Proposed Thames Estuary airport land gets wildlife protection.

[nigel osborne]

The government last week named the wetlands and area of the proposed Thames Estuary Airport as a new wildlife haven,one of a number designated in the UK recently.

Expect it would make it even harder to build this pipe dream project.

Think as many have said the feasability study will just lead now to a 3rd runway and 6th terminal at Heathrow. :D

Wildlife status for Thames Estuary airport land : Heathrow Airport News Stories (http://www.uk-airport-news.info/heathrow-airport-news-030312a.html)


Nigel

[davidjohnson6]

At what level of Govt would this decision have been taken ?
Would it have gone to a secretary of state or just a junior Govt minister ? Alternatively would it have been just some civil servants making thd ddcision ?

How binding is this designation ? Equivalent of SSSI or just the equivalent of municipal park ?

[nigel osborne]

Announced and approved by the Environment Secretary, so pretty high up ! :eek:

Nature blow to plans for "Boris Island" - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9111714/Nature-blow-to-plans-for-Boris-Island.html)

Nigel

[PAXboy]

Smart move. Can the project now before any more money is wasted on it and the piles of this paper airport get any bigger.

[Skipness One Echo]

Today's Telegraph has a leader with a large number of businesses urging a reality check on ruling out LHR expansion. Signed by everyone from microsft in Reading to Joe Bloggs in Hounslow.

[Fairdealfrank]

Anyone know when the government "consultation" starts? was supposed to be in March if memory serves.....

[jabird]

LHR 3rd runway is still politically very risky given the marginals surrounding it. Unlike hs2, building it could actually lose them key seats. I thought the whole (flawed) rationale behind hs2 was that it would "negate" the need for a third runway?

Presumably, as nothing will be ready by mid 2020s, LGW will be on the menu from the outset this time?

[Fairdealfrank]

Must admit that Silver Island Site of Special Scientific Interest (SISSSI for short) does have a nice ring to it, as does Silver Island National Park.

Jabird, they lose some marginals they get them back later, it's the nature of marginal constituencies. For every voter upset with aircraft noise there's probably at least 3 who directly or (more likely) indirectly earn a living from the presence and the on-going success of LHR.

Imagine the outcry there would be if Silver (and others) got their way and LHR was closed down.

It's just possible that we are being softened up for a change of policy on this. On the other hand, don't hold your breath!

Forget about a second runway at LGW and HS2 as remedies for LHR's chronic lack of capacity, both are irrelevant. This is a serious problem today, not in the 2020s and will only be solved by an extra runway, or preferably two, at LHR.

[jabird]

For every voter upset with aircraft noise there's probably at least 3 who directly or (more likely) indirectly earn a living from the presence and the on-going success of LHR.

Agreed. But there is a difference between the status quo and adding a huge amount of extra capacity.

Imagine the outcry there would be if Silver (and others) got their way and LHR was closed down.

We've discussed that to death on that thread! We're now moving over to a blockage being put in the way (the wetlands have always been there, now they are officially an obstacle), and from here we've gone back to the assumption that Boris Island was a smokescreen all along for Heathrow 3.

Naturally, this will be an issue in the mayoral election, is Boris getting sensible?

It's just possible that we are being softened up for a change of policy on this. On the other hand, don't hold your breath!

It would put the current transport minister in a seriously difficult position! She would have to resign as she has bought one of those Greenpeace plots. And she'd be very likely to lose her seat too - you are right to point out that LHR has its lovers as well as its backers, but her local electorate couldn't buy her doing such a major u-turn.

Forget about a second runway at LGW and HS2 as remedies for LHR's chronic lack of capacity, both are irrelevant.

No, one is irrelevant, the other isn't. HS2 if anything will load MORE pax on LHR, who would otherwise have used regional airports. It will have very little effect on domestic flights as most of the routes it competes with have already lost market share to the existing WCML / ECML, but it is unlikely to devlier enough savings to Scotland to have a serious impact.

