing industry by their short-sighted wage claims (and to hell with the company) - long before Thatcher came to power.

It was Thatcher who put a halt to that, and put the country back on an even keel, where managers could once again manage. Her biggest failing was not doing more for the already ailing manufacturing sector, but by then the creed of world trade and open borders had taken root, and the result was further decimation of our industry.

Then we had Blair, and Blair did not give a stuff about the country. All he wanted was racial equality and multiculturalism, and the economy and industry could take a running jump as far as he was concerned. Indeed, the faster we came down to the level of Ethiopia, the faster he would achieve his racial equality goals (everyone to the lowest common denominator).

Never mind Charles I or James II, the biggest governmental traitor Britain has ever had was Blair. Absolutely nothing was done for the nation, in a full 12 years.


.

[jabird]

Silver,

I was no fan of Blair either (and yes, got to confront him too), but it is just silly to say that all he cared about was being PC - he left that to Harriet Harperson!

A thread about infrastructure has to dip into politics, but it is completely ridiculous to say you should cut back on other government spending to build a new airport, which (a) could easily be billions of pounds over budget if publicly funded, and (b) could also still suck money out of the economy if it enables more flights to be taken to holiday destinations.

Now there are probably some figures out there that say that LHR & LCY provide a net gain to the economy through enabling trade and exporting specialised knowledge based services, but I doubt that could be said of any other airport.

So think again about what you would want achieved with this new airport.

a) Who would pay for it?

b) How would you ensure that it did indeed focus on the kind of flights that helped the economy, and that it didn't just add extra general capacity by taking the pressure off LGW, STN etc?

I note that point (b) is actually very difficult to do, unless you were to develop a routes committee which decided which destinations should and shouldn't be served. Silly of course, but without that, you have little evidence that your sinking sands airport could generate any kind of ROI for the nation as a whole, let alone its shareholders, whether institutional, private or government.

[Skipness One Echo]

This is just going round in ever decreasing circles now, it's all about the man.

[PhilW1981]

You're right wing extremism is bordering on repugnant. This is a thread about the merits (or otherwise) of a new airport in the Thames estuary. You're obsession with Labour bashing or pro Thatcherism is taking things way of course. Wind it in.

[Fairdealfrank]

　
　
Quote: “No.

In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, governments were obsessed with not making any big strategic decisions that may effect their popularity at the next election. Thus successive governments have tinkered with transport policy, instead of grasping the bull (and the unions) by the horns.”

Silverstrata, my original comments about the second “force policy” were correct and accurate. It may have been the only aviation policy in fifty years, but a policy nonetheless. In the present era of privately owned airports and carriers and of degregulation and open-skies it cannot be reinstated, so forget about dual hubs and “Heathwick“.

It is also risible to suggest that strategic decisions concerning aviation affect general election results. It’s a highly technical issue and often fairly localised. Most voters aren’t necessarily across the fact that it can be of huge national importance, and probably don‘t care either way.

Quote: “Thats why we ended up with no high speed rail network.
That's why we ended up with no planned, clean-sheet airports.
Thats why we ended with no world-class London airport.
Thats why we ended up with our largest sea-port on a lonely stretch of coastline with no road or rail links. (and all the formerly big ports idle or closed).”

No, planning law has a large part to play in this, but it's not the only story. It also has much to do with governmental “neocon” obsessions of with the private sector and letting the market decide. Why do you think our airports are mostly privately owned (unusual), and the railways franchised out like ITV used to be? You only have to look at the USA, where “neocon” ideas originated, to see a crumbling infrastructure.

Quote: “The whole half century has been a complete shambles, because nobody in government had any vision, and nobody had any balls.”

Difficult to argue with this one!

Quote: “Thatcher's chickens??? !! You mean Labour's chickens.”

Same thing these days!

Quote: “It was Thatcher who put a halt to that, and put the country back on an even keel, where managers could once again manage. Her biggest failing was not doing more for the already ailing manufacturing sector, but by then the creed of world trade and open borders had taken root, and the result was further decimation of our industry.”

Hindsight tells us that these comments reveal a very selective memory. Who sold off airports and airlines? You can argue the merits or otherwise, but it can't be difficult to see that with this policy, the government loses direct control over the sector.

Quote: “Then we had Blair, and Blair did not give a stuff about the country. All he wanted was racial equality and multiculturalism, and the economy and industry could take a running jump as far as he was concerned. Indeed, the faster we came down to
the level of Ethiopia, the faster he would achieve his racial equality goals (everyone to the lowest common denominator).”

But most of all, Blair wanted wars. Could it be because he was the first prime minister not to have participated in a war? Maybe he was also the first not to have had to do compulsory military service(?).

Quote: “So think again about what you would want achieved with this new airport.

a) Who would pay for it?”

The eternal question that Silver won’t (can’t?) answer.

Quote: “b) How would you ensure that it did indeed focus on the kind of flights that helped the economy, and that it didn't just add extra general capacity by taking the pressure off LGW, STN etc?

I note that point (b) is actually very difficult to do, unless you were to develop a routes committee which decided which destinations should and shouldn't be served. Silly of course, but without that, you have little evidence that your sinking sands airport could generate any kind of ROI for the nation as a whole, let alone its shareholders, whether institutional, private or government.”

This one is easy to answer: it cannot be done, airports are private sector, and don't forget the EU's potential to interfere!

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

A thread about infrastructure has to dip into politics, but it is completely ridiculous to say you should cut back on other government spending to build a new airport



Thats not what I said. I said we should use the latest £300 billion of 'quantitive easing' to fund transport infrastructure, instead of wasting that money on the parasitic banking sector.

And direct infrastructure projects would lubricate and expand the UK economy more than any bank lending will, as that money would go directly into primary businesses, wages and jobs; which would then trickle down into secondary businesses, wages and jobs.







PhilW:

You're right wing extremism is bordering on repugnant. You're obsession with Labour bashing or pro Thatcherism is taking things way of course. Wind it in.



What you mean is that you have been fed such a diet of liberal fantasy propaganda over the last 15 years, that you have forgotten what a realistic and rational viewpoint is. And if you read my posts more carefully I also bash Thatcher, where bashing is due - like her open-borders trade policy, when it was obvious that our workers could not compete with the Far East on price.

BTW - I presume you are also a product of our wonderful new liberal comprehensive education as well as its propaganda - its 'your' and not 'you're'. The latter is not a possessive determiner, it is a contraction of 'you are'. That is when the rot set in: when our grammar education system was destroyed.





Frank:

These comments reveal a very selective memory. Who sold off airports and airlines? You can argue the merits or otherwise, but it can't be difficult to see that with this policy, the government loses direct control over the sector.



The government still retains the whip-hand on policy. Whether a new train line is privately or publicly owned, the government can still determine where it goes - by deed of law.

Ditto for the aviation sector. The government can strongly indicate where it wants a new airport to be built, and by economic or legal carrots and sticks, get its policy acted upon.




.



As an aside, there was an interesting article in the latest Log Magazine, which said that we needed to be really bold in aviation, we need to invoke the spirit of Isambard Kingdom Brunel - and build a third runway at LHR. Sorry, but Brunel would not have been seen dead overseeing the plans of a third runway - he would have been down in East London designing the Silver-Boris airport.



.

[jabird]

Sorry, but Brunel would not have been seen dead overseeing the plans of a third runway - he would have been down in East London designing the Silver-Boris airport.

Too right. But that is why you are welcome to keep Isambard in your fantasy team for your fantasy airport - he was an amazing engineer, but not the best of cost accountants, and you can be sure 'elf and safety would want a few words with him!

Now when I am dissing IKB just to disagree with Silver, we know this thread really is well past its sell by date :ugh::ugh::ugh:

And Silver giving US grammar lessons. Come on! :D

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Now when I am dissing IKB just to disagree with Silver, we know this thread really is well past its sell by date. And Silver giving US grammar lessons. Come on!



No, we know the thread is past its sell-by date when you use the term 'dissing', and then comment on grammar in the same posting.

Now that really has to be the end-game.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The government still retains the whip-hand on policy. Whether a new train line is privately or publicly owned, the government can still determine where it goes - by deed of law.

Ditto for the aviation sector. The government can strongly indicate where it wants a new airport to be built, and by economic or legal carrots and sticks, get its policy acted upon."

Examples needed please, silverstrata, can only think of one new airport recently opened, Sheffield (now closed). AFAIK, there was no government involvement whatsoever in this enterprise.

Quote: "BTW - I presume you are also a product of our wonderful new liberal comprehensive education as well as its propaganda - its 'your' and not 'you're'. The latter is not a possessive determiner, it is a contraction of 'you are'. That is when the rot set in: when our grammar education system was destroyed."

"...our wonderful new liberal comprehensive education.." is not that new, silverstrata, your hero, Margaret Thatcher, killed off most of the
grammar schools in the early 1970s when education secretary in Edward "Grocer" Heath's government. Her successor, Shirley Williams, finished off the job.

Funny enough there was a percieved problem with secondary modern schools, so they closed the grammar schools. Strange politicians' logic but there we are.

Quote: "As an aside, there was an interesting article in the latest Log Magazine, which said that we needed to be really bold in aviation, we need to invoke the spirit of Isambard Kingdom Brunel - and build a third runway at LHR."

Quite right, let's have some forsight, build the fourth as well, do it now.

Quote: "Sorry, but Brunel would not have been seen dead overseeing the plans of a third runway - he would have been down in East London designing the Silver-Boris airport."

You know this how? Surely he'd have found a site somewhere in the LHR area, in his old stamping ground, with links to his railway!

Quote: "And Silver giving US grammar lessons. Come on"

Would like just one lesson from Silver: how the estuary airport is going to be finanaced.

[jabird]

No, we know the thread is past its sell-by date when you use the term 'dissing', and then comment on grammar in the same posting.

No, my usage of the term was perfectly correct. Don't argue on word usage with a Scrabble player!

dissing - present participle of dis
Verb:
Act or speak in a disrespectful way toward.

Brunel is long gone, so we can only speculate on what he might have wanted to do, but he would have serious problems with the bean counters either way.

Foster on the other hand is actually accomplished across at least as many disciplines - from architecture outright (Stansted), to bridge building (Millau) to yacht and bus design to Metro system and even graphic design (Bilbao).

It is Foster who we should be challenging here, because apart from one or two mistakes (mainly London's Millennium Bridge), he has delivered workable projects, generally on time and on budget (Wembley was a multi-party screw up!).

Why is he getting embroiled in such a clearly flawed project? At least Silver has rightly pointed out that the site as proposed is going to cause no-end of problems as it is almost as physically constrained as LHR, and it will be impossible to add any further runways to the north without doing a Valencia style diversion of the Thames.

But if we are going to keep up with the playground antics, I can only echo FDF's request for Silver to give us the maths lesson!

a) How do you pay for the new airport and
b) How much do the airlines pay (per pax) to use it?

Without a business plan, there is no plan, might aswell just roll out lines in the sand pit.

[PAXboy]

So they got the figures for HS 1 terribly, terribly wrong:
International passenger numbers on HS1 are a third of the original 1995 forecast and two-thirds of the DfT's 1998 forecast, it stated.BBC News - HS1 Channel link leaves £4.8bn debt, says MPs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18733308)

Will they do better with HS 2 and what about forecasts for airline pax growth...? :hmm:

By the way, the above £4.8bn is going to be picked up by the UK tax payer. Also, don't forget that the combined British/French company that built the Chunnel had to be saved from bankruptcy.

Now, back to talking of that shiny new slab of infrastructure in the middle of the river ...:E

[Dannyboy39]

HS2 will definitely perform better than HS1. The simple reason is that the HS1 route stops off no where of interest in terms of business, additional transport (ie. airports/ports) or big residential towns and cities. (we can't really call Ebbsfleet and Ashford big areas)

HS2 will call at North London (Old Oak Common), and then spur off to LHR, then off to Birmingham and then possibly Manchester, Leeds and Scotland.

[silverstrata]

.

The Sunday Times has a report today, confirming the government's intent to investigate the possibility of building Silver-Boris airport in the Thames estuary.

"Chocks Away for Heathrow by the Sea"
Heathrow | Search | The Sunday Times (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/sitesearch.do?querystring=heathrow&sectionId=743&p=sto&bl=on&pf=all)

Sorry, article is behind the S.T. paywall

Quote:
Justine Greening, the transport secretary says she is: 'determined to find a long term solution to Britain's airport crisis'.


In reality, my sources say that the government wants Silver-Boris to go ahead, but they are scared sh!tless of the political fallout.

On the plus side, they need to find a worthwhile project for all that 'quantitatively eased' printed money (Q.E.). The public perception is that Q.E. is simply propping up bankrupt banks and funding the bonuses of bankers. And instead of being grateful for this largesse, and contrite about their loosing so much money and jepardising the entire economy, bankers are simply sticking two fingers up at both parliament and the public, and paying themselves big bonuses for failure - at our expense, using our money.

In addition, a BoE report last week said that Q.E. was not getting money into the economy anyway, and was merely rewarding banks for failure. The report urged that money should go directly from the government to businesses and be used for infrastructure projects - just as I said in my previous postings.

Bearing the above in mind, Silver-Boris airport would definitely be seen as a worthwhile project. But would the population back it - with all the disruption it would entail? That is the government's biggest worry. Labour won three elections based upon the fundamental premise of never making any big and controversial decisions that would scare the electorate. David Ca-moron is a true heir to Blair, and is similarly scared of bold decision-making, or of upsetting the Lib-Dems.

Thus the government are not kicking the Silver-Boris project into the long-grass, they are putting out more and more feelers to see what happens. If there are riots on the street, they will look the other way, whistling softly, and pretend they had nothing to do with Silver-Boris in the first place. However, if the omens look positive, they will put out more feelers in the autumn, to see what the public reaction is again. If that goes well, expect a decision to go ahead next year.

What the government wants, is an election bathed in the accolades of a bold new infrastructure project, but before any of the messy disruption to people's lives starts. So they have two years, between the announcement and the election, to capture this honeymoon period.

What they would really like, of course, is for the pampered pilots of BA to go on strike, complaining about having to leave Windsor to go and live in Sheerness or Canvey Island. Daaarrrling, this is so not acceptable.... This would be a golden opportunity to swing public opinion behind a project that is rapidly becoming a class war. Toffs who don't want jobs and opportunities to go to the deprived East End, let alone having to live there with the 'great unwashed'.


Standby for more updates, but I imagine we shall get an announcement to build Silver-Boris within a year.


.

[PAXboy]

... but I imagine we shall get an announcement to build Silver-Boris within a year.
But I imagine that it will never be built.

[Sir George Cayley]

Let's suspend diss-belief for a moment.

The method of constructing airports surrounded by water is understood, tried, tested and works. Land raising is a muck shifting job until you want to do something with your island

Putting a multi-runway airport with all the necessary infrastructure and integrated transport links has been done both on land and sea.

Designing airspace with STARS and SIDs is a matter of following ICAO Doc 8168 taking account of existing airspace, geographic constraints and noise. NATS and DAP can do this at a world class level. RNAV/GNSS ops can only help.

But (and it's such a big but its bigger than Vordeman's) there is statutory method to compel commercial entities to move from one airport to another. Airlines based at LHR have, over the years, made huge financial investments.

In order to close Heathrow, or at least down grade it, the compensation owed to those entities has to be factored into the Boris Island project. How will this happen?

Furthermore, the construction is a PFI so the burden of paying airlines to move will push the return on capital employed beyond economic reality.

So can we consign Boris Island to the same backwater as Cliffe, Maplin Sands at Foulness and Cublington (Wing) purleeeze.

Even Boris now seems to accept that another runway at Stansted or Gatwick would be cheaper and viable.

Lastly, what about tearing up the Cranford Agreement (not that exists on paper) Without alternation and the night flight ban there is substantial capacity to unlock.

