View Full Version : New Thames Airport for London
jabird
20th Dec 2012, 18:26
Or we can just hit ignore button.
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.
Err, is that not exactly what we've been saying about FBI all the way through the thread?
Which is why I have written to all of these consortiums, pointing out their error and suggesting a S.W. orientation for their airport.
Have they written back, thanking you for pointing out the errors of their ways, sacked their engineers and given you a job yet?
Only one more strip of concrete in totally the wrong location -
- with yet more noise and danger to London itself;
The biggest danger has always been the drive to/from the airport. So longer drive to a fantasy island means an increase in net risk.
- at an airport that is still not linked to the rail system without passing through London;
Oh do pay attention Silver! Not heard of T5 link to Reading? HS2 Old Oak proposal?
- and has not a hope in hell of ever getting a TGV link, not even HS2;
I thought you hated the French, with their 75% tax rates? Whatever happens with HS2, even if franchised out to SNCF-Keolis, it will NOT be branded TGV, because most Brits don't know what those letters stand for.
- and was so unimportant they could not even be bothered to put Crossrail through it;
Except that they are putting Crossrail to it, through it, and perhaps even out the other side. Really oozing with facts today Silver!
Strange how those two crashes occurred on those dates 21 and 22 December so very near there anniversarys!
About as strange as how historians will be writing about how the whole world crashed on 21st December 2012.
and the town would not have been forever associated in our minds with <the> tragedy.
Already had a major train crash. Now is that spooky as well? No, just random co-incidence, so what?
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.
Must be a pretty good secret. So well kept the only airline boss who has backed FBI is Jim French of Flybe - one of Europe's leading REGIONAL airlines! Perhaps he knows FBI would drive BA & Virgin bankrupt if they moved there!
Nickb12
20th Dec 2012, 18:32
I know of a few folk that bought land around heathrow decades back that stand to cash in should heathrow expand
silverstrata
20th Dec 2012, 21:21
Err, is that not exactly what we've been saying about FBI all the way through the thread?
Err, no. An Estuary airport is not the same as a Channel airport. At least the former is near London and almost on all the surface transport links.
Have they written back, thanking you for pointing out the errors of their ways.
Yes, of course.
Not heard of T5 link to Reading? HS2 Old Oak proposal?
Living on a spur-line, is not 'being connected to the world'. You should try it sometime.
Whatever happens with HS2, it will NOT be branded TGV
Who cares what it is called?
I know, lets call it the Train Very Fast (TVF), brilliant, eh? :ugh:
Except that they are putting Crossrail to it, through it, and perhaps even out the other side. Really oozing with facts today Silver!
Feel free check out the Crossrail route, and apologize.
Near You - Crossrail - Crossrail (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/near-you#.UNCQFjli73s)
As I said before, living on a spur-line, is not 'being connected to the world'. You should try it sometime.
So well kept the only airline boss who has backed FBI is Jim French of Flybe.
Do you really think that Willie Walsh is going to stand up before all his personnel, who all live around Heathrow, and say "I am lobbying for a Silver-Boris Thames airport" ? He would be lynched.
As I said before, airline bosses are all waiting for someone else to blame. "Sorry, its all Boris' fault. I did warn him not to do this. I did try and stand up for you guys, but its out of my hands. Sorry."
(Followed by the muffled sound of champagne bottles being opened.......)
.
ZOOKER
20th Dec 2012, 21:33
Why not just build a 3 lane elevated motorway across the channel to Schiphol?
'Florida Keys' style.
You know it makes sense!
Fairdealfrank
21st Dec 2012, 21:46
Quote: “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”
The “inexperienced college student” (your words on another thread) clearly is not studying British constitution or government and politics.
No, had mentioned the fact that there have been four versions of Greater London government because there have been four, not two:
(1) 1965-1986 Greater London Council with 100 councillors (numbers reduced over the years) plus a separate special district for education (ILEA) for part of its area with some GLC councillors sitting on it;
(2) 1986-1990 Greater London Council disbanded, but Greater London retained, with the councils powers transferred to quangos. ILEA retained with its councillors directly elected;
(3) 1990-2000 ILEA was scrapped, its education responsibilities transferred to the boroughs in its territory;
(4) 2000- directly elected mayor and a toothless, 25 member, Greater London Assembly established.
Quote: “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””
It’s not just Greater London, a perfectly good and stable local government system was torn up throughout the UK and since the 1960s, there have been expensive and pointless reorganisations approximately every ten years.
There are common themes: increasing remoteness; more overpaid managers, directors and functionaries; fewer elected councillors; less scutiny; higher taxes; worse services.
Quote: “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
The boroughs in New York are quite different than those in London. In New York they are co-terminous with with the counties that make up New York city: New York county is Manhatten, Kings county is Brooklyn, etc..
They each elect one “borough president” onto New York city council, and do not run local government services. These are all run by New York city council.
Boroughs in Greater London do the full range of district functions plus some that are the job of the county council in other parts of the country, such as education, social services, highways, etc.. They certainly are not “focused on doing things they are best done at a regional level“ as you wrongly state and naturally fail to supply any examples.
Quote: “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”
Please don’t!
Quote: “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)."
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are devolved government. greater London is NOT regional government, nor is it devolved government, that is why Boris is not “first minister” but “mayor” and elected separately.
The GLA is smaller than the GLC in numbers because it is a toothless assembly, the power rests with the mayor. Greater London has no devolved powers so it is wrong for you to say it is the only “region in England to have devolved powers”.
Quote: “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)”
Wrong, they want both, despite being one of the richest parts of Spain, and have just voted for it!
Quote: “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…”
This is bull. The “inexperienced college student” (your words) clearly is not studying geography either!
How could an English parliament NOT include Cornwall? How can an English parliament NOT include the “south east”? Serious credibility gap here!
Wasn’t it you who referred to Boris as an “idiot”?
Fairdealfrank
21st Dec 2012, 22:06
Quote: “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.”
You would have to the Act through Parliament first. Perhaps it’s not as simple as you imply.
Quote: “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.”
More desperation from those who cannot accept that there is no viable alternative to LHR expansion. It’s “Heathwick” all over again!
Quote: “If I was a Troll, I wouldn’t be here; I would be busy on Facebook…”
Who says you’re not?
Quote: “The only options are 2 more runways at LHR or closing them all down and build an 8-10 runway THA…”
There is a third, admittedly a disastrous one: do nothing.
Quote: “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”
Forget about Airtrack, it has been canned. There are too many level crossings in Egham and Virginia Water, so the frequency on that route cannot be upped by 4 trains/hour in each direction without causing gridlock on those areas‘ roads.
Quote: “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…”
Quote: “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...)"
No party political bias then!
In theory, maybe, but what’s to stop them dithering like they did for the 12 years between 1997 and 2009?
Let's hope we they don't start any wars.
Quote: “Can we not name THA after some member of a avation forum?”
No, it’s SILVER ISLAND! in honour of Silver’s consistant, eloquent, tenacious and usually highly entertaining advocacy of such madness.
Live with it!
turbroprop
22nd Dec 2012, 17:58
How far is RAF Dogger Bank from where Boris wants to build. Would it not be better to build it there?
silverstrata
23rd Dec 2012, 14:05
Frank:
No, it’s SILVER ISLAND! in honour of Silver’s consistant, eloquent, tenacious and usually highly entertaining advocacy of such madness.
Why, Frank, I did not know you cared. You brought a tear to the eye. Snif. Snif. :{
.
Fairdealfrank
24th Dec 2012, 17:37
Quote: "Why, Frank, I did not know you cared. You brought a tear to the eye. Snif. Snif."
The thread would not be the same without you!
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. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
Do you really have to refer to the various proposals (including yours) with your name in them; it’s time we referred to those proposals as “Thames Hub Airport” or THA for short
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.........
Alright them, I will...
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
Sorry If I was a bit too harsh with what I wrote, but my point is that read what I written before making a judgement about my views
Err, is that not exactly what we've been saying about FBI all the way through the thread?
[/quote]
Can you not refer to it as FBI, for a start it’s not impossible to do and secondly, these proposals have been around long before even Boris went to Eton…
The biggest danger has always been the drive to/from the airport. So longer drive to a fantasy island means an increase in net risk.
It does not matter how far the airport is located, as long as there are no airports in a better location and you can get there at a reasonable time
I thought you hated the French, with their 75% tax rates? Whatever happens with HS2, even if franchised out to SNCF-Keolis, it will NOT be branded TGV, because most Brits don't know what those letters stand for.
You have to note that “TGV” has become a rather universal term when referring to high speed trains, along with ICE and Bullet Trains (which is merely a nickname)
Must be a pretty good secret. So well kept the only airline boss who has backed FBI is Jim French of Flybe - one of Europe's leading REGIONAL airlines! Perhaps he knows FBI would drive BA & Virgin bankrupt if they moved there!
What Airline managers really want a bigger LHR, but if that cannot be done, then they would have to look at alternatives, which would be THA, If THA became the only airport serving London + South East, then they would be no risk of BA going bankrupt because of relocating (although they might do depending on IB financial performance), Virgin on the other hand is on its way to bankruptcy and forced sale to BA even if they stay at LHR (unless they do the unlikely thing of buying BA)
Besides, if all of London’s airports where shut down and replaced by THA (and the whole project is done well), then it would work out very well for BA, they would gain a world class airport with more than enough capacity to compete with their rivals in Europe and the Middle East
Do you really think that Willie Walsh is going to stand up before all his personnel, who all live around Heathrow, and say "I am lobbying for a Silver-Boris Thames airport" ? He would be lynched.
As I said before, airline bosses are all waiting for someone else to blame. "Sorry, its all Boris' fault. I did warn him not to do this. I did try and stand up for you guys, but its out of my hands. Sorry."
(Followed by the muffled sound of champagne bottles being opened.......)
Look in the event of BA decided to move to THA, they would do it even if their employees where against it (even if it meant compensating them), remember WW has confronted (in a lot of cases, when it’s not needed) his employees before and is prepared to do so for long periods, so there is unlikely BA employees will “lynch” WW
The bigger question is, doe’s WW and BA want to move to THA in the first place?
What their response is that if THA was built and LHR remained open, then they would not be moving to THA, but if LHR (and other commercial airports in London + South East) was shut, then they would
Of course what they really want is a bigger LHR (although WW has all but given up on that…)
The “inexperienced college student” (your words on another thread) clearly is not studying British constitution or government and politics.
No, had mentioned the fact that there have been four versions of Greater London government because there have been four, not two:
(1) 1965-1986 Greater London Council with 100 councillors (numbers reduced over the years) plus a separate special district for education (ILEA) for part of its area with some GLC councillors sitting on it;
(2) 1986-1990 Greater London Council disbanded, but Greater London retained, with the councils powers transferred to quangos. ILEA retained with its councillors directly elected;
(3) 1990-2000 ILEA was scrapped, its education responsibilities transferred to the boroughs in its territory;
(4) 2000- directly elected mayor and a toothless, 25 member, Greater London Assembly established.
The ILEA was not directly part of the government of Greater London, it was a quango (but still part of the GLC, like London Transport) that ran education within Inner London (in other words the former LCC area), this was due to the fact the LCC was responsible for education, yet its successor the GLC had that power removed, so I would not count no 3, so there have been 3 versions of Greater London Government which are:
1: Greater London Council (1965-1986) (11 years)
2: Nothing (in its place various quangos, with some powers transferred to local boroughs) (1986-2000) (14 years)
3: Greater London Authority (2000- ) (13 years)
As for the reasons why it has been changed twice well the answer is simple:
From 1 to 2: Because the GLA was a Labour-run pain to the backside for Maggie and the Tory run Westminster, so to get rid of their biggest enemy they abolished it, in other words nothing more than cynical political strategy
From 2 to 3: Of course it turns out to be a massive catastrophic mistake, because it left London runs without any sort of co-ordination strategy, not good when you have 7 million people to deal with, so they brought it back, of course it will was a labour (and later Tory) run pain to the backside for the Labour (and later Tory/Lib Dem) run Westminster
The problem with Greater London is not because it a bad idea, but with the fact it does not cover the entire urban area, metropolitan area and commuter bet and the fact it has nowhere near the amount of powers and autonomy it needs…
It’s not just Greater London, a perfectly good and stable local government system was torn up throughout the UK and since the 1960s, there have been expensive and pointless reorganisations approximately every ten years.
There are common themes: increasing remoteness; more overpaid managers, directors and functionaries; fewer elected councillors; less scutiny; higher taxes; worse services.
While I agree on you on the fact there have been too many (and not really needed changes), Greater London was a relativity good idea (how could the LCC run London, when they did not run areas like East Ham, Enfield, Croydon, Southall, Ilford, Dagenham and Wembley, which have been part of the London urban area since the 1930s at least), trouble is that it has been done badly, the GLC did not have enough powers, then it was abolished for no good reason, then it was brought back as the GLA, but with even less powers and after all this time still not covering all of the London Urban Area, Metropolitan Area and Commuter Belt
As for the common themes you have mentioned, it’s not just local government, but at Regional, National and European level as well (perfectly reflected by our current government in Westminster)
The boroughs in New York are quite different than those in London. In New York they are co-terminous with with the counties that make up New York city: New York county is Manhatten, Kings county is Brooklyn, etc..
They each elect one “borough president” onto New York city council, and do not run local government services. These are all run by New York city council.
When I meant London Borough’s where “focused on doing things they are best done at a regional level” I meant functions and services that are normally done by county councils (which I want transferred to the GLA)
In other worlds the boroughs of London should be like the boroughs in New York, they should only be co-ordinating the operation (not running itself, which will be done by the GLA) of services that are normally done at district country level and advice the GLA in running of services and doing the full range of district and county level functions/powers
The GLA should also receive the full range of devolved powers (and maybe more) as Scotland**, not only that but it should also receive its own flag and coat of arms (which would the ones of the City of London) and annex the rest of the London Urban Area, Metropolitan Area and Commuter Belt, lastly the City of London should be abolished and replaced by a London Borough (with its city status moving to the GLA)
After all that, the “County of Greater London” should be renamed the “State of London” (and have the city status off the City of London)*, formally separate from England and become the “5th” home nations of the United Kingdom, in other words, London becomes a city-state while staying part of the UK
Would you agree this is a good idea?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Flag_of_the_City_of_London.svg/500px-Flag_of_the_City_of_London.svg.png
Proposed flag of the State of London
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Coat_of_Arms_of_The_City_of_London.svg/500px-Coat_of_Arms_of_The_City_of_London.svg.png
Proposed coat of arms of the State of London
*As part of this the “Greater London Authority” should renamed the “Government of London” and the position of “Lord Mayor of London” should be absorbed into the position of “Mayor of London”
**Also I might suggest the amount of Devolution to the “State of London” should go even further than Scotland, maybe even looking at full control of tax and spend (with the London government deciding how much money it should contribute to Westminster) and maybe even having some form its own migration policy
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are devolved government. greater London is NOT regional government, nor is it devolved government, that is why Boris is not “first minister” but “mayor” and elected separately.
The GLA is smaller than the GLC in numbers because it is a toothless assembly, the power rests with the mayor. Greater London has no devolved powers so it is wrong for you to say it is the only “region in England to have devolved powers”.
Compared to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Greater London has rather limited powers in terms of devolved powers from Westminster
However Labours plan (in the late 1990s) was for the Regions of England to also receive devolved powers, however this plan was unpopular and was scrapped after the region of North East England rejected the idea
For more info about the Regions of England, its on this webpage:
Regions of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England)
However, Greater London (which is classed as a region of England) did vote in favour of a regional assembly and a mayor (the only reason he is a elected is because the role has more powers than a “First Minister” and hence can be counted as a devolved region of the UK, although it is of a limited kind compared to other devolved regions of the UK
However I feel it should gain more powers (up to a point where has similar devolved powers to what Scotland has), establish its own symbols, formally separate from England and become the “5th home nations” of the UK and annex the rest of the metropolitan area and commuter belt of London
Also when I meant the GLA is smaller than the GLC, I was not talking about the size of the assembly, rather the number of employees (or bureaucrats as they are known) as well as the powers and responsibilities (the GLA has less of all 3 than the GLC)
Please don’t!
What my point is that we already have regional governments, of course when it was first done in the UK depends on what do you define as a regional government, but there are a few possible options:
1: Until 1803, Ireland (today the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland) had its own parliament (but with limited powers) when it was effectively part of the UK (and before that England) between 1542 and 1803, after that it formally (until 1922) became part of the United Kingdom itself
2: The setting up of self-governing dominions (all were at the time part of the British Empire and hence for all intents and purposes part of the UK), in Canada in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, Newfoundland in 1907 (until it became part of Canada), South Africa in 1910, Ireland (apart from the counties that remained in the UK) in 1922, Rhodesia (now split between Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi) in 1923, India (including what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh) in 1935, Burma in 1935, Sri Lanka in 1931, Kenya in the 1950s, Malaysia in 1948, Singapore in 1959, Brunei in 1959, Ghana in 1952 Nigeria after WII and The British Caribbean in 1958 (including Jamaica, Antigua, and other English Speaking Islands) and Hong Kong in the 1980s, all of which ended up independent by the 1980s (apart from Hong Kong, which ceased to be under British control in 1997)
3: The setting up of autonomous governments in our Crown and Overseas dependencies (for all intents and purposes part of the UK), in the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, St Helena and several others
4: The setting up of the Northern Ireland Government (which had devolved powers) in 1923, which lasted until 1973, when the troubles took their toll and in the end a government was impossible to be established
5: The setting up of the Scottish Office and the Wales Office in those regions in 1967 for Wales and 1887 for Scotland, both of which had some sort of devolved powers and was a stop gap until they had their own parliaments/assembles (voters rejected them in the 1970s, but voted in favour in the late 1990s)
6: The setting up of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly (which previously had self-government between 1923-1973) in 1998
7: The formation of the Greater London Authority (the only regional government in England that was even established) in 2000
Wrong, they want both, despite being one of the richest parts of Spain, and have just voted for it!
No they did not have a vote on independence, they had a election and all that really happened was that CIU (Which is a relativity moderate Catalan nationalist party which was before the recent election the ruling party in Catalonia), which decided to adopt a platform for independence (previously they demanded more autonomy) and despite this ended up losing their majority (but still the biggest party) and the real gainers where left wing nationalist parties (Spain-wide left and right wing parties did the more or less the name as last time)
The main reasons are all economic, Spain as you know is suffering a rather bad economic crisis and that included Catalonia, this also meant that national (and regional debts) have risen quite a lot, to fix this both national and regional governments have made austerity measures which are very unpopular and have not really fix the problems of debts, this has meant Catalonia has vast debts it really needs to pay off, so that is why they have demanded a bailout, of course with the debts of Spanish Banks, its cannot really do this
So that is why there have been calls for independence (they already have significant autonomy from Madrid), so that they can use the money used to fund central government towards the paying of their debts (and thus less austerity), also they cannot hold a “referendum” on independence without Madrid’s approval and they have refused to allow one, so whatever vote there is would make little difference for the time being
This is bull. The “inexperienced college student” (your words) clearly is not studying geography either!
How could an English parliament NOT include Cornwall? How can an English parliament NOT include the “south east”? Serious credibility gap here!
Wasn’t it you who referred to Boris as an “idiot”?
Yes England CURRENTLY contains London + South East and Cornwall, however…
Cornwall is rather different to the rest of England; it has its own language, culture and even its own flag (which is flown all over the country), they are only part of England in name only and there are not too many “locals” who can say they are proud of being “English”
But that’s a separate argument completely than when it comes to London + SE…
The question is not “are Londoners proud to English/British?” they are without a doubt, the problem is that there is a growing gap between London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt and the rest of the UK (not just the rest of England), this is reflected economically, employment, tax revenue, investment, socially and even in our own aviation sector
Overall the difference is vast, such much so that a resident of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or Newcastle have more in common with the a resident of Cardiff, Swansea, Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen than a resident London, Brighton, Oxford and Chelmsford
How is this going to work when it comes to an English Parliament?
Would you want an English Parliament that was bias in favour of 40% of its population (London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt) over the other 60% of its population (rest of England)?
Remember the British Parliament is already bias in favour of 1/3 of its population (London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt) over the other 2/3 of its population (rest of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), this is one of the reasons (the others include nationalism and economic)
So I am suggesting devolution (separately) to both London (its urban area, metropolitan area and commuter belt) and the rest of England, for the sake of keeping the union together (unless the 5 home nations agree to end it), because there is resentment from all side of the UK about the current setup
Lastly does it matter (as a Londoner) if it’s an “English” or “London” running things where you live?
As for Boris, surely you don’t know that he is better at hosting HIGNFY, than being mayor, he has spent millions on new “Borismaster” buses, he has made sure London got a raw deal in terms of sponsoring the bike scheme and the cable car (not such a good idea); he has scraped the South London Tram and abandoned AND revived the Dagenham Dock DLR project, he got too close to Murdoch and he is popular because he a good personality, not because he has good polices (even from a right-wing perspective), may I go on…
Heathrow Harry
5th Jan 2013, 15:20
"Cornwall is rather different to the rest of England; it has its own language, culture and even its own flag (which is flown all over the country), they are only part of England in name only and there are not too many “locals” who can say they are proud of being “English”"
nonsense - Cornish is not spoken by more than a couple of hundred idiots
most of the population were born outside the county and moved there to retire, go to college or become "artists" (hence its a minimum wage economy)
they don't have a different culture at all -a couple of special events such as the Furry dance do not a culture make I'm afraid. Otherwise they watch the same TV, movies, listen to the same music, read the same papers and drink in identical pubs to the rest of England
they complain about the UK Govt and the EU while taking more cash from both than almost anywhere else
Fairdealfrank
6th Jan 2013, 01:48
Quote: “The ILEA was not directly part of the government of Greater London, it was a quango (but still part of the GLC, like London Transport) that ran education within Inner London (in other words the former LCC area), this was due to the fact the LCC was responsible for education, yet its successor the GLC had that power removed, so I would not count no 3, so there have been 3 versions of Greater London Government which are:”
Nothing quango-astic about ILEA, it was like a county council education committee in the first version of Greater London, a directly elected education committee in the second version, and non-existant in the third and fourth.
Quote: “From 1 to 2: Because the GLA was a Labour-run pain to the backside for Maggie and the Tory run Westminster, so to get rid of their biggest enemy they abolished it, in other words nothing more than cynical political strategy”
Only in the five years of Livingstone. For much of its time the Greater London Council was Conservative controlled, with a majority of 82-18 over Labour in one election. Why do you think the Conservatives created it? Its creation was, originally, a classic exercise in party political gerrymandering (hence the crazy illogical zig-zag boundary!).
