New Thames Airport for London

[Skipness One Echo]

Boris Johnson in secret talks to make shock comeback in the Commons and take on Cameron ahead of the election | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200393/Boris-Johnson-secret-talks-make-shock-comeback-Commons-Cameron-ahead-election.html)

God help us.

[silverstrata]

Skippy:

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.



Scotland - Labour heartland and therefore irrelevant.
Wales - Labour heartland and therefore irrelevant.
the North - Labour heartland and therefore irrelevant.
Northern Ireland - Unionist and Left-footer heartland and therefore irrelevant.
Liverpool - Labour heartland and therefore irrelevant.


Lazy? Sure. He is not my favorite either, I would much prefer David Davies.

However, as you know, politics is becoming more than ever a popularity contest, rather than a serious business. Heck, Obama only had to pretend to be black to get elected and get a Nobel Prize for doing sweet FA. And if you remember, Obama's comprehensive and detailed election policy was 'we want change'. Yeah, that's real serious politics, that is.


Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how it works out, Boris may well get elected simply because he is an outspoken 'character', while Cameron is perceived more and more as a fudger who is out of touch with society.

But since Boris has nailed his flag to the mast of the Silver-Boris airport, if he does get elected he will be honour-bound to go ahead with the project. They may be sinking piles in the Thames sooner than you think.


.






.

[Skipness One Echo]

"left footer"? Seriously?
Northern Ireland - Unionist and Left-footer heartland and therefore irrelevant.
Liverpool - Labour heartland and therefore irrelevant.
List of religious slurs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_slurs)
How did you know I was lapse Catholic?
You're on form today Mr expat Daily Mail, so everyone except the home counties are irrelevant and you choose to use a term that I haven't heard spoken out loud in ten years. You're delusional if you think BoJo is a credible PM. We're still behind your fellow Americans on that one, not quite at the tea party just yet.

Also you should know, your President is a black man. Does that frighten you? Seems so.

[silverstrata]

Skippy

We're still behind your fellow Americans on that one, not quite at the tea party just yet.

Also you should know, your President is a black man. Does that frighten you? Seems so.



The Tea Party is an informal gathering of normal folk who think that politics and politicians have become disconnected from the hopes, needs and aspirations of the middle/working classes. I think, the UK needs a good dose of Tea Partyism.


Obama black? Why so? If he was 30% black, would he still be black? 20%? 10%? What level of blackness makes one black in your view? Please do tell - an exact percentage please, +/- 1%. And why does blackness always trump whiteness?





Skip

so everyone except the home counties are irrelevant


In terms of electing a Tory prime minister, yes. Perhaps you have not seen how polarized UK politics is (and in some respects, always has been).





.

[Fairdealfrank]

Ho ho, good to be ahead of the news for once!

Wrote in post #2001 on the Heathrow thread (6-9-12):
-------------
"Actually a by-election in Richmond would be interesting, it is a Conservative-Libdem marginal, Labour don't stand a chance.

Possibly, Goldsmith might be tempted to fight it as a Green (after a deathbed conversion?) or as an anti-LHR independent.

Boris may be tempted to seek nomination as the Conservative candidate in order to already be in the Commons when the time comes for Call-me-Dave to "fall on his sword". "
-------------

And today it's all over the Daily Mail and Boris has apparently denied it strongly! Surely these denials must make it a strong possibility?



Quote: "Scotland - Labour heartland and therefore irrelevant."

Not any more, SNP heartland now, not that it affects the point you're making.



Quote: "However, as you know, politics is becoming more than ever a popularity contest, rather than a serious business. Heck, Obama only had to pretend to be black to get elected and get a Nobel Prize for doing sweet FA. And if you remember, Obama's comprehensive and detailed election policy was 'we want change'. Yeah, that's real serious politics, that is."


O'Bama's phrase was "change we can believe in". Silly me, thought he was referring to the pennies and pound coins in my pocket (as opposed to the nonsense that is the euro).


Quote: "Also you should know, your President is a black man. Does that frighten you? Seems so."


Quote: "Obama black? Why so? If he was 30% black, would he still be black? 20%? 10%? What level of blackness makes one black in your view? Please do tell - an exact percentage please, +/- 1%. And why does blackness always trump whiteness?

No, Barack O'Bama is half black, half white. AFAIK his mother is white American, father black Kenyan, so, unlike his wife Michelle, he is not "Afro-American".

Of course, as with all American presidents, there is an Irish link, plus he has some link with Indonesia.

And before we go off on a tangent, he was born in the USA, (Hawaii, after it had become a state of the USA, IIRC).

O'Bama's phrase was "change we can believe in". Silly me, thought he was referring to the pennies and pound coins in my pocket (as opposed to the nonsense that is the euro).


Now, back to airports: even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming prime minister or leader of the opposition, he won't answer the questions either:

(1) who pays for Fantasy Island bearing in mind that it is a bad business and commercial proposition?

(2) how are airlines persuaded to leave LHR and pay even higher airport charges at an airport in the middle of nowhere?

If he doesn't answer the questions, nothing will happen.

In the unlikely event that he does answer the questions (and hell freezes over), nothing will happen.

[jabird]

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.

Not really. To use the Scottish analogy - contrary to Silver's views from afar, the SNP have a majority in Holyrood, but this is unlikely to translate to a yes vote for independence. Never attach a party to any one manifesto pledge, they can easily get broken, and that happens all the time.

Yet Boris isn't even a party. He is a one man show who many people find very entertaining. Right now, I'd love to see him wrestle Cameron for the top job, but there is the small question of just how he'd do that.

Never mind the conflict in the commons, many Londoners would feel let down if he left the job they had elected him to do before the full term.

There is also the small question of credibility for Mr Goldsmith. Firstly, he would have to ditch that green badge, as he'd be swapping his opposition to a single short runway plan to inplied approval for four long ones, together with all the aggregate they'd have to sit on. So that must be about 10x the embodied energy just to get the damn thing built!

Secondly, you are assuming that he'd be given a say in who he handed over to. Calling a by-election is not something that happens very often in the UK, except due to the death of the sitting MP. As they have no say in who takes over, why would Zac have any more right for comment on the matter than the heavily discredited Mrs Mench in Corby?

[jabird]

But since Boris has nailed his flag to the mast of the Silver-Boris airport

Oh please! Boris is only interested in things with just the name Boris on! They aren't called Ken-Boris bikes even if Ken signed the scheme off, it is always going to just BI, or FBI when we add in the Fantasy reminder.

[silverstrata]

.
Big new article in the Sunday Times, promoting the Silver-Boris airport.

There is even an editorial endorsing the airport, which demonstrates that Murdoch is now onboard. Since Murdoch controls most political parties, this is a significant development, that Cameron would do well to watch.

A Sunday Times pol suggests that 44% of Londoners would prefer a Silver-Boris Thames airport, against 24% wanting Heathrow expansion. In addition, 58% agree with Boris that the government is fudging the issue, and trying to kick it into the long grass.

This does not bode well for Cameron, and further bolsters Boris' ambitions. However, having seen these pol results, Boris will use them as increased leverage on the Tories, and thus further nail his political fortunes to the mast of Silver-Boris airport. Thus the probability of Silver-Boris becoming reality is strengthening by the minute.

The article is behind a paywall.


Only one problem here:

They still have a plan with the terminals and cargo center at the end of the runway. Boris, Foster, if you are listening, that is criminally irresponsible. You cannot put buildings at the end of the runway - both for performance issues and for safety issues.

They still have a plan where the runways face east-west. Boris, Foster, if you are listening, that simply places the noise issue back over London again (especially on easterly approaches). The runways must face NE SW, which more into the prevailing wind anyway.



.

[silverstrata]

Frank:

No, Barack O'Bama is half black, half white.



You failed here to answer the question, and you also failed to see the point I was making. That is two failings in one post, not bad for you.


The question was, at what percentage does Obama cease to be 'black' and suddenly become 'white'? Obviously 50-50 is still black to you, so what percentage of blackness makes someone white? Its a simple question.


And the point of this enquiry goes to the heart of the Silver-Boris airport problem. For far too long now, people have been fudging issues and jumping on popular bandwagons, simply because they were popular, and not because they were sensible, just or right. And PC issues and the adoption of double-speak go right to the heart of this social canker.

One of dire the consequences of PCism, was that everyone in politics became afraid of saying what they thought, or what was true, or what was reasonable - just like you and others here will not admit that Obama is as white as he is black. Thus difficult topics and difficult decisions like Silver-Boris airport were kicked into the long grass, because they might be controversial. OOhh, we cannot cross with the PC lobby, we cannot cross with the Green lobby, we cannot deal with the NIMBYs, we cannot change people's lives - the Focus Group thinks that may be unpopular and we may loose votes. This is Cameron in 2012, mired in fudge and without a resolute bone in his body.


Now, however, we have a new-model politician who is able to grasp the mettle and tell us things as they are - Heathrow is a mistaken planning proposal from the 1940s, that has grown into a monstrous carbuncle in the 21st century. And as Boris says, it is about time to right that wrong. Boris is Cincinatus, and he can and will lay down his plough to fight for the nation (even if there is an element of ego in his designs.)


.

[jabird]

Even an editorial endorsing it, which demonstrates that Murdoch is now onboard.

Hardly. The Sunday Times is the broadsheet end of his empire. If The Sun backed it, then that might been something, but then again....

Since Murdoch controls most political parties, this is a significant development.

He has controlled the mice in Labour and the Tories who have been desperate for his approval. He has never had any impact on the Lib Dems, and vice versa!

Either way, what little interest he has left will be on the big economic and legal issues, if he did take any view on airport expansion, he'd be backing the most economically sensible option, which is Heathrow.

Far more likely for him right now to be jumping on his editors to make capital of Skippy Air jumping into the sand pit, rather than to be taking any interest in a fantasy proposition that will never take off.

44% of Londoners would prefer a Silver-Boris Thames airport, against 24% wanting Heathrow expansion

Really, did you ask the ST to run this poll for you?

Unless we had a system of direct democracy, these decisions are largely going to be taken by the technocrats, so I'm not sure a poll really proves much:

Do you like aircraft noise? Do turkeys vote for Christmas?
Should we "save" the environment? Yes. Where do you go on hols?

The same polls will tell you that Birmingham makes a great place for a hub airport. Now try conducting a poll of people who actually know what they are talking about - ie airport or airline bosses. The result - one airport boss will tell you BHX is a good place for a hub! Not even his biggest base airline - Flybe - are interested, but for some bizarre reason they do back Boris Island!

Surprisingly, the list of airlines that back FBI ends there. Or does Silver know of others?

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

He has never had any impact on the Lib Dems, and vice versa!


The Lib Who? Precisely.

In addition, the Sunday Times knocked out one of their ministers, via some speeding escapade, and cornered their economic guru who was making absurd boasts to giggly teenagers. Didn't see much of him after that.



Jabird:

if Murdoch did take any view on airport expansion, he'd be backing the most economically sensible option, which is Heathrow.


Quite obviously you are wrong on that, otherwise the Sunday Times would not run an editorial as well as a full page spread promoting Silver-Boris airport.

You can plug your ears and shout as much as you like, but since that is the prerogative of kids, you are not doing your case and your argument much good.



.

[jabird]

In addition, the Sunday Times knocked out one of their ministers, via some speeding escapade, and cornered their economic guru who was making absurd boasts to giggly teenagers. Didn't see much of him after that.

You mean Huhne and Cable?

Huhne tried to get his wife to take penalty points for him, and resigned over the issue.

Cable is still there, still making a fool out of himself, most recently just this morning, telling us that Heathrow isn't even an option in Davies' review.

Quite obviously you are wrong on that

Quite obviously you didn't read what I said. I said I didn't think Murdoch dictated to have this article written. He has better things to do with his time, especially as he is pretty seriously discredited in the UK these days, if not elsewhere too.

You can plug your ears and shout as much as you like, but since that is the prerogative of kids

Err, pot, kettle, black, passenger, service, charge?

[jabird]

Boris, Foster, if you are listening

We know Boris doesn't do detail. There was little in the Foster plans to show that they were any more than a concept sketch, taken from his previous work on HKG.

If these plans do get any further attention, someone will have to do some more work on the original drawings.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "There is even an editorial endorsing the airport, which demonstrates that Murdoch is now onboard. Since Murdoch controls most political parties, this is a significant development, that Cameron would do well to watch."

So it's Silver-Boris-MURDOCH airport now is it?

Quote: "You failed here to answer the question, and you also failed to see the point I was making. That is two failings in one post, not bad for you.

Not bad, is it! Doubtless am not alone in this!

Who knows what points you are trying to make, Silver!

Interesting and entertaining as they are, they have little to do with rwy capacity in the south east!

Quote: The question was, at what percentage does Obama cease to be 'black' and suddenly become 'white'?"

Who knows, who cares?

It would probably be easier to answer the question if we were talking about the late great Michael Jackson.

Quote: "Obviously 50-50 is still black to you, so what percentage of blackness makes someone white? Its a simple question."

Why do you write: "50-50 is still black to you"? How do you draw that conclusion? How could you possibly know?

It could be black, on the other hand, it could be white. Being really radical, it could be half black and half white. Who can say?

Wasn't commenting on "blackness" or "whiteness", just listing some facts.

Do try to keep up, Silver!

[Skipness One Echo]

Quite obviously you are wrong on that, otherwise the Sunday Times would not run an editorial as well as a full page spread promoting Silver-Boris airport.
In all seriousness, nobody reads it anymore. It's peripheral to this argument, and the level of journalism at the best of papers is sadly lacking intellectual rigour and knowledge of the subject matter.
This coalition government is coming off the rails, I agree with Silverstrata that people are disengaged with politics. Able people get more money in real jobs and ambitious pond life gets into politics. Once in power, they realise that they are in well over their heads and worse, even the most able are constrained by the EU, international law and human rights legislation. There's nothing wrong with any of that in isolation but it does mean taken together, our democracy and society struggles to get anything done. Too many vested interests alas. I have no idea how to fix it either, that's the scary bit.

[silverstrata]

Skip:

In all seriousness, nobody reads (the Sunday Times) anymore. It's peripheral to this argument, and the level of journalism at the best of papers is sadly lacking intellectual rigour and knowledge of the subject matter.




Agreed, the wheels came of journalistic media wisdom and integrity in 1997, when - well, when Blair and Co proved you could run a nation on smoke and mirrors (for a while, at least, until someone starts adding up the bills). However, everyone in Fleet Street joined in this game of national charades, while the BBC became their high priest and cheerleader. Everything was written in doublespeak, and the obvious truth could go to hell.

However. Having said that, the Sunday Times is still as good as it gets in the UK, and so its views and editorials still carry weight in the corridors of power. Cameron will be fretting at this very minute, that Boris has captured an important lever of power, and an important national decision. Cameron has chosen to fudge yet again, thinking that was the safe and 'popular' option, while Boris has run off with the Olympic torch and is about to light up the stadium.

Remember that Cameron has presided over Murdoch's embarrassment at a government hearing, and has presided over the arrest and prosecution of Murdoch's number one carrot-top. Thus Murdoch is hardly going to be a key player in Cameron's reelection campaign, when a leadership challenge is made. Cameron needs to be checking his six-oclock, because someone from N.I. is bound to be behind him, checking his every move.



And what does all this have to do with Silver-Boris airport? As you probably understand by now, Silver-Boris will primarily be a political rather than a well argued and rigorous commercial-technical decision.



.

[jabird]

This coalition government is coming off the rails

No, the coalition is most definitely still ON the rails!

Firstly, the re-shuffle was more about kicking Heathrow into touch than building a new runway, whereas they are very much full steam ahead on HS2, with Gillan now "freed" from the cabinet so she can be a lone voice speaking her mind.

Secondly, for the coalition to be broken before 2015 is lose-lose for both concerned. Cameron can hold on until then in the hope there might just be a 0.0001% growth in the economy by then, as people really don't want to vote for Labour, but in the current stalemate, they will give Deadwood Ed a chance.

[PAXboy]

If anyone thinks that the Murdoch papers carry any weight any longer - they haven't been reading the papers for the last year.

[felixflyer]

44% of Londoners would prefer a Silver-Boris Thames airport, against 24% wanting Heathrow expansion

That's because Boris is being strangely quiet on the affect that closing LHR would have on West London. Why Cameron isn't using this in defence of the third runway I dont know. Especially with his chums along the Thames corridor.

Regarding Boris lets get real. He has done well to get where he is and has done that by playing the buffoon. This is something he does quite well and whilst this may help you get into a role that requires a 'personality' such as Mayor, it will not get you into number 10.

Politics now is just about self promotion in order to land lucrative work outside of the political role. Look at Vince Cable, he earns approx £250,000 on the side through after dinner speaking and various consulting roles. Compare this to his actual salary.

The trick is to get your name known as much as possible by being in the headlines whilst in the political job. After this the offers will come in for positions on various boards and media work. Just look at Blair? Once your name starts to fade maybe do a stint again just to get your price up.

Boris has done well out of the Olympics, the job of Mayor has been perfect for him but if he is not careful he will end up in the Big Brother house before number 10.

[silverstrata]

Flexi:

That's because Boris is being strangely quiet on the affect that closing LHR would have on West London.



That is what they said about the closure of Covent Garden - it would decimate the region, it would become a wasteland, shopkeepers would be going bankrupt within 1km of Covent Garden. etc etc.

What actually happened, is that the region became wealthier than it had ever been - and for some 18 hours a day too, not just the mornings.


.

[Skipness One Echo]

So between closing LHR and wealth aplenty coming to Hounslow, all the blue collar workers in Southall and Hayes who depend on LHR, what happens to them? The winners will be rich incomers, the poor hard worker will pay dearly to keep the noise down in leafy Richmond.

Understand clearly, working at Fantasy Island is beyond the means of most.

[silverstrata]

Skip:

The winners will be rich incomers, the poor hard worker will pay dearly to keep the noise down in leafy Richmond.


Why so? In employment density terms, an airport is not terribly land-efficient. If LHR was turned into a technology park, a Silicon Thames Valley, there would be many times more jobs there.

And if you say that these will only be high tech jobs, well that is not strictly true, but this is another problem that the government needs to face up to. The original Silicon Valley was a huge employer of low-tech jobs, until they shipped them all off to China.

But the export of jobs to the East is a government policy, and so the government holds the keys to blue-collar employment as much as they hold the keys to a new airport. But you have to ask yourself why it took a British Labour party to open up the country to unlimited imports manufactured by Chinese slaves, so that all the manual jobs in the UK could be destroyed. As I said before, the upper escallops of the Labour Party did not give a f*** about British workers or the Labour Party's supporters - all they cared about was their grand scheme of pipe-dream social engineering. That, is where all your blue-collar jobs have gone to.


You will note that in the Iraqi and Syrian conflicts there have been muted calls for sectarian segregation and establishment of separate mini nations - to which the BBC has responded with a steely silence. Why? Because the big dream of the Labour Party was not 'jobs for the workers' or a 'bright future for Britian', but 'pan ethnic multiculturalism' - rammed down your throat with threats of the PC police knocking on your door if you objected.

Unfortunately, the BBC's and the Labour Party's pipe-dream has crumbled into dust in Iraq and Syria (and much of North Africa), and they are now desperately plugging their ears and shouting 'La, la, la...'.


Face facts, Skippy, the keys to employment and prosperity are with a government's grasp, if only we had a government and prime minister who liked the UK and its people more than they liked their pipe-dreams.



.

[Libertine Winno]

Silver, surely the benefits of any industrial technology park on the old LHR site would only as part of a 'Heathrow Garden City' idea if the new airport was still sited west of London somewhere further west along the M4 corridor?!

The only reason the technology companies are there is because of the proximity to LHR, if that were to close and a new estuary airport opened then the technology park would need to be in Kent, not Middlesex.

[Skipness One Echo]

Silver, you deliberately missed my point. Turning Heathrow into a technology park woud create "new economy" jobs. However, where does that leave our blue collar guys who lost their jobs at Heathrow and cannot afford to relocate to Fantasy Island? On the dole for the rest of their days in many cases I suspect.
What happens to them and quantify the cost to the taxpayer? Skilled immigrants would benefit well in a new technology park, not the blue collar locals.
Your Daily Mail views and wish to be seen as British, even though you despise the road we're on continue to astound!

How long between LHR closure and your gold plated jobs park raining jobs on West London? Quantify please.

[PAXboy]

silverstrata In employment density terms, an airport is not terribly land-efficient.Courtesy of Wikipedia entry on EGLL (many other sources available)
The airport sustains 76,600 jobs directly and around 116,000 indirectly in the immediate area, and this, together with the large number of global corporations with offices close to the airport, makes Heathrow a modern aerotropolis which contributes an estimated 2.7% to London's total GVA.... on a site that covers 12.14 square kilometres (4.69 sq mi).No one has yet counted how many other companies rely on being in the Heathrow Corridor for increased local employment.

So, that all looks pretty efficient to me.

Not to mention getting 69,433,230 passengers and 480,906 aircraft movements per year through that space.

Your witness ...

[silverstrata]

Pax:

... on a site that covers 12.14 square kilometres (4.69 sq mi).
So, that all looks pretty efficient to me.



And try comparing that with the square mile in London, or with Canary Wharf.

You are making a comparison between LHR and the vast majority of London, which is nearly all residential. And you are also including offices and hotels in the vicinity, which are not included in your land area figures.

Try comparing LHR with any decent technology and manufacturing park, and you will find the employment and revenues at LHR not nearly so wonderful. And anyway, most of these jobs are not being destroyed, they are being transferred. If anyone cannot arrange to move 30 or so miles down the Thames, they hardly deserve to be employed. I have moved in excess of 17 times, to maintain my profession, so I have little sympathy for someone who cannot be bothered to make an effort.




Whino:

The only reason the technology companies are there is because of the proximity to LHR, if that were to close and a new estuary airport opened then the technology park would need to be in Kent, not Middlesex.



Popycock. So did the Warwick, Oxford and Cambridge Uni technology parks set up near Heathrow? Of course not. They set up in agreeable locations where a large number of quality personnel live.

The old LHR site would be just such an area. Close to the pleasant pastures of Windsor and the Thames valley, plenty of sailing, no aircraft noise, easy commuting to London City, direct Crossrail line to the new Silver-Boris airport only 30 minutes away, no commuting to central London required.


Who would NOT want to be based in the Heathrow Garden Technology Park?


.

[indie cent]

Who would NOT want to be based in the Heathrow Garden Technology Park?

Silver you are absolutely correct.

Whilst discussing the Heathrow Garden Technology Park proposal with friends, we came up with an idea. Could I ask your expert opinion?

What if we could connect the Technology Park to the Global market (China, far east, USA etc) by building an easily accessible hub airport. With long-haul flights served by World class airlines.
Probably manage with about 3 runways at the moment. Then in time expanding to the West. There's great infrastructure already and an almost ideally location for London, the M4 corridor and beyond.

We were certainly impressed with your Technology Park; how about an airport to go with it?

Regards.

[PAXboy]

silverstrataAnd try comparing that with the square mile in London, or with Canary Wharf.Well - you can't! They do totally different things!!! The really interesting thing is that the two are inter-dependent on each other.

Popycock. So did the Warwick, Oxford and Cambridge Uni technology parks set up near Heathrow? Of course not. They set up in agreeable locations where a large number of quality personnel live. The University tech parks open next to what they are part of - Universities! Other companies open along the M4 corridor to be next/near to Heathrow. Have you seen how many courier and distribution companies there are in the area? Not to mention all the rest.

... when Blair and Co proved you could run a nation on smoke and mirrors (for a while, at least, until someone starts adding up the bills). However, everyone in Fleet Street joined in this game of national charades, while the BBC became their high priest and cheerleader. Everything was written in doublespeak, and the obvious truth could go to hell.
Just in case you hadn't noticed, Blair was a Tory who pulled the wool over the eyes of a very considerable number of people. As for the BBC: They work on a long, slow cycle and the man who made the big changes in his tenure as Chair of Governors, 1986 to 1996, was:


Marmaduke Hussey, Baron Hussey of North Bradley who was appointed by the Tories.
Succeeded by Christopher Bland a Tory politician.
Then Gavin Davies, he was Chair for three years and was a Labour supporter. In 2005 he set up a $1.35 Billion hedge fund to invest in macroeconomic situations. So he is very New Labour.
Richard Ryder, Baron Ryder of Wensum was next and another Tory MP
Next was Michael Grade, Baron Grade of Yarmouth a Conservatife life peer.
(there were other holders in the move from Governors to Trust)
Current chair is Christopher Francis Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes, still a Tory.

Can you see a pattern there across the last 26 years? The BBC is a Tory institution. As the BBC say, if both political wings are telling them that they are biased - they must be in the middle. No, I don't work for the BBC and no I don't vote Labour.

By the way, did you know that you don't actually have to insult people? Words like 'Popycock' are insulting but perhaps your mummy and daddy didn't teach you proper.

[bread&water]

Silver - v entertaining views and always good to see a healthy debate ... BUT what's an "escallop" ? Is it seafood ? Viennese ? Is it pounded and breaded ? How does it relate to the Labour Party ?

[johnnychips]

And there is still the problem of suggesting Boris Island, the other one nearby I can't remember, Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham as alternatives to Heathrow: can you force an airport to close or airlines to move?

Perhaps you could have done this, even in Britain, forty years ago, when there was one national airline, more central planning, less emphasis on the free market, and less anti-subsidy legislation from both national and EU government.

Expansion at Heathrow is not in any way ideal, but I just can't see how any alternatives will work or succeed in the free market yet heavily regulated economy we have at the moment.

[silverstrata]

.

New proposal for thames airport - an Alien metropolis:

'Boris Island' airport: An alien metropolis or the solution to London's transport problems? | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202226/Boris-Island-airport-An-alien-metropolis-solution-Londons-transport-problems.html)


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/12/article-2202226-14FB3865000005DC-422_636x357.jpg




This sounds a bit ambitious, as it is supposed to be all floating. Yup, four 4,000 m runways and all the terminals, hotels and car parks all floating. Not sure if they have costed all this.

But at least if it is floating they can rectify the stupid orientation they have here, and turn it around to face N.E. - S.W., so London does not have the same noise problem in reverse.


One other problem is devising a QNH that takes the tides into account. That would be a new one for ATC to consider. "Will sir prefer a Neap QNH or a Spring QNH??"






.

[silverstrata]

Chippy:

can you force an airport to close or airlines to move?



Of course you can. You send in the JCBs and dig up the runways at LHR. That might be a subtle hint that even Willie Walsh could understand.




Indie:

What if we could connect the Technology Park to the Global market (China, far east, USA etc) by building an easily accessible hub airport. With long-haul flights served by World class airlines.