LGW would be cheaper economically and less risky politically. Environmentally, it also has a much smaller noise footprint. The problem would be in creating the business case and in improving surface access.


This is a serious problem today, not in the 2020s and will only be solved by an extra runway, or preferably two, at LHR.

One is a hot potato, two will never happen. Where else do you find an airport with such a heavy noice footprint? That is why Boris has found his island so appealing - except of course that no-one wants to pay for it.

[Fairdealfrank]

Jabird, new aircraft are getting increasingly quieter (and cleaner). Take it from one who grew up under the flightpath, even today's are much quieter than the early jets of the 1960s.

By the time new runways are built, noise will be much less of an issue. It will take so long to get a 3rd runway built, we may as well face reality and start planning for a 4th, larger aircraft on the 2 existing runways (they're longer), smaller aircraft on any, two for takeoffs, two for landings, alternating as at present.

Not convinced about HS2 loading more pax on LHR. Will a 15 minute time saving between Birmingham and London really alter travel plans when there's still the hassle of travel between London and Heathrow? Then consider the aggravation at the Birmingham end of getting to Curzon Street (not New Street) station!

Will Leeds-London be that much quicker the long way round on an HS2 via Birmingham than the existing 2 hour direct journey? And again, there's still the hassle of travel between London and Heathrow.

Also don't forget the premium fares for riding the HS2 will deter people, the precendent has already been set with the domestic "javelin" HS1.

As for Justine, if she were to make a killing out of the compulsory purchase of her "greenpeace plot" then she could be in big trouble. What may now be regarded as one of the worst examples of "gesture politics" could become a major scandal, and the press would have a field day.

The effect on marginal seats would not be as great as you suggest, especially those nearer the airport than Justine's, though agree that she would be vulnerable in Putney, maybe it's a price worth paying?

The second runway at LGW is only less politically risky because the local MPs have such large majorities that they could hold on to their seats even with a backlash from voters. It's a possible basis for government policy (?) but resolves nothing.

[MAN777]

I have the solution

Encourage IB, KLM, LH, AF to put A340s, A380s or 747s on all their LHR flights and feed their hubs.

LHR gets increased spending in the shops, PAX demand and PAX increases are catered for without extra slots being required. APD is still charged for the entire journey (so Government happy)

OK the poor downtrodden southerners might need to change aircraft (bless em)
but it saves us having to upset Nimbys and lessor spotted oyster catchers.

We have more or less sold everything off to Europeans so why not let them get on with laying more concrete, I think its time for us to swallow our pride.

The long running spin that LHR can't provide slots for emerging markets is a smoke screen spun by the pro 3rd runway crowd. If the new routes are potentially so lucrative why hasn't existing carriers diverted their 1/2 empty transatlantic slots over to them ? And if the news is to be believed this week we are seeing signs of a slow down in China.

[talk english]

Of course none of this is a smoke screen that will allow 'them' to put 2nd runway into stansted.

[Aero Mad]

I'm no advocate of Boris Island, but when I see I think its time for us to swallow our pride it makes my blood boil. People said that in the 1970s and then we took the Thatcher medicine (albeit reluctantly at times) and no longer had to swallow our pride. A sense of fatality should not hinder national ambition - if it does then that shall be our final downfall.

[MAN777]

"A sense of fatality should not hinder national ambition - if it does then that shall be our final downfall"

So whose national ambition is it to:

Spend xxxBillions on a massive project that will ensure that the UKs transport system becomes even more SEcentric than it already is.

Its certainly not mine and I can safely say its probably not the ambition of a huge portion of the UK population.

Like it or not we are not a nation on our own, we are part of Europe and the facilities within Europe are for us to use, so why waste money chasing after the glory of who has the most runways and best airport. Laying down even more concrete is not the answer, we have to make the most of what we already have and if that means using the other hubs then so be it.

The UK is not the centre of the universe.

[racedo]

I keep trying to figure the economic benefit in having passengers fly from other overseas airports to connect in the UK to elsewhere where they don't spend any money or pay any taxes.