Quote: “The problem with Greater London is not because it a bad idea, but with the fact it does not cover the entire urban area, metropolitan area and commuter bet and the fact it has nowhere near the amount of powers and autonomy it needs…”
While I agree on you on the fact there have been too many (and not really needed changes), Greater London was a relativity good idea (how could the LCC run London, when they did not run areas like East Ham, Enfield, Croydon, Southall, Ilford, Dagenham and Wembley, which have been part of the London urban area since the 1930s at least), trouble is that it has been done badly, the GLC did not have enough powers, then it was abolished for no good reason, then it was brought back as the GLA, but with even less powers and after all this time still not covering all of the London Urban Area, Metropolitan Area and Commuter Belt”
That’s WHY it’s a bad idea: too small to be regional, to large to be provincial (county level). For conurbation government that works reasonably well, they should have gone down the Paris/Ile de France route, i.e the Thames Valley, from Oxfordshire to the coast, and including the "London" airports.
Quote: “When I meant London Borough’s where “focused on doing things they are best done at a regional level” I meant functions and services that are normally done by county councils (which I want transferred to the GLA)
In other worlds the boroughs of London should be like the boroughs in New York, they should only be co-ordinating the operation (not running itself, which will be done by the GLA) of services that are normally done at district country level and advice the GLA in running of services and doing the full range of district and county level functions/powers”
Functions that are “normally done by county councils” should obviously be done by county councils, which is why “Greater London” is a bad idea (it superceded the county councils).
As for New York, the “boroughs” there do nothing, they are constituencies for the election of an official (the borough president) who sits on the NY city council with the other councillors.
Quote: “The GLA should also receive the full range of devolved powers (and maybe more) as Scotland**, not only that but it should also receive its own flag and coat of arms (which would the ones of the City of London) and annex the rest of the London Urban Area, Metropolitan Area and Commuter Belt, lastly the City of London should be abolished and replaced by a London Borough (with its city status moving to the GLA)”
Be your age! If a Livingstone controlled Greater London Council was able to challenge the government of the day, there is not a cat’s chance in hell of today's version being given the kind of more powers that you advocate!
Quote: “After all that, the “County of Greater London” should be renamed the “State of London” (and have the city status off the City of London)*, formally separate from England and become the “5th” home nations of the United Kingdom, in other words, London becomes a city-state while staying part of the UK”
Why?
BTW, Greater London is not a county and can't be a "state" (there are no states in the UK).
Quote: “*As part of this the “Greater London Authority” should renamed the “Government of London” and the position of “Lord Mayor of London” should be absorbed into the position of “Mayor of London”
Why not “first minister” or “president”?
Quote: “No they did not have a vote on independence, they had a election and all that really happened was that CIU (Which is a relativity moderate Catalan nationalist party which was before the recent election the ruling party in Catalonia), which decided to adopt a platform for independence (previously they demanded more autonomy) and despite this ended up losing their majority (but still the biggest party) and the real gainers where left wing nationalist parties (Spain-wide left and right wing parties did the more or less the name as last time)
The main reasons are all economic, Spain as you know is suffering a rather bad economic crisis and that included Catalonia, this also meant that national (and regional debts) have risen quite a lot, to fix this both national and regional governments have made austerity measures which are very unpopular and have not really fix the problems of debts, this has meant Catalonia has vast debts it really needs to pay off, so that is why they have demanded a bailout, of course with the debts of Spanish Banks, its cannot really do this
So that is why there have been calls for independence (they already have significant autonomy from Madrid), so that they can use the money used to fund central government towards the paying of their debts (and thus less austerity), also they cannot hold a “referendum” on independence without Madrid’s approval and they have refused to allow one, so whatever vote there is would make little difference for the time being”
More nonsense! Catalonia did indeed vote for pro-independence parties, whist asking Madrid for a bail out. The Spanish experience shows us exactly why we should not have gone down the route of regional government/devolution. Too late now, that particular genie won’t go back in the bottle.
Quote: “Yes England CURRENTLY contains London + South East and Cornwall, however…
Cornwall is rather different to the rest of England; it has its own language, culture and even its own flag (which is flown all over the country), they are only part of England in name only and there are not too many “locals” who can say they are proud of being “English”
But that’s a separate argument completely than when it comes to London + SE…
The question is not “are Londoners proud to English/British?” they are without a doubt, the problem is that there is a growing gap between London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt and the rest of the UK (not just the rest of England), this is reflected economically, employment, tax revenue, investment, socially and even in our own aviation sector
Overall the difference is vast, such much so that a resident of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or Newcastle have more in common with the a resident of Cardiff, Swansea, Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen than a resident London, Brighton, Oxford and Chelmsford
How is this going to work when it comes to an English Parliament?
Would you want an English Parliament that was bias in favour of 40% of its population (London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt) over the other 60% of its population (rest of England)?
Prefer decentralisation to devolution but it's too late!
Only an English parliament or no devolution answers the West Lothian question.
Quote: "Remember the British Parliament is already bias in favour of 1/3 of its population (London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt) over the other 2/3 of its population (rest of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), this is one of the reasons (the others include nationalism and economic)
So I am suggesting devolution (separately) to both London (its urban area, metropolitan area and commuter belt) and the rest of England, for the sake of keeping the union together (unless the 5 home nations agree to end it), because there is resentment from all side of the UK about the current setup
Lastly does it matter (as a Londoner) if it’s an “English” or “London” running things where you live?
As for Boris, surely you don’t know that he is better at hosting HIGNFY, than being mayor, he has spent millions on new “Borismaster” buses, he has made sure London got a raw deal in terms of sponsoring the bike scheme and the cable car (not such a good idea); he has scraped the South London Tram and abandoned AND revived the Dagenham Dock DLR project, he got too close to Murdoch and he is popular because he a good personality, not because he has good polices (even from a right-wing perspective), may I go on…”
Forget it, it’s obviously never going to happen: as mentioned before, an English Parliament (even without Cornwall!) would be big enough to challenge the Westminster Parliament, so it will never be allowed.
Quote: “may I go on…”
No, please don’t!
silverstrata
7th Jan 2013, 10:40
.
I spot a thread hijack. Please do not reply to this fool.
I spot a thread hijack. Please do not reply to this fool.
For the record, the whole debate began when I suggested that THA should be named after both mayors of London
Then FDF and I ended up having a debate about the mayor and the local government system of London
Also you have to note that I am not that hostile to your THA proposal, just that expanding and improving LHR is the better option
PAXboy
7th Jan 2013, 12:22
It's not a thread hijack - BALHR is just one of the finest Trolls this Forum has ever seen. he gets even better when you use your IGNORE option. :ok:
It's not a thread hijack - BALHR is just one of the finest Trolls this Forum has ever seen. he gets even better when you use your IGNORE option.
For god sake can you please stop spreading lies about me? :mad:
"Cornwall is rather different to the rest of England; it has its own language, culture and even its own flag (which is flown all over the country), they are only part of England in name only and there are not too many “locals” who can say they are proud of being “English”"
nonsense - Cornish is not spoken by more than a couple of hundred idiots
most of the population were born outside the county and moved there to retire, go to college or become "artists" (hence its a minimum wage economy)
they don't have a different culture at all -a couple of special events such as the Furry dance do not a culture make I'm afraid. Otherwise they watch the same TV, movies, listen to the same music, read the same papers and drink in identical pubs to the rest of England
they complain about the UK Govt and the EU while taking more cash from both than almost anywhere else
For the record, it is not clear how many speak it, buts is a few thousand people, but without a doubt its closer to Celtic languages than the Germanic languages such as English
Also the “Cornish Nationalists” are not too happy about “moved there to retire, go to college or become "artists”
Admiringly there is much of a “Cornish Culture” today, mainly due to the fact there are not many people who embrace it in Cornwall, but then again for centuries Wales did not exist (formally anyway, since it was incorporated into England in late 13th century) for centuries (it was only established gradually in the 20th century) and Welsh was a dying language, both of which are not the case
Also I think its Northern Ireland that takes more cash from Westminster than any other region…
For more into:
Cornish language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_language)
Cornish nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_nationalism)
As for the fact “the same TV, movies, listen to the same music, read the same papers and drink in identical pubs to the rest of England” is it not the case throughout the UK, of course there are regional differences within each area
The question I am asking however is not about Cornwall, but about London + SE, without a doubt there is a large difference between that region and the rest of England (and the UK)
I’m my opinion there are big differences in economic, social and even cultural terms (and several more), plus its more ethnically diverse as well, not that I am saying that ethnic diversity applies only to that region and nowhere else)
I am not advocating that London + SE should become independent, but what I am calling for is autonomy, because London’s needs are different to other regions of the UK, more different than Scotland and Wales needs when compared to the UK
This would also strengthen the union, by ending Westminster’s bias in favour of London + SE (which ironically is not good for the region) which will in turn end the resentment from the rest of the UK (Rest of England, Wales and Scotland)
Skipness One Echo
7th Jan 2013, 14:16
he gets even better when you use your IGNORE option.
He's the only ppruner on mine although frank keeps quoting him back which means I still get to read his ramblings. Nothing anyone says ever gets through, please stop trying.
btw silverstrata, I was in Hong Kong last week and could weep at how it just works (!) I wish I could believe we could manage that here. I did actually start to reconsider my position if I am being honest, although my heart says you're right then my head laughs at the idea. I worry it would make the Berlin fiasco look like an accomplishmed deliverable.
Nothing quango-astic about ILEA, it was like a county council education committee in the first version of Greater London, a directly elected education committee in the second version, and non-existant in the third and fourth.
However the ILEA was not responsible for the governance of the London region, only for the education of Inner London, hence the case remains that there are 3 (not 4) versions of government in Greater London since 1963, in other words the ILEA is no different to London Transport (LT), both of which where local government bodies, interestingly LT has had lot of changes since its formation in 1933:
1933-1948: London Passenger Transport Board (formed by the merger of the Underground Electric Railways Company, the Metropolitan Railways, London Genera Omnibus Companyl, Thomas Tilling London and pretty much all Tram Networks within the Greater London area, but was a joint public body)
1948-1963: London Transport Executive (This became part of the British Transport Commission, which controlled the Railways, local and national bus networks, major road haulage firms and subsidiary business formally part of the “big 4” railways, such are hotels and ferry companies)
1963-1970: London Transport Board (when the British Transport Commission was broken up into separate bodies controlled by the Transport Ministry, the operations of the LTE where transferred to a new body called the LTB, the exception was “Green Line” buses services that where outside Greater London, which where transferred to the National Bus Company, another BTC successor body)
1970-1984: London Transport Executive (when the GLC was formed, one major gap in their limited powers was in transport, so the LTB become a separate body of the GLC and reverted back to the LTE name, however for the same reasons as what caused the demise of the GLC, it was forcibly broken off the GLC and moved back to the DFT)
1984-2000: London Regional Transport (after it was transferred from the GLC to the DFT, it changed its name to LRT, it retained the same powers as before, the only major difference it that it later franchised its bus operations)
2000 onwards: Transport for London (lastly when the GLA was formed, it dropped the London Transport name altogether, changed its name and became a subsidiary board of the GLA, its responsibilities have gradually expanded since then
If my “London Devolution” plan eve goes’ ahead, the only change will be that TFL will now be responsible for all transport within the areas currently not under the control of the GLA, but will become part of the “State of London”
Also all rail services formally part of Network South East will also now come under the control of TFL
Only in the five years of Livingstone. For much of its time the Greater London Council was Conservative controlled, with a majority of 82-18 over Labour in one election. Why do you think the Conservatives created it? Its creation was, originally, a classic exercise in party political gerrymandering (hence the crazy illogical zig-zag boundary!).
Actually in the 6 elections thought the GLA’s history, both Labour and the Tories won 3 each, then as is now, Labour and the Tories both have equal dominance over Greater London, the reason is that some (Tory) local councils refused to be part of “Greater London” (such as Epson), thus it ruined the plan…
Under my “London Devolution” under the current political system it would be mostly Tory
That’s WHY it’s a bad idea: too small to be regional, to large to be provincial (county level). For conurbation government that works reasonably well, they should have gone down the Paris/Ile de France route, i.e the Thames Valley, from Oxfordshire to the coast, and including the "London" airports.
Well on this point I 100% agree with you, Great London poorly reflects the entire metropolitan/commuter area and the region as a hole, in fact it’s the 3rd biggest reason why there should be “London Devolution” (2nd is retaining more of our tax revenue, 1st is having more of a say in our own affairs)
Functions that are “normally done by county councils” should obviously be done by county councils, which is why “Greater London” is a bad idea (it superceded the county councils).
As for New York, the “boroughs” there do nothing, they are constituencies for the election of an official (the borough president) who sits on the NY city council with the other councillors.
Which is what I am proposing for the “State of London”, although the Local Councils will still retain some limited powers, to put in in short it should have the combined powers of both the LCC and the Government of Scotland (meaning that both Local and National Government will have to hand powers to this government)
Be your age! If a Livingstone controlled Greater London Council was able to challenge the government of the day, there is not a cat’s chance in hell of today's version being given the kind of more powers that you advocate!
Ken Livingstone’s political days are over, besides if there was more devolution in the London + SE area, there would be less conflicts since Westminster will no longer make laws/polices that could go against the region and most laws and policy will be done by the “State of London” and not “Westminster” (the major exceptions are foreign relations/policy and defence, which are the only areas where conflicts could arises)
If Scotland decides to leave the UK, I predict a flood of “independence/autonomy” demand, London + SE should make the most of it
Why?
BTW, Greater London is not a county and can't be a "state" (there are no states in the UK).
Greater London is both a country and a region of England, (but not a city, there are 3 within the GLA area, the City of London* and the London Boroughs of Westminster and Greenwich
I did not call this “new” London (I have dropped the “Greater London” name, since it confuses on who is in charge of London…) government a “City” (to prevent confusion with the “City of London”), nor “Kingdom” (since London was not a separate Kingdom at the time of formation of the UK in 1707 unlike England and Scotland, nor “Province” or “Principality” (unlike Wales or Northern Ireland), because it does not reflect the “metropolitan” character of London, hence why I choose “state”
*It’s about time the City of London was abolished, it does not reflect the vast majority of London’s residents (its only has 9,000 residents and covers 1 square mile), it’s out of date and irrelevant and its undemocratic an unaccountable and it should be replaced by the London Borough of Farringdon (its city status and nearly all its powers however are moved to the State of London)
As for other local governments with City status within the “State of London” well they will lose it, in return however the State of London will have City status
Why not “first minister” or “president”?
“President” is misleading (its indicates it’s a Head of State, when that’s currently the Queen) and “First Minister” does not reflect the “metropolitan” character of London, hence I stuck with “Mayor” (maybe it could be called “Governor” instead?)
He's the only ppruner on mine although frank keeps quoting him back which means I still get to read his ramblings. Nothing anyone says ever gets through.
btw silverstrata, I was in Hong Kong last week and could weep at how it just works (!) I wish I could believe we could manage that here. I did actually start to reconsider my position if I am being honest, although my heart says you're right then my head laughs at the idea. I worry it would make the Berlin fiasco look like an accomplishmed deliverable.
Why on earth do you have a issue with what I am saying? :mad:
Anyway, its not impossible (HKIA has already done it on a smaller scale, with British Taxpayers Money), the question is it is worth the vast cost?
My opinion is that as long as we can allow major improvements to LHR (including major expansion), then no THA is not needed, if that is not possible however, then we should do it as long as its done properly (for once...)
PAXboy
7th Jan 2013, 18:18
It seems that BALHR replies after posts that have made a criticism of their words. So I intuit that he (I presume that he is such) is irritated by being so classified.
The reason that I ignore your posts is that you do not show much sense of conversation. You continually assert your views (which is just fine) but when contradicted (even mildly) you do not reply with, "That's interesting" or "Thanks for the different point of view" and so forth.
These forums are about discussion and I don't think that you discuss in a way that I enjoy, simple really. I find the topic very interesting and important and will continue to follow the thread.
DaveReidUK
8th Jan 2013, 07:43
when you use your IGNORE optionGrateful thanks for drawing that button to my attention, I hadn't been aware of it until now.
Just in time, too - I had been rapidly losing the will to live. :ugh:
Good point about posting loads, yet being unwilling to engage in debate or acknowledge other points of view.
It seems that BALHR replies after posts that have made a criticism of their words. So I intuit that he (I presume that he is such) is irritated by being so classified.
The reason that I ignore your posts is that you do not show much sense of conversation. You continually assert your views (which is just fine) but when contradicted (even mildly) you do not reply with, "That's interesting" or "Thanks for the different point of view" and so forth.
These forums are about discussion and I don't think that you discuss in a way that I enjoy, simple really. I find the topic very interesting and important and will continue to follow the thread.
If the issue is over the fact I "do not show much sense of conversation" then I will rectify it...
Also thank you very much for your honesty...
Grateful thanks for drawing that button to my attention, I hadn't been aware of it until now.
Just in time, too - I had been rapidly losing the will to live.
Good point about posting loads, yet being unwilling to engage in debate or acknowledge other points of view.
If the issue is over the fact I'm "yet being unwilling to engage in debate or acknowledge other points of view" then I will try to fix this problem, after all the main reason I am in this forum is to engage in debate in the first place...
Fairdealfrank
8th Jan 2013, 13:25
Quote: "Then FDF and I ended up having a debate about the mayor and the local government system of London"
Not a debate as such, that turned out not to be possible, so more an attempt to correct innaccuracies. It appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
Quote: "btw silverstrata, I was in Hong Kong last week and could weep at how it just works (!) I wish I could believe we could manage that here. I did actually start to reconsider my position if I am being honest, although my heart says you're right then my head laughs at the idea. I worry it would make the Berlin fiasco look like an accomplishmed deliverable."
Lucky devil! love HKG it's a fabulous place! It does work like a dream.
However, would definitely not equate Chek Lap Kok with any proposed Silver Island scheme.
Not a debate as such, that turned out not to be possible, so more an attempt to correct innaccuracies. It appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
It was a bit of both, the problem was that we disagreed about the history of governance of Greater London...
On the plus side, I fee we are both on the same wavelength when it comes to what needs to be done (sort of...)
Lucky devil! love HKG it's a fabulous place! It does work like a dream.
However, would definitely not equate Chek Lap Kok with any proposed Silver Island scheme.
What makes you think that THA would not be successful as HKG, after all the latter was built under British rule and with British taxpayers money...
Skipness One Echo
8th Jan 2013, 14:47
What makes you think that THA would not be successful as HKG, after all the latter was built under British rule and with British taxpayers money...
Read the previous 51 pages and find out.
Heathrow Harry
8th Jan 2013, 16:11
I don't think the British taxpayer paid a single dollar to build Chep Lak Kok - it was all raised by the local Govt (who later sold a load of equity to private investors) and on the international bond markets
Read the previous 51 pages and find out.
I know why it might be successful, I am just asking why did it work HKG and what do they have that we don't to make THA work?
I don't think the British taxpayer paid a single dollar to build Chep Lak Kok - it was all raised by the local Govt (who later sold a load of equity to private investors) and on the international bond markets
Did the local government get money from British/Chinese governments in relation to this project?
Otherwise, thanks for the info :ok:
More nonsense! Catalonia did indeed vote for pro-independence parties, whist asking Madrid for a bail out. The Spanish experience shows us exactly why we should not have gone down the route of regional government/devolution. Too late now, that particular genie won’t go back in the bottle.
They only voted for pro-independent (left-wing ones where the real gainers) parties since you don’t have to look hard to see that Madrid will never bailout Catalonia, even if they had the money, since they themselves have large debts and need to bailout their banks big time
Also if there was no regional government/devolution, then Spain would have broken up as soon as Franco died, remember since his side won the Spanish Civil War, they repressed the Spanish population and in particular the “Non-Spanish” populations (Catatonia and Basque Country) who mostly sided against him, so by the time his rule came to a end, there was a lot of resentment…
Forget it, it’s obviously never going to happen: as mentioned before, an English Parliament (even without Cornwall!) would be big enough to challenge the Westminster Parliament, so it will never be allowed.
If there was a “London” parliament, there would be no reason to challenge Westminster, since they have would little power/influence over the running of the “State of London” with the exception to foreign affairs and defence (disputes might arise over this however…)
But they have already let the “devolution” cat in the bag; London out of any region in the UK is most needing of devolution out of any part of the UK, the longer they delay this the harder it would be to prevent, after all Scotland is voting either to leave the UK or not (even if they voted no, they will get even more power)
We have currently are in a worst of both world when it comes to London + SE, the rest of the UK resents the fact that Westminster is bias towards London + SE, yet that same region is resentful of the fact they don’t have their best interests at heart (like LHR expansion for example) and the fact 20% of the tax revenue is spent outside the region (at a time when public services and even Blue Plaques are being cut)
This is the main reason why the UK is falling apart in the first place (ultimately)…
BALHR
14th Jan 2013, 09:45
Going back on topic, let’s not spend 4 years wasting time on what to about expansion and decide right here and right now with these following options:
1: A 4-6 runway Heathrow
2: A 6 runway Gatwick, but with Heathrow shut down
3: A 6 runway Stansted, but with Heathrow, Gatwick an Luton shut down
4: A 8 runway New Airport, but with Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Southend and City shutdown
(Note, I would pick 1)
We have been delaying the decision since WW2, we have devolved other Ex-RAF airports and we have given in to opponents and trying to plaster the problem, but we have reached the end of the line and we are also in a economic mess, we face strong competition from our rivals in Europe and even stronger competition from North America and the Middle East
All those options however will mean major changes for all of London’s Airports however, being that full-service carriers at LGW will move to LHR and maybe Easyjet’s ops at LGW/LTN/STN as well (if they continue to aim more at business passengers and become more of a “hybrid carrier”)
This will mean LGW will be rather empty, which in turn means that traffic (LCC and Charter) will move from Luton/Stansted to Gatwick (due to having a better location…)
We will end up with a busy LHR, a rather less full LGW and a rather empty LTN/STN…
DaveReidUK
14th Jan 2013, 11:38
1: A 4-6 runway Heathrow
2: A 6 runway Gatwick, but with Heathrow shut down
3: A 6 runway Stansted, but with Heathrow, Gatwick an Luton shut down
4: A 8 runway New Airport, but with Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Southend and City shutdown
Thanks for injecting a bit of humour into a dull, miserable Monday morning.
BALHR
14th Jan 2013, 12:02
Thanks for injecting a bit of humour into a dull, miserable Monday morning.
I made it clear that I would pick the option that would give LHR at least 2 more runways...
DaveReidUK
14th Jan 2013, 12:37
I made it clear that I would pick the option that would give LHR at least 2 more runways... Now you're just being modest - your 6-runway Gatwick and/or Stansted is equally hilarious.
BALHR
14th Jan 2013, 14:04
Now you're just being modest - your 6-runway Gatwick and/or Stansted is equally hilarious.
You don't seem to get my point that the best solution that would fix the problems London in its airports is a bigger LHR, expanding LGW/STN would not work unless LHR is shut (or in the case of STN, LGW as well), that my point...
canberra97
15th Jan 2013, 11:26
BAHLR
What the hell are you on?
