New Thames Airport for London

[Skipness One Echo]

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.

If you were a little closer to what's going on you'd know we're heading towards a "grand bargain" where all three party leaders endorse the commision's call for an expanded LHR in the national interest and take the politics out of it finally. Cameron now appears to realise his cancellation of runway three was against the national interest, Clegg and Milliband are coming under pressure to get real at last.

There will be no Fantasy Island named after Silverstrata or Bojo the Bonking ex journalist. Let's put this thread to bed at last.

Which LoCos operate into Heathrow?
Vueling and arguably Aer Lingus depending on where they are this week.

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.

Minimal loco growth at LHR, see above, you're not allowed to "divert" or dictate terms in the single market.

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).
Except what he recommends is the most likely one to be implemented at last, the penny is dropping politically. The Fantasy Island is dismissed as uncosted and unaffordable as well as prone to flooding, that's before we get to 70,000 jobs lost when you close LHR, compensate BA for demolishing their maintenance base and pay Heathrow Airport Holdings compensation.

[G-CPTN]

Divert was, perhaps, the wrong word - the suggestion was that LoCo flights would be moved out of Heathrow to Gatwick.
Ideally, only connecting flights would be permitted to use Heathrow, but how would you arrange that? Ticketing only allowed for through flights? That would mean no passengers originating from Heathrow and none arriving. Transit only. :ugh:

[PAXboy]

OK, for the last time ...

How do you calculate the cost of court cases / compensation for:


All the 'blue collar' workers who cannot move their families across the city (and should not be asked to do so. Social cohesion does mean something)
Quote Wikipedia: "The airport sustains 76,600 jobs directly and around 116,000 indirectly in the immediate area"
All the companies along the M4 corridor (100+ miles) that have based themselves there BECAUSE of LHR
All the houses in the North West / West / South West of London and Berkshire (et al) that have suddenly depreciated in value.
All the residents of those houses who use LHR frequently and would find themselves on the wrong side of London for the airport. But what if their company moved elsewhere (UK/afield)?
All the other airlines forced to move, would charge and/or sue for every single penny of their relocation costs. Start with BA and then add VS and EVERY other carrier - Wikipedia says "over 90 carriers"

That's before you start to build the island AND move the Gas Storage facility etc.

Oh yes, and how do you prevent the extreme profiteering on property/land in that new area?

[On the beach]

Now all we need to do is elect politicians capable of making a decision.

HA HA HA, ROFL.

Oh, was that another pig flying by the window.

Oh well, it's off to Amsterdam we go again, until after 2020 something. I'm getting to quite like Amsterdam. Probably won't bother with Heathrow again! :E

[tomsuk]

Cublington or Hadenham - 4 runway airport somewhere near Aylesbury is the answer. It would have been easy of we started 40 years ago:ugh:

[Fairdealfrank]

As mentioned in post # 1253:

Silver has never had any answers before, so don't count on it.



See post #1,254 for confirmation.

Despite the commission's idea to keep it on the back-burner, it is obvious that Silver Island won't happen. As for the entire concept of estauary airport plans in general, that particular ship sailed decades ago when (1) there were no ownership issues at airports (they were state-owned) and could be closed and relocated at the government's will; and (2) when the government rejected Foulness/Maplin and opted for Stansted as London's THIRD airport.




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




No, it's the other way around!

A third/fourth rwy at LHR would release sufficient slots at LGW as it would lose it's "LHR overflow" and "LHR waiting room" functions.





OK, for the last time ...

How do you calculate the cost of court cases / compensation for:


All the 'blue collar' workers who cannot move their families across the city (and should not be asked to do so. Social cohesion does mean something)
Quote Wikipedia: "The airport sustains 76,600 jobs directly and around 116,000 indirectly in the immediate area"
All the companies along the M4 corridor (100+ miles) that have based themselves there BECAUSE of LHR
All the houses in the North West / West / South West of London and Berkshire (et al) that have suddenly depreciated in value.
All the residents of those houses who use LHR frequently and would find themselves on the wrong side of London for the airport. But what if their company moved elsewhere (UK/afield)?
All the other airlines forced to move, would charge and/or sue for every single penny of their relocation costs. Start with BA and then add VS and EVERY other carrier - Wikipedia says "over 90 carriers"
That's before you start to build the island AND move the Gas Storage facility etc.

Oh yes, and how do you prevent the extreme profiteering on property/land in that new area?






The entire concept of the viability of an estuary airport makes the assumption that the owners of LHR Ltd. would agree to close their very profitable airport, and sell the asset for non-airport use.

WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS?

A question never asked to Boris by the media and others, and one even he would find hard to answer.....and yet another occasion where Silver also has no answer.

A return to the real world would be very welcome.

[PAXboy]

WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS?Indeed, Fairdealfrank! The answer being: fabulously large amounts of
£££
The court case that would try to resolve the compulsory purchase of LHR, lock, stock and two smoking runways is beyond words. It would be:


the nationalisation of the airport.
the redevelopment by the govt.
the selling off to try and get the money back.

Would someone like to nominate a successful example of the UK govt doing this in the post war era??
:}

[Fairdealfrank]

Indeed, Fairdealfrank! The answer being: fabulously large amounts of
£££
The court case that would try to resolve the compulsory purchase of LHR, lock, stock and two smoking runways is beyond words. It would be:


the nationalisation of the airport.
the redevelopment by the govt.
the selling off to try and get the money back.
Would someone like to nominate a successful example of the UK govt doing this in the post war era??




Remain unconvinced that they would sell: a choice between one-off cash or continuing dividends long term. Selling kills off the goose that lays the golden egg over and over again.

Do they have an idea how profitable LHR is? Who on earth has the required amounts of money to buy it for non-airport use?

Re. 1 and 2, how would a government justify that use of public money and expect to be re-elected?

Re. 3, would it be like the nationalisation and potential resale of the Royal Bank Of Scotland and the others?

Governments don't do nationalisation any more. When or if this changes, there are many other priorities for public ownership.

Of course you mentioned court cases, the litigation would go on for years, making the lawyers very rich.

It is not only LHR (closure required to make the estuary airport viable), but also LCY, MSE, SEN and possibly STN (closure required for air traffic congestion reasons) that would be in court.

As mentioned above, a return to the real world would be very welcome.

[PAXboy]

Governments don't do nationalisation any more.
Indeed. This is one of the reasons, I humbly suggest, that the closure of LHR is just not feasible. Whether you either issue a compulsory purchase order or any other document, it means the govt forcing


a commercial company to close and
hundreds of companies to relocate
thousands of staff to relocate/find other work
thousands of companies irritated and out of pocket
millions of people irritated and out of pocket

Which is why, common sense appears to have surfaced BUT it does not mean that anyone will do anything sensible!

[Fairdealfrank]

Indeed. This is one of the reasons, I humbly suggest, that the closure of LHR is just not feasible. Whether you either issue a compulsory purchase order or any other document, it means the govt forcing


a commercial company to close and
hundreds of companies to relocate
thousands of staff to relocate/find other work
thousands of companies irritated and out of pocket
millions of people irritated and out of pocket
Which is why, common sense appears to have surfaced BUT it does not mean that anyone will do anything sensible!


So 2 more rwys at LHR is the only sensible and viable option, and "do-nothing" the most likely outcome?

[PAXboy]

FairdealfrankSo 2 more rwys at LHR is the only sensible and viable option, and "do-nothing" the most likely outcome? In my view - Yes.

Everything I have seen in UK politics and media (still pretty much one and the same!) in my adult life, point to no action taken until it is too late. At that point the project may still go ahead but it's viability will be tarnished and lead to the triumph of the "I told you so" variety. Whereas, 30 years earlier, that would not have been true.

Another example: HS2 ...

[DaveReidUK]

So 2 more rwys at LHR is the only sensible and viable option?It's interesting that the Airports Commission ruled out not only the full-scale 4-runway LHR option, but also the variant of Heathrow's own northwest R3 proposal that would have accommodated an eventual NW R4 as well.

That, combined with the dismissal of the SW runway option (the only site that would be left to add a 4th runway) because of the impact on the reservoirs and the flood plain, would suggest that there is no political will for 2 more runways, with consequent pressure on Davies to rule out any such option.

[silverstrata]

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.


Even if there were any LoCos in LHR, moving them out would DEFEAT the object.

We do not need more runways in the S.E., we need an interlining hub. There is no point arriving at Heathrow on your super A380, if you then have to take a taxi to Bordeaux. Although I hate LoCos, connectivity is the whole basis for a hub - both surface and air connectivity.

This is why LHR is the last place you want to arrive at, because once there, you are stuck. Tube to central London, and that is about it. A Silver-Boris Estuary airport (if designed properly) could whisk you by TGV to all nearby points of the compass, while 'domestic' flights could cover most of Europe - all from the same (two) terminals.

Boris is right. Expanding Heathrow would be perpetuating a planning error made 60 years ago, and will lead to the impoverishment of the S.E. and the UK as a whole.

Silver

[silverstrata]

Paxboy:

How do you calculate the cost of court cases / compensation for:




>> The 'blue collar' workers who cannot move their families across the city.

If you cannot be bothered to move, you don't deserve a job. If I as a captain have been forced by aviation to have eight homes in fifteen years, I don't see why a loader should get a better deal.




>>All the companies along the M4 corridor (100+ miles)

Likewise. Sh!t happens in business, and you deal with it. How many airlines have had to relocate their bases at the drop of a hat, because economic conditions have changed or some predatory airline has set up shop next door?



>>All the houses that have suddenly depreciated in value.

Most will appreciate in value, not depreciate. There is something like a 50% discount over normal prices, for houses blighted by noise nuisance.




>>All the residents of those houses who use LHR frequently
>>and would find themselves on the wrong side of London for the airport.

That is what CrossRail is for. If CrossRail does not link up the LHR site, with the Kings Cross HS2, and with the new Silver-Boris airport, then there are plenty of lampposts around for the architects of such a disaster.



>>All the other airlines forced to move.

Every airline moves all the time - bases here, bases there. Why do you think I have had eight homes in fifteen years? If any legacy carrier is so fat dumb and happy to not want to move, they don't deserve to be in business.


Silver

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal:

The entire concept of the viability of an estuary airport makes the assumption that the owners of LHR Ltd. would agree to close their very profitable airport, and sell the asset for non-airport use.

WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS?



Because you compulsory purchase LHR and give the Churchillian salute to the owner. You then sell off the old LHR site to a property and business developer, and pocket a £5 billion profit on the deal. Job done.

Next question.


Silver

[Hobo]

silverstrata

Well said. :ok::D:D:D

In any case, under what power could court cases be brought for most, if not all, of paxboy's examples?

[DaveReidUK]

Because you compulsory purchase LHR and give the Churchillian salute to the owner.Which, ironically, is exactly what happened to those living in the hamlets of Heath Row and Perry Oaks in 1944. :O

[c52]

If I were the shareholders of Heathrow, I'd be rather interested in the notion that it could be sold for redeveloment for £45bn.

[Skipness One Echo]

If you cannot be bothered to move, you don't deserve a job. If I as a captain
Spoken like a man in a high income bracket sir. Tens of thousands of blue collar workers would lose their jobs with a LHR closure. I assume when all have to move like you did, there will be affordable schools and housing?

We're not interested in what you did, we need to address the real, likely and quantifiable fall out from the proposal you are putting forward. I am assuming you are American btw with that attitude? Sod the poor and less well off, they can rot?

You should try living in London instead of being a keyboard fantasist sometimes.
I despair at the simplicity of some people on here.

If I were the shareholders of Heathrow, I'd be rather interested in the notion that it could be sold for re-develoment for £45bn.
Who's going to live here? You've just closed the major local employer, chucked tens of thousands of blue collar workers on the dole and now you want to build nice new shiny houses for incomers to watch their asset value appreciate whilst doing little more than living in a house unaffordable to the masses you have just made unemployed? I say this as something of a right winger but let's please learn from the mistakes of the 1980s and not repeat them? Social cohesion is breaking down all across London, made worse by the (correct decision) to cap benefits. This just makes that very reall social issue much, much worse.