Sure. If you can guarantee that none of the flights overfly London, and the airport can double its capacity by 2020. Ok, now you explain how its done.




Bread:

Silver - v entertaining views and always good to see a healthy debate ... BUT what's an "escallop" ? Is it seafood ? Viennese ? Is it pounded and breaded ? How does it relate to the Labour Party ?



Its called an infuriating predictive spell checker. How does one turn this ruddy thing off, it cannot understand anything I type.

The escallop was actually an echelon. How Apple / Pprune thought that might be an escallop, I do not know. (Where is this spell checker based - in Pprune?)





.

[Skipness One Echo]

Silver can you address my question of massive blue collar unemployment on closing LHR and also cost of compensation to BAA on the enforced closure of 90% of their UK business?

You know, annoying little details, but tens of thousands of lives, might be worth a thought? Also what legislation would be used? Existing or a new bill?

Also are BA expected to replace the entirity of the Maintenance Base on Fantasy Island and if so who compensates the company and by how much?

Detail, detail.....

[felixflyer]

No he can't. Even Boris is keeping very quiet about this. He will try to win round the people of West London and East Berks with talk of less noise and pollution and property price increases.

The reality of devastating the local economy by removing LHR is not being mentioned.

Oh, wait a minute, all the baggage handlers and check in staff are suddenly going to become computer scientists in the new silvercon valley.;)

[silverstrata]

Skip:

Silver can you address my question of massive blue collar unemployment on closing LHR and also cost of compensation to BAA on the enforced closure of 90% of their UK business?




Read post No 773 and 777.

They can always move, like I have had to do.

[Skipness One Echo]

No they can't get real.
How many famiies are you talking about uprooting if every single baggage handler and driver gets sacked? Where are the jobs for them to go to? Is housing for manual workers included in your costs? Schools for tens of thousands of families? Slapdash and arrogant answer silver. These people lack the income of a CPL for God's sake, you cannot compare their mobility to yours.

You need to put a number on job losses at LHR. Come on.

[PAXboy]

silverstrata
How does one turn this ruddy thing off, it cannot understand anything I type.SNAP! Nor can we ... ;)

[jabird]

Heathrow Garden City

We need to drop the garden bit - "eco" is the latest buzzword, that may be jargon-ridden too, especially as it would be hard to imagine a city not built to the latest environmental standards!

Garden implies this place will be built to a low density model, with acres of parks and allotments. Given that the removal of the airport only erases the surface infrastructure, the tunnels will remain, and the new Crossrail link at least will need to be kept at a high frequency of service to maintain viability.

However, given that LHR maintains its status as the world's busiest international airport on such a small land area, it is inconceivable to imagine any subsequent use of land would generate more GVA. So whatever goes in its place is a bi-product, never the reason for moving.

where does that leave our blue collar guys who lost their jobs at Heathrow and cannot afford to relocate to Fantasy Island

They find work on the new site, or they move to Fantasy Island. I don't think that is a big deal, the challenge is that you have the whole M4 corridor which is geared towards dependency on LHR, and now they might have to shift right over to the other side of the city, where there won't be acres of office parks to welcome them to, as this airport is on a (floating) island, where you can't build up if that causes instability, and you can't just build standard issues 2 storey office parks as there's no way they will cover the cost of the infrastructure they are built on.

And try comparing that with the square mile in London, or with Canary Wharf

That is an utterly ridiculous statement! So Yohan Blake isn't a particularly efficient sprinter - after all, he only came second to Bolt. The fact he's faster than the other 6.99bn people on the planet doesn't count for anything!

Remember too - even if some airports (I can think of a few in the USA) are inefficient users of land a lot of the time, they are still worth having as they enable other economic activity to take place elsewhere.

I have moved in excess of 17 times, to maintain my profession, so I have little sympathy for someone who cannot be bothered to make an effort.

Good for you? With family or on your own? It isn't always a question of being bothered. Sometimes you have roots in a particular place, kids in school or a partner who would also need to move.

For some jobs - pilot for one - there is a natural expectancy to move, but the point is that all this displacement comes at a huge cost. Now if this really was the grand scheme above all others that London had to embark on as there were no other runways anywhere in the southeast (like the situation Hong Kong was in pre CLK) - then fair enough, but this clearly isn't the case. Remember, all that is confirmed as on the cards is a 4 runway hub in the place of a 2-3 runway one, perhaps with a slightly better terminal layout. Total capacity gain c. 50%, total capacity add to the whole southest - c. 20%.

Now is it worth bothering for that?

Boris airport only 30 minutes away

How are you going to insert the passing loops for Crossrail to run from Heathrow City to FBI in 30 minutes, which it would need to do without stopping?

[silverstrata]

Skippy:

How many famiies are you talking about uprooting if every single baggage handler and driver gets sacked? Where are the jobs for them to go to? Is housing for manual workers included in your costs? Schools for tens of thousands of families? Slapdash and arrogant answer silver. These people lack the income of a CPL for God's sake, you cannot compare their mobility to yours.




You are not a pilot, I can tell.

I started as a co-pilot on the minimum wage, with a £60,000 overdraft, and was living in a squat with five others - two to a room. This wonderful abode had no carpets, no plaster on the walls, no cooker, no fridge, and no central heating. (At least it was free.)

And yes, I managed to move more than 17 times, as successive companies ordered a base-change or went bankrupt. And am still in a one-room rented piss-hole. Think piloting is fun, do you?

So I spit on any dumb-ass loader who cannot get off their fat arse to move house, when a lucrative job-transfer is offered. And I spit on your bleeding-heart liberalism that always offers excuses for the dumb, the lazy, and the downright criminal.




Jabird:

Good for you? With family or on your own? It isn't always a question of being bothered. Sometimes you have roots in a particular place, kids in school or a partner who would also need to move.



Good for them.

Sorry, but this is not a Marie Antoinette situation. Jobs would be available, relocation packages offered (which I have never had), new and pleasant housing constructed. All the dumb-ass loader has to do is move house. If they cannot be bothered to do so, then they have a god-given right to stay there and starve. But they do not have a god-given right to stay and fleece social security (your taxes) because they are too dumb-ass lazy to move.




Jabird

How are you going to insert the passing loops for Crossrail to run from Heathrow City to FBI in 30 minutes, which it would need to do without stopping?


If nobody built passing loops, then there is plenty of room on the lamppost.



.

[jabird]

If nobody built passing loops

You know damn well you can't easily build passing loops in a tunnel built with TBMs, and this is not on the menu.

You have still ignored my main point, namely that it is not worth shifting the entire M4 corridor through 180deg just for a 20% gain in capacity in the SE.

[Skipness One Echo]

So I spit on any dumb-ass loader who cannot get off their fat arse to move house, when a lucrative job-transfer is offered. And I spit on your bleeding-heart liberalism that always offers excuses for the dumb, the lazy, and the downright criminal.
Calm down dear and stop spitting. I earn way more than a loader and what you suggest is beyond my means. Ever tried buying or renting in London?

There is a number, a quantifable number of good men and women holding down blue collar jobs at LHR. Now pilots are, exceptional, they are not the norm. It is a particular skill set, most people don't have it. This is a real world decision.
Of these blue collar people, the ones you see as the dumb, the lazy, and the downright criminal. I am pretty right wing but am a pragmatist at heart. Your analysis is just nonsensical, not everyone is cut to be white collar and educated. Some people have different skills the market just pays poor wages for and that most certainly does not make them criminals or lazy. It beggars belief that you honestly wrote such arrogant misplaced tosh. I am anything but a bleeding heart liberal but people like you make me wince.
Now, in London, most blue collar people don't have the money to relocate. (nor do I and I am pretty well paid thanks! ) Many are of non European origin, many Sikhs from Hayes, Indians from Hounslow. Many have extended families and communities. Your Fantasy Island means closing LHR, I think that we agree on. Hence these guys, and they count in the tens of thousands, need jobs. Your grandiose nonsense will decimate that economy for years if and it's a big if, until it is redeveloped,
You say "lucrative" employment on Fantasy Island? I live in London, I know the issues invoved in commuting. Getting to LHR is tricky and often expensive, Heathrow Connect is not cheap and the Piccadilly Line is busy. I don't imagine baggage handlers will be on great money in your brave new world. The capital investment costs are massive and will need to be recouped. Hence they will be offered market rate or less. How does one get to your airport? On a train that will need to be paid for?
We are swapping TFL for a Heathrow Express equivalent unless the taxpayer susidises it. Most of us took the DLR rather than the Javelin to the Olympic Park.
Hence the commute to Fantasy Island is going to be pricey and beyond the means of the current workforce as it's too far across London and would be beyond them in both money and time. Or somehow, you need to relocate tens of thousands of people from West to East London and house them all.

You avoided my question.
Where are you planning on housing them and who will pay for it?
How many to lose their jobs?
Quantify that cost to the taxpayer.
Add the cost of subisidised commuting to the new airport for staff.
Add housing costs and identify where new houses need to be built.

Jobs would be available, relocation packages offered
Relocation packages from whom? Servisair? Menzies? They pay chckenfeed as it is? Will BAA be paying a relocation package? Of course not.
BA would have to, coupled with having to rebuild the whole engineering base across town, are you still surprised Willie Walsh is not a fan.
Quantify the cost to British Airways please?
Oh really? And exactly where would people be living?
Quantify sound proofing to anyone under the flight path to the West. (oh yes, that will need to happen as it happened as LHR)

It's not the same as catching a bus from Reading or Slough now is it? Delusional grandiose fantasies lack detail and you are being found out with your bluster and spit as you can't supply numbers.

And yes, I managed to move more than 17 times, as successive companies ordered a base-change or went bankrupt. And am still in a one-room rented piss-hole. Think piloting is fun, do you?
Perhaps your attitude caught you out? You come across quite badly on here and I know a few guys who have done better than you, and enjoy piloting. Perhaps flying isn't for you?

[jabird]

And yes, I managed to move more than 17 times, as successive companies ordered a base-change or went bankrupt. And am still in a one-room rented piss-hole. Think piloting is fun, do you?
Perhaps your attitiude caught you out? You come across quite badly on here and I know a few guys who have done better than you, and enjoy piloting. Perhaps flying isn't for you?

Didn't want to say it before, but moving is clearly easier for one than for a family. So as you've confirmed our suspicions, might I echo SOE's suggestion that you spread a little more love?

Let's face it - you hate anyone who's left wing, foreign, who does work that is beneath you, or who supports the current government.You still hate Boris too but give him a brief nod for backing an estuary airport, and you think Foster, who has built some of the world's greatest buildings, is a moron too.

So who exactly is there left that you actually like?

[Ernest Lanc's]

So who exactly is there left that you actually like?

After reading this part of the thread..I would have thought the answer would have been obvious. Himself.

I have never seen anything as ridiculous as this Boris Island, I watch films with scenes like that on the Horror or Sci Fi Channels.

The cost would be huge, the cost to peoples lives would be huge..A total disregard for people as the desert at Heathrow would be created.

If this plan ever came near to being accepted..It would harm London, BA and the UK as transition would be almost impossible...How would millions of people a year be shunted over the water to the new airofloat?.

Before I go back to the sanity of the threads on the sticks airports.My penneth says.."Only solution to congestion that is possible, is a third runway at Heathrow".

[Dannyboy39]

Ernest, I couldn't have put it better myself, if slightly melodramatic. :D

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Didn't want to say it before, but moving is clearly easier for one than for a family.

Let's face it - you hate anyone who's left wing, foreign, who does work that is beneath you.



Your analysis is so far wide of the mark it is hardly in the same ball park.

Firstly, I was moving the whole family. Secondly, we are talking about people who refuse to move, not people who are above or below. So wind your neck back in, and understand that there is a huge gulf between those who help themseves and the dumb-ass types who just sit and moan about what is happening around them.

Your responses show you have never lived in the US, where the moaning minnies get little sympathy, while those who do their bit have the greatest of respect. Why, I wonder, has this obvious logic been turned on its head in Europe? It would seem that the only people who get any respect in the UK are those who burst into tears and blame their ills on society, their class, an 'ism', or even their long suffering parents.

The new heroes of Europe are the wingers and cry-babies. Boo-hoo, I have to move house, so the sky is falling on our heads. Its no wonder that large swathes of that continent are pretty much bankrupt.



.

[PAXboy]

silverstrataSo I spit on any dumb-ass loader who cannot get off their fat arse to move house, when a lucrative job-transfer is offered. And I spit on your bleeding-heart liberalism that always offers excuses for the dumb, the lazy, and the downright criminal.
Gosh, I do hope the correct loading of your a/c is dependent on all the smart-ass loaders ... :rolleyes:

Just how are the loaders going to be offerred a relocation package?
Just how will they finance a move to a new address without a relocation package?
The moment any deal was signed, the property in the area will go through the roof on value and ther existing will drop. Go forward ten years (minimum) when the port is built and how are they going to be able to afford a new shiny house (floating on the estury or in Essex/Kent - when it costs more than theirs AND they are on a loader's wage?

By the way, could you comment on how the BBC is still so left wing and winging when it's been run by Tories for all but three of the last 26 years? Sorry to harp on about these things but you do like to raise points without answering them.

You are, therefore, a Troll. :}

[Ernest Lanc's]

By the way, could you comment on how the BBC is still so left wing and
winging when it's been run by Tories for all but three of the last 26 years?
Sorry to harp on about these things but you do like to raise points without
answering them.


PAXboy

I am not criticizing your post. But how do you arrive at the above?.

No matter that this Boris Island idea was to space age even for Jules Verne, but the BBC has never been a right wing media.

[Skipness One Echo]

Come on silver, less spitting more numbers.

Upwards of tens of thousand manual workers and theair families.
How to we get them to Fantasy Island?
Account for lack of affordale housing.
Quantify numbers of lost jobs as LHR is closed.
Quantify tax payer subsidy to make commuting affordable.
Quantify cost to taxpayer of JSA.
Quantify cost to taxpayer of new housing, schools and hospitals in Fantasy Town. (easy place to build, the South East)
Quantify cost of soundproofing existing properties under new flightpath over Canary Wharf and East London when the landers are to the East. BAA had to do this at LHR. Who pays?
Damage to BA and staff who now have to move everything out of LHR.
Who pays to rebuild the Engineering Base?
Does Waterside stay?
Who on Mixed Fleet can afford to move to Fantasy Town, with all these houses?
In short, do BA take the enormous hit, or does the taxpayer jump in?

Try putting numbers on real world issues above. If you love the US so much, at least allow us to live our lives our way. Be tolerant, google it, it's a real word.

Come on Silver, answer the above with numbers.

[PAXboy]

Thread drift
Ernest Lanc'sI am not criticizing your post. But how do you arrive at the above?

No matter that this Boris Island idea was to space age even for Jules Verne, but the BBC has never been a right wing media. A reasonable question. I was following up a complaint earlier in the thread by silvers about the BBC being so left wing. So I listed the Chairs of Governors over the past 26 years. I posited that the BBC was considered Left Wing, yet was consistently managed by Right Wing politicians, ergo the Conservative party has some considerable responsibility for the approach of the BBC! But that is all just a side issue and need not detain us.

Back to the topic!

[DaveReidUK]

"Only solution to congestion that is possible, is a third runway at Heathrow".

A third runway at Heathrow is being mooted as one possible solution (or rather, a partial solution) to the capacity issue.

Whether it would solve congestion is an entirely different question. Congestion (in the form of delays, ground and airborne holding, etc) and the ability of the airport to recover from disruption is a function of demand versus capacity, generally agreed to be running at around 99% at present.

Clearly if a third runway is built, the ATM limit won't remain at the current 480,000 per year. If, as seems likely, after the currently unsatisfied demand for slots is accommodated, demand continues to grow in line with the increased capacity (over time), then sooner rather than later the 99% point will be reached again and we'll all be talking about where to put R4. It won't have escaped anyone's notice that none of the proposals for an all-new airport - Boris Island, Cliffe, Oxfordshire or wherever - are for a three-runway airport.

Of course this isn't an argument either for or against the expansion of Heathrow, just an acknowledgement that R3 really means R3 and R4.

[PAXboy]

... just an acknowledgement that R3 really means R3 and R4. Indeed, DaveReidUK, just as T4 was not T4 + T5. ;)

[Dannyboy39]

...having said that, surely sooner rather than later there will be a tipping point of the number of people wanting to fly? If RWY3 was built, that would possibly give the airport a capacity of around 720,000 ATMs per annum and around 110m passengers, with a few more squeezed out from mixed mode ops.

The exponential forecasts of 350m in my opinion are totally ludicrous and more pie-in-the-sky than Fantasy Island. Doesn't rake into account rises in APD, fuel, the inevitable collapse of large airlines, external economics etc.

[DaveReidUK]

...having said that, surely sooner rather than later there will be a tipping point of the number of people wanting to fly? If RWY3 was built, that would possibly give the airport a capacity of around 720,000 ATMs per annum and around 110m passengers, with a few more squeezed out from mixed mode ops.

The exponential forecasts of 350m in my opinion are totally ludicrous and more pie-in-the-sky than Fantasy Island. Doesn't rake into account rises in APD, fuel, the inevitable collapse of large airlines, external economics etc.


Couldn't agree more. But then forecasting is very difficult, especially when it comes to the future. :)

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Conservatives get in at the next election with an overall majority and a commitment to build R3, it's still unlikely to become operational much before the end of the decade.

By that time we will have 10 years' worth of accumulated unsatisfied demand for slots (don't believe the doomsayers who tell us that traffic will be irretrievably lost to FRA, AMS and CDG). That's going to make an immediate, huge dent in those additional 240,000 ATMs.

R4 will follow R3 on the agenda as surely as night follows day.

[silverstrata]

Paxboy

Just how are the loaders going to be offerred a relocation package?
Just how will they finance a move to a new address without a relocation package?



Since this is a government proposal, especially if they step in to legally close LHR, the government will have to chip in.

However:
You will note that property prices are cheaper in the east of London.
Why the hell should a loader demand and get a relocation package, when I as a captain have never had a reloation package in more than 17 moves?

So we come back to the new heros of Europe being those who weep and wail and throw a tantrum, but would never dream of helping themselves. The new heroic god of Europe is no longer the mighty Hercules, but the simpering Priapus (who was known as Bigus Dickus to his friends).



T'was the basis of the 'Life of Brian' joke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPGb4STRfKw&noredirect=1

.

[PAXboy]

You will note that property prices are cheaper in the east of London.Yes indeed they are - Today. If an island were to be buiilt in the next 25 years, the prices would change.

I am not in air transport but have moved for work on more than one occaision and changed country too. But did not have children and was already used to moving. I am currently at the 24th address of my life.

Since this is a government proposal, especially if they step in to legally close LHR, the government will have to chip in.But the govt intend it to be built with private money becuse the UK govt has no money - just like the USA govt.

The whole ethos of the Conservatives is small govt (rather like your Tea Party) and the conviction that the market can sort it all out. So, that's alright then.

[silverstrata]

Pax:


But the govt intend it to be built with private money becuse the UK govt has no money - just like the USA govt.




They have plenty of money. The UK government has has already created about £300 billion, and the USA more than $1 trillion. And the US has just announced it is creating another $40 billion each month.

The problem is that politicians keep giving this money to the banksters, instead of to industry and to worthwhile reconstruction projects. The Silver-Boris airport could be funded in five minutes, if Lord King signed another bit of paper creating another £50 billion.




Edit: Banisters??? Damn spell checker.....





Skip

Also, QE has massive economic consequences for savers.



QE has enormous consequences for everyone, but so too does sitting and playing your filled while Rome burns. The only upside of QE is that (eventually) it effects everyone equally. Its not just savers who get their fingers burned with QE (when it is applied properly).


.

[jabird]

Your responses show you have never lived in the US

OK, I made a wrong assumption about you, I stand corrected. Apologies.

However Silver, I'm afraid you are wrong about the above, I have lived for around a year in the USA.

how the BBC is still so left wing and winging when it's been run by Tories for all but three of the last 26 years?

I'm not sure that the politics of the person at the top always equates with those further down. I think the BBC as a whole is to the left of centre, but it clearly has key presenters who are further left than this, just as it also has those on the right. If people weren't accusing it of bias (remember the SNP say it is London-centric too), it just wouldn't be Auntie Beeb.

And Fox is fair and balanced?

R4 will follow R3 on the agenda as surely as night follows day.

I'm not so sure. R3 can take most of the short traffic, no more than 0.5 NQPs per movement, a 4th runway like this might start to place constraints on where the heavies would go. Where would you put T8&T9 by then?

I'd rather go on the basis that demand for air travel is as likely to level off as it is to keep growing. LHR is always going to take the premium connecting traffic, with R3 it will take some of the more ptp stuff from LGW, over time, maybe some of that reverts back, who knows.

Certainly far from a done deal.

[Skipness One Echo]

Again, details. You got my numbers yet?
Lord King, the late Lord King, Chairman of BA passed away some time ago.
Mervyn King is not a lord.
Also, QE has massive economic consequences for savers.

Details.....

[PAXboy]

It is true that the UK govt could print the money to fund this - but they won't. They are having enough difficulty getting approval for HS2, for which they seem perfectly happy to print the money. I do not forsee HS2 in the immediate future and the Island, not for some considerable time ...

[silverstrata]

Jabird

OK, I made a wrong assumption about you, I stand corrected.


And so you should. My/our various accommodations included:

Hour building: caravan, shared house, room, hangar.
Licences: seaman's mission, christian mission, attic, attic, caravan, attic.
CPL: condemned sqat, attic, caravan, attic, shared house, house.

And even that house we squatted in for 6 months. The purchase was taking so long, we broke into the property and lived there while the sale was going through. (And the 17 addresses are CPL and beyond.)

Think its fun to be a pilot?? ****tiest job in the world, especially after O'Leary came along.



.

[PAXboy]

For those new-ish to the topic, there is a page with graphics for the the three existing London ports in The Independent: 15 Sep Airports Graphic (http://www.scribd.com/doc/105952355/15-Sep-Airports-Graphic#fullscreen)

if the link doesn't work, start at the article here: How to make a runway out of a molehill - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-to-make-a-runway-out-of-a-molehill-8140118.html)

[DaveReidUK]

For those new-ish to the topic, there is a page with graphics for the the three existing London ports in The Independent

I don't know about Stansted or Gatwick, but the Heathrow diagram referred to is a very old one, predating the plan for T6 and with just a narrow taxiway "corridor" between the existing airfield and R3.

Here's a more representative one:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47542000/gif/_47542212_heathrow_exp_466.gif

[PAXboy]

Thanks DRUK, I thought it looked odd and have sent a correction email to the newspaper with the updated graphic you cite, as seen in the BBC.

[silverstrata]

Dave:

I don't know about Stansted or Gatwick, but the Heathrow diagram referred to is a very old one, predating the plan for T6 and with just a narrow taxiway "corridor" between the existing airfield and R3.




I hope someone is thinking about a better way of getting between this ever-increasing number of 'stick-on' terminals.

The last time I tried to get from T1 to T4, we went down a long corridor to get an airside bus, but when we got there the last bus had gone. Retracing our steps, some kind soul had realized the last bus had gone, and locked all the doors. We were now well and truly stuck. After 20 minutes of screaming, shouting and banging, with no response, I found an internal 'phone and dialed random numbers until someone answered and gave me a number for security. The only saving grace was that our aircraft could not easily find our bags, and were still in the middle of a baggage search when we finally arrived.

Welcome to a real 21st century airport ......... :-(



.





.

[jabird]

Think its fun to be a pilot?? ****tiest job in the world, especially after O'Leary came along.

I thought you'd quite like O'Leary - move aircraft base airport at a moment's notice, zero tolerance of slackers, unions, or even "idiot" passengers.

Or do you despise a man who only needs to use low cost "base" airports, having no time for the traditional hub and spoke + close down the rival model Fantasy Island needs to make it work?

So is Jim French your aviation hero?

T'was the basis of the 'Life of Brian' joke:

How did I miss you bringing Biggus Dickus into a PPRUNE thread the other day? Surely FBI is the biggest dickus waving contest of them all?

I think the argument clinic would have been a better Cleese sketch, we could have all been cleaning up on the £5s!

[Fairdealfrank]

Lots of diversions and entertainment from the protaganists of Silver Fantasy Island but, regretably, no substance.

Three basic questions remain unanswered:

(1) Silver Fantasy Island and associated infrastructure is not a good business proposition, so who pays and how do they get a return on their investment?

(2) If it is ever built, how are the airlines, passengers and associated industries persuaded to leave Heathrow and move to Silver Fantasy Island?

(3) Silver reckons that just digging up the runways is the way to close Heathrow (if it was that simple, Sipson would have been dug up by now). Apparently all those who favour Silver Fantasy Island assume that "Heathrow will close". In reality, how would this be made to happen?

Any chance of these being answered, properly? Thought not.

[DaveReidUK]

Apparently all those who favour Silver Fantasy Island assume that "Heathrow will close". In reality, how would this be made to happen?

That question might be better asked the other way round:

"Under what circumstances would UK Plc allow Spanish-owned BAA/Ferrovial to hold it to ransom having decided [for the sake of argument] that a Thames Estuary airport was the future?".

Clearly, whatever happens, it's going to be a great time to be a lawyer ... :*

[silverstrata]

Dave:

Clearly, whatever happens, it's going to be a great time to be a lawyer ...


Unfortunately, they are the only ones who always win.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "That question might be better asked the other way round:

"Under what circumstances would UK Plc allow Spanish-owned BAA/Ferrovial to hold it to ransom having decided [for the sake of argument] that a Thames Estuary airport was the future?".

Clearly, whatever happens, it's going to be a great time to be a lawyer ..."

Too late!

For those who are not aware, the UK aviation industry, including airlines and airports, is private and deregulated. Like much in the UK, the market decides, except in the case of airport expansion, the government cannot cannot resist interfering. The market wants Heathrow expansion, it is a good business case, the governemnt blocks it.

Without commenting on the pros and cons of a private and deregulated aviation industry, the result is that "UK PLC" can do nothing, it is no longer its business.

This is why the private sector would need to be persuaded to build Fantasy Island, and the airlines would need to be persuaded to move there, and then there's the question of the pax...

For the government to be able to direct any of this to happen, at least part of the aviation industry would need to be returned to the public sector costing taxpayers billions. The chance of this happening is nil.

So, please, let the questions remain as originally posed. Then dear old Silver can continue to fail to answer them, as usual.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:


I thought you'd quite like O'Leary - move aircraft base airport at a moment's notice, zero tolerance of slackers, unions, or even "idiot" passengers.