All these dream posts and usually long winded ones at that are getting very tiresome indeed, can't you give it a rest for bit!!!!!
'Asperges Syndrome' comes to mind!
Ernest Lanc's
15th Jan 2013, 16:53
'Asperges Syndrome' comes to mind!
I wonder do you know.."Asperges Syndrome" is autistic in nature, the difference is..."Asperges Syndrome" sufferers, normally have a higher IQ, than none sufferers.
You don't seem to get my point that the best solution that would fix the problems London in its airports is a bigger LHR, expanding LGW/STN would not work unless LHR is shut (or in the case of STN, LGW as well), that my point...
I think BALHR even though you lend support for a 4 runway LHR, your heart is set on the Boris Fantasy Airport...Nothing wrong with that, but when I hear about LHR and other London airports closing to accommodate this airport built on silt, with unknown cost and unknown competition dates..The only option for LHR congestion, is to expand that airport..Maybe expand another London airport also, with rail connections.
FRatSTN
15th Jan 2013, 18:32
I know it looks long, but let me chip in with my opinion:
Add a third runway and sixth terminal to Heathrow. The sooner the better, placing it in a way where a fourth runway could be built in the future if needed, ensuring each runway can be at least 1 km apart so aircraft do not conflict with other traffic on approach or upwind (a problem that FRA has). Expanding Gatwick, Stansted or Luton is not the answer as it's the hub capacity that's lacking and only expansion of Heathrow can solve that aside from the crazy idea of building a brand new airport. If we had problems with point-to-point capacity, Stansted would not be half empty!
The Thames Estury idea is just a fantasy. London already has six airports so why do we really need to build another? Building an airport that is so poorly located from most UK residents, so far outside London so that people have no option but to pay for a high speed rail link to get there in any reasonable length of time is not the answer. Good road access is also vital and needs to be competetive with CDG, FRA and AMS which Heathrow is. The location of Heathrow is ideal for inbound travel giving a wide range of onward travel options into London and is ideally located for UK residents to use it for outbound travel, easilly accessible by motorway from most UK cities. The Thames Estury is a horrifically long trek for most of us in the UK!!
Expanding Heathrow is by far the most sensible option economically. It's by far a cheaper option than to build a brand new 4 runway airport on reclaimed land which will need heavy investment in order for people to get there in half decent travel times. The vast majority of the infrastrucure needed for London to be a successul airport hub is already there, all it needs is a bit more room for capacity increases. Heathrow is also known internationally and closing it and re-opening another airport could also create issues relating to re-branding and further costs will be needed there.
Most areas to the north of the airport are flat fields but, and I know it sounds harsh, the villages of Sipson and Harmondsworth would need to go and Harlington would be under the flight path for westerly arrivals for the new runway(s) although it may be possible to allow for departures only on westerly ops/arrivals only on easterlies to avoid that becoming an issue. I know it sounds awful and I totally understand their opposition, but the "thousands" of people that will be effected by Heathrow expansion doesn't really compare to the tens of millions of extra people who will use the airport each year. In one source, one opposer said they would not be able to have a BBQ in the summer without airport noise. I don't think I really need to ask whether a few thousand of those complaints or the tens of millions of people who actually support the expansion due to the hugely positive economic impacts it will have on our nation is most important!
Adding more runways would also take the strain off the existing runways. People affected by flight paths to mainly one runway (which is the case for most) will actually have fewer aircraft affecting them if the expansion goes ahead than they do with mixed mode nowadays as the runway they are most affected by will be less congested. Also, it would reduce the amount of time aircraft spend in holding patters over London and reduce the time of aircraft waiting for departure (as the airport would have more capacity to cater for greater volume) so with that in mind, incresed air traffic would not increse pollution levels as much as you may think.
Wherever you expand, you WILL get noise complains, you WILL get more pollution and you WILL get environmentalists picking holes in every alternative in some way or another. They would only be pleased if we did nothing and for the future of this country and the economy, that is simply not an option. We are therefore still better off expanding in a place where most people are more used to aircraft noise and pollution rather than creating the exact same conflicts elsewhere.
PAXboy
15th Jan 2013, 22:57
FRatSTN You're preaching to (mostly!) the converted. With each new parliamentry intake we get more career politicians and fewer conviction ones. More who have never worked in industry, the shop floor or academia, leave alone on the ramp or flight deck!
They WILL do nothing.
DaveReidUK
16th Jan 2013, 07:28
With each new parliamentry intake we get more career politicians and fewer conviction ones. More who have never worked in industry, the shop floor or academia, leave alone on the ramp or flight deck!
Politicians, and in particular ministers, have always been dependent on the expertise of their civil servants and advisers, some of whom (in times gone by, at least) will actually have worked in industry.
Nowadays, alas, we seem to have a Department of Transport (sorry, Department for Transport) that, frankly, isn't fit for purpose, viz the West Coast Mainline franchise farce and numerous other c*ck-ups.
Perhaps if they had spent less time agonising over prepositions and more actually thinking about what they are supposed to be doing, we might have a joined-up transport policy instead of the mess we're currently in.
jabird
17th Jan 2013, 00:17
However, would definitely not equate Chek Lap Kok with any proposed Silver Island scheme.
It has everything to do with Fantasy Boris / Foster Island, as the latter is virtually a complete C+P job of the former!
Can we stop the Silver ref? Sorry mate, but after reaching for the ignore for BALHR, I've had enough of him too.
However, the differences between HKG and FIB (actually, that's better than FBI - Fantasy Island of Boris) are vast - HKG has no other land on which to build a large airport, Kai Tak was far more valuable real estate than ex LHR would be, the only other airports in the Pearl River Delta region are outside Hong Kong, and even the new HKG is still only a partial reclaim, and not floating out in the North Sea as some variations on this theme are suggesting.
canberra97
17th Jan 2013, 05:24
Ernest Lancs
With reference to Asperges Syndrome, I am aware that alot of people who suffer from it tend to have a very high IQ but are not usually thinking rationally when it comes to every day life, my older uncle who is 72yo suffers from it and although his military history is unbelievable he has no idea of the real world, he does not even watch the news only the history channels 'over and over again', obviously his conversations tends to be very one sided and usually on his terms.
That is why I suggested our friend might have Asperges Syndrome going by his numerous and very tedious posts!!
DaveReidUK
17th Jan 2013, 07:18
That is why I suggested our friend might have Asperges Syndrome going by his numerous and very tedious posts!!
I'm not brave enough to venture a diagnosis for our friend's condition, but you might want to note that it's Asperger's Syndrome (Wikipedia: "a person with AS may engage in a one-sided, long-winded speech about a favorite topic, while misunderstanding or not recognizing the listener's feelings or reactions, such as a wish to change the topic of talk or end the interaction").
Or, as a possible non-medical alternative, a simple case of verbal diarrhoea ... :O
Kremnin
20th Jan 2013, 14:50
Have any of the planners actually been on the Hoo Peninsula?
Lord Foster said that the Hub Airport on the Isle of Grain will be the Biggest and safest Airport in the World.
How can this be so when you have a LIQUID NATURAL STORAGE SITE on the Isle of Grain that provides the UK with almost a quarter of their gas reserve.
Plus in the sea you have the S.S. Richard Montgomery with 3,000 tons of High Explosive on-board getting more unstable by the year.
How many Pilots and passengers will be happy to fly into an Airport that is an accident waiting to happen.
I thought a Hub was the Centre of the wheel, and not the spiral arm. Put the Hub Airport in the middle of the country and now where it will put other airports out of business and make thousands homeless.
3,000 ton timebomb shipwrecked in the Thames estuary | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2195590/3-000-ton-timebomb-shipwrecked-Thames-estuary.html)
bread&water
25th Jan 2013, 15:12
Oxera - Oxera's expert consultancy reports (http://www.oxera.com/Publications/Reports/2013/Would-a-new-hub-airport-be-commercially-viable-.aspx)
Report informing Transport Committee' questions
Unsurprising answer to the question.
Dannyboy39
25th Jan 2013, 15:33
I'd like some of what they're smoking on costs - they believe several Thames Estuary proposals would cost between £20bn-£50bn. Massively underestimated. Just £2.2bn on surface access for Cliffe Airport? Everyone going to go by road are they?
Table 3.1 demonstrates perfectly that exponential forecasting is inaccurate; over-estimating demand.
That method of forecasting, predicts that by 2030, passenger numbers will grow by 60% at UK airports. That is simply not going to happen - we'll soon be hitting saturation point brought about by a number of internal and external factors: reduced competition, running costs, APD.
The world economy is a huge factor - are we in a new norm? No more boom and bust etc.
Fairdealfrank
25th Jan 2013, 18:11
Quote: "Have any of the planners actually been on the Hoo Peninsula?
Lord Foster said that the Hub Airport on the Isle of Grain will be the Biggest and safest Airport in the World.
How can this be so when you have a LIQUID NATURAL STORAGE SITE on the Isle of Grain that provides the UK with almost a quarter of their gas reserve.
Plus in the sea you have the S.S. Richard Montgomery with 3,000 tons of High Explosive on-board getting more unstable by the year.
How many Pilots and passengers will be happy to fly into an Airport that is an accident waiting to happen."
That is a very good point! Silver may know the answer(?).
Quote: "I thought a Hub was the Centre of the wheel, and not the spiral arm. Put the Hub Airport in the middle of the country and now where it will put other airports out of business and make thousands homeless."
Best place for the hub is Heathrow. Like it or not, it has to be reasonably close to London, and 20 mi. is not bad.
Agree 100% with the rest of the sentence!
"There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns", as Donald Rumsfold may have said.
Quote: "I'd like some of what they're smoking on costs - they believe several Thames Estuary proposals would cost between £20bn-£50bn. Massively underestimated. Just £2.2bn on surface access for Cliffe Airport? Everyone going to go by road are they?
Table 3.1 demonstrates perfectly that exponential forecasting is inaccurate; over-estimating demand.
That method of forecasting, predicts that by 2030, passenger numbers will grow by 60% at UK airports. That is simply not going to happen - we'll soon be hitting saturation point brought about by a number of internal and external factors: reduced competition, running costs, APD.
The world economy is a huge factor - are we in a new norm? No more boom and bust etc"
That's the point no one knows. As for "boom and bust", in fairness to Gordon, he always said "no more Tory boom and bust", he just replaced it with a Labour crash.
Maybe they're working on historical figures that suggest an annual average increase of 5%/year, but as they say in the literature of all financial products, past performance is not a guide to the future.
The following is well known:
(1) Silver Island (or any of its variants) is a bad commecial and business proposition;
(2) it will need (probably unavailable) public funding;
(3) Heathrow will not close, so Silver Island will not attract premium pax;
(4) Heathrow will not close, so pax from most areas won't use it (because of its inaccessible location);
(5) there will be insufficient connectivity, so carriers won't move there;
(6) in the hypothetical case of Heathrow closing, pax may prefer Gatwick, or Amsterdam.....;
(7) there are several environmental and ecological problems associated with this, not least surge tides, fog and high probability of birdstrike incidents.
So why is Boris wasting local government public money on yet another report on this nonsense, when the Howard Davies commission will be doing the same, financed by central governmemt public money?
PAXboy
25th Jan 2013, 21:27
Kremnin welcome to PPRuNe. :)
With regards to govt ideas and MPs behaviour, it looks as if you are making the elementary mistake of tryingto apply logic to the discussion. Tsk Tsk :p
Skipness One Echo
25th Jan 2013, 21:59
Boris Johnson supports Stansted hub as 'easiest' solution - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/boris-johnson-supports-stansted-hub-as-easiest-solution-8467020.html)
It seems BoJo has had a bite of reality on the sadly immense costs of the estuary project. He is now backing Stansted, which would mean closing Heathrow in favour of Stansted. It's just tragic IMHO.
GAZMO
25th Jan 2013, 22:41
Just read Frastd comments....a few days but I have to agree with everything he said
Yes there will be complaints.....if you expand LGW, STN or the pie in the sky Thames airport you will have many more complaining
Agree LHR expansion is the best option for SE
jabird
25th Jan 2013, 23:09
Boris - expansion of Heathrow is a delusion and a disaster.
and Fantasy Island isn't?
Then we get another half baked scheme to link London's airport together, and give people Oyster cards - err, a national Oyster card for rail will be rolled out within the next 2-3 years anyway, and already exists in Denmark, Northern Ireland and iirc, the Netherlands too.
It comes as a leading architect said the solution to the South-East’s aviation crisis lay in creating a “hub-city” rather than a “super-hub” airport. Eden Project designer Grimshaw is the latest firm to throw its hat into the ring with a scheme to expand capacity.
Unlike most of the other projects on the table, chief executive Jolyon Brewis has suggested splitting capacity between a number of existing airports. At the same time, he proposes encouraging transfer passengers to spend their time between flights travelling around the city on an Oyster-type card.
It really worries me as someone who trained as an architect before doing other things on t'interweb that a profession can discredit itself so badly with all these proposals. Between them, Foster (Gherkin) and Grimshaw (Eden Project) have designed some of the UK's most iconic buildings, and you don't do something like that without a great sense of design flair AND logic! :ugh:
Fairdealfrank
26th Jan 2013, 12:15
Quote: "It seems BoJo has had a bite of reality on the sadly immense costs of the estuary project. He is now backing Stansted, which would mean closing Heathrow in favour of Stansted. It's just tragic IMHO."
The trouble is that STN has many of the disadvantages of Silver Island: nos 2-6 of those listed in post #1055 above, and in part, no. 1 as well.
It is very easy to spend other peoples' money: thanks to inefficiency, inneffectiveness, dodgy procuring and outsourcing, and the "left hand having no idea what the right hand is doing", big business wastes millions of shareholders' money; the public sector does it with taxpayers' funds.
Boris also has no business complaining that Dave has kicked the airports issue into the long grass, if he did not want this, he should have supported LHR expansion and given Call-me-dave some encouragement to stiffen his resolve, "grow a pair" and develop a backbone.
Quote: "Just read Frastd comments....a few days but I have to agree with everything he said
Yes there will be complaints.....if you expand LGW, STN or the pie in the sky Thames airport you will have many more complaining
Agree LHR expansion is the best option for SE"
...and the UK in general, anything else is nonsense.
Quote: "Then we get another half baked scheme to link London's airport together, and give people Oyster cards - err, a national Oyster card for rail will be rolled out within the next 2-3 years anyway, and already exists in Denmark, Northern Ireland and iirc, the Netherlands too."
Think you may be right, the whole of the Netherlands has been divided into travel zones for fares for ages, and AFAIK, the "nationale strippen karte" system was due to be phased out.
Skipness One Echo
26th Jan 2013, 12:41
The trouble is that STN has many of the disadvantages of Silver Island
In a nutshell is has less credibility in the business. It is a business after all, BoJo has no business experience, like Cameron, Osbourne, Clegg, Milliband(s), Harman etc etc. All they know is the process of lawmaking (is that in good shape?), the art of journalism (same question) and suckling at the taxpayer funded teet of the EU, that's you Mr Clegg.
In the real world, some of what they come out with is from a different planet. Operation Mirabel lives on.
Fairdealfrank
26th Jan 2013, 14:19
Quite right Skipness One Echo, none of them has had a "proper" job in the real world, or as Ken Livingstone would say, none of them has ever "run anything".
They've also proved useless at law-making (look at all the unintended consequences that arise from their rubbish legislation) and/or useless at journalism (look at the sloppiness involved)!
PAXboy
26th Jan 2013, 21:36
S.O.E. It seems BoJo has had a bite of reality on the sadly immense costs of the estuary project. He is now backing Stansted, which would mean closing Heathrow in favour of Stansted. It's just tragic IMHO.Today I was chatting to a clsoe relative of mine who works in the transport arrangements for London. I cannot say more precisely as I do not want to narrow the field as not many work where they do. But my relative has been involved in London engineering projects, inc CrossRail, for many years.
I asked about STN being given a try? The reply was, "NO. Boris has not given up on the island and is just trying to frighten the natives of STN land."
johnnychips
26th Jan 2013, 22:18
look at all the unintended consequences that arise from their rubbish legislation
Is this a reference to an increase in flytipping or just a generality? :)
What I cannot understand about any of these proposals is that transport infrastructure, both road and rail, would have to be provided; as well as all sorts of stuff about disturbing birds and unexploded bombs! If they can't get HS2 operational till 2025, what hope have they with this? The problem of airport capacity needs resolving now and rapidly - and the best solution lies at LHR.
Fairdealfrank
26th Jan 2013, 22:46
Quote: "Is this a reference to an increase in flytipping or just a generality? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif
Oh, very good, ha ha! but yes, it is a case in point. Won't expand and bang on about the EU's intereference role in rubbish disposal, it could be construed as "thread drift".
Quote: "What I cannot understand about any of these proposals is that transport infrastructure, both road and rail, would have to be provided; as well as all sorts of stuff about disturbing birds and unexploded bombs! If they can't get HS2 operational till 2025, what hope have they with this? The problem of airport capacity needs resolving now and rapidly - and the best solution lies at LHR."
Spot on, agree 100%, but HS2 will not be running in 2025, and that's a "cast-iron" guarantee! It's just like Call-me-dave's "cast-iron" guarantee on the EU referendum (the first one)!
Bagso
27th Jan 2013, 09:45
I keep banging my head against the wall BUT ......another RW at LHR will soak up about 2 years growth max, plus do you really want another landing runway over London.
Few siren voices who have no clue what they are talking about saying we must build it now etc etc etc yawn...
....er what about safety.
I know it's a dirty word but I just cannot see how we an possibly cram more runways into such a congested area of airspace.
It's funny I have seen about three of the Transport Select Committee meetings featuring the great and the good from industry but not one person from NATS or ATC !
Another runway would go straight over the centre of the Capital !
Plus all the SIDs etc all criss cross overhead because we now have 5 major airports all vying for a slice of the action.....utter utter madness !:ugh:
OK build 3 or 4 RWs at LHR but surely we should be shutting the other airports down...of course that cannot happen !
ITS A TOTAL AND UTTER PIGS BREAKFAST!
Skipness One Echo
27th Jan 2013, 10:53
Bagso the modelling was done by NATS before Geoff Hoon gave the go ahead a few years back. LHR arrivals already fly over Central London on a daily basis.
What about safety? It's a managed risk, the things our parents were OK with but we get hysterical about. The helicopter crash at Vauxhall was a media hysteria fest.
Heathrow won't be getting much more airspace. Also SIDS are not on top of each other, departures are sequenced so you get a Northbound then a straight ahead, then either a northbound or a southbound for maximum runway capacity. The key is not having two consecutive departures on the same SID or you need increased spacing. This is unlike most other UK airports where most SIDS only go south or east and occasionally west. A model to maximise departure runway use and capacity was part of the case put to the DfT at the time.
As for runway three only giving two years growth, not sure how you come to that. They need to build T6 to get real growth as T2 will see the central area maxed out again.
ZOOKER
1st Feb 2013, 20:53
Forget Silver-Foster, according to todays' Daily Wail website, Spiney Norman is more interested in building a hub, (sorry, a hut), on The Moon. :E
Boris was photographed atop The Shard, anxiously peering through the murk in the hope of spotting sites for new airports. :ok:
eglnyt
1st Feb 2013, 21:45
It's funny I have seen about three of the Transport Select Committee meetings featuring the great and the good from industry but not one person from NATS or ATC !
NATS submitted written evidence to the Select Committee and two of its Directors gave evidence in December. It was widely reported in the press at the time.
ZOOKER
1st Feb 2013, 21:57
"two of its directors gave evidence in December".
Like Bagso said...
"not one person from ATC".
jabird
2nd Feb 2013, 01:37
"two of its directors gave evidence in December".
Like Bagso said...
"not one person from ATC".
Their directors are surely there to represent the views of NATS, which provide ATC services.
Architects don't barge into the cockpit telling the pilot how to fly the plane, so should ATC and pilots tell architects and planners how to plan airports? Well given our track record, maybe they should!
The thing about Foster is that he is at least a pilot himself, forget the moon fantasy (I could only find a story about European space going back to 09), I just wish he had put a bit more thought into the Thames Hub plan, rather than just doing a C+P job like he has.
He would soon no doubt have reached the same conclusion the majority of contributors here have made, namely that FBI is a non-starter. Perhaps that is why he only bothered sending an intern to paste in a few sketches from his HKG project.
PAXboy
2nd Feb 2013, 14:46
jabirdArchitects don't barge into the cockpit telling the pilot how to fly the plane, so should ATC and pilots tell architects and planners how to plan airports? Well given our track record, maybe they should!YES THEY SHOULD!!!! "Form follows function"
I recall in the 1990s a new theatre opening somewhere in the UK and it was discovered only during later stages of fitting out that some seating would have an obstructed view of the stage and were always going to have to be sold at a lower price. The architect had got the 'sight lines' wrong.
There is a UK crematorium that I know, where the staff and users are constantly irritated by the layout of the chapel. The way in which the access for mourners and pall bearers, the placing of the key items, the angle of the ceiling and the way that the eye is (or is not) drawn to the focal point of the coffin - all seem 'wrong' to those who work in many of these places.
The architect claims to have consulted the local funeral trade (Ha!). From the outside it looks fine and, superficially, the inside looks fine - but USING it? Not so fine. Naturally, he won an award for it.
Incidentally, I have similar observations of four brand new crematorium chapels in the UK and all of them are 'OK' but detail and nuance and the little things that make it easy for the staff and ministers are absent/misplaced and THEY have to work harder to make up for it. The mourners may not notice as they are only there infrequently but the staff have their every working day made more difficult by flaming architects who have not looked and listened and learnt.
For a new airport, I would start with ATC and work steadily through until I got to the car park attendant to find out what they need to make their job better. Because if they enjoy working there - the pax will enjoy travelling there - which will make the place more profitable. But no one wants to invest in REAL consultation. I worked in IT for 27 years and found that consultation was steadily downgraded and manipulated.
There is a simple maxim: Ask the person at the coal face what it is like - then go and visit them AT the coal face. If you are prepared to watch and listen - you will learn all you need to know and can win awards for being so clever. The 'clever' part is talking to people who are doing the job every day. Then add the whirls and twirls of the fancy roof.
Oh and the other thing, make sure you have a client who is prepared to install the VERY best of everything. Make sure that baggage handling is RFID and all the other things that the carriers don't want. Why? Because if you spend the money in the right way - you get a better product.
Lastly, don't open early. Go and ask T5 and they will tell you the mistakes made there. Simples! But ... all that costs money and whilst everyone will promise all those things on Day One, they will be steadily cut away as the building costs overrun and the timescale slides.
Sorry to be a grouch but I've lived in the real world for too long. Building projects where the IT people are told, "The building will ready four weeks late but the opening date has not moved." :hmm:
End of rant. ;)
Skippy
I didn't mean just at LHR, I meant as I said "conflicts with all the other airports".