"Mortgage Sir? Oh you lost your job? Shame, too bad, move on please..."

Why do you think I have had eight homes in fifteen years?
So ' cos your life is a disorganised mess everyone should be forced to share your pain? Sort yourself out Captain Calamity! One assumes a long list of employers thought your attitude deserved the oldChurchillian salute ?

[PAXboy]

HoboIn any case, under what power could court cases be brought for most, if not all, of paxboy's examples?
The 'power' or 'law' or 'objection' could be chosen at random - the only objective would be to get more money! They would aim to push the govt into court to get more negative publicity and to delay the project. Once they get bought off they would stop.

Money, nothing else.

[c52]

Telstra (?) or whoever is behind one East London airport scheme is claiming that LHR could net £45 bn.

Boris Johnson said in an interview with last night's Standard that the population of London has risen by 600,000 since he became mayor, so there are some people who'd maybe buy new housing.

But I do agree that the social upheaval of closing down all the LHR jobs is unimaginable. Unlike others, I find an additional runway, and even the continuing existence of the airport, equally appalling.

[PAXboy]

Looks like this was a success ... Boris Johnson's £60m cable cars used regularly by just four commuters - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnsons-60m-cable-cars-used-regularly-by-just-four-commuters-8954646.html)

[Skipness One Echo]

Unlike others, I find an additional runway, and even the continuing existence of the airport, equally appalling.

Genuine question, why? You're not local so just curious.

[c52]

I run a lot in London, and just about everywhere there's a steady whine of jet engines.

My daughter lives exactly under the approach to 27L at Barnes with a great view of landing planes through the skylight in her bathroom, and it's not much quieter when they're on 27R.

I see 747s landing at 04:30 on FR24, and think, the 300 people in that thing are possibly disturbing the sleep of 100,000 people or more. It's just not right.

Add the fear that a plane will crash somewhere on its approach and the whole thing is a nightmare.

And as a passenger, the journey to LHR is misery, unless you happen to live in Paddington.

In my own mind, I would swap a third runway for the airport opening hours being changed to strictly 0700-2230.

And living where I do, 6 miles N of Gatwick, there's more noise from Heathrow traffic than from Gatwick's.

[dc9-32]

It makes no sense to expand (or try to expand) Heathrow. There is no room and moving the M25 is just another idiotic idea from the people who are allegedly running this country. MP's are clueless and come up with these ideas just to keep themselves in jobs.


Stansted is by far the most sensible airport to expand as it already has most of the infrastructure in place, has room for expansion and would cost the tax payer much less money and disruption.


Mind you, nobody will listen to anything anyone says as it does not suit the MP's !

[Skipness One Echo]

I see 747s landing at 04:30 on FR24, and think, the 300 people in that thing are possibly disturbing the sleep of 100,000 people or more. It's just not right.
Fair point, how about a third runway and a 6am cut off point then? There's only 10-12 arrivals before 6am anyway, and as I said, the airport has been there since 1947. Incidentally I have a lot of friends in Richmond / Twickenham to whom it's all just background noise and get's zoned out. Much of the fuss is genuinely from newcomers.
Add the fear that a plane will crash somewhere on its approach and the whole thing is a nightmare.
I think that's a little extreme, but that's life. I think we need to be grown up and deal with the risks, quantify them and live with what we can afford. Lockerbie was not on the approach to any airport and the Korean B747 that crashed departing out of Stansted could have crashed anywhere.

I live at Canary Wharf so I get LHR arrivals putting on the power to turn final and LCY departures. My ideal would be a lot quieter but I think we need to be pragmatic and accept our ideals were mortgaged years ago and we're now mired in debt. Just last week Network Rail's debt was added back onto the books after being "off books" debt under the magical Gordon Brown. I think we have to live within our means.

Stansted is by far the most sensible airport to expand as it already has most of the infrastructure in place, has room for expansion and would cost the tax payer much less money and disruption.
The market won't use it. No one wants to fly from there, it was built in 1991 and has sat semi empty for 22 years, it's now the best equipped Ryanair airport anywhere. How can STN be the answer to hub capacity? You're making the classic error of mixing together airport capacity with hub capacity and connectivity, they linked but separate concepts.

[Heathrow Harry]

One of the guys who was involved in the old Roskill report wrote itneh Times yesterday that the aviation industry needs to find some way of compensating people affected by noise


but of course they can't afford to so they won't and so everyone is against them

[The SSK]

I wonder how the property valued per m2 in Barnes, Chiswick, Richmond etc compare with, say, Ealing, Hanworth, Wembley?

[Fairdealfrank]

Cublington or Hadenham - 4 runway airport somewhere near Aylesbury is the answer. It would have been easy of we started 40 years ago

Like Foulness/Maplin, Cublington was intended as a THIRD London airport, not a Heathrow replacement. Anyway it's way too far out: can't have an airport named "London-Cublington" if one named "London-Oxford" is criticised.

Apart from technical, environmental, strategic and other issues, the estuary airport's case fails mainly because it cannot survive if Heathrow remains.



Even if there were any LoCos in LHR, moving them out would DEFEAT the object.


Can't be done, EU openskies won't allow it. No frills carriers can and do operate at hub airports. The reasons they are not currently at LHR are commercial, not regulatory.



Because you compulsory purchase LHR and give the Churchillian salute to the owner. You then sell off the old LHR site to a property and business developer, and pocket a £5 billion profit on the deal. Job done.

Next question.


No one has the money for this, Churchillian salutes notwithstanding, it's also not a good use of public money.

No one has the time for costly legal challenges, public enquiries and years of litigation (expect top lawyers, of course).

It's true, Silver, you really don't have any answers!



Incidentally I have a lot of friends in Richmond / Twickenham to whom it's all just background noise and get's zoned out. Much of the fuss is genuinely from newcomers.



Who really cannot really pretend not to know about aircraft noise when they spent their extensive wedges to buy under the flightpath.



I wonder how the property valued per m2 in Barnes, Chiswick, Richmond etc compare with, say, Ealing, Hanworth, Wembley?

Indeed, if it's so bad living under the flightpath, why are properties there so expensive?!

By the way, although not in the same property-price league as the flightpath towns, Ealing, Hanworth, Wembley are not exactly cheap either.

[PAXboy]

I have lived:


Under the Westerly approach to LHR 1979-1984 (inc Concorde and the older generation of jets!) There was also a railway line at the bottom of the garden!
Under the Westerly climb out from LTN 1988-2002 (more night flights than LHR!)
Under the Easterly climb out from LHR 2012-2013
Currently living under the northerly London turn-in over Finchley area

In all of these locations, the greatest noise and disturbance to me has been from:

cars
lorries reversing
emergency vehicle sirens
children/youths/drunks in the street outside
parties in the neighbours house
people kocking on the door to sell me things or desirous of converting me to their religion
refuse collection trucks at 05:30 are closer and louder than a/c overhead AND the truck is around longer.

That is life. Scottish islands are available for rent ... :*

[Fairdealfrank]

I have lived:


Under the Westerly approach to LHR 1979-1984 (inc Concorde and the older generation of jets!) There was also a railway line at the bottom of the garden!
Under the Westerly climb out from LTN 1988-2002 (more night flights than LHR!)
Under the Easterly climb out from LHR 2012-2013
Currently living under the northerly London turn-in over Finchley area
In all of these locations, the greatest noise and disturbance to me has been from:


cars
lorries reversing
emergency vehicle sirens
children/youths/drunks in the street outside
parties in the neighbours house
people kocking on the door to sell me things or desirous of converting me to their religion
refuse collection trucks at 05:30 are closer and louder than a/c overhead AND the truck is around longer.
That is life. Scottish islands are available for rent ...


Excellent post, PAXboy!

Let's face it, living on a main road must be much worse than under the flightpath: 24 hours continual noise, no morning or evening respite, no silence after 2300, more than 16 vehicles passing between 0400 and 0600.

If we're honest, it's a good deal under the flightpath, especially as aircraft are now so much quieter.

Trust me, am a flightpath resident of many years standing.

[PAXboy]

Thanks Fdf, I should have added that the new residents in the flat below us - when she's on an early shift, she leaves at 05:30 and I hear their front door open and close. That's life.

It would be fascinating to be able to put cameras and dB meters outside a HACANist's house for a week. Currently, they only measure the a/c ...

[The SSK]

I lived 1977-9 in a (single-glazed) apartment in Kew Gardens. A passing Trident, 707, VC10 would render the TV inaudible for ten seconds; 1-11, Caravelle, Viscount twice that. Concorde for three quarters of a minute.

Folks today haven't a clue about real aircraft noise :rolleyes:

[pallan]

Disclaimer: I live in the North East of England and have no relatives who live or work in the South East therefore have no bias towards the situation.

I thought I would post some of my comments on this issue.

I personally think that the way in which the political parties are using the South East airport issue is appalling. They are using this debate as a political weapon to win votes and parliamentary seats, not putting the interests of the country and more importantly, the future prospects of the country at the forefront. One look at the constituency map around Heathrow says it all...

All we ever seem to do in this country is set up commissions/inquiries or whatever and a final report is produced which pretty much tells us exactly what we knew at the start. Then, politicians decide they don’t like what is in these reports and choose to ignore them anyway.

In July 2012, China announced that they would build 82 new airports and expand 101 current airports before the end of 2015. Now, granted that China is a much much bigger country with more people who arguably have no human rights at all, this still a huge leap compared to what we in the UK will ever achieve.

Another example: Dubai. Concourse A was opened in January of this year and in the first month of operations handled nearly 600,000 passengers. Over the year that’s a potential of another 7.2 million passengers, just over 10% of LHR’s current capacity. There is also a Concourse D already in the planning which is expected to open in 2015. Compare this to the UK, and more specifically T5. As another poster mentioned, it took 15 years to finally get T5 open.

It’s things like this which make me not proud to be British. We are losing out hugely to other countries and we quite frankly seem to be doing nothing about it. Other countries must look at us and think that we have no ambition whatsoever.

I personally think that a third runway needs to be started soon at LHR (as in the next year or so) and a second at Gatwick to be constructed as soon as the curfew passes if we want to even attempt to catch up to other countries in the world. But of course there is no way that will happen. I’m 18 and it honestly wouldn’t shock me if in we are in the same position (that is with no future runway/airport expansion planned) by the time I turn 25.

I also just cannot see this airport on the opposite side of London working. As someone commented before, why do 202 out of the 300 top UK companies have their headquarters within a 25 mile radius of Heathrow. It’s not because the land is cheap, because it isn’t; it is because they know that their top executives and managers can travel down the road and jump on a flight to other offices across the world. I’m sure they would love having to travel over an hour to get to this new proposed airport. Then there’s the 10,000’s who are going to be on the dole; has Boris factored that in to the already astronomical cost of the project to start with? I just don’t see the logic whatsoever.

Anyway they’re my comments, no doubt they’ll probably get torn apart by someone :hmm:

[controlx]

So long as a two bed terrace house in Barnes costs a million quid, it's very hard to take the noise issues seriously. If it was that dreadful living under the flight path, house prices would reflect the lack of demand.


They don't and so there clearly isn't a serious problem.

[The SSK]

Anyway they’re my comments, no doubt they’ll probably get torn apart by someone

Why should anyone do that pallan? You make perfectly good sense.

[silverstrata]

Skippy:

Spoken like a man in a high income bracket sir. Tens of thousands of blue collar workers would lose their jobs with a LHR closure. I assume when all have to move like you did, there will be affordable schools and housing?



You are living in the past, Skip - long before the new low-standards era. After having to pay for all your training expenses, and getting laid of for half the year, many pilots earn less than the loaders. If these well-paid blue-collar workers cannot be bothered to move 50 miles, they don't deserve a job.