Mixed mode on both runways has been modeled and with quiet a/c doing CDFA (controlled descent final approach) even a couple of extra hours would help.

Whatever is decided it will be too little too late, except Emirates have the right idea - direct services from regional airports. Southend is next:)

SGC

[DaveReidUK]

Lastly, what about tearing up the Cranford Agreement (not that exists on paper)

Is that a question or a statement ? The Cranford Agreement was declared dead a couple of years ago. The reasons that Heathrow still operates as if it was in place is simply that the required 09L runway holds and 09R RETs to support sustained easterly alternation haven't yet been put in place.

Without alternation and the night flight ban there is substantial capacity to unlock.

How does the presence or absence of alternation affect capacity ?

[Skipness One Echo]

Standby for more updates, but I imagine we shall get an announcement to build Silver-Boris within a year.
I imagine this is now just completely mental........
He actually thinks that not only are they building this fantasy, but we're going to name it after him. Nurse?

How does the presence or absence of alternation affect capacity ?
Capacity is higher with continuous mixed mode at LHR, it's a quick win on growth but a complete loss of any quiet around Hounslow.

[DaveReidUK]

Capacity is higher with continuous mixed mode at LHR

No argument there. But SGC's proposition implied that alternation, or absence of it, would affect capacity per se:

Without alternation and the night flight ban there is substantial capacity to unlock.

I think I'm right in saying that there is no difference in Heathrow's declared capacity whether it's on westerlies (with alternation) or easterlies (no alternation), within the current segregated mode regime.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote:"HS2 will definitely perform better than HS1. The simple reason is that the HS1 route stops off no where of interest in terms of business, additional transport (ie. airports/ports) or big residential towns and cities. (we can't really call Ebbsfleet and Ashford big areas)

HS2 will call at North London (Old Oak Common), and then spur off to LHR, then off to Birmingham and then possibly Manchester, Leeds and Scotland."

As proposed at present, it is another potential white elephant in the making: let's hope it is kicked into the "long grass" sooner rather than later. Let's waste no more public money on this nonsense.

Quote: "Quote:
Justine Greening, the transport secretary says she is: 'determined to find a long term solution to Britain's airport crisis'.

Long term does not mean a new airport in the Thames estuary, maybe it means one in the Thames valley, but there is still the problem of convincing pax and airlines to use it.

Allegedly, Justine Greening has also acknowledged that the country needs a four-runway airport. She is a politician, so unlikely to be thinking long term, so one would assume she means now or very soon indeed, not in 30 years time, and that she means LHR.

Quote: "In reality, my sources say that the government wants Silver-Boris to go ahead, but they are scared sh!tless of the political fallout.

Ha ha, that's very funny! Time to name your sources, Silver, otherwise this statement is meaningless.

Quote: "Standby for more updates, but I imagine we shall get an announcement to build Silver-Boris within a year."

Not a chance!

Quote: "But (and it's such a big but its bigger than Vordeman's) there is statutory method to compel commercial entities to move from one airport to another."

No, there is not!

Quote: "Airlines based at LHR have, over the years, made huge financial investments."

Precisely, so they will not move to the estuary.

Quote: "In order to close Heathrow, or at least down grade it, the compensation owed to those entities has to be factored into the Boris Island project. How will this happen?"

Yet another reason that it will not happen!

Quote: "Furthermore, the construction is a PFI so the burden of paying airlines to move will push the return on capital employed beyond economic reality."

No, there will be no public sector involvement, so it therefore cannot be a PFI/PPP deal.

Quote: "So can we consign Boris Island to the same backwater as Cliffe, Maplin Sands at Foulness and Cublington (Wing) purleeeze."

Yes, indeed we can.

Quote: "Whatever is decided it will be too little too late, except Emirates have the right idea - direct services from regional airports. Southend is next"

Of course more long haul out of regional airports is desirable, no one would argue with that, but it is not related to Heathrow expansion or capacity in the south east generally.

Quote: "Capacity is higher with continuous mixed mode at LHR, it's a quick win on growth but a complete loss of any quiet around Hounslow."

Continuous mixed mode squeezes in more capacity, but this will not address delays. Obviously, delays on takeoff and landing will increase.

Permanent mixed mode and/or all-night operations may eventually be a harder sell to those under the flightpath than a third/fourth rwy. Some MPs have recently come out in favour of a third and fourth rwy. Maybe they have the continuation of alternation in mind.

[Libertine Winno]

Correct me if Im wrong, but latest figures suggest that a third runway and sixth terminal at LHR will cost something like £9bn, which will mostly be funded by BAA and the airlines i.e. NOT the taxpayer.

Boris island will cost upwards of £50bn, funded at least in a sizeable part by the taxpayer.

Surely the only thing that a third runway needs is political will to give it the go ahead, whereas Boris island needs political go ahead AND a large chunk of taxpayers cash?!

Let the taxpayer focus on HS2 (and link it to LHR!!!) and just give BAA the go ahead to build runway 3 and terminal 6

[silverstrata]

Cayley:

Furthermore, the construction is a PFI so the burden of paying airlines to move will push the return on capital employed beyond economic reality.



It will not be a PFI project. Read my post again, it will be a Q.E. project, effectively paid for by future inflation. Same kind of deal, but no need for a private-company middle man, who does nothing but make fat profits at our expense.





Cayley:

Even Boris now seems to accept that another runway at Stansted or Gatwick would be cheaper and viable.

Mixed mode on both runways has been modeled and with quiet a/c doing CDFA (controlled descent final approach) even a couple of extra hours would help.



An extra runway at another airport does not help whatsoever. We need an aviation world hub, not international passengers stranded at LHR because their domestic flight departs from LGW, in 40 minutes time.


Mix mode at LHR is technically not possible, without breaking the law. Simultaneous approaches require 1.5 km between the runways, which LHR does not have.





Frank:

Long term does not mean a new airport in the Thames estuary ... Justine Greening has also acknowledged that the country needs a four-runway airport. She is a politician, so unlikely to be thinking long term, so one would assume she means now or very soon indeed, not in 30 years time, and that she means LHR.



Read the title of the Sunday Times article - "Chocks away for Heathrow by the Sea". Does that suggest 'LHR' to you? You can misinterpret the meaning as much as you like, but the S.T. understood it to refer to the Silver-Boris airport in the Thames estuary.






Skip:

He actually thinks that not only are they building this fantasy, but we're going to name it after him. Nurse?



That is a bit disingenuous of you, Skip. As you know, we ended up with dozens of proposed alternate sites in this thread. The designation Silver-Boris or Silver-Foster is to denote a modification of their current proposals - because neither Boris' nor Foster's proposals are workable in their present state.




Aero:

Not a problem, fetch the helicopter.



As you well know, that was tried back in the 80s. It was too expensive and too noisy. And why run an expensive helicopter shuttle, with all the inherent risks, when you can have the entire aviation hub under one roof, as it were?

At Silver-Boris, you only need a driverless tram-train between the two terminals, a 5-minute hop at the most. More importantly, you are already half way to Paris or Brussels on the TGV.






.

[Aero Mad]

not international passengers stranded at LHR because their domestic flight departs from LGW, in 40 minutes time.

Not a problem, fetch the helicopter.

[Gonzo]

Mix mode at LHR is technically not possible, without breaking the law. Simultaneous approaches require 1.5 km between the runways, which LHR does not have.

Yet again, you don't know the facts.

Simultaneous approaches most certainly are possible. They most certainly are not 'against the law', whatever that means. What law do you think we'd be breaking?

[Dannyboy39]

Simultaneous approaches most certainly are possible. They most certainly are not 'against the law', whatever that means. What law do you think we'd be breaking?

And when there are significant delays during peak periods, the departure runway is also used for arrivals, as explained earlier in this thread.

[DaveReidUK]

"Proposition: The Government should grant planning permission for both a third and fourth runway at Heathrow.

Britain's hub airport Heathrow is currently at 99% capacity, and London's other airports are nearly as full. Demand is predicted to double over the next few decades. If new aviation capacity is not found, London's position as a world business hub will be damaged. Heathrow is almost unique among major world airports in only having two runways, with no plans for further construction.

Two proposals for increasing capacity have dominated the debate: expanding Heathrow and building a new airport. The first, a third runway at Heathrow has the advantage of private funding, industry support, and already existing infrastructure. However, critics argue that it would only provide a stopgap solution. Britain needs in the order of at least three new runways to accommodate demand. Concentrating these runways in the same location allows the facility to enjoy the benefits of a hub airport.

One solution is to grant planning permission for both a third and fourth runway at the same time, allowing Heathrow to upgrade itself to a truly world class hub. A fourth runway could be located either north of the airport by the M4, or to the south at the current locations of the villages of Bedfont and Stanwell. A fourth runway to the south would be situated A30 (the Staines Road) and incorporate Ashford Football Club.

Another possible location could be to place the two extra runways alongside, to the west, of the existing runways. This would mean placing the runways through Poyle (next to the north runway), south of the A4, the Colnbrook bypass, and just north of Stanwell Moor (next to the south runway).

Compensation would have to be commensurate to the upheaval. While Britons whose houses are compulsorily purchased by the government get market value, the French get another 25% on top of that. We should pay such a premium to facilitate these developments in Britain. The rapid expansion of Charles de Gaulle airport at Roissy, 14 miles (23 km) to the north-east of Paris, was also eased through the help of large grants for community facilities and improved transport links.

No option for aviation expansion is perfect, but this option would allow Britain to rapidly build on its strengths, rather than take the speculative risk of a completely new facility. BAA would have the option either to build both runways simultaneously, if this proved cost efficient, or to stagger the construction. This would both give the industry more strategic certainty about its future, and be more honest with locals about what to expect."

[Libertine Winno]

If I were offered 125% of my house's value to move away from the noise and flight path of LHR then I definitely would!

LHR is only in 'the wrong place' because of all the houses around it, so removing that problem would solve all the issues...genius

[Dannyboy39]

Aren't most of the houses around the Bath Road empty anyway? Didn't BAA buy them in readiness for a 3rd runway and T6?

Whatever happens, 125% is a huge bill.

[Libertine Winno]

I think that is true for many of the houses affected in Harmondsworth & Sipson for a potential RW3, but the complications will come if a RW4 is proposed south of the current site, with many more houses potentially affected in Stanwell and Feltham

[Torquelink]

It would be cheaper to move London . . . .

[Gonzo]

Dannyboy39,

And when there are significant delays during peak periods, the departure runway is also used for arrivals, as explained earlier in this thread.

Ah, yes, but that isn't using simultaneous parallel approaches. Simultaneous parallel approaches is when two aircraft are coming down their respective final approach tracks abeam each other, not staggered.

[Libertine Winno]

So if you had 4 runways, you could have two aircraft departing simultaneously via runways 1 and 3, and two aircraft landing simultaneously on runways 2 and 4, because 1 and 3 would be 1.5 miles apart, as would 2 and 4...?!

[DaveReidUK]

Simultaneous parallel approaches is when two aircraft are coming down their respective final approach tracks abeam each other, not staggered.


I don't want to get into an argument about definitions, but are you saying that a stream of TEAM arrivals on 27L/27R at 2nm diagonal spacing can't reasonably be described as "simultaneous parallel approaches" ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Very pleased to see the concept of a four-rwy LHR being taken seriously at last. It's no longer just me banging on about it!

[Gonzo]

DaveReidUK,

No, that is dependent parallel approaches.

Independent or simultaneous parallel approaches means that aircraft can use the approach to one runway without regard to aircraft on the approach to the other runway.

[DaveReidUK]

No, that is dependent parallel approaches.

Thanks.

Yes, I understand the distinction between dependent parallel and independent parallel approaches, I'm just surprised that the term simultaneous isn't used to describe both, as in "simultaneous dependent parallel approaches" and "simultaneous independent parallel approaches".

[Dannyboy39]

Interesting twist in this story...

Club Statement: Airport Expansion (http://www.ashfordtownmiddlesexfc.com/index.php/news/club-news/438-club-statement-airpot-expansion)

Seems unusual for an MP to flatten half his own constituency! Or at least plan to.

[DaveReidUK]

Presumably there are 12,000 more letters in the post to the MP concerned ... :O

[Libertine Winno]

Just a flavour of the sheer difficulties of getting even a third runway approved, let alone a fourth!

In a certain irony, this would be more likely to go through with a Labour government given that most of the local area are Tory voters.

[silverstrata]

Gonzo:

Simultaneous approaches most certainly are possible. They most certainly are not 'against the law', whatever that means. What law do you think we'd be breaking?



ICAO 4444 section 6.7 - Simultaneous Parallel operations.

But on rereading this doc, it seems that the minimum 1500m runway separation limit only applied during bad weather. Otherwise, you can come down to 1000m, which seems pretty close.

But it does mean that LHR would have to stop parallel operations during any Sigmet. That is the Law. And if you think a recommendation is not a law, then think what a smart lawyer would say when viewing the smoldering wreckage.




Dave

I don't want to get into an argument about definitions, but are you saying that a stream of TEAM arrivals on 27L/27R at 2nm diagonal spacing can't reasonably be described as "simultaneous parallel approaches" ?


That is a Dependent Parallel Approach.
If the aircraft are to fly abeam each other, then this is an Independent Parallel Approach.

The spacing limits are obviously different, for the different types of airport and approach.


.

.

[DaveReidUK]

Just a flavour of the sheer difficulties of getting even a third runway approved, let alone a fourth!

It could be, of course, that the Free Enterprise Group have just graduated en masse from Negotiating 101 - demand more than you want and then the other side is relieved when you agree to settle for half of your original request.

[Geffen]

It doesn't mean EGLL would have to stop parallel ops, it purely means they would have to become dependent parallel ops which would mean traffic would then be staggered on either approach. Dependent parallel approaches are already done during TEAM in all weather conditions. Equally in good weather aircraft can fly parallel approaches with less than the prescribed radar separation, that is allowable today.

Okay, where we find the good weather is a different point. :)

[Libertine Winno]

Quote: It could be, of course, that the Free Enterprise Group have just graduated en masse from Negotiating 101 - demand more than you want and then the other side is relieved when you agree to settle for half of your original request.

I think that is almost certainly what it is, and also the reason why the Estuary airport is being proposed as the alternative.

Shall we build a third runway, at a fraction of the cost, or build a mega expensive new airport in the middle of a wild fowl sanctuary on the other side of London?!

The third runway starts to look like the best option...

[Gonzo]

SS,

No, ICAO is not 'the law'.

The civil ATC 'law' in the UK is provided by CAP393, and enshrined as procedure by the CAA in CAP493 and each ATC unit's MATS Part 2 (or Pt.2 for Geffen!).

The UK does some things that are not in any ICAO Manual/SARPs/Procedures.

The UK does not require some things that are in ICAO.

Hence why differences are filed with ICAO by states all around the world.

But as you have now discovered, even ICAO allows us to do it. :ok:

[PAXboy]

BBC News - Airport consultation delayed by coalition tension (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18800496)

[Dannyboy39]

BBC News - Airport consultation delayed by coalition tension (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18800496)

Another delay? I think we can see where this is going! Postering and long grass come to mind.

Get on with it!

[DaveReidUK]

Get on with it!

There may be developments sooner than you think.

Most political pundits expect a Cabinet reshuffle soon, and it's pretty clear that Greening will go, not least because she lost much of her remaining credibility when the Chancellor trampled all over her with his decision to freeze the fuel duty hike.

He, of course, has become a more public advocate of a third runway and, given a more amenable Transport Secretary, I wouldn't rule out some sort of commitment/U-turn before the next election.

[Dannyboy39]

Gideon never has an idea of what he wants. Has this government actually kept ANY of its promises from 2 years ago? He does more U-turns than a 747 in a Heathrow stack in the peak.