LGW, LCY STN...and now we have Southend also on the scene !
Plus all the SIDs etc all criss cross overhead because we now have 5 major airports all vying for a slice of the action.....utter utter madness !
I agree with Zooker, paxboy
For a new airport, I would start with ATC and work steadily through until I got to the car park attendant
All these MPS are making assumptions but nobody has said hang on
you can only get so much traffic movements into the London TMA without restrictions kicking in.....
LCY are expanding, MAG will certainly want more frequency at STN, LGW is set to grow as early as this year, re Norwegian.
surely the airspace is not infinite ?
Maybe it is!
Heathrow Harry
3rd Feb 2013, 08:48
ATC will always tell you it is impossible - any change is a no-no
PAXboy
3rd Feb 2013, 09:29
any change is a no-no Do you think that statement is made by the mgmt or by the folks at the screens?
Skipness One Echo
3rd Feb 2013, 10:31
What do you mean any change is a no no? BAA got permission fron Hoon To build runway three, yet forgot to check if they had enough airspace? Really? When people spend THAT much money, they have to have a good case.
They were planning on moving the holds as well as remodelling the airspace. It is not the case that this has not been trialled, modelled and tested.
jabird
3rd Feb 2013, 13:50
Paxboy - yes, excellent post, points very well made.
Totally agree about consultations being a sham. Looks at HS2 - "do you want this exact route that we've planned to the very last detail? Oh, you have another suggestions? What did you say your name was again sir? Oh, not Mr Osborne? Well you are a nimby then, good bye2.
As for sightlines, I can trump that with an apartment block (might have been under iron curtain, could just as easily be London) built 20 storeys high, but no lifts. I suppose that's the obesity epidemic cured!
However, to give context - architecture and planning, just like medicine, are subject to a rigorous checking process. Your actual chances of kicking the bucket due to an architect's error are extremely low. More chance of being hit by a paint bucket from above!
Fairdealfrank
3rd Feb 2013, 18:58
Quote: "Totally agree about consultations being a sham. Looks at HS2 - "do you want this exact route that we've planned to the very last detail? Oh, you have another suggestions? What did you say your name was again sir? Oh, not Mr Osborne? Well you are a nimby then, good bye2."
Well said, jabird, you've told it exactly as it is!
PAXboy
3rd Feb 2013, 19:40
One very 'modern' manager at a company asked my advice as they were planning some changes to the building. Since I worked for them regularly, I agreed.
I prepared data and photographs from my (then) 18 years experience, wrote out notes and points for him and the engineers/architects. I gave up two hours of an afternoon to visit and go through all my experience with them. I am self employed but I did this as gesture of good will towards this company - not the man whom I distrusted.
I was not surprised when he ignored everything I had suggested. Later, he won an award for 'investing in people'. Fantastic! :hmm:
ZOOKER
3rd Feb 2013, 20:01
"Investors In People', I remember that, whatever happened to that, Ted?
Well Dougal................:E
Fairdealfrank
3rd Feb 2013, 21:25
Died a death, farce can only go on so long.
PAXboy
3rd Feb 2013, 21:48
This man managed to win lots of awards that he nailed on the wall and the bosses loved him. Strangely, all the staff hated him and cheered when he left.
There are lots of them around but the single most successful one that you will see in your life time is called: Tony Blair.
ZOOKER
3rd Feb 2013, 22:09
"Y'Know, Y'Know",Y'Know".
Tony Blair. Ah, I remember him Ted. He had this great tune, I remember it Ted. "Things Can Only Get Better". Great Keyboard riff, Ted. I wonder what happened to Tony Blair Ted. I wonder what happened to that keyboard player?
Well, Dougal........:E
Fairdealfrank
7th Feb 2013, 18:30
Quote: ""Y'Know, Y'Know",Y'Know".
Tony Blair. Ah, I remember him Ted. He had this great tune, I remember it Ted. "Things Can Only Get Better". Great Keyboard riff, Ted. I wonder what happened to Tony Blair Ted. I wonder what happened to that keyboard player?
Well, Dougal........http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif "
"*&^%$£()*^$"£%^^&&&**(!"
"What was that, Jack?, and no, Mrs Doyle, I don't want more tea!"
DaveReidUK
21st Feb 2013, 17:13
We welcome the broad thrust of the Davies Commission and the desire to achieve a political consensus that will result in an enduring long-term decision about the UK’s aviation infrastructure.
We are particularly pleased that the Davies Commission will be adopting a sensible approach by looking at wider topics such as future demand, climate change and noise issues and not just selecting airports where expansion should take place.
It is vital that the Commission takes a view of the wider economic and environmental costs and benefits of aviation and we will be seeking to provide the Commission with robust evidence on these issues. We look forward to constructive engagement with Sir Howard Davies, his commissioners and staff over the coming months.
However, we do have concerns around the length of time before the Commission makes their final report. We argue that such a lengthy period of uncertainty is not at all helpful to businesses seeking to make investment decisions or indeed the wider economy of the UK.
Whilst we recognise the political sensitivities surrounding aviation policy, we believe that the electorate and particularly the residents of West London deserve to know what implications the Commission’s recommendations will have on their lives. Consequently, we the undersigned call upon the Government to bring forward the final report of the Davies Commission to a date before the General Election in 2015 and to ask Sir Howard to lay out very clearly the direction of his thinking in his interim report at the end of this year.
Yours sincerely,
Zac Goldsmith MP
Baroness Sally Hamwee
Baroness Susan Kramer
Mary Macleod MP
Seema Malhotra MP
John McDonnell MP
Andy Slaughter MP
Cllr Nicholas Botterill (Leader, Hammersmith & Fulham)
Cllr Steve Bullock (Leader, Lewisham)
Cllr Ravi Govindia (Leader, Wandsworth)
Cllr Jo Lovelock (Leader, Reading)
Cllr Lib Peck (Leader, Lambeth)
Cllr Raymond Puddifoot (Leader, Hillingdon)
Cllr Roger Reed (Deputy Leader, South Bucks)
Cllr Jagdish Sharma (Leader, Hounslow)
Cllr Lord Nicholas True (Leader, Richmond)
John Stewart (Chair HACAN)
Christine Taylor (Vice-Chair NoTRAG)
Peter Willan (Chair Richmond Heathrow Campaign)
Heathrow Harry
22nd Feb 2013, 13:09
most of those people want a NO
DaveReidUK
22nd Feb 2013, 13:31
most of those people want a NO I think we can safely assume that the Davies Commission are being paid vast amounts of money in the expectation that they will come up with an answer that consists of more than one word. :)
Dannyboy39
22nd Feb 2013, 15:55
For me, the Davies Commission should include these key stakeholders (if the party has governmental intervention)...
Politicians
Boris Johnson (Con) - Mayor of London
Louise Ellman MP (Lab) - Chair of Transport Select Committee
Patrick McLoughlin (Con) - Secretary of State for Transport
Maria Eagle (Lab) - Shadow Secretary of State for Transport
Airport Bosses
Charlie Cornish - CEO, Manchester Airports Group
Colin Matthews - CEO, Heathrow Airport Holdings
Francisco Reynes - CEO, Abertis (Foreign Airport Operator)
Airline Executives
Willie Walsh - CEO, International Airlines Group
Carolyn McCall - CEO, easyJet
Craig Kreeger - CEO, Virgin Atlantic
(or other available directors)
Pressure Groups
John Stewart - HACAN
Bill Rigby - Friends of the Earth
Matthew Sinclair - TaxPayers Alliance
Richard Wellings - Institute for Economic Affairs
Others
Murdo Morrison - Flight International
Captain Douglas Brown - Chief Pilot - British Airways
Len McCluskey - UNITE Union
It is absolutely imperative that a balanced argument is heard, although it is pretty inevitable that a Commission would have a bias in several directions.
Bagso
22nd Feb 2013, 17:32
AND as they keep being overlooked I would add NATS who will have to manage any expansion.....
It has been said that the movements generated by an extra RW can easily be handled...hmmmm
Hope that expansion of LGW LCY and even Sothend has been factored in.
Cannot see STN standing still either !
6 major airports in such a small area ?
#madness
DaveReidUK
22nd Feb 2013, 18:02
6 major airports in such a small area ?Er, yes. None of the many scenarios being proposed involve reducing the number of airports serving London.
Dannyboy39
22nd Feb 2013, 18:08
AND as they keep being overlooked I would add NATS who will have to manage any expansion.....
Oh yes certainly. Maybe have input from a aircraft manufacturer too?
Skipness One Echo
22nd Feb 2013, 18:11
6 major airports in such a small area ?
#madness
You missed the usual bit about BA building a second hub at Manchester Airport, (your local) so the South East is not so dominant, #missing
Gonzo
24th Feb 2013, 17:43
Where is the proof that NATS are not involved then?
Libertine Winno
24th Feb 2013, 17:51
I'd be very interested to see what happens to LGW in particular IF the Davies commission recommends a 4 rwy hub (either at an expanded LHR or newly built somewhere else)
It would be logical for BA to consolidate all their southern operation at that one location (wherever it is), pulling out of LGW completely. Not sure how that would leave LGW, seeing as EZY are concentrated mostly at LTN and RYR at STN. Is there enough periphary traffic to sustain LGW to the level it would need/want?
As for BA at MAN, it would seem to make some sense for them to base some a/c there post-LGW. Would depend on how the numbers stack up, which of course they didn't when BA were there 20 years ago, but wouldn't be at all surprised to see it especially given the massive investment that is going into MAN
Fairdealfrank
24th Feb 2013, 18:34
Quote: "I was not surprised when he ignored everything I had suggested. Later, he won an award for 'investing in people'. Fantastic!"
Quote: ""Investors In People', I remember that, whatever happened to that, Ted?
Well Dougal................"
IIRC my notification of redundancy letter had the "investors in people" logo on it.
Quote: "I'd be very interested to see what happens to LGW in particular IF the Davies commission recommends a 4 rwy hub (either at an expanded LHR or newly built somewhere else)
It would be logical for BA to consolidate all their southern operation at that one location (wherever it is), pulling out of LGW completely. Not sure how that would leave LGW, seeing as EZY are concentrated mostly at LTN and RYR at STN. Is there enough periphary traffic to sustain LGW to the level it would need/want?"
Think the effect of a 4-rwy LHR would relieve LGW of the immediate need for another rwy as there would be no capacity constraints at LHR and the associated delays and congestion should disappear.
One can see the logic in BA, and VS for that matter, moving their LGW operation to consolidate at LHR and save a pile of money. Most of the longhaul at LGW would also almost certainly move as well as most it is presently there while waiting for LHR slots.
Very much doubt if it would be the same for an estuary airport, irrespective of the number of rwys.
That would leave LGW as a busy mainly shorthaul, point-to-point airport with a mixture of legacy and no-frills carriers, and holiday charter companies. It would probably remain the second busiest UK airport. It might be necessary to rethink the policy of squeezing out smaller (BE-type) aircraft with higher charges.
BTW, U2 now has a much bigger base at LGW than at LTN.
Quote: "As for BA at MAN, it would seem to make some sense for them to base some a/c there post-LGW. Would depend on how the numbers stack up, which of course they didn't when BA were there 20 years ago, but wouldn't be at all surprised to see it especially given the massive investment that is going into MAN"
Think that if BA could be convinced that there is money to be made from a MAN (and/or BHX, GLA, etc..) secondary hub, they would be in there like "a ferret up a drainpipe". Has anything changed in 20 years? is there now sufficient premium business?
Skipness One Echo
24th Feb 2013, 19:43
It would be logical for BA to consolidate all their southern operation at that one location
Your use of "logical" is misleading. There is no airfield where BA can do this, nor is there likely to be, even at a three runway LHR. Hence they can choose to abandon those markets to easyJet and the chaps or stay at LGW. If they step away, then a fair number of Exec Club members would drift to STAR or SkyTeam to spend their points. THAT's part of what drives BA to cling on at Gatters, they can't afford to lose the big spenders if AVIOS redemption is a core part of what's keeping them with BA.
To marry LGW to a discussion of BA basing aircraft at Manchester is strange. It's not BA since BA pulled MAN, it was 2007, and not a huge amount has changed since then.
Capetonian
8th May 2013, 20:38
Parish and MP ?horrified? by out of blue Vale airport plans - Community - Bucks Herald (http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/community/parish-and-mp-horrified-by-out-of-blue-vale-airport-plans-1-5070667)
I think some journo somewhere must have been smoking his socks ...........!
A parish council has slammed potential plans to build an airport just five miles from Aylesbury as ‘unreasonable and unfair’.
Heathrow Airport Holdings is said to be exploring 10 options for its expansion, including an airport in Haddenham which would see Long Crendon and Chearsley completely destroyed.
Haddenham is already the location of a Second World War glider airfield and the plans would include four runways if they went ahead.
PAXboy
8th May 2013, 23:58
Well, by the time they've driven HS2 through the vale of Ayslebury, a four runway airport won't even be noticed.
PAXboy
10th May 2013, 02:28
BBC News - Thames airport 'should be rejected' - MPs report (http://www.pprune.org/BBC News - Thames airport 'should be rejected' - MPs report)
DaveReidUK
10th May 2013, 06:37
Link doesn't seem to work.
BBC News - Thames airport 'should be rejected' - MPs report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22469502)
And a trailer for today's report from the Tranpsort [sic] Committee:
Tranpsort Committee to publish aviation strategy report on Friday 10 May - News from Parliament - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/ops-note---aviation/)
VentureGo
10th May 2013, 08:13
BBC News - Thames airport 'should be rejected' - MPs report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22469502)
The above link should hopefully work, including video of MP Louise Ellman giving her view as Char of the committee.
ETOPS
10th May 2013, 08:17
In which, with a slip of the tongue, says infrastructure investment would cost the exchequer £30 million - faithfully then reported by the BBC without question :ugh:
silverstrata
11th Jun 2013, 17:48
.
Boris Johnson defends his Thames Airport proposals.
Boris Johnson Defends Estuary Airport Plan, Commons Committee Want Third Heathrow Runway (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/10/boris-johnson-estuary-airport_n_3250569.html)
Barling Magna
11th Jun 2013, 18:12
This is old news; over a month old. The Thames Estuary airport is (almost) officially dead. Poor old Boris is a joke, I'm afraid.
Heathrow Harry
12th Jun 2013, 10:16
unfortunately he's anything but ...
if Dave falls under a coalition then Boris is favourite to replace him as Leader of the Party :(:(
Barling Magna
12th Jun 2013, 11:21
True, but the Tories have, as usual, shot their bolt as a result of internal party divisions and are probably set for another period in the wilderness. Whatever happens, the estuary airport idea is dead.
jabird
12th Jun 2013, 12:29
True, but the Tories have, as usual, shot their bolt as a result of internal party divisions and are probably set for another period in the wilderness.
All parties have factions and divisions, the problem voters have with the Tories is that they still haven't sorted out the mess the last lot created, but they aren't convinced the last lot will be able to come back and poop-scoop their 8 year old dry turd either.
Heathrow Harry
12th Jun 2013, 15:11
it'll be a Lab-Lib coalition I think
PAXboy
12th Jun 2013, 21:47
jabird has nailed the prevailing view - as I see and hear it in my circle of friends.
The only certainty is that the politicos will continue to fudge it. Fudging means nothing happens. Not more LHR and certainly no Island. As has been stated, all the big votes and easy money are on the status quo - however stupid that may be. The reasons have been listed in this (and other) threads.
Barling Magna
13th Jun 2013, 10:37
All parties have factions and divisions, the problem voters have with the Tories is that they still haven't sorted out the mess the last lot created, but they aren't convinced the last lot will be able to come back and poop-scoop their 8 year old dry turd either.
True. Ed and Ed make a most unconvincing pair.
it'll be a Lab-Lib coalition I think
Yes, I think you're right.
What will the 2015 Airport review show? Expand LHR of course. Will it happen? Well................
Fairdealfrank
14th Jun 2013, 19:49
Quote: "it'll be a Lab-Lib coalition I think"
Hope not, nothing could be worse! It would be all about irrelevant and unnecessary constitutional changes (that people don't want, as shown by the AV referendum) and to hell with the economy, unemployment, growth and growing gap between rich and poor.
To put it another way, it would be a "chattering classes"/Guardian readers' dream come true. An answer to an armchair "gucci" socialist's prayers.
In a hung parliament situation, a minority government (whether Conservative or Labour) would be infinitely better.
Quote: "True. Ed and Ed make a most unconvincing pair."
Exactly, so imagine them linked up with Calamity Clegg!
jabird
14th Jun 2013, 20:21
Quote: "True. Ed and Ed make a most unconvincing pair."
Exactly, so imagine them linked up with Calamity Clegg!
I'd put money on Clegg losing his seat in 2015, giving there's a fair few students there to boot him out.
The Lib Dems are going to take some serious hits - except where they have very strong personalities who already have decent margins.
That really makes it a two horse race, but neither is a very strong runner. As if Ed is already bad enough, he is only there because he's not Dave, and if he wins in 2015, it will be because he's not Dave.
Now to get back to this thread, I don't care how daft Boris Island is, Boris himself would certainly stir things up - but I don't see him becoming an MP again before 2015, so I imagine he's waiting til Cameron is deposed at that time, then perhaps he hopes for a lame interim leader to be chosen in September 2015, then perhaps he looks for a safe seat after the London 2016 election?
For him to do anything sooner is not going to go down well with the London voters, of whom there are a mere few million!
Baltasound
16th Jun 2013, 00:50
Not technically on topic but if jabird wishes to put their money where their mouth is, I will be willing to stand any bet that Clegg will retain his seat in 2015.
Boris Island is as dead as a dodo. In the gap regarding London the invisible hand of the market is already looking elsewhere....
Bagso
16th Jun 2013, 11:05
I agree with paxboy I suspect nothing will happen at BI or indeed LHR for that matter.
LHR should have had 2 runways 10 years ago.
The US market is dead most LHR flights are half empty anyway.
If you head East the horse has bolted via dubai.
DaveReidUK
16th Jun 2013, 11:18
Just caught the end of an interesting interview/talk at the RIBA with Norman Foster, including references to the Beijing T3 project and, of course, the Thames Hub:
BBC iPlayer - Dream Builders: Norman Foster - The Gherkin (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p019kx4g/Dream_Builders_Norman_Foster_The_Gherkin/)
Skipness One Echo
16th Jun 2013, 11:50
The US market is dead most LHR flights are half empty anyway.
What are you on about mate? Can you link to a stat that says a majority operate at a sub 50% load factor or did you just pluck that nonsense from thin air?
DaveReidUK
16th Jun 2013, 12:20
LHR load factor May 2013: 74.7%.
ZOOKER
16th Jun 2013, 14:16
Bagso,
"LHR should have had 2 runways 10 years ago".
Well . it's always had at least 2 runways as long as I have been interested in aviation, (and that goes back to 1967).
In fact, at the present time, EGLL has 4 runways, R/W09L, R/W09R, R/W27L and R/W27R.
At one time in the past, I believe it even had 12 runways, a bit like EHAM does today.
The Dutch are obviously well ahead here. Who needs runways, (where planes land and take-off from), when you can build HUGE terminals, where you can corral the 'punters', prior to departure, and get them to part with shedloads of money, that they don't actually have, on items they don't actually realise that they don't actually need?
DaveReidUK
18th Jun 2013, 10:59
Latest broadside from the BAA (all 56 pages of it) in the war of words over the UK's hub airport:
http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/ImageLibrary/downloadmedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1507&SizeId=-1
Barling Magna
18th Jun 2013, 12:16
The TV programme Airport Live which started on BBC-2 yesterday for four consecutive evenings should give LHR some good publicity.......
Bagso
18th Jun 2013, 16:47
Oh come skippy you recognise irony!
But please outline who is making money across the pond.....?
Heathrow Harry
19th Jun 2013, 13:13
Boris is quoted in todays "Times" as saying that heathrow's directors only have a short term view and want to maximise profits for their (mainly foreign) shareholders
they only look at teh short term and have no duty, care or thought about the environmental impact on London & Londoners.... etc etc
Sounds like a lot of people on here had better hope he never makes it to No.10................
DaveReidUK
19th Jun 2013, 13:46
Heathrow's directors only have a short term view and want to maximise profits for their (mainly foreign) shareholdersMaximising shareholder value is one of the principal responsibilities of the directors of any company.
If Boris is simply making the point that the commercial interests of an airport operator and those of UK plc don't necessarily coincide, notwithstanding attempts to conflate the two, I would have thought that was so obvious as to not need stating.
ETOPS
19th Jun 2013, 14:38
Heathrow's directors only have a short term view
I spoke to them a couple of days ago and they did take a short term view saying "18 track miles to go" and I was still at 6000 feet :eek:
silverstrata
15th Jul 2013, 19:43
Once more, Boris has thrown his weight behind a Silver-Boris airport in the Thames Estruary. He now favours the Foster proposal for the Isle of Grain.
BBC News - Airport capacity: Boris Johnson announces three proposals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23314264)
But if he does , I do hope they re-orientate this airport to the southwest. The last thing London needs, is aircraft on the easterly approach flying over central London. If Silver-Boris has a SW orientation, the approach would be over the reletively open lands of Western Kent.
Silver
silverstrata
17th Jul 2013, 18:21
And now we have a counter-proposal by Heathrow, for one or two new runways (to really blight the area).
BBC News - Heathrow plans 'frightening' reality as third runway proposed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23339903)
We are approaching a stalemate here, where Heathrow submits increasingly absurd proposals, that will never pass planning consent, while simultaneously ignoring the only proposal that will end the hub-capacity problem for London and the UK (i.e.: a Thames airport).
Fairdealfrank
17th Jul 2013, 23:15
Quote: "Once more, Boris has thrown his weight behind a Silver-Boris airport in the Thames Estruary. He now favours the Foster proposal for the Isle of Grain.
BBC News - Airport capacity: Boris Johnson announces three proposals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23314264)
But if he does , I do hope they re-orientate this airport to the southwest. The last thing London needs, is aircraft on the easterly approach flying over central London. If Silver-Boris has a SW orientation, the approach would be over the reletively open lands of Western Kent.
Silver"
Silver, you have mentioned this NE/SW orientation before, and doubtless you're not alone, but no one's taken it on board.
Maybe because they ain't going on the estuary...... Indeed, there's still a strong possibility of adopting plans A, B and C (do nothing),
Quote: "And now we have a counter-proposal by Heathrow, for one or two new runways (to really blight the area).
BBC News - Heathrow plans 'frightening' reality as third runway proposed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23339903)
We are approaching a stalemate here, where Heathrow submits increasingly absurd proposals, that will never pass planning consent, while simultaneously ignoring the only proposal that will end the hub-capacity problem for London and the UK (i.e.: a Thames airport)."