Fairdeal:

No one has the money for this, Churchillian salutes notwithstanding, it's also not a good use of public money.
No one has the time for costly legal challenges, public enquiries and years of litigation (expect top lawyers, of course).
It's true, Silver, you really don't have any answers!



Since we have just spent £300 billion on Merchant Bankers (cockney rhyming slang), to bail out the incompetent - I really do think we have the money. The BofE could Q.E. £50 billion tomorrow - and it would do a hell of a lot more good to spend that money on 21st century infrastructure, than bailing out the criminals who brought the City to its knees.

As to the 15 years of planning enquiries, to hell with that too. You just say to the people, "its done". "Get over it, the decision has been made." "The first sods of earth will be turned tomorrow." There - it took 30 seconds, not 15 years.

You seem to forget that the 15-year planning circus is simply a method for indecisive and incompetent politicians to evade the consequences of their decisions. Firstly, it kicks the decision into the long-grass. Secondly, they can blame the planning committee, and say it was nothing to do with the government.

It is about time that politicians took bold decision and did something for the nation, instead of trying to be nice to everyone and playing to the cameras. Decisions need to be made.** And whatever you think of the guy, Boris Johnson is one of the few politician who will put his career on the line and say: "just do it".



** Blair and Brown mumbled about nuclear power for 13 years, and did absolutely nothing. Nothing, except sell off our nuclear power station manufacturer - Westinghouse - and so now we are going to get a Chinese nuclear power station instead. Anyone here think that was a good decision? Hands up if you do. Apparently, they are going to rename Hinckley Point and call it Fukushima instead...

Blair and Brown prevaricated on this difficult decision to be popular and get reelected, not for the good of the nation. Only now, some 16 years later, has the decision at last been made. However, the result of this indecision is that there is now a 5- or 10-year gap where we will not have enough generation capacity, and the UK's lights WILL go out. No doubt about it, we will have shortages, especially in the winter. And people will die because of this. Thanks, Blair and Brown, you have deliberately stored up national chaos for the future, just so you can be nice to the electorate.


Silver

[Fairdealfrank]

It would be fascinating to be able to put cameras and dB meters outside a HACANist's house for a week. Currently, they only measure the a/c ...


Indeed it would! Do you mean down at Clapham, some 20 mi. from Heathrow? There would probably be very little background aircraft noise!



I lived 1977-9 in a (single-glazed) apartment in Kew Gardens. A passing Trident, 707, VC10 would render the TV inaudible for ten seconds; 1-11, Caravelle, Viscount twice that. Concorde for three quarters of a minute.

Folks today haven't a clue about real aircraft noise


Quite right! and a lovely place to live (as refected in house prices)!



So long as a two bed terrace house in Barnes costs a million quid, it's very hard to take the noise issues seriously. If it was that dreadful living under the flight path, house prices would reflect the lack of demand.


They don't and so there clearly isn't a serious problem


Yes, house prices under the flightpath do more to undermine the noise argument then anything else!


Why should anyone do that pallan? You make perfectly good sense

Yes you do pallan, but someone will have a go, it's the nature of the debate and not a problem.

Would take issue with you on just one issue: your comment on the constituencies around Heathrow.

One look at the constituency map around Heathrow says it all...


Marginal seats around Heathrow will not change hands because of airport policy. For the most part, there aren't enough rich and vocal objectors (who have no other concerns when voting) to change any results.

At the next election, marginal seats will change hands on issues such as the cost of living and the economy, and whether UKIP can take enough votes away from the incumbents to let in challengers, it’s as simple as that.

Of the seats around LHR, 1 is safe Libdem (Twickenham), 3 are safe Con (Maidenhead, Spelthorne and Windsor), 4 are safe Labour (Feltham and Heston, Hayes and Harlington, Slough and Southall)

Just 2 are marginal Con: Brentford and Isleworth (Con-Lab marginal), with many airport workers; and Richmond Park (Con-Libdem marginal), where LHR expansion is a non-issue because both Zac Goldsmith, the sitting MP, and his Libdem challenger will be anti-LHR expansion.



Since we have just spent £300 billion on Merchant Bankers (cockney rhyming slang), to bail out the incompetent - I really do think we have the money. The BofE could Q.E. £50 billion tomorrow - and it would do a hell of a lot more good to spend that money on 21st century infrastructure, than bailing out the criminals who brought the City to its knees.


Just one reason of many why there's no money for any "Churchillian salutes".

[dsc810]

@Pallan.
We could do it quite easily - just like we did the railways or the canals in an earlier era.
Simple
Abolish all human right legislation including any rights for compensation.
Create government rights to forcibly move people/firms/factories
Scrap all health and safety legislation, workers rights etc.
Make it an offense against the state to report/publicise any fatality/injury.
Scrap all rights to query and challenge government actions though the courts.
Abolish the right to vote for thick and stupid citizens (that's most of them).

Anyone who complains - stick them up against the wall and shoot them.

I've worked in China and also in places where a project director was under threat of execution if the project was delayed and late.
It works - though you might not like it in reality if you came face to face with it. Scaffolding collapses kills umpteen - they bulldozer away the remains along with the stiffs and have it up and repaired the next day - in the UK the H&S executive would be having multiple orgasms.

As it is, the UK is the most overpopulated place in the EU bar the Netherlands in terms of persons/square mile. So anywhere you want to put any infrastructure is going to cause a lot of people to be annoyed and all are going to do their utmost to frustrate anything - 'cos their rights are being offended innit'
Compare today's population of the UK (70million) to when we were building the railways (10 million in 1800) and the canals (approx 7 million in late1700's).

[118.70]

Just 2 are marginal Con: Brentford and Isleworth (Con-Lab marginal), with many airport workers; and Richmond Park (Con-Libdem marginal), where LHR expansion is a non-issue because both Zac Goldsmith, the sitting MP, and his Libdem challenger will be anti-LHR expansion

Justine Greening in Putney ?

Angie Bray in Ealing ?

[Skipness One Echo]

If these well-paid blue-collar workers cannot be bothered to move 50 miles, they don't deserve a job.
You are on a different planet sir, you really, really are.
Most of the airline pilots I know, even the younger ones, well, they may have debts but they're right up their on the income scale in comparison with most.
In the UK, the country you've apparently never been to, most loaders were dumped onto third party handlers who pay poor wages. Servisair, Swissport and Menzies are in a race to the bottom with Ts and Cs. The only in house loaders nowadays are a few legacy loaders at LHR and a handful of minor players.

Funny thing, if you're really a captain for a real airline, I would have thought you would know that.....just saying. I mean it's common knowledge in the industry.
and getting laid of for half the year,I am genuinely sorry your career didn't pan out as you might have wished but you're woes are not really a typical example and suggesting the guy doing the manual lifting deserves to lose his job is pretty unjust.

Since we have just spent £300 billion on Merchant Bankers
Can I ask you again, are you British or American? You use "we" but I thought you were from the US? You're a confusing fellow!

[PAXboy]

silverstrataYou seem to forget that the 15-year planning circus is simply a method for indecisive and incompetent politicians to evade the consequences of their decisions. Firstly, it kicks the decision into the long-grass. Secondly, they can blame the planning committee, and say it was nothing to do with the government.No, none of us forgot. It is a statement that has been repeated in every thread on this subject that I can recall, perhaps because I am the one who often says it!

It is about time that politicians took bold decision and did something for the nation, instead of trying to be nice to everyone and playing to the cameras. Decisions need to be made.** And whatever you think of the guy, Boris Johnson is one of the few politician who will put his career on the line and say: "just do it".Indeed - because he has gold in the bank and friends in high places. When he is no longer mayor, he will just pick up a raft of Directorships and choose from the people fawning at his feet.

[c52]

I don't agree with the argument about house-prices, or the fact that the airport has been there longer.

Any house will have its disadvantages, and apart from in Colnbrook, aircraft noise probably isn't a knock-out issue for many.

However, the quality of life for most Londoners could be improved by getting rid of aircraft noise. It might not be so beneficial as getting rid of air pollution or traffic noise, or doubling the capacity of the underground, but it would help.

[Libertine Winno]

Let's be honest, if you want the quiet life then you don't live in one of the most vibrant cities on earth, you leave the bright lights, bars, clubs, theatres and high rises and move down to the coast or at least to somewhere that's a lot greener and quieter!

We all make decisions in life, and I'm sure the people that live in London are quite happy to have the employment prospects that come with having some of the world's largest companies in your city. Trouble is, those companies want connectivity to the world, and without LHR they don't have that.

London is a wonderful city, but peaceful and quiet it is not!

[johnnychips]

An excellent post.

Unless you live really near the airport - and it has been there a long time - I would have thought that in the answer to the question, 'What annoyances are there living in Greater London?' I would expect aircraft noise to be rather low on the list.

And conversely, if you asked people from elsewhere, 'Why don't you move to London?' I would expect the same lack of priority to that issue.

[Fairdealfrank]

@Pallan.
We could do it quite easily - just like we did the railways or the canals in an earlier era.
Simple
Abolish all human right legislation including any rights for compensation.
Create government rights to forcibly move people/firms/factories
Scrap all health and safety legislation, workers rights etc.
Make it an offense against the state to report/publicise any fatality/injury.
Scrap all rights to query and challenge government actions though the courts.
Abolish the right to vote for thick and stupid citizens (that's most of them).

Anyone who complains - stick them up against the wall and shoot them.

I've worked in China and also in places where a project director was under threat of execution if the project was delayed and late.
It works - though you might not like it in reality if you came face to face with it. Scaffolding collapses kills umpteen - they bulldozer away the remains along with the stiffs and have it up and repaired the next day - in the UK the H&S executive would be having multiple orgasms.

As it is, the UK is the most overpopulated place in the EU bar the Netherlands in terms of persons/square mile. So anywhere you want to put any infrastructure is going to cause a lot of people to be annoyed and all are going to do their utmost to frustrate anything - 'cos their rights are being offended innit'
Compare today's population of the UK (70million) to when we were building the railways (10 million in 1800) and the canals (approx 7 million in late1700's).


From this to "do nothing": one extreme to another, can't we find something in between. Apparently, the hybrid bill for HS2 goes through Parliament in 2015 and they reckon construction starts the following year. We should do something similar for 2 more rwys at LHR, bearing in mind that HS2 affects many more people and is a great deal more controversial.


Justine Greening in Putney ?

Angie Bray in Ealing ?


Not exactly "marginal seats around Heathrow" are they? but even these two constituencies will not change hands on the issue of LHR expansion.



Abolish the right to vote for thick and stupid citizens (that's most of them).


Sounds like a law against stupid people.....

[PAXboy]

c52I don't agree with the argument about house-prices, or the fact that the airport has been there longer.Nor do I - the airport has been there (commercially) since 1945 so it is more than well know. if people buy under the flight path? caveat emptor.

However, the quality of life for most Londoners could be improved by getting rid of aircraft noise. It might not be so beneficial as getting rid of air pollution or traffic noise, or doubling the capacity of the underground, but it would help. Road noise and it's attendant pollution would make the biggest difference. When I lived in Shepherd's Bush (1979-1984) the railway at the bottom of the garden blanked out sound for nearly a minute per cargo train. Aircraft ( a lot noiser then) did not impinge anything like as much.

[silverstrata]

Skippy:

You are on a different planet sir, you really, really are.
Most of the airline pilots I know, even the younger ones, well, they may have debts but they're right up their on the income scale in comparison with most.



No, Skippy, it is you who is on a different planet. Piloting is not a career anymore - your terms and conditions will be worse than a fair-ground operative can expect, and your salary less than a taxi driver.