While I once promoted a Ryanair style airline, long before O'Leary came along, he has taken it far to far - sailing so close to the wind and so close to every law (or outside every law) he is literally courting disaster.

Ryanair is 'courting disaster' by flying planes with near-empty fuel tanks to cut costs | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205314/Ryanair-courting-disaster-flying-planes-near-fuel-tanks-cut-costs.html)

He is to be congratulated for being efficient, he is to be condemned for being cavalier.



.

[PAXboy]

An interesting item I see on Yahoo, relayed from an agency (credited)

Asia-Pacific home to most millionaires: report - Yahoo! Finance UK (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/asia-pacific-home-most-millionaires-073214002.html)
Asia-Pacific has overtaken North America as home to the most millionaires for the first time, boosted by a rise in the number of wealthy in China and Japan, a report released on Wednesday showed.

The pendulum is swinging more strongly away from the West ...

[silverstrata]

Paxy:

An interesting item I see on Yahoo, relayed from an agency (credited)

Asia-Pacific home to most millionaires: report - Yahoo! Finance UK

The pendulum is swinging more strongly away from the West ...


No, you don't say.

I forecast that some 30 years ago, as British industry started to crash around our ears. No production = no income = no wealth.

And the reason for the decline? There are many dinosaurs out there (still) who will not allow UK PLC to modernize and regenerate. So we are stuck with outdated factories, outdated technology and outdated infrastructure.

You would not believe it, but there are some people out there who are against major redevelopment of the UK's infrastructure simply because some dumb-ass worker cannot be bothered to move 30 miles !!

Can you believe it?? Me neither. Incredible, isn't it.



.

[Skipness One Echo]

So we are stuck with outdated factories, outdated technology and outdated infrastructure.
What ARE you on about?
Which outdated factories? They've all gone, Thatcher saw to that.
What technology specifically are you grumbling about?
The public infrastructure is way better than many parts of the US, I have travelled extensively and for a first world country, the US is lacking seriously in decent roads and certainly mass transit in the big cities.
You would not believe it, but there are some people out there who are against major redevelopment of the UK's infrastructure simply because some dumb-ass worker cannot be bothered to move 30 miles !!
You know for a much travelled B767 captain whom the majors wouldn't touch, (attitiude?) you whine a lot about others and fail to listen to good advice. Your hobo like lifetstyle is not to most peoples tastes, and because you've had a miserable and unsettled time in your employment does in no way mean that the rest of need to follow in your footsteps.

Now :
Costs of moving the BA Maintenance Base and who pays for it? I've given you a week to think about it. Any numbers yet?

I do not recognise your Mail Online skewed view of my country you are mixing up in LA. Detail strata, details

[jabird]

He is to be congratulated for being efficient, he is to be condemned for being cavalier.

No doubt if this was a Virgin jet in the same situation, Branson would say he was doing it for improved environmental performance, and all would be ok.

Now back to fantasy island - three letters Silver:

P S C

[silverstrata]

.

Boris has once again nailed his colors to the mast of the Silver-Boris Thames airport.

Boris Johnson launches extraordinary attack on Cameron's government, claiming it is on course for 'economic catastrophe' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212819/Boris-Johnson-launches-extraordinary-attack-Camerons-government-claiming-course-economic-catastrophe.html)

And once again, he has seriously stepped up his pressure on David Cameron. If this is not a threat to run for the premiership, I don't know what is.

However, from all the statements that Boris has made, if he ever did topple Cameron and become prime minister, then he would just have to go ahead with the Silver-Boris airport. He has staked too much on this, to back out now. Indeed, his growing popularity appears to be solely due to his apparent ability to make difficult decisions and promote difficult projects, like Silver-Boris airport. The general public are at last realizing that government is not all about wish-washy middle-of-the-road policies and sound-bite platitudes -- sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns and make an 'unpopular' decision (or in Boris' case, lay down your plough and kick some governmental ass).

Interesting development. We shall see what happens at the Tory conference.



.

[Skipness One Echo]

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/495141-heathrow-expansion-wont-happen-12.html

Can we merge all this perhaps?

[jabird]

Can we merge all this perhaps?

If that thread should be merged in, should it not be on the Heathrow page?

Remember that one was started as a result of a Lib Dem pledge, and they don't want FBI either. I still haven't worked out exactly where their "evidence based" alternative hub might be, but if they are thinking of Birmingham, then forget it - I couldn't even get a bus for an early flight last Sunday - and that is from Coventry! They think people will come out from London to catch flights from BHX? Get real!

[silverstrata]

Jabird

Remember that one was started as a result of a Lib Dem pledge, and they don't want FBI either. I still haven't worked out exactly where their "evidence based" alternative hub might be, but if they are thinking of Birmingham, then forget it - I couldn't even get a bus for an early flight last Sunday - and that is from Coventry! They think people will come out from London to catch flights from BHX? Get real!



Ha, ha. Always the problem with our half-baked, unplanned, unconnected and underfunded transport system. And if you chose BHX as a hub, you will still end up with the Chinese transit passenger at LHR, whose connection departs from BHX in 50 minutes. BHX is a non-starter all round.

But then the Lib-Dems have always been dreamers, totally disconnected from reality, so what more could we expect? Actually, with the Lib-Dems, deciding governmental policy is rather easy. Whatever they say, do the opposite, and you will not be far wrong.





This is why Silver-Boris Thames airport has to be done correctly, even if this makes it a bit expensive (you will note that Boris has just added £30 billion to the cost for ground transport links).

So if you are listening, Boris, we need to:

Make the Chunnel TGV glide straight into Silver-Boris airport (and not on some half-baked spur-line, which would double journey times on the London-Paris via Silver-Boris route).

The Chunnel TGV and HS2 have to meet up at the same London hub (i.e.: not two hubs with 4 km between them). A super-fast TGV route with a 4km bus journey in the middle, would be the laughing-stock of Europe.

Crossrail has to be extended to terminate in Silver-Boris. Again, having a bus from Abbey Wood to the airport terminal would result in incalculable frustration in London, and great levity across all of Europe.

The new outer M25 and Thames crossing has to meet up with Silver-Boris. Please do not miss the airport by a couple of kilometers, and join the two with a Bailey Bridge.

Silver-Boris has to be orientated NE - SW, to keep flights (and noise) away from central London. (And into the prevailing wind.) Changing the noise nuisance over London from westerly winds to easterly winds is not going to endear you to the burghers of central and east London.

None of this silly 'terminals at the end of the runway' nonsense, if you please. If anyone champions this kind of design, there are plenty of lampposts in east London.

Make sure there is enough room for 5 runways, so we can add a 'commuter runway' if it becomes necessary. Four runways are great, but mixing heavies and lights is always a pain for ATC. Having a dedicated light-medium a/c commuter runway would speed things up tremendously. (Especially if this runway had its own commuter terminal and high-speed link to the international terminal.)

Please make sure the terminals are fully designed for International, Domestic and Schengen separation. Airports that have had to shove last-minute, unplanned security points in stupid places (i.e., most USA airports) are a pain in the ass.

Tell the man with the 'floating airport' concept to go forth and multiply.




Once you have done all that, I wish you well.



.

[jabird]

But then the Lib-Dems have always been dreamers

Well Silver, it takes one to know one.

Isn't it time we stopped calling this nonsense Silver Island, and you just stuck with the £80bn Fantasy Island (or FBI) tag the rest of us are using? Or are you still stuck in your LA towers thinking that FBI implies some intelligence in the plans?

I mean - Schengen flights from the UK - come on! Remember, you are the one who keeps on going on about all the immigrants. How do you keep the borders under control if the UK joined Schengen?

[Skipness One Echo]

I keep asking him for numbers. He can't handle detail, indeed I actually suspect he's not a CPL at all. His thinking isn't disciplined.

[jabird]

I keep asking him for numbers. He can't handle detail, indeed I actually suspect he's not a CPL at all. His thinking isn't disciplined.

Now let me guess. You have Silver rumbled! He isn't really in LAX at all. Silver is actually the silver-mop topped Boris, and he knows he is completely clueless about his own airport idea, so he has come here for some advice :D

[silverstrata]

Jabird

I mean - Schengen flights from the UK - come on! Remember, you are the one who keeps on going on about all the immigrants. How do you keep the borders under control if the UK joined Schengen?



Did I mention the UK joining Schengen? No. What I said is that airports need to be designed from the ground up to separate International, Domestic and Schengen passengers. And in case you don't know, Schengen passengers are not treated the same as International passengers.


And actually, I would not mind the UK joining Schengen, as these nations do not represent the immigration problem that the UK faces.

The only problem with Schengen is the ability for certain nations to pass their immigration problem onto other nations. Witness the French closing the border with Italy, because the Italians were passing their immigrants straight onto France, just to get rid of them. And then the Italians retorted by accusing the French of not allowing them to police their border more ruthlessly (by sinking a few boats). Such are the stresses and strains of nations working in a Federation.

On balance the UK is better out of Schengen, because you can be sure that the perfidious French would pass 5 million North Africans straight onto the UK. One day, Europe will sing from the same hymn-sheet, but not just yet.




Jabird

Now let me guess. You have Silver rumbled! He isn't really in LAX at all. Silver is actually the silver-mop topped Boris, and he knows he is completely clueless about his own airport idea, so he has come here for some advice


Cripes, I've been rumbled. Don't tell the press......



.

[jabird]

And in case you don't know, Schengen passengers are not treated the same as International passengers.

Yes they are. When you arrive in the UK (something I did on Thursday, when was your last visit to Blighty?) - there are indeed different arrivals channels, but there is no distinction based on Schengen.

The first separation is "domestic" arrivals, and this includes the UK, IOM, CI and also Ireland. However, arrivals from IOM & CI are subject to customs controls. No passport control is needed for these arrivals.

All other arrivals are bunched into the same area, but then you sometimes get separate channels, based on the passports held by the pax. This distinction is between the European Economic Area (EEA) + Switzerland and others, but it does not correspond directly to Schengen.

Although it includes all of the Schengen area, it also includes UK passport holders, together with passport holders from Ireland (who might not be arriving from the Republic), Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania and (from 2013) Croatia.

Therefore, although the two are related, it would be quite wrong to mix them into one and have Schengen and "international" gates, as is the case in most continental European airports.

Even if people were making Schengen to Schengen transfers (eg CPH to FBI to BCN), they should not need to go through passport control any more than someone transferring from the USA to the Middle East - providing the terminal was designed to handle this, and everything was kept airside.

However, by the time FBI would ever get built, we might be all using RFID implants, so the concept of nationality will eventually become far less relevant in airport management. The pre-crimes dept will be far more interested in behaviour patterns whilst the commercial forces will want to suck you through whatever buying opportunities they can.

[Fairdealfrank]

Frankly, Boris only has himself to blame on the Government's decision to kick the issue into the long grass. The Government was slowly inching towards a U-turn on its opposition to Heathrow expansion until Boris's intervention scared the life out of them. If he wants a decision out of the government he needs to get behind Heathrow expansion. Of course he has his own agenda, and it has nothing to do with marginal seats under the flightpath, so that won't happen.

Birmingham as a hub, or any other UK airport (existing or future), is a side show, and best kept for the 1st April. If the hub is not at Heathrow it will be at Amsterdam, Paris-De Gaulle, or Frankfurt, it is as simple as that. Forget about the Libdems, they are happy to have no UK hub and oppose Boris Vanity Project White Elephant Island (BVPWEI) as well.

Interesting, isn't it, that BVPWEI is now estimated to cost £80bn including access infrastructure, with £30bn coming from public funds? Never going to happen, trust me. For a tiny fraction of that we could tunnelise/divert the M25 and other roads allowing for extra runway(s) to cross the M25 and be full length, and not need to demolish the Wraybury reservoir and/or Bedfont and Stanwell as proposed in some quarters.

The questions still remain unanswered:
(1) who pays for BVPWEI and why would they?
(2) how do you persuade the airlines and their pax to move there?
(3) how does BVPWEI ever get planning permission?

[beamender99]

Daniel Moylan flies to defence of 'Boris Island' airport - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9591523/Daniel-Moylan-flies-to-defence-of-Boris-Island-airport.html)


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02113/boris-island_2113153b.jpg

[Skipness One Echo]

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/495141-heathrow-expansion-wont-happen-12.html

Can we merge these threads into a Heathrow Futures thread?

[PAXboy]

What S.O.E. said = 'Like'

[jabird]

(1) who pays for BV-PWEI and why would they?

Well, PWEI were a 90s Indy act from Stourbridge, which makes me think of referring Silver to their Top 41 hit "Wise Up Sucker"!

[jabird]

Broadly, it would involve shrinking Heathrow from today’s 70 million passengers a year to around 20 million, redeveloping part of the airport and compensating BAA and some airlines for relocating the traffic.

Now that's one thing that is a new take we haven't had. Don't close Heathrow, just deflate it a little. how is that going to work? Why would LHR stay at the 20m pax pa mark when all the traffic currently at LGW is going to want to come there, if it can get the slots. So demand would still be reasonably high for that site, which would still be the closest airport with full sized runways to central London.

Now what happens when, 1 year into PWEI's existence, BAA start offering sweeteners to have airlines come back from PWEI to their much lower cost facility?

Which begs that question again Silver:

What will the PSC at PWEI be?

[silverstrata]

Jabird

Now that's one thing that is a new take we haven't had. Don't close Heathrow, just deflate it a little.



Stupid idea.

London is NOT short of airports, it is surrounded by them. Instead, it is woefully short of a world-hub with spare capacity, good ground links and a citizen-freindly noise footprint.

As to the expense, what do you mean we cannot afford it? The UK has spent £350 billion on the banks, which has done absolutely nothing for jobs, infrastructure or national efficiency. Instead, it went towards increasing bonuses for failed fat-cats, who could not run a coffee shop let alone a multinational financial institution.

Had we diverted £100 billion of that into Silver-Boris Thames airport, it could already have been under construction. However, all is not lost. Instead of the BofE contemplating yet more Q.E., to boost bankster bonuses still further, it could print another £100 bn, put it into the 'Silver-Boris' bank account, and we will start construction next week.



.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Can we merge these threads into a Heathrow Futures thread?

This thread is about an alternative to London Heathrow, many posts would be off topic if merged IMO.

This thread name:-

New Thames Airport for London

[PAXboy]

silverstrataAs to the expense, what do you mean we cannot afford it? The UK has spent £350 billion on the banks, which has done absolutely nothing for jobs, infrastructure or national efficiency. Instead, it went towards increasing bonuses for failed fat-cats, who could not run a coffee shop let alone a multinational financial institution.
I do agree with you on that one! First the Labour Party did it and then the Conservatives. So there is no hope it will stop.

[jabird]

This thread is about an alternative to London Heathrow, many posts would be off topic if merged IMO.

Agreed. I tried a "London - ALL airports" thread, but it didn't, err, exactly take off.

Although I disagree with the proposal, an island airport in the Thames is a totally separate concept to expanding Heathrow, and needs to be kept as such, even if that means a bit of repetition.

The UK has spent £350 billion on the banks, which has done absolutely nothing for jobs, infrastructure or national efficiency.

There would have been consequences if they didn't bail them out too. That's one for JB, but you can't just go round saying "£350bn was wasted on the banks, in which case let's waste another £100bn+ on airport and high speed rail infrastructure (approx £70bn+34bn respectively)".

That truly is the economics of the madhouse - if you did that, the NHS would be asking for more hospitals, Education would be wanting brand new universities (as if we didn't have enough educated fools as Coolidge would have called them), where would it end? You'd be on to a trillion worth of profligate spending before you even started.

So back to reality - can this airport stand on its own merits? Can a case be prepared which at least says, if the government were to go back to investing in airports, and if it could do so without all the existing privately operated airports claiming unfair competition, then how could it come up with a case that justifies this investment.

At least if it done this way (Silver, please note - VERY big if still), then you can create a case on overall BCR (benefit cost ratio), rather than the airport having to make a direct operating profit.

However, look how badly HS2 has come unstuck, because the government has been unable to provide a convincing case, based on BCR ratios. Incidentally, the case for the second part of HS2 is MUCH stronger than the first, but the project has been split because of an initial desire to be seen "not to be costing more each year than Crossrail".

HS2, for all its flaws, runs up at least to Leeds and Manchester. How will you get northern MPs to back such spending on what would be seen as a London project? HS2 is also pitched on the claim that it is a safe investment, because they are building a new route, and not encountering the risks of operating on a live line, as they did with the WCML upgrade.

You are talking here about a new airport - sinking sands with all manor of geological risks which have never been undertaken before on this scale in the UK. Rail is also a growth industry, despite the recession. Aviation faces huge challenges.

So even if we did go down the government route, I think you will have no end of political problems getting it through, unless of course Silver, you are really a socialist after all, and you just want to throw caution to the wind entirely.

[On the beach]

"sinking sands with all manor of geological risks"

You'll have to explain that, it's gobbledegook. A bit like the rest of jabirds' post.

[jabird]

"sinking sands with all manor of geological risks"

You'll have to explain that, it's gobbledegook. A bit like the rest of jabirds' post.

Do you really want me to do you the courtesy, or do you want to go and hang back in the Spotters' forum?

Frankly, if you don't understand the concept of sinking sands, or what a geological risk is, I really can't be bothered.

[Ernest Lanc's]

As to the expense, what do you mean we cannot afford it? The UK has spent £350 billion on the banks, which has done absolutely nothing for jobs, infrastructure or national efficiency. Instead, it went towards increasing bonuses for failed fat-cats, who could not run a coffee shop let alone a multinational financial institution.


jabird
I certainly am no socialist, but I agree with the above..Which BTW was funded by Gordan Brown and Mr Darling...I doubt very much that the banks would have gone under without that funding.

Had we diverted £100 billion of that into Silver-Boris Thames airport, it could already have been under construction[...]it could print another £100 bn, put it into the 'Silver-Boris' bank account, and we will start construction next week.
Tony Benn could not have said it better.

As Jabird pointed out, there are unknown technical and geological problems even before the first shovel of dirt is dug..If we are going to print money, better than borrowing..Then it should be to extend the provan infrastructure at Heathrow, with a third runway.
The cost would be modest compared to Borisville, and most of the cost would find it's way back to the exchequer - via money saved taking bodies of the dole, income tax, corporation tax and VAT when worker previously unemployed find they have spending power.

You'll have to explain that, it's gobbledegook. A bit like the rest of jabirds' post.

I think that and jabird will pull me up if I am wrong, you took one sentence out of a paragraph and quoted out of context..I am sure I know what Jabird means..he used the term "sinking sands" loosely..

[jabird]

I doubt very much that the banks would have gone under without that funding.

Ernest - you might well be right, I merely said that was a discussion for JetBlast, not here. I didn't defend the bank bailouts, I just said there would have been other issues if they weren't done.

Equally, if the bank bailouts were throwing good after bad, then why on earth should we do the same for airports?

.If we are going to print money, better than borrowing..Then it should be to extend the provan infrastructure at Heathrow, with a third runway.

There should be no need for either, if private funding is available for Heathrow's 3rd runway.

he used the term "sinking sands" loosely..

Thankyou - very loosely. A casual reference to the parable of building a house on the rock versus building on the sand. The point is that the risks of building in the Thames, contrary to what Silver would like us to believe, are unknown. These risks are compounded further by the need to develop a huge amount of transport infrastructure to support the new airport.

[silverstrata]

Jabird

The point is that the risks of building in the Thames, contrary to what Silver would like us to believe, are unknown.



Cods. As was pointed out previously, the Dutch have been doing it for centuries. Amsterdam is built on wooden piles, which appear to be still doing their job even after a few hundred years.


And regards giving the Q.E. to the banks. This simply rewarded the very people who had made the worst decisions, thereby eliminating 'moral hazard'. It means that as a banker or investor, you can be as incompetent as you like and the government (the people) will bail you out.

In addition, this is throwing good money after bad, so it does nothing for the economy. Had that £350 billion been thrown at infrastructure and R&D projects, there would be a million people involved in building things that will be useful (and wealth generating) for the next hundred years.

Instead it was given to the banks and the banksters, who tuck the money away in tax havens, or spend it fast cars, yachts, electrical gizmos etc: This, of course does nothing for the UK. the UK doesn't make anything, so this spending provides no employment, no taxes, and simply worsens an already woeful balance of trade.

[jabird]

Amsterdam is built on wooden piles

Do you not mean Venice? Are the canals of Amsterdam not dug out?

Either way - by all means correct me on the above, you are simple not comparing like with like.

The only country that has invested significantly in entirely off-shore airports is Japan. Kansai in particular shrunk far more than was anticipated, and don't get me started on the costs of any of these facilities.

Yet, we do actually still have the land to build elsewhere.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Cods. As was pointed out previously, the Dutch have been doing it for centuries. Amsterdam is built on wooden piles, which appear to be still doing their job even after a few hundred years.

"A few hundred" years ago. silverstrata: the Dutch have had to re-claim land. A few hundred years ago the the "wooden piles" would have cost a fraction of what they today.

For a start labour would have been cheap, with no trade unions shackling the powers that be those days.
The UK does not need to built an airport on a river, we are British with British needs, not Dutch.

Private money might be attracted to a modest by comparison third runway at Heathrow..No chance of attracting capital on a Boris fantasy.
In addition, this is throwing good money after bad, so it does nothing for the economy. Had that £350 billion been thrown at infrastructure and R&D projects, there would be a million people involved in building things that will be useful (and wealth generating) for the next hundred years.
You are living in the past...Cameron's government did not give £350 billion to the bankers which I agree was wrong, but done by a socialist government.

If you think the Cameron/Osborne double act are going to waste public money on a Boris fantasy airport - Well it ain't gonna happen.

[Skipness One Echo]

You all say that the recapitalisation was wrong in that it rewarded bankers, all true, however I am still keen to discover what the alternative was. Had they not been rescued, RBS first in the line, would have failed. Tens of thousands would have lost their life savings and the contagion would have rippled out like a tsunami.
The complaint ought to be about under regulation of bankers, the action of saving the banks was essential. Obama and Bush are far from being Socialists but the Fed also threw money at the problem.

Am I correct that Fantasy Island is going to be built by 18th Century Dutchmen? Awesome plan, just my tuppence worth (he lied....).

[Ernest Lanc's]

You all say that the recapitalisation was wrong in that it rewarded bankers, all true, however[...] I am still keen to discover what the alternative was.


£350 billion went where?. I was a short term prop.

The bankers did not channel all the money where it should have gone..Did the banks start lending again..Rhetorical as we know they did not.

Did the bank's start to invest in small business as was the idea?..Again rhetorical as we know they did not.

This was taxpayers money helping the greedy bankers become even greedier.
Had they not been rescued, RBS first in the line, would have failed. Tens of thousands would have lost their life savings and the contagion would have rippled out like a tsunami.

No the RBS would have had to slim down, the talk that the entire banking system would have collapsed, was as credible IMO as Boris Island. Maybe there is to many banks in the UK..Or in the world for that matter.

I am still keen to discover what the alternative was.

With hindsight - If so much taxpayers money was involved..The Bank Of England should have administered the banks use of the bailout cash, so the money would have gone to where it ought to have gone.

Bet the bill would have been half the £350 billion that WE coughed up.

Back to Boris island..While there is land in the UK to build either runways or airports, there is no point in building on stilts or on reclaimed land like the Dutch.

[Fairdealfrank]

Drifting off the topic again aren't we? Plenty of diversions here, maybe it's because Silver doesn't want to answer the question(?).

It's very simple: the Thames airport will not happen, Heathrow will be expanded. the only variable is when.

Why? because there is no alternative.

[Ernest Lanc's]

It's very simple: the Thames airport will not happen, Heathrow will be expanded. the only variable is when.

Why? because there is no alternative.


There are alternatives..Such as expanding another London Airport..In truth Heathrow is the crown jewel of British airports and should be expanded by right.
it is the hub we all know, also the hub that foreigners know - an airport on stilts is not the answer.

Fairdealfrank - Action on the third runway has to be soon, or Heathrow will become a second class airport IMO..With all the implications that would entail.

Back on topic..Boris Island is a dream, that if started will become a financial nighmare IMHO.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "There are alternatives..Such as expanding another London Airport.."

No, expanding another London airport will not work, Ernest Lanc's, the problem is lack of hub capacity, that is why it has to be Heathrow.

There is plenty of capacity at other UK airports, except at Gatwick at peak times, and that would be sorted by adequate capacity at Heathrow.

Quote: "In truth Heathrow is the crown jewel of British airports and should be expanded by right.
it is the hub we all know, also the hub that foreigners know - an airport on stilts is not the answer."

Exactly right, and 70,000,000 pax/year cannot be wrong!

[silverstrata]

Do you not mean Venice? Are the canals of Amsterdam not dug out?




Eh?? Amsterdam is built on sand, just like the Tthames Estruary. If you know anything about proverbs, you will know that sand needs to be stabilised before you build on it. This has worked at Amsterdam for some 500 years (using wood), and so modern methedology will have no problem with Thames alluvial deposits.





No, expanding another London airport will not work, Ernest Lanc's, the problem is lack of hub capacity, that is why it has to be Heathrow.



Not so. You could easilt take Stanstead and give it six runways and a vast new terminal, turning it into the NW European hub.

An enlarged Stanstead would be much better than an enlarged Heathrow, but would it be as good as a Thames airport. Not in my view.

Stanstead would not get rid of the noise problem, and nor would its location be as good for ground transportation. It may be closer to the Midlands, if you build new road and rail links, but its usefullness as a European hub, with rail links to northern Europe, would be severely diminished.

Stanstead is a possibility, but Silver-Boris would be more logical. In addition, Silver-Boris simultaneously solves the Thames Barage and the Thames Crossing problems too. These would still have to be constructed, if one opted for Stanstead as a hub.

.

[Skipness One Echo]

Silver how come you're such an expert on a place you can't spell?
It's Stansted, there's no 'a' and the business community would move operations abroad before lowering themselves to use Essex Intl.

Much of the land around STN is rathet beautiful and would be missed greatly. This is not true of Sipson.

[Dannyboy39]

I wouldn't want to have no green space or live in concrete country, but why does everyone insist every last inch of countryside is beautiful. Its fields of grass and crops. There's plenty more to go around!

[Ernest Lanc's]

Heathrow third runway may mean more pollution deaths, study says

The research, funded by US university MIT (http://lae.mit.edu/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/LAE-2012-010-R-v1.pdf), suggests Heathrow aviation pollution causes about 50 early deaths a year and this number is rising.
That figure may climb to 150 if a third runway is built, the study claims.
If Heathrow closed and an airport was built in the Thames Estuary, there would be 50 deaths annually, it said.