Smart move on the designation front as just adds even more obstacles to Boris Airport.

[jabird]

MAN777,

Like it or not we are not a nation on our own, we are part of Europe and the facilities within Europe are for us to use, so why waste money chasing after the glory of who has the most runways and best airport. Laying down even more concrete is not the answer, we have to make the most of what we already have and if that means using the other hubs then so be it.

Sorry, but that is a totally daft argument.

If someone leaves LHR to transit through another hub, they still use one seat. None of the airlines you mention would want to use such large aircraft on a these shorter routes - they want to offer frequency of service, both for connections and business travellers. Loading an A380 for a quick hop to CDG is not logical - I was amazed to read AF actually tried it, but I don't think for very long!

We have laid a network of motorways and are about to lay hundreds of km of new railway. If a new runway does go ahead, the total land take for it will be miniscule, and LHR will remain one of the world's most financially efficient (ie yield per square km) airports.

[jabird]

I keep trying to figure the economic benefit in having passengers fly from other overseas airports to connect in the UK to elsewhere where they don't spend any money or pay any taxes.

They may spend in the terminal and they may overnight. I'd be interested in seeing stats about what transfer passengers are worth to airports. I guess quite a bit if they have a longer dwell time, as their stay is determined by the difference between inbound arrival and outbound departure, not a simple departure -x calculation, where x could be very small for an online check-in without hand luggage.

The other benefit from transfer passengers is that they make routes viable, which otherwise would not be. Look at any city in China with a European route. Outside SHA & PEK, they are almost all served by one airline, one route. How many people seriously want to fly from Helsinki to Chongqing? Hardly any, but add all the feeders and you have a route.

For many routes, a direct service is still preferable to the airlines, as that will earn higher yields, but the transfers still top that up.

[jabird]

Jabird, new aircraft are getting increasingly quieter (and cleaner).

That is very true, but it is counterbalanced by the ability of locals to complain. I cycle around BHX quite a bit, and it really is a question of location & perception. I've seen a 777 glide in and barely make a whisper above local traffic and I've been under seemingly "very noisy" 738s!

Remember the A380 is going to be with us for a while, so I don't think you can say technology will remove the noise just yet.

Likewise, yes I agree new a/c are getting cleaner too, but that has to be offset against the industry still potentially growing (see growth - 2027 thread).

Not convinced about HS2 loading more pax on LHR. Will a 15 minute time saving between Birmingham and London really alter travel plans when there's still the hassle of travel between London and Heathrow? Then consider the aggravation at the Birmingham end of getting to Curzon Street (not New Street) station!

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the direct link into T5 will be viable, but that is what is proposed. Otherwise, there will be a simple change at Old Oak Common, putting all terminals in easy reach - well, apart from 6 perhaps, anyone know where that would go?

Time saving to Brum is more like 30 mins, or people could use the M42 parkway station.

When I flew into LHR in Jan, I had to lug a heavy bag up and down stairs in Oxford Circus. So in that respect, hs2 would be far more useful, except I live in Coventry!

The effect on marginal seats would not be as great as you suggest, especially those nearer the airport than Justine's, though agree that she would be vulnerable in Putney, maybe it's a price worth paying?

It would be a tough one to call, and if I was looking at LHR & LGW purely as a political strategist, I'd say let's not worry about pissing off our loyal supporters as they won't change anyway.

For every LHR nimby, there's another who wants a job - but it is still a big risk to go ahead with the new airport. If that means losing a disposable member of the cabinet, that will have to be the risk they take.

The second runway at LGW is only less politically risky because the local MPs have such large majorities that they could hold on to their seats even with a backlash from voters. It's a possible basis for government policy (?) but resolves nothing.

Wherever there is a big project of any kind, you will find political jostling. In this case, it isn't just about the votes, LGW has a much lower noise footprint, so in those terms it would be better to spread the load there, and there would be more flexibility to add a 3rd runway if called for, and to optimise efficiency with a midfield terminal.