Try living on $20k a year:
Professional Pilot Salaries - The Truth About the Profession (http://thetruthabouttheprofession.weebly.com/professional-pilot-salaries.html)

Try earning less than a taxi driver:
Low Pay One of Many Difficulties Facing Regional Pilots | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/05/13/low-pay-one-many-difficulties-facing-regional-pilots/)

Try earning $10 an hour (the $20 here is flying hour , not hours worked):
The U.S. Airline Pilots Who Barely Make Minimum Wage - Skift (http://skift.com/2013/08/28/the-u-s-airline-pilots-who-barely-make-minimum-wage/)

Try living as trailer-trash in a car park:
The Parking Lot Where Pilots Sleep - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304159304575184053254113646)

Try living 25 to an apartment:
Airline Pilots Who Commute - Articles - Executive Travel (http://www.executivetravelmagazine.com/articles/airline-pilots-who-commute)


And the same happens in Europe, with the low-standards airlines. Tell me, Skip, how much of your annual salary would be left over, when you are laid off for 4 months each year, and then told to relocate 2,000 km at your own expense - you and all your family. And don't expect to settle in Lithuania for more than a couple of years before the next move - to Greece perhaps....
Sacked Ryanair pilot claims O'Leary became aggressive - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/sacked-ryanair-pilot-claims-oleary-became-aggressive-29641627.html)


Most of us, Skip, are just hanging on by the fingertips, and looking for a career with better prospects. Refuse collection is looking like a good option at present -
stable job,
always demand for your services,
regular work pattern,
no overnights,
you can take a flask of coffee with you,
you can stop off for a Dunkin Donut,
you can have a piss without asking,
no test every six months,
no medical every year,
not confined to a telephone-box for 14 hours,
nobody recording and replaying everything you do during every day you work,
no relocation to another state with four days notice - at your own expense,
no furlough for four months each year with no pay,
no strip-search twice a day, including belt, shoes and everything bar your pants and vest,
nobody fondling your bo!!ocks every day just because they can,
no living in a trailer in a car-park,
no living 25 to an apartment,
salary paid into a bank, instead of cash,
basic health insurance included,
pension included - a pension, remember them?

What is there NOT to like, about refuse collection?


Silver

[Fairdealfrank]

Silver,

Falling salaries has been endemic accross the USA for years, and salaries are barely higher than 1970s levels. Am often quite shocked when having an American salary quoted and doing the dollar-pound conversion. Of course, there's a minority doing very well, but the gap is ever-widening and the middle classes are being left behind. The so-called "American dream" is now a myth.

Aparently the FR pilot was on 124,000 euros/year, what's that, about £100,000? Still lousy treatment though.

Your talk of "refuse collection" brought back nostalgic memories, ha ha. Was a dustman for a few weeks one summer in the 1970s, no wheely bins outside the houses then....in those days it was down the sides of houses and lift up metal bins. Halcyon days? Eventually graduated to the parks department.

[johnnychips]

While silverstrata's post is hardly relevant to the topic thread, his sentiments are a consequence of market economics. However, it is not clear if he has decided to become a dustman in preference to a pilot. If the job satisfaction of the former is as good as the latter, I'm sure he would have done it by now.

Nobody in this thread seems to be mentioning how to get to this island in the Thames (well actually, they might have done, but I've just realised I'd have to review 64 pages to confirm this). It would cost a fortune to build a new rail and road connection - and don't say 'extend Crossrail' as that will already be rammed with commuters, including those who have lost jobs at LHR, and can't afford to move to the new airport.

[PAXboy]

Silver I hear your situation and do not doubt it but Pay / Salary levels are falling for the great majority of work levels across the Western world. Those on basic (mostly) have a 'floor' that is held and those on the top have no ceiling. The reasons are well documented. :mad:

I am self employed in a very specific area. I am highly experienced (22 + years) and have been an accredited trainer to others (equiivalent to both 'SIM' and Line Training) I am recognised as being in the top 5 of the profession in my geographic area.

BUT ... I have difficulty raising my fees - even in line with inflation - as there are others undercutting me. I won't bore you with the numbers but, across the last five years, my income has not kept pace with inflation in the UK. :(

The West wanted untramelled free markets? They got it. :*

To return to the topic:
Irrespective of whether an island is the correct solution - the UK cannot afford it and thus (following the American capitalist method) it will not be built.

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal:

Aparently the FR pilot was on 124,000 euros/year, what's that, about £100,000? Still lousy treatment though.


That salary is an O'Leary salary, and bears no relation to reality. Take off the 4 months furlough, the cost of your EASA LPC, the cost of not hitting your hourly maximums, the cost of relocation every two years, the cost of servicing your training debt, the cost of your hotels and taxis on night-stops, the cost of having to buy your water in an airport, and you are getting closer to the truth. It's a bit like US companies dividing a pretax annual salary by 700 (flying hours) and saying that is the hourly rate. I wonder what the hourly rate of a newscaster would be, if you only counted the time in front of the cameras?

But the point still stands.

Saying you cannot build Silver-Boris in the Thames estuary because some lard-arse cannot move house, is the poorest excuse ever. In fact, if that were a legitimate reason for not creating new infrastructure or developing a new company, then you may as well just close down the entire nation. Turn off the lights, and all move to Africa - because I hear that the Liberal Party wants everyone to live in mud-huts 'in-tune-with-nature' anyway.



Silver

[Skipness One Echo]

So British or American? For the umpteenth time and why so evasive?

You're intentionally mixing up your own off target career with everyone in the industry. Some people did better, I think you know that.
Also to dismiss tens of thousands of workers as "lard arses" simply because they won't move housing and schools 60 miles across some of the most expensive land in Europe makes you sound almost cold and uncharitable.

I want to give you a wee Christmas hug and tell you it'll all be OK!
However for the record, not only will we not build this crazy folly, we're not going to name it after you. You should know that.

[PAXboy]

silverstrataSaying you cannot build Silver-Boris in the Thames estuary because some lard-arse cannot move house, is the poorest excuse ever.It isn't and you know it! :hmm:

Many of us have listed ten good reasons why it won't be built and the jobs of the 'blue collar' workers is only one of them. However, regular PPRuNers know that you continually move your argument and fail to debate these points. I have tried to engage you in discussion, I really have but now you can congratulate yourself that yet another feeble Brit has caved in and your non-arguments rule triumphant. :bored:

Go and buy a chunk of the Isle of Grain and wait for the positive selection of the area for the Island and make your money. Then you won't have to complain about being a poor person who is still employed in the biggest dperession era - since the Depression era. (All the result of unfettered capitalism and the ghastly politicians on both sodes of the Atlantic who let them have their wicked way with out salaries and pensions. NO, I am not a Socialist, just to save you the trouble. NO, I am not a Conservative and NO the Liberals have also got it wrong.)

[Fairdealfrank]

Saying you cannot build Silver-Boris in the Thames estuary because some lard-arse cannot move house, is the poorest excuse ever. In fact, if that were a legitimate reason for not creating new infrastructure or developing a new company, then you may as well just close down the entire nation. Turn off the lights, and all move to Africa - because I hear that the Liberal Party wants everyone to live in mud-huts 'in-tune-with-nature' anyway.

No the reason is that it's a bad business case, so the private sector isn't interested, and the government aren't going to build it either, they're fixated on HS2.


NO, I am not a Socialist, just to save you the trouble. NO, I am not a Conservative and NO the Liberals have also got it wrong.)


Quite right, PAXboy. It's significant that New Labour doesn't rate a mention.

Perhaps it comes under "Conservative". Apart from the wars of choice, it's difficult to tell the difference.

Think most of us would be regarded as "none of the above" these days.

[ZOOKER]

I wonder if Silver-Boris' will be connected to the capital by Lord Fester's ingenious aerial-cycleway? :E

Happy New year Y'all.

[johnnychips]

I wonder if Silver-Boris' will be connected to the capital by Lord Fester's ingenious aerial-cycleway?

It will start wobbling, not helped by its windy position, then a cyclist will blow off and be frazzled by the 25kV railway line below. Happy New Year :E

[silverstrata]

Boris is still pushing the Silver-Boris airport proposal.

Some interesting quotes from Boris' representative:

He said it was "absurd" that Johnson's office was treated "on a par with a private company motivated by commercial interests" when planning for expansion of London's infrastructure was a key part of the mayor's powers and responsibilities.

The decision had to involve the mayor, who was the only politician "articulating the public interest" among the private firms, he said, adding that: "while the commission was supposed to be independent, it was in danger of becoming independent of the real world".

Moylan said Johnson was "profoundly unsettled" by the interim report in December, which drew up a shortlist of possible airport expansion plans. This contained two different runway options at Heathrow and another at Gatwick, while rejecting the mayor's proposals for a four-runway Stansted – "for flimsy reasons", said Moylan – and promising only to continue reviewing evidence for a Thames estuary option – a concession widely seen as a last-minute political fudge.

Boris Johnson: commission's stance on airport expansion contradictory | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/16/boris-johnson-commission-airport-expansion-decision-x-factor)


I get the impression that Cameron does not want this major and controversial airport proposal and decision hanging over the next election, and so he has squashed it by getting the commission to reject Boris' proposals - which leaves both Boris and his proposals hanging out to dry.

So once more we get decisions made for political expediency rather than the national interest. It is like Blair who said we needed new nuclear power stations back in '98, and then did nothing for the next 14 years because it was a political hot-potato. So because Blair wanted to be nice to the electorate, and get reelected - and because Cameron wanted to be nice to the electorate, hug a few huskies, and get elected - the lights will start going out in 2018.

This is not lions being led by donkeys, it is lions being led by amoebas with a nice smile.


Silver

[mattew.gates]

Boris Island fails to make Airports Commission shortlist.
Blow for the Mayor of London as his proposal of a Thames Estuary airport is excluded as "there are too many uncertainties and challenges".
http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/fullnode_image/articles_2013/167648305.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

Boris Island fails to make Airports Commission shortlist.
Blow for the Mayor of London as his proposal of a Thames Estuary airport is excluded as "there are too many uncertainties and challenges".Yes, so the Airports Commission said in their December 17th report.

[Fairdealfrank]

For those of you who want a UK hub where aircraft land over water (yes, that's you Silver), just wait till Heathrow is next on easterly operations and you've got it it.

[PAXboy]

In the plans for Boris island - what allowance did they make for water level increase???? :hmm:

I know that on eplanned included another Thames Barrier but can anyone point me to where they gave an allowance for estury heights?

[Cyrano]

New report (https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/making-connections.pdf) (commissioned by TfL ;) ) just released which seeks to make the case for Boris Island, or at least for a brand-new four-runway hub.

A bit of bait-and-switch argumentation on Page 6. The argument is that a new hub is necessary to provide enough capacity for connections to the UK regions. The heading is "Why does domestic air connectivity matter?" but the discussion goes on to describe why connectivity matters in general. In other words, good connectivity via AMS (for example) would deliver most of the same benefits.

The report is trying to make the case that new UK regional services would be possible, but it looks like magical thinking to me. For example, it proposes that a new Durham Tees Valley service would be feasible, 4 times a day, with 450,000 passengers a year by 2050. Most of these would be connecting because "the London-bound market is relatively weak given the level of rail competition", but all the same, despite this 4/day 450,000 passenger hub connection, "the viability of other hub services from Durham Tees Valley is not expected to be significantly affected." Hmm. That's convenient - let's just avoid the displacement argument by assuming there is none. :cool:

Given the nice graphics and the emphasis on economic benefits for the UK regions, expect lots of news stories in the regional press in the coming days about how a brand new hub such as Boris Island is a great idea (which is undoubtedly the purpose of producing the report).

[Heathrow Harry]

agreed on the regional airports - with Darlington a lot less than 3 hours from Kings X by train the only passengers you'd see at either LHR or Boris Island would be interlining

[Dannyboy39]

Future governments will undoubtedly offer tax hikes on domestic airfares and possibly some sort of tax relief on HS2, which will make most routes unprofitable.

[Fairdealfrank]

The report is trying to make the case that new UK regional services would be possible, but it looks like magical thinking to me. For example, it proposes that a new Durham Tees Valley service would be feasible, 4 times a day, with 450,000 passengers a year by 2050. Most of these would be connecting because "the London-bound market is relatively weak given the level of rail competition", but all the same, despite this 4/day 450,000 passenger hub connection, "the viability of other hub services from Durham Tees Valley is not expected to be significantly affected." Hmm. That's convenient - let's just avoid the displacement argument by assuming there is none.