He told the BBC: "Because of the location of the [Thames estuary] airport, such an airport would be further away from major population centres so fewer people would be exposed to pollution from that airport.
"Another important factor is the winds in London are south-westerly, so towards the north-east, so pollution from Heathrow gets blown over London.
"If you instead had an airport in the Thames Estuary, that pollution would get blown over the English Channel and North Sea," he added.

BBC News - Heathrow third runway may mean more pollution deaths, study says (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19934804)

I wonder if Boris comissioned this study?.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Not so. You could easilt take Stanstead and give it six runways and a vast new terminal, turning it into the NW European hub.

An enlarged Stanstead would be much better than an enlarged Heathrow, but would it be as good as a Thames airport. Not in my view."

It would certainly be emptier! Does this make it better? Doubtful, unless you're a Libdem.

At present, Stansted, with just one rwy is haemorrhaging pax and carriers. There is no justification for more rwys.

Again you miss the point: it's a chronic shortage of hub capacity that is the problem, not capacity in general.

Quote: "Stanstead would not get rid of the noise problem, and nor would its location be as good for ground transportation. It may be closer to the Midlands, if you build new road and rail links, but its usefullness as a European hub, with rail links to northern Europe, would be severely diminished.

What noise problem? You should have lived under the flightpath in the 1960s to hear real aircraft noise! Todays aircraft are increasingly quieter, cleaner and fuel-efficient.

Stansted is also on the wrong side of London with less than adequate connections to the rest of the UK. Oh what a surprise, so is Boris Vanity Project White Elephant Island (BVPWEI).

Quote: "Stanstead is a possibility, but Silver-Boris would be more logical. In addition, Silver-Boris simultaneously solves the Thames Barage and the Thames Crossing problems too. These would still have to be constructed, if one opted for Stanstead as a hub."

For reasons well documented in this and other threads, neither Stansted or BVPWEI will ever be a hub, trust me.

[silverstrata]

Frank

At present, Stansted, with just one rwy is haemorrhaging pax and carriers. There is no justification for more rwys.

Again you miss the point: it's a chronic shortage of hub capacity that is the problem, not capacity in general.



You really don't get it sometimes, Frank.

If Stansted was given six runways and Heathrow was closed, then STN would become the de-facto UK hub. You either move your operations to the STN International Hub, or you go to AMS or CDG instead. No questions asked.

STN would work as an alternative to LHR. The question is, would Silver-Boris Thames airport be better? For many reasons, yes it would.



.




.

[jabird]

Eh?? Amsterdam is built on sand, just like the (sic) Tthames Estruary. If you know anything about proverbs, you will know that sand needs to be stabilised before you build on it. This has worked at Amsterdam for some 500 years (using wood), and so modern methodology will have no problem with Thames alluvial deposits.

No. I said quite clearly, please correct me on the stilts issue, but me being wrong (and telling you I possibly would be) about that does not for one minute make you right on the airport issue.

An airport is a very different type of structure to a house, both in dispersal (large and flat v tall and slender) and in scale. Airports do, however, need to be able to take substantial point loads at touchdown.

We already know that Kansai was built on the very unstabilised ROCKS, not just the sand you are warning against.

We simply cannot know what the risks are with Fantasy Island, except for the fact that we don't know them. Any attempt to put a figure on them is just pulling numbers out of a hat.

The research, funded by US university MIT, suggests Heathrow aviation pollution causes about 50 early deaths a year and this number is rising.

Why are we getting worked up about data from a US university, albeit a respectable one? Note the word suggests - ie the conclusion is meaningless.

How exactly have they collected data, and has there been any peer review? Doesn't look like it. We have enough of our own universities to conduct such a study, and do ground level research.

The irony that any researchers coming from Boston would have to come through Heathrow to do such research is noted, not to mention Boston's own small airport problem!

By 2030, without airport expansion, the number of early deaths from airport emissions across the UK is projected to more than double to 250.


Without airport expansion, emissions could still grow due to more intensive use of our airports, but they will also fall due to technology improvements, so to project a doubling by this date sounds just slightly alarmist.

Nic Ferriday, from campaign group AirportWatch, told the BBC: "The study does match up quite well with a study that was actually done for the Greater London Authority that showed 4,000 people per year dying from air pollution.


How do 50 deaths at Heathrow possibly "match up" with 4,000 across London - the former being just over 1% of the latter. Even if we were to include LCY in such stats (the other airports being outside scope of the GLA), the fact remains that more than 90% of air pollution deaths (if we believe the stats at all) will be attributable to ROAD traffic.

That is the conclusion made by other reports which have previously looked into the matter. Unless one has been done more recently, it is my understanding that no peer reviewed scientific report has ever proven a link between airports themselves and significant levels of mortality, i.e. any levels over and above surrounding roads.

Noise on the other hand remains a nuisance, and a contributor to stress, although again, I think it would be a stretch to say it is actually a cause of fatalities.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Why are we getting worked up about data from a US university, albeit a respectable one? Note the word suggests - ie the conclusion is meaningless.
True. There are forces that are wanting to take the status of Heathrow as the UK's major hub.

Boris Island Airport is preferable to some, that Heathrow with a modest in comparison third runway.

The pollution study from the US is all hypothetical in any case, it also to a degree depends on, how the wind is blowing.

Lets say the go ahead is given for the airport in a river, what is going to be the cost?..Of more importance to the passengers - How would such an airport recoup their construction costs?.

What is happening is while this debate (or lack of) is dragging on..The capacity at Heathrow is eroding..(panic measures have allowed for duel use of Heathrows runways)..The real remedy which is a third runway, will come to late..Boris Island will take an age to complete, that will also be to late and costs will rise just like the RN's Queen Elizabeth carriers.

How can anyone cost a development that is going to be built on sand and sludge?. In truth they will have to play the cost be ear, if they go down that route.

After decades of planning, billions of pounds down the road..A shiny Thames Airport with no aircraft to land..They will all be in Germany and France. IMO

[Skipness One Echo]

If Stansted was given six runways
Earth to Silverstrata, Mission Control to orbiting spaceman.
In all seriousness, and excusing the fact you are American and live in LA, what in the name of God makes you think this is even remotely possible?
Do you know the area at all?
Can you perhaps share just where we put six runways across the historic villages of rural Essex?
Are you bulldozing Stansted Mountfitchet?
Wrecking ball to Bishops Stortford?
Chucking them out their houses in Dunmow?
Perhaps we could move the M11 as well?
You either move your operations to the STN International Hub, or you go to AMS or CDG instead. No questions asked.
You know, I mean you MUST know, how can you as a CPL not know, that in that scenario, half the passengers WOULD fly from AMS or CDG rather than Stansted. It's you Silver who just doesn't listen to anyone who challenges your Fantasy Vanity Island Folly.

STN would work as an alternative to LHR.
Fundamentally, strategically and completely wrong. It is far detached from the high demographics of the M4 corridor and is on the wrong side of London. It would not, cannot and hasn't worked as intended because people don't do the basics of understanding market behavior.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "You really don't get it sometimes, Frank."

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Quote: "If Stansted was given six runways and Heathrow was closed, then STN would become the de-facto UK hub. You either move your operations to the STN International Hub, or you go to AMS or CDG instead. No questions asked."

In reality, Silver, am completely accross all of it, arguably more so than you!

THere are lots of "ifs" in your post: STN won't be "given" 6 rwys and LHR is not closing, not even in your wildest dreams.

Quote: "STN would work as an alternative to LHR. The question is, would Silver-Boris Thames airport be better? For many reasons, yes it would."

You forgot to add "...so there" on the end of your last sentence.

Meanwhile, back in the real world....

STN does not have a cat's chance in hell of becoming a hub, nor does Boris's vanity project (it won't ever be built). The airlines and pax will not move out of LHR, it's as simple as that!

[Ernest Lanc's]

STN would work as an alternative to LHR. The question is, would Silver-Boris Thames airport be better? For many reasons, yes it would.

How? Forget the pie-in-the sky 6 runways how would STN get more capacity that LHR to even be able to compete.

Really I know, most of pprune posters know and David Cameron knows that in the end, LHR will have to have it's third runway, or traffic will leach to the continent.
Just my opinion..But LHR has been given permission to make the most of their two runways..How long before LHR gets it's third runway?.

No need to answer..the question is hypothetical..When the Tories are rid of the Liberals.

[DaveReidUK]

But LHR has been given permission to make the most of their two runways

Er, no it hasn't.

In fact the coalition government has confirmed, on a number of occasions, that neither mixed mode nor a relaxation of the night flight restrictions is likely in the foreseeable future.

[Ernest Lanc's]

DaveReidUK - The rules have been relaxed for at least a year.

Complaints soar over Heathrow runway trials

Thursday August 23, 2012
Concerns over increased aircraft noise due to a trial of new runway rules at Heathrow Airport are starting to soar, according to a prominent London council.
West London residents living under the Heathrow flight path are starting to voice more concerns over the current ‘Operational Freedoms’ trial which allows the airport's operator, BAA, to use runways simultaneously under certain circumstances.


Complaints soar over Heathrow runway trials - Hammersmith & Fulham (http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Complaints_soar_over_Heathrow_runway_trials.asp)


BAA is now conducting a flight pattern trial at Heathrow airport which means more planes can come into land over Wandsworth during half day ‘respite’ periods when residents would normally expect a break from overhead planes.
The 'operational freedoms' tests were approved by the Government but local councils were not given a say in the planning process.


Wandsworth Council - Noticed changes in aircraft noise? (http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/11455/noticed_changes_in_aircraft_noise)

[DaveReidUK]

DaveReidUK - The rules have been relaxed for at least a year

Yes, I'm well aware of the trials. However they are a sticking-plaster approach to the capacity issue (ad-hoc, short-term increases in capacity/resilience, triggered by specific delay criteria) and do not include either unrestricted use of mixed mode nor any relaxation of the night quota.

It's those latter two measures which various proponents are lobbying for as a means of maximising the capacity of the existing runways, and permission to deploy them has most definitely not been granted.

Well not yet, anyway.

[HZ123]

Sticking plaster approach is what the UK seems to do with regard to any transport problem and has been doing so for the last 50 years.

Proper hubs are on mainland EU and are well established. A new runway / terminal wherever will not compensate for that business that is long gone. LHR is stiill poor for ground transportation and we need fast connections to the EU by rail, even that prospect is a long way off, as there is little or no rail capacity left from LHR or anywhere else into the London terminals.

Any major runway / airport build can only be funded by government and would have to be written off. Is that not the reason for airline amalgamations thus to ensure that where you fly to and on which ever airline they all share the pot. In the end it does matter in which country the main hubs are.

I recall as many of you will the push by BA to get KLM and thus get the Dutch hub which is perfect for dispersal by ground transport within the EU, apart from the UK.

I fear it will require more than a change of Uk government to get any improvement. Surely the push for T5 had more to do with the desperate need to bulldoze T 1 2 which were so far past there sell by date. T 3 and 4 are fast approaching that and new frontage has done little to improve them.

[Ernest Lanc's]

DaveReidUK


Yes, I'm well aware of the trials.[...]It's those latter two measures which various proponents are lobbying for as a means of maximising the capacity of the existing runways, and permission to deploy them has most definitely not been granted.[...]Well not yet, anyway

"Well not yet, anyway" is the key here..The government have conceded the trials, they are in a corner.
It's either a third runway and being more flexible about runway utilisation, or Boris Island.

This government no way is going to sanction an expensive pie in the sky airport..So Heathrow IMO will be expanded..The only question is - When?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Really I know, most of pprune posters know and David Cameron knows that in the end, LHR will have to have it's third runway, or traffic will leach to the continent."

Indeed, even good old Silver knows it!

Quote: "Just my opinion..But LHR has been given permission to make the most of their two runways..How long before LHR gets it's third runway?.

No need to answer..the question is hypothetical..When the Tories are rid of the Liberals."

What happens if (when) the Commission recommends Heathrow expansion? Tories should be shot of the Libdems by then. With luck, we all will!


Quote: " "Well not yet, anyway" is the key here..The government have conceded the trials, they are in a corner.
It's either a third runway and being more flexible about runway utilisation, or Boris Island.

This government no way is going to sanction an expensive pie in the sky airport..So Heathrow IMO will be expanded..The only question is - When?"

It had to happen, they can't have it both ways. They blocked expansion, so something has to give. Pretty obvious really, but it isn't a proper remedy, just a short term panic measure.



Quote: "I fear it will require more than a change of Uk government to get any improvement. Surely the push for T5 had more to do with the desperate need to bulldoze T 1 2 which were so far past there sell by date. T 3 and 4 are fast approaching that and new frontage has done little to improve them. "

LHR-3 (1961) certainly, LHR-1 is newer (1969). LHR-2 (1955) was the oldest by a long way. LHR-4 (1986) still has some mileage left.

[ZOOKER]

Runway 3 at EGLL, (used mainly for small/medium vortex-wake categories) and runway 2 at EGKK. Both coming soon to an area near you.
Got to make sense really. Most of the surface infrastructure to support them is already there and the workforces are in place
Both achieved with relatively little re-structuring of the south-east's ATC system.

[Airlift21]

I originally put this over in the Gatwick thread, but I think it's probably equally/more relevant here.

From yesterday's (17th 0ct) London Evening Standard editorial re: Gatwick expansion,

"Indeed, a new hub in the east is looking increasingly attractive as a long term solution. The Mayor's favourite Thames Estuary option would create fewer problems for densely populated areas than expansion at Heathrow, for instance. It would also meet the gradual shifting of gravity in the capital eastwards, something that the completion of Crossrail will expedite."

Err?

Sounds very similar to the case set out by a certain PPRuNer! :ugh:

Maybe all the people moving east can swap places with the bird populations in the estuary? :}

Now, this isn't my opinion by any stretch, as I'm fully aware of the business case for 1 or 2 extra runways at Heathrow & maybe a 2nd at Gatwick in addition to that, but I reckon the government will actually only ever look at two options: Silver/Boris Island or Stanstead (That's for you Silver!)

Some politicians, also Boris mentioned it, still seem to be fixated on the idea that Stansted is well placed for future expansion. If ever there was a white elephant, it's over in Essex!

[silverstrata]

Airlift

Sounds very similar to the case set out by a certain PPRuNer!


Rumbled again. Look, stop reading every newspaper in the country....


.

[Dannyboy39]

As has been mentioned on here previously; look at the disaster in Montreal. Not saying London is the same because it isnt.

[Airlift21]

Silver,

"Rumbled again. Look, stop reading every newspaper in the country...."Ha Ha..... only if you stop reading the Daily Mail & The Guardian!

[ZOOKER]

Just checked the UK Bird Concentration Area maps in the NATS AIP.
In an estuarine environment like the Thames, I think Silver-Foster-Boris-Fantasy-Island, (floating or non-floating), would be hard to justify on safety grounds.

[silverstrata]

"Really I know, most of PPRuNe posters know and David Cameron knows that in the end, LHR will have to have it's third runway, or traffic will leach to the continent."



A sticking-plaster that will be past its sell-by-date within ten years.


.

[Ernest Lanc's]

A sticking-plaster that will be past its sell-by-date within ten years.

Boris Airport would still be in the planning stage in 10 years..Planning how to build an airport on stilts in silt also.

[Barling Magna]

Now this looks more sensible:

London-Southend Pier International Airport | Southend – Gateway to London (http://southendpierinternationalairport.wordpress.com/)

:)

[Fairdealfrank]

Ha ha this is great! Could we have one at Bournemouth (London West) as well? Funny how the graphic shown as the airport looks suspiciously like Chek Lap Kok (2 rwys)!

[Airlift21]

It would take more than an elongated seaside pier to make that connect to the mainland. Oh wait, they could use ferries! :}

[PAXboy]

Pity the runways are orientated NW/SE :ugh: Fortunately, by the time they've thought about it, the second illustration shows that the entire island is on a turntable and can be adjusted to face the wind. Certainly shows that they know what they're talking about. :hmm:

Not least, to make the plan happen, the entire pier would have to be rebuilt, probably as a sunken tube to get the rail lines and ... hang on a minute, silly me! :ooh: It's an April 1st but only seven months late. :}

[jabird]

@BBCTomEdwards

Howard Davies concedes his commission could be seen as time in the long grass.

And meanwhile, on BBC Thought for the Day, Davies confirmed that he is 100% sure that Pope Benedict is indeed a Catholic.

[On the beach]

The funny thing is that Chek Lap Kok is on an island in an estuary, which is reached by a bridge.

I know which airport I would rather have as my National hub airport. :ok:

Many a true vision seen in jest.

[Barling Magna]

....and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has just confirmed on the Today programme that Heathrow would remain open as "a perfectly viable 25 million passenger airport."

[jabird]

....and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has just confirmed on the Today programme that Heathrow would remain open as "a perfectly viable 25 million passenger airport."

And which 25m get the privilege of staying perchance, according to de Pfeffel?

[jabird]

Now this looks more sensible:

Sure - Southend Pier International Terminal?

Bring SP-IT on!

[PAXboy]

Boris and all the other Islanders should make a note of progess at Staverton (Gloucs): Not so silent wings: Tina Turner songs used to scare birds off the runway at Staverton airport - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/not-so-silent-wings-tina-turner-songs-used-to-scare-birds-off-the-runway-at-staverton-airport-8277125.html)

[Libertine Winno]

Lord no!

Imagine how loud she will have to be over 4 runways?! The roar of RR Trents will seem positively delightful in comparison!

[DaveReidUK]

Not so silent wings: Tina Turner songs used to scare birds off the runway at Staverton airport - Home News - UK - The Independent

Shake A Tail Feather - YouTube

Sorry, couldn't resist !

[On the beach]

At last a decent article on the new London Airport:

Boris is spot on when it comes to airports. Forget a third runway, London should move east – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100187520/boris-is-spot-on-when-it-comes-to-airports-forget-a-third-runway-london-should-move-east/)

Thank goodness someone in the press recognises the true problem and the only sensible solution.

[jabird]

Sorry, couldn't resist !

Take it she won't be asked to do same job at GLA? Simply Two-A-Breast?

I'll get my coat.

[PAXboy]

On the beachAt last a decent article on the new London Airport:Uummm, another article that says East is Best and all the money/investment goody, goody BUT no mention of how you compensate all the folks in the West who are impoverished by all the new wealth in the East.

Just how much would it cost to close LHR without option etc. etc. Until someone starts discussing that - we are nowhere. And please don't tell me that it can then be redeveloped to pay off the loans. That requires foresight, planning, cojones and an appetite for a 25 year project (Plan and build new / Close and redevelop old) the like of which no British govt has been able to do since 1945. Not going to happen.

Of course, the next committee of numpties is not going to come up with an answer either. because their job will be to 'advise' and then the next clump of ministers will look at the problem and do nothing.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "....and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has just confirmed on the Today programme that Heathrow would remain open as "a perfectly viable 25 million passenger airport."

Interesting that, isn't it! Looks like at least one of the vast army of functionaries at the Greater London Assembly has had a quiet word.

Perhaps he has been reminded that Heathrow cannot be closed. Perhaps he has had the implications of doing so (if it was possible) explained very clearly. Maybe both.

However, it is still a fantasy to imagine that 45 million pax would ever leave Heathrow for the estuary (or anywhere else in the UK).



Quote: "At last a decent article on the new London Airport:"

Are you sure about that?

Read the article, couldn't find any mention of how to persuade airlines and pax to leave Heathrow and move to a doubtless even more expensive (airport charges, etc.) airport.

No mention of who pays except a vague reference to "pension funds and sovereign wealth outfits". Would be deeply unhappy if my pension fund invested in this! Meanwhile China has just bought 10% of Heathrow's owner.....

Just the usual pie in the sky nonsense that we've all read before, not least on this thread.

[PAXboy]

Indeed, "pension funds and sovereign wealth outfits" want a nice, safe, investment with plenty of profits. Unless it was underwritten by the govt - it would be neither.

[ZOOKER]

Ah, Howard Davies. A total muffin who has lead a
very charmed existence. Hardly ever done a real day's work in his life.
He's just the man you need to sort this one out. :E

[Fairdealfrank]

Conspicuous by absence recently: hope Silver is OK!

[Ernest Lanc's]

Thank goodness someone in the press recognises the true problem and the only sensible solution.

And is he going to foot the enormous bill..Science Fiction.

[BALHR]

If you look at the maps of LHR, there is space for 2 full length runnways nearby, but the real problem is aircraft noise in the flightpath area, hence why I feel at a new airport (either by the thames or at the Aylesbury region) is the best solution

We have kicked the can for several decades, we cannot wait much longer

[DaveReidUK]

If you look at the maps of LHR, there is space for 2 full length runnways nearby, but the real problem is aircraft noise in the flightpath area, hence why I feel at a new airport (either by the thames or at the Aylesbury region) is the best solution

We have kicked the can for several decades, we cannot wait much longer

Gosh, the official British Airways position has changed all of a sudden !!

Alternatively, you might want to consider a different user name without the delusions of grandeur.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "If you look at the maps of LHR, there is space for 2 full length runnways nearby, but the real problem is aircraft noise in the flightpath area, hence why I feel at a new airport (either by the thames or at the Aylesbury region) is the best solution"

Aylesbury is much too far out! Let's face it, "London-Aylesbury" would get as much flak and derision as "London-Oxford" (Kidlington).

No need to mention the Thames again.

Quote: "We have kicked the can for several decades, we cannot wait much longer"

Agreed, that's why it has to be LHR expansion: it can be done relatively quickly, the infrastructure is in place, the hub is already established.

[jabird]

Ah, Howard Davies. A total muffin who has lead a
very charmed existence. Hardly ever done a real day's work in his life.
He's just the man you need to sort this one out.


What makes you say that? Just because he has been appointed by the government does not mean he is either clueless or work shy. I happen to know someone who has worked for him, and I can assure you, he is neither.

Having listened to Lord Adonis on Tuesday, I think the kicking the can is the only option, because opposition to R3 was part of the coalition document.

The point he made was that if we'd got a Tory govt outright, they could have overturned more manifesto pledges, but there were certain things they have to stick to, because that was what was agreed with the Lib Dems.

[jabird]

Alternatively, you might want to consider a different user name without the delusions of grandeur.

Well Silver is certainly not short of the odd delusion or two, maybe he's taken a break, then realised Fantasy Island is a non runner and come back in a new guise? Just make sure Windsorian isn't posting at the same time ;) :mad:

[BALHR]

Sorry, I have nothing to do with BA (or Sliver)

Anyway, my point is I prefer expansion to Heathrow, but if it cannot be done poltically, then the only choice is to build a new one in an area that has a small population density yet as good transport links

A location by the thames or lets say Bucks, Bedfordshire etc can work as long as LHR (and other airports) are shut down as long as there are decent transport links

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Having listened to Lord Adonis on Tuesday, I think the kicking the can is the only option, because opposition to R3 was part of the coalition document.

The point he made was that if we'd got a Tory govt outright, they could have overturned more manifesto pledges, but there were certain things they have to stick to, because that was what was agreed with the Lib Dems."

Dave needs to show some leadership here and prove that he has a backbone, in the national interest, of course.

He holds all the cards. Say he breaks this particular item of the coalition agreement, what are the Libdems going to do? Walk out?

Even if they did, Dave is more than capable of running a minority government. Neither Labour nor the Libdems would bring it down: neither wants an early election.

Unfortunately Dave is scared of his own party's Eurosceptic wing so won't risk upsetting the Libdems. This is why it often appears that the Libdem tail is wagging the Conservative dog.



Quote: "Well Silver is certainly not short of the odd delusion or two, maybe he's taken a break, then realised Fantasy Island is a non runner and come back in a new guise? Just make sure Windsorian isn't posting at the same time"

Silver and Windsorian are the same person, completely convinced now that jabird has picked up on it!

If it's delusional on this thread, it's Silver, if it's delusional on the Heathrow thread, it's Windsorian.

By the way, where is Silver.......

[BALHR]

If a new airport by the Thames is built, then this is how it will be funded (if I was deciding this):

A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)

It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government

When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project

As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)

As for if it will be profitable, well if we were looking for the most profitable solution, then we would be expanding our airports ASAP, but we cannot, because of all the political related s**t and the fact there has been no proper planning and co-ordination for London (and the South East) regions aviation infrastructure, in other words, if you want to see some returns on a new Thames Airport project, it will be in the long-term

Plus a new airport will be a massive boost for the economy, since it will create jobs and improve our airport capacity (however this project can only be done if the government cannot have the balls to approve a 3rd, 4th and maybe even 5th and 6th runway at LHR)

[BALHR]

If we are going to make Heathrow work effectively (and work for the UK as a whole), its needs a 3rd and 4th runway and those 4 runways must be able to work simultaneously, only then will it be able to cope with the demands of the UK economy, in return (to please local residents) LHR should put further restrictions on nosier and older aircraft

This will allow over 1 million flight movements and expand LHR maximum capacity to around 150 million passengers a year. If work started shortly after 2015, then it can be finished in the early 2020s

Remember, if LHR expands it will free up space at LGW, because all the Non-LCC/Charter traffic will want to move to LHR, starting with BA and VS, this in turn means that LCCs and Charter carriers can move services from Luton and Stansted (because there are higher yields at LGW), which in turn frees up space at those airports. Overall a bigger Heathrow will benefit all of London’s airports

That’s if it can ever be done (my prospects are very low on that regard…)

[Fairdealfrank]

quote: "If a new airport by the Thames is built, then this is how it will be funded (if I was deciding this):

A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)

It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government

When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project

As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)

As for if it will be profitable, well if we were looking for the most profitable solution, then we would be expanding our airports ASAP, but we cannot, because of all the political related s**t and the fact there has been no proper planning and co-ordination for London (and the South East) regions aviation infrastructure, in other words, if you want to see some returns on a new Thames Airport project, it will be in the long-term

Plus a new airport will be a massive boost for the economy, since it will create jobs and improve our airport capacity (however this project can only be done if the government cannot have the balls to approve a 3rd, 4th and maybe even 5th and 6th runway at LHR)"

Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me, apologies if this sounds negative. You appear to suggesting a massive nationalisation/public ownership programme. No political party capable of being in government favours such a course of action.

Who would buy these bonds? Can the government, at present, afford to pay 4% and put up 40%? What if interest rates rise (in the long term they can hardly fall)? How will 4% look if interest rates are higher?

Why would the government be inclined to do all this when the private sector will finance Heathrow expansion?