Also, LGW does solve the capacity problem for point to point services, and could work as a hub in its own right, but ideally, expansion at LHR would be better. But we don't live in ideally!

[MAN777]

JABIRD

Yes at the moment I agree the European airlines wouldn't do it, but my point is in time if the demand keeps rising and LHR can't offer the slots then they may use larger aircraft and still maintain the frequency.

Its already happening with EK A380s, what is it now 4 a day with possibly a 5th ? Do you really think all those pax are going to DXB only ? Like hell they are !

So not a daft argument just looking ahead thats all.

Yes AF did fly CDG - LHR with the A380 for a while but it was mainly for crew training, I know, I went on one of the flights.

[jabird]

Its already happening with EK A380s, what is it now 4 a day with possibly a 5th ? Do you really think all those pax are going to DXB only ? Like hell they are !

So not a daft argument just looking ahead thats all.

OK, not daft, I just think you are extrapolating a projection too far.

If capacity in London is constrained, then it would be logical to expect the average aircraft size on any route to move upwards, but the biggest birds would still generally be the ones that were going to fly the furthest.

So if the European hub carriers (and why not SK, OS, LX etc) all upgraded to the A380, why not all routes? That would give you 186m pax per year, assuming the same number of movements, standard 3 class config and 70% LF.

Obviously, this isn't going to happen. What will happen is that airlines will use other airports apart from LHR if they want to feed their hubs. So as for those EK 380's, that is only part of the picture, as they also serve LGW, BHX, NCL & MAN too (in England). What were LH's aims with their LGW-FRA route?

[Dannyboy39]

Its the $64,000 question - what is the solution to the capacity crisis?

Heathrow is the UK's only hub airport - the national gateway. It is currently at 98% capacity and there is no room or political motive for expansion.

Justine Greening, who is in charge of aviation policy in the government; her constituency is in Putney - directly under the Heathrow flightpath. Looking at the aeronautical charts, aircraft will be travelling at 2,000ft on approach - noticeable for noise. With prevailing winds, I'd say about 75% of landings take place on Runways 27L&R.

In my opinion, the expansion of Heathrow needs to happen sooner rather than later. Heathrow is already being left behind its international competitors at Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris. Many of the 21 key emerging market destinations are in China. There are under 9,000 weekly scheduled seats to Chinese destinations; around half of what there is at Frankfurt and Paris and around 2,000 short than Amsterdam - all of these airport's are expanding or have expanded recently. Heathrow stands to lose out on business, tourism and trade. Amsterdam, which is connected to 16 UK airports with enough frequency, is effectively a hub for the UK already.

The political argument seems to be an environmental one - it certainly isn't. Flights don't just disappear, they just move elsewhere. APD, which is supposed to be an environmental detterant, does not work - it does more harm than good.

As for HS2, the major airport players want it - Heathrow and Manchester Airports, in their government submissions, backed the plans IF its extended eventually to Manchester and then onto Scotland. It will be an opportunity to rebalance the UK's economy as well as feeding more into the UK's national hub. Manchester will see an enhanced local economy as more international business will relocate to the North, as a result of more long haul flights.

One slight flaw in the plan - people think this will end domestic flights. Will it? Look at FlyBE's network. HS2 will not effect Aberdeen, Exeter, Belfast, Norwich and all the other domestic destinations. It would only effect one route at Heathrow - the LHR-MAN route, so environmental benefits would be negligable.

[racedo]

They may spend in the terminal and they may overnight. I'd be interested in seeing stats about what transfer passengers are worth to airports. I guess quite a bit if they have a longer dwell time, as their stay is determined by the difference between inbound arrival and outbound departure, not a simple departure -x calculation, where x could be very small for an online check-in without hand luggage.

The other benefit from transfer passengers is that they make routes viable, which otherwise would not be. Look at any city in China with a European route. Outside SHA & PEK, they are almost all served by one airline, one route. How many people seriously want to fly from Helsinki to Chongqing? Hardly any, but add all the feeders and you have a route.