It also bangs on about 6 times/day to/from DND, a service currently propped up by a PSO - and that's to/from STN.

The document is fatuous piece of nonsense with no evidence to back up it's assertions. Their airports advisor has no background in aviation, so this is to be expected.

Airports policy is not the remit of TFL/mayor/assembly, it is the province of central government. Time to stop wasting ratepayers' money.

[alexeibutterwick]

I personally believe that the third runway option at Heathrow is the best proposal in terms of expansion. The Thames Estuary airport seems to be quite a long way from London. One of the great things about Heathrow airport is that it is situated not so far from London. (Roughly 40 min).

[EK77WNCL]

But a Thames airport could feasibly be less than 20 minutes away by high speed train/maglev...

[Heathrow Harry]

The great thing (if you are using it) about LHR is that it is close to W London

The bad thing (if you live there) about LHR is that it is close to W London

When you think of all the new airports built worldwide since the 60's (Changi, Jakarta, HK, CDG, Oslo, Atlanta, DFW.....) it's a dreadful shame we didn't close LHR in the late 60's

[Skipness One Echo]

But a Thames airport could feasibly be less than 20 minutes away by high speed train/maglev...
I am begging you, read from Page 1. "Could be" and "Will be" are different sets.
Particular attention to all the business, of which I work for one who rely on the proximity of LHR for international connections and based all the way from Canary Wharf from Canary Wharf to Bristol. A "High Speed Rail Link" is going to be little use. Also such an uncosted undertaking is dangerous. HS2 is already a massive capital expenditure in itself and we really need Crossrail 2, so the idea of another expensive train set going from Fantasy Island connecting all those other places it needs to and not just central London is frankly ball breakingly expensive even in the best of times.
These are not the best of times......
The taxpayer makes millionaires of enough railway fatcat already (Hi Richard!), thanks very much.

Main problem is political airheads with no project management credibility or real world experience. Boris Johnson has never once in his life held down what we would recognise as a "real job". Even editing The Spectator was more of a hobby.

[FRatSTN]

I also see a third runway at LHR as by far the best and realistically only option. LGW is not the right place for a new runway neither is STN or LTN. The Thames Estuary is a stupendously more expensive idea, would take absolutely years to build and somewhat unnecessary to need take the issue anywhere near that far.


Indeed the Thames Estuary could have high speed rail into London in 20 minutes, but what about those originating in the UK or not travelling to/from London? I live in the Midlands, LHR is less than 2 hours away on a good day, the Thames Estuary would be 3 hours or more! It's not the right place for an airport. Why not build a high speed underground link from LHR to London which takes less than 10 minutes?


As for LGW, what does that achieve? A split hub operation? I don't think so! FR might move to LGW, W6 might move to LGW, EZY, ZB, TCX etc. might consolidate at LGW. My point is that it would seriously endanger LTN and STN. It would destroy the London "Airport system" whilst expanding LHR would maintain it. Why?


Because LHR adds both hub and indeed point-to-point capacity in it's own right. More to the point it allows airlines from the other airports (mainly LGW) to move into LHR if that is where they want to be. The result is that it would free up slots for airlines who do actually want to fly from LGW (or STN, or LTN etc.) and are not just there because they can't fit into LHR. Effectively you've increased capacity in a more cost efficient way and helping not just LHR but all the other London airports to thrive and build stronger relations with their airline partners.


A second LGW runway would clearly not solve the problem of constrained slot capacity at LHR so you'd still have capacity taken by airlines at LGW who actually want LHR. The extra capacity a second runway would give LGW could quite easily be largely taken by airlines relocating from the north London airports and would only leave STN and LTN to cater for a lot of the "new" capacity (if they were to even survive at all). The end result is spending millions of pounds and you still haven't solved the problem you set out to achieve. It risks actually restricting growth in the longer term future just as much as doing nothing at all.


The same pretty much goes for the Thames Estuary airport unless LHR was to close down and all the business involved with it in West London would have to move! Absolutely crazy!

[Heathrow Harry]

FRatSTN - your points are well made if you only consider the airline business

if you happen to live in W London there is a whole different set of issues and there have been for years - noise, pollution, traffic.......

politically I doubt it will ever happen - so we either build up other airports in the UK or we build a completely new one far far away from people

[Phileas Fogg]

Brits might ridicule them for wearing wooden shoes but just perhaps the Dutch have got something right ...

They've got 5, going on 10, runways one side of the motorway (for the big boys to play with) whilst it seems they utilise the runway on the other side of the motorway for all the City Hopper, short haul, "puddle jumper" traffic ... If only UK had such a tidy operation!

[On the beach]

"whilst it seems they utilise the runway on the other side of the motorway for all the City Hopper, short haul, "puddle jumper" traffic

And a 20 minute taxi before/after take off/landing. Welcome to Heathrow's third runway.

[SARF]

The Thames estuary airport will be attached to Kent. Anyone travelling from the north or west to our nations hub airport , Which is pretty much everyone...
will at some stage have to cross the Thames. Now you could take the maglev or use the star trek transporter which will be available ten years earlier ..
Other wise you need the A 130 to become a motorway n cross the river at canvey or pitsea. The a13 and a127 will both need two more lanes each way and the M11 will need a five lane spur via Chelmsford into the estuary.
Numerous tunnels under the Thames ,, oh what's the point. Heathrow runway 3 and 4. Just get on with it

[Baltasound]

New Thames Airport is not going to happen. As much as I hate the idea the railway infrastructure planning which is going on is pointing to an expansion of the Heathrow on it's current site.

[alexeibutterwick]

I think its safe to say that what Lord Foster (I think thats his name) has pitched is a very ambitious idea.

The HS train that will run from the airport will also cost a fortune to travel on. As most of you are probably aware, the Gatwick Express costs a huge amount of money to travel on, and the journey is still quite long. The London Underground connection at Heathrow means people can travel to London for a much cheaper fare (although its still not so cheap).

[Heathrow Harry]

Baltasound - you are assuming joined up thinking in the Transport industry - in BRITAIN???????? :sad::sad::sad::sad:

the same people who sold the land on the WCML held back for the Heathrow Express extension chord to Reading...........................

[Skipness One Echo]

And a 20 minute taxi before/after take off/landing. Welcome to Heathrow's third runway.
Or Amsterdam or JFK....of course on some days it's a lot less. It's one of the World's busiest airports, that sort of thing comes with the territory as anyone who has arrived on the Polderbaan (18R) at Amsterdam knows only too well :)

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm pretty sure that on one occasion recently we spent more time taxing at AMS and LHR than we were in the air.....................

[PAXboy]

Thread drift, I recall a particular evening leaving JFK when there was heavy traffic and much 'shuffling forward'. From Push to turning on to the active was 55 minutes.

[Fairdealfrank]

I personally believe that the third runway option at Heathrow is the best proposal in terms of expansion. The Thames Estuary airport seems to be quite a long way from London. One of the great things about Heathrow airport is that it is situated not so far from London. (Roughly 40 min).

Correct, it is. Even if they decide to build an estuary airport, LHR expansion is still needed and soon. Why? because LHR is full, and there has to be some provision for expansion for the intervening decades until the estuary airport is built (don’t be fooled that it’s just one decade).

Heathrow is 20 mi. west of London, the estuary airport is 40-70 mi. east, depending on the site.




But a Thames airport could feasibly be less than 20 minutes away by high speed train/maglev...


…we all know that it wouldn’t be.




When you think of all the new airports built worldwide since the 60's (Changi, Jakarta, HK, CDG, Oslo, Atlanta, DFW.....) it's a dreadful shame we didn't close LHR in the late 60's


Well, we didn’t, so that particular ship sailed half a century ago. The proposals in the 1970s, Cublington, Foulness, etc., were for a “third” London airport, not a replacement for LHR.




if you happen to live in W London there is a whole different set of issues and there have been for years - noise, pollution, traffic.......


Allegedly, but house prices tell an entirely different story! If the blight is so bad, you have to ask yourself why house prices are so high, and why the “well-to-do” who can afford to live anywhere choose to live under the flight path.

[Heathrow Harry]

Its not "Blight" Frank - they just don't like all those aeroplanes over head

[silverstrata]

Boris:

Well, the Mayor is still pushing for a Thames Airport, despite all the controversy. Which I have to say is a brave thing for a politician to do in this era of vacuous popularity-politics. Blair would have just gone along with the latest opinion poll - anything an opportunity to give that inane grin and gain a vote or two.

This time Boris has got himself likened to Ado!f H!tler and Albert Speer, and their grandiose vision for Berlin:

Boris Johnson's plan to replace Heathrow with £65bn Thames Estuary airport are as 'grandiose as Hitler's' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2363945/Boris-Johnsons-plan-replace-Heathrow-65bn-Thames-Estuary-airport-grandiose-Hitlers.html)


However, I find this a strange attitude. Of all the many gross and deplorable errors of the Third Reich, having a grand vision for your nation, cities and your people was not one of them.

Oh that we had had an equivalent of Albert Speer who could have:

• Put Birmingham Airport in the right place outside the city.
• Orientated Birmingham airport runway in the correct direction (into wind and not over the city).
• Put LHR in the correct location to the NW of London (Watford-ish), with runways orientated to the SW (into wind and not over the city).
• Laughed out loud, when someone suggested expanding Leeds.
• Had apoplexy when someone suggested that expanding Bristol Lulsgate was better than expanding Bristol Filton.
• Questioned ministers' sanity, when they suggested selling off viable RAF airfields, instead of converting them to civil use (after all we, the people, had spent a lot of money on these airfields).
• Built the new terminal at Manch, on the correct (south) side of the runway. (It was obvious that any new runway would have to be south side.) The current layout is a Tenerife disaster waiting to happen.


So where was our 1950s Boris Speer-Johnson - an architect or politician with vision, who could have righted the many wrongs of present UK aviation? Why did politicians blunder on with so many worthless projects, because they were not man enough or brave enough to put their heads above the parapet. (Resulting in the UK being the only major nation in Europe without a high speed train system). The self-serving idiots of Westminster have cost this nation dear.


Silver

[Skipness One Echo]

Bumping the last post so more people read silver's appreciation for Albert Speer. 'Nuff said.

[anothertyke]

The Brits don't believe in big planning. We favour incremental development. Boris is an unusual politician and doing Boris's Island would be very much out of character for Britain. The difficulties have been greatly accentuated with the privatisation of both airlines and airports which produces a strong pattern of vested commercial interests against fundamental change. Even doing runway 3 (or R2 at Gatwick) will be a big ask of the system.

[jdcg]

Hitler 's grandiose visions for his country and.it's infrastructure were entirely predicated on the misappropriation / theft of other country's resources and the use of slave labour for construction. All to serve his own megalomania.
While Johnson appears not to have the same criminal tendencies as Hitler, he seems to share his love of gestural politics, which actually make no economic sense at all.

[LN-KGL]

If someone use the Hitler card, this person shows he has lost the discussion it is said - sorry Sir Terry.

You can blame the nazis for monstrous many awful things, but if you look at what they did to their infrastructure before the war, some of this plays an important part of the German infrastructure of today. Large parts of today's German motorway stucture is based on what was started in 1925 under the Weimar Government and further refined under the nazis after 1933. The nazis said they needed these Reichsautobahns to move men and material, but they never played a vital role in the war effort something Speer concluded with, after Todt died in February 1942, and stopped at 2,400 miles of them.

To bring this back to London and its airports. Except for London City Airport, all of today's airports played a vital role during the Second World War as RAF airfields. After the war this was a vital advantage and head start for Britain and London. Today these airports are major restraints for a futher development of Britain's aviation industry and for London to play a vital part in the world economy in the future. The only conclusion for me is to find one location for one London airport that can be used for the next 60 years - an airport that can play a vital role in uniting Britain.

[PAXboy]

anothertyke, Yes I think that's right. But, since WWII, we have slavishly followed the American way of doing things.