Heathrow is hedging its bets, perfectly reasonable given the situation. They know that Silver Island will never be built.
Regretably, Heathrow Airport Limited have only made a case for a third rwy, not a case for a third and a fourth rwy.
A mistake in my opinion, they need to make the case now if they think a fourth rwy is needed in 2040. Get it built, be ahead of the game for once.
pabely
17th Jul 2013, 23:20
Who would want a new town on the Heathrow site when all the Jobs would have gone east or into Europe, RIP Reading and the M4/M40 Silicon Corridor?
And doesn't this media video show on option for runway 3 & 4?
http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/imagelibrary/downloadmedia.ashx?assocMediaId=6408
xtypeman
18th Jul 2013, 08:19
Ok cat among the pigeons time. I have always considered that LHR should be the only gateway. However my thoughts are changing and maybe there should be a more pragmatic approach to this. Here goes and ready to duck.
In my mind this could be a three stage solution as outlined below.
Stage 1, Open Northolt asap for limited regional flights a percentage of which must be transferred from LHR. Provide a fast coach link with connections to mainline/underground. This would be a temporary situation for a short period whilst......
Stage 2, A third runway is built North West of LHR with a life span of say 20 years.
Stage 3, Build Isle of Grain International to be completed before the expiry of stage 2.
This would allow expansion of our major hub in the short to medium term. Allow for the planning and building of Grain land and allow business and transport links to be integrated. Just think a loop off HS1 with international station that could be connected with HS2 by a sort tunnel between Euston and St Pancras. Crossrail also extended and a loop off the M25 and M2. Part of Heathrow would then close and be redeveloped say leaving one runway and terminal to just serve limited regional and international services for west London etc. You could also included a deepwater port a truly major transport hub.
Off to my bunker.
XT
silverstrata
18th Jul 2013, 15:47
Pabely
And doesn't this media video show on option for runway 3 & 4?
The BBC briefing I saw had 4 runways at LHR too. One runway to the immediate north, or to the NW. And one a long way to the SW. Both of the westerly options require putting the M25 in a long tunnel, so there is an extra expense for a start.
But none of this minimises not only the noise nuisance of flying over London, but the dangers associated with this too. Especially as undershooting runways is becoming de-rigueur in aviation nowadays. Must be taking lessons from xxx airline, who pride themselves on touching down on the piano keys.
And none of this puts LHR on the surface transport map either. Try catching a train from LHR to Edinburgh. Not very easy, huh? You can catch a surface connection from CDG and you the same from AMS, but you sure cannot do this from LHR. A terrible airport, in a terrible location, with terrible connections, and nowhere to park.
Xtypeman
Stage 1, Open Northolt asap for limited regional flights a percentage of which must be transferred from LHR. Provide a fast coach link with connections to mainline/underground. This would be a temporary situation for a short period whilst......
Northolt is 1700m, which is not long enough for everyday short haul opps. Yes, I know certain Low Standards airlines do use short runways, but taking a -800 or a 321 into 1700m is simply asking for trouble (and would not be possible in low vis opps). And it would severely limit range outbound too.
And expanding Northolt's runway and its usage would give the same problems as LHR. Extra noise, extra danger, local opposition, and a highly constrained airport with no easy runway extension options.
In addition, having to catch a coach is not interlining, which is what LHR should be all about. If I come in from the the Far East with umpteen bags, I want a seamless and simple connection to my local flight to Copenhagen, not an endurance test on a coach.
And if we do not provide that service, then people go elsewhere. On my last trip back from AMS, I met three different groups of UK residents, who were using KLM as their carrier and AMS as their hub. (i.e.: traveling Bristol-->AMS-->Americas, and return likewise.) That is business that the UK has lost, and lost for ever unless we have a decent interlining airport.
.
Fairdealfrank
18th Jul 2013, 20:20
Quote: “In my mind this could be a three stage solution as outlined below.
Stage 1, Open Northolt asap for limited regional flights a percentage of which must be transferred from LHR. Provide a fast coach link with connections to mainline/underground. This would be a temporary situation for a short period whilst......
Stage 2, A third runway is built North West of LHR with a life span of say 20 years.
Stage 3, Build Isle of Grain International to be completed before the expiry of stage 2.”
Re. stage 1: NHT is not big enough to be an LHR overspill. It could be a successful small local airport like LCY and SEN, but that’s it.
Re. stage 2: with the expense involved, it needs to last longer than just 20 years, else it’s not a good business proposition (and it has to be in the current environment of airports and airlines in the private sector), and we still need 2 more rwys.
Re. stage 3: again this is not a good business proposition. LHR is not closing (the huge investment in it by the owners makes this patently obvious), and that makes any Silver-Boris-Vanity-Project site is unviable.
Quote: “Try catching a train from LHR to Edinburgh. Not very easy, huh?”
That’s why transport infrastrucure needs to offer choice: road rail and air.
silverstrata
19th Jul 2013, 15:34
Fairdeal
That’s why transport infrastrucure needs to offer choice: road rail and air.
Yes, but at present LHR is too small to get any commuter aircraft in - no room and the slots are too b..... expensive. Which makes LHR, as it is now, a complete white elephant.
So I think you will agree, the status quo cannot remain. Something has to be done, and done quickly - be it an expansion or a new Silver-Boris airport.
Silver
nigel osborne
19th Jul 2013, 16:06
Fairdealfrank.
Yes agree with you on LHR.
They have spent big money on it ,and I don't think its likely to close.Even the current Govt are proposing to widen the M4 from Reading to Heathrow ,certainly wouldn't do that if they planned to close it, surely ?
LGW.. is probably out as a mega hub as business passengers have repeatedly shown they don't want to travel in large numbers even to LGW, its a top leisure route airport. If they did all the US Airlines would not have pulled out and moved to LHR.
STN, American Airlines have tried it twice and failed twice..not enough business passengers, as have SAS on one occasion and others. About 20 years ago the Govt in power tried to force full fare airlines into LGW from LHR.
They refused and remember the boss of Air Canada having a rant at the thought of it.
STN will most likely stay a low cost airport.
Isle of Grain or Boris Island. No chance Experts have already reported to the airport commission the greatly increased danger of bird strikes, and destruction of wetland habitats threatening tens of thousands of birds, at a time when such concerns are high on the agenda.
Then add on huge cost of starting from scratch, running new motorways and extending main rail lines and moving all the LHR workers to new housing estates.Then its also the extra distance into London city.
It will be a brave Govt who has to make a decision and in the short term you can see this topic running for some time.
However IMO its most likely that LHR will be expanded keeping everyone but the local residents happy .
Nigel
Fairdealfrank
19th Jul 2013, 17:25
Quote: "Yes, but at present LHR is too small to get any commuter aircraft in - no room and the slots are too b..... expensive. Which makes LHR, as it is now, a complete white elephant."
Exactly, that's why LHR needs 2 more rwys. It's basic supply and demand: demand far outstrips supply with only 2 rwys, so a slot market develops and this scare resource becomes eye-wateringly expensive. With 4 rwys, the reverse is the case. As the airport would no longer be at 100% of capacity, delays would be cut.
Also there's an environmental improvement as aircraft are not wasting fuel while queueing to take off and land, it's win-win all round. It would also end the scandal that only two, yes, only two UK carriers have access to LHR because of the expense and the delays.
Quote: "So I think you will agree, the status quo cannot remain. Something has to be done, and done quickly - be it an expansion or a new Silver-Boris airport.
Silver"
Agree 100% (is this a first?) that "something has to be done, and done quickly", in fact done yesterday.
The difference between us is the remedy.
Quote: "Fairdealfrank.
Yes agree with you on LHR.
They have spent big money on it ,and I don't think its likely to close.Even the current Govt are proposing to widen the M4 from Reading to Heathrow ,certainly wouldn't do that if they planned to close it, surely ?
LGW.. is probably out as a mega hub as business passengers have repeatedly shown they don't want to travel in large numbers even to LGW, its a top leisure route airport. If they did all the US Airlines would not have pulled out and moved to LHR.
STN, American Airlines have tried it twice and failed twice..not enough business passengers, as have SAS on one occasion and others. About 20 years ago the Govt in power tried to force full fare airlines into LGW from LHR.
They refused and remember the boss of Air Canada having a rant at the thought of it.
STN will most likely stay a low cost airport.
Isle of Grain or Boris Island. No chance Experts have already reported to the airport commission the greatly increased danger of bird strikes, and destruction of wetland habitats threatening tens of thousands of birds, at a time when such concerns are high on the agenda.
Then add on huge cost of starting from scratch, running new motorways and extending main rail lines and moving all the LHR workers to new housing estates.Then its also the extra distance into London city.
It will be a brave Govt who has to make a decision and in the short term you can see this topic running for some time.
However IMO its most likely that LHR will be expanded keeping everyone but the local residents happy .
Nigel
Excellent analysis, Nigel!
Many local residents know on which side their bread is buttered and won't want their area turned into a ghost town, so will be happy or will at least accept that LHR expansion is neccessary. It's just a small vocal minority who actually live miles away from LHR that are scaring the bejesus out of the government.
silverstrata
19th Jul 2013, 19:17
Silver:
Agree 100% (is this a first?) that "something has to be done, and done quickly", in fact done yesterday.
Hey, steady on their, Fairdeal - people will begin to talk......
Silver
silverstrata
19th Jul 2013, 19:34
And now Stansted has thrown its hat into the ring, by outlining plans for a 4-runway airport.
BBC News - Stansted Airport expansion plans revealed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-23376899)
Nice idea Stansted, but if Silver-Boris is remote, then Stansted is even worse. It just as far from London as Silver-Boris, and it has no northwesterly surface transport, neither in rail or road links. (The A14 is a cr@p road, while there is no easy way of linking Stansted to London, BHX, MAN and the near continent in one easy system).
At least with Silver-Boris one could imaging a sweeping HS rail system passing through Dover and Ashford, gliding into Silver-Boris, onto the main stop at London, and then onwards and upwards to Birmingham and Manch.
Yes, I know that our esteemed planners will make such an imagined rail line pass 5km from Silver Boris, and never join them up. And I know that that same idealistic rail system will have the daftest ever 2km gap between King's Cross and Euston,** but that is UK joined up thinking for you.
** You know I think, just to get us into the mindset of post-modernist UK planning, they should close the M25 between junctions 20 and 21, and route all the traffic through Abbots Langley. Yup - that, is how stupid our rail planning really is.
Silver
Heathrow Harry
21st Jul 2013, 08:31
"no northwesterly surface transport, neither in rail or road links."
I could have sworn the M1 runs NW to the A1(M) and A14 ..................... dual carriage way all the way to Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham..........
and my mother-in-law gets a train from Nottingham to Stansted regularly - admittedly with a couple of changes
silverstrata
23rd Jul 2013, 01:41
Harry
I could have sworn the M1 runs NW to the A1(M) and A14 ..................... dual carriage way all the way to Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham..........
M1 and A1 from Stanstead? You must have your map upside down.
And if you are mentioning the A14, this simply means one thing - you have never used this goat-track.
Silver.
Fairdealfrank
23rd Jul 2013, 21:46
Quote: "M1 and A1 from Stanstead? You must have your map upside down."
Maybe it's a typo and should be "M11"?
Honeybuzzard
25th Jul 2013, 11:51
Not only Brent Geese like saltwater. Pink Footed Geese roost in the Wash and other estuaries, in the tens of thousands. Then add in the wading Birds, the Gulls etc. Also remember Birds migrate at night and are attracted to lights. An absolute non starter. By 2030, what price oil? I think we should forget any idea of airport expansion in the UK. In fact I suspect I shall live to see lots of runways and roads grubbed up to turn back into farmland. Have a look at population growth figures, and our future ability to pay for imported foodstuffs. This bubble we are living in will not last for ever. Google exponential growth. As a species the future may not be as good as the present.
Barling Magna
25th Jul 2013, 14:54
Well, your vision of the future is certainly possible. However, I'm more optimistic. Humans are amazing creatures and we've encountered and overcome many resource crises in the past. Necessity is the mother of invention and I think we've a good chance of enduring as a species for many more millennia yet. I remember listening with great concern to the gloomy prognostications of the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth report (1972) which said that oil would run out in 1992 and most other resources before 2000. Well, over twenty years beyond 1992 we're still discovering more reserves of oil and developing new methods of extracting them. Known reserves should last over sixty years and there are thought to be vast additional reserves, especially in offshore Brazil. We'll be using those runways for many decades yet....
So, don't worry, be happy.
Fairdealfrank
25th Jul 2013, 16:58
Gordon Bennett, Honeybuzzard, that's so depressing, am off to slit my wrists now!
It's Morrisey/Smiths or Leonard Cohen all over again.
Definitely prefer your optimistic, and probably more accurate, view of things, Barling Magna.
silverstrata
27th Jul 2013, 08:20
Jeremiah Green
By 2030, what price oil? I think we should forget any idea of airport expansion in the UK. In fact I suspect I shall live to see lots of runways and roads grubbed up to turn back into farmland. Have a look at population growth figures, and our future ability to pay for imported foodstuffs. This bubble we are living in will not last for ever. Google exponential growth. As a species the future may not be as good as the present.
Ahh, the positive thinking of your average Jeremiah Green - civilisation is about to die, and we shall accelerate that process by forcing everyone to use unreliable energy supplies that will bring the economy crashing to its knees.
Greens have a death-wish, just as Jeremiah had a death-wish, and we listen to their inane blatherings at our peril. They were a total irrelevance until they took over the BBC, so its about time the BBC licence fee was reduced to £5 a year. That would put the Lion among the Jeremiahs.
.
Back in the real world, it is now Gatwick who have thrown their hat into the ring with plans for a dual runway layout:
Gatwick Airport bosses unveil £9bn plan for second runway that could open by 2025 | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374946/Gatwick-Airport-bosses-unveil-9bn-plan-second-runway-open-2025.html)
Well, I suppose with Gatwick being the busiest single runway in the world it needs a second runway anyway. I'v had enough of 2 mile spacing on the approach and 'land afters'.
But will Gatwick become the answer to the UK capacity problem? Answer - No. We are back to the same old problem of interlining, where international passengers want to connect to 'domestic' airlines or to good TGV surface transport. I am not flying into Gatwick, to jump on a bus to Stansted to catch my commuter link to Copenhagen.
And while you might say that Gatwick has fairly good 'domestic' links already, it has several problems in that regard.
Firstly, much of that traffic is charter, which is not available to long haul interliners.
Secondly, the airport is already full. Two of the designs are for 'segregated mode' runways, and how many extra flights would that allow? And if the runways were only 700m apart, the new terminal would presumably be on the north side. That would mean crossing a runway. Have you ever tried crossing LGW's runway? You could be waiting all day. This is an airport where the take off clearance is something like: "Be ready for absolute immediate departure", "Line up and take off immediate - go now!" Yeah - how are you going to get crossing heavy traffic into that scenario?
The final option is for a 1000m spacing to allow independent parallel approaches, and what looks like a terminal in between the two. This is a better idea, but you still end up with a new Heathrow that is on the wrong side of the country for surface transport (direct rail line to Leeds anyone?) And you also end up splitting the UK's interlining hub between two airports, which is still not the answer. You would end up with both LHR and LGW having inadequate 'domestic' flights to serve long-haul customers, and if more 'domestic' destinations are served by AMS or CDG, then customers will go there.
As I said before, I met a party of tourists last month traveling AMS-BRS, having flown in from South America. Why were they using AMS instead of LHR? Because there were no flights from BRS to LHR, and so the UK capital and the UK 'national airline' loses out once again. Brain-dead planning by successive brain-dead governments, who are only interested in making easy and popular decisions, to burnish their political reputation.
The proposed LGW.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00434/133028673_biz_434471c.jpg
Silver
Skipness One Echo
27th Jul 2013, 10:12
There's no flights between LHR and BRS because there's no market for it. It's not far enough and is well served by an existing fast train.
Barling Magna
27th Jul 2013, 11:55
The M4 motorway gets you from LHR to Bristol in about an hour and a half, so you might as well hire your car in LHR rather than at BRS.
silverstrata
28th Jul 2013, 10:58
Skippy:
There's no flights between LHR and BRS because there's no market for it. It's not far enough and is well served by an existing fast train.
Barling:
The M4 motorway gets you from LHR to Bristol in about an hour and a half, so you might as well hire your car in LHR rather than at BRS.
The problem is in the detail...
a. There are no flights from BRS to LHR not because there is no demand, but because there are no slots available. Or if there are slots available, they are so expensive they would double the ticket price. Thus commuter turboprops are priced out of the London hub, and thus passengers are prevented from going via LHR.**
b. The car will get you there, but the parking will be more than the ticket price. Plus not everyone wants to dice with death or risk being late, because of the diabolical M4 (or M1 or M6 or whatever).
c. The train will get you there, but an hour after the flight departs (no overnight rail services on the UK's decrepit railways.) That means an overnight in a hotel, and more expense.
The net result, is it is cheaper and easier to fly KLM to AMS (4 flights a day) and use that as a hub. And at £140 return, it is much cheaper and easier to go to AMS than take the train or car to LHR.
This is the problem with the present London hub. If you make things so difficult and so expensive, people will go elsewhere. And so London loses out, and so does BA lose out. RIP London as a business center. RIP London....
** (An early morning slot at LHR will cost you about £18 million. If you want to recoup that expense over 5 years on a commuter turboprop, it will add £165 to each ticket price, not including interest payments. Perhaps you can see why turboprops - and therefore passengers - do not frequent LHR.)
Silver
DaveReidUK
28th Jul 2013, 11:06
There are no flights from BRS to LHR not because there is no demand, but because there are no slots available.
Of course it's entirely possible that both considerations apply. :ugh:
silverstrata
29th Jul 2013, 14:36
Of course it's entirely possible that both considerations apply.
You think there would be no demand, if the price BRS-LHR was £80 return? The problem is that LHR is expensive, because it is elitist (restricted), and has priced itself out of the market.
Silver
Barling Magna
29th Jul 2013, 16:04
Your argument is correct Silverstrata, its just that your example is wrong because LHR is linked to Bristol by the M4 which isn't at all bad as far as traffic goes westbound. It really isn't worth flying to Bristol from Heathrow. At LHR you would need to take up the transfer time to a different terminal (naturally), allowing yourself sufficient contingency, and then after a 30 minute flight (10 minutes of which is taxiing) you wind up at Lulsgate Bottom, in the middle of the Mendip Hills. After clearing customs you have to wait for a bus which takes half an hour to transport you to central Bristol where you can meet up with your fellow passengers who've avoided all the transfer hassle and the bus journey and have travelled in the comfort of their hired Ford Focus and are already on to their second daquiri at one of Bristol's exclusive cocktail lounges.
A much better example would be Exeter, or Doncaster/Sheffield, or Humberside, or even Norwich (the M25 really is a brute of a motorway)......
Heathrow Harry
29th Jul 2013, 17:06
there is also a damn good train service between London & Bristol
even if you take the dreaded Rail Air Bus to Reading it's less time than transfer and waittttttttt at LHR
silverstrata
30th Jul 2013, 16:48
your example is wrong because LHR is linked to Bristol by the M4 which isn't at all bad as far as traffic goes westbound.
there is also a damn good train service between London & Bristol
Please read the thread before posting. As I have just said:
Quote Silver:
b. The car will get you there, but the parking will be more than the ticket price. Plus not everyone wants to dice with death or risk being late, because of the diabolical M4 (or M1 or M6 or whatever).
c. The train will get you there, but an hour after the flight departs (no overnight rail services on the UK's decrepit railways.) That means an overnight in a hotel, and more expense.
The net result, is it is cheaper and easier to fly KLM to AMS (4 flights a day) and use that as a hub. And at £140 return, it is much cheaper and easier to go to AMS than take the train or car to LHR.
This is the problem with the present London hub. If you make things so difficult and so expensive, people will go elsewhere. And so London loses out, and so does BA lose out. RIP London as a business center. RIP London....
Endquote.
Silver
DaveReidUK
30th Jul 2013, 17:11
Yes, I think we get the idea - AMS serves more UK domestic destinations than LHR does.
On the other hand, LHR serves more Netherlands domestic destinations than AMS does :O
Fairdealfrank
30th Jul 2013, 18:35
Quote: "The net result, is it is cheaper and easier to fly KLM to AMS (4 flights a day) and use that as a hub. And at £140 return, it is much cheaper and easier to go to AMS than take the train or car to LHR.
This is the problem with the present London hub. If you make things so difficult and so expensive, people will go elsewhere. And so London loses out, and so does BA lose out. RIP London as a business center. RIP London...."
A ludicrous and ridiculous situation that should not have been allowed to develop. On this we agree, Silver.
However in your recent posts you have been, probably unintentionally, making the argument for a massive LHR expansion so that:
1. the supply of slots won't be greater than the demand;
2. the slot market will disappear and so will the eye-watering costs thereof;
3. more than 2 UK carriers can afford access to LHR;
4. more domestic routes will be available at LHR, expanding choice;
5. more thin routes will be available at LHR, expanding choice;
6. more overseas markets will be available, opening up trade opportunities;
7. more opportunities for inward investment and tourism with more overseas direct links;
8. less delays so less unnecessary polution from aircraft queueing up for take off, or stacking while waiting to land;
9. LHR not at 99% capacity so enough slack in the system to cope when there is bad weather or when things go wrong;
10. more room overall so that the LHR experience becomes better for everyone, whether pax, staff, crews or visitors.
Dannyboy39
30th Jul 2013, 18:54
On thinner routes, there is no way I'd want an airline to operate an unprofitable service just for prestige and choice purposes. It just defeats the object; you may as well keep the money in the bank.
That's why so many US airlines have failed in recent years - massive overexpansion and continuing small regional services that just simply aren't making money, in order to defend their market against their competitors.
silverstrata
31st Jul 2013, 19:10
Dave:
On the other hand, LHR serves more Netherlands domestic destinations than AMS does.
The difference is that the Netherlands has a 24 hour train and bus service, while the UK does not. Unlike rail services into LHR, there is an hourly train service from all major Netherland cities into Schiphol, and so you do not need to arrive the night before for a morning departure, and incur the huge cost of another hotel bill.
Its called an integrated transport system - designed around the needs of the public, rather than around the needs of union bosses, lazy staff and brain-dead politicians whose only goal is to to always take the easiest option in order to chase votes.
.
silverstrata
31st Jul 2013, 19:16
Fairdeal:
However in your recent posts you have been, probably unintentionally, making the argument for a massive LHR expansion so that.
No, I am making the argument for a decent interlining airport with full international and domestic capability - something with four international runways and two 'domestic' runways and modern terminals and good surface transport links to match its position and size.
As has been explained many times, LHR is simply too constrained and in totally the wrong location to be that new, modern, 21st century airport.