Anyone know what time this document will be published? Whatever happens politicians from all parties will just keep delaying and delaying. Tea boy Clegg will not be happy.

[Libertine Winno]

Gideon may have to pull his finger out and make a decision, but Milliband is playing a very clever game at the moment.

As we know, the last Labour government actually approved a third runway, but the current Edd & Edd iteration has given no indication where it stands.

The significance of course is that if it were to support a third runway (as is the logical thing to do) then Gideon wouldnt need to worry about Clegg and the Liberal loonies think. However, if they are to go it alone then the Lib Dems opinion actually counts, as the Tories need their support in the coalition.

My suspicion is that Labour would support the runway, but will do everything in their power to avoid saying that right up until election time for fear of handing the upper hand to the Tories.

[jabird]

HS2 will call at North London (Old Oak Common), and then spur off to LHR, then off to Birmingham and then possibly Manchester, Leeds and Scotland.

Not quite.

Phase 1 only goes as far as Brum / Lichfield.
Phase 2 will go to Manchester and Leeds, with as-yet undefined links to the ECML / WCML to head north.

It will NOT go to Scotland, where it might pick up passengers from air, yet HS2 Ltd are claiming it will still take 81% - yes 81% of the WHOLE market between London and Scotland.

So sadly, I think we will be seeing history repeat itself again - different projections, more users no doubt, but also significantly higher costs per mile and outright, still no hub airports served either.

[jabird]

Justine Greening, the transport secretary says she is: 'determined to find a long term solution to Britain's airport crisis'.

I think we need to be careful with the usage of the term "crisis". As it currently stands, London still has 6 designated airports with direct links into the city centre, together with other pretenders like Oxford.

What we do have is the pressure point at Heathrow - it has been running for many years at around 98% capacity, and there is very little that is going to change this.

We may or may not build a third runway there, but if that happens, it will fill up almost overnight by taking traffic which would otherwise stay at Gatters, and the "crisis" will still remain.

I respect KK MP for having the guts to propose demolition of half his constituency, but as a future pretender to the throne, he must surely know that this is a complete non-starter, therefore a risk-free approach to take.

For all the reasons we've discussed ad infinitum, an island airport is not a solution, especially as 2/3rds of its traffic is just going to be displacement anyway, hence the huge infrastructure costs which are going to need repaying, but which don't provide extra capacity.

It isn't sexy, it isn't ideal, but the most obvious and practical way for London to expand capacity is to add runways to its existing airports, and there is more space and less of a noise issue doing this at LGW first, then STN.

In the meantime, what we have is a "challenge", not a "crisis". London will not stagnate if it does not build a new island airport, nor will it stagnate if it only gets a 3rd runway at LHR instead of a 4th. Even if we have to make do with a 2nd or even 3rd runway at LGW, it will not be the end of London as we know it.

We have to admit that ours is a dirty industry, which is just as good at taking people away from London as it is at bringing them to London. The business passenger will always be able to fly where he or she wants.

If Easyjet get some routes displaced from Gatwick to Stansted and Luton, and MOL pulls a few Ryanair routes in a huff, are we really that badly off?

[Skipness One Echo]

it will fill up almost overnight by taking traffic which would otherwise stay at Gatters
I would take issue with the word "will", as a proper strategic review would ring fence a proportion of these new slots as non served domestic routes to allow connectivity within the British Isles (yes I KNOW!), to be safegaurded and built upon. That would be the likes of INV, JER, IOM, GCI and the possibility of adding MME, NQY and maintaining LBA. This would allow LHR to directly benefit the regions with one stop to the world and would be served by modern and quiet aircraft.
As for Gatters, look at the big players. Under no I would say :
flybe (unless they introduced the routes as per above)
easyJet (they might try it and see)
Ryanair
Thomson
Thomas Cook
Monarch

Under yes would be the likely consolidation of Virgin and long haul BA, but Aer Lingus serve LGW in their own right as do Lufthansa. We might see TAP and Air Malta consolidate at LHR but I suspect that would be it.
The new long haul troops would move to LHR, a no brainer IMHO. That's Korean, Air China and Vietnam. Hong Kong Air I suspect won't be on the route long enough to ask the question. Even if that all happened there's a fair bit of room to play with there if it's managed well. I can't believe I said that last bit with a straight face because if that were possible, well we wouldn't be here would we?

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

It will NOT go to Scotland, where it might pick up passengers from air, yet HS2 Ltd are claiming it will still take 81% - yes 81% of the WHOLE market between London and Scotland.



And yet it only makes sense is it DOES go to Scotland

The time savings from Brum are insignificant. Better from Manchester. Positively inviting if you are coming from Glasgow, Edinburgh or Newcastle.

When I use TGV, it is only as a preference to flying (I hate flying), and that means a long domestic route, to the south of France.



Jabird

It isn't sexy, it isn't ideal, but the most obvious and practical way for London to expand capacity is to add runways to its existing airports, and there is more space and less of a noise issue doing this at LGW first, then STN.



And as we have told you, ad infinitum, that will also solve nothing.

We are looking at overcapacity at London's Wold Hub, and having inbound international passengers facing the prospect of their domestic flight departing from STN or LGW will solve absolutely nothing.


The only two choices here are:

a. Build another two runways at LHR (minimum of two). This involves demolishing all of the towns up to the railway north of the M4 - including all of W Drayton. Only then would you have enough land space, allowing for new runways either side of the M4. And you would still blight the whole of London with noise.

b. Build the new Silver-Boris airport in the Thames Estuary.



.

.

[jabird]

The only two choices here are:

a. Build another two runways at LHR

b. Build the new Silver-Boris airport in the Thames Estuary.

Any airport can exist as a choice on paper, so:

c. Build a second or even third runway at Gatwick - not as commercially safe as LHR, but far less people to object. Over time LGW improves surface links and could even become the more dominant hub.

d. Build upto 3 new runways at Stansted, as previously proposed in 2003. It is a bit out of the way, then again so is anything in the Thames, so the construction risk is far smaller.

e. Do nothing. Not as stupid as it sounds, considering that airports are give and take, and given the likely challenges the industry faces (environmental, cost of fuel, tax gouging).

Remember that however much you dislike c. and d, they are still better options than fantasy island because any capacity added there (and of course at LHR) is a direct add and on dry land.

Faced with building on water, AND having to create 2/3rds of the infrastructure just to replace what will be lost by closing LHR, it is easy to see why the island is a non starter.

[jabird]

Sorry, for the sake of BHX mgt, I should have added:

f) Allow each London area airport to grow to capacity within its existing footprint (permit new terminals but no runways). As each one fills up, the low cost flights mover further and further out. Compared to (e), this might see 50mppa @ LGW & STN, 20mppa @ LTN, 5mppa @ LCY, anything towards 100mppa at LHR with mixed modes and larger fleet usage.

Eventually, as growth expands outwards, MSE becomes attractive again, LYX can take 2-10mppa, OXF, SOU & CBG handle the smaller aircraft, and Wizzair buzz off to EMA.

Somewhere in this plan, all of the high yielding business traffic that can't quite afford LHR's now exorbitant PSCs decide to decamp to BHX, rather than LGW.

I can't quite see it, can you? Unless:

g) Continue HS2 in a tunnel under Euston, then calling at Tottenham Court Road (X Rail interchange), Bank and Canary Wharf. Also divert alignment to serve BHX terminals directly. Use PSC to cross-subsidise operation, so BHX passengers can travel to and from London for free. Operate "worm train", with luggage check in and security performed on board, so passengers enter the BHX shopping mall ready to shop. Scrap Old Oak Common interchange (as that benefits LHR), giving Euston to BHX time of 30 minutes.

Now would people use BHX as a "London" airport? Still not seeing it, given that the Gatters Express also takes 30 mins.

And of course, the train from Fantasy Island to central London will also take, errrrrrrrrrrrrrr - about 30 minutes!

[jabird]

That would be the likes of INV, JER, IOM, GCI and the possibility of adding MME, NQY and maintaining LBA. This would allow LHR to directly benefit the regions with one stop to the world and would be served by modern and quiet aircraft.
As for Gatters, look at the big players. Under no I would say :
flybe (unless they introduced the routes as per above)

Fair enough, "will" and "overnight" might be a bit strong, but remember all the assumptions regarding new capacity are that the existing airlines will want to add new routes, and that other airlines will also want to come in to the London market.

Virtually all the airports you mention above are indeed already served from LGW, therefore the opportunity to serve LHR and to benefit from that connectivity would no doubt be taken up if it could.

Or, we allow LGW to be the one doing the expansion, in which case BE evolve further as a network carrier. Remember, they are so far the only airline to have expressed any interest in an island airport, and they have done so for the very reasons you mention.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Seems unusual for an MP to flatten half his own constituency! Or at least plan to.“

Indeed it does! Although the two towns are in different constituencies.

Quote: “In a certain irony, this would be more likely to go through with a Labour government given that most of the local area are Tory voters.“

Not so, Bedfont and Stanwell contain a high proportion of Labour voters. There was a time when these towns were Labour strongholds, maybe Blair put paid to that(?).

Quote: “It could be, of course, that the Free Enterprise Group have just graduated en masse from Negotiating 101 - demand more than you want and then the other side is relieved when you agree to settle for half of your original request.

I think that is almost certainly what it is, and also the reason why the Estuary airport is being proposed as the alternative.

Shall we build a third runway, at a fraction of the cost, or build a mega expensive new airport in the middle of a wild fowl sanctuary on the other side of London?! “

Of course, it could all be bluff and counter bluff. However the best one is to make expansion look like the best bet by threatening the objectors with permanent mixed mode so that those under the flight path lose their daily half-day of peace. Oh wait a minute, that won’t work, all the vocal objectors live miles away from the airport, they won’t be affected.

Quote: “The third runway starts to look like the best option... “

Not “starts to look like“, it IS the best option, by far!

Quote: “Gideon may have to pull his finger out and make a decision, but Milliband is playing a very clever game at the moment.

As we know, the last Labour government actually approved a third runway, but the current Edd & Edd iteration has given no indication where it stands.

The significance of course is that if it were to support a third runway (as is the logical thing to do) then Gideon wouldnt need to worry about Clegg and the Liberal loonies think. However, if they are to go it alone then the Lib Dems opinion actually counts, as the Tories need their support in the coalition.

My suspicion is that Labour would support the runway, but will do everything in their power to avoid saying that right up until election time for fear of handing the upper hand to the Tories. “

This is a very good analysis!

The question is: why did it take Labour 6 years to approve the third rwy? Good grief, it could have been up and running by now!

Miliband does not to need to say anything just now.

Who knows why Call-Me-Dave allows the teaboy (Cleggover) to call the tune. The Libdems will never walk, they’ve got their noses in the trough for the first time in 80 years!

Even if they did, Call-Me-Dave is more than able to run a minority government. Neither Labour nor the Libdems would bring him down and risk an early election.

The former can’t afford it, the latter would be annihilated! AND we’d all benefit from the Conservatives pursuing moderate policies, just in case!

Quote: “I would take issue with the word "will", as a proper strategic review would ring fence within the British Isles (yes I KNOW!), to be safegaurded and built upon.

That would be the likes of INV, JER, IOM, GCI and the possibility of adding MME, NQY and maintaining LBA. This would allow LHR to directly benefit the regions with one stop to the world and would be served by modern and quiet aircraft."

And probably several other destinations. Quite right too! Much of the country needs regeneration and inward investment, this connectivity would help immensely.

Quote: As for Gatters, look at the big players. Under no I would say :
flybe (unless they introduced the routes as per above)
easyJet (they might try it and see)
Ryanair
Thomson
Thomas Cook
Monarch

Under yes would be the likely consolidation of Virgin and long haul BA, but Aer Lingus serve LGW in their own right as do Lufthansa. We might see TAP and Air Malta consolidate at LHR but I suspect that would be it.
The new long haul troops would move to LHR, a no brainer IMHO. That's Korean, Air China and Vietnam. Hong Kong Air I suspect won't be on the route long enough to ask the question. Even if that all happened there's a fair bit of room to play with there if it's managed well. I can't believe I said that last bit with a straight face because if that were possible, well we wouldn't be here would we?"

Another excellent analysis, this thread’s getting better!

Even with a third rwy, LHR will not attract the no frills and charter operators. Maybe BE and BD regional(?) on thin domestic routes, but not FR and doubtful U2.

[DeeCee]

Suppose Heathrow didn't exist, try writing a proposal for it as we stand today. There is no way it would ever happen.

An airport will be built somewhere in the Thames Estuary and it will become a major European hub. This will happen eventually as the political will gradually builds. It will be privately funded and the major airlines will have no choice but to go there - whatever they say in public.

It will take 20+ years, so I may see it in my lifetime (64).

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Suppose Heathrow didn't exist, try writing a proposal for it as we stand today. There is no way it would ever happen."

Obviously, it would either be an urban area, or green belt!

Quote: "An airport will be built somewhere in the Thames Estuary and it will become a major European hub. This will happen eventually as the political will gradually builds. It will be privately funded and the major airlines will have no choice but to go there - whatever they say in public.

It will take 20+ years, so I may see it in my lifetime (64)."

Your evidence for this is?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Seems unusual for an MP to flatten half his own constituency! Or at least plan to."

It's reminiscent of the old washing powder adverts:

"obliterates Staines"

[PAXboy]

S.O.E.... if it's managed well.Ah, yes, the vital words. Given that British govts have spent 25 years telling BAA to do what it thinks is right - and then cussing them for making the wrong choice! As well as so weighting the charges at make them make more money out of the shopping mall ... I can't see any change happening. The suggestions you make are all very sensible and therein lies the problem!

The standard British SOP (Hold An Enquiry - Then Do Nothing) is a viable option. The current recession and changes long since entrained by Euro hubs and the ME carriers will create enormous changes across the next 25 years.

So, I agree that LHR3 will soak up capacity and, as I have repeated before, if there was a regulation to cap the holding time to a maximum of ten minutes under normal operating conditons (as might be expected from the planned timetable and not yet affected by weather or closed runway) THEN the capacity is (probably) almost already accounted for! Capping holding times is a real win for the green lobby and pax - but I bet no one mentions it.

[jabird]

Suppose Heathrow didn't exist, try writing a proposal for it as we stand today. There is no way it would ever happen.

I'm afraid that is a side argument. You could also say "suppose smoking / alcohol didn't exist, we wouldn't have them today".

Obviously, it would either be an urban area, or green belt!

Exactly. Just where exactly is the perfect place to build an airport? In my experience I'll suggest that some of the world's larger airports (by area) had near perfect sites - endless prairie for DEN, or better still, barren desert for the likes of DMM or RUH.

Now as almost all the land in the SE is either already built on, or is fiercely protected greenbelt, so the easiest option is to expand sites that have already been used as airports.

You could make a similar claim for what might we do if no airports existed, that the plane was invented tomorrow, and that we needed just one hub airport for all flights.

That is the only scenario I could paint for which the 2003 Rugby Airport proposal might have had some merit, but I suggest that even if we were in that situation, the "single" airport would still end up being much closer to London, because the UK's centre of economic gravity is still somewhere around Milton Keynes, not further north.

So actually, given the "one airport for London" with none others existing, I'm still not sure we'd be using the Thames Estuary, because it is too far east, and because it would be so much hassle to connect it to the road and rail networks.

But at least if this was the challenge, Fantasy Island wouldn't have to worry about what to do with LHR, as it wouldn't exist!

[PAXboy]

Add this item to the mix. It's another vote for LHR 3. :ok:

BBC News - £500m Heathrow link to cut times on Great Western line (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18817874)

A new link into the central area from Slough and pax from the West. Who's going to write off £500mill? :eek:

Amusingly, it's announced by our good friend Transport Secretary Justine Greening. :ooh:

This extract contains two gems:

Stuart Cole, professor of transport at the University of Glamorgan, said the scheme would cut a sizeable chunk off journey times.