So the 'hands-off let the market decide' along with "Surely, we can get this for less?" and "Surely, we can get more money for this?" has not helped.

[Skipness One Echo]

LN-KGL are you suggesting the throughout of LHR/LGW/STN/LTN/LCY et al can be put through one site within travelling distance of London without costing tens of thousands of direct and indirect job losses around each airport and all along the M4 corridor to Bristol?

[LN-KGL]

Are airports for creating as many jobs as possible in their respective local communities or are airports for passengers that want to travel to or from a destinations as smooth as possible? I think it is the latter.

[Heathrow Harry]

Not if you are Shop Steward Skipness.................

[Fairdealfrank]

Its not "Blight" Frank - they just don't like all those aeroplanes over head

What aeroplanes? You can hardly hear them in the areas where the whingers live.

Why do you think Boris held his anti-Heathrow meeting (rally?) at Barnes rather than at a location such as Cranford, near the rwy threshold, where there may actually might be some aircraft noise?




Boris:

Well, the Mayor is still pushing for a Thames Airport, despite all the controversy. Which I have to say is a brave thing for a politician to do in this era of vacuous popularity-politics. Blair would have just gone along with the latest opinion poll - anything an opportunity to give that inane grin and gain a vote or two.


Of course he is still pushing for a Thames Airport. Having wasted a great deal of public money on something which is beyond his jurisdiction both geographically and functionally (airport policy is the remit of central government), he has to keep banging on about it for the time being.

But how serious is he in reality? He couldn't be bothered to appoint an "aviation adviser" who has any aviation experience. That says it all.

In truth, it's classic gesture politics. Chances are that this nonsense will die a death if/when Boris decides to go back into Parliament.




anothertyke, Yes I think that's right. But, since WWII, we have slavishly followed the American way of doing things.

So the 'hands-off let the market decide' along with "Surely, we can get this for less?" and "Surely, we can get more money for this?" has not helped.


But it's not really, is it? The market decided half a century ago that it wanted Heathrow expansion. It's government interference that stops it.

The "American way of doing things" as far as airports are concerned is publicly owned airports, usually in local council ownership.




LN-KGL are you suggesting the throughout of LHR/LGW/STN/LTN/LCY et al can be put through one site within travelling distance of London without costing tens of thousands of direct and indirect job losses around each airport and all along the M4 corridor to Bristol?


It can't be done, nor should it be attempted.




Are airports for creating as many jobs as possible in their respective local communities or are airports for passengers that want to travel to or from a destinations as smooth as possible? I think it is the latte


Both.

[silverstrata]

Skippy:

Bumping the last post so more people read silver's appreciation for Albert Speer. 'Nuff said.



So who would you prefer:
… Albert Speer, who had a grand plan for German infrastructure.
… Bliar and Moron, who have led the nation to infrastructural impoverishment.

Our airports are a disgrace; our fine old RAF airfields lie abandoned; our shipping ports are in locations with no unions and not where they should be; our trains are an overcrowded disgrace; our regional railways have been torn up; our industry has been allowed to rot; our cycle paths are non-existent; our proposed high speed rail links don't even join up; cross rail is a line from nowhere to nowhere; our towns have expanded sideways, with not a thought to the future of the nation; our roads have become cinder-tracks; our housing stock is the oldest in mainstream Europe; our city centers are boarded up.


I ask you, just what have Bliar, Moron and that cretin with a nervous twitch, done for this nation? Give us Speer any day, in preference to the cretins (some of us) have voted for.

Silver

[Fairdealfrank]

So who would you prefer:
… Albert Speer, who had a grand plan for German infrastructure.
… Bliar and Moron, who have led the nation to infrastructural impoverishment.

Our airports are a disgrace; our fine old RAF airfields lie abandoned; our shipping ports are in locations with no unions and not where they should be; our trains are an overcrowded disgrace; our regional railways have been torn up; our industry has been allowed to rot; our cycle paths are non-existent; our proposed high speed rail links don't even join up; cross rail is a line from nowhere to nowhere; our towns have expanded sideways, with not a thought to the future of the nation; our roads have become cinder-tracks; our housing stock is the oldest in mainstream Europe; our city centers are boarded up.


I ask you, just what have Bliar, Moron and that cretin with a nervous twitch, done for this nation? Give us Speer any day, in preference to the cretins (some of us) have voted for.

Silver
Silver, you wouldn't get Speer in isolation just on an infrastructure improvement drive, you would get the whole package. So be very careful what you wish for......

[Baltasound]

Godwins Law invoked. Close thread time.....:}

[Skipness One Echo]

I think three or four runways may be possible but 24 hour operation is not acceptable, and I say that as very pro Heathrow. There has to be a balance, it's not a realistic thing to expect and a cruel infliction on so very many people.

[Piltdown Man]

I believe SS has summed up the UK well. Our infrastructure stinks! Heathrow is a pathetic excuse for an airport. It's in the wrong place, poorly connected and incapable of being expanded. An additional runway will do nothing to improve efficiency nor will it add any worthwhile capacity.

Why? I'll explain as simply as I can. And it is simple. When people travel, they go from where they don't want to be to somewhere where they want to be. They measure their success in price, hassle and time. Trevelling pleasure is no longer expected because has been removed by overcrowding, standardisation, oppressive security and the sheer greed of the thieves that run airports.

[The public don't expect to take three hours by road to cover 45 miles, spend an hour parking, pay £80/day for the privilege, another hour getting to check-in and then after passing the Gestapo think "Oh my! Look at that lovely baggage, I must buy some." Nor are they amazed by the price of the cameras or the standard of catering. But they are never surprised when there is a delay. But rather incredibly, there are people who believe that LHR is a worthwhile place.]

Returning to where we started: You might as well place London's third runway in Belgium for all the good it will do. The only realistic thing London can do is build a new airport somewhere new, build it quick and then bulldoze Heathrow. Gatwick, Luton, Stansted will remain as the airport equivalents of clip joints; squeezing as much cash out of point-to-point leisure travellers as they can.

My job depends on Heathrow not being viable as a UK hub. But I'm not worried. I'm convinced I'll keep my job because of our worthless politicians, greedy bankers, NIMBYs and a travelling public who are prepared to accept sub-standard airports. This public convenience will provide me with employment for years.

[Skipness One Echo]

I think the bit you missed out is there is nowhere else viable to build a new airport. By all means we can all go a bit Victor Meldrew now and again but there isn't a site available to the ideal, so that's why LHR is the only realistic and affordable option. It's the best of a bad lot.

Banging on about the mistakes of people who are likely now dead is fine, perhaps better fitted to JetBlast but it does not move the issue on one bit.

Unless David Cameron is suddenly ****ting gold bullion, the money (we don't actually have as we're still borrowing) is better spent on more pressing issues than buying and demolishing airports and compensating shareholders. Some reality please?

[Fairdealfrank]

Most people know, in their hearts, that LHR needs to become a 4-Runway, 24hr airport, if we want to keep up with the Rest. Who is going to make it happen?


I think three or four runways may be possible but 24 hour operation is not acceptable, and I say that as very pro Heathrow. There has to be a balance, it's not a realistic thing to expect and a cruel infliction on so very many people.
Yes, 24-hours is not an option, nor for that matter, is permanent mixed mode. What may well be needed in the future are a few more arrivals in the 0445-0600 period.

With 3 or 4 rwys more respite for residents can be provided for these extra early arrivals: overflight only 1 in 3 or 4 days.



I believe SS has summed up the UK well. Our infrastructure stinks! Heathrow is a pathetic excuse for an airport. It's in the wrong place, poorly connected and incapable of being expanded. An additional runway will do nothing to improve efficiency nor will it add any worthwhile capacity.Why is Heathrow "in the wrong place"? 20 mi west of London and near several motorways is reasonable for an airport of its size, you won't find a location nearer London! Who wants an airport any further away?



Returning to where we started: You might as well place London's third runway in Belgium for all the good it will do.
It's currently in the Netherlands - allegedly.


The only realistic thing London can do is build a new airport somewhere new, build it quick and then bulldoze Heathrow. Gatwick, Luton, Stansted will remain as the airport equivalents of clip joints; squeezing as much cash out of point-to-point leisure travellers as they can.
Never going to happen. A third rwy at Heathrow will make a great deal of difference, a fourth even more so (it provides some "future-proofing").

By the way, when you say "the only realistic thing London can do is build a new airport somewhere new", do you mean London local government, London business, London what?

Meanwhile, back in the real world......

These airports make money for their owners/shareholders, so they won't sell to any potential "bulldozer operators". Therefore none of these airports is closing any time soon. It really is as simple as that.

[Airlift21]

I can't believe time and tax payers money are still being wasted on the feasibility of an estuary airport. It's absolutely ridiculous.

People say our airports, especially Heathrow are a disgrace and that LHR is in the wrong place. Seriously?? Any Thames airport would be in the wrong place, for sure. It's also extremely damaging to wildlife (and added risk of birdstrikes) and the cost of an airport and associated infrastructure in that location is way off the scale. We can't afford it and shouldn't pay for it. The whole estuary airport thing is a stupid dream. Those who suggest that people and all of the businesses should up sticks and move to the East of London when Heathrow shuts need a reality check. How pointless.

It's also obvious that those who promote the notion of an estuary airport are showing their complete lack of understanding of business, infrastructure, aviation and also of the environment. Get real.

We need to make use of existing airports and expand those sites.

One good example of this would be the infrastructure that serves LGW. It's becoming a bit of a transport hub in itself. The railway station redevelopment and the amount of trains that will serve the airport (a train every 2.5 mins to London) by 2019 is testimony to that. I believe a prunner stated not too long ago that trains only serve the South Terminal, so it certainly isn't ideal. The transit will get you to the North Terminal in a matter of minutes, so it's irrelevant.

The point I'm trying to make is that there IS plenty of investment going into Heathrow (in the right location) and also Gatwick (also happens to be in the right location). Both airports need more runways. In the case of LGW, it has the busiest single runway operation in the world. This means that it could do with a 2nd runway. FACT. The capacity is there and it will certainly grow.

Likewise with LHR. Both of these airports are ideally located to serve the southeast and its future capacity problems. Lay the runways at both of these sites and it's problem solved. Simple as that.

It's a lot simpler than moving London to the east as some would suggest. That's just plain crazy!

We have airports. Let's not pointlessly build more to satisfy a few people's uninformed desires.... Boris, Silver etc.

[pallan]

I agree with Airlift21 totally...

I still cannot get my head around why so much public money is being spent researching an idea for an airport which is quite frankly ridiculous and being promoted by a guy who has no idea what he is doing.
A Thames estuary airport would be a disaster on so many levels; astronomical cost, job impacts due to closing of Heathrow, business impact (200 of top 300 UK companies within 20 miles of LHR), environmental impact, the time to complete it etc.. there are endless reasons why it is such a bad idea and it just makes no sense at all.
Heathrow and Gatwick both need a new runway, LHR ideally 2 new runways. They both would be, in the main, privately funded (some additional transport infrastructure would be required at LHR which may be government funded) and completed much much quicker than any estuary airport idea; alongside of course protecting thousands of jobs.

Also... a minor point, but Boris says 190,000 homes would be created if Heathrow would be closed down. Now I know Heathrow is big, having connected there several times but 190,000!? That seems far too optimistic for a site even as big as Heathrow surely?

[yotty]

The interim findings have been announced. NOT including any option for a Thames Estuary Development! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/airports-commission-publishes-interim-report :ugh:

[pallan]

There is still money being spent looking into the feasibility of the Isle of Grain option which is basically just the same but a little further inland however.

[Fairdealfrank]

Heathrow and Gatwick both need a new runway, LHR ideally 2 new runways. They both would be, in the main, privately funded (some additional transport infrastructure would be required at LHR which may be government funded) and completed much much quicker than any estuary airport idea; alongside of course protecting thousands of jobs.
Yes, and that's just to catch up with Paris's two main airports!