Silver
Heathrow Harry
1st Aug 2013, 07:47
I am always puzzled by the argument that
What is good for BA = what is good for the UK
Fairdealfrank
1st Aug 2013, 19:14
Quote: "No, I am making the argument for a decent interlining airport with full international and domestic capability - something with four international runways and two 'domestic' runways and modern terminals and good surface transport links to match its position and size."
So, Silver, you want Six rwys in the estuary? even Boris only wants/wanted(?) four.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, a "decent interlining airport with full international and domestic capability" has to be at LHR.
You know it, I know it, Boris knows it.
Why? because the largest UK airports are in the private sector and as such have to turn a profit. An estuary airport therefore has to be a good business proposition, but it isn't, because it's all expense, expense, expense, and no return on the investment.
Premium business pax don't want an estuary airport, so the carriers don't, so it won't happen.
You have always failed to explain realistically how this can be resolved.
Comments about "closing LHR" and "government funding" are not realistic.
Even Boris is back-tracking and is moving west all the time.
First he favoured 4 rwys in the estauary, then 4 rwys on the river bank, then 3 more rwys at STN.
Next he'll cross the Greenwich meridian into the western hemisphere...
Then it will become 3 more rwys at LGW, then 3 more rwys at LTN.
Finally, reality will prevail, and it will be 2 more rwys at LHR.
Quote: "As has been explained many times, LHR is simply too constrained and in totally the wrong location to be that new, modern, 21st century airport.
Silver"
So what is to be done?
Expand LHR so that it's not too constrained, obviously.
PAXboy
7th Aug 2013, 14:36
The chairman of the Airports Commission on expanding the UK's airport capacity has said there is a "wide spectrum" of views on how best to proceed.
Sir Howard Davies said his panel had received "imaginative and thoughtful" responses to its consultation.
The commission has published (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-options-proposals-received-by-the-airports-commission) details of some of the proposals it has received, and is inviting comments on them.
BBC News - Airports Commission boss highlights 'wide spectrum' of expansion plans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23604301)
LGS6753
18th Aug 2013, 12:07
Airport commission member has 'conflict of interest?, say protesters - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10249839/Airport-commission-member-has-conflict-of-interest-say-protesters.html)
DaveReidUK
27th Aug 2013, 14:53
Why has no-one considered re-designing Heathrow into a North-South layout?You mean, apart from having to put 3 miles of the M25, a couple of miles of railway, and possibly a bit of the M4 in a tunnel, and paving over 3 reservoirs and a dozen gravel pits?
Or alternatively obliterating West Drayton, which some might argue would be no bad thing. :O
Yes, it's strange nobody else has come up with that idea.
DaveReidUK
27th Aug 2013, 14:58
Yes, it's strange nobody else has come up with that idea.Oops, I was wrong:
north south heathrow runway - e-petitions (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52794)
Two people thought it was a good idea, so make that three now.
DaveReidUK
27th Aug 2013, 17:19
Boom, 4-runway Heathrow.Yes, that sounds a likely consequence of simultaneous operations on those N-S and E-W runways. :O
PAXboy
27th Aug 2013, 18:52
Not to worry DaveReidUK, the plan says that the new N/S runways will be in tunnels under the existing E/W. Just a gentle ramp at each end for entry and departure.
Scientists predict that the ramp will give a huge boost, as in the aircraft carrier ski-jump. Not to mention that, as the a/c starts it's t/o roll, it will be rolling down hill to gather speed and offset the up hill. I already took out world wide patents. (Although I'm now in discussion with the estate of Gerry Anderson about certain aspects of the launch ...)
E75toDUS
27th Aug 2013, 20:43
I'm not sure whether anybody else has picked this up, but another slight issue is the liquified natural gas terminal and 1200MW power station at Grain, which would have to be moved to allow the favoured Boris' favoured proposal.
Analysis - Gas, power hub to trump London's top airport project | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/22/uk-britain-energy-aviation-analysis-idUKBRE97L0AF20130822)
Of course this issue (like all the other issues) can be made to go away with the application of infinite amounts of money, but the lack of any comment from Boris on where the LNG terminal would move to doesn't help really anybody still clinging to the idea that Boris Island is a brilliant plan.
Heathrow Harry
28th Aug 2013, 12:02
The LNG plant is hardly used these days - and it can be replaced with Fraccing!!!
E75toDUS
28th Aug 2013, 18:11
The LNG plant is hardly used these days - and it can be replaced with Fraccing!!!
According to the article, National Grid want to increase the size of the LNG terminal, which I think is on the expectation of significant imports from places such as Qatar (how else will QR pay for all the new jets?)
The 3 gas turbine units at Grain are amongst the newest in the UK.
The old oil-fired power station (with the mentioned 244 m chimney) has closed so maybe that isn't the barrier that the article makes out.
On the beach
28th Aug 2013, 19:21
Qatar's LNG is being imported through the South Hook LNG terminal at Milford Haven which is the largest in Europe. So, that's one obstacle removed to a 21st. Century airport in the East End!
Now let's get on and build it before the badgers move in, or some idiot comes up with another fracking stupid objection.
Gulfstreamaviator
29th Aug 2013, 06:05
Why not sell the south east to Qatar, then they can build the new airport next to their LNG distribution centre, close to their deep water ports, (currently owned by Dubai World.).
silverstrata
20th Sep 2013, 19:38
topjet
Why has no-one considered re-designing Heathrow into a North-South layout?
Umm, because the wind distribution in the UK is southwesterly. Look at the wind-distribution graph on this page. A full 45% of LHRs winds are southwesterly, and conveniently the other major wind direction is the northeasterly reciprocal.
Wind & weather statistics London-Heathrow - Windfinder (http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_london-heathrow.htm)
Now you can have stupid airports like Birmingham and Leeds that are not orientated into wind, and yes I have not had to divert too often from these ill-considered airports due winds, but some of the approaches have been - well, how shall we put it - 'sporting'. Now while this might be sort of alright for the local lads who have grown up with these stupid airports, the prospect of 'pilots from balmier climes' charging into a permanently cross-wind LHR with 747s and A340s fills me with horrors.
Perhaps these images will dissuade you from your folly. This is a Ryan pilot at Leeds, and even he-she-it could not kick off the drift properly. See those tyres bend and flex. Your next flight, could be on those same tyres - which fail just before V1 and take you off the side of the runway. Still happy with your next flight?
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/webimage/1.3769511.1315995617!/image/4178716535.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/4178716535.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/18/article-2311018-195E152B000005DC-547_634x341.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/18/article-2311018-195E11E7000005DC-383_634x286.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uump2SLzaLg
If you are suggesting we should have these sort of antics at LHR on a weekly basis, you need a brain-change.
Silver
P.S. Here is Jet2 showing Ryan how it should be done (based in Leeds, of course).
Extreme Crosswind Landing - Boeing 737-300 - Leeds Bradford EGNM (HD 1080p) - YouTube
DaveReidUK
20th Sep 2013, 20:18
Ah, but don't forget that the OP's plan was to keep the two E-W runways as well as building two N-S ones.
Or even better, we could have three pairs of runways, oriented at 60° to each other ...
Heathrow Harry
21st Sep 2013, 12:19
Surely we should mount the whole airport on roller bearings so it can rotate into the wind at any time?
PAXboy
21st Sep 2013, 12:47
Aww come on DaveReidUK, you know that no one would think up such a smart idea - leave alone build it. :=
DaveReidUK
21st Sep 2013, 17:23
As for the implied ATC complications of a N-S expansion (DRUK - 27th Aug), I don't agree with you. Simply depart traffic northerly or easterly to allow approaches and misses to go behind departures.Shame we're talking about an airport where the prevailing wind is southwesterly.
Fairdealfrank
2nd Oct 2013, 20:18
LHR North-South layout
Quote: "Why has no-one considered re-designing Heathrow into a North-South layout?
[I]There is plenty of space to the West of the existing plot, even, at a squeeze, overthe existing plot.
Admittedly it would be hugely expensive and disruptive. So are all of the other options. This has the advantage of still being Heathrow but with SIDs and STARs over open ground at the M25 corridor. By the time it's built we'll all be able to fly curved (and steep) PRNAV GPSS approaches anyway.
[I]The x-wind issue is not an issue at all: very rarely does the wind get above 25kts from the west (most a/c and pilots can handle more than that anyway(yes, I do fly heavy jets)) and the existing runways could perhaps be kept operational for the 4 days of the year it's too windy."
Apart from practical and technical considerations, and the long time line, it's clearly not a good business case. The government can't be expected to pay, so it would fall to Heathrow Ltd.. Their money is obviously best spent on 2 more east-west rwys rather than 4 north-south rwys.
Common sense really, surely it doesn't really need spelling out.
Baltasound
3rd Oct 2013, 00:02
"b. The car will get you there, but the parking will be more than the ticket price. Plus not everyone wants to dice with death or risk being late, because of the diabolical M4 (or M1 or M6 or whatever).
c. The train will get you there, but an hour after the flight departs (no overnight rail services on the UK's decrepit railways.) That means an overnight in a hotel, and more expense.
The net result, is it is cheaper and easier to fly KLM to AMS (4 flights a day) and use that as a hub. And at £140 return, it is much cheaper and easier to go to AMS than take the train or car to LHR.
This is the problem with the present London hub. If you make things so difficult and so expensive, people will go elsewhere. And so London loses out, and so does BA lose out. RIP London as a business center. RIP London...."
*giggle*
silverstrata
17th Oct 2013, 21:37
Boris Johnson was out in Hong Kong today, looking at how to build an airport in the sea and transfer that experience back to London.
BBC News - Boris Johnson: PM and Osborne 'kidding themselves' over airport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-24565010)
This proposal is far from dead, and will form one of the major discussions and arguments come the next parliamentary elections.
Fairdealfrank
18th Oct 2013, 22:41
Boris Johnson was out in Hong Kong today, looking at how to build an airport in the sea and transfer that experience back to London.
BBC News - Boris Johnson: PM and Osborne 'kidding themselves' over airport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-24565010)
This proposal is far from dead, and will form one of the major discussions and arguments come the next parliamentary elections.
Silver
HKG is indeed an excellent airport, but much closer to Hong Kong and better connected to it (a 25 minute train journey with 5 trains/hour) than an estuary airport would ever be to London.
Hong Kong never had an equivelant of LHR. All it had before Chek Lap Kok was Kai Tak, a slightly larger (and more hazardous) version of LCY.
So they had to build a new airport on a "greenfield" site, and as most of Hong Kong is mostly hilly, and the flat bits are already urbanised, the airport had to be built on reclaimed land.
The London case is quite different, there is no need to build a new airport. This is the crucial difference, you are not comparing like with like.
Whether the estuary proposal is "far from dead" is an open question, some seem to think that it is, and even Boris is now banging on about 4 rwys at STN. We should know by the end of the year.
As for "major discussions and arguments come the next parliamentary elections", this issue may be overtaken by the HS2 and fracking.
DaveReidUK
19th Oct 2013, 06:59
We should know by the end of the year.Yes, provided you're not talking about this year. :O
All that we're promised in the next few months is a "short-list" from the Davies Commission.
The indications are that this will include pretty well all the serious options that are on the table, leaving aside the clearly loony ones (Walland Marsh, Croughton, Goodwin Sands, etc, etc)
Bagso
19th Oct 2013, 07:53
Always makes me smile that the report was called a Review of "UK" Capacity.
At least Heathrow is no worse a situation than we have now, but building an airport to the East of London is not thoroughly thought through unless of course it's JUST an airport for Londoners ?
What about the rest of us mere mortals who live across other parts of the UK ?
Not one airline will move unless forced to ....if they are, who will pay for the cost ?
And "without" suitable transport links how do the rest of us get there ?
What I do not understand is why the media never challenge some of these proposals.
It's typical that of Government thinking that by way of example we have the HS link BUT this will operate West NOT East....
Transport policy is as shambolic as ever !
Fairdealfrank
19th Oct 2013, 12:27
Yes, provided you're not talking about this year. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif
All that we're promised in the next few months is a "short-list" from the Davies Commission.
The indications are that this will include pretty well all the serious options that are on the table, leaving aside the clearly loony ones (Walland Marsh, Croughton, Goodwin Sands, etc, etc)
Was refering to the end of this year, DaveReidUK. Aren't all the non-viable proposals supposed to be sifted out in the short list produced by then? That being the case, it is reasonable to expect all notions of a vanity project estuary airport to be dropped.
Could well be wrong of course, logic and common sense has been absent from this debate for the longest time: note the failure to expand Heathrow in the 1970s when it was needed.
Always makes me smile that the report was called a Review of "UK" Capacity.
The emphasis on the south east is obvious, the rest of the UK has no capacity problems and some excellent airports.
At least Heathrow is no worse a situation than we have now, but building an airport to the East of London is not thoroughly thought through unless of course it's JUST an airport for Londoners ?
What about the rest of us mere mortals who live across other parts of the UK ?
This an important point, Bagso, it's the wrong airport in the wrong place. It's even inconvenient for the majority of Londoners.
Not one airline will move unless forced to ....if they are, who will pay for the cost ?
Good point. They'll only move if LHR closes, there'll be years of litigation before that happens.
If Heathrow still closes despite the court action, there would be one hell of a lot of compensation to be paid out, and not just to Heathrow Ltd. the carriers and the owners of Southend and Manston, who would also have to close.
Many rich influential mega-companies are based in the Thames Valley because of the location of Heathrow, and they would also want a piece of the action, so would probably not hesitate to take legal action as well.
And "without" suitable transport links how do the rest of us get there ?
Indeed. We don't. Suspect that we'd all be taking flights from our local airports to Amsterdam-Schiphol and continuing our journeys from there.
This is already done in much of the country because of the lack of domestic connections to/from Heathrow.
With Heathrow closed, those of us in the Thames valley would be stuffed. Down to Southampton perhaps, or will Northolt be available for the hop over to Schiphol?
What I do not understand is why the media never challenge some of these proposals.
Another good point! They have their own agendas and band-wagons to jump on, as do politicians.
It's typical that of Government thinking that by way of example we have the HS link BUT this will operate West NOT East....
Another vanity project that hasn't been thought through properly. If it is really needed, think it through again and come up with something better.
Don't want thread drift, so best to say no more about HS2 at this stage, except that if it is ever built, it is not going to the estuary.
DaveReidUK
19th Oct 2013, 12:58
I would expect around half-a-dozen of the 58 proposals that the Commission has received to make it to the short-list.
Clearly at least one, probably a couple, of the various the Estuary Airport schemes will be included, plus Heathrow's R3 (and/or R3+R4) plan, the so-called "2+2+2" proposal, and maybe the 3/4-runway Stansted scheme.
Anyone want to suggest what other proposals will make the short-list ? Are Ladbrokes taking bets ?
Bagso
19th Oct 2013, 14:23
Personally I don't believe there is a cat in hells chance of anything else other than a 3rd RW at Heathrow.....
.... and even that is suspect given the latest appointment of a transport minister vehemently against expansion.
Stansted has bags of capacity ALREADY and if ever there was a example of an opportunity being offered and universally declined it occurred with this Essex outpost 15 years back ! Evidence enough that if there is already an airport available now which fails to attract Heathrow based airlines , then Thames is already dead !
If these faceless commissioners happen to decide on another location to the NWest of London, who in their right mind is going to actually build it with Heathrow will still hanging around like a bad smell.
You could hardly force it to close through the courts.....!
At the end of the day the market decides....
DaveReidUK
19th Oct 2013, 14:59
Stansted has bags of capacity ALREADYWhat you mean is that Stansted, like Gatwick, has plenty of capacity (about 300K ATMs pa) to support a Ryanair/EasyJet-type point-to-point network, as indeed those airports do.
But that's not nearly enough capacity to support a network hub for even one, let alone all 3, of the alliances, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them has chosen to move any sizeable part of its operations to there.
On the beach
19th Oct 2013, 21:30
The talk of the new Thames River Airport being too far a journey from Central London is a spurious argument. I currently have to journey to Amsterdam for a decent connection to where my regular destinations are and most of the UK airline passengers who live outside the M25 probably find it less hassle to fly to a European Hub Airport than using Heathrow. So, building extra runway/s at Heathrow isn't going to change that situation. Transit passengers are only interested in having onwards flights to wherever their final destination happens to be. A third runway at Heathrow doesn't solve the problem of lack of choice of airlines/destinations. 4/6 runways operating 24 hours a day does go some way towards clawing back the loss of traffic/revenue/prestige currently being lost through lack of aspiration by the usual "mediocre thinkers" who claim to want to be "the best", but who cling to outdated/outmoded ideas of advancement.
Sadly, the "uninspired mediocrity" will probably win out and the UK will wait a further 10 years for a third runway to be built at Heathrow by which time most major overseas airlines will be flying from what are now euphemistically called "regional airports".
Actually, that's not such a bad solution for those of us who don't need Heathrow. :E
silverstrata
19th Oct 2013, 22:14
Bagso:
What about the rest of us mere mortals who live across other parts of the UK ?
That was the whole point about the discussion on this thread about HS2 and Crossrail.
If HS2 rolls into King's Cross and if the Chunnel runs from King's Cross through Silver-Boris Airport to Paris and Brussels. And Likewise if Crossrail runs through London and into Silver-Boris. Then everyone is connected.
However, if HS2 rolls into Euston, and Crossrail ends in East London, you are screwed.
So you had better give Boris a call, and find out what he is planning.
ZOOKER
19th Oct 2013, 23:54
surely it would be better if HS2 was connected directly by undersea rail to EHAM/EBBR and LFPG, with EGLL acting as an East Atlantic Offshore Hub.
Cuts out unnecessary middlemen.
anothertyke
20th Oct 2013, 11:34
Davies has to answer two different high level questions
1. Future hub capacity for the UK.
2. Future total capacity for London and South East in particular.
Given that, I would agree with Dave Reid's list but add an option of 3 at Heathrow, 2 at Gatwick and 1 at Stansted. If you believe the forecasts, the London system as a whole will be very short of total capacity even with R3.
The comments on HS2 are unbelievably negative. Currently the time to allow from Leeds or Sheffield station to Heathrow airport door by rail is around 4.5 hours--- 2.5 to London plus 1 to the airport plus 1 for things to go wrong. Via Old Oak Common that should roughly halve.
Get the Western curve from LHR towards Reading done now, get HS2 done, get the Northern Hub scheme done in Manchester and that combination will make a big difference to access from most places north of Watford to the international network.
PAXboy
20th Oct 2013, 12:39
silverstrataSo you had better give Boris a call, and find out what he is planning. I could not agree more. Except that he won't tell you!
He is a superb politician and watching/listening to him being interviewed (on any subject) is a lesson on how to say what you want and avoid answering any question. The man is VERY intelligent, VERY quick witted and wants to be Prime Minister.
Of itself, that is not a problem and we need PMs who are intelligent but Johnson is as good at not answering questions as Blair. That is not good.
As far as I know, Johnson has never said on the record about how LHR would be closed, who would pay for it and how all the companies and people put out of of business will pay to relocate etcetera etcetera. He sweeps those questions away as meere detail and stays with the big idea. He does not even let his staff answer the detailed questions.
If he answered any of these questions in a serious manner, it might be possible to evaluate the island - but he doesn't so it isn't.
silverstrata
21st Oct 2013, 20:40
Paxboy:
Of itself, that is not a problem and we need PMs who are intelligent but Johnson is as good at not answering questions as Blair. That is not good.
As far as I know, Johnson has never said on the record about how LHR would be closed.
Boris is better than Blair in one crucial respect, he does appear to want to get things done in terms of industry and infrastructure (even if such projects are politically sensitive). In great contrast, because Blair wanted to be nice to everyone, he did nothing. Blair's main infrastructure projects in his ten years in office included ..... and possibly ...... and then there was ......
Still thinking on that one. Any ideas?
Regards LHR, Boris said on this Hong Kong trip that the old LHR site must be redeveloped immediately, to inject economic confidence in the area. (He was musing over Hong Kong's failure to redevelop the old airport site).
Silver
Fairdealfrank
21st Oct 2013, 20:59
The talk of the new Thames River Airport being too far a journey from Central London is a spurious argument. I currently have to journey to Amsterdam for a decent connection to where my regular destinations are and most of the UK airline passengers who live outside the M25 probably find it less hassle to fly to a European Hub Airport than using Heathrow. So, building extra runway/s at Heathrow isn't going to change that situation.
Not neccessarily so. The reason pax from many parts of the UK have to go via AMS is because of the lack of domestic routes to/from LHR, and that's because of the lack of capacity.
So building more rwys COULD easily change that situation: as demand would no longer outstrip supply, the artificial slot market, and thus the high prices of slots, would be ended. Thin domestic routes would once again become viable.
Transit passengers are only interested in having onwards flights to wherever their final destination happens to be. A third runway at Heathrow doesn't solve the problem of lack of choice of airlines/destinations. 4/6 runways operating 24 hours a day does go some way towards clawing back the loss of traffic/revenue/prestige currently being lost through lack of aspiration by the usual "mediocre thinkers" who claim to want to be "the best", but who cling to outdated/outmoded ideas of advancement.
Again, not so. The existance of transit/connecting pax makes routes viable that otherwise would not be, so point-to-point pax get the added benefits of wider choice.
Sadly, the "uninspired mediocrity" will probably win out and the UK will wait a further 10 years for a third runway to be built at Heathrow by which time most major overseas airlines will be flying from what are now euphemistically called "regional airports".
Actually, that's not such a bad solution for those of us who don't need Heathrow.
You're probably right about the "uninspired mediocrity" winning.
It's actually a bad situation all round, even for those of you who "don't need Heathrow". Why? because if the same amount of connections were available over LHR as there are over AMS, you can be assured that the prices would be lower.
As for "what are now euphemistically called "regional airports"", in most cases, some bi-laterals apart, there's nothing to stop major overseas airlines flying to/from BHX, MAN, GLA, etc. already. They just need convincing that there's money to be made, and that won't change if LHR has 2, 3 or 4 rwys.
That was the whole point about the discussion on this thread about HS2 and Crossrail.
If HS2 rolls into King's Cross and if the Chunnel runs from King's Cross through Silver-Boris Airport to Paris and Brussels. And Likewise if Crossrail runs through London and into Silver-Boris. Then everyone is connected.
However, if HS2 rolls into Euston, and Crossrail ends in East London, you are screwed.
So you had better give Boris a call, and find out what he is planning.
Lots of "ifs", Silver. If there are merits to HS2, and there may well be, they're obscured by the stupid scheme that's been hatched up.
But rest assured, it's not going to any "London" airports.
As for Boris, he'll be long gone by then....
Given that, I would agree with Dave Reid's list but add an option of 3 at Heathrow, 2 at Gatwick and 1 at Stansted. If you believe the forecasts, the London system as a whole will be very short of total capacity even with R3.
As far as the LGW-proposed LHR-LGW-STN "constellation" is concerned, 2-2-2 doesn't cut it.