"The downside is that Cardiff Airport might become less competitive because Heathrow will be that much easier to get to," he added.

Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan said: "The Wales Office has always supported and recognised the importance of connectivity to Heathrow as a major UK air hub for Welsh business and Welsh passengers.

"The new rail link will not only provide a more convenient link, but will also be a key driver of growth for the region."

[rareair]

Quote: “Seems unusual for an MP to flatten half his own constituency! Or at least plan to.“

Do we really think there are many Tory voters in Stanwell?

Surely this is a safe way of increasing his majority!

[Libertine Winno]

The extra £500m on an improved rail spur from Slough to LHR can be added to the £9bn or whatever it was for Crossrail as infrastructure invested with LHR explicitly in mind. Add in a spur from the (ficitonal?) HS2 line, and it looks even more ridiculous to suggest closing LHR at any point.

The logical thing to do would build a new 4 runway airport somewhere north of London, on the HS2 line, between the M1 and and the M40. Plenty of space, good connection, and no birds. Unfortunately, lots of historic village and the Chilterns, so lets all just accept that whilst LHR is no perfect, its the least bad option of all these things and get on with it!

[silverstrata]

.
The Daily Mail comes out in favor of the Silver-Boris airport.

London has a vision for new airport capacity. Now all it needs is the Victorian spirit to get it built and paid for | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2172448/London-vision-new-airport-capacity-Now-needs-Victorian-spirit-built-paid-for.html)


.

[DaveReidUK]

Quote from the Mail article:

"Planning permission, even with new fast track procedures, could alone take several years given the degree of opposition in middle class neighbourhoods like Richmond, where I happen to live. But as the new runway is North-South existing neighbourhoods should not be affected".

Clearly they've assigned their top aviation journalist on this story ...

[Libertine Winno]

Two quotes interest me;

.The Norman Foster plan eventually proposes that the land at Heathrow could be turned over to housing and other development releasing cash for the Thames Estuary project.


Yeah because Im sure BAA will just sell one of the world's most commercially successful airports for housing!


And secondly;

But it would be worth retaining some private jet capacity at Heathrow as well to deal with the building corporate traffic, especially along the M4 corridor.


So you're going to keep LHR open after all then and not build housing on it?! We all know there is no way that you can justify a 4 runway estuary airport without closing LHR, because airlines simply wont go there. So if we keep LHR open, it has to have three or ideally four runways.

If we propose the estuary airport, then LHR must be closed. Quite how you convince BAA to do that, remains to be seen though!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Suppose Heathrow didn't exist, try writing a proposal for it as we stand today. There is no way it would ever happen."

On the other hand, apart from Heathrow village growing to become an urban area, or the area being part of green belt Hounslow Heath, there is a third possibility: we'd all be arguing about expansion at Heston Airport which would probably have been what Heathrow is now.

Quote: "Do we really think there are many Tory voters in Stanwell?

Surely this is a safe way of increasing his majority! "

No need, he has a pretty safe and consistent Conservative seat.

Quote: "The logical thing to do would build a new 4 runway airport somewhere north of London, on the HS2 line, between the M1 and and the M40."

Sounds very much like the conclusion of the 1971 Royal Commission on the "third" London airport. They recommended Cublington, Bucks.. Indeed, it's obvious that any new airport site has to be west or north west of London, and not in the Thames estuary. It was the same in 1971: the Royal Commission rejected Foulness/Maplin, Essex.

Quote: "Plenty of space, good connection, and no birds. Unfortunately, lots of historic village and the Chilterns, so lets all just accept that whilst LHR is no perfect, its the least bad option of all these things and get on with it! "

Quite.

Quote: "The Daily Mail comes out in favor of the Silver-Boris airport.

London has a vision for new airport capacity. Now all it needs is the Victorian spirit to get it built and paid for | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2172448/London-vision-new-airport-capacity-Now-needs-Victorian-spirit-built-paid-for.html)"

That's a relief! Expect this campaign will be as successful as the one to have weekly bin collections reinstated. For those who remember, just one council (Stoke-on-Trent) has done this, and that was the result of a bribe from Eric Pickles.

Quote: " Quote from the Mail article:

"Planning permission, even with new fast track procedures, could alone take several years given the degree of opposition in middle class neighbourhoods like Richmond, where I happen to live. But as the new runway is North-South existing neighbourhoods should not be affected".

Clearly they've assigned their top aviation journalist on this story ... "

Er, what's all this about north-south rwys? Where would they go and how would that increase capacity? Desperation, or more sloppy journalism?

Quote: "So you're going to keep LHR open after all then and not build housing on it?! We all know there is no way that you can justify a 4 runway estuary airport without closing LHR, because airlines simply wont go there. So if we keep LHR open, it has to have three or ideally four runways.

If we propose the estuary airport, then LHR must be closed. Quite how you convince BAA to do that, remains to be seen though!"

Precisely the reason why the estuary airport (whether Silver Island or Foster's Folly), apart from all the other considerations, is a complete non-starter.

[jabird]

1.21 We believe that the role of the Government should be largely confined to facilitating a competitive aviation market

From DfT document just released.

Fantasy Island cannot be built without shutting down its competitors, therefore it cannot be built. End of discussion.

[silverstrata]

Wino:


Yeah because Im sure BAA will just sell one of the world's most commercially successful airports for housing!



Have you never heard of a compulsory purchase order?





Jabird:

Fantasy Island cannot be built without shutting down its competitors, therefore it cannot be built. End of discussion.




Which is exactly why it WILL be built. What developer could not resist getting their hands on the most valuable piece of real-estate in Britain.




Jabird:

Remember that however much you dislike c. and d, they are still better options than fantasy island because any capacity added there (and of course at LHR) is a direct add and on dry land.



You are rather forgetting that one of the MAIN attractions of Silver-Boris, is that it is NOT on dry land. The UK is, thanks to the efforts of New Labour to bury the UK under 500 million people, the most densely populated nation in Europe.

We NEED landspace, and the relocation of LHR will not only give us extra landspace, it will place much of the noise nuisance of Europe's biggest airport out in the estuary. That is not a drawback, it is a selling-point. And throwing sand up to make the world's biggest sand-castle is hardly an engineering challenge - in fact, it is probably the easiest and cheapest part of the whole construction project.





.

[SWBKCB]

a proper strategic review would ring fence a proportion of these new slots as non served domestic routes to allow connectivity within the British Isles (yes I KNOW!), to be safegaurded and built upon. That would be the likes of INV, JER, IOM, GCI and the possibility of adding MME, NQY and maintaining LBA. This would allow LHR to directly benefit the regions with one stop to the world and would be served by modern and quiet aircraft.

JER, IOM, GCI - benefit the regions? Aren't these just commuter routes for bankers??

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Fantasy Island cannot be built without shutting down its competitors, therefore it cannot be built. End of discussion."

Nicely put, jabird, succint and to the point.

Quote: "Have you never heard of a compulsory purchase order?"

Indeed, but do you have any idea of the cost (in compensation)?

Quote: "Which is exactly why it WILL be built. What developer could not resist getting their hands on the most valuable piece of real-estate in Britain."

A site of special scientific interest and wildlife haven in the Thames estuary "the most valuable piece of real-estate in Britain"?

You're losing it big time, silverstrata!

Quote: "You are rather forgetting that one of the MAIN attractions of Silver-Boris, is that it is NOT on dry land. The UK is, thanks to the efforts of New Labour to bury the UK under 500 million people, the most densely populated nation in Europe."

No, the most densly populated countries in Europe are Belgium and the Netherlands, and probably Germany. The UK is densly populated in parts, but equally, huge swathes are empty.

Quote: "We NEED landspace, and the relocation of LHR will not only give us extra landspace, it will place much of the noise nuisance of Europe's biggest airport out in the estuary. That is not a drawback, it is a selling-point."

Obviously it isn't a selling-point, the idea of an estuary airport has been around since the 1950s. Rightly, it has never been taken seriously.

Quote: "JER, IOM, GCI - benefit the regions? Aren't these just commuter routes for bankers??"

Look on the bright side: bankers could provide decent yields for carriers on those routes. There is other traffic as well, for example, tourism and businesses other than offshore banking/financial services.

[jabird]

Quote: "Fantasy Island cannot be built without shutting down its competitors, therefore it cannot be built. End of discussion."

Nicely put, jabird, succint and to the point.

Thanks, but having read all 98 pages of the document, I'm not so sure. All I got was endless waffle - 31 x "stakeholders", 20 x "solution", but then again - not a single mention of Fanstasy Island! Even LHR 3 was dismissed out of hand at the start - although I don't agree with it, it certainly needs to be discussed if you are going to re-open the case.

Quote: "Which is exactly why it WILL be built. What developer could not resist getting their hands on the most valuable piece of real-estate in Britain."

Again, we've been here before. It IS valuable as a functioning airport. Otherwise it is just another large brownfield site with half-decent transport links - nothing more, nothing less. It is only relevant as a bi-product of closing LHR, it is not the sort of place you would asset-strip just for the sake of it.

The UK is densly populated in parts, but equally, huge swathes are empty.

You could also say that about Belgium and the Netherlands - in the latter, the population is around the Ranstaad. Yet despite this, Schiphol still has a tiny noise footprint compared to LHR. This is the problem with a 3rd runway - you can't just say jets are getting quieter, look up:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2012-35/draft-aviation-policy-framework.pdf 4.5

55dB noise exposure for LHR is 700k+, LGW & STN between them are about 25k.

That is why, from a noise perspective, these locations are far less sensitive than LHR, whatever the commercial case or political challenges.

You are rather forgetting that one of the MAIN attractions of Silver-Boris, is that it is NOT on dry land.

No, that is a big drawback. Given your claim that we have half a billion people squeezing into the South East, do you not think that some developers would have tried to build island new towns by now? Why have the Dutch been able to do it, but we haven't?

I suggest that you are just looking at Google's countourless maps, saying our geology is the same as theirs, and putting 2 + 2 together to make about 500.

By your own logic for Heathrow, land for housing is more valuable than land for airports. Therefore, if we can't make a proposal work for housing (in fact, afaik no developer has ever even suggested it), why is it going to work for an airport?

Remember, the Dutch have also looked at taking AMS offshore, and dismissed it. Why would we be any better when we have virtually zero experience in the field, apart from Arup's levelling two mountains to build Kansai, and then realsiing they needed another one to complete the job. And Japan's debt per capita is?

Now I really will say end of discussion!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "You could also say that about Belgium and the Netherlands - in the latter, the population is around the Ranstaad."

Belgium and the Netherlands do not have the vast empty spaces that we have in the UK: the moors in Devon and Cornwall; Cambrian mountains and Snowdonia, the Pennines and the Yorkshire moors, the Cheviots, the Grampians, the Highlands and Islands, and much of Northern Ireland. My comment that huge swathes of the UK are empty is accurate.

Quote: "Yet despite this, Schiphol still has a tiny noise footprint compared to LHR. This is the problem with a 3rd runway - you can't just say jets are getting quieter, look up:"

Having lived under the flightpath in west Middlesex for many years (and old enough to remember the noisy jets of the 1960s), yes I can!

[jabird]

My comment that huge swathes of the UK are empty is accurate.

It is totally accurate! Just compare population distribution in Scotland v. England.

However, I was just pointing out that even in the Benelux region, there are also areas of lower and higher population density - Belgium spreads out a bit beneath the Liege - Charleroi axis, there is also quite a bit of space around Apeldoorn in NL.

Having lived under the flightpath in west Middlesex for many years (and old enough to remember the noisy jets of the 1960s), yes I can!

Are planes getting quieter? - yes they are, we both agree.

My point was that the sheer number of people exposed to high noise levels around LHR is still far greater than anywhere else - as an outright figure, even if the noise is slowly declining.

LHR noise (#exposed people) > MAD, CDG, AMS & FRA combined and also is approx 20x STN + LGW combined.

That is the challenge.

Now if we keep talking about it long enough (and make no mistake, the DfT document is nothing other than a talking shop with zero content), the next but one generation of aircraft might be genuinely silent, rather than just quiet, and you can have your 3rd runway no problem.

[PAXboy]

Quote:
1.21 We believe that the role of the Government should be largely confined to facilitating a competitive aviation market
From DfT document just released.

That's a great quote because, it can mean that the DfT would facilitate a competitive aviation market by allowing a private contractor to build an Island and facilitate them going head to head with EGLL. Facilitating does not mean compulsory purchase / privatisation of a compnay (BAA plc) and then shutting down the operation.

[jabird]

Facilitating does not mean compulsory purchase / privatisation of a compnay (BAA plc) and then shutting down the operation.

No, but with LHR still open, how do you attract airlines to Fantasy Island?

You would be left with a phased approach - let's start with one runway, like Kansai.

Hang on a minute, investors get jitters - that is still going to cost us £20bn.

How much did you say that 2nd runway at Gatters was going to cost? £2bn? Ah!

[Skipness One Echo]

My point was that the sheer number of people exposed to high noise levels around LHR is still far greater than anywhere else - as an outright figure, even if the noise is slowly declining.

This is true, LHR noise over Central and West London is a pain for a lot of people, myself included, indeed I have LCY departures and LHR arrivals to contend with on Westerlies. However it is manageable for me, I knew that when I moved here. This whole debate has a child like quality. People want power without power stations public services with low levels of tax coupled with the ability to drink like a fish without liver failure whilst shagging in an STD free sort of way pretending their drug problem is under control. We need at least one hub that works, there are no magic lands undiscovered to build it from scratch. Anyone pointing at LGW and STN does not understand how a commercial market works with reference to a strategic hub airport of national importance.
When people say "government help" they just mean fling more taxpayers dosh at it and see if that helps. all it does is temporarily skew the market.
It's LHR for the future, stop looking at what's being said, look at what's being done.

Crossrail and the investment to LHR
Terminal 5 and term of depreciation
Terminal 2 and term of depreciation

Only in the last week, people are now seriously floating the idea of a fourth runway at Heathrow, something I thought we'd never see. For Fantasy Island to work, you have to close LHR, no question in my view. You then need to pay BAA, a major sum of money above and beyond the market rate of the land, at the end of a fairly long court case I would guess, then write off all investment in Crossrail at LHR, the Heathrow Express and Connect then demolish the still new Terminal 5 and Terminal 2. Can you see HMG writing that sort of a cheque AND financing the building of a concerete floating island off the east coast.
Then you have the political and economic fall out from decoupling the M4 corridor from access to the national hub, the raison d'etre of many of the industries and jobs therein. You have just done that, in an era of mobile globalisation????
For the sake of what? SIPSON? I mean I have been there, it's not worth quite that amount of money I have to say.

Look the public thinks the Bank of England just prints money and HMG doles it out, responsible people take tough decisions, I respected many in the last government for the unpopular stance on LHR expansion, it's taking this government a little too long to learn the ropes.

Will this thread ever die I wonder?

[jabird]

This whole debate has a child like quality. People want power without power stations.............

So you are effectively saying the whole of central London is populated by nimbys?

When we had the local debate here, over (much smaller) CVT, the word "nimby" was often used against those opposing the airport, including by myself.

Although I didn't live near the argument, I pointed out that my street has 6 pubs on it, despite being in a "residential" area, and that it was not my position to complain about the noise they caused, given the very reasons you mention.

I think we ought to append the phrase nimby into two forms:

"NIMBY - because actually, I think there is somewhere better for this" and

"NIMBY / BANANA" - build absolutely nothing, anywhere, NEVER at-all!

My other argument for CVT was that it has a tiny noise footprint compared to the nearest alternative, which was BHX.

My argument was - how can you say airlines should go to BHX when they will disturb 5x as many people as they would if they used CVT?

In the case of STN or LGW v LHR, the noise argument is EVEN MORE skewed than that - more like 20:1.