Also... a minor point, but Boris says 190,000 homes would be created if Heathrow would be closed down. Now I know Heathrow is big, having connected there several times but 190,000!? That seems far too optimistic for a site even as big as Heathrow surely?
Quite right, 190,000 homes means a population of over 400,000 (a population a little bigger than Croydon, a little smaller than Bristol or Edinburgh). There's no way they would fit onto the Heathrow site, maybe it was 19,000 homes and even that's pushing it.........

Forget Boris's fantasies, Heathrow won't be closed: there is no way its owners would sell such a profitable enterprise. The board would be lunatics to consider it, the shareholders would never sanction it, so let's put this particular nonsense to bed.



We need to make use of existing airports and expand those sites.

One good example of this would be the infrastructure that serves LGW. It's becoming a bit of a transport hub in itself. The railway station redevelopment and the amount of trains that will serve the airport (a train every 2.5 mins to London) by 2019 is testimony to that. I believe a prunner stated not too long ago that trains only serve the South Terminal, so it certainly isn't ideal. The transit will get you to the North Terminal in a matter of minutes, so it's irrelevant.

The point I'm trying to make is that there IS plenty of investment going into Heathrow (in the right location) and also Gatwick (also happens to be in the right location). Both airports need more runways. In the case of LGW, it has the busiest single runway operation in the world. This means that it could do with a 2nd runway. FACT. The capacity is there and it will certainly grow.

Likewise with LHR. Both of these airports are ideally located to serve the southeast and its future capacity problems. Lay the runways at both of these sites and it's problem solved. Simple as that.
Yes, plain common sense!

[Facelookbovvered]

From the interim Davis commission report i thought it was fairly clear what needs doing, but obviously the remit is to report back after the general election in May 2015......

LHR is bursting at the seams and LGW is heading the same way, leaving aside LCY the other so called London airports have spare capacity but that's not where people or airlines ideally want to fly from.

I just hope (fat chance) that if Davis recommends two runways at LHR & an additional one at LGW that whatever colour the new Government (RED/PURPLE/BLUE) that they have the balls to get on with.

[Fairdealfrank]

LHR is bursting at the seams and LGW is heading the same way, leaving aside LCY the other so called London airports have spare capacity but that's not where people or airlines ideally want to fly from.
Yes, that is the critical point: where the carriers and pax, especially premium pax (who pay the money that provides airline profits), want to fly from.

It's all about yield, so the answer is always LHR.


I just hope (fat chance) that if Davis recommends two runways at LHR & an additional one at LGW that whatever colour the new Government (RED/PURPLE/BLUE) that they have the balls to get on with.
Agree 100% but, regretably, can see pigs flying.

Does the purple in "new government" represent UKIP?

[Baltasound]

UKIP wont win a seat in 2015...

[jigger01]

Err..wrong forum for political drum-bashing, wether they will or won't
the statement made was of an alternative political party,fortunately
not for just the likes of you to decide..
Keep it aviation related please.

[Fairdealfrank]

UKIP wont win a seat in 2015...
Indeed not.

However the level of UKIP support and the amount of votes they are able take away from incumbent MPs in marginal seats will determine the outcome of the election.

The Conservatives are well aware of this, but Labour have still not yet woken up to the fact that they are equally vulnerable!

Of course if it all goes wrong on 18th september, all bets are off.



Err..wrong forum for political drum-bashing, wether they will or won't
the statement made was of an alternative political party,fortunately
not for just the likes of you to decide..
Keep it aviation related please.


The next government, whatever its composition, will have to deal with the recommendations of the Davis Commission, so please explain how this is not aviation related.

[silverstrata]

fairdeal frank.

Silver, you wouldn't get Albert Speer in isolation just on an infrastructure improvement drive, you would get the whole package. So be very careful what you wish for......


Oh, so it was ok for the West to take Werner von Braun and 150 of his rocketry engineers, but it is not ok to take an architect !! I think the architect would have been of more economic use, both to the US and the UK.

Perhaps you have forgotten the old adage:

Q. I say, I say, I say, why did the Americans beat the Russians to the Moon?
A. Because America's Germans were better than Russia's Germans.


It was a hypocritical policy, I agree, but pragmatic and very effective.

Silver.

[silverstrata]

fairdeal

Yes, that is the critical point: where the carriers and pax, especially premium pax, want to fly from.


Fly through, Frank, fly through.

I keep telling you that the heart of these large national airports is the ability to interline from regional airports (and train stations), through the national hub, and on to locations all around the world. So the actual location of the new Silver-Boris hub-airport is not as critical as you think. A TGV line to London is the only real essential, although TGV lines to the north and west would be handy.

Why do you think that AMS is so large, when the Netherlands is so small? Every time i pass through there, the majority appear to be Brits interlining through from Bristol, Glasgow and Newcastle, because it is easier to go to AMS than trying to crawl your way down to LHR. And that is all revenue that is lost to UK carriers, lost to the City of London, and lost to UK PLC.

Someone needs to get a grip on UK aviation planning, before it sinks without trace. Where is Albert Speer, when you need him??


Silver

[fireflybob]

Why do you think that AMS is so large, when the Netherlands is so small? Every time i pass through there, the majority appear to be Brits interlining through from Bristol, Glasgow and Newcastle, because it is easier to go to AMS than trying to crawl your way down to LHR. And that is all revenue that is lost to UK carriers, lost to the City of London, and lost to UK PLC.

It's also a way of avoiding the punitive UK Airline Passenger Duty on the long haul part of the journey.

[Skipness One Echo]

Again, the plaintive cry for his favourite.......Nazi town planner?

Someone does need to get a grip and with T2 at LHR open and runway 3 going to be approved whether you like it or not, progress is being made. Crossrail is also added into the mix as well, none of this coming cheaply.

Also, the budget deficit went *up* last month so do please let us know when you start *****ing gold bullion to pay for all of this amazing new infrastructure.

[DaveReidUK]

and runway 3 going to be approved whether you like it or notDo you have inside information on the result of next year's election, as well ? :O

[Fairdealfrank]

Q. I say, I say, I say, why did the Americans beat the Russians to the Moon?
A. Because America's Germans were better than Russia's Germans.


Or to be more accurate:

Q. I say, I say, I say, why did the Americans beat the Russians to "Area 51" Nevada?
A. Because America's Germans were better than Russia's Germans.

On a more serious note, the USA probably had plenty of architects, but not so many rocket scientists.




Fly through, Frank, fly through.


Through, to or from....it makes no difference.

Actually, at LHR, only about 30% are connecting pax flying through.


I keep telling you that the heart of these large national airports is the ability to interline from regional airports (and train stations), through the national hub, and on to locations all around the world. So the actual location of the new Silver-Boris hub-airport is not as critical as you think. A TGV line to London is the only real essential, although TGV lines to the north and west would be handy.


A TGV line isn't going to happen, the government does not have the cash. The government have made it clear that even a short spur from the Ruislip/Northolt section of HS2 to LHR is not going to happen.

LHR expansion, on the other hand, is a good business case and would be privately financed.

The best place for the "new Silver-Boris hub-airport" is (obviously) at LHR.



Why do you think that AMS is so large, when the Netherlands is so small?


Because of KL's policy of handling large numbers of transfer pax (over 70%) at AMS. A policy followed by SQ, FI, EK, etc., on various scales. It's the only way a small country can have a large carrier.




Every time i pass through there, the majority appear to be Brits interlining through from Bristol, Glasgow and Newcastle, because it is easier to go to AMS than trying to crawl your way down to LHR. And that is all revenue that is lost to UK carriers, lost to the City of London, and lost to UK PLC.


Thank you, Silver, for making my point for me, it's much appreciated!

This situation exists precisely because of the failure to expand LHR, a policy which, directly or indirectly, has seen the demise of many UK carriers.

Because LHR did not expand when it should have (1970s onwards) the number of domestic connections declined, and because of an open skies policy between the UK and the Netherlands since 1984, KL was able to fill the gap.

It saw an opportunity and took advantage. In 2014, LHR is connected to just 7 UK airports; AMS (and DUB) to well over 20.

As you say, this was and is revenue lost to UK carriers, to the City of London, to UK PLC as well as the wider UK economy.




It's also a way of avoiding the punitive UK Airline Passenger Duty on the long haul part of the journey.


Only if the journey is broken for at least 24 hours, and who wouldn't want 24 hours in Amsrerdam?, or separate bookings are made (with the consequent loss of checked through luggage and missed connection protection).




Someone does need to get a grip and with T2 at LHR open and runway 3 going to be approved whether you like it or not, progress is being made. Crossrail is also added into the mix as well, none of this coming cheaply.

With all the new infrastructure built or under construction, it would be crazy not to approve LHR expansion, but don't hold your breath.

The flock of pigs is still flying overhead......

[silverstrata]

Skippy

Also, the budget deficit went *up* last month so do please let us know when you start *****ing gold bullion to pay for all of this amazing new infrastructure.



If your dear Gordon Brown had not sold all out gold at the bottom of the market, we may have had some money for infrastructure projects. In addition, Brown managed to spend an additional £500 billion in ten years, over and above our national income, and what did we get for it? What new infrastructure came out of this spending spree?

Oh, yes, we got another 4 million mouths to feed, and to support in their old age. I think every Labour supporter should be taxed an extra £5,000 every year, to make up for Brown's blunders.

Silver

[Skipness One Echo]

He's not my Gordon Brown thanks. Perhaps you should jet back fron sunny LA? I assume you pay no tax to HMG?

You're ideas on taxing people who you disagree are yet another example of letting of steam without presenting a practical alternative. We are where we are, we must deal with what we have and any energy fighting the battles of yesteryear should be saved for the retirement home.

[Fairdealfrank]

Oh, yes, we got another 4 million mouths to feed, and to support in their old age. I think every Labour supporter should be taxed an extra £5,000 every year, to make up for Brown's blunders.


Don't expect that there are many Labour supporters left, many now appear to be supporting UKIP or not bothering to vote. Guess we'll find out next May.

Doesn't Blair bear any responsibility for the actions of the new Labour government?

Either way it's not the brightest of comments, must be a wind-up(?).

[silverstrata]

Contacted

Most people know, in their hearts, that LHR needs to become a 4-Runway, 24hr airport, if we want to keep up with the Rest. Who is going to make it happen?



And therein lies the whole problem.

Yes, this is indeed what we need, but it cannot happen and will not happen. LHR does not have enough room, expanding the airport will create too much noise, and there are no decent train connections. Unless, of course, you employ strategic thinking, rather than populist democracy, and bulldoze much of W London. Where is Albert Speer, when you need him?

This is the whole reason for the Silver-Boris estuary debate.




Fairdeal

Doesn't Bliar bear any responsibility for the actions of the new Labour government?



There you go, fixed that for you - (you spelt his name wrong).

Anyway, his real name was always Miranda. He was named after a moon, which says all you need to know about the recent police investigations in Westminster (and why these police investigations will fail).

Clarissa Dickson Wright: Confessions of One Fat Lady | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-476204/Clarissa-Dickson-Wright-Confessions-One-Fat-Lady.html)

But with all of these furtive shenanigans going on in Westminster, did anyone have their eye on the ball (well, perhaps they did !). Is it any wonder that no decisions about Heathrow, nuclear power, HS rail etc: etc:, were ever made by the Bliar government? I don't think anyone in the Bliar government was interested in governing the nation - not one of them.





Fairdeal

Actually, at LHR, only about 30% are connecting pax flying through.




Which says everything you need to know about Heathrow.

Heathrow cannot increase its interlining connecting pax, because it has a very restricted domestic (European) network of regional aircraft for pax to interline onto. Any sensible interlinear will go to AMS, or if they are desperate perhaps CDG.

Again, London is losing out because LHR is completely full and has no capacity or network for interlining pax (and no decent rail system either).


Silver

[Fairdealfrank]

There you go, fixed that for you - (you spelt his name wrong).


A mere "typo" Silver, thanks for fixing it!






Heathrow cannot increase its interlining connecting pax, because it has a very restricted domestic (European) network of regional aircraft for pax to interline onto.