Quote: "If we are going to make Heathrow work effectively (and work for the UK as a whole), its needs a 3rd and 4th runway and those 4 runways must be able to work simultaneously, only then will it be able to cope with the demands of the UK economy, in return (to please local residents) LHR should put further restrictions on nosier and older aircraft"

A 4-rwy LHR would need to be on segregated mode: two rwys for takeoffs, two rwys for landings, using alternation with a changeover daily at 1500 to allow some quiet for those under the flightpath. Those with quiet in the morning, would have quiet in the afternoon the next day and vice versa and so on.

Quote: "This will allow over 1 million flight movements and expand LHR maximum capacity to around 150 million passengers a year. If work started shortly after 2015, then it can be finished in the early 2020s"

It doesn't take this long to construct two rwys.

Remember, if LHR expands it will free up space at LGW, because all the Non-LCC/Charter traffic will want to move to LHR, starting with BA and VS, this in turn means that LCCs and Charter carriers can move services from Luton and Stansted (because there are higher yields at LGW), which in turn frees up space at those airports. Overall a bigger Heathrow will benefit all of London’s airports"

Indeed, expanding hub capacity at LHR frees up point-to-point capacity at LGW with inturn frees up point-to-point capacity at other airports.

To quote Delboy Trotter: "Everyone's a winner, you know it makes sense".

[onyxcrowle]

Where could a theoretical fourth runway be built ?.
And isn't there an issue that if you had four runways operating then with the increase in traffic over central London plus London city , is there not a point where airspace capacity in the region is reached ?.
It keeps me in mind of that BBC docudrama back in 2003 " The day Britain stopped" , It dramatized the events after a meltdown of the transport network and the effects on over worked Atc .
Perhaps now is the time to review ALL of the British airports and how they can be used to help with easing capacity.

[PAXboy]

onyxcrowle You have read all of this thread and the linked pages to new suggestions, haven't you?

What about the thread about Heathrow expansion and all it's linked pages?

See you in a day or two.

[Skipness One Echo]

A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)
First up, welcome to pprune! Secondly, interesting username choice, might not be the best choice (!) Maybe selecting something less contentious, to make it clear you are not speaking on behalf of the company?

As to the point, each of these private companies has a market value that would need to me matched should a purchase be necessary. The government has no business hoovering up private business in a free market, and even if they did, we sure as He(ck) don't have the money to do that!

[BALHR]

Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me, apologies if this sounds negative. You appear to suggesting a massive nationalisation/public ownership programme. No political party capable of being in government favours such a course of action.

Who would buy these bonds? Can the government, at present, afford to pay 4% and put up 40%? What if interest rates rise (in the long term they can hardly fall)? How will 4% look if interest rates are higher?

Why would the government be inclined to do all this when the private sector will finance Heathrow expansion?Well that can be done in the way they did with "Railtrack" in which it was a nationalization in all but name for a start, which we also did with 2 of our biggest banks, also you have to remember that we still have airports that are owned by government authorities in this country (remember most European states and even the USA have state owned airports).

Also the government is effectively interfering in the running of our "private" airports by the actions they have done (like they do with the railways)

As for who would buy those bonds, well it could be savers (who suffering from the fact we have a low base rate) and maybe investors (if they are the sort who invest in long term projects)

Remember, the 4% figure I have given is a example, the final one will depend on many factors (I based it on the rate the government borrows)

As for if the government can afford the 40%, well they could, but only if they changed the way they run things (tax evasion and aviodance for a start, maybe issuing WW2-style "war" bonds to the general public)

Lastly, I am only suggesting taking this course of action, if they cannot find the political will to expand LHR

A 4-rwy LHR would need to be on segregated mode: two rwys for takeoffs, two rwys for landings, using alternation with a changeover daily at 1500 to allow some quiet for those under the flightpath. Those with quiet in the morning, would have quiet in the afternoon the next day and vice versa and so on.The trouble is that 4 runways is the bare minimum to cope with both current traffic and allow for growth, we need to make the most of our runways (in return for further limitations of noisy aircraft) and thus meaning allowing all to be used simultaneously, now if we get the political will to allow a 5th and 6th runways (there is space without knocking down too many homes) then it might be possible to allow some slack

It doesn't take this long to construct two rwys.Its not just the runways though, you also need to build more terminals to cope with the extra traffic and those take around 5 years to build

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Well that can be done in the way they did with "Railtrack" in which it was a nationalization in all but name for a start, which we also did with 2 of our biggest banks, also you have to remember that we still have airports that are owned by government authorities in this country (remember most European states and even the USA have state owned airports).”

It had to be done for Railtrack because of the stupid arrangements for rail privatisation (which, incidentally requires more government subsidy than the old British Rail). It had to be done for the banks, because they went “belly up”. It does not have to be done for airports.

Agree that privately owned airports is unusual, maybe unique, but both Conservative and Labour governments are wedded to this policy.

Quote: “Also the government is effectively interfering in the running of our "private" airports by the actions they have done (like they do with the railways)”

Agreed.

Quote: “Its not just the runways though, you also need to build more terminals to cope with the extra traffic and those take around 5 years to build”

In the long term, maybe, but at present, terminal capacity is not an issue. Today, it is the lack of rwy capacity that is critical.

[Skipness One Echo]

Well that can be done in the way they did with "Railtrack" in which it was a nationalization in all but name for a start, which we also did with 2 of our biggest banks, also you have to remember that we still have airports that are owned by government authorities in this country (remember most European states and even the USA have state owned airports).

Railtrack was a catastrophe and the banks crisis threw the whole economy into crisis, Airport strategy is most certainly not a national crisis where we need to throw what little money we have left at something. One thing about a lot of public airports in the US, I am thinking of Newark in particular, is they are quite poor by global standards. You really think the public sector can run airports better than the private sector?

The measures you are randomly throwing out there are emergency last ditch measures and not appropriate in this case. Read the thread(!)

[BALHR]

It had to be done for Railtrack because of the stupid arrangements for rail privatisation (which, incidentally requires more government subsidy than the old British Rail). It had to be done for the banks, because they went “belly up”. It does not have to be done for airports.


I am only suggesting it to be done as part of the plan to build a Thames Hub Airport if the government still refuses to allow the expansion of LHR

[BALHR]

Railtrack was a catastrophe and the banks crisis threw the whole economy into crisis, Airport strategy is most certainly not a national crisis where we need to throw what little money we have left at something. One thing about a lot of public airports in the US, I am thinking of Newark in particular, is they are quite poor by global standards. You really think the public sector can run airports better than the private sector?

The measures you are randomly throwing out there are emergency last ditch measures and not appropriate in this case. Read the thread(!)

I am not saying I favour state-owned airports, I was suggesting how a Thames Hub Airport should be built IF expansion of LHR is not allowed and remains the case

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Railtrack was a catastrophe and the banks crisis threw the whole economy into crisis, Airport strategy is most certainly not a national crisis where we need to throw what little money we have left at something. One thing about a lot of public airports in the US, I am thinking of Newark in particular, is they are quite poor by global standards. You really think the public sector can run airports better than the private sector?

The measures you are randomly throwing out there are emergency last ditch measures and not appropriate in this case. Read the thread(!)"

Regretably much of American infrastructure is crumbling, much of its population appears to be particularly averse to paying any taxes. You get what you pay for.

The USA is not a good example of airport public ownership, airports in some parts of Asia make better examples of well run publicly owned airports.

Then again, many countries have publicly owned but privately run airports, either on a concession, franchise or contract basis. There are many options.

Luckily nobody's suggested a PFI or PPP arrangement for Boris's folly!

[BALHR]

Regretably much of American infrastructure is crumbling, much of its population appears to be particularly averse to paying any taxes. You get what you pay for.

The USA is not a good example of airport public ownership, airports in some parts of Asia make better examples of well run publicly owned airports.

Then again, many countries have publicly owned but privately run airports, either on a concession, franchise or contract basis. There are many options.

Luckily nobody's suggested a PFI or PPP arrangement for Boris's folly!


Sorry, I used the USA as a example, because they are a nation that has few examples of State-Ownership

As for why much of American infrastructure is crumbling, its is because the GOP-Led Congress cannot agree on matters like those with the Democrat controled White House

I also agree that PFI/PPP was a massive mistake that needs to be fixed

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Sorry, I used the USA as a example, because they are a nation that has few examples of State-Ownership

As for why much of American infrastructure is crumbling, its is because the GOP-Led Congress cannot agree on matters like those with the Democrat controled White House

I also agree that PFI/PPP was a massive mistake that needs to be fixed"

Exactly right, and it's been going on for years. The Americans rightly refer to it as "gridlock".

[silverstrata]

B.A.

A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)

It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government.



Sorry, not going to happen.

Firstly, the S.E. will need to retain point-to-point airports. Thus LGW and STN will need to stay, to provide for the Low-Standards airlines and their desperate travelers. There is no point clogging up a world-class hub with harp logos, and these carriers would not want to go there anyway. Too expensive and too crowded for locos (20 minute turnaround at LHR anyone?).

As to the issue of bonds, if you set a fixed rate for the bond this simply becomes a government bond, wholly backed by the government with very little connection to the airport. And while general returns on investments are low at present, making 4% attractive, would you really want to trust your money to a European government in the present climate? I don't think many big players will, they will prefer property or overseas investments over the UK government. And if you do attract big money for this project, are you not simply extracting money from the economy and reducing economic activity in other sectors?


In the current climate, the only really way of financing such a large project, is through Quantitive Easing. The government has already printed some £300 billion, which could easily have funded Silver-Boris airport six times over. Instead, they gave the money to banksters, so they could continue paying each other fat bonuses. So when large industrial corporations get into financial trouble, often through sheer incompetence, the government sticks two fingers up at them. But when the banks get into trouble, often through sheer greed and incompetence, they get bailed out and given a bonus. It sounds very much like the USSR's failed economic model.

Did anyone here feel any benefit from all this largesse to the City of London? No. Alternatively, had this money been spent more wisely, we could already have had - a new London airport; a new nationwide TGV network; three new regional airports; four new shipping ports; and some money left over for scientific R&D. What would have been better for the economy and the people, eh? What would have provided more jobs and more economic activity, and made the UK a better place to live in - creating a first-class travel infrastructure for the UK, or another fat bonus for an incompetent bankster?

.

However, the money-printing-pill has not worked, and the BofE's finger is still hovering over the Q.E. button. If this new tranche of funding - say £50 billion of new money - were used for a new Silver-Boris airport, the entire project could be funded in a trice. And the economic result would be much better for the economy than giving more money to failed fat-cats who will have no incentive to mend their profligate ways if they are simply rewarded for failure.

And who pays for Q.E.? UK citizens do, of course, through increased inflation. But at least that 'tax' is fair and even across the board. You cannot evade inflation if you live and work in the UK, by hiding money in tax havens (or even by buying other currencies). Inflation always comes back to bite you, whether you are buying a tin of beans or a Rolls Royce.



B.A.

As for why much of American infrastructure is crumbling, its is because the GOP-Led Congress cannot agree on matters like those with the Democrat controled White House



Would have to disagree with you there. The rot set into the US long before the current administration.

If you look around the US there are some fine city centers, and then there are other areas in the sticks that would not look out of place in rural Africa. And some of the general transport infrastructure is woeful. There is a huge backlog of rail and road bridges that were cheaply built in the 30s and 40s and need replacing, and it is not getting done - and that is just one small example of infrastructure rot, out of many.

If you compare US transport infrastructure to European equivalents (not the UK, because much of that is dire too), there is no comparison. European surface transport is in a different century to the US. Same goes for housing too. Americans still live in houses made of sticks, and then they complain bitterly when a hurricane or tornado blows it away. Gads, even the Three Little Pigs knew that they should build houses out of brick (or concrete, as in the Med countries).



http://www.bluecoat.gloucs.sch.uk/articles/images/uploads/large/157-120312101103-by-emily.jpg





And this is a serious matter for the UK and for the USA. I was in the USSR in the early 1990s, as the Wall came down. And it was quite apparent that the USSR failed because they let their infrastructure rot. Nothing had been built or repaired since the Revolution. Can you imagine a vast nation (in the 1990s) without any motorways, trains that could barely do 50kph, Victorian dockyards, military bases that looked like junkyards, no real banks (it was basically a cash economy), completely empty shops (an indication of how bad industry and agriculture were), and a capital city with barely a single functioning restaurant. Can you imagine the chaos? In Moscow, the best restaurant in town was the new McDonalds - Moscovite aristocrats used to dress up in their finest furs and book a table to go to the McDonalds (they had never seen such large portions, such exquisitely presented food, and such clean premises). For a Westerner, this was a real sight to behold.

That, dear leaders in Westminster, is what happens to a country when you ignore its infrastructure and spend every last penny on social security and welfare issues. Oh, yes, social spending works for a while and it probably gets you reelected, because everyone likes free goods and less work, but then the nation collapses under a blanket of inactivity. It took the USSR some 70 years to totally disintegrate, and run out of functioning infrastructure. In many respects, the USA and the UK are not that far behind.

As the old joke goes: "Liberal-Socialist governments are the best in the world, until they run out of other people's money." Just ask Blair and Brown...





.

[Fairdealfrank]

Welcome back Silver, it was worth the wait!

[BALHR]

Firstly, the S.E. will need to retain point-to-point airports. Thus LGW and STN will need to stay, to provide for the Low-Standards airlines and their desperate travelers. There is no point clogging up a world-class hub with harp logos, and these carriers would not want to go there anyway. Too expensive and too crowded for locos (20 minute turnaround at LHR anyone?).


Look the only way we can legally make airlines to use the Thames Hub airport (THA) is to close all other airports in the area, if we just close LHR, then BA and others would spend huge amounts of money buying up slots at LGW (because it is more conveniant to use that airport than the THA), if you close both LHR and LGW, then the same will happen, only it will be both Luton and Stansted

Hence why the THA would be a white elephant even if only some of Londons other airports would remain open

If Ryanair refuse to use the THA, then they will shoot themselves in the foot by locking themselves out of the London + SE market, however I am sure Easyjet (who use serve CDG for example) and other LCCs would use this airport

Also I don't think 6 runways are enough (you would need 8, most of all when you are dealing with all of Londons air traffic) and Looking the at project itself, £50 Billion is not enough consiering the size and the need for decent transport links for this airport (you would need several HSRs for a start)

As to the issue of bonds, if you set a fixed rate for the bond this simply becomes a government bond, wholly backed by the government with very little connection to the airport. And while general returns on investments are low at present, making 4% attractive, would you really want to trust your money to a European government in the present climate? I don't think many big players will, they will prefer property or overseas investments over the UK government. And if you do attract big money for this project, are you not simply extracting money from the economy and reducing economic activity in other sectors?

In the current climate, the only really way of financing such a large project, is through Quantitive Easing. The government has already printed some £300 billion, which could easily have funded Silver-Boris airport six times over. Instead, they gave the money to banksters, so they could continue paying each other fat bonuses. So when large industrial corporations get into financial trouble, often through sheer incompetence, the government sticks two fingers up at them. But when the banks get into trouble, often through sheer greed and incompetence, they get bailed out and given a bonus. It sounds very much like the USSR's failed economic model.

Did anyone here feel any benefit from all this largesse to the City of London? No. Alternatively, had this money been spent more wisely, we could already have had - a new London airport; a new nationwide TGV network; three new regional airports; four new shipping ports; and some money left over for scientific R&D. What would have been better for the economy and the people, eh? What would have provided more jobs and more economic activity, and made the UK a better place to live in - creating a first-class travel infrastructure for the UK, or another fat bonus for an incompetent bankster?


For a start the bonds are aimed at the gerneral public, who have spent the last 4+ years getting dismal returns from their savings account, Also you have to take account many people and business are putting their money "under the bed" in other words they are not spending the money because they have little confindence in the economy, that money could be used to kick start the economy of this country (and help it recover and grow again)

I agree on the fact that out economic and poltical systems are not working for the people of Britain and that the only way we can solve it is by radical reform

However, The government has not printed enough money to fund 6 Silver-Boris airports, but rather 2

Personally, I am rather unsure of funding a project on printing money, but I don’t think it is a bad idea to fund the whole project with £100+ Billion woth of QE, because unlike their previous attempts, it will be a great help to the UK economy

Plus due to the fact there is no poltical will to expand the current set of Londons Airports, this is pretty much the only way to expand out airport capacity

[DaveReidUK]

Look the only way we can legally make airlines to use the Thames Hub airport (THA) is to close all other airports in the area, if we just close LHR, then BA and others would spend huge amounts of money buying up slots at LGW (because it is more conveniant to use that airport than the THA), if you close both LHR and LGW, then the same will happen, only it will be both Luton and Stansted

Hence why the THA would be a white elephant even if only some of Londons other airports would remain open

That's absolute nonsense. Do you really think the other London airports have the capacity to absorb more than a small proportion of Heathrow's traffic (even assuming that carriers such as BA would want to move flights from a hub to a non-hub) ?

Also I don't think 6 runways are enough (you would need 8, most of all when you are dealing with all of Londons air traffic)

That's predicated on your previous assertion, and is therefore nonsense too.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Look the only way we can legally make airlines to use the Thames Hub airport (THA) is to close all other airports in the area, if we just close LHR, then
BA

There is no such code as (THA)...Making an imaginary code won't make a pie in the sky airport any the more realistic.

Who is going to close all the London Airports?..Boris?..He has no veto, so he is out of the equation.
The government has all but said LHR (a proper code) will be expanded, just the Liberals temporarily holding them back.

There is no airport going to be built in/on a river, for a start it would be to expensive, another reason, it would not attract investers who would never see a return for their money.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "There is no such code as (THA)...Making an imaginary code won't make a pie in the sky airport any the more realistic."

Quite right Ernest! So think WHE (white elephant) is more suitable.

Quote: "Who is going to close all the London Airports?..Boris?..He has no veto, so he is out of the equation."

Indeed, the airports of the southeast cannot "be closed", without their owners' consent. This fact by itself makes the Thames airport unviable.

Quote: "The government has all but said LHR (a proper code) will be expanded, just the Liberals temporarily holding them back."

Regretably, Call-Me-Dave won't face the Libdems down. A shame as it would interesting to see Clegg wriggle out of that one in his desperation to keep his snout in the trough.

Quote: "There is no airport going to be built in/on a river, for a start it would be to expensive, another reason, it would not attract investers who would never see a return for their money."

Exactly, airlines and pax won't use it either. If they can't use LHR, they'll be off to AMS, CDG and FRA, etc., as will the inward investment, tourism, business and trade.

Ernest, you made me fall off my seat ..... a rare bit of practical common sense in a thread of fantasy!

[Heathrow Harry]

"Indeed, the airports of the southeast cannot "be closed", without their owners' consent."

The English statute book does not go back 900 years for nothing

For a start the Govt can change the rules on noise at LHR say 40dB max, then they can close the roads and railway links, they can pull the Immigration & Customs service and security. They can pass a law allowing hundreds or thousands of old claims for "Noise injuries"

They can make the area a military flying zone requiring 24 hours notice of entrance

easiest would be to allow a big tax break for converting the whole place into a housing estate ...................... BAA would close it in 24 hours............

[DaveReidUK]

Not so sure about the coercive measures, which couldn't realistically be imposed on Heathrow without equally applying them to LGW, STN, etc, for fear of the Government otherwise being dragged through the courts.

But it's entirely conceivable that BAA could be made an offer that they couldn't refuse. :O

[BALHR]

That's absolute nonsense. Do you really think the other London airports have the capacity to absorb more than a small proportion of Heathrow's traffic (even assuming that carriers such as BA would want to move flights from a hub to a non-hub) ?


It depends on what you define as "London Airports", what I am suggesting is that airlines like Easyjet would sell their slots to BA for example and that would lead to a lot of airline moves around Londons Airports

My point is that we would have to close a fair number of airports if a THA (which should only be done only if we cannot expand LHR)

There is no such code as (THA)...Making an imaginary code won't make a pie in the sky airport any the more realistic.


It is not a imaginary code, it is short for "Thames Hub Airport"


Who is going to close all the London Airports?..Boris?..He has no veto, so he is out of the equation.


This is how it could be done:

A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)

It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government

When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project

As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)



The government has all but said LHR (a proper code) will be expanded, just the Liberals temporarily holding them back.


If only if it was that simple, I agree that LHR can be expands to take on another 2 runnways, the question is that is there enough poltical will to do that (from both Tories and Lib Dems) and what would Labour do if they get back in government


There is no airport going to be built in/on a river, for a start it would be to expensive, another reason, it would not attract investers who would never see a return for their money.


I agree it will be very, very expensive (likely to be the most expensive airport project of all time), but it will mainly be funded by government and the general public (mainly savers) or even (as Silver suggested) though QE

I also accept that there would be little (if any) return on a THA project, but the question should be "how would it benefit the UK?"


Quite right Ernest! So think WHE (white elephant) is more suitable.


In the event of it being built, then it will depend on what this airport would be called, for example if it is called London Medway Airport, then it could be LME or LMA for example


Indeed, the airports of the southeast cannot "be closed", without their owners' consent. This fact by itself makes the Thames airport unviable.


Well I have suggested that some government body take control of Londons Main Airports as part of the THA project and thus solving that problem

Exactly, airlines and pax won't use it either. If they can't use LHR, they'll be off to AMS, CDG and FRA, etc., as will the inward investment, tourism, business and trade.


Well its depends on if the fees of using the airport are reasonable and if the transport links are good (and if you close all of londons other airports), if you get those right and you build a decent world-class airport, then it is likely to work

But this should only be done if LHR cannot be expanded due to a lack of poltical will

[Ernest Lanc's]

This is how it could be done:

A new arms length-state owned company (London Airport Limited) would buy Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick, City, Southend, Luton, Southend, Manson, Biggin Hill, Ashford and Cambridge Airports (and nearby hotels, offices and other airport related facilities)

It will issue long term bonds to the general public and other institutions (at a rate of lets say 4%) that will fund 60% of the overall cost, the rest coming from government

When this new airport opens, the other airports will either shut down or become general aviation airports (which can be done in a way that Biggin Hill has already done) and thus the land can be sold (and thus the revenue from the sales can go towards funding the project

As for if airlines will move to this airport, well since there will no longer be any Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted etc, then they will have to use this airport if they want to serve London, also the fees for using this new airport will be the same as Heathrow (or even less to attract more traffic)
Forget that to issue bonds on such a scale, and the rest of the cost from the public purse, would allow the opposition of the day to have a field day, over excessive public borrowing on a project that could not even be costed, due to the unique design.
Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted and Luton etal, could soon scupper any such plans.
Rather than wait to become super housing estates, or even more bizzare GA airports..I suggest they would suspend all activity, not allowing a/c to take off or land..
See how long a government would last without any aviation in London. yes the airports would fight back, and Boris and David et al. would have to start using the chunnel.

[ZOOKER]

You'll also need an ICAO Location Indicator for ATC purposes. Now, let's see..

EGTA Thames Airport? No, that's Aylesbury/Thame.
EGWE White Elephant? No, that's Henlow.
EGNF Norman Foster? Sorry, Nether Thorpe.
EGSS Silverstrata? No chance. :E
How about EGSF then...Silver-Foster? That's Peterborough/Connington.
Well, how about EGBI Boris Island. Nope EGB' designators usually apply to airfields near Birmingham. Well, why not build it there then?...And you could have this fast new railway line, and no-one would care if a big part of Birmingham was demolished and the motorways, (managed), are already there and there's this clear Toll Road and The NEC and, and....

[Skipness One Echo]

Well I have suggested that some government body take control of Londons Main Airports as part of the THA project and thus solving that problem

Do you mean ownership? Buying out all shareholders?
Or do you mean proper strategic of the asset with ownership being listed but with control denying management accountability to shareholders?
Or do you mean public ownership? Can you put a sum on cost of nationalising?

Your years of research must surely have covered the basics on this? Please be more clear and be laser focussed on which of the options above you will be recommending to HM Govt.

"Thus solving that problem"
Next up, Israel v Palestine and others, don't dare touch that dial!

[Heathrow Harry]

no - just pass one of those old English laws - an Act of Attainder - and scoop the lot up for the Crown without payment and hang the Directors from the nearest gallows

[PAXboy]

If you change that to 'hang the politicians that ignored the problem for the last three decades AND sold off EGLL' - you might get a fair bit of support!

[silverstrata]

BA

Look the only way we can legally make airlines to use the Thames Hub airport (THA) is to close all other airports in the area, if we just close LHR, then BA and others would spend huge amounts of money buying up slots at LGW (because it is more conveniant to use that airport than the THA).




Bollo.

You are not a pilot are you - certainly not one who has been into LGW regularly. Hek, man, you cannot get a sheet of paper between the inbounds and outbounds at LGW sometimes. The REAL B.A. setting up shop in LGW?? Not in a million years sonny, LGW would be their worst nightmare.


There is no airpoert in the world that could take all the trafic of the London basin, and nor would any sensibe airport want to. The international hubbers want one thing, and the loco point-to-pointers want something completely different. So let's keep them separate.

And mark my words, if Silver-Boris was being constructed, and LHR had been earmarked as a technology park, B.A. and all the other majors would be gleefully making plans to relocate to the Thames. In reality, LHR is the old grandma at the teenagers party - nice and cuddly and everyone is still fond of her, but everyone also knows that she is completly out of touch with the modern world, way past her sell-by date, and frankly a bit of a pain in the arse.


.

[Skipness One Echo]

You are not a pilot are you - certainly not one who has been into LGW regularly. Hek, man, you cannot get a sheet of paper between the inbounds and outbounds at LGW sometimes.
Bollocks as ever, outwith peak times there are more than a few gaps. Even in peak summer the airport is clearly half empty at times, I have arrrived many times into a deserted South Terminal. It's not narly as capacity constricted as you make out.
And mark my words, if Silver-Boris was being constructed, and LHR had been earmarked as a technology park, B.A. and all the other majors would be gleefully making plans to relocate to the Thames.
Only by being forcibly evicted at substantial cost as you well know. Keep taking the Kool Aid. BA have stated repeatedly they have no interest in your fantasy.
Let's list the commercial supporters :
1) Nobody
2) Nobody else
3) Disregard this and keep dreaming...------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “"Indeed, the airports of the southeast cannot "be closed", without their owners' consent."

The English statute book does not go back 900 years for nothing

For a start the Govt can change the rules on noise at LHR say 40dB max, then they can close the roads and railway links, they can pull the Immigration & Customs service and security. They can pass a law allowing hundreds or thousands of old claims for "Noise injuries"

They can make the area a military flying zone requiring 24 hours notice of entrance

easiest would be to allow a big tax break for converting the whole place into a housing estate ...................... BAA would close it in 24 hours.........…”

Yes of course this is all theoretically possible, especially on this fantasy thread, but do you really think that in the real world, this course of action would be taken?