3-1-1 was needed ages ago. 4-1-1 is needed now, 4-2-1 soon, and possibly 4-2-2 in the long term.
The comments on HS2 are unbelievably negative. Currently the time to allow from Leeds or Sheffield station to Heathrow airport door by rail is around 4.5 hours--- 2.5 to London plus 1 to the airport plus 1 for things to go wrong. Via Old Oak Common that should roughly halve.
Comments on HS2 are negative because they've come up with a stupid plan, rethink the scheme and it may not be so.
Get the Western curve from LHR towards Reading done now, get HS2 done, get the Northern Hub scheme done in Manchester and that combination will make a big difference to access from most places north of Watford to the international network.
Yes, all that needs doing, and doing properly, but it's not a substitute for LHR expansion, which still need 4 rwys.
PAXboy
21st Oct 2013, 21:46
silverstrata
Regards LHR, Boris said on this Hong Kong trip that the old LHR site must be redeveloped immediately, to inject economic confidence in the area. (He was musing over Hong Kong's failure to redevelop the old airport site).
Sure, it is astounding that they have not done anything big. I had presumed that an enormous waterfont development would mushroom.
If Boris told us HOW he proposed to close LHR and redevelop (at the very least massive bridging loans) then we could begin to debate it.
Fairdealfrank is right to say that the 3rd 9at leaste) could improve UK doemstic. Because of the slot limit, BA bought the small, regional airlines, offloaded them to LGW and gave themselves lovely slots on the cheap. Not least when they later off loaded them to others. The did that to the Isle of Man TWICE!
No admonishment was possible because the govt (both) said that the market would deal with it. It dealt with it by outting it out of business for the big numbers of long haul. So, the European carriers (nc the LCCs) started lifting the pax to AMS/CDG/FRA and some services go direct to the US East Coast or via DUB.
Lastly, the Mid East carriers started to use MAN and other points to take folks directly. Simples. Yes, the market fixed it OK.
Is it too late to retrieve that situation? I think it is. The investment needed for regionals to expand again to handle the routes (both new and redirected to LHR) is big money. Folks have got used to changing in AMS/etc and of the directs now available.
Bagso
23rd Oct 2013, 07:15
Originally posted on the the Manchester thread I think this subject is worthy of wider debate.
See lukewarm support of Manchester compared to Stansted re Davies Commission
CAPA analysis spports the view.
Manchester Airport route network expansion becomes an interesting model for the industry. Part 1 | CAPA - Centre for Aviation (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/manchester-airport-route-network-expansion-becomes-an-interesting-model-for-the-industry-part-1-133323)
Whilst appreciating MAN cannot take up the slack can Stansted?
*Where are MAG expecting growth to come from down there, is it really airlines at Lhr or lgw
Utter reliance on RYR seems folly and and the recent deal smacks of desperation , and in truth contradicts the implication given at the enquiry that STN could become a major long haul hub that n reality is what MAG are after is it not ?
Have they in effect played their hand ?
Which airline CEO in their right mind is likely to contemplate for more than a few seconds diluting service at Heathrow in order to move to Fortress Ryanair, Essex
What is in MAGs thinking or indeed the Australian backers that suggests an avalanche from elsewhere?
If the commission supports Heathrow expansion HAL wil pay but if it suggests using Stansted in a wider sense I just cannot see what the catalyst will be to move.
Legislation won't work and commercially it would be suicide to go up against RYR.
Fairdealfrank
28th Oct 2013, 00:06
Originally posted on the the Manchester thread I think this subject is worthy of wider debate.
See lukewarm support of Manchester compared to Stansted re Davies Commission
CAPA analysis spports the view.
No problems at Ringway, it has already doubled its rwy capacity. Heathrow hasn't and needs to.
Davies is dealing with a lack of hub capacity in the UK and that means Heathrow.
PAXboy
3rd Nov 2013, 14:20
Here is an interesting comparison: Another major London infrastructure project being proposed:
London's £4.1bn 'super sewer' is kicking up a stink as campaigners label it a 'monster' - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/londons-41bn-super-sewer-is-kicking-up-a-stink-as-campaigners-label-it-a-monster-8919213.html)
In the article, it is reported that 85% of Londoners know that a new sewer is needed but the folks who are protesting - and could stop it - are those where the building works would be 'in their back yards'.
The fact that the company will restore the above ground places to their original after the construction does not seem to be part of the NIMBYs equation. :hmm:
Read the details about raw serage outfalls into the Thames both now and projected. Even if the company are oversating things - there cannot be many people who think that a 150 year old sewer system does not need to be replaced ... :uhoh:
The HUB concept is worthy of wider debate.
Who benefits ?
BA and Virgin almost certainly, well they aint going to vote for a move to be wiped out an Irish fortress in the middle of Essex are they, who would !
For every 4 passengers using LHR at least 1 could be classed as purely an international to international transfer passenger using the airport by way of convenience.
I supported additional runway (s) at LHR many moons ago, 4 possibly 6 runways and close Gatwick, but that was under BAA by splitting ownership is the momentum lost ?
Have the Government scored a major own goal ?
Funnily enough "Convenience" is an apt term as the local residents may feel they are being somewhat peeeed on, it is they, NOT the vociferous commentators on here who are having their homes levelled to facilitate a major undertaking for these "transfer" passengers.
They might well scratch their heads and say hang on a minute, LHR is somewhat incredibly still growing, airlines still fight vigorously for slots, not sure anybody has ever lost a job through redundancy, so what is the problem !
By shutting LGW (back in the day) and combining to build a mega airport you would at least be providing real benefit to a much larger percentage of purely UK bound citizens !
Transfer pax at LGW is miniscule by comparison, the passengers using LGW are at least inbound or are leaving from London !
It could then be argued that homes have not been flattened in vain !
Its also much safer to have one airport with say 4 runways than have two airports with 3, 40 miles apart.
Incidentally international to international passengers fly in and fly out without any contribution to the treasury unless of course you include VAT on a McDonalds, but maybe just buying a burger is an example of what is meant by job creation opportunities ?
But what to do ?
If you tax transfer pax then they presumably they will avail themselves of Paris, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt....
It's a shambles !
anothertyke
4th Nov 2013, 08:14
The direct benefit of more int/int traffic to the UK economy is probably pretty low. But the standard argument is that the indirect benefit of the int/int traffic on frequency and range of destinations out of London is one of the elements which justifies hub capacity as opposed to point to point. Is the price right? That's the Davies question.
On another of Bagso's points I wonder what Willie's tactics are in saying it will never happen and whether he would be saying that if he thought BA and Virgin would really be the big winners out of expansion at LHR. Can someone explain the mechanism by which the new slots would get allocated please. I believe a slot auction is not legal under EU rules--is that correct?
Fairdealfrank
4th Nov 2013, 20:26
Incidentally international to international passengers fly in and fly out without any contribution to the treasury unless of course you include VAT on a McDonalds, but maybe just buying a burger is an example of what is meant by job creation opportunities ?
Yes there is a benefit locally: destinations are available that otherwise would not be, and that increases choice. For example, it is unlikely that BA would fly to 20 USA destinations without transfer traffic and that creates opportunities for UK travellers.
On another of Bagso's points I wonder what Willie's tactics are in saying it will never happen and whether he would be saying that if he thought BA and Virgin would really be the big winners out of expansion at LHR. Can someone explain the mechanism by which the new slots would get allocated please. I believe a slot auction is not legal under EU rules--is that correct?
One would imagine that they would be allocated on a first come first served basis because, initially at least, supply of slots would outstrip demand. No new slots have been available for a long time, so a market in slots developped, it's existing slots that are traded in this market.
Clearly, the price that these slots change hands illustrates the extent that LHR is the airport of choice for carriers and it is so because it is the airport of choice for their pax, especially those paying the first and business class premiums.
ETOPS
11th Nov 2013, 11:40
Anybody else see a possible flaw in this one........
Rival airport plan unveiled for 'Boris Island' | London - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2013-11-11/rival-airport-plan-unveiled-for-boris-island/)
Trossie
11th Nov 2013, 12:54
"Rival" or same thing? Depends on whose report you read: BBC News - 'Boris Island' London Airport designs to be unveiled (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24895965)!!
Love the bit about... the island scheme avoided the problems of other land-based airport developments. ... A spokeswoman said those included ... bird strikes... Coastal regions, and an 'island' airport will have a lot of its own coastline, have lots of birds!!
PAXboy
11th Nov 2013, 15:21
This document and blurb makes for much amusing reading. I suggest keeping to match with how the future actually turns out. :p
The consortium has said that although Heathrow would probably have to close, the opportunities for new housing, employment and economic regeneration were huge.
It said £47bn would be recouped from the real estate value and closure of Heathrow.
Testrad said there could be a new London borough in the Heathrow area with 300,000 new houses and about 200,000 new jobs, along with economic regeneration of east London, Kent and Essex.What they don't say (natch) is how much they expect to have to pay OUT to close EGLL. Would you like to start the bidding as to what BA (+ One World) and VS and Star and Team would want to pay for their costs and loss of business??
'200,000 new jobs'?? What about the jobs lost? How many would be moving? Etcetera.
Still, it brightened up a rainy Monday afternoon. :}
Libertine Winno
11th Nov 2013, 17:09
Does anybody know how this proposal would/does affect LCY?
I know the argument goes that LHR would need to close otherwise nobody would actually leave there and move to the new Boris/Silver/Britannia/Fantasy Airport, but with regards LCY surely there would be more than a little conflict in terms of airspace, and perhaps also in terms of business model seeing as the new airport would be much closer to Canary Wharf and therefore remove much of the benefit of LCY?
Happy to be enlightened...!
The article in Flight Global (London Thames Estuary airport plans unveiled (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/london-thames-estuary-airport-plans-unveiled-392842/)) suggest that the land under which LHR is currently located could fetch $45B from land developers and support 300,000 people in apartments, condos, etc. How realistic is that? If feasible, that would certainly help with the building costs of the new airport.
I am all for moving out to the new location. The UK has to do something to preserve whatever it has left as a logistics/transportation hub. Meanwhile the Gulf States and Turkey are beating the CRAAAAP out of us with the development of mega-airport/logistics hubs.
It is also true that an airport can provide a lasting impression on visitors to your country - it is the first and last place you see on your visit. Most people believe UK airports are old, dirty and uninspiring. Sure, you shouldn't have to spend $75B to give visitors a positive impression, but the UK needs to catch up with the rest of the developing world from an infrastructure perspective. Think of all of the jobs this will create including those needed to build the rail links to London. This is a much needed UK project on several fronts and I hope it eventually moves forward... :ok:
Fairdealfrank
11th Nov 2013, 18:10
What they don't say (natch) is how much they expect to have to pay OUT to close EGLL. Would you like to start the bidding as to what BA (+ One World) and VS and Star and Team would want to pay for their costs and loss of business??
Don't forget all the carriers who have paid millions for LHR slots, they'll also want compensating, as will SEN and MSE which will also have to close. Then there are the businesses that have moved and the international companies that have their European HQ near LHR. They'll also want a piece of the action.
Can forsee years of litigation and some very rich lawyers.
'200,000 new jobs'?? What about the jobs lost? How many would be moving? Etcetera.
Yes, this should not be underestimated. So where will those who live on "Heathrow housing estate" actually work? It's not really been thought through properly!
Still, it brightened up a rainy Monday afternoon
Quite.
Does anybody know how this proposal would/does affect LCY?
Possibly LCY could escape closure, but it's by no means certain.
I know the argument goes that LHR would need to close otherwise nobody would actually leave there and move to the new Boris/Silver/Britannia/Fantasy Airport, but with regards LCY surely there would be more than a little conflict in terms of airspace, and perhaps also in terms of business model seeing as the new airport would be much closer to Canary Wharf and therefore remove much of the benefit of LCY?
Happy to be enlightened...!
This is the rub: no carrier will go to the estuary if LHR remains open. It's too expensive to close LHR.
As for closing and replacing LHR, that particular ship sailed decades ago.
Probably not good for foreign crews looking forward to London layovers! Doubt they will be shuttled in 50 miles to London! :{:}
Skipness One Echo
11th Nov 2013, 20:30
The consortium has said that although Heathrow would probably have to close, the opportunities for new housing, employment and economic regeneration were huge.
It said £47bn would be recouped from the real estate value and closure of Heathrow.
Testrad said there could be a new London borough in the Heathrow area with 300,000 new houses and about 200,000 new jobs, along with economic regeneration of east London, Kent and Essex.
"probably".
OK it's dishonest not to be clear and say "most certainly". New housing would go to incomers displacing the tens of thousands of locals who no longer have a job as the biggest employer in the area by far was closed. The 47 billion is over stated massively, it would be the usual suspects trousering the wonga and to Hell with the reality on the ground.
Costs would be to HAL for closure of the business, BA and Virgin for closure of multi million pound maintenance facilities and every business needing to rebuild their cargo warehouse miles away. Also if you work in the hotel trade locally just expect your P45, that's a great many low paid jobs on the scrap heap alongside every driver and manual worker unable to relocate, which is er...pretty much all of them. Still, gets your daft idea in the paper and keeps that blonde court jester's profile nice and high as he aims to be our Lord and Master as he was born to be.
Cripes !
Floreat Etona, Floreat Etona, Floreat Etona thrice!
How many hours a year would we expect an airport here to be closed by high winds, either based on recent years, or taking into account predictions of more extreme weather?
If we're landing up to 240 planes an hour at a future mega-airport, where do they all divert to if the fire brigade walk out?
How might the schedules change with unrestricted 24 hour operations?
nigel osborne
12th Nov 2013, 11:03
IVAR,
In reality how long would it take to get to central London from Boris Island. Would probably quicker to catch HS2 from Birmingham if it was ever built.
I cannot see any piers on the new drawings ,so whats the plan ,surely not underground when the seas their ?
Nigel
SecondDog
12th Nov 2013, 11:06
It amazes me that anyone thinks they will be able to cease operations at Heathrow.
That is not to say that it is the best place for a hub (when starting from scratch), obviously it isn't but for the current infrastructure to be ripped up and moved all the way over to the Estuary is just pie in the sky.
What gets me is the amount of money that is being paid to 'consultants' of all varieties to come up with semi-plausible schemes that will never see the turf cut. All before they decide Heathrow is the cheapest 'Hub' option and come up with the Aviation strategy to expand there as they were always going to anyway.
Methinks the 'consultants' just made a load of money for talking
touch&go
12th Nov 2013, 11:44
They move to a new airport in Hong Kong in 97 and to me looked a good move, I fly to both Heathrow and Hong Kong and I am impressed with Hong Kong but not with Heathrow which saddens as I am a proud Brit, the Heathrow ATC are brilliant and the best in the world,checkin staff are friendly, Security are horrible and when you travel on the crew bus through the back roads you see a ram shackled assortment of buildings.
Sorry if I upset the Heathrow supporters, just my observation.
Reach the aircraft by underground shuttle trains that rise up on lifts when they reach the a/c, presumably to give level access to the plane, though that isn't clear.
Sounds perfect to me, if it works.
controlx
12th Nov 2013, 12:12
I presume Testrad have come up with a nice NATS and Eurocontrol-reviewed template for reorganising all the airspace around this part of Europe with their six runways and the need for several new holding stacks? I'm sure the French, Germans and Dutch will be entirely compliant with our needs to hijack great chunks of their 'space' to make this work.
And what is this about there being no birds????!!!! There's more birds around there than a Hitchcock movie. And they're on the larger side too quite often.
jabird
12th Nov 2013, 18:59
here's more birds around there than a Hitchcock movie :D:D:D
To date, I have just about got the concept of an island airport, although I disagree with it.
Now I hear:
It said £47bn would be recouped from the real estate value and closure of Heathrow.
So Boris is trying to play airport monopoly by valuing Kai Tak, sorry Heathrow as if it is Mayfair with hotels, but he doesn't even hold the title deeds to anything.
Surely this is one of the biggest ponzi proposals in history?
As for the layout itself, is there a larger image anywhere, other than the Catseye on Thames map in the bbc article?
I simply don't understand how you can have 2+2 runways pointing right at each other. Surely that is a recipe for Tenerife all over again?
Fairdealfrank
14th Nov 2013, 10:19
How might the schedules change with unrestricted 24 hour operations?
Apart from a few more longhaul arrivals from Asia between 0400-0600, they won't change unless the overnight holiday charter business migrates from LGW, LTN, STN, etc..
'200,000 new jobs'?? What about the jobs lost? How many would be moving? Etcetera.
More like 200,000 jobs lost FROM the Thames Valley.
The article in Flight Global (London Thames Estuary airport plans unveiled (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/london-thames-estuary-airport-plans-unveiled-392842/)) suggest that the land under which LHR is currently located could fetch $45B from land developers and support 300,000 people in apartments, condos, etc. How realistic is that? If feasible, that would certainly help with the building costs of the new airport.
Good grief, now it's 300,000 houses? Are we serious? Doubt that it will be condos, with that density.
That equates to a population of about 700,000+, a similar population to that of Glasgow, in an area a little bit bigger than that of Isleworth (pop. 30,000).
They move to a new airport in Hong Kong in 97 and to me looked a good move, I fly to both Heathrow and Hong Kong and I am impressed with Hong Kong but not with Heathrow which saddens as I am a proud Brit, the Heathrow ATC are brilliant and the best in the world,checkin staff are friendly, Security are horrible and when you travel on the crew bus through the back roads you see a ram shackled assortment of buildings.
Not a comparable situation: Hong Kong had no equivelant of Heathrow. To compare Hong Kong and London, Kai Tak was similar to London City, but a busier and more hazardous version and taking the biggest aircraft (B747s).
Chek Lap Kok is Hong Kong's equivelant of Heathrow, not the estuary. Like Heathrow, Chek Lap Kok is about 20 mi. west of the city centre, has 2 rwys, and a terminal with an appearance similar to Heathrow-5.
The fact that Chek Lap Kok is on an island is purely because of geography. Most of Hong Kong is hilly and forested, the available flat land is already covered in high rises.
The move to Chek Lap Kok was made because Kai Tak could not be expanded or made safe. It is quite different in the UK where Heathrow can and must be expanded.
It is best to compare like with like.
Dairyground
14th Nov 2013, 12:54
If Fantasy Island development is to be funded by the sale of the land under Heathrow, what happens in the interim whilst the new place is being created?
Do we need a generation of amphibian airliners or flying boats that can use the estuary whilst the dry facilities are being constructed?
if heathrow is not to be closed until the new place opens, where is the extra capacity to be provided in the interim, or does expansion just stop, with all new growth happening abroad?
Perhaps the growth of transatlantic and Gulf capacity at Manchester (and at other places in the UK) hints at an alternative. Facilities to handle international transit passengers are already being introduced in T3 at MAN, so the powers that be seem to have some expectation of a growth in hubbing. Will it all be left to foreigners, or might Virgin start looking east and BA reverse its descent into "Londial Radial Airways". Willie W must have some ideas about what IAG will do if Heathrow is not expanded. He surely cannot be thinking that we will all take the train to Madrid!
Fairdealfrank
14th Nov 2013, 18:39
if heathrow is not to be closed until the new place opens, where is the extra capacity to be provided in the interim, or does expansion just stop, with all new growth happening abroad?
That is a very good point!
Even if the estuary airport (or any other greenfield site) is the preferred option, LHR expansion is STILL needed to take up the slack in the 20 years or so until it opens.
That being the case, why not just do LHR expansion, and enough of it (2 more rwys).
Perhaps the growth of transatlantic and Gulf capacity at Manchester (and at other places in the UK) hints at an alternative. Facilities to handle international transit passengers are already being introduced in T3 at MAN, so the powers that be seem to have some expectation of a growth in hubbing.
That could work as a small-scale addition to the LHR hub, but not as a substitute for the needed extra capacity at LHR.
The problem is that not enough carriers believe they can make sufficient money at MAN, so if they can't get more LHR slots, that extra capacity goes to AMS.
On the beach
15th Nov 2013, 19:55
The whole subject of Heathrow expansion is, I'm afraid dead. It is now far too late to rescue a crumbling infrastructure and try to pretend it is still World Class. IT ISN'T. And it never will be.
I have used Heathrow many times in the past and Terminal 3 was always a disgrace, Terminal 4 is on another airport, never used Terminal 5, but then I rarely fly BA. Terminals 1 & 2 were adequate. Nowadays, Heathrow is not necessary for those of us who live outside the M25, there are much better alternatives.
If Londoners want an airport to be proud of and which caters for the 21st. Century traveller, then they need an airport that operates 24/7 and has flights to most of the World (most Chinese cities are not catered for by flights from LHR). It would be instructive to know how many flights (scheduled) are being turned down by LHR on a daily basis due to capacity limitations. I'd hazard a guess that in excess of 200 flights a day are being denied access to LHR due to "capacity constraints".
Meanwhile, the airlines that LHR needs are scheduling more and more flights to airports outside of London to satisfy demand.
So, from the perspective of an ex-Heathrow user, please continue to promote Heathrow as the only "sensible" alternative and the rest of us will rejoice in the addition of new airlines and destinations to our humble "regional" airports.
HEATHROW IS DEAD, LONG LIVE HEATHROW.
nigel osborne
15th Nov 2013, 21:51
On the Beach,
I have used T5 a number of times and I have been very impressed very spacious, and modern, perhaps we were very lucky, but I would use it again.
As for the rest of the airport ,doesn't the brand new T2 open soon and aren't they then turning there attention to T3, so not sure some of your critisisms of no plan to modernize is completely valid.
Re China ,British and Chinese meeting in Jan to lift number of rotations between the two countries past the current 31. BA alone want to fly to 6 or 7 new Chinese destinations,probably swapping some current slots for short haul for long.
Nigel
PAXboy
16th Nov 2013, 02:30
On the beach That is what I have been saying for the last five years. :(
EGLL is a fine example of 'market forces' but not in a way that the Tories envisaged. For, in the past 20 years we have seen:
Demand outstrip supply
Trading of previously 'free' slots to the detriment of new entries
Removal of national air links from EGLL
Due to consistent demand, we stack incoming to the most ridiculous degree that wastes fuel, time and money
North American Eastern Seaboard now serving direct to Regionals BRS/MAN/GLA
Middle East carriers now serving direct to MAN
European carriers (+ LCCs) linking to AMS/FRA/CDG/MUC/MAD
Diminishing competition
WW has stated publicly that IAG presumes EGLL will not expand
Even if the 3rd AND 4th were approved today - it is already too late. The market has moved and cannot be recalled by EGLL or any Thames project.
On that, I saw an amusing story on BBC London TV news on Friday 15th giving the estimate of how much it will cost to relocate the Isle of Grain Natural Gas terminal out of the way of the estury site = £3 Billion.
You will not be surprised to hear that the Mayor's airport advisor (forget his name) said that it would not cost that much and could be done without too much difficulty.