Anyone pointing at LGW and STN does not understand how a commercial market works with reference to a strategic hub airport of national importance.

I am very well aware of the arguments in terms of hubs v ptp. If LHR's runways were aligned N-S, I might take a different view, but they are not.

Having read through the gov-guff yesterday, there was one hell of a lot of focus on the BRICS, which in 2002 accounted for 5% of passengers to UK airports. Now they've gone up to a whopping 6%! The biggest growth has come from the former Eastern Bloc who are now EU members - e.g. 750% for Poland v. 40% for the BRICS.

Not one new route to Poland has been added by the legacy carriers (iirc, BA used to do LGW-KRK, now gone). Even MOW is within range of a 738 / 321.

Of course, a hub operation means more spokes can be connected to each other, but the revenue gain from having more transfer traffic is marginal.

The reason for promoting the hub is that routes that might otherwise be too thin can start. The question for you is - just how much more valuable is it to us to go after these routes, as opposed to adding capacity on existing routes, or serving the local market with more loco traffic?

Remember, even with LHR3, we go from having 2 runways serving a "major hub" operation and 5 that don't to 3:5. Whatever happens at LHR, the overall London market is still going to be dispersed through multiple airports.


Only in the last week, people are now seriously floating the idea of a fourth runway at Heathrow, something I thought we'd never see.

Yes, very good point. As already mentioned, this is very much along the lines of "ask for 4, accept 3".

I also suspect that this lobby is a response to the Fantasy Island promotion also gaining steam. Back in 03, when Cliffe was proposed, it was widely accepted that this was so the govt could say "well we aren't building Cliffe, LHR 3 is quite reasonable in comparisosn".

For Fantasy Island to work, you have to close LHR, no question in my view.

Agreed!

You then need to pay BAA, a major sum of money above and beyond the market rate of the land

The market rate of the land as land isn't that much. So you'd have to pay them above the market rate of the land as the world's busiest international airport. Ouch, that is going to sting!

at the end of a fairly long court case I would guess

Oh yes! The airlines would sue too. What about the value of their slots? (OK, slight red herring, they would fall with R3 too, but the lawyers will make a meal of it).

Then what happens when the other (now non BAA) airports get involved - "why are you subsidising the surface access to this airport" and so on!

, then write off all investment in Crossrail at LHR, the Heathrow Express and Connect then demolish the still new Terminal 5 and Terminal 2.

Not written off, more marked down.

To redevelop this site in a way which justifies the infra that is already there, you'd have to start building tall, essentially Canary Wharf Mk2. And then, I think the CPRE would be stepping in saying "you can't close this airport and turn it into tower blocks"!

AS previously mentioned, terminal buildings are not like grand old station halls - change of use would be a challenge, especially as the 21st Century society would try to get them listed.

[PAXboy]

jabird Sorry, I had my tongue firmly in my cheek and yet did not insert the requisite number of :}.

My view has always been:


Islands are never going to happen
LHR 3rd is the only game
But, by the time we get around to building it - the demand will have levelled off for a variety of reasons - although it is still needed when one of the mains is unavailable

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "No, but with LHR still open, how do you attract airlines to Fantasy Island?"

Another question that Silver needs to answer properly but won't, probably can't. Nonsense about compulsory purchase orders is not answering it!

Quote: "You would be left with a phased approach - let's start with one runway, like Kansai.

Hang on a minute, investors get jitters - that is still going to cost us £20bn.

How much did you say that 2nd runway at Gatters was going to cost? £2bn? Ah!"

A phased approach won't work, no carrier at LHR wants to go to the estuary, whether with one rwy or four. It's the same argument for not expanding STN, and to a lesser extent, LGW. Indeed at LGW, the movement is from LGW to LHR when slots become available.

Quote: "Yes, very good point. As already mentioned, this is very much along the lines of "ask for 4, accept 3"."

Could be, or else reality is setting in, and minds are being concentrated:

1. four rwys are needed, and needed now, the third was needed years ago;
2. four rwys allow the continuation of alternation - necessary to placate local residents;
3. if a fourth rwy is asked for later, there will another twenty years of nonsense, best get it over and done with at the same time as a third rwy;
4. the area north of the airport needs to be planned very carefully for 2 more rwys and the associated infrastructure (there will not be a rwy south of the airport), so do it together.

It's more likely that incremental moves to mixed mode are the ploy to make expansion more palatable to local residents, rather than the "ask for 4 and accept 3" strategy.

Quote: "I also suspect that this lobby is a response to the Fantasy Island promotion also gaining steam."

Maybe, but not convinced that the fantasy is gaining credibility.

Quote: "Back in 03, when Cliffe was proposed, it was widely accepted that this was so the govt could say "well we aren't building Cliffe, LHR 3 is quite reasonable in comparisosn".

Had they done this in 03, instead of prevaricating for 6 years, the third rwy would be up and running by now!

[Prophead]

I think most people can see that the 3rd runway at Heathrow is a done deal and probably has been for some time. We are now seeing the politics being slowly brought round to the inevitable conclusion. JG saying she is against it and then talking about a new railway to connect LHR from the west:confused:

Do these people really believe we are all that stupid? How much money are they going to waste on bogus island airport schemes that were never going to get approved. At the same time they are constructing tunnels to the very airport that would need to close should these 'pie in the sky' projects get approved.

The third runway will be built and rightly so, but much, much later than it should have been due to these people being more concerned with keeping/gaining votes than with the good of the UK.

The consultation has been postponed because it is too controversial. Isnt that why we need a consultation in the first place?:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "I think most people can see that the 3rd runway at Heathrow is a done deal and probably has been for some time. We are now seeing the politics being slowly brought round to the inevitable conclusion. JG saying she is against it and then talking about a new railway to connect LHR from the west"

Exactly, Justine has mistakenly allied herself very strongly with the anti-LHR lobby and her position is untenable. Cameron must be aware that having such a biased transport secretary of state is unacceptable.

Have a feeling that there will be some "falling on swords" before too long.

Quote: "Do these people really believe we are all that stupid? How much money are they going to waste on bogus island airport schemes that were never going to get approved. At the same time they are constructing tunnels to the very airport that would need to close should these 'pie in the sky' projects get approved."

The trouble is that they do think we're all stupid, and they love wasting public money. The electorate is too often treated with contempt (by all the political parties).

Quote: "The third runway will be built and rightly so, but much, much later than it should have been due to these people being more concerned with keeping/gaining votes than with the good of the UK."

Agreed, but not convinced about keeping/gaining votes. It's a technical and very localised issue, irrelevant to much of the country. Even to most under the flightpath, there are other more important issues to determine voting intentions.

Quote: "The consultation has been postponed because it is too controversial. Isnt that why we need a consultation in the first place?"

The endless postponement of the "consultation" is probably Cameron's way of buying time while he decides how to execute another U-turn.

The difficulty with this particular U-turn is that it has much to do with coalition politics, where the Clegg tail is wagging the Cameron dog. The Libdems are against any new rwys in the southeast. By implication, that includes the estuary airport. Could the recent announcements on rail electrification be a way of "softening up" the Libdems?

The Conservatives made a major mistake when they reversed Labour's belated approval for LHR expansion, and they know it. They should have accepted it as a fait accompli.

[silverstrata]

Frank:

No, the most densly populated countries in Europe are Belgium and the Netherlands, and probably Germany. The UK is densly populated in parts, but equally, huge swathes are empty.



You are wrong, yet again. Courtesy of Blair, who does not have to deal with the consequences, the UK is now the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside).

Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174300/Record-levels-immigration-lead-jam-packed-England-population-rockets-56m.html)


That, is why we need to save space, especially for something as wasteful of space as an airfield. And saying we have empty spaces in Cornwall and Scotland is absurd - it is the southeast that needs the extra living space.

As to why we are not building houses in the estuary:

firstly, you still have an obsession with the semi-detach, which is hugely wasteful of space, and therefore not economic for land reclamation.
secondly, the estuary has no jobs at present.
thirdly, every developer knows that the Greens will find a lesser-striped leach in the estuary somewhere, and the whole project will grind to a halt.


In order for this nation to progress, and house, feed and clothe itself, we need some swinging space for a few Greens.


.

[nigel osborne]

Re third runway possibility..seems to me that the Govt has made its decision.

Would they really have approved a £500 million rail link from Wales and the Thames Valley to Heathrow yesterday to be ready in about 10 years if they were going for Boris Island ??

Think not !:ok:


Nigel

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "You are wrong, yet again. Courtesy of Blair, who does not have to deal with the consequences, the UK is now the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside)."

Dear oh dear, you appear to be allowing your hatred of Blair cloud your judgement.

Malta: 3,424 people/sq mi.
Netherlands: 1,046 people/sq mi.
Belgium: 919 people/sq mi.
UK: 660 people/sq mi.
Germany: 593 people/sq mi.

Was not too far off the mark as it happens: got UK and Germany the wrong way around and missed out Malta.

Either way it does not make the UK the most densely populated country in Europe.

Next.

Quote: "That, is why we need to save space, especially for something as wasteful of space as an airfield."

What does this actually mean?

Quote: "And saying we have empty spaces in Cornwall and Scotland is absurd - it is the southeast that needs the extra living space."

Re-read the post, the points referred specifically to the UK, not to parts thereof. No, it is not "absurd" to mention vast empty swathes, more than just Cornwall and scotland incidentally, they are the reason why the UK is not the most densely populated country in Europe.

The fact is that the UK has a population imbalance and needs to move people and jobs away from the south east. Obviously easier said than done. That said, as densely populated as the south east undoubtedly is, there is still a great deal of open space there.

Even in the city of London there is much open space. Grab a right hand window seat on a westerly approach to LHR and this becomes apparent.

Quote: "firstly, you still have an obsession with the semi-detach, which is hugely wasteful of space, and therefore not economic for land reclamation."

Have never mentioned "semi-detach", but what's wrong with them anyway? Clearly these are a very popular design of house and have been for many years.

Quote: "Re third runway possibility..seems to me that the Govt has made its decision.

Would they really have approved a £500 million rail link from Wales and the Thames Valley to Heathrow yesterday to be ready in about 10 years if they were going for Boris Island ??

Think not !"

Well said Nigel, it does appear to be the case doesn't it! Now they need to get on with it, sharpish.

[Skipness One Echo]

Of course they would, they only need to give the impression of doing something, the actual end result is secondary. It's not THEIR money they're spending but ours. I do not believe Cameron will allow a u-turn while he is PM in runway 3. He is too closely allied to the policy AND put Justine at Transport quite intentionally.

I like the way Mr strata keeps saying "we" from his position in LA. From his spelling he's clearly American!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Of course they would, they only need to give the impression of doing something, the actual end result is secondary. It's not THEIR money they're spending but ours. I do not believe Cameron will allow a u-turn while he is PM in runway 3. He is too closely allied to the policy AND put Justine at Transport quite intentionally."

Possibly, but he is being overtaken by events. He may not have anticipated the pressure, not least from some of his colleagues. Much depends whether he is prepared to face down Clegg. On present and past form, it looks unlikely, which means at least another 3 years wasted.

Quote: I like the way Mr strata keeps saying "we" from his position in LA. From his spelling he's clearly American!"

You may think that, couldn't possibly comment!

[Fairdealfrank]

By the way, we're 53rd in the world out of 242.

[Libertine Winno]

In related news, the Government is supposedly to announce today that it will back £50bn worth of infrastructure to get the economy moving and people back into work.

BBC News - Investment plan: Infrastructure and exports get backing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18880354)

Which is all good news, but given that billions of pounds worth of infrastructure development at LHR (third and even fourth runway, terminal 6) just need political will to get it going seeing as the financing of it is not an issue, it cannot be more clear that money is indeed easier to come by than a positive political mandate! :ok:

[silverstrata]

Frank:

Dear oh dear, you appear to be allowing your hatred of Blair cloud your judgement.

Malta: 3,424 people/sq mi.
Netherlands: 1,046 people/sq mi.
Belgium: 919 people/sq mi.
UK: 660 people/sq mi.
Germany: 593 people/sq mi.



Your data is way off. Apologist New Labour data - anything to deflect attention from the truth.

The D.M. says England is second densest, after Malta.
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174300/Record-levels-immigration-lead-jam-packed-England-population-rockets-56m.html)

The D.T. did say England was the densest in Europe after Malta, but now says we are third densest, after Malta and Holland.
England is most crowded country in Europe - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html)
Census 2011: population surges by 3.7 million in a decade - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/population/9403215/Census-2011-population-surges-by-3.7-million-in-a-decade.html)


It looks like we are neck-a-neck with Holland in density, unlike your data. And since the S.E. of England is the most crowded part of the nation, I think England owes it to itself and its people to free up some land by putting land-wasteful projects in the Thames Estuary.

Or would you rather just deport all the recent immigrants? is that your preferred strategy for freeing up land-space? Or would you prefer that England just starves to death instead?


.

[Barling Magna]

To be fair to Fairdealfrank, Silverstrata's initial post said the UK was the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside), now he's limiting himself to England. Surely you don't believe what the Daily Mail says, Silver.......? :)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Your data is way off. Apologist New Labour data - anything to deflect attention from the truth.

The D.M. says England is second densest, after Malta.
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174300/Record-levels-immigration-lead-jam-packed-England-population-rockets-56m.html)

The D.T. did say England was the densest in Europe after Malta, but now says we are third densest, after Malta and Holland.
England is most crowded country in Europe - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html)
Census 2011: population surges by 3.7 million in a decade - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/population/9403215/Census-2011-population-surges-by-3.7-million-in-a-decade.html)


It looks like we are neck-a-neck with Holland in density, unlike your data. And since the S.E. of England is the most crowded part of the nation, I think England owes it to itself and its people to free up some land by putting land-wasteful projects in the Thames Estuary.

Or would you rather just deport all the recent immigrants? is that your preferred strategy for freeing up land-space? Or would you prefer that England just starves to death instead?"

Correct me if this is wrong, but it does appear to be the classic rantings of someone on the wrong side of an argument.

Re-read my posts in this thread, have never mentioned immigration or starvation, nor apologised for "New Labour", although Blair ought to.

Quote: "To be fair to Fairdealfrank, Silverstrata's initial post said the UK was the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside), now he's limiting himself to England. Surely you don't believe what the Daily Mail says, Silver.......?"

Indeed, Barling Magna,maybe Silver's moved the goal posts to avoid being on the wrong side of yet another argument. Who can say?

Still, it's makes for a good debate!

[jabird]

Could the recent announcements on rail electrification be a way of "softening up" the Libdems?

Oh come on! A "£9bn" announcement, which includes £5bn alread committed, do the maths! All of the other projects have been in the pipeline anyway, there is nothing new here.

Except of course that the "electric spine" will prop up "Mr Spineless" by running to his Sheffield stomping ground.

I still haven't worked out how the existing routes (eg the XC route which starts at Bournemouth, but the wires aren't there until Southampton) will operate, but that's another one for PTDRUNe.

I think most people can see that the 3rd runway at Heathrow is a done deal and probably has been for some time.

Not a done deal at all. Looking more likely, yes, but still a lot of hurdles to jump. Would a bookie take a bet on this? Let's see the odds - never argue with a bookie!

Cameron must be aware that having such a biased transport secretary of state is unacceptable.

In which case, she shouldn't have been given the job! I had hoped she'd be shoved out the way, but my Tory contacts say she will be promoted UP! Speaking of bookies, they have her at 33/1 - still a long shot!

the UK is now the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside).

Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online

I'm afraid Silver is making the classic American mistake of confusing England with the UK. The addition of the huge, largely deserted, Scottish landmass has a rather significant impact on the figures.

firstly, you still have an obsession with the semi-detach, which is hugely wasteful of space, and therefore not economic for land reclamation.