　
Have to say that this thread is very entertaining, surpassing itself with expert opinion on ancient Enlish law statutes, a return of hanging for directors and/or politicians, imaginary airport codes, etc.. Listen to yourselves!

Best of all is the idea of putting a housing estate in place of Heathrow to house all the workers whose jobs have gone off to the estuary. Brilliant!


Would also not bet my last pound on all the Heathrow traffic going off to the estuary in the event of its closure, suspect that much of it would drift off to Europe as would much of inward investment and business opportunities.

"Old grandma at the teenagers party" or not, don't write off Heathrow just yet, reports of its impending demise could be very premature indeed. If we're using old women as illustrations in this thread, Heathrow could have the longevity of the former Queen Mother.

[silverstrata]

Best of all is the idea of putting a housing estate in place of Heathrow to house all the workers whose jobs have gone off to the estuary. Brilliant!



More like to house the 5 million people that Labour let into the country. Or do you think they are all living in trees on Welsh mountains? Only the morons at Labour could endorse wholesale immigration, and not make any plans to house them.


.

[silverstrata]

Skip

Bollocks as ever, outwith peak times there are more than a few gaps.



You think B.A. will agree to only fly outside peak hours, when they 'relocate to LGW' ?? I think you are more out of touch with aviation than we thought.

B.A. want unrestricted access to a big airport with plenty of interlining capacity to European destinations, and only Silver-Boris can provide that.

But perhaps one of the reasons why B.A. are so fearful of the move, is that they have bolstered their accounts and share price with the value of LHR slots. Which is legalised false accounting taken to its extreme (but served Michael Bishop very well, as the Germans believed him). If you strip out the 'asset price' attributed to LHR slots, B.A. will make stupendous losses for a couple of years and their share price will drop like a stone. B.A. is currently searching behind the company sofa for every last penny to fund a slow and painful fleet renewal of their decrepit fleet, and suddenly several hundred million £ will be wiped off their asset base. Could a move to Silver-Boris invite bankruptcy? Is this what B.A. is worried about??


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "B.A. want unrestricted access to a big airport with plenty of interlining capacity to European destinations, and only Silver-Boris can provide that."

No, Madrid-Barajas and Amsterdam-Schiphol could too, as could an expanded Heathrow. Madrid would also provide no competition for BA from a similar-sized carrier sharing it as hub (Iberia is owned by the same company), nor would an expanded Heathrow.

Not for second suggesting that any course of action apart from staying put at Heathrow is reasonable for BA.

Also not convinced that bankruptcy is an issue here, what would probably concern them more would be the loss of business if they upped-sticks to an estuary airport.

[Skipness One Echo]

In 48 pages of this thread, there's about 2-3 pages and then we go round and round again. Not sure there's anything new of substance that can be said at this point.

[BALHR]

Forget that to issue bonds on such a scale, and the rest of the cost from the public purse, would allow the opposition of the day to have a field day, over excessive public borrowing on a project that could not even be costed, due to the unique design.

The government could afford their share of this project, the could fix the "leaking" tax system and remember, the UKs national debt is not that bad in the current climate (76%) and we have the 2nd lowest borrowing rates, even if the current government payed for 100% with borrowed money, it would at most add 4% to that figure

Remember the Government of Japan has a very high level debt, in fact it is enough to to almost bankrupt the nation, but they manage with the fact they borrow from the general public (which is what I am suggesting), now I am not suggesting we should have a national debt of nearly 200%, but we can fund a THA project and if it was done it would create jobs and improve our connections to overseas (and our transport infrastructure)

Of course they could prevent all of this by saying "yes" to R3 and R4 at LHR

Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted and Luton etal, could soon scupper any such plans.

Not if they are all owned by the same government owned company that is also developing the THA project

Rather than wait to become super housing estates, or even more bizzare GA airports..I suggest they would suspend all activity, not allowing a/c to take off or land..

See how long a government would last without any aviation in London. yes the airports would fight back, and Boris and David et al. would have to start using the chunnel.

What happens to Heathrow and other airports is up to the people who end up owning the closed down airports, but what they cannot do is operate them as airports serving commercial traffic

As for you other idea, for that act of "protest" it would be a massive undertaking and do you mean airports in London + SE or the whole country?

Do you mean ownership? Buying out all shareholders?

Or do you mean proper strategic of the asset with ownership being listed but with control denying management accountability to shareholders?

Or do you mean public ownership? Can you put a sum on cost of nationalising?

Your years of research must surely have covered the basics on this? Please be more clear and be l@ser focussed on which of the options above you will be recommending to HM Govt.

What I am calling for HM Government to set up a company called "London Airports Limited" (LAL) it will be a arms length company in the style of Network Rail, only it will be classed at a private company that is 100% owned by the DFT

They will purchase the following companies

Heathrow Airport Limited

Gatwick Airport Limited

London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (The Government can transfer the freehold from the local council to LAL)

Stansted Airport Limited

London Southend Airport Company Ltd

London City Airport Ltd.

Its may also purchase surrounding hotels and offices of those airports

Ferrovial sold a stake of 20% of BAA (now HAH) for nearly £900 million airport, now taking account of the fact they own other airport, making HAH worth £4.5 billion, LHR takes account of lets say 75% of HAH overall traffic, so the starting bid for LAL for LHR is £3.5 Billion

Gatwick was sold by BAA for around £1.5 Billion, which is more or less the current value is it today, so the starting bid for LAL for LHR is £1.6 Billion

The bid for Stansted (as be circulated is around) £1 Billion

Luton is roughly the same size as STN and can serve as much as that airport, so I would put the same value as STN, so around £1billion as well

City was sold in 2006 for £750 million, so the starting bid for LAL for City is £800 million

Overall LAL would have to spend around £7 Billion minimum to buy those airports and remember this is just a estimate based on the information I could find in the public domain and it also depends on how much airport operators want to play hardball as well

You are not a pilot are you - certainly not one who has been into LGW regularly. Hek, man, you cannot get a sheet of paper between the inbounds and outbounds at LGW sometimes. The REAL B.A. setting up shop in LGW?? Not in a million years sonny, LGW would be their worst nightmare.


I have never suggested that I was one, but I have used LGW a fair number of times, its is not that much of a great airport, but it is not as bad as LHR (though that might change), the only reason LHR trumps LGW is that it is placed at a better location, after that comes LGW and then LTN/STN in that list, BA is reluctant to leave LHR and it might as well locate to LGW since that is in a better location than THA in terms of access, if you close that airport then they would move to LTN/STN, remember it is all about location...

That is why BA are based at LHR, not because how good it is, but is location

There is no airpoert in the world that could take all the trafic of the London basin, and nor would any sensibe airport want to. The international hubbers want one thing, and the loco point-to-pointers want something completely different. So let's keep them separate.

Not currently but ATL is being upgraded so that it could cope with the combined demand for London's Airports, also Al Maktoum International Airport is being built to not only cope with that combined demand, but even more, so we can build a airport that would cope with that demand for sure, also there are many airports worldwide that can cope with both full-service and LCC traffic, we cannot make THA viable if there are airports that are in a better location still operating in the region

And mark my words, if Silver-Boris was being constructed, and LHR had been earmarked as a technology park, B.A. and all the other majors would be gleefully making plans to relocate to the Thames

BA and other major airlines don't want to leave LHR, but that would change if they can see that expansion at that airport would not be possible and if they want to serve London, then THA is the only choice

The same goes for LCCs at LGW, STN, LTN and Southend

[DaveReidUK]

Article on the BBC website about a submission to the Davies commission by a former economic advisor to Boris:

BBC News - Kent island airport 'best solution' to meet flight demand (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20499416)

It includes the intriguing suggestion that "a key element of the scheme is that the airport terminal would be at Ebbsfleet railway station", which presumably doesn't actually mean that, unless we're talking about the world's longest airbridges ...

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “The government could afford their share of this project, the could fix the "leaking" tax system and remember, the UKs national debt is not that bad in the current climate (76%) and we have the 2nd lowest borrowing rates, even if the current government payed for 100% with borrowed money, it would at most add 4% to that figure.”

What "share of this project"? Why would the government, even if had the resources of a sovereign wealth fund, or another equivelant, spend money on airports when it clearly believes this sector to be strictly part of the private sector?

In the current circumstances how could it be justified as a sensible use of taxpayers’ money?

Surely under a free market system as favoured by Labour and the Conservatives, and required by the single European market, the role of the government is not to obstruct airport expansion where the free market requires it.

Quote: “Remember the Government of Japan has a very high level debt, in fact it is enough to to almost bankrupt the nation, but they manage with the fact they borrow from the general public (which is what I am suggesting), now I am not suggesting we should have a national debt of nearly 200%, but we can fund a THA project and if it was done it would create jobs and improve our connections to overseas (and our transport infrastructure)

Japan has a system of publicly owned airports, the UK does not. Is Japan a role model to follow in this case?

Quote: “Of course they could prevent all of this by saying "yes" to R3 and R4 at LHR”

They could prevent this anyway, and almost certainly will, whether or not they approve a third rwy and/or fourth rwy at Heathrow.


Quote: “What I am calling for HM Government to set up a company called "London Airports Limited" (LAL) it will be a arms length company in the style of Network Rail, only it will be classed at a private company that is 100% owned by the DFT

They will purchase the following companies

Heathrow Airport Limited

Gatwick Airport Limited

London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (The Government can transfer the freehold from the local council to LAL)

Stansted Airport Limited

London Southend Airport Company Ltd

London City Airport Ltd.


Its may also purchase surrounding hotels and offices of those airports”

Yes, very good, but you fail to explain any reasons why the government would follow this course of action. What does it achieve? How much higher would APD, or taxes in general, have to be to pay for it all?

Quote: “Gatwick was sold by BAA for around £1.5 Billion, which is more or less the current value is it today, so the starting bid for LAL for LHR is £1.6 Billion

So LHR is only worth £0.1 billion more than LGW? You’re having a laugh!

How much over their market value would have to pay to the airport owners in order to bribe them to give up their role in the aviation industry?

Think of the compensation for BAA and others for the future profits they would be losing.

Wouldn’t it just be much easier for Call-Me-Dave to grow a backbone and a pair and allow LHR expansion?

Quote: “That is why BA are based at LHR, not because how good it is, but is location

Nonsense, BA is at LHR because its always been there and the same applies to its predecessors BOAC and BEA (apart from BEA’s move from NHT to LHR in 1953). Why waste money moving for no good reason? When BA‘s predecessors consolidated at LHR there was nowhere else to go.



Quote: “It includes the intriguing suggestion that "a key element of the scheme is that the airport terminal would be at Ebbsfleet railway station", which presumably doesn't actually mean that, unless we're talking about the world's longest airbridges …”

Yes, more nonsense.

[Ernest Lanc's]

The government could afford their share of this project, the could fix the
"leaking" tax system and remember, the UKs national debt is not that bad in the
current climate (76%) and we have the 2nd lowest borrowing rates, even if the
current government payed for 100% with borrowed money, it would at most add 4%
to that figure

The "leaking" tax system should be fixed anyway, and there are far better used for the cash, than a 'pie in the water' scheme'.
Rather than lend this cash for Boris Island, they may as well have a public owned island airport..The cost would be about the same.


Remember the Government of Japan has a very high level debt, in fact it is
enough to to almost bankrupt the nation, but they manage with the fact they
borrow from the general public (which is what I am suggesting),

It's not on in the UK, the rates of interest would have to be high, as the risk of such a scheme, would attract such high rates, or nobody would invest.
Look: In the end this project is unfundable, unless we turn the clock back, and have state owned infrastructure..Expanding LHR, even if that meant compensation some, would be a much cheaper and feasible venture, as the infrastructure is already there.

If the governed game the go ahead for BFA, which would take eons to build..What would happen at LHR, it would mean the Uk's primary airport and only hub, winding down, who knows what consequences that would bring..The airport would be to coin a phrase, be a "dead duck" airport.

[silverstrata]

.


The Sunday Times reports on a new proposal for a Thames Airport. This new design is by Douglas Oakervee, the engineer who oversaw the planning and construction of Chek Lap Kok airport in Hong Kong, and he says that his Thames airport design could be built in the same time that a third runway for LHR could be built.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1167666.ece
(May be behind a paywall)

However, since Oakervee still has his airport pointing east-west, this will have to be revised. The prevailing wind in England is southwesterly, and this orientation will also prevent overflights of London during easterly landings (one of the main reasons for building the Thames airport.) The resulting SW-NE airport layout will henceforth be known as the Silver-Oakervee Airport.

.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The Sunday Times reports on a new proposal for a Thames Airport. This new design is by Douglas Oakervee, the engineer who oversaw the planning and construction of Chek Lap Kok airport in Hong Kong, and he says that his Thames airport design could be built in the same time that a third runway for LHR could be built.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1167666.ece (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1167666.ece)
(May be behind a paywall)

However, since Oakervee still has his airport pointing east-west, this will have to be revised. The prevailing wind in England is southwesterly, and this orientation will also prevent overflights of London during easterly landings (one of the main reasons for building the Thames airport.) The resulting SW-NE airport layout will henceforth be known as the Silver-Oakervee Airport."



Yawn....................really bored now!

[BALHR]

What "share of this project"? Why would the government, even if had the resources of a sovereign wealth fund, or another equivelant, spend money on airports when it clearly believes this sector to be strictly part of the private sector?

In the current circumstances how could it be justified as a sensible use of taxpayers’ money?

Surely under a free market system as favoured by Labour and the Conservatives, and required by the single European market, the role of the government is not to obstruct airport expansion where the free market requires it.

The "share" of the budget that will come from the government will have to be decided by them themselves, it might be 100% or it might be less, we would have to see, the government could afford to fund the project without too much strain on its finances

If this airport was built, then it would create jobs in terms of building this airport it would improve connections overseas to the UK, due to the fact there would be space for additional flights

So there would be quite a big benefit if it was built, but it only should be done if they refuse to expand LHR (which would cost them nothing), the Tories are being hypocrites in relation to this, they support the free-market and private enterprise, yet their interference in the running of London's Airports is of such a extent that they might as well own the airports

I'm surprised BAA/HAH is even bothering to continue owning-running LHR due to the hindrances the governments puts towards the airport

Japan has a system of publicly owned airports, the UK does not. Is Japan a role model to follow in this case?


Many "free-market" nations have state owned airports, as are most airports in the "regions" over here, remember it is the governments fault that London's Airports are in such a mess, considering that they failed to plan for the development of London's aviation infrastructure Post-WW2 when they where in charge of those airports and the fact they are stopping expansion and thus hindering the running and operation of the now privately-owned airports to a great extent

So really it is up to the government to either allow the expansion of LHR or deal with it itself with THA

They could prevent this anyway, and almost certainly will, whether or not they approve a third rwy and/or fourth rwy at Heathrow.


They wish they could, in fact that is what they promised in 2010, but since then the pressure from businesses, airlines, their backers and even their own supporters/MPs is such that they cannot do nothing, that is why they have launched the commission in relation to this

But the trouble is that the pressure is not big enough to make a final decision now, what happens to LHR and other airports depends on who wins the election in 2015, if Labour win they are pretty much give the go head for expansion, they have nothing to lose politically doing that (the area around LHR, LGW etc is not exactly full of Labour supporters)

Yes, very good, but you fail to explain any reasons why the government would follow this course of action. What does it achieve? How much higher would APD, or taxes in general, have to be to pay for it all?


They would have to this to make sure a THA can happen, otherwise it would just down the drain or you would have difficulties with the owners of those airports, this would only happen of course if they cannot find the potlical will to expand LHR

If I was running things, I would not increase APD (it is already too high and needs to come down), it would come from tax reclaimed from evaders and avoiders and maybe some tax rises like on income/corporation etc

So LHR is only worth £0.1 billion more than LGW? You’re having a laugh!

How much over their market value would have to pay to the airport owners in order to bribe them to give up their role in the aviation industry?

Think of the compensation for BAA and others for the future profits they would be losing.

Wouldn’t it just be much easier for Call-Me-Dave to grow a backbone and a pair and allow LHR expansion?

Sorry I meant LGW was worth £1.6 Billion and LHR £3.5 billion, that £7 Billion figure does not include GA airports that would have to be bought as well (along with SOU) so that they cannot compete with THA in London + SE

Remember the final figure would depend on what the surveyor's values those airports and how much the owners want to play hardball, but it is likely to be a fair bit higher

Hence it would be easier to just allow expansion of LHR, trouble is that they have not the political will to do so and that is unlikely to change, so LHR future would be decided what Labour would do once they get into power, they are more likely to approve the project however

Nonsense, BA is at LHR because its always been there and the same applies to its predecessors BOAC and BEA (apart from BEA’s move from NHT to LHR in 1953). Why waste money moving for no good reason? When BA‘s predecessors consolidated at LHR there was nowhere else to go.


Because it is in the best location out of all of London's Airports, hence they are not going to leave unless if it is shut down, If Croydon was still around and they where allowed to expand/upgrade it to today's standard, then BA and other airlines would be based there

If LHR was never built and Croydon was shut, then BA (and its predecessors) would have moved to Gatwick and would have a large presence there even before they bought BCal

[BALHR]

The "leaking" tax system should be fixed anyway, and there are far better used for the cash, than a 'pie in the water' scheme'.
Rather than lend this cash for Boris Island, they may as well have a public owned island airport..The cost would be about the same.

I am suggesting that the airport should be public owned in the style of Network Rail

It would also be mostly funded by the government as well, the rest coming from bonds to the general public or QE

It's not on in the UK, the rates of interest would have to be high, as the risk of such a scheme, would attract such high rates, or nobody would invest.
Look: In the end this project is unfundable, unless we turn the clock back, and have state owned infrastructure..Expanding LHR, even if that meant compensation some, would be a much cheaper and feasible venture, as the infrastructure is already there.

If the governed game the go ahead for BFA, which would take eons to build..What would happen at LHR, it would mean the Uk's primary airport and only hub, winding down, who knows what consequences that would bring..The airport would be to coin a phrase, be a "dead duck" airport.

The bonds are aimed at savers in this country, but most or even all of the funding will come from the government, private investors would not be funding this airport

Look, I am not suggesting that LHR should close now, I feel that it should be expanded to at least 4 (and later 6) runways and upgraded (which could be done by the mid-2020s), once it has 6 runways and if it is still not adequate to cope with demand, then we should build a 8-10 runway THA (which would be finished in the 2030s) and close other airports in London when THA opens

But if the government cannot find the political will to expand LHR, then we would have to bring forward the THA project

This would mean the closure of LHR and other airports in the region, this will be a gradual process lasting 1-2 years, it would mean that employees would have to move and I suggest that LAL would buy the homes of those employees (depending on various factors) and sell them to housing associations to ease the burden on relocating

However in is place would be a "new" hub airport, once that can cope with all of London aviation demands and some more, once which would be among the worlds best, and it is called London Livingstone-Johnson Airport (as I would call it) or as it is currently known THA (or whatever other users call it)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "However in is place would be a "new" hub airport, once that can cope with all of London aviation demands and some more, once which would be among the worlds best, and it is called London Livingstone-Johnson Airport (as I would call it) or as it is currently known THA (or whatever other users call it)"

It certainly wouldn't be called "Livingstone-Johnson". If this fantasy airport ever opens, those two individuals will be long forgotten, and twenty or so mayors will have been and gone (unless that office gets scrapped).

You know it's called SILVER ISLAND!

[Ernest Lanc's]

I am suggesting that the airport should be public owned in the style of
Network Rail

It would also be mostly funded by the government as well,
the rest coming from bonds to the general public or QE


OK - Funded by the government = more borrowing.

Bonds from the general public, is that not another way of borrowing?.

QE - Printing money, not a bad idea if you are like me sick of your savings attracting little interest..as inflation will creep in and interest rates will creep up, for savers also.

But take the three combined,,We will be in hock for centuries and inflation will hit the roof, because a project like Boris Island will cost billions, and original estimates like the two aircraft carriers will always keep being revised upwards.
There a thought, use the carriers in conjunction with LHR, that would be cheap:).


The bonds are aimed at savers in this country,

Another way of borrowing, and at what rate of interest?.


But if the government cannot find the political will to expand LHR, then we
would have to bring forward the THA project

The government will have to find the political will to expand LHR..

1) How long to get the THA on and off the drawing board?.
2) How much will it cost?
3) How long before it is built, IMO with the combination of these three factors, it will be no use building a HUB, the business will have been long gone to mainland Europe.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The government will have to find the political will to expand LHR.."

Agreed, Ernest, and to do it now.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Agreed, Ernest, and to do it now.

It will happen FDF..Question is when?..Most of the cabinet IMO (bar Liberals) are in favour. Problem is in the LHR area where the 3rf/4th runway(s) would be constructed, MPs of all persuasions would object.
Just a matter of time before David Cameron has to act, or London will suffer..
That's the problem with the Boris Island Airport, would take to long to plan/finance and then construct.

[BALHR]

It certainly wouldn't be called "Livingstone-Johnson". If this fantasy airport ever opens, those two individuals will be long forgotten, and twenty or so mayors will have been and gone (unless that office gets scrapped).

You know it's called SILVER ISLAND!

If built, THA would be built in the mid-2020s, by then (the office of the Mayor is not going to scraped, otherwise it would be 1986 all over again) there would have been at most 2 mayors since then

I also strongly doubt that Ken + Boris would have been forgotten by then, Livingstone has been around for the past 40 years (and has done a lot of good for London) and has spend most of that time annoying both the Tories and Labour, Boris would also be remembered, for all the wrong reasons

Also I only added his name so that it would not look poltically bias and THA should not be named after a stage name of a internet forum user


OK - Funded by the government = more borrowing.

Bonds from the general public, is that not another way of borrowing?.

QE - Printing money, not a bad idea if you are like me sick of your savings attracting little interest..as inflation will creep in and interest rates will creep up, for savers also.

But take the three combined,,We will be in hock for centuries and inflation will hit the roof, because a project like Boris Island will cost billions, and original estimates like the two aircraft carriers will always keep being revised upwards.
There a thought, use the carriers in conjunction with LHR, that would be cheaphttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif.



The BofE has done £300 Billion worth of QE and that has had little impact on both economic growth and inflation, since THA would at most cost £200 Billion, I doubt if it would have major impact on inflation, certainly not as much as lets say a attack on Iran

As for borrowing it, if the Government funded the project 100% with borrowing, the most it would add would be 10%, which would leave us with less debt in proportion to GDP than Italy, Belgium, Canada and even Germany

Plus when you factor in the the fact a lot of that new debt would be held within the UK, it would not make too much of a impact

By the way, I am with you in terms of savings


Another way of borrowing, and at what rate of interest?.



It would depend on many factors, but I suggested 4%, which is the same as Government Bonds

The government will have to find the political will to expand LHR..

1) How long to get the THA on and off the drawing board?.
2) How much will it cost?
3) How long before it is built, IMO with the combination of these three factors, it will be no use building a HUB, the business will have been long gone to mainland Europe.

Yes, but remember we are dealing with a 21st century version with Major, add to that they are in government with the Lib Dems and the Tories cannot afford to lose any more seats that what they have, I cannot see them finding the poltical will

We would have to wait and see if Labour win with a big enough majority to cope with the fallout from approval, remember they have not got a hope in hell in winning those seats near the airports

As for how long it is going to take, if they fast track it and have enough resources (like in the case of HKIA), then I could see it being built in 10 years, hence it would open in the mid-2020s, until then we should allow mixed-mode and raise the threshold in how many slots BA can own to manage until THA opens

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “It will happen FDF..Question is when?..Most of the cabinet IMO (bar Liberals) are in favour. Problem is in the LHR area where the 3rf/4th runway(s) would be constructed, MPs of all persuasions would object.
Just a matter of time before David Cameron has to act, or London will suffer..”

Think you’re right Ernest, Labour and Conservative MPs are beginning to develop a sense of reality. The Libdems are against any and all airport expansion just for the sake of it.

The third rwy already has a location mapped out, a fourth could go between the third and the existing 10L/27R, extending on to open land west of the M25.




Quote: “If built, THA would be built in the mid-2020s, by then (the office of the Mayor is not going to scraped, otherwise it would be 1986 all over again) there would have been at most 2 mayors since then”

Never say never, the office of mayor, the toothless assembly, and all the hangers-on is a very expensive form of local government. When people get fed up with the endless rate rises and nothing to show for it, who knows?
Why would the airport be named after a mayor anyway? It’s nothing to do with the mayor, not in their remit, not in their jurisdiction.

Quote: “As for how long it is going to take, if they fast track it and have enough resources (like in the case of HKIA), then I could see it being built in 10 years, hence it would open in the mid-2020s, until then we should allow mixed-mode and raise the threshold in how many slots BA can own to manage until THA opens”

No chance, it's not like HKG. If anything is fast tracked it will be LHR (eventually).

Mixed mode is not the answer. While it could provide, at most, 10% more slots, it will not address the congestion and delays.

If flight path residents lose their daily half-day of quiet because of mixed mode, do you not think that there would be some objections from residents and anti airports groups and massive political fallout?

Do you really think that politicians that run scared of approving LHR expansion would agree to this?

Think it through, please.

[DaveReidUK]

Mixed mode is not the answer. While it could provide, at most, 10% more slots, it will not address the congestion and delays.

Yes, the consensus appears to be that mixed mode on the existing runways would provide around 60,000 additional ATMs pa, which works out at about a 12% increase on current capacity.

And you are correct in that it would make little, if any, difference to delays or resilience.

Of course you could also argue that R3, too, would only have a limited, short-term effect on congestion, given what we're told is the scale of currently constrained demand for slots, and that traffic would grow in due course back to 99% of available capacity if allowed to.

Incidentally, R3 is planned to operate permanently in mixed mode from the outset, serving both T6 arrivals and departures.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Incidentally, R3 is planned to operate permanently in mixed mode from the outset, serving both T6 arrivals and departures."

Yes, it would have to, until such time as a fourth rwy was built. AFAIK, they estimate 702,000 annual movements with 3 rwys, that's a fairly significant extra 222,000. Whether it's enough in the long term is anyone's guess, if not, start planning the 4th rwy now.

[jabird]

Sorry everyone, it's been a couple of weeks so I'm going back to mid Nov:

It keeps me in mind of that BBC docudrama back in 2003 " The day Britain stopped" , It dramatized the events after a meltdown of the transport network and the effects on over worked Atc .

One of the most ridiculous, overblown, scaremongering fantasy programmes I have ever watched. IIRC, the whole crash was based on an arriving and departing aircraft colliding with each other. Now that might have happened in India in the mid 90s, but LHR just doesn't do things that way, period.