The folks who run the terminal then listed the problems:
a deep water port for tankers to dock
build a new storage site
provide duplicate terminations of the network of underground pipe routes that take the gas across the whole of the south east
change over
dismantle the old site and the old network terminations
clean the site available for development
without interrupting service
(or causing a bang)
So they would have to pay (quote) £3Bil. to replicate the gas terminal - but provide nothing new for that money? Irrespective of whether it was commercail money or govt money - no one is going to handout £3Bil and not want a lot of interest back on top.
Skipness One Echo
16th Nov 2013, 11:20
Removal of national air links from EGLL
There's no such thing as a "national air link". In the UK we run most routes commercially for profit. What you're suggesting is tax payer subsidies for someone to be able to use LHR using a slot which would otherwise be worth way more to someone else. Runway three would be an option to ring fence some slots for certain airports only, allowing some more domestic connectivity to be re-established. However given the very different world we live in from the days of Brymon DHC7s into LHR, I'm not sure how many more could make a profit. Possibly INV for distance and IOM/JER/GCI for being off shore. Certainly I don't imagine LPL/MME, I mean who else is left?
North American Eastern Seaboard now serving direct to Regionals BRS/MAN/GLA At a fractional level in comparison to the key strategic hub airport. Bristol was axed as the same aircraft could make way more money flying fifteen minutes further along the M4.
Middle East carriers now serving direct to MAN
As they do from all over Europe, this is an overall market change, not a UK centric one. The ME3 players changed the game going East from Europe and the US. 34 flights daily from LHR/MAN/BHX/GLA/DUB, of which 16 are from one of those five alone.
The market has moved and cannot be recalled by EGLL or any Thames project.What? What market has moved? As above, the ME3 have segmented the market into regional airports however all three have a massive LHR presence and are looking to grow. That's hardly the same as what you're claiming.
You will not be surprised to hear that the Mayor's airport advisor (forget his name) Councillor Daniel Moylan, a Boris mini me who's a multi millionaire mainly from the public payroll, an aviation adviser who has not worked in aviation. It's who you know... He was on the Jubilee Line on the same train as me this week, I (somehow) managed not to rant at him.
I have used Heathrow many times in the past and Terminal 3 was always a disgrace, Terminal 4 is on another airport, never used Terminal 5, but then I rarely fly BA. Terminals 1 & 2 were adequate. Nowadays, Heathrow is not necessary for those of us who live outside the M25, there are much better alternatives.
In one sense a fair point, however two things worth saying. It has changed beyond recognition since I moved to London seven years ago with T5A / A, then T5C, T4 refurbishment with T2 Phase one nearly ready with T1 demolition with Phase 2 to follow. Look at what the money is doing, where it's going. A multi billion pound investment in Heathrow. Boris Island is not an option really.
and the rest of us will rejoice in the addition of new airlines and destinations to our humble "regional" airports.
You're putting one British airport against another to support the likes of Dubai, Qatar and Abu Dhabi aren't you? I assume you didn't mean KLM.
Which airport are you referring to?
PAXboy
16th Nov 2013, 22:25
Skipness
There's no such thing as a "national air link". In the UK we run most routes commercially for profit.
Indeed. I didn't think I was suggesting subsidised fares, what I thought I meant was that the lack of capacity has driven the regional flights out due to the lower profits to be made from them.
Had we have had the 3rd optimised for Short Haul across the past 20 years then, I suggest, LHR could have been more of a hub because the regions from PLH to INV. Those routes got thrown out and are one (only one) of the reasons for the traffic going elsewhere.
Naturally, the LCCs have done a fantastic job of providing alternative routes and connections - but EGLL is the poorer because no one was in charge of keeping a national hub capable of taking the demand. The lack of good rail connections also features.
With regards to the M.E. carriers serving all of Europe: I had not mentioned Continental Europe but I am well aware that they are cleaning up there as well.
I think that the LHR market has been moved by a lack of capacity that drove out the regions. Then the LCCs weighed in. The Euro hubs and M.E. hubs have seen the opportunity. And all credit to them.
BUT
Whatever the reasons - LHR might get 3rd but I doubt and certainly not more. The end result will be another fudge with LGW-2 and STN-2 being back in the frame.
I have lived within 30km (19mi) of LHR for 35 years so I am biased in it's favour.
jabird
19th Nov 2013, 23:09
Even if the estuary airport (or any other greenfield site) is the preferred option, LHR expansion is STILL needed to take up the slack in the 20 years or so until it opens.
It can't be either or like that. Runway have almost zero value as alternative uses - even to turn into a road, you need huge central reservations and junctions.
Either we expand Heathrow, or we fudge at LGW, or more realistically at STN. There will be no FBI for reasons already discussed, and in the 1000/1 outside chance it did happen, the brochure says it could be built just as fast as another runway at LHR - and I, for one, believe the brochure. Don't you?
never used Terminal 5
Not sure you can really write LHR off then if you haven't used T5, or don't appreciate that the new T2 will be with us for next summer.
How many other European airports will serve most of their passengers in facilities this modern? Go into the Schiphol arrivals hall and look up before you go down onto the trains. Actually looking quite tatty!
It would be instructive to know how many flights (scheduled) are being turned down by LHR on a daily basis due to capacity limitations. I'd hazard a guess that in excess of 200 flights a day are being denied access to LHR due to "capacity constraints".
Just go to Gatters or look at their routes list. Take off the locos and IT - most of the remaining scheduled, including ALL BA and VS would rather be there if they could. We know that.
Question is - what are you going to do about it? Look at the based LH from LGW - mainly to the Caribbean, because lovely though these islands are, they do not generate massive yields compared to the US Eastern seaboard. Those that do (GCM etc) still operate from LHR.
You can talk about ideal all you want, but London is London, and not Hong Kong, which doesn't just have serious land constraints, it also has a centralised planning system resulting in only one airport. Yet they still haven't worked out how to redevelop the old Kai Tak, which should be worth much more per acre than LHR.
Bristol was axed as the same aircraft could make way more money flying fifteen minutes further along the M4.
Was it not a 757 for BRS? Is that not part of the problem - these regional routes can keep going as long as the 757s can, but after that, there is no replacement? So BRS gone anyway, but long term for EDI or BFS, even after the tax deal?
Regardless of equipment, it makes logical sense for the US carriers to feed their hubs from UK regions, just as it does for EK to feed DXB from a similar network of airports.
Yet whatever challenges LHR faces, they are tiny compared to the big shiny new airport.
So I can only ask the same questions I asked last week:
1) How exactly is this place going to be laid out? Looks like 2 sets of runways pointing straight at each other.
2) How will you pay for Fantasy Island by releasing money from developing Heathrow, which is a private asset? Sounds like a big Ponzi scheme to me, and although there are plenty of other things I'd like to have a go at Boris about this week, he shouldn't be spouting this sort of thing without a challenge.
Maybe Silver has the answers?
PAXboy
19th Nov 2013, 23:23
jabirdHow exactly is this place going to be laid out? Looks like 2 sets of runways pointing straight at each other.That is a typical layout for many airports - it depends on the prevailing winds. If you look at the runway layouts (via a search engine) of JFK and SFO, there are two examples of catering for wind directions more than just the prevailing and reciprocal.
Whether this would be suitable for the Thames Estury - someone will be along shortly to tell us!
jabird
19th Nov 2013, 23:37
If you look at the runway layouts (via a search engine) of JFK and SFO
No, JFK & SFO are 2 + 2, in both cases the second set at right angles to the first - so they wouldn't be used concurrently.
FBI looks like 2x (1 + 1 ), with a runway west of the terminal complex and another east, only offset from each other by maybe 200m.
I suppose you could use one for arrivals and one for departures, then reciprocate, but without seeing a detailed diagram, it is hard to grasp how it would actually work.
On the beach
20th Nov 2013, 08:06
I'd hazard a guess that the 2 runways either side of the central terminal area are for arrivals. They look to be spaced sufficiently apart to allow independent parallel runway operations. The 2 other pairs of runways which appear to point directly at the terminal area are obviously departure runways only with the take-off direction being away from the central terminal area. All in all, quite a sensible design, which knowing this country will probably mean it will never get built! :(
DaveReidUK
20th Nov 2013, 09:13
The 2 other pairs of runways which appear to point directly at the terminal area are obviously departure runways only with the take-off direction being away from the central terminal areaI love it. :O
Surely it is:
on the four central runways, you land towards the terminal and take off away from the terminal.
the outside runways can be used equally for arrivals and departures.
DaveReidUK
20th Nov 2013, 10:32
Interesting to see that Gensler, who are reportedly the architects behind the latest Testrad/London Britannia Airport six-runways-pointing-at-the-terminal project, make no reference to this lunatic proposal on their own website, but instead feature their original eminently more sensible four-runway scheme:
http://static1.gensler.com/uploads/photos/5713_450x440.jpg
Gensler?s Vision for Floating Airport Positions London for Future Challenges | Gensler (http://m.gensler.com/about-us/press-release/genslers-vision-for-floating-airport-positions-london-for-future-challenges)
Heathrow Harry
20th Nov 2013, 10:48
"Hong Kong, which doesn't just have serious land constraints"
have you ever been there??
it's packed man, packed....
they built a new island for the airport as there wasn't enough flat land available
jabird
20th Nov 2013, 15:40
"Hong Kong, which doesn't just have serious land constraints"
have you ever been there??
Re-read what I said. Not JUST serious land constraints - ie, as with Japan, reclaimed land used because of a lack of available undeveloped + flat land in the city.
I'm not aware of any cases of whole airports (as opposed to runway extensions on established sites) being "voluntarily" located in offshore locations, when flat undeveloped land is available somewhere else, as it is in abundance at Stansted.
Of course there will be unhappy locals, but they are a minor force compared with maritime geology, and Stansted is still on the table, as is Gatters, as is LHR3, as is do nothing, all of these in preference to FBI.
PAXboy
20th Nov 2013, 17:28
jabirdI simply don't understand how you can have 2+2 runways pointing right at each other.Sorry, I misunderstood your question, as I had not seen that particular diagram - ony the twin parallel layout.
jabird
20th Nov 2013, 18:00
Sorry, I misunderstood your question, as I had not seen that particular diagram - ony the twin parallel layout.
There's nothing really very challenging about 2+2, as per above in terms of operational needs, but you then have the question of how to build, and what goes inbetween.
So with that latest rendering from Gensler, I'm seeing 3 terminal areas. How do you serve that from dry land? One rail / maglev line, but 3 stops/ Fine - but you won't divert through services onto it. So will you have a central station and then a shuttle to each terminal group, which itself might have multiple stations for each stop on the toast rack?
That would mean people arriving by car will have to park on shore, then transfer to the central bit, then transfer again to the toast rack.
One thing is for certain - if LCY was to remain open when this thing opens, they will be laughing all the way!
silverstrata
20th Nov 2013, 22:07
The article in Flight Global suggest that the land under which LHR is currently located could fetch $45B from land developers and support 300,000 people in apartments, condos, etc. How realistic is that? If feasible, that would certainly help with the building costs of the new airport.
London Thames Estuary airport plans unveiled (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/london-thames-estuary-airport-plans-unveiled-392842)
Why do they keep putting forward proposals that have runways ending in a line of parked aircraft, or in terminal buildings?
Do these people understand nothing?
Have they not learned anything from the past 70 years of aviation?
Are they the remaining Neanderthals who did not go extinct?
How do we always get these kind of people in politics?
Is a lobotomy a prerequisite for government service?
Sometimes, I despair for the future of the UK.
No, I tell a lie. I despair quite often, actually.
Silver
http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2765154.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Boris-Island-2765154.png
DaveReidUK
20th Nov 2013, 22:22
http://testrad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/airport-platform-plan-1024x724.jpg
(sorry, mods, couldn't reduce the size without rendering it illegible)
PAXboy
20th Nov 2013, 23:42
Not to worry DaveReidUK, even at full size - this is incomprehensible. :hmm:
I recall that less than 25 years ago a brand new theatre was built somewhere in the UK and they only discovered after it was built - that some seats had their view of the stage obstructed by pillars. Subsequently, those seats have to be sold at a reduced price for every singl;e performance. The architects did well ... :rolleyes:
There is a building that I work in fairly often that, when I saw the plans put on display I pointed out three areas where it would make the work of the staff more difficult than it needed to be. Thus it proved. What I could not tell from the plans was that they also had enourmous problems with the acoustics and had to reposition the speakers and then change to different loudspeakers. Since it is a building were public speaking takes place every day, this might be considered a demerit ... When I was asked to speak at the opening ceremony, I had to bite my tongue!
The architect? He won an award for it. :mad:
For this airport, I would like to see the notes recording the interviews that the design team had with the:
Vehicle handling staff
Experienced ground crew
Apron crews (inc. fuel/water/lavs/food/cleaning)
Maintenance crews
Check-in staff
ATC
Flight crew from raw novice to grizzly retired
Etcetera
I don't want to see the notes they had with
The money boys
The shop owners
Et-bleedin-cetera
Gonzo
21st Nov 2013, 06:24
Seems like it complies with the dimensions of the Runway End Safety Area to me.
Unless you're saying that today's operations are not safe?:}
Also how long are the runways?
DaveReidUK
21st Nov 2013, 08:12
Well they say they have looked at RESAs and obstacle surfaces:
"Finally, our preliminary evaluation of Obstacle Limitation Surfaces, Runway End Safety Areas, and Missed Approach Procedures indicates that the central aircraft parking ramp satisfies these criteria from an aviation compliance and safety standpoint regarding its placement between the east and west runways. Further detailed planning will further refine the layout to these essential dimensions"
Also how long are the runways?Judging from the scale provided on the graphic that I posted, each runway is around 4000m
DaveReidUK
21st Nov 2013, 08:17
as well as being used around the worldSome examples, please ?
silverstrata
21st Nov 2013, 09:39
Well they say they have looked at RESAs and obstacle surfaces:
"Finally, our preliminary evaluation of Obstacle Limitation Surfaces, Runway End Safety Areas, and Missed Approach Procedures indicates that the central aircraft parking ramp satisfies these criteria from an aviation compliance and safety standpoint regarding its placement between the east and west runways. Further detailed planning will further refine the layout to these essential dimensions"
Where have we heard this before? "Well, we looked at the regulations, but did not think we had to engage our brains as well..…."
This would have landed on stand 63a:
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/galleries/images/53697/500x400/ba-777-crash-lhr-jpg.jpg
This would have landed on stand 72b:
http://www.aviationassist.ie/communities/3/004/011/323/623/images/4582406234_503x259.jpg
This would have landed in the terminal building:
http://www.signalcharlie.net/file/view/Air_France_358/80916041/Air_France_358
Again in the terminal building:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/445000/images/_447957_plane_daytime300.jpg
This would have landed on stand 17a:
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugoi/484155/8205658/8205658_original.jpg
This would have landed on stand 53c:
http://www.baaa-acro.com/Photos-63/N977AN-1.jpg
This would have landed on stand 14b:
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/uploads/0077.jpg
This would have landed in the terminal building:
(Errr, 12,000 kg of Jet A1 please - do you take Visa?):
http://www.aero-news.net/images/content/commair/2005/SWA-BurbankCrash-030500-1205a.jpg
This would have landed on stand 32a:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8350848138_fa02693e2b_b.jpg
This would have landed on stand 21a:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/hk-4455/2.jpg
This would have landed on stand 5b:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/aviation/2012/a12a0082/images/a12a0082-photo-04.jpg
This would have landed on stand 16a (sorry, I thought this was junction 13 on the M25):
http://cache.comcorpusa.com/640/0/crop/ketk/media/news/CNN.1374622076.jpg
This would have landed on stand 117b:
http://www.aircentre.com.au/aircraft/news/2001/image/qantas_x.jpg
This would have landed on stand 48c:
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_large/hash/36/43/364375ffc2a7d0c8e540e5e35083bb6e.jpg?itok=_hxCJfGI
This would have landed on stand 204b:
http://www.baaa-acro.com/wp-content/themes/TheSource/timthumb.php?src=http://www.baaa-acro.com/Photos-53/N704CK-2.jpg&h=300&w=600&zc=1
So the question is:
Which stand will you be boarding from, in this brave new aeronautical world of the brain-dead architect?
Quote: "Are you feeling lucky today, punk??"
Silver
DaveReidUK
21st Nov 2013, 10:33
Very impressive collection of photos.
Clearly aircraft shouldn't be allowed anywhere near airports.
left rudder
21st Nov 2013, 10:54
Nice snaps.
Never had these problems with the Golden Hind!
jabird
21st Nov 2013, 12:12
It might be worth remembering what Ms Greening had to say on the issue recently:
Justine Greening: Expand Heathrow and we risk a plane crash in London - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/justine-greening-expand-heathrow-and-we-risk-a-plane-crash-in-london-8917461.html)
So we are using the claim that Heathrow isn't safe to promote a runway layout with serious questions over its own safety. Not to mention that if you get into trouble but don't make the runway, you are straight into water.
I wouldn't usually want to bring up safety as an issue, as it is the last thing that should concern an incredibly safe industry, but I'm really not convinced terminals at ends of runways are going to work.
What about MAD? Would there not have been an 18C/36C left open if this proposition was a safe one? Where might Spanair 5022 have ended up if it had departed 18R?
controlx
21st Nov 2013, 13:19
And to think there are proponents of Northolt being used to back up Heathrow with it non-existent RESAs, A40 dual carriageway at one end, petrol station at the other with fully laden Gulfstreams and Globals and even the odd BBJ popping in and out across the Atlantic full of fuel.
Remember that Spanish Learjet stopping the traffic on the A40 in the 1990s?
Funny how they get away with that as a military aerodrome, despite being completely dominated by civil aircraft use.
And as for obstacle clearances!
DaveReidUK
21st Nov 2013, 15:04
I think some people here are getting a bit excited about the idea of having a runway end-to-end with another. It's really not an issue and is in fact one of the proposed improvements to LHR as well as being used around the world.
Some examples, please ?
Hmmm, I though not.
If it's any consolation, I can't think of any either.
Any accident on departure from the central runways will be pointing away from the terminal.
Any accident on arrival would have to go straight along 4000m of runway without falling into the sea before it reached the terminal area.
No doubt the ends of the runway would be equipped with aircraft-catching nets or soft gravel to stop any runaway planes.
silverstrata
21st Nov 2013, 15:54
Jabird
Not to mention that if you get into trouble but don't make the runway, you are straight into water.
I would rather end up in the water, than in amongst the aircraft stands. Even on a windy day, the Thames estuary is a lot flatter, a lot softer, and a great deal less fiery than running into ten parked aircraft - and the estuary contains less 'collateral damage' too.
Silver
Fairdealfrank
29th Nov 2013, 19:20
Yet whatever challenges LHR faces, they are tiny compared to the big shiny new airport.
So I can only ask the same questions I asked last week:
1) How exactly is this place going to be laid out? Looks like 2 sets of runways pointing straight at each other.
2) How will you pay for Fantasy Island by releasing money from developing Heathrow, which is a private asset? Sounds like a big Ponzi scheme to me, and although there are plenty of other things I'd like to have a go at Boris about this week, he shouldn't be spouting this sort of thing without a challenge.
Exactly, in the highly unlikely event of collective madness from Heathrow owners and they sell it, the shareholders get the revenue, so how does anyone imagine that this would pay for Fantasy Island? Big Ponzi scheme is about right!
Maybe Silver has the answers?
Silver has never had any answers before, so don't count on it.
It might be worth remembering what Ms Greening had to say on the issue recently:
Quote:
Justine Greening: Expand Heathrow and we risk a plane crash in London - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fairlines-airports-routes%2F469575-new-thames-airport-london-63.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftransport%2Fjus tine-greening-expand-heathrow-and-we-risk-a-plane-crash-in-london-8917461.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewrep ly%26amp%3Bnoquote%3D1%26amp%3Bp%3D8165662)
So we are using the claim that Heathrow isn't safe to promote a runway layout with serious questions over its own safety. Not to mention that if you get into trouble but don't make the runway, you are straight into water.
Sounds like a comment from someone who has lost the argument!
Runways end-to-end
I think some people here are getting a bit excited about the idea of having a runway end-to-end with another. It's really not an issue and is in fact one of the proposed improvements to LHR (http://heathrowhub.com/#sthash.dd9AdMMF.dpbs (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fairlines-airports-routes%2F469575-new-thames-airport-london-63.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fheathrowhub.com%2F%23sthash.dd9AdMMF.dpbs&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fairlines-airports-routes-85-2.html)) aswell as being used around the world.
The missed-approaches simply turn away from the field immediately. Problem solved. And if you're worried about overruns and undershoots, well, you'd have to be worried everywhere then.
There are actual problems with this idea, however. That's why Sir Davies is getting paid a lot of money to pick the best of a bad bunch of options. For that then to be ignored by government :/
If there are no safety issues, there's still an obstacle: the end of segregated mode and alternation, because if this is retained, we have idle rwys and no extra capacity.
silverstrata
17th Dec 2013, 17:26
The government seems to have ruled out a Silver-Boris airport in the new report out today, and incongruously come down in favour of a third runway at LHR:
New Runways For Gatwick And Heathrow Airports (http://news.sky.com/story/1183383/new-runways-for-gatwick-and-heathrow-airports)
But this recommendation is rather surprising, since the government had previously ruled out a third LHR runway as being politically unacceptable. So the report's recommendation is for a runway expansion that cannot and will not go ahead. Someone should have had a word with them, before they started.
They ruled out BHX and STN. Ruling out BHX is obvious, as it is a ridiculous airport pointing in completely the wrong direction, with even less room for expansion than LHR. But ruling out STN? Why?
However, Boris Johnson has ridiculed the report and come out strongly in favour of the Silver-Boris airport once more, saying:
Quote:
Expansion at Heathrow would "entrench a grievous planning error" and require the closure of the M25 for five years as the new runway was built.
Thames estuary airport plan not dead yet, Boris Johnson declares | Environment | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/17/thames-estuary-airport-plan-boris-johnson)
Contrary to expectations this new report has actually increased the likelihood that Silver-Boris will be built in the Thames Estruary. It has ruled out the only real competitor to Silver-Boris (STN) and recommended an expansion that cannot happen (LHR). The result of this impasse, is that the only viable option is Silver-Boris.
Was this their intention, one wonders? Like god, UK politics does work in mysterious ways at times.
Silver
G-CPTN
17th Dec 2013, 17:41
Discussion on the beeb (R5) has suggested that the growth in recent years has been attributable to LoCos. Diverting these to Gatwick (and Stansted) - with, perhaps, a further runway for Gatwick, might release sufficient slots from Heathrow to obviate the need for expansion there.
johnnychips
17th Dec 2013, 17:49
Which LoCos operate into Heathrow?
G-CPTN
17th Dec 2013, 18:06
Which LoCos operate into Heathrow?
I was just repeating the discussion on BBCR5 (and inviting discussion about the feasibility of the suggestion).