I believe you are the first on the thread to mention housing type, but maybe we can agree on something - high density is the way to go, it is quality that matters above quantity.

thirdly, every developer knows that the Greens will find a lesser-striped leach in the estuary somewhere, and the whole project will grind to a halt.

And they won't do even more so for an airport?

Would they really have approved a £500 million rail link from Wales and the Thames Valley to Heathrow yesterday to be ready in about 10 years if they were going for Boris Island ??

I'm afraid you are giving the government too much credit. For the time being, Heathrow is the main hub, therefore it gets the surface investment. This does not mean either (a) that they will approve a third runway, nor (b) that they have abandoned Fantasy Island.

The left turn at "airport junction" should have been done yonks ago, and also makes far more sense with electrification through to Reading and beyond, rather than just Maidenhead, as per Crossrail.

The fact they are taking a line from Slough into Heathrow is interesting, but I'd like to see the full plans. £500m doesn't buy much tunnelling or new underground platforms.

Quote: "That, is why we need to save space, especially for something as wasteful of space as an airfield."

If airfields are such a waste of space, why are you spending so much time promoting one? Airfields are actually incredibly efficient uses of land, when exploited to the maximum. Just how big a motorway network would you need to build to serve the same range of destinations as can be reached from LHR? How many bridges across oceans? EXACTLY!

If there is any waste of land, it is in some of the sprawl that surrounds airports. This can be managed through effective planning.

Now if you do want a wasteful airfield, take a look at Montreal Mirabel. Now if Fantasy Island gets approved without closure of LHR, that is exactly what it will become.

In related news, the Government is supposedly to announce today that it will back £50bn worth of infrastructure

So they can back up £50bn of spending on multiple projects, or £50bn on one project. Do the maths.

The D.T. did say England was the densest in Europe after Malta, but now says we are third densest, after Malta and Holland.

The D.T. would never say such a thing. If you want to talk hard stats, as opposed to tourism, there is no such country as Holland.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Oh come on! A "£9bn" announcement, which includes £5bn alread committed, do the maths! All of the other projects have been in the pipeline anyway, there is nothing new here."

It is common practice for government announcements to include "reheated" items. Most of this has Lord Adonis written all over it, so it's from the previous government.

Quote: "Except of course that the "electric spine" will prop up "Mr Spineless" by running to his Sheffield stomping ground."

The "electric spine" will probably be too late to prop up "Mr Spineless", on present form he'll be gone in 2015.

Quote: "I still haven't worked out how the existing routes (eg the XC route which starts at Bournemouth, but the wires aren't there until Southampton) will operate, but that's another one for PTDRUNe."

Maybe they'll do what should have been done for years, particularly on cross-country routes: use dual-mode trains.

Quote: "In which case, she shouldn't have been given the job! I had hoped she'd be shoved out the way, but my Tory contacts say she will be promoted UP! Speaking of bookies, they have her at 33/1 - still a long shot!"

It's standard industry practice to promote people beyond their capabilities, that's why standards of management are generally so appaling, or to promote them "out of the way".

If it happens to Greening, sideways or upwards is immaterial, she would be away from transport, and that's what matters.

Quote: "I'm afraid Silver is making the classic American mistake of confusing England with the UK. The addition of the huge, largely deserted, Scottish landmass has a rather significant impact on the figures."

Precisely, that is exactly the point.

Quote: "I'm afraid you are giving the government too much credit. For the time being, Heathrow is the main hub, therefore it gets the surface investment. This does not mean either (a) that they will approve a third runway, nor (b) that they have abandoned Fantasy Island."

It does however confirm what we already that know: that Heathrow cannot be closed, and consequently, there will be no estuary airport.

Quote: "The left turn at "airport junction" should have been done yonks ago, and also makes far more sense with electrification through to Reading and beyond, rather than just Maidenhead, as per Crossrail."

Agreed,and it's crazy that crossrail won't run between Maidenhead and Reading to provide access to the huge railway interchange there, and to cater for the increasing numbers of commuters who work in Reading.

Quote: "The fact they are taking a line from Slough into Heathrow is interesting, but I'd like to see the full plans. £500m doesn't buy much tunnelling or new underground platforms."

Best guess is that it will run from Slough to LHR-5, then on existing tracks to LHR-1/2/3 then to back on the main line at Airport Junction.

Quote: "Now if you do want a wasteful airfield, take a look at Montreal Mirabel. Now if Fantasy Island gets approved without closure of LHR, that is exactly what it will become."

Quite. Wasn't that one hell of a disaster!

Quote: "The D.T. would never say such a thing. If you want to talk hard stats, as opposed to tourism, there is no such country as Holland."

Indeed there isn't, but it's a common mistake. North Holland and South
Holland are two counties of the Netherlands.

[jabird]

Maybe they'll do what should have been done for years, particularly on cross-country routes: use dual-mode trains.

Dual mode means a lot of redundant weight. Better to be all electric or just diesel haulled. If it was just the last few miles, you could attach diesel loco, but that is untrendy these days.

It does however confirm what we already that know: that Heathrow cannot be closed, and consequently, there will be no estuary airport.

Not quite. It suggests that the mandarins want to invest in LHR, and that Boris will probably be ignored, but this is not certain just yet.

there is no such country as Holland."

Indeed there isn't

It is accepted as a "pars pro toto", ie Holland is used in place of the Netherlands, and that is what the tourist board use, but any formal statistics, and certainly a paper like the D.T., would use Netherlands.

However, Silver was also using England for the UK, which is completely incorrect.

Then again, Greening thinks Birmingham is in "the north", so maybe there is a job for Silver in the government?

[Dairyground]

If the weather of the first quarter of 2012 in south-east England is likely to be more typical than that of te second quarter (hosepipe bans rather than floods), can the hinterland of Heathrow support a large enough population to justify multiple new runways? Users of Boris Island would face the same parched future.

That argument aside, the additional flights are needed now, rather than in ten or fifteen years time when either of the south-east options would come on stream.

Heathrow, despite climate considerations, is likely to remain the major UK hub, and the best origin for UK flights to destinations that require no more than a couple of departures by UK airlines per day. Well before we rach a dozen flights per day it shoud be possible to fill 777 or 787 from somewhere like Brum or Manchester.

There are suggestions on another thread that there is already a growing amount of transfer traffic between trans-atlantic and middle-east flights at Manchester. Given the necessary delays in introducing more capacity in the London area, is a viable secondary hub likely to evolve before either Heathrow runway 3 or Birdstrike Central become operational?

[DaveReidUK]

Well before we reach a dozen flights per day it shoud be possible to fill 777 or 787 from somewhere like Brum or Manchester.

If only it were as simple as that.

BA has 9 LHR/MAN rotations per day, 11 on LHR/EDI, for example, all with A319/A320/A321.

Don't you think they would have tried doubling the aircraft size and halving the frequency if they thought that would work ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Dual mode means a lot of redundant weight. Better to be all electric or just diesel haulled. If it was just the last few miles, you could attach diesel loco, but that is untrendy these days.”

Agreed, but surely it’s better than spending millions on electrification then running diesels under the wires.

Apparently, dual mode is belatedly being considered.


Quote: “Not quite. It suggests that the mandarins want to invest in LHR, and that Boris will probably be ignored, but this is not certain just yet.”

It isn’t just the mandarins, it’s the majority of politicians (except, predictably, the Libdems), business, trade and industry, bisiness travellers, leisure travellers, aviation employees (especially those who work on the airport) and, yes, most local residents.

Those against tend to be a vocal minority who live miles from the airport.


Quote: “Then again, Greening thinks Birmingham is in "the north", so maybe there is a job for Silver in the government?”

That’s surprising, AFAIK, Greening is from the north (just), think it’s Sheffield(?).


Quote: “There are suggestions on another thread that there is already a growing amount of transfer traffic between trans-atlantic and middle-east flights at Manchester. Given the necessary delays in introducing more capacity in the London area, is a viable secondary hub likely to evolve before either Heathrow runway 3 or Birdstrike Central become operational?”

It would be fantastic if Ringway became the secondary UK hub, but that would not, in any way, affect Heathrow‘s need for two more runways. The sucessful development of the secondary hub at Munich had no bearing on the need for four runways at Frankfurt. It's not about alternatives!


Quote: “BA has 9 LHR/MAN rotations per day, 11 on LHR/EDI, for example, all with A319/A320/A321.

Don't you think they would have tried doubling the aircraft size and halving the frequency if they thought that would work ? “

No, the point is that most shorthaul routes, and a handful of longhaul (e.g. New York) ones need frequency. This is particularly important on the business-orientated ones.

[ETOPS]

£500m doesn't buy much tunnelling or new underground platforms.



To give the designers of T5 some credit they built in spare platforms from the start - you can see them behind the hoardings on the south side of the existing station. Originally intended for the "Airtrack" proposal Heathrow Airtrack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airtrack) it hasn't taken a great leap to incorporate them into this latest idea....

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

I'm afraid Silver is making the classic American mistake of confusing England with the UK. The addition of the huge, largely deserted, Scottish landmass has a rather significant impact on the figures.



And you are using the classic New Labour diversion tactic of countering a sound argument with irrelevant information. Just what do the Scottish Highlands have to do with the facts and requirements of siting a new London airport? I suppose you will also claim that Moscow is the least densely populated city in the whole world, by including Siberia in your calculations.

The crux of the matter is that the S.E. is woefully short of real estate, more so than any major country in Europe, and the siting of a large part of London out in the estuary can only help to ease the overcrowding that has been caused by New Labour.


Dairy:

That argument aside, the additional flights are needed now, rather than in ten or fifteen years time when either of the south-east options would come on stream.


Yes, but some of us were saying this 15 years ago. Had our concerns been acted upon, we would now have a world-class airport in the estuary. As it is, we have a floundering whale that cannot cope with the olympics, and it is making the UK a laughing-stock of the developed world. Nearly every major trading nation has a decent capital airport and some decent TGV lines that run from it, except for the UK.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “I still haven't worked out how the existing routes (eg the XC route which starts at Bournemouth, but the wires aren't there until Southampton) will operate, but that's another one for PTDRUNe.”

Bournemouth to Southampton (and up to London) is electrified, on the third rail (DC?) system. Cross country diesels run from Bournemouth to Basingstoke on it then branch off towards Reading.

Replacing the third rail with overhead wires on London-Bournemouth (and on to Weymouth) has been proposed, but is certainly not high on the priority list.

　
Quote: “Then again, Greening thinks Birmingham is in "the north", so maybe there is a job for Silver in the government?“

Typical, northern girl “gone native” on joining the metropolitan elite/establishment. “North of Watford Gap” and all that…..

　
Quote: “And you are using the classic New Labour diversion tactic of countering a sound argument with irrelevant information. Just what do the Scottish Highlands have to do with the facts and requirements of siting a new London airport? I suppose you will also claim that Moscow is the least densely populated city in the whole world, by including Siberia in your calculations.

The crux of the matter is that the S.E. is woefully short of real estate, more so than any major country in Europe, and the siting of a large part of London out in the estuary can only help to ease the overcrowding that has been caused by New Labour.”

None of this is relevant to whether an airport should, could, or would be built. The fact is that it won’t be. It really is not a difficult proposition to grasp!

Dear oh dear, you are obsessed with New Labour! Forget about them, they’re history!

Re-read your post of 13 July (#661), in it you mentioned the population density of the UK, not of England, not of the southeast, and not of the Thames Valley.

A reminder to save you scrolling back:

Quote: “You are rather forgetting that one of the MAIN attractions of Silver-Boris, is that it is NOT on dry land. The UK is, thanks to the efforts of New Labour to bury the UK under 500 million people, the most densely populated nation in Europe.”

Your argument was demolished. Now re-read your post of 18 July this (#682), in it you moved the goalposts from “UK” to “England”, having read some newspaper reports on census data.

Another reminder to save you scrolling back:

Quote: Your data is way off. Apologist New Labour data - anything to deflect attention from the truth.

The D.M. says England is second densest, after Malta.
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174300/Record-levels-immigration-lead-jam-packed-England-population-rockets-56m.html)

The D.T. did say England was the densest in Europe after Malta, but now says we are third densest, after Malta and Holland.
England is most crowded country in Europe - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html)
Census 2011: population surges by 3.7 million in a decade - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/population/9403215/Census-2011-population-surges-by-3.7-million-in-a-decade.html)”

Oh well, you know what they say: never let the fact get in the way of a good story, or in your case, a good argument!

Still, it makes for a good debate.

Quote: “Yes, but some of us were saying this 15 years ago. Had our concerns been acted upon, we would now have a world-class airport in the estuary. As it is, we have a floundering whale that cannot cope with the olympics, and it is making the UK a laughing-stock of the developed world. Nearly every major trading nation has a decent capital airport and some decent TGV lines that run from it, except for the UK.”

Indeed the MP for Heston and Isleworth, Richard Reader Harris, suggested it back in 1958. Doesn’t make it the right course of action. In that time, we could also have had a world class airport at Heathrow. That is at least is still possible, if a few fingers are pulled out, and soon.

[PAXboy]

silverstrataThe siting of a large part of London out in the estuary can only help to ease the overcrowding that has been caused by New Labour.Eeh? Take that assumption to Jet Blast!

I have never supported Labour (old or new) but the concentration of people in SE England has been going on for a couple of hundred years and it happens in every country - folks gravitate to the capital. You cannot blame politicians for that one and, by attempting so, reduce the veracity of your other arguments.

[Libertine Winno]

Good article on the issues facing European hub airports, if anyone is interested;

IN FOCUS: Heathrow proves a poisoned chalice for UK government (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-heathrow-proves-a-poisoned-chalice-for-uk-government-373697/)

[Bagso]

....and for the umpteenth of asking !

how do we expand the airspace in the South East which is at 100% capacity !

Please, please, please somebody answer the bloody the question !:ugh:

[Skipness One Echo]

It's not at 100% of capacity, that is patently not the case. There are projects underway to expand the capacity, most recently causing massive bother when it leaked out they were going to move some of the holding stacks. People got, cross.....

[onyxcrowle]

Not being an expert here but with cross rail coming , can't London city airport be better utilised for UK internal flights ?
Is it capable of taking an airbus 319 ? .
Surely it can manage more flights , So how about freeing up heathrow slots by shifting most of the man,ncl,edi,gla etc using the E190 types into City instead of Heathrow.
Will cross rail link that far ?

[North West]

Bagso - what did NATS say when you asked them ?

[Skipness One Echo]

Crossrail stops at Canary Wharf with a change to the DLR for City. Indeed BA have shifted capacity into LCY out of LGW and LHR on point to point, LCY-ABZ starts soon. However there is not much more space at peak times. The core issue is that we need space at a key hub. If LCY closed tomorrow, life would go on, it's a nice to have. LHR is a fundamental, national strategic asset.

Remember if you close off all domestics out of LHR to LCY, you cut off all those cities from connecting to the world. OUCH!

[onyxcrowle]

Then it has to come down to shifting some destinations to other airports

[PAXboy]

How do you exert central control over a 100% de-centralised business?



How do you tell commercial companies, many of them publically owned, to move their flights to suit the failure of politicians?



How do you control airports that you sold off?

Oh yes, 'the market will sort it out', that's right Maggie, I'd forgotten. :rolleyes:

[Libertine Winno]

PAXboy;

The market WOULD sort itself out IF the politicians let it!

BAA and the airlines all want extra runways, and are prepared to pay for them at NO EXPENSE to the taxpayer (in stark contrast to a certain multi-billion pound high speed rail line to Birmingham) yet the politicians wont bite the bullet and grant permission.

Not sure how this is a failing of privatisation?!

[PAXboy]

Because the permission is dependent on a public enquiry that will be controlled (and paid) by govt. Given the level of modern opposition, the govt cannot just give permission. The process involves compulsory purchase etc.