Well that can be done in the way they did with "Railtrack" in which it was a nationalization in all but name for a start, which we also did with 2 of our biggest banks,


Sure - let's use the examples of Failed & Failed Co to teach success for airport building!

Luckily nobody's suggested a PFI or PPP arrangement for Boris's folly!

That's only because the mandarins haven't been asked to do so yet, because it is just Boris' folly and the DfT know it is a non starter. TfL are more likely to back Brum than this fantasy island, especially as Brum isn't in their patch, and it boosts the case for HS2.

we could already have had - a new London airport; a new nationwide TGV network; three new regional airports; four new shipping ports; and some money left over for scientific R&D.

Where is the case for 3 regional airports? Which regional airports are currently full to bursting?

If Ryanair refuse to use the THA, then they will shoot themselves in the foot by locking themselves out of the London + SE market

Only if the market is already locked by closing it to competition between rival airport operators.

I am sure Easyjet (who use serve CDG for example) and other LCCs would use this airport

In many cases, the tatty older terminals (MAD) or low cost remote fingers (AMS). Even when they are "in" with the majors, they will still have negotiated a rate they are happy with. No chance of that happening at FBI airport - just as it hardly happens at LHR at the moment.

The resulting SW-NE airport layout will henceforth be known as the Silver-Oakervee Airport.


Will you attend the naming ceremony when it opens?
For now, I'm sticking with FBI - Fantasy Boris Island, and about as intelligent as the "other" FBI.

[BALHR]

Never say never, the office of mayor, the toothless assembly, and all the hangers-on is a very expensive form of local government. When people get fed up with the endless rate rises and nothing to show for it, who knows?
Why would the airport be named after a mayor anyway? It’s nothing to do with the mayor, not in their remit, not in their jurisdiction.

I am not saying “never” but the GLA and the mayor is a rather good form of government for London, the only problems with it is that they don’t have enough tax raising powers, need to expand the area that they govern and have powers transferred from Westminster and local boroughs

There is a lot to show that the GLA has done since 2000 (most of all in transport) and if they don’t like it then they should stop electing that posh idiot time and time again

The reason I suggested the last 2 mayors is because they are well known for that they did for London, if we are to name airports, then name them after local people

Also what “rates” are you talking about (council tax or transport fares?)


No chance, it's not like HKG. If anything is fast tracked it will be LHR (eventually).

Mixed mode is not the answer. While it could provide, at most, 10% more slots, it will not address the congestion and delays.

If flight path residents lose their daily half-day of quiet because of mixed mode, do you not think that there would be some objections from residents and anti airports groups and massive political fallout?

Do you really think that politicians that run scared of approving LHR expansion would agree to this?

Think it through, please.

The government could fast track any project, but only if they want do; THA does not face the same problems that an expansion to LHR faces in terms of its impact to local residents, so the government loses nothing politically if they approve THA, in fact with the benefits economically, they might help them
With that in mind, they could approve “mixed-mode” as a stop gap while telling residents that it would not past for too long and soon they would no longer suffer any aircraft noise


Yes, the consensus appears to be that mixed mode on the existing runways would provide around 60,000 additional ATMs pa, which works out at about a 12% increase on current capacity.

And you are correct in that it would make little, if any, difference to delays or resilience.

Of course you could also argue that R3, too, would only have a limited, short-term effect on congestion, given what we're told is the scale of currently constrained demand for slots, and that traffic would grow in due course back to 99% of available capacity if allowed to.

We need to deal with constrained demand now and the only way we can deal that right now is Mixed Mode, however for the medium term we need to build both R3 and R4 sooner rather than later and around the same time

Yes, it would have to, until such time as a fourth rwy was built. AFAIK, they estimate 702,000 annual movements with 3 rwys, that's a fairly significant extra 222,000. Whether it's enough in the long term is anyone's guess, if not, start planning the 4th rwy now.

Doe’s that figure include the 60,000 that would come from mixed mode from the current 2 runway?

I personally feel BAA/HAH need to start seriously considering adding a 4th runway to their expansion plans, maybe even build it at the same time as R3, 4 runnways at LHR would push number of annual movements to around 1,000,000 if they are all used for mixed mode

I think that would be enough for London’s needs for the next few decades, what happens after that, who knows?

Sure - let's use the examples of Failed & Failed Co to teach success for airport building!

Those are the most recent examples of state nationalisations, frankly due to the governments interfering in expansion; they might as well run London’s Airports
Remember, we learn from past mistakes…
That's only because the mandarins haven't been asked to do so yet, because it is just Boris' folly and the DfT know it is a non starter. TfL are more likely to back Brum than this fantasy island, especially as Brum isn't in their patch, and it boosts the case for HS2.

Well if Dave refuses to expand LHR and businesses and airlines are screaming for expansion and the fact this economy badly needs it, then THA would end up being the only choice

Only if the market is already locked by closing it to competition between rival airport operators.

Under my plan, LAL is aiming to buy all airports and airfields (both general and civil) within the counties of Greater London, Essex, Hertfordshire, Suffolk, Cambridge, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Dorset, Surrey, Kent, Sussex and Wiltshire, it would also take ownership of all RAF bases within those counties and lease it back to the RAF (on the condition they forbid all commercial flying out of those bases)

It would be interesting to see how Ryanair what airport would use to serve London, if they use Birmingham for example, then their customers would have to a lot of money just to get to that so called “cheap” flight

I don’t think MOL is stupid enough to lose his entire London customer base, if he wants to keep those customers and for the benefit of his business, he would base its London base at THA if it was built

In many cases, the tatty older terminals (MAD) or low cost remote fingers (AMS). Even when they are "in" with the majors, they will still have negotiated a rate they are happy with. No chance of that happening at FBI airport - just as it hardly happens at LHR at the moment.

Well under my plans, LBL would charge the same rate for all airlines, like I said, If Easyjet is prepared to shoot themselves in the foot by handing their London + South East customer base to other airlines than its up to them
So if they have business sense, I expect them to be there at THA if it is built, if not then I either their customers use BA (or other airlines) or Jeststar/Vueling UK (if BA use the opportunity to try a second attempt to set up a LCC)
Will you attend the naming ceremony when it opens?
For now, I'm sticking with FBI - Fantasy Boris Island, and about as intelligent as the "other" FBI

For a start this idea was not the idea of Boris Johnson in the first place, it has been for decades and thus should not be named after him, secondly it is not a Fantasy in the tradition of the Grimm Brothers, nobody is disputing that it is impossible to be built, the question is should it be built in the first place
We should not give a particular name for this airport (for reasons of neutrality) until it is built (like Silver…), until then we should call it THA or Thames Hub Airport
When it does open, I have changed my mind on the matter and I feel it should be called “London Ken Livingstone Airport”

[DaveReidUK]

Does that figure include the 60,000 that would come from mixed mode from the current 2 runway?

No, you are confusing two different things here.

a) R3 is added, it operates in mixed mode, and the two original runways continue to operate in segregated mode. That's where the 702K (480K+222K) ATM figure comes from.

b) No R3, and the two current runways operate in mixed mode. That's 540K (480K+60K) ATMs

There are no feasible scenarios that envisage all 3 runways operating in mixed mode.

4 runways at LHR would push number of annual movements to around 1,000,000 if they are all used for mixed mode

Not possible. See above.

[jabird]

Well the great Bearded One referred to it as "an airport in the Docklands" yesterday - clearly showing just how clued up about, and therefore interested in it, he is!

[BALHR]

There are no feasible scenarios that envisage all 3 runways operating in mixed mode.

Not possible. See above.

Why not?

[jabird]

Jeststar

Jestar? Sounds like the joke of a post made above!

You really think Easy and Ryan would just keel over and accept the conversion of London from one of the most diverse airport markets in the world into a single behemoth of a monopoly?

Then, even if it did happen, you don't think they'd bargain hard for the best rates, or at least demand a low cost terminal like in KUL, SIN etc?

[DaveReidUK]

Why not?

Why not what ?

Are you saying that you have seen scenarios (other than your own) showing 3 LHR runways all operating simultaneously in mixed mode ?

If so, please tell us where.

I don't pretend to be an ATM expert, but NATS are and if they say it's not possible (which they do) then I'm perfectly happy to take their word for it.

[BALHR]

Why not what ?

Are you saying that you have seen scenarios (other than your own) showing 3 LHR runways all operating simultaneously in mixed mode?

If so, please tell us where.

I don't pretend to be an ATM expert, but NATS are and if they say it's not possible (which they do) then

I'm perfectly happy to take their word for it.

I was only asking since I am not expert on ATC...

If it comes from NATS, then I would take their world for it

Do you know how many movements are feasible from 4 runnways at LHR?

Jestar? Sounds like the joke of a post made above!

You really think Easy and Ryan would just keel over and accept the conversion of London from one of the most diverse airport markets in the world into a single behemoth of a monopoly?

Then, even if it did happen, you don't think they'd bargain hard for the best rates, or at least demand a low cost terminal like in KUL, SIN
etc?

Sorry, I meant to write "Jetstar" (Qantas's LCC), as for you other point, well I don't think they would accept the closure of LTN/STN/LGW lightly and they can play hardball all they like, but they will not get any special treatment and unless they want to shoot themselves in the foot by leaving the South East then they would have to use THA without speical condtions apart from relocation costs

Easyjet (as far as I know) did not complain about a similar then Berlin has done...

[DaveReidUK]

Do you know how many movements are feasible from 4 runways at LHR?

No, none of the various 4-runway scenarios that I've seen have included any attempt to model the number of movements that would be feasible. :O

[Skipness One Echo]

Under my plan, LAL is aiming to buy all airports and airfields (both general and civil) within the counties of Greater London, Essex, Hertfordshire, Suffolk, Cambridge, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Dorset, Surrey, Kent, Sussex and Wiltshire, it would also take ownership of all RAF bases within those counties and lease it back to the RAF (on the condition they forbid all commercial flying out of those bases)
This is an unafforadble fantasy for reasons that have already been explained to you. There is no such thing as LAL, it exists only in your mind. Unless you are planning on s**tting gold bricks to fund this, it's a pipe dream.

[jabird]

Easyjet (as far as I know) did not complain about a similar then Berlin has done...

Depends on your definition of complain. I don't think ANY of the airlines are happy about the delays at BBI!

Berlin is also a unique geographical and historical quirk, where 3 separate airports were used when one would have done nicely. Berlin is only going to be a minor local hub for Lufty. I'm pretty sure MOL has said he'd prefer to stay in the old SXF terminal, can anyone verify?

Both THF (was) and TXL (is) are on land deemed by the planners as both valuable for redevelopment and which was extremely sensitive in terms of noise.

Now you could argue that applies to LHR, some locals would say ditto for LCY, although a/c there are much quieter, and there are a lot less movements. It certainly does not apply to LGW or STN and most definitely does not apply to LTN.

You still haven't answered exactly how you would enact legislation to make all this happen. We're back with the same old record Silver has been playing to us for months. It would be the politicians who would be shooting themselves in the foot, not the airlines.

Finally, let's say you did get your way, and FBI was built. If Easyjet were offered exactly the same terms as BA, they'd quite possibly just take their business elsewhere. Ryanair certainly would. This would boil down to a simple question of business logic. FBI might deliver them loads of passengers, but if the PSC is so high that they can't turn a profit, it doesn't matter.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “I am not saying “never” but the GLA and the mayor is a rather good form of government for London, the only problems with it is that they don’t have enough tax raising powers, need to expand the area that they govern and have powers transferred from Westminster and local boroughs

There is a lot to show that the GLA has done since 2000 (most of all in transport) and if they don’t like it then they should stop electing that posh idiot time and time again”

No it is not a good form of government: damned expensive for residents, bureaucratic and remote, and it encourages "personality" politics over substance.

If you think that they’ve done a good job in transport, then just a bog standard passenger transport executive should suffice.

The mayor and assembly could easily be scrapped, and for the same reason as the former Greater London Council. It is too large to be an effective unit of local government, but being so large, it can challenge and irritate central government.

Livingstone did this with Thatcher and later with Blair, and Johnson is doing it with Cameron.

It‘s exactly the same at the devolution level. Why is there no English Parliament? because it would be large enough to give Westminster a hard time".

Quote: “The reason I suggested the last 2 mayors is because they are well known for that they did for London, if we are to name airports, then name them after local people”

We should not be naming airports after people, it makes more sense to name them according to their geographical location.

Quote: “With that in mind, they could approve “mixed-mode” as a stop gap while telling residents that it would not past for too long and soon they would no longer suffer any aircraft noise”

It isn’t going to happen! There will be no permanent mixed mode on the existing Heathrow rwys. If opposition to a third rwy scares politicians, do you really think that they would dare to bring in permanent mixed mode?

It could be mooted of course, but only as a threat to make more rwys look the better option (which it is).

Quote: “When it does open, I have changed my mind on the matter and I feel it should be called “London Ken Livingstone Airport”


Why?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Easyjet (as far as I know) did not complain about a similar then Berlin has done... "

What "Berlin has done" is to put a second rwy and a new terminal at one of its airports, renamed it, and shut the other two. At least that was the plan.

It is nothing like the London situation where a brand new airport may be built, but probably won't be built, in the middle of nowhere.

[BALHR]

This is an unafforadble fantasy for reasons that have already been explained to you. There is no such thing as LAL, it exists only in your mind. Unless you are planning on s**tting gold bricks to fund this, it's a pipe dream.


Firstly, remember I made it clear what I wrote is what I would do if I was running government policy in relation to aviation (where I had to find a way to expand airport capacity in the South East and LHR was not a option)

Also LAL (or London Airports Limited) is part of a proposal to make THA possible

First the term “fantasy” is used to describe things that are not technically or physically possible (like teleporting); THA does not into that category, projects like this have been done before (on a smaller scale however) and we have built airports the size of what I think is needed for THA to cope with London’s air traffic

I would also disagree on the matter if THA being “unaffordable”, while a bill for £100-200 Billion is a massive amount of money; it is not impossible for the Government/LAL though money from the budget, bond aimed at the general public or even Q.E (of which the BoE has done enough currently to fund THA and some unrelated projects on the side)

If we borrowed the amount of money that would take to build THA, worse case it would add the equitant of 10% of GDP to the national debt (which would still be less than most other developed nations, bar a few) and remember it would create a lot of jobs though building the airport and from better connections to new markets and for our airlines to be able to expand

The question we should all be asking is do we need to spend a lot of money to build THA, I would say not if we can expand and upgrade LHR, but if we can’t, then we don’t have much of a choice


Depends on your definition of complain. I don't think ANY of the airlines are happy about the delays at BBI!

Berlin is also a unique geographical and historical quirk, where 3 separate airports were used when one would have done nicely. Berlin is only going to be a minor local hub for Lufty. I'm pretty sure MOL has said he'd prefer to stay in the old SXF terminal, can anyone verify?

Both THF (was) and TXL (is) are on land deemed by the planners as both valuable for redevelopment and which was extremely sensitive in terms of noise.

Now you could argue that applies to LHR, some locals would say ditto for LCY, although a/c there are much quieter, and there are a lot less movements. It certainly does not apply to LGW or STN and most definitely does not apply to LTN.

You still haven't answered exactly how you would enact legislation to make all this happen. We're back with the same old record Silver has been playing to us for months. It would be the politicians who would be shooting themselves in the foot, not the airlines.

Finally, let's say you did get your way, and FBI was built. If Easyjet were offered exactly the same terms as BA, they'd quite possibly just take their business elsewhere. Ryanair certainly would. This would boil down to a simple question of business logic. FBI might deliver them loads of passengers, but if the PSC is so high that they can't turn a profit, it doesn't matter.


What I mean to say was that no airline is against the closure of TXL enough to pull out completely, even if MOL/FR was against the closure of the former SXT terminal, they have no plans to pull out/reduce ops and seem to be content to use the new BBI terminal (unless he wants to share the terminal with the German Government fleet, with all the high security that will bring)

Also I would prefer to call the planned Lufthansa/Germanwings base as a “focus city”

Getting back to London, its not just LHR and LCY that face problems with noise, but LGW, LTN, STN and even Southend (before they upgraded the airport), so really the government simply has not got the government will to expand our existing airports and yet they have no choice (under pressure from various supports backers, lobbyists etc) but to allow expansion overall within London + SE

So really unless they are prepared to change their position on LHR expansion or they get voted out in favour of a government that is more in favour of LHR expansion (or has less to lose) then THA is the only choice

Dave and his band of idiots have nothing to lose in terms of loosing MP’s; because THA would not require the homes to be knocked down; it would not have a flight path over residential areas, the cost of THA while huge, would not be impossible and they could also claim that unlike most government spending, it is being done to create jobs and to generate economic growth, along with vast improvements to our transport links
So if they can their PR right and plan it properly, then it could be a massive political boost to this government, so they will have no problem enacting the laws needed (mainly setting up LAL and buying all the relevant airports) to process

Then we get to Ryanair and Easyjet, now they will without a doubt want special treatment (beyond relocation costs) and LAL (if I was running it) would refuse, then it would be up to them to leave, but the problem for them is where to go?

Remember their business model rely solely on local the local O&D market, they cannot access that market since LAL would own pretty much every airport, RAF base and General Aviation airport in Greater London, Essex, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Hampshire, Dorset, Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex and Kent, so they cannot use airports within the local area

So they would have to go pretty far, airports like Bristol, Birmingham and Norwich and to get to those airports from London and the surrounding area would be quite long and more importantly more expensive, thus making their fares in effect, become much higher

As for what their passengers will do, well unless some other airline (LCC or otherwise) is more willing to serve THA, then those passengers will have to pay more to use BA (or VS if they are still around), which would be good news for them, but bad news for passengers used to low fares
So really they have a choice, pay a bit more to use THA or be locked out of a market that contains 25% of the UK’s population (and the biggest contributor to the UK economy) , for them it would be depend which is better in term of financiers

As for the cost of using THA, well it would depend on many factors, but if I was in charge of this project I would keep it the same as LHR (the last thing we need is higher airport fees, APD is too high for a start)


No it is not a good form of government: damned expensive for residents, bureaucratic and remote, and it encourages "personality" politics over substance.

If you think that they’ve done a good job in transport, then just a bog standard passenger transport executive should suffice.

The mayor and assembly could easily be scrapped, and for the same reason as the former Greater London Council. It is too large to be an effective unit of local government, but being so large, it can challenge and irritate central government.

Livingstone did this with Thatcher and later with Blair, and Johnson is doing it with Cameron.

It‘s exactly the same at the devolution level. Why is there no English Parliament? because it would be large enough to give Westminster a hard time".


So you would have rather have dozens of local councils running things to their own personal interest without co-ordination?

Not a good idea for a city that is home to 8.5 million people, for a city that big you need 1 local authority running things that work for the whole city, not for their own local area

Also “personality” politics is at all levels of government these days, not just city hall, otherwise we would not have the idiots in government that we have today

You say a PTE would do the same job, but the trouble is that unlike now when TFL has to deal with 1 authority, it would then have to deal with 33, who might all have conflicting interests with each other

The problem with the GLA is that it lacks enough authority in the first place; there are areas such as waste that could be better dealt from City Hall rather than the Town Hall

In other words all that Local Boroughs would have to do is manage service on behalf of the GLA and advise City Hall on policy and services in relation to how it should be done for their local area

Also we need to accepts London is a vastly different to the rest of the UK, hence I suggest London + South East should breakaway from England and become the “5th” region of London, with similar devolution of powers to Scotland (which would include powers in relation to airports)
The GLA should not be seen as a “local” government, but a “regional” government

Lastly, I also feel that the GLA should expand its boundaries to cover the rest of the Home Counties, because remember many of the people who work in London live just outside that and that number is increasing
As for an English Parliament, well the case for not having one is weakening as time goes by, I would expect the rest of the UK demand more devolution or even independence if Scotland votes yes, or even if they vote no

We should not be naming airports after people, it makes more sense to name them according to their geographical location.


I agree on that one...


It isn’t going to happen! There will be no permanent mixed mode on the existing Heathrow rwys. If opposition to a third rwy scares politicians, do you really think that they would dare to bring in permanent mixed mode?

It could be mooted of course, but only as a threat to make more rwys look the better option (which it is).


The government can no longer delay the enviable (which they have done for 60 years), there is too much pressure for their political backers and the fact our 2 main airports are full


Why?


Because Boris is a idiot and he has made little contribution to the aid of London in his time in office

What "Berlin has done" is to put a second rwy and a new terminal at one of its airports, renamed it, and shut the other two. At least that was the plan.

It is nothing like the London situation where a brand new airport may be built, but probably won't be built, in the middle of nowhere.

My point is that it had been done before on smaller scale in Europe and for the same reasons as why it should be done here

[Ernest Lanc's]

First the term “fantasy” is used to describe things that are not technically
or physically possible (like teleporting);

Wrong...."Fantasy" means "imagining things that are impossible or improbable.".
The key word here is "Improbable"..Fair to say that described the financing and the building of the 'Boris Fantasy Airport'.

Much cheaper and technically feasibly, unlike an airport built on water, sand, slush or whatever. Would be to expand LHR, even if house owners had to be compensated.
The Thames airport would be revolutionary and not possible to cost, building aircraft carriers is a proven technology, but the two UK Carriers under construction, have not met the original estimates.
Impossible to cost.not even sure when it would be ready if it was possible to build, and the buying of all the London Airports is far fetched.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "So you would have rather have dozens of local councils running things to their own personal interest without co-ordination?

Not a good idea for a city that is home to 8.5 million people, for a city that big you need 1 local authority running things that work for the whole city, not for their own local area

Also “personality” politics is at all levels of government these days, not just city hall, otherwise we would not have the idiots in government that we have today

You say a PTE would do the same job, but the trouble is that unlike now when TFL has to deal with 1 authority, it would then have to deal with 33, who might all have conflicting interests with each other

The problem with the GLA is that it lacks enough authority in the first place; there are areas such as waste that could be better dealt from City Hall rather than the Town Hall"


It's not what I think or prefer. Look at the facts, this is the FOURTH version of Greater London government. Why do they keep changing it? Because they cannot get it to work. Maybe the status quo ante would be better! This option should at least be looked at.


Quote: "In other words all that Local Boroughs would have to do is manage service on behalf of the GLA and advise City Hall on policy and services in relation to how it should be done for their local area"


Then why have them at all? Under your scheme you may as well have a New York City structure: a mayor and bureaucracy plus a city council and 59 community boards with a right to be "consulted" on local issues.

It makes a mockery of the word "local", even the boroughs we have now are too remote.


Quote: "Also we need to accepts London is a vastly different to the rest of the UK, hence I suggest London + South East should breakaway from England and become the “5th” region of London, with similar devolution of powers to Scotland (which would include powers in relation to airports)
The GLA should not be seen as a “local” government, but a “regional” government."


Please, no regional government, what we have already is too big, too bureaucratic, too expensive and too remote. At least the citizens of the north east had the good sense to chuck it out in a referendum when it was proposed them.

We should not go down the route of regional government. Look at the trouble in Spain, where the "autonomous communities" (regions) are asking the Spanish government for bailouts, and one, Catalonia, wants a bailout and independence at the same time!

Quote: "Lastly, I also feel that the GLA should expand its boundaries to cover the rest of the Home Counties, because remember many of the people who work in London live just outside that and that number is increasing
As for an English Parliament, well the case for not having one is weakening as time goes by, I would expect the rest of the UK demand more devolution or even independence if Scotland votes yes, or even if they vote no"


No the GLA wants scrapping not expanding, we certainly do not want or need a fifth version!


The case for an English parliament has always been strong while there is devolution in the rest of the country: it's the only way to answer the West Lothian question. However, it is obviously not going to happen for the reason mentioned previously.

[Ernest Lanc's]

The case for an English parliament has always been strong while there is
devolution in the rest of the country: it's the only way to answer the West
Lothian question. However, it is obviously not going to happen for the reason
mentioned previously.

First I think Scotland will vote no..However when Scotland was devolved it then only became a matter of time before the UK became federal.

England is the only UK country without a parliament.

[Skipness One Echo]

Also LAL (or London Airports Limited) is part of a proposal to make THA possible
No it's a fantasy that only exists in your head. As has been explained to you, your proposal is not remotely likely given the austerity of the current economic climate.

[Aero Mad]

LAL would own pretty much every airport, RAF base and General Aviation airport in Greater London, Essex, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Hampshire, Dorset, Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex and Kent

I've just realised that not only is BALHR a loony, he's also a loony lefty. The notion that one giant nationalised company, whether you wish to call it LAL or otherwise, should manage everything from Gatwick to Damyns Hall was not even in Clement Attlee's wildest dreams. How can it expect to do this efficiently? Lessons learnt way back in the 1970s showed us and the rest of Europe that government control on this scale simply couldn't work. Your apparent desire for more government authority and sweeping statements that Boris is an 'idiot' don't show you in the best light.

Look, if you are indeed 21 then I am significantly younger than you. Even I have one request. Please, get a grip and listen to the advice of Skipness One Echo and a number of others. You're wasting your time here: go and look at the real world, learn some stuff and then come back presenting realistic and informed opinions.

[PAXboy]

BALHR is not 'left' or 'right' and almost certainly not 21 - he's just a simple little Troll.

[SWBKCB]

Under my plan, LAL is aiming to buy all airports and airfields (both general and civil) within the counties of Greater London, Essex, Hertfordshire, Suffolk, Cambridge, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Dorset, Surrey, Kent, Sussex and Wiltshire, it would also take ownership of all RAF bases within those counties and lease it back to the RAF (on the condition they forbid all commercial flying out of those bases)

Thanks for cheering up my weekend - what a laugh!

[silverstrata]

.
Boris is now planning a four runway Stansted.

Boris Johnson to put Stansted back on the agenda for airport expansion | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249318/Boris-Johnson-Stansted-agenda-airport-expansion.html)

Actually, I think this proposal is a spoiler. In reality, Boris wants to scare the people of Bishops Stortford into campaigning for a Silver-Boris Thames airport. And there is nothing that scares the burghers of Bishops Stortford more than a 4-runway Stansted (check out where that northerly runway ends).


There are many reasons why a simple expansion of Stansted would not work. The primary being that if LHR was closed, and moved to Stansted, there would not be enough capacity in the London basin for all the lo-co airlines and their lo-co passengers. You would have to build another Stansted to take up the demand for quick turnaround point-to-point work.


.

[Skipness One Echo]

.Boris is now planning a four runway Stansted.
He's been repeatedly told his Fantasy Island is unaffordable and has now fallen back supporting an idea the travelling public continue to shun in their millions, Essex International. How many more times do we have the pretence that Stansted is the answer? Only government intervention can make that happen and none of the airlines would move without regulation.
Meanwhile a four runway LHR is now being touted with the clear view that the end game is presentable as saving green fields in Essex and only ONE teeny wee new bit of concrete at LHR. Affordable and politically accetable once you wrap it up like that.