The much required expansion would resolve that. Also, other carriers would move in as a result resolving the problem you mention: very restricted domestic (European) network of regional aircraft for pax to interline onto.



Any sensible interlinear will go to AMS, or if they are desperate perhaps CDG.


Not CDG unless it's one hell of a lot cheaper!



Again, London is losing out because LHR is completely full and has no capacity or network for interlining pax (and no decent rail system either).

Exactly.

The three options of the Davis Commission are (in no particular order):

(1) a second parallel rwy at LGW - this doesn't address the UK hub airport capacity crunch issue;

(2) extending 09L/27R to operate it as two rwys - this involves the ending of segrgated mode and alternation and is therefore a non-starter;

(3) the "north west" rwy option proposed by Heathrow management.

Silver Island is not on the short list, for obvious reasons.



I totally disagree that 4 runways and H24 cannot happen. It can happen, and must happen, if we want to keep up with the 'Rest'.
Once people come to accept that 4 runways and 24hr Ops on an expanded LHR site is the only realistic solution, then the REAL technical discussion can start on it's implementation and how to mitigate the noise problem. There is so much to discuss on thissubject. A national rail hub should also be part of the solution.


Agree with all that except the concept of 24 hour operations. As with the ending of segregated mode and alternation, it is a non-starter.

We can keep up with and pass the "rest" with expansion without 24 hour operations.

[DaveReidUK]

(2) extending 09L/27R to operate it as two rwys - this involves the ending of segregated mode and alternation and is therefore a non-starter;

(3) the "north west" rwy option proposed by Heathrow management.If ending segregated mode is a show-stopper, then that would also apply to the NW runway option.

Communities under the current 09L and 27R approaches would lose any alternation respite and those under the current 09R/27L approaches, 50% of theirs.

[Fairdealfrank]

If ending segregated mode is a show-stopper, then that would also apply to the NW runway option.

Communities under the current 09L and 27R approaches would lose any alternation respite and those under the current 09R/27L approaches, 50% of theirs.


AFAIK, with the north west (or north option) of 3 parallel rwys, the intention is to keep segregated mode on 2 rwys and mixed mode on 1 rwy at any one time. However, the rwy operating on mixed mode would be rotated so it wouldn't be the newest one on mixed mode all the time.

Respite for flightpath residents would be reduced (from 50% of the time to 33% of the time), but not eliminated.

Extending 09L/27R to operate it as two rwys involves the elimination of segregated mode and alternation altogether, otherwise there would be an insufficient increase in capacity compared to the above-mentioned pattern.

As a result, there would be no respite at all, and that is why (apart from any technical or safety issues that may arise) it is a non-starter.

With 4 parallel rwys of course, respite for flightpath residents would remain at 50% of the time (despite there being more of them) as there would be no mixed mode required.

It's a good job that aircraft are becoming increasingly quieter.

[DaveReidUK]

Respite for flightpath residents would be reduced (from 50% of the time to 33% of the time), but not eliminated.Apologies, I was misreading the chart. In a 3-runway configuration, the two outer runways (the new NW one and the current 09R/27L) would be used as folllows:

50% of the time in mixed mode
25% of the time in segregated mode for arrivals
25% of the time in segregated mode for departures

So alternation respite would be reduced from 50% of the time to 25% (not 33%) of the time.

[PAXboy]

"New Thames Airport for London"
or not?
BBC News - Boris Island airport plan 'to be rejected' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021459)

[Bagso]

I thought the whole point was to confirm LHR but make the decision after the election ?

It's becoming somewhat academic anyway.

[ETOPS]

Come on Fairdealfrank and silverstrata - we're waiting :ok:

[silverstrata]

Don't write off the Silver-Boris Thames Airport just yet. A week is a long time in politics, and there are several months to go, before the next election.

The point is, that Boris is viscerally opposed to the expansion of LHR or LGW, and will fight this absurd decision tooth and nail:

Boris Johnson brands decision to dump Thames airport plan 'myopic' and 'irrelevant'.
Boris Johnson brands decision to dump Thames airport plan 'myopic' and 'irrelevant' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11069284/Boris-Johnson-brands-decision-to-dump-Thames-airport-plan-myopic-and-irrelevant.html)


There are several scenarios that could bring the Silver-Boris airport back to the political table. Here are two:

a. Scotland votes to become independent.
b. Camoron is forced to stand down as prime minister (the prime minister who destroyed the United Kingdom.)
c. Boris is elected to Parliament in 2015.
d. Boris becomes prime minister.
e. Boris says we need a Silver-Boris airport.
f. Work begins on Silver-Boris in 2016.


a. Scotland remains in the Union.
b. Scottish Labour MPs and popular UKIP opposition will prevent a Conservative victory at the next election.
c. So Camoron agrees a deal with UKIP, to give UKIP 40 seats in government.
d. Boris is elected as MP, as Camoron's only remaining 'big-gun'.
e. However, anti-Camoron Tories combine with new UKIP MPs to oust Camoron and make Boris prime minister.
f. Boris agrees to this political coup, only if Farage will back his plan for a Silver-Boris airport.
g. Work begins on Silver-Boris in 2016.


Silver

[PAXboy]

and STILL they will have to:


ramp through a law for compulsory purchase of the entire LHR shooting match
find a way to pay off every single carrier to move and underwrite their losses
deal with the anger of a very considerable number of companies
deal with the anger of an even greater number of voters

I could go on but ... :rolleyes:

[Fairdealfrank]

Come on Fairdealfrank and silverstrata - we're waiting
OK here goes. Well done Airports Commission, now all we need is for them to recommend 2 more parallel rwys at LHR.


Don't write off the Silver-Boris Thames Airport just yet. A week is a long time in politics, and there are several months to go, before the next election.

The point is, that Boris is viscerally opposed to the expansion of LHR or LGW, and will fight this absurd decision tooth and nail:

Boris Johnson brands decision to dump Thames airport plan 'myopic' and 'irrelevant'.
Yes, of course he does. To quote Mandy Rice-Davis of Profumo scandal fame: "well he would, wouldn't he".






There are several scenarios that could bring the Silver-Boris airport back to the political table. Here are two:
Amazed that the Scottish vote could determine the fate of Silver Island, whichever way it goes. Look forward to reading this fantasy.




a. Scotland votes to become independent.
b. Camoron is forced to stand down as prime minister (the prime minister who destroyed the United Kingdom.)
c. Boris is elected to Parliament in 2015.
d. Boris becomes prime minister.
e. Boris says we need a Silver-Boris airport.
f. Work begins on Silver-Boris in 2016.

Option one: Scotland votes "yes".
The government resigns and Cameron, Miliband and Clegg signal their intention to also resign as party leaders.

The Queen asks Miliband if he can form a government that commands a majority in the Commons, he says no, the Queen dissolves Parliament and a general election takes place in October or November.

The level of UKIP support (even if it fails to win a seat) will determine the election result - probably a hung Parliament and a minority government.

Boris is elected in a constituency with half the workforce working on the airport and more aircraft noise from NHT than LHR.

Boris goes very quiet on the subject of Silver Island as his priority is now becoming prime minister at sometime in the future.

The Airports Commission publishes it's findings several months earlier than anticipated.

Silver Island sinks.




a. Scotland remains in the Union.
b. Scottish Labour MPs and popular UKIP opposition will prevent a Conservative victory at the next election.
c. So Camoron agrees a deal with UKIP, to give UKIP 40 seats in government.
d. Boris is elected as MP, as Camoron's only remaining 'big-gun'.
e. However, anti-Camoron Tories combine with new UKIP MPs to oust Camoron and make Boris prime minister.
f. Boris agrees to this political coup, only if Farage will back his plan for a Silver-Boris airport.
g. Work begins on Silver-Boris in 2016.


Silver
Option two: Scotland votes "no".
Cameron, Miliband and Clegg breath a huge sigh of relief as does much of the country, and deliberations on "devo-max" start.

UKIP win the by-election in Clacton(?). If so, Conservatives and Labour start panicking again, if not, another huge sigh of relief.

Lame duck government limps on until next May, concentrating its efforts on getting the "devo-max" legislation passed with everything else on the backburner. UKIP support rises as it wins local government by-elections.

The level of UKIP support (even if it fails to win a seat) will determine the election result - probably a hung Parliament and a minority government.

Boris is elected in a constituency with half the workforce working on the airport and more aircraft noise from NHT than LHR.

Boris goes very quiet on the subject of Silver Island as his priority is now becoming prime minister at sometime in the future.

The Airports Commission publishes it's findings on schedule.

Silver Island sinks.



Over to you, Silver.

[Fairdealfrank]

and STILL they will have to:


ramp through a law for compulsory purchase of the entire LHR shooting match
find a way to pay off every single carrier to move and underwrite their losses
deal with the anger of a very considerable number of companies
deal with the anger of an even greater number of voters

I could go on but ...


Exactly, PAXboy, and they ain't got the dosh.

[silverstrata]

Paxboy:


find a way to pay off every single carrier to move and underwrite their losses
deal with the anger of a very considerable number of companies



Name me one major new relocated airport, that has had to pay its carriers to move there.

Silver.

[ETOPS]

Equally, name a functioning major international airport - privately owned - that has been closed down by legislation in order to justify the building of its replacement?

[Fairdealfrank]

Name me one major new relocated airport, that has had to pay its carriers to move there.

Silver.




Equally, name a functioning major international airport - privately owned - that has been closed down by legislation in order to justify the building of its replacement?


- privately owned - that is the key. There aren't many large international airports in the world that are privately owned.

[silverstrata]

Never mind the cost of the Silver-Boris Thames airport, a new reports says the nation will lose £31bn through NOT building it.

Can we afford to delay any longer?

Britain on course to lose up to £31bn over 15 years it takes to build new Heathrow runway - and that's just 'the tip of the iceberg', warns the CBI | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-3150328/Britain-course-lose-31bn-15-years-takes-build-new-Heathrow-runway-s-just-tip-iceberg-warns-CBI.html)

[Barling Magna]

Unfortunately the Bullingdon lads won't be making a decision in favour of any runway construction, I fear......

[PAXboy]

It will be:

Gatwick Runway
Gatwick with Heathrow 'under more review' not a NO but not a YES.
i.e. Fudge and Mudge as it has been for 40 years.

[silverstrata]

It will be:
i.e. Fudge and Mudge as it has been for 40 years.




And that is the trouble. Any descision would be better than no descision, but none of our politicians have the intellect, common sense, or balls to make a one.

And so they will hapily lose £30 bn in earnings, while saying they cannot build Silver-Boris because it is too expensive. Frankly, this demonstrates the futility of democracy, which can only afford to look forward a maximum of five years. Perhaps it is about time for a military coup, and install someone with a 30-year vision.

P.S. Ditto our energy policy.

Silver

[Fairdealfrank]

Ho ho ho, this thread has been brought back from the dead, well done!


And that is the trouble. Any descision would be better than no descision, but none of our politicians have the intellect, common sense, or balls to make a one.Correct, likely to see Brentford FC in the Premier league for the first time since 1947 (First Division then of course) and the results of Chilcott before a decision is made on LHR expansion.





And so they will hapily lose £30 bn in earnings, while saying they cannot build Silver-Boris because it is too expensive. Frankly, this demonstrates the futility of democracy, which can only afford to look forward a maximum of five years. Perhaps it is about time for a military coup, and install someone with a 30-year vision.
Silver Island is a non-starter for all the reasons mentioned ad nauseum on this and other threads, but even if it went ahead, the timescale involved means that Heathrow would still need to be expanded in the interim.

This simple fact makes Silver Island even more of a non-starter.

It's also not about "democracy": France, Germany and the Netherlands are democracies: France, Germany and the Netherlands have each expanded their hub airport.

All you need for a thirty year vision is for Conservative and Labour to reach consensus, like they do on several issues.

If there's any coups occurring in Europe, would suggest that Greece is more of a candidate than the UK.