I agree that politicians have evaded this for 30 years but the privatisation has made it significantly more difficult to expand air services. As we see with the HST 2.

[Libertine Winno]

But how does privatisation affect a public enquiry, be that for HS2 or LHR?!

Do you think that the government would have any more power over this if they owned LHR?

The people of west London would still throw a tizzy every time it is mentioned despite the fact the airport has been there since the forties, and the people of the Chilterns would still go nuts that someone has the audacity to smash civilisation through their sleepy villages.

If the Government owned LHR, then the taxpayer would have to pay for the new runway instead of BAA and the airlines doing it!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "BAA and the airlines all want extra runways, and are prepared to pay for them at NO EXPENSE to the taxpayer (in stark contrast to a certain multi-billion pound high speed rail line to Birmingham) yet the politicians wont bite the bullet and grant permission."

Exactly, and not just BAA and the airlines, it's also most Conservative and Labour MPs, business and trade, and pax fed up with the delays and congestion.



Quote: "Because the permission is dependent on a public enquiry that will be controlled (and paid) by govt. Given the level of modern opposition, the govt cannot just give permission. The process involves compulsory purchase etc."

No, this not correct, no further public enquiry is necessary, it is a way of chucking it back in the long grass.

All that is needed is to restore the permission already granted in 2009 and then revoked in 2010.

But Cameron and co. won't stand up to the "tea boy".



Quote: "The people of west London would still throw a tizzy every time it is mentioned despite the fact the airport has been there since the forties, and the people of the Chilterns would still go nuts that someone has the audacity to smash civilisation through their sleepy villages."

It's not just the people of west London, but also parts of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Middlesex and Surrey as well, who will throw a much bigger tizzy when they lose their daily half day of quiet as mixed mode is phased in.

This will be the consequence of no expansion: even more will have to be squeezed out of the two rwys, and to hell with the increased congestion and delays. That said, most of the vocal opposition lives miles away from Heathrow.

With 4 rwys, alternation can continue. The penny will drop slowly, hope it's not too late by then.

As for the people of the Chilterns, they have a point in one respect: it's the wrong (long) route to the wrong destination (too close for any benefit) in a bad scheme that needs rethinking.

[Heathrow Harry]

FDF - the good people of the SE have heard all the stories from BAA and BA for years about how a little more expansion will cut the impact of aircraft noise on their lives and TBH it's all been lies

No third runaway forces the airline business to do something a bit harder than yelling for more of the same - and these are the VOTERS we're talking about - a democracy at work no?

If BAA want a fourth runway lets see them run for public office

[DaveReidUK]

no further public enquiry is necessary

Are you suggesting that there are circumstances under which a third runway/T6 could go ahead without a public enquiry, or have I misunderstood ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Then it has to come down to shifting some destinations to other airports “

Been done! Back in the day, in the 1960s and 1970s, the government directed LGW-based BUA and BCAL to operate flights to/from South America and West Africa, excluding LHR-based BOAC from these destinations. This was a spectacular failure: both BUA and BCAL went bust, partly becasuse of the insufficient connectivity at LGW.

This could not be done now as we live in a privatised, deregulated and open skies environment, and of course, the EU would doubtless interfere.

Route swapping between airports still happens, but for commercial reasons decided by the carriers, for example BA moving flights to some places between LHR, LCY and LGW.

　
　
Quote: “FDF - the good people of the SE have heard all the stories from BAA and BA for years about how a little more expansion will cut the impact of aircraft noise on their lives and TBH it's all been lies

No third runaway forces the airline business to do something a bit harder than yelling for more of the same - and these are the VOTERS we're talking about - a democracy at work no?”

Not sure of the point being made here. Those of us under the flight path are well aware that if there isn’t a third rwy, then a little more capacity will have squeezed out of the system, by switching to permanent mixed mode. This will mean the end of segregated mode and the ending of alternation, which means the end of the daily half a day of quiet.

Quote: “If BAA want a fourth runway lets see them run for public office”

There's no need for them to do this, and no point.



Quote: “Are you suggesting that there are circumstances under which a third runway/T6 could go ahead without a public enquiry, or have I misunderstood ?”

Correct me if this is wrong, but aren’t large infrastructure plans now dealt with by the “nationally significant infrastructure projects” procedure? AFAIK this speeds up the planning procedure to avoid planning inquiry like that of Heathrow-5 and others dragging on forever. AFAIK rail infrastructure improvements are also dealt with this way.

[silverstrata]

.

Never fear, the prime minister has his finger on the pulse of the nation and will sort out all the problems at Heathrow - by employing more immigration staff:

Third runway? We just need more airport staff: Prime Minister rules out Heathrow expansion until 2015 | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179567/Third-runway-We-just-need-airport-staff-Prime-Minister-rules-Heathrow-expansion-2015.html)


Honestly, at a trice this will sort out all the runway capacity problems, the taxiway capacity problems, the terminal capacity problems, the airspace capacity problems, the surface transport capacity problems, and all the noise and environmental problems.


Isn't it wonderful that we have such enlightened leaders, who know what they are doing and what the nation needs. Makes you feel proud to be British.



.

[Bagso]

glad you mentioned "AIRSPACE CAPACITY" , because others are swerving the subject !

and we now have a fast growing Southend in the mix.

shambolic !

[Skipness One Echo]

What is the specific airspace capacity problem around LHR then?
What % airspace capacity are we currently at?
Will we run out of airspace capacity around LHR before runway capacity?

I have NO idea of the top off my head(!) However....
I did tell you a while back that if you want to know the specifics then you need to ask in the ATC forum. I understand that BAA did not look for planning permission on Runway Three on the basis of crossing their fingers on airspace capacity and hoping things would be jolly. For example NATS had proposals to make more efficient use of the stacks by moving them.

The London airports are not in each others way in a GLA / EDI sort of clash, LGW is well South of LHR and STN and LTN are both well North of both. SEN is on the coast......

Someone more informed and in the know will help you here, if you start a new thread and ask your question.
ATC Issues - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues-18/)

[DaveReidUK]

Thread still open for business. :rolleyes:

[silverstrata]

>>>Thread still open for business.


Well it will be as soon as Boris becomes Prime Minister. Boris has just weighed into the fray once more by telling Cameron to stop 'pussy footing around' regards London airports.

Stop pussyfooting around, Dave! Boris launches an extraordinary attack on Prime Minister and hints he may run as MP after revealing plans to boost Britain's economy | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188764/Stop-pussyfooting-Dave-Boris-launches-extraordinary-attack-Prime-Minister-hints-run-MP-revealing-plans-boost-Britains-economy.html)


Now this is quite undiplomatic language for a professional politician, and Boris knows it. He recognizes that London and the UK have an airport crisis, but he has also seen that Cameron's dithering is not gathering votes (on so many issues). History has told Boris that being bold can deliver votes, as well as being good for the nation.



His claim that we cannot kick this decision into the long grass is an overt shot across Cameron's bows. It is a political ultimatum - do something, make a statement, make a decision, tell us what you are thinking. Either do something, or expect to have your position contested, here and now. This is an opening shot in a political campaign.


.

[Barling Magna]

You're still reading the Daily Mail......... oh dear.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Barling Magna, the DM was actually quoting an interview between Boris and the Evening Standard.

Boris Tells Cameron To Stop 'Pussyfooting' Around, Hints At Return To Parliament (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/15/boris-tells-cameron-pusyfooting_n_1778235.html)

[Fairdealfrank]

Hmm, not convinced that it's so clear-cut. Any Conservative party leadership contest is unlikely to be Boris v. Call-Me-Dave. It is more likely that it would take place if/when Call-Me-Dave loses an election, and resigns as Conservative leader. It would therefore be Boris v. Osborne or David Davis or A.N.OTHER. How would Boris fare as leader of the opposition?

Of course Boris would have to be an MP and, allegedly, this will not happen until he has completed his term as mayor. Boris is clearly benefitting from the "Olympics bounce", but will this last long enough?


On the other hand, imagine this:

1. there is a feelgood factor from the Jubilee and the Olympics;

2. the Conservatives scrape through the Corby by-election on a low turnout because Miliband is still not trusted;

3. all the Libdems vote down the boundary-change bill (with Labour and the "minority parties") in a tit-for-tat for no House of Lords reform;

4. Call-Me-Dave sacks the Libdems from his cabinet ending the coalition;

5. Call-Me-Dave apparently dislikes minority governments (why else would he put up with the Libdems?) so risks a general election........


Either way, all bets re. Boris are off.

If Call-Me-Dave wins, he's unassailable for a while, if he loses, Boris is not in the House of Commons and cannot mount a leadership challenge.

Unlikely of course, but not impossible.

Boris is right on the need to stop pussyfooting around and make some decisions, but it has to be the correct decision, and this means Heathrow expansion, now.

[F14]

nice piece today 15/8/12 on BBC Radio4's You and Yours program. Regarding the new Isle of Grain Airport plan and referencing the 1960's/70's Foulness Island project.

The main points were that in the age of the Jumbo, they new Heathrow would be too small and business lost to AMS,CDG and FRA. Lots of nice pieces regarding noise at LHR (sounds of tridents etc!).

The up shot was 1974 oil crisis put the whole thing to bed, leaving just a test island. Well researched piece.

BBC Radio 4 - You and Yours (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qps9)

from 26:30, enjoy

[Skipness One Echo]

Well it will be as soon as Boris becomes Prime Minister.
:{:p:8:zzz:;):oh::yuk::D:sad::=:O:E:*:
.....all at the same time from Boris. He can never be PM in the real world. We elected him Mayor as it's a role requiring a personality. For a national leader, the economy is front and centre, requiring an attention to detail that Boris lacks. The Olympics was awesome but the money was spent in the good times and it cost £9 billion quid. Fantasy Island would cost considerably more without the orgasmic feel good factor. Incidentally the inital cost of the Olympics was a fraction of what it ended up costing. The same is likely for Project Zip Wire in the Thames Estuary.

[Heathrow Harry]

"He can never be PM in the real world."

That's what they said about Ronnie Reagan - and a lot worse............

[Baltasound]

There is some entertaining dreaming in this thread. Especially those who have absolutely:

1. No understanding of the political system - especially one with fixed term parliaments, even more laughable is the idea of the Tories winning Corby in the forthcoming b/e.
2. No understanding of the planning system either. You cannot just dig up a revoked pp and reuse it, Tommy cooper style. Even more laughable is the idea that there will no further public enquiries and 1001 court cases to tie the planners up.
3. The enormous indriect subsidy from the taxpayer which the likes of BAA and the airlines are recieving, so no, it will not be wholly private money being used to build a new runway at Heathrow.

Airport crisis - by my count London has 7 airports. I hate to see what a slight problem is then.....

[silverstrata]

Baltasound.


Not sure what you are on about there. A poorly researched post if ever there was one.

Fixed parliamentary terms?? What are you referring to here?

Planning permission?? The UK has a sovereign parliament (the EU not withstanding), they can do whatever they like. If you are unfamiliar with the term, look it up.

London already has 7 airports?? You really have not been listening, have you?

Why do you think that LHR is at 99.5 % capacity and STN is at 40% capacity? The airlines don't want another point to point runway/airport in the London basin. They want a European hub for international interlining and en-route interlining - they want a Heathrow Mk II, with added capacity, better transport links and better infrastructure.

And if we don't provide this capacity, Paris or Amsterdam will. This will be their gain and our loss - and a sigificant loss if the international banking system follows the Europen hub. Its amazing that sucessive goverments have bet the entire family business on the financial sector, instead of manufacturing, and then neglected to give those financial business the transport and infrastructure they need to thrive. Its is almost as if UK governments are conspiring to destroy the UK's economy.



Regards Boris, there is nothing to prevent him getting elected as an MP at the next election, and then challenging Cameron. He has identified that Cameron's primary failing is a lack of determination, and a lack of decision making. He is reckoning that people will back both him and Silver-Boris island, if nothing else becuase something will be getting done. There is nothing worse during a recession, than lethargy and a lack of ambition.

If Cameron does not respond to Boris' threats, the latter will only get emboldened and make ever greater challenges. If so, the prospect of Silver-Boris getting the go-ahead will continue to rise.

.

[Aero Mad]

London already has 7 airports?? You really have not been listening, have you?

No, Sir. Sorry, Sir.

[silverstrata]

No, Sir. Sorry, Sir.




If you think otherwise, then please tell us why LHR is operating at 99.5% capacity and slots are selling for £zillions, when there is ample capacity and slots already available in STN.

Answer, these two airports are addressing different customers with completely different requirements. We don't need more London and S.E. capacity, we need more international capacity with direct interlining opportunities to many other places. In short, we need a new LHR that is twice the size as the old one, and with better surface communications too. Which is why the Chunnel and HS2 lines must meet at the same terminal - if they do not, it will not just be Boris who is hanging from a zip-wire.


.

[Skipness One Echo]

Fixed parliamentary terms?? What are you referring to here?
We now have five year fixed term Parliaments. Not sure if Mail Online's US version covered that.....
The UK has a sovereign parliament (the EU not withstanding), they can do whatever they like. If you are unfamiliar with the term, look it up.
Actually it's pooled sovereignty with EU law taking supremacy when there is a conflict.
Perhaps you should look it up?

Why do you think that LHR is at 99.5 % capacity
That's a nonsense stat. Capacity of what? Non mixed mode runway? Terminal? Apron? Operating? Airspace? I know it's pretty busy but that's number's wrong, and yes I am feeling pedantic.
Its amazing that sucessive goverments have bet the entire family business on the financial sector, instead of manufacturing
Here speaketh The Daily Mail. The two issues are not directly linked, manufacturing has been neglected that's true but as a nation, we have been pretty rubbish at taking mass market manufacturing into a competitive market and succeeding.
VC10 vs B707 / HS121 vs B727 / HS748 vs F27 / ATP vs Fokker 50 / HS146 vs The Rest

Regards Boris, there is nothing to prevent him getting elected as an MP at the next election, and then challenging Cameron.
BoJo is comic relief tolerated in a non pivotal ambassadorial role. Putting the serial shagger, adulterer and gob on legs into Number 10 isn't quite the same. You are suggesting we give Boris control of Trident silverstrata. Really?

There is nothing worse during a recession, than lethargy and a lack of ambition.
Yes there is, adding even more debt to our kids by spending collosal amounts of money we haven't earned.

[silverstrata]

Skippy:


We now have five year fixed term Parliaments. Not sure if Mail Online's US version covered that.....



And you purport to live in the UK?

The Fixed Term Act does not come into force until 2015, and we are in 2012. And even when it does come into force, a new election can be called if the PM loses his/her authority or 2/3 of the Commons votes for one. Thus Boris can still agitate and cause a new election - although he is unlikely to do so as that would lose support among Conservatives. He will bide his time, and strike when Fortuna determines the time is right.





Skippy:

Yes there is, adding even more debt to our kids by spending collosal amounts of money we haven't earned.



Err, you are not much good at economic either. Q.E. does not add to debt, it inflates the money supply, resulting in inflation. But the advantage of doing this, is you end up with assets that will pay for themselves and pay for that inflated money supply in future decades.

However, if you use that Q.E. money to create towns and airports that are never used (as in Spain), then it is a waste that will burden future generations. And if you use that Q.E. money to pay Banksters to waste yet more of our money, then it is also a complete waste that will burden future generations.

But if you use that Q.E. money to create the world's busiest and most profitable airport (in the Thames Estuary), then it is not a waste at all, it becomes an asset that will fund future generations for a century or more.


You are not in business, Skippy, I know from your comments. But why do you think that large corporations will often borrow money (that heinous sin) to build massive new factories? Do you think that doing so will immediately bankrupt any company?? What do you think, eh? Why do you think that the world's most successful companies have all borrowed money at some point in time?

Borrowing only leads to ruin when you spend that money on the current account (on wages and administration costs etc), just as the financially irresponsible New Labour government did for the UK during the naughties. That will bankrupt any company or nation. But if borrowing is used on capital infrastructure, and that infrastructure is successful, then the company/nation will likewise be successful. Its basic economics, although I doubt you will understand.





Skippy:


You are suggesting we give Boris control of Trident silverstrata. Really?


Boris may act the buffoon, but he has forgotten more than Cameron has ever learned. Cameron came out of Eton thinking the world is a fluffy idealistic paradise, full of fluffy huskies and wind turbines that can power industry even when the wind is not blowing. Boris came out of Eton knowing the realities of history, which is why he styled himself as a Cincinnatus, who may have to lay down his plough and fight for the nation.

I would rather we had Cincinnatus fighting our corner, than an idealistic Tele-tubby with a turbine on his green house.




.

[PAXboy]

In this announcement, BBC News - Virgin Atlantic to fly between Heathrow and Manchester (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19324962)
there is the info:

Virgin says that 65% of people who fly from Manchester to London then connect on to another long-haul flightYes, LHR is where it's at and that's where it's going to stay!

[DaveReidUK]

Virgin says that 65% of people who fly from Manchester to London then connect on to another long-haul flight

I know the BBC is notoriously London-centric - but does Manchester to London really count as long-haul ? :*

[jabird]

I know the BBC is notoriously London-centric - but does Manchester to London really count as long-haul ?

Yawn! Would that be the same London-centric BBC that is making more than half its programmes outside the M25, and that has just moved much of its operations up to Media City, which just happens to be in, err - Manchester?

London-centric is such a boring term. The UK as a whole is mono-centric, and London just happens to account for the mono-bit. If we were having this debate in duo-centric Spain or Italy, then we could complain about a Madrid-centric or Rome-centric bias. Any claim of such bias is irrelevant in the UK.

Virgin says that 65% of people who fly from Manchester to London then connect on to another long-haul flight

As in another flight which happens to be long haul, could have been more clearly expressed. Why do we need Virgin to tell us this? Beardie is cross because he has lost another train battle and thinks he's doing us all a favour by bringing us competition on a feeder leg for long haul flights? Oh please!

Nearly every major trading nation has a decent capital airport and some decent TGV lines that run from it, except for the UK.

Sure! I've just booked my TGV from IAD into Philly - oh hang on a minute, can't do that. What happened to the Narita Shinkansen? Or a fast link from Beijing Airport to other cities? I suppose the Shanghai Maglev goes all the way from the airport to, well, the edge of Shanghai!

In fact, well planned major air hub to high speed rail (HSR) links are rare (the TGV nomenclature is only relevant to the French TGV and variants, it is not an accepted term for such systems in general).

The only airports which could truly claim to interchange NETWORKS of air AND HSR are CDG and FRA.

Can London join them? As it stands, not looking likely - HS2 would only have a branch into LHR, and the cost of this at £4.2bn for an hourly service into T5 only looks astranomical. Meanwhile, the HS2 terminus will be welded into a stub at Euston long before the dredgers are out to create Boris Island.

3. The enormous indriect subsidy from the taxpayer which the likes of BAA and the airlines are recieving, so no, it will not be wholly private money being used to build a new runway at Heathrow.

Just where exactly are these "indirect" subsidies? No PSO at Heathrow. Other "subsidy" claims belong in Jet Blast or your local green forum, they do not stand up to detailed scrutiny.

Correct me if this is wrong, but aren’t large infrastructure plans now dealt with by the “nationally significant infrastructure projects” procedure? AFAIK this speeds up the planning procedure to avoid planning inquiry like that of Heathrow-5 and others dragging on forever. AFAIK rail infrastructure improvements are also dealt with this way.

Revoked planning permission would need a major inquiry to unrevoke. HACAN & co would almost certainly mount a legal challenge over a 3rd runway.

HS2 has already had one judicial review over the consultation. If they start adding bits (e.g. a Ph1 link to Derby), they will no doubt be challenged too, even though, imho, these extras would go some way to making the project justifiable.

HS2 will go through a "hybrid bill", a process used when a commercial project needs the support of parliament.

He (Boris) will bide his time, and strike when Fortuna determines the time is right.

Bookies have been backing Boris for several years now, and he is well ahead of Osborne as favourite (3/1 v 8/1). The question is one of mechanism - but as bookies know that an early end to the coalition is lose-lose for both parties, they must presume that Boris will make a bid after an election in 2015 - although how he would become an MP by then is really one for JetBlast.


But if you use that Q.E. money to create the world's busiest and most profitable airport (in the Thames Estuary), then it is not a waste at all, it becomes an asset that will fund future generations for a century or more.

Except that if it was going to be the world's most profitable airport, investors would be queuing up to develop it, and this whole thread would be a side show. Remember that all the rumblings are now pointing to a 3rd runway at LHR, so by the time BI gets built, it will be offering 4 runways against 3.

Naturally, LHR x 3 will be even harder to close than LHR x 2, and the commercial case now rests on 75% of investment being made to replace capacity instead of 67%.

Yet, surprise surprise - Silver still fails to answer calls to explain what the PSC would be to use this gargantuan white elephant-on-sea.

[Fairdealfrank]

Forget about LHR closing, whether with 2 rwys or 3, or even 4. It is not going to happen. The rebuilding and "toastracking" of LHR terminals, for example, is investment costing billions, that level of investment would not take place at an airport that will be closed or downsized within the next 30 years (because of Fantasy Island). Would therefore expect that Heathrow expansion is very much on the cards. How long it takes for Cameron to grow a pair will determine the timescale.

Who pays for Fantasy Island and how are the carriers persuaded to use it?

It's not just dear old Silver who won't answer the questions, none of the advocates of Fantasy Island, from Boris downwards refuse to do so.

This eliminates the entire credibility of the project.

Didn't the govt. prattle on about "no new rwys in the south east"? If so, and if that means not having 2 more at LHR, it also means not having any at Fantasy Island.

We need to ignore all those wonderful images of what Fantasy Island might look like, the only realistic one is an picture of white elephants in a formation spelling out three little letters: Y M Q.

[jabird]

Didn't the govt. prattle on about "no new rwys in the south east"?

Yes they did, but if you float an island airport somewhere off the coast of Kent and it ends up half way towards Holland, then it is no longer in the southeast!


We need to ignore all those wonderful images of what Fantasy Island might look like, the only realistic one is an picture of white elephants in a formation spelling out three little letters: Y M Q.

I'd say 6 letters - YMQ-on-C.

Maybe with a few sticks of rock to represent all the piles that would have to be driven into the estuary just to create the foundations for this fantasy.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Yes they did, but if you float an island airport somewhere off the coast of Kent and it ends up half way towards Holland, then it is no longer in the southeast!"

Oh really ha ha! pedants corner! but you're probably right, can see them wriggling out of the commitment this way.

[silverstrata]

.


More significant movements. It looks like they are now proposing a big new airport to the northwest of London. While this is an ideal position for an airport, I cannot see them overcoming the noise and pollution problem of dropping a thunking great airport on the Tory Shires.

Nice idea, but I cannot see it happening. this was the whole point of a move to the Thames, because most of the noise problem is sorted, and the Thames is much closer to NW Europe for TGV travel to Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris.


Plans for four-runway airport near Heathrow claimed to be underway | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2197500/Plans-runway-airport-near-Heathrow-claimed-underway.html)




Is this a spoiler, perhaps? Get the proposal deliberately turned down, and then say, well damn you, we will put it in the Thames Estuary instead??


But it does demonstrate that a new airport is in the pipeline, as I suspected. This is a part of the softening-up process (like we saw recently with the imminent Israeli bombing of Iran).

So it is all systems go. Which of you will have to move to Essex eh? You will have to buy a Ford and get the other half to dye her hair blond....




.

[silverstrata]

Jabird.

Except that if it was going to be the world's most profitable airport, investors would be queuing up to develop it, and this whole thread would be a side show.




C'mon Jabird, you know that companies only look 5 years ahead. This is a 50 year commitment.

Besides, there is probably not a company or consortium in the world that could stump up £50 billion on a project, that will have no returns for nearly 10 years.

This is a government-led project, or nothing happens. But it is the nation that will reap the rewards, so it only right that the government leads the way.


.

[DaveReidUK]

Plans for four-runway airport near Heathrow claimed to be underway | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2197500/Plans-runway-airport-near-Heathrow-claimed-underway.html)

I love the fact that the Mail managed to dig up an ancient photo of an Eastern 727 to illustrate their article.

[jabird]

This is a government-led project, or nothing happens.

So if it is government led, how can it promise to be so profitable at the same time? Either or on this one please Silver!

[jabird]

Is this a spoiler, perhaps? Get the proposal deliberately turned down, and then say, well damn you, we will put it in the Thames Estuary instead??

Sure. It is, just like FBI+, another spoiler to make a third runway at Heathrow look much more acceptable. Nothing more, nothing less. A complete non-starter. I suspect BAA insiders even wrote the press release - just add in "Chinese sovereign fund" and it all looks credible. Then go and take out a map of the area and you see it is a complete non-starter, just like FBI but with an even more absurd price tag.

+Fantasy Boris Island

[silverstrata]

Jabird.

So if it is government led, how can it promise to be so profitable at the same time? Either or on this one please Silver!



A government does not need a project to be 'profitable' in the same way as a company does.

When constructing a huge project, a government gets tax receipts on salaries, lower unemployment costs, corporation taxes from profitable companies, plus an economy that is no longer in recession - which means lower government borrowing costs.


In addition, when looking long term, what do you mean by 'profitable'? Would we be better off without some of those great Victorian constructions that were dubiously economic to start with? Did the Saltash, Clifton and Minai bridges not prove their worth in the end? Were the Great Western and South Devon lines not a national asset in the end? Would we be better off if these magnificent structures were never built?


.

[Heathrow Harry]

all those great Victorian infrastructure projects lost money for their investors

Canary Wharf was the same - the original investors were burned and the people who picked up the pieces made the cash

[jabird]

Silver,

You are ducking the issue. I asked you where you stood on profitability. Either you saw this as a government project, in which case profit was not a problem, or you stood by your claim that this would be the "most profitable airport in the world".

Clearly, you have retracted the latter and gone with the former. That is fine, but the examples you gave were of privately funded projects which lost money for their investors, hence you have just further trashed the latter point.

You appear to have confused the airport being the largest in the world with it being the most profitable. The two are very different concepts. Small is often beautiful!

[Barling Magna]

Well Justine Greening has gone now and mad old Boris is going apoplectic because a new runway at LHR is back on the table......

[giblets]

It looks like they are now proposing a big new airport to the northwest of London. While this is an ideal position for an airport, I cannot see them overcoming the noise and pollution problem of dropping a thunking great airport on the Tory Shires.

Perhaps a subtle ploy, all the anti HS2 will be so engrossed campaigning against this, the train will be built before they notice!

[jabird]

Perhaps a subtle ploy, all the anti HS2 will be so engrossed campaigning against this, the train will be built before they notice!

Giblets, I doubt it. I saw a fair bit of transfer from the anti Rugby airport lot come over to fight Coventry airport, but HS2 is displaced a little bit further to the west. So far, I have not seen a single name linked with both campaigns.

The anti-HS2 campaign has behaved quite differently to the usual NIMBY cries, focusing on the poor economic case for the scheme, then on the environment as a whole (including CO2 emmissions), and only going for the predictable stuff after that.

We don't yet know where the new guy stands on HS2, as so much focus has been on LHR3. Clearly, the treasury is having doubts. If it falls, it will be due to the economics, not the Chilterns.

[silverstrata]

Jabird

You are ducking the issue. I asked you where you stood on profitability. Either you saw this as a government project, in which case profit was not a problem, or you stood by your claim that this would be the "most profitable airport in the world".



Not ducking the issue at all. As I said, a government has multiple revenue streams from a project that are in addition to any profits a mere private company can make. Wage taxation is a cost to a company, while it is revenue neutral to a government etc: etc:

Thus a loss making private project (as some of the Victorian constructions were) can be hugely valuable and profitable to a government. As will be a new International Aviation Hub in the southeast.



.

[jabird]

Therefore, FBI, cannot possibly be, "the most profitable airport in the world", as you previously claimed. Just admit you got that one wrong.

Still waiting those PSC figures.

[Fairdealfrank]

Nice diversion, Silver, any chance of answering the questions?

[silverstrata]

.
So Silver-Boris airport is now causing political infighting.
Cameron plots revenge on Boris over Heathrow and warns Mayor 'we'll see what happens next time he comes with the begging bowl' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199684/Cameron-plots-revenge-Boris-Heathrow-warns-Mayor-happens-time-comes-begging-bowl.html)


This is interesting, for both of these politicians are now pinning their Heathrow hopes to their political mast. So the fate of Silver-Boris airport is not only attached the the political careers of these two politicians, it is also becomming more polarised.

Boris is now centering his political strategy on the construction of the Thames airport, which means that if Boris works his way into No10, he is pretty much committed to going ahead with this project. In some respects, this means the airport is much more likely to go ahead.


.

[ETOPS]

This plan looks very pretty - laughable but very attractive...

http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/LOX/pdf/LOX02.1.3_airport_layout.pdf

[Skipness One Echo]

Silverstrata, have a coffee, a deep breath and put a bag on your head and breath for a moment. Here are two things of which I am sure. Bojo "Shagger" Johnson has no electoral appeal outside the south east. Not in Scotland, Wales, the North, Northern Ireland and certainly not Liverpool. His shadow cabinet career was characterised by laziness, a failure to grasp a junior brief and he was sacked by Michael Howard, perhaps unfairly, for something unrelated. He is not a team player, he has lorded over the Olympics taking credit for the work of others and now openly picks fights with he PM. He has no grasp of numbers or attention to detail. Consequently, nobody who matters in the party sees him as a serious candidate. His election to the figurehead role as London Mayor was done to annoy Ken and, well, comedy value if we're being honest. I voted for him, and in this role, would do so again.
The second main thing is that whatever the airport, if Fanasy Island is built, we're not about to name it after you.

Giving control of Trident to BoJo???? Zoinks!

[DaveReidUK]

This plan looks very pretty - laughable but very attractive...

Handy for the good folks of Witney, though. :O

Incidentally, the home page of Pleiade's website features the following:

"In a consummate display of media-management and PR legerdemain the Department for Transport has ensured that, except for the BAA airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted), the only widely-publicised options for expansion were variants of the revived Thames estuary airport, with their attendant environmental, locational and economic deficiencies (in four re-incarnations: Maplin, Marinair, Cliffe and TCP/London Mayoral). The absurdity of these schemes has been long-demonstrated and clear to departments of state since the 1970's, but their value to government is to deflect attention from those viable, but politically contentious, options which may undermine the established monopoly of BAA. There is no prospect of a quiet life for either politicians or civil servants in the promotion of valuable and rational solutions to this issue: thus both groups tacitly share the interests of BAA—the monopoly supplier and creature of their own making—in further entrenching the ramshackle status quo."

[Fairdealfrank]

The point is: does Boris look prime ministerial?

This is the question Conservative party members will have to ask themselves if Boris makes the top two in a leadership ballot amongst Conservative MPs (who will ask themselves the same question).

Did Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock look prime ministerial? No, and Thatcher kept winning.

Did William Hague or Iain Duncan-Smith look prime ministerial? No, and Blair kept winning.

Quote: "This is interesting, for both of these politicians are now pinning their Heathrow hopes to their political mast. So the fate of Silver-Boris airport is not only attached the the political careers of these two politicians, it is also becomming more polarised."

Indeed they are, up to a point.

Cameron has dithered and now "bottled" it in very much the same way that Gordon Brown "bottled" a general election (which he would have won) in 2007, again after a summer of dithering.

Only one course of action will prevail, eventually, because there is no alternative.