[silverstrata]

Skip

only ONE teeny wee new bit of concrete at LHR.



Only one more strip of concrete in totally the wrong location -

- with yet more noise and danger to London itself;
- at an airport that is still not linked to the rail system without passing through London;
- and has not a hope in hell of ever getting a TGV link, not even HS2;
- and was so unimportant they could not even be bothered to put Crossrail through it;
- an airport so welcoming I breath a sigh of relief every time I manage to miss it.


Another strip of concrete on a white elephant? Why?

Prediction for you skippy. The first crash of a 747 airborne eastbound out of LHR, and the place will be closed down inside 3 months.

Can you really centralize the connectivity and wealth of the S.E. on such an uncertain and unreliable prospect?

.

[Libertine Winno]

I thought Boris was Mayor of London, not Essex...or Kent, for that matter?!

This is all clearly about votes, lets not kid ourselves. Boris wins votes around Heathrow by opposing expansion, whilst promoting expansion at places he has no jurasdiction over and have no impact on his reelection or otherwise.

Simple politics really, politics that Cameron and co should shrug off and do what their job is i.e. what's best for the country, not what a few people living round Heathrow think

[Skipness One Echo]

I agree, a major crash like that and the bank gets broken to fix it.
You're a CPL so we both know such crashes are a manageable risk. BA038 was bloody close though! Risk is part of life, and I won't defend the isses you raise there as you're spot on. We only disagree on your ideal being unaffordable given austerity and debt.

Incidenally, the only B747 crash in the UK was into a field near Stansted!

[Fairdealfrank]

Ho ho ho, finally Boris hoists the white flag over the sinking Silver Island, the plans clearly do not hold water!

Of course Stansted has most of the problems and disadvantages of Silver Island and as mentioned many times before: it does not address the issue of a lack of HUB capacity.

Look closely at the picture of the four-rwy Stansted (above), there's no activity there, nothing landing or taking off at the Essex airport: "the only way is Mirabel".


Quote: "Actually, I think this proposal is a spoiler. In reality, Boris wants to scare the people of Bishops Stortford into campaigning for a Silver-Boris Thames airport. And there is nothing that scares the burghers of Bishops Stortford more than a 4-runway Stansted (check out where that northerly runway ends)."

More likely they'll be scared into campaigning for 2 more rwys at Heathrow, it's affordable, realistic, what the industry wants and DEFINITELY prevents Stansted expansion. If Silver Island were to be as big and successful as the fantasists suggest, it could lead to the closure of Stansted, putting local jobs at risk. Think on!


Quote: "Meanwhile a four runway LHR is now being touted with the clear view that the end game is presentable as saving green fields in Essex and only ONE teeny wee new bit of concrete at LHR. Affordable and politically accetable once you wrap it up like that."

Spot on, Skipness.


Quote: "This is all clearly about votes, lets not kid ourselves. Boris wins votes around Heathrow by opposing expansion, whilst promoting expansion at places he has no jurasdiction over and have no impact on his reelection or otherwise.

Simple politics really, politics that Cameron and co should shrug off and do what their job is i.e. what's best for the country, not what a few people living round Heathrow think"

Indeed it is, but the Commission reports in 2015, Boris's term expires in 2016. Is he going for a third term? Is he going back into Parliament? It's up to Cameron to face down Clegg, but he won't do it, so in coalition politics, the tail wags the dog.

[canberra97]

Skipness am surprised in you, how could you forget the Pan Am Boeing 747 that crashed over Scotland in 1988!

PA103 from London Heathrow bound for New York JFK was blown up and crashed over Lockerbie, Scotland on the 21st December 1988 with a loss of 270 people including 11 living in Lockerbie.

Sure the Lockerbie disaster was not like the Korean Cargo flight KE8509 Boeing 747 that crashed into a field shortly after take off from London Stansted on the 22 December 1999 but it was still a crash that happened in the UK that included a Boeing 747 but with far more deaths, now picture that over London!

So therefore we have two incidents of Boeing 747s crashing in the UK.

Strange how those two crashes occurred on those dates 21 and 22 December so very near there anniversarys!

[Skipness One Echo]

Dear God I apologise! You are quite right, tunnel vision on my part. Indeed I shared a flat at uni with a chap who had lived on Sherwood Crescent whose family were spared.

[DaveReidUK]

Dear God I apologise! You are quite right, tunnel vision on my part.

Don't apologise.

Lockerbie, while tragic, is entirely irrelevant in this context.

Unless you are suggesting that no 747s, indeed no commercial aircraft at all, should overfly any part of the UK lest they should be downed as a result of terrorist activity.

I do agree, however, that had the fans on BAW38 stopped a couple of minutes earlier, we would not be having a debate at all on whether Heathrow should remain open.

[scotbill]

One of the sad facts about Lockerbie was that there was a very strong jet stream over Scotland that night. But for that the wreckage would have fallen in open ground (of which there is an abundance in the area) and the town would not have been forever associated in our minds with the tragedy.

[CelticRambler]

Prediction for you skippy. The first crash of a 747 airborne eastbound out of LHR, and the place will be closed down inside 3 months.

Unlikely - El Al 1862 didn't close AMS nor Concorde/CDG. Any such incident will be downplayed as extremely unlikely (true) and unforeseeable (true-ish if your foresight is limited to the next election date).

A mid-air collision over London, OTOH, that would be a different story ...

[silverstrata]

Skippy


Incidenally, the only B747 crash in the UK was into a field near Stansted!




Just as well it was not lifting off from 09R at LHR, eh?

This is, of course, one of the many elephants in this particular room, and nobody is talking about it. It just lurks in a dark corner. Yes, there are 'small but undeniable risks' in aviation - but when you increase traffic to 500,000 movements a year, and when you jam those movements as close together as humanly possible, you substantially increase those 'small but undeniable risks'.

At what point in time do you recognize the fact that placing your major airport in the western boundaries of your capital city, so that all flights have to pass over your capital city, was a major error in planning? No, I will rephrase that - LHR was never planned, it just happened and nobody has ever had the balls to say "Enough!"

Well now some influential people are beginning at last to wake up and say "Enough!"




Frank

Of course Stansted has most of the problems and disadvantages of Silver Island and as mentioned many times before: it does not address the issue of a lack of HUB capacity.



Once more you dodge the central issue. The whole point of making a new six-runway hub airport, is that LHR is closed down by act of Parliament. There would be no point otherwise, as everyone would try to struggle on at LHR with all the attendant noise, pollution, transport and danger issues that implies.

Either Silver-Stanstead or Silver-Boris would become the defacto new NW Europe hub, or the reluctant airlines would have to foxtrot oscar to CDG or AMS. And personally, I see no problem here. Secretly, I bet every airline manager in the world would rather they operated from a new London airport, than struggle on with LHR and all its overcrowding and slot issues. All they are looking for, is for someone else to blame - "Oh, terribly sorry Captain Nigel of BA, I know you have a lovely house in Windsor, but you are going to have to go to Essex. Not my decision, I'm afraid; completely out of my hands...."

Snigger, snigger, and lots of Essex-girl jokes......




.

[silverstrata]

Celtic:

Unlikely - El Al 1862 didn't close AMS nor Concorde/CDG. Any such incident will be downplayed as extremely unlikely.



Concorde crashed on an empty hotel - because it was taking off from a rural CDG airport, and not over the center of Paris.

The El Al 747 also took off from a rural AMS airport, and not over central Amsterdam. It also 'fortuitously' hit the side of a block of flats which contained the crash in a very small locality, instead of spreading itself all over several busy streets full of Christmas shoppers.

The Stansted 747 was also on take off from a rural airport. And it has to be noted that both of these 747s were freighters, otherwise there would have been more of an outcry. I'm not sure if that was luck, or whether it says something about freighters.

Neither of these tragedies are comparable to a take-off from 09R at LHR. That is one of the major points of moving LHR into the Tames estuary. A crash on the marshes would be tragic, but manageable.

[Barling Magna]

Wow, Essex girl jokes haven't been around for a good few years. How nice to be reminded of them.

I note that another group of dreamers are proposing to build the new London Airport on the Goodwin Sands. Let us hope they salvage that Dornier Do17 before they cover the Sands with concrete.

BBC News - Fourth South East England hub airport proposal unveiled (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20783474)

[Libertine Winno]

Forgive the pedantry, but surely there would be a similar risk on a westerly departure from Silver-Boris Thames Estuary Fantasy Airport (or something similar...) as there is from an easterly 09 departure from LHR, except that the impact zone will be Docklands as opposed to Hounslow?! It's not as if either locations are blessed with acres of open countryside to play with!

[DaveReidUK]

At what point in time do you recognize the fact that placing your major airport in the western boundaries of your capital city, so that all flights have to pass over your capital city, was a major error in planning?

That's not strictly true.

When LHR was opened, ILS hadn't been invented and the piston-engined airliners that were around at the time used a Standard Beam Approach, which involved overflying the airfield, then an outbound leg with a procedure turn which, in the case of westerly operations, would take the aircraft over Brentford/Kew before becoming established inbound on the beam.

The need to be established at 8-10nm or more, thereby overflying central London, didn't arise until the advent of jet aircraft in the 1950s. Whether that arguably should have been foreseen in the 40s is a moot point, however as you rightly say we are now stuck with the consequences.

[ZOOKER]

And now............

London Silver-Foster-Boris-Goodwin. :D

[BALHR]

Wrong...."Fantasy" means "imagining things that are impossible or improbable.".
The key word here is "Improbable"..Fair to say that described the financing and the building of the 'Boris Fantasy Airport'.

Much cheaper and technically feasibly, unlike an airport built on water, sand, slush or whatever. Would be to expand LHR, even if house owners had to be compensated.
The Thames airport would be revolutionary and not possible to cost, building aircraft carriers is a proven technology, but the two UK Carriers under construction, have not met the original estimates.
Impossible to cost.not even sure when it would be ready if it was possible to build, and the buying of all the London Airports is far fetched.


THA can be financed (or way or another) and it can be built (it’s just a bigger version of HKIA), the question is that if it is a good idea
Without a doubt expanding LHR is the best solution to fix the lack of capacity, but the question is that is there the political will…

I can say without a doubt a doubt that THA would be the most expensive project (airport or otherwise) ever built in Europe (if not the World) however…

As for buying all of London’s Airports, well it can do that and if not, withdraw their licences (or banning commercial aviation from those airports), without doing those kind of actions then all the money for THA will go down to the bottom of Thames…

It's not what I think or prefer. Look at the facts, this is the FOURTH version of Greater London government. Why do they keep changing it? Because they cannot get it to work. Maybe the status quo ante would be better! This option should at least be looked at.


Actually it’s the 2nd; the first was the Greater London Authority (1965-1985), then they spit the powers between Westminster and the LGA’s (1985-2000) and now we have the Greater London Authority (2000- ), look there has been once change and the only reason there was a chance entirely due to cynical political strategy


So they haven’t “kept changing it” and the one time they have changed it has nothing to do with the fact it was not working for “London”

If you count the times “London” politics has changed (the term Greater London, pre 1965, was a informal term), then it has changed 4 times:
Historically London has been governed by the City of London (now that a local government body that needs changing), but by the 19th century it barely covered any part of the urban area and was undemocratic, plus there was a lack of co-ordination and overall planning between the local government bodies within that urban era, so they created the Metropolitan Board of Works, this consisted of nearly all the local government bodies within the local urban area, but the problem was that it has limited powers, so it became the London County Council (which also absorbed local boards covering the same area)


By the mid-20th century however, the LCC only covered part of the now expanded urban area, so they merged the LCC with the county of Middlesex (minus some outlying areas) and some outlying areas of Kent, Essex and Hertfordshire and to form Greater London

You have to remember the local urban governments change over time, to reflect the urban areas and to make sure the city is well run, this does not just affect London…

Then why have them at all? Under your scheme you may as well have a New York City structure: a mayor and bureaucracy plus a city council and 59 community boards with a right to be "consulted" on local issues.

It makes a mockery of the word "local", even the boroughs we have now are too remote.



Well you still need them to understand what local services they need and how things should be run when it comes to your local area, which is why NYC still has boroughs (and yes I used their local system as the basis of my idea)

The reason our “local” boroughs are “remote” is that they are too focused on doing things they are best done at a regional level, at the expense of things they are better served by them


Please, no regional government, what we have already is too big, too bureaucratic, too expensive and too remote. At least the citizens of the north east had the good sense to chuck it out in a referendum when it was proposed them.

We should not go down the route of regional government. Look at the trouble in Spain, where the "autonomous communities" (regions) are asking the Spanish government for bailouts, and one, Catalonia, wants a bailout and independence at the same time!



We already have regional governments; Northern Ireland has had one since 1923, along with Scotland and Wales in 1999 (which have their origins in Regional Offices set up in the late 1970s) and I haven’t even got to the autonomous governments of our (now independent) colonies like Canada, Australia, South Africa and India

Greater London (which is a region of “England”) already has a regional government as well, it called the GLA, the trouble is that it does not cover the Home Counties (where a increasing number of “Londoners” live), but you have to note that the GLA is a far smaller body (for now) than the GLC ever was

Also London (unlike the North East) has voted in favour of regional government, hence we are the only region in England to have devolved powers and it looks like it will stay that way (even after the government scrapped legacy quangos in relation to those regions)

As for the problems of Spain, they are caused by the fact their economic system is not working for them and nether is austerity (and the mismanagement in ALL levels of government), in fact without regional governments (which have more powers than what we have here) Spain would have broken up years ago…

By the way Catalonia want either a bailout OR independence, not both (the main issue they have is that they have to make hash spending cuts and yet give a lot of money to Madrid)



No the GLA wants scrapping not expanding, we certainly do not want or need a fifth version!


The case for an English parliament has always been strong while there is devolution in the rest of the country: it's the only way to answer the West Lothian question. However, it is obviously not going to happen for the reason mentioned previously.


I am not calling for a 3rd/5th version of local government, but more powers and covering the surrounding areas as well, along with more control of London + South East tax and spend policy (we give 1/5 of our tax money to other regions of the UK, rightly or wrongly)

Yes there should be a English Parliament without a doubt, it’s very much right, but it should not include London + South East (or Cornwall, but for separate reasons), there is too big a difference between the rest of England and this region, otherwise England will suffer from unfair domination from one region over the rest…


No it's a fantasy that only exists in your head. As has been explained to you, your proposal is not remotely likely given the austerity of the current economic climate.


It’s a suggestion actually, you are misusing the term “fantasy” and like I have said several times, the best solution economically is a bigger LHR, but the problem is that this whole debate is not based around just what is best “economically” for better or worse

I've just realised that not only is BALHR a loony, he's also a loony lefty. The notion that one giant nationalised company, whether you wish to call it LAL or otherwise, should manage everything from Gatwick to Damyns Hall was not even in Clement Attlee's wildest dreams. How can it expect to do this efficiently? Lessons learnt way back in the 1970s showed us and the rest of Europe that government control on this scale simply couldn't work. Your apparent desire for more government authority and sweeping statements that Boris is an 'idiot' don't show you in the best light.

Look, if you are indeed 21 then I am significantly younger than you. Even I have one request. Please, get a grip and listen to the advice of Skipness One Echo and a number of others. You're wasting your time here: go and look at the real world, learn some stuff and then come back presenting realistic and informed opinions.

You have clearly not read all my post’s on this matter:

Let me make it 100% clear…

My preferred solution is expanding LHR, which would be funding entirely though private means

However that solution is currently politically difficult by a “Ultra-Capitalist/Free Enterprise/Pro-Business” Government that still seems to think they still own our airports, you know what I am surprised BAA/HAH are even bothering to own/run LHR, since their business is being hampered by government wrongdoing/incompetence

That is why I (and others) am proposing THA, because this is the only other way to expand airport capacity in London + South East, despite what many are saying (Boris, Silver), there is no way it can be financed by private means, mainly due to the cost (in the few hundred billions), the lack of returns (and the time it will take to get returns) and fact you need to do more than just built it (buy other airports), so the money will have to come from public sources

Now to make it work (and not waste money on a project like this), you need to make sure airlines use the airport and that is where the real problem is, hardly any of them want to (it’s understandable, why move when things are alright for you where you are), hence you have to buy all other airports so that there is no chance that they will move to that airport (and not THA), airport operators will do what they can to keep their customers with then (and not at THA) and so that you can close those airports (all of them , not just LHR, otherwise they will move elsewhere and so on…)

You cannot simply do this legally (as in the past in relation to LGW), because it’s illegal and Airlines will go to the courts over this, so buying all airports in the region is the only way airlines are going to use it and thus it will not become a White Elephant

The model I am suggesting (a used by state-owned airports in Europe, successfully) is for a private company to own/run the airport, but its owners are the state (who are also financing improvement projects), after all they are the only ones who can fund THA

So before you tell me to present “realistic and informed opinions” and “get a grip and listen to the advice of Skipness One Echo and a number of others”, read and understand what I am saying beforehand, otherwise it makes you look incompetent and ignorant (its not just you however…)
My views in Boris are only partly based on his political views, but mostly in his actions both as mayor and in other duties, this would apply even if he was left wing…

BALHR is not 'left' or 'right' and almost certainly not 21 - he's just a simple little Troll.


If I was a Troll, I wouldn’t be here; I would be busy on Facebook…

Boris is now planning a four runway Stansted.

Boris Johnson to put Stansted back on the agenda for airport expansion | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249318/Boris-Johnson-Stansted-agenda-airport-expansion.html)

Actually, I think this proposal is a spoiler. In reality, Boris wants to scare the people of Bishops Stortford into campaigning for a Silver-Boris Thames airport. And there is nothing that scares the burghers of Bishops Stortford more than a 4-runway Stansted (check out where that northerly runway ends).


There are many reasons why a simple expansion of Stansted would not work. The primary being that if LHR was closed, and moved to Stansted, there would not be enough capacity in the London basin for all the lo-co airlines and their lo-co passengers. You would have to build another Stansted to take up the demand for quick turnaround point-to-point work.


Airlines don’t want to use Stansted, they want to use Heathrow or Gatwick, so you would have to close both airports and to deal with all that traffic to make it world, then you would then need 6 runways at Stansted to deal with all the Ex-LHR/LGW traffic

This in an area that is strongly against expansion, even for a 2nd runway, which means this reaches a brick wall in the end

The only options are 2 more runways at LHR or closing them all down and build an 8-10 runway THA…


He's been repeatedly told his Fantasy Island is unaffordable and has now fallen back supporting an idea the travelling public continue to shun in their millions, Essex International. How many more times do we have the pretence that Stansted is the answer? Only government intervention can make that happen and none of the airlines would move without regulation.
Meanwhile a four runway LHR is now being touted with the clear view that the end game is presentable as saving green fields in Essex and only ONE teeny wee new bit of concrete at LHR. Affordable and politically accetable once you wrap it up like that.


The problem with THA is not that it’s unaffordable (it can be funded though public means, one way or another), but that if it’s a good idea overall, the answer is that if LHR can be expanded, then no (if not, then yes)

It’s now illegal (and subject to lawsuits) to use regulation to force use of this airport, you can only do this by closing down LHR and LGW

The best solution for London + South East is not expansion at Gatwick (1/4 of the space is used by airlines that want to use LHR), Stinted/Luton (they are only half-full) or even only a 3rd runway at LHR

No, the answer is a 3rd AND 4th runway at LHR


Only one more strip of concrete in totally the wrong location -

- with yet more noise and danger to London itself;
- at an airport that is still not linked to the rail system without passing through London;
- and has not a hope in hell of ever getting a TGV link, not even HS2;
- and was so unimportant they could not even be bothered to put Crossrail through it;
- an airport so welcoming I breath a sigh of relief every time I manage to miss it.


Another strip of concrete on a white elephant? Why?

Prediction for you skippy. The first crash of a 747 airborne eastbound out of LHR, and the place will be closed down inside 3 months.

Can you really centralize the connectivity and wealth of the S.E. on such an uncertain and unreliable prospect?


The trouble is that LHR’s location is a curse and a benefit, it’s great for the passengers to get to, but the problem is that it hampers to development due to the fact it’s very close (and its flightpath to residential areas…)

They are improving links to the rail network from LHR by building another link to the GWML to the West of England/South Wales/Midlands and the rest can be sorted by AirTrack

HS2 might not directly link the airport, but that is merely to domestic connection flights out of LHR

Crossrail will link LHR to the City and East of London and improve connections to the rest of London + South East

They are also improving the Terminals as well, T5 is built, T2 will follow and by the within 10-15 years, all that will be left from the 20th century will be T4

If they can expand LHR, then we should do it, if not then we might we well close LHR and the other airports and build THA


I thought Boris was Mayor of London, not Essex...or Kent, for that matter?!

This is all clearly about votes, lets not kid ourselves. Boris wins votes around Heathrow by opposing expansion, whilst promoting expansion at places he has no jurasdiction over and have no impact on his reelection or otherwise.

Simple politics really, politics that Cameron and co should shrug off and do what their job is i.e. what's best for the country, not what a few people living round Heathrow think


The ultimate reason is that they can increasingly no longer win outside the South East of England in all levels of government, they barely exist in Scotland these days and their electoral presence in Wales and the North of England is declining, not to mention the rise of UKIP is taking chunks of their remaining potential voters

That is why they are only in government with the help of the Lib Dems (who have paid a heavy price for this), this is also the reason they don’t support expansion of LHR/LGW/LTN/STN/LCY (they cannot afford to lose further votes in areas that are their heartlands)

What I am hoping is that Labour comes to power (after the next election), they have nothing to lose by approving the expansion of LHR and LGW…

Ho ho ho, finally Boris hoists the white flag over the sinking Silver Island, the plans clearly do not hold water!

Of course Stansted has most of the problems and disadvantages of Silver Island and as mentioned many times before: it does not address the issue of a lack of HUB capacity.

Look closely at the picture of the four-rwy Stansted (above), there's no activity there, nothing landing or taking off at the Essex airport: "the only way is Mirabel".


Can we not name THA after some member of a avation forum?

Firstly Boris needs to accept that to make STN work as a hub for London, you need to shut both LHR and LGW (which could have been posibble if BAA/HAH still owned LHR, LGW and STN) and you need then need to have 6 runnways at STN (not 4) to deal with the traffic, you would also need to improve transport links as well

Better to approve 2 more runnways at LHR (you would find it as difficult to build even R2 at STN, let alone another 5)

More likely they'll be scared into campaigning for 2 more rwys at Heathrow, it's affordable, realistic, what the industry wants and DEFINITELY prevents Stansted expansion. If Silver Island were to be as big and successful as the fantasists suggest, it could lead to the closure of Stansted, putting local jobs at risk. Think on!


In the case THA, you will need to close all 6 of London's commercial airports, otherwise it would become "Mirabel-on-Sea"


Indeed it is, but the Commission reports in 2015, Boris's term expires in 2016. Is he going for a third term? Is he going back into Parliament? It's up to Cameron to face down Clegg, but he won't do it, so in coalition politics, the tail wags the dog.


This will partly change if Labour wins a majoirty at the next election in 2015, they have nothing to lose if they approve another 2 runnways at LHR (remember that they approved R3 when they where last in power...)

Once more you dodge the central issue. The whole point of making a new six-runway hub airport, is that LHR is closed down by act of Parliament. There would be no point otherwise, as everyone would try to struggle on at LHR with all the attendant noise, pollution, transport and danger issues that implies.

Either Silver-Stanstead or Silver-Boris would become the defacto new NW Europe hub, or the reluctant airlines would have to foxtrot oscar to CDG or AMS. And personally, I see no problem here. Secretly, I bet every airline manager in the world would rather they operated from a new London airport, than struggle on with LHR and all its overcrowding and slot issues. All they are looking for, is for someone else to blame - "Oh, terribly sorry Captain Nigel of BA, I know you have a lovely house in Windsor, but you are going to have to go to Essex. Not my decision, I'm afraid; completely out of my hands...."

Snigger, snigger, and lots of Essex-girl jokes......


Good to see that you are agreeing that STN needs 6 runnways to even begin to consider itself viable as a hub...

However to make STN work, you would need to buy at the very least LHR, and LGW and close both airports

The main reason BA and others still prefer LHR is its location, to make that work you would need to close that aiport and LGW, that would make STN the best in terms of location (and maybe transport links) our of all of Londons airports


I note that another group of dreamers are proposing to build the new London Airport on the Goodwin Sands. Let us hope they salvage that Dornier Do17 before they cover the Sands with concrete.

BBC News - Fourth South East England hub airport proposal unveiled (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20783474)


I think we nedd to focus on 2 options, a bigger LHR (up to 4 runways or close them all down and build a 8-10 runway THA (and stick to one plan, not three diffrent ones)

If "London Goodwin" is built, they would need at last 8, not 4 runways for a start...

[silverstrata]

.

And just to add to the confusion, we now have a proposal for a London airport in the Channel. Nice location for an airport, depending on its weather record, but hardly suitable for surface transport to most of England.

Beckett Rankine: £40billion airport for London... in the middle of the Channel | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250680/Beckett-Rankine--40billion-airport-London--middle-Channel.html)

A Channel airport does not give us another Thames motorway crossing, it does not give us the much-needed second Thames barrage, and it does not give us easy surface links to London and beyond. Indeed, it hardly gives good surface connections to Europe, either. Bit of a non-starter, really.

Personally, I regard this proposal as being made for the same reasons as the peculiar Stansted proposal. Hopefully, enough people will look at this proposal and think: "an airport in the estuary would be better than this...."

Precisely.





Libertine:

Forgive the pedantry, but surely there would be a similar risk on a westerly departure from Silver-Boris Thames Estuary Fantasy Airport (or something similar...) as there is from an easterly 09 departure from LHR, except that the impact zone will be Docklands as opposed to Hounslow?!



Which is why I have written to all of these consortiums, pointing out their error and suggesting a S.W. orientation for their airport.

This is why these airports are known as the Silver-Boris or Silver-Foster Thames airports, because they would make a complete hash of the project without my enlightened suggestions. ;)



.

[ETOPS]

BALHR

Too many words again, son. None of us have the time (or inclination) to plough through that lot.

Try writing bite sized replies that we can digest easily.........

[DaveReidUK]

Try writing bite sized replies that we can digest easily.........

Seconded.

He might also want go easy on the helpful advice like telling us to

read and understand what I am saying beforehand, otherwise it makes you look incompetent and ignorant