For many routes, a direct service is still preferable to the airlines, as that will earn higher yields, but the transfers still top that up.

That may be the case BUT spending X Bilion to achieve it is nonsense as there is no way payback will ever be achieved.

Infrastructure spending is good, spending for Ego is wrong.

[pax britanica]

What a joke we Brits are- we have Europe’s busiest airport and the world’s busiest air travel city. We depend on international finance and tourism for money and jobs .So what do we do-have no transport policy to allow people to get to London quickly and easily.
Airports need scale -a reason for LHRs traditional success so diversifying to LGW STN Luton etc (what next London Fairoaks, London Blackbushe!) is not really much use when competing with Paris Amsterdam etc.
So too choice Boris Island -a project which will take ten years longer and three times the current budget based on past experience or expand LHR.
Ok so there are a few of the chatterati in Richmond and Putney but one of the reasons they live there is because its near Heathrow-they don't go to Stanstead for a 5am departure to Wroclaw. A third runway will actually improve things for them as it will be mostly a landing runway and shift a lot of traffic overflights northward. Approaches from the east to a new runway-i.e. LHR westerlies cross a lot of open ground –golf courses parks a etc until well towards London when they overfly areas which shall we say have a significant demographic contrast with Richmond, Putney and Kew.ie the people who live there don’t count as far as the pollies are concerned. From the other direction it’s all open country except for Eton , well the boys are privileged all their lives so a bit of mild aircraft noise won’t hurt them.
So no problem with that side of Heathrow expansion. Now to address the wider area political problem. Why not announce the Estuary project is being brought forward to 2022 and that LHR will close and be converted into Europe’s largest warehouse depot and lorry park with now available space used for a prison and immigration detention centre and perhaps a giant incinerator /waste site and Europe's largest 'Travelling Community' site. Now see what that does to people’s opinions as house prices fall, employment opportunities vanish and people who work at Heathrow have to face the awful prospect of moving to the east of London in the desolate cold flatlands of outer East and South east London. How many BA captains will want to move from Camberley, Farnham, Henley, and Wokingham to Benfleet, Gravesend Dagenham and Tilbury?
Giving every householder in Sipson £500K probably cost less than consultancy fees for Boris island , which takes care of the people who really are affected and witht hat overall scenario who is going to complain about a bit of noise?
Simples!!

[MAN777]

PAX Britanica for Prime minister :ok:

[jabird]

In my opinion, the expansion of Heathrow needs to happen sooner rather than later. Heathrow is already being left behind its international competitors at Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris.

No it isn't. Heathrow is part of the London market, which is around three times the size of AMS. AMS, CDG, and to a lesser extent FRA all have a budget airline presence which inflates their passenger numbers.

Many of the 21 key emerging market destinations are in China. There are under 9,000 weekly scheduled seats to Chinese destinations; around half of what there is at Frankfurt and Paris and around 2,000 short than Amsterdam - all of these airport's are expanding or have expanded recently.

Look outside PEK&SHA - most cities have one route to one European city, the rest transfer. I don't doubt that China is growing. In the longer run, Poland will too. The question is, how is this growth counter-balanced by less than healthy markets such as the USA?

Are we going to expand LHR because the whole market is growing, or to serve one or two distant countries?


Amsterdam, which is connected to 16 UK airports with enough frequency, is effectively a hub for the UK already.

Again, not really relevant. AMS has links from many English airports because it is far enough away for a flight route to be justified, and there is still the small matter of the North Sea separating us from them. Most of these cities have reasonable road & rail connections with London, and given the rates of APD, there is little (LBA, LPL, MME etc) or reason (BRS, BHX etc) to assume that a flight route to LHR would still exist, even if the slots were there.

[ETOPS]

pax britanica


How many BA captains will want to move from Camberley, Farnham, Henley, and Wokingham ..

Non - we all live in France and Spain :ok: