New London west airport

[jabird]

Just picked this up in the Indy:

IoS exclusive: Secret plan for four-runway airport west of Heathrow - News & Advice - Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ios-exclusive-secret-plan-for-fourrunway-airport-west-of-heathrow-8100772.html)

Ambitious plans for a four-runway airport near Heathrow are to be submitted to the Government as a solution to the aviation crisis that has divided the coalition, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

A world-leading infrastructure firm is assessing sites to the west and north-west of London which could rival, or even replace, Heathrow to challenge other European hubs in providing air links with the Far East. Sites in Oxfordshire and Berkshire could potentially be in the frame for the airport, estimated to cost £40bn to £60bn.

My first thoughts are - given the £20-50bn price tag for Boris Island, why is a land based option costing this much? Moreover, where the hell are they going to find the land in Ox / Bucks for such a grandiose scheme?

[rowly6339]

Secret Plans For 'London West' Airport (http://news.sky.com/story/979774/secret-plans-for-london-west-airport)

More daft ideas :ugh:

[ETOPS]

Has everyone in UK aviation planning taken leave of their senses?

[DaveReidUK]

"A world-leading infrastructure firm is assessing potential sites to the west and north-west of London.

They are understood to include possible sites in Oxfordshire and Berkshire."

This has to be a wind-up.

[Tableview]

Building an airport where Swindon is would solve many problems. They could leave the rail station and the Steam museum.

It would have good road and rail access.

[DaveReidUK]

Tempting though wiping Swindon off the map might be, "the airport would need to be located within 30 minutes' travel of the capital" seems to rule that out.

Looking on the bright side, I expect a letter from BAA offering to buy my house for twice the market value will drop through my letter-box tomorrow. :O

[Red Four]

So what possible site names might go into this particular back-to-the-future 'red herring' hat?

Lyneham
Greenham Common
Upper Heyford
Abingdon (wasn't that earmarked for a reservoir?)
Benson
Wing
Cublington?

[Dannyboy39]

Cublington was always the best option during the Roskill in the early 1970s. Not now with LTN about 10-20 miles away.

[DaveReidUK]

Lyneham
Greenham Common
Upper Heyford
Abingdon (wasn't that earmarked for a reservoir?)
Benson
Wing
Cublington?

Probably not Wing and Cublington, given that they both refer to the same location. :*

Of the others, none of these comes within the 30-minutes-from London criterion, and none has more than one re-usable runway so I would expect the "planners" (using the term loosely) are looking at greenfield sites.

[DaveReidUK]

More gems from the Independent's scoop:

"Environmental and noise requirements: any new site will need to have a 16km long x 3.5km wide glide path either side of the airport, without overflying large built-up areas".

So no end of choices within half an hour W/NW of London, then. :*

"It is unclear if Heathrow would survive should the plans be accepted, though it is thought the two could complement each other in the first years of the new airport's operations."

"What this idea does is put people's pipedreams, like 'Boris Island', to one side and shifts the political debate away from Heathrow, to work on something that is based on properly grounded infrastructure requirements."

"A motion at the Liberal Democrats' annual conference in Brighton will "firmly" reject the Thames estuary airport, rule out new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and propose better use of existing capacity. It also demands an "independent, evidence-based study to find a location for a hub airport or a suitable airport to expand into a hub for the long-term" which could clear the way for the consortium's proposal."

And my favourite:

"Unlike most other airports in Britain, Heathrow is almost at capacity already, with 70 million passengers arriving and departing in 2011. Every day 190,100 pass through on 1,250 flights, drinking 26,000 cups of tea."

Clearly something needs to be done urgently to get those tea consumption figures up.

IoS exclusive: Secret plan for four-runway airport west of Heathrow - News & Advice - Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ios-exclusive-secret-plan-for-fourrunway-airport-west-of-heathrow-8100772.html)

[840]

Sounds like a fine way for the Tories to threaten the safety of their safest seats.

[A30yoyo]

Why not choose a runway layout inspired by Swindon's Magic Roundabout?All things are possible :)

[Phileas Fogg]

Swindon could have already had an airport with a 6,000' runway ... except that the stupid baskets approved a Honda car plant to be built upon South Marston aerodrome!

[adfly]

Will be in a better place for most of the country that Boris Island, and more likely as a viable replacement for Heathrow. I guess the main problem is finding somewhere appropriate to put it without too many constraints (Ground space, Airspace, Posh NIMBYS, large populated ares etc!).

[xtypeman]

Lets preserve Swindon and its infamous round-about. But there are a couple of options potentionally avaliable beside the bl**ding obvious of runway three at LHR.......
Both of these are relatively close to Swindon.

Fairford one long runway already in place.......

and of course an already established international airport Brize Norton.......

Back to the bunker....

Xtype

[DaveReidUK]

Why not choose a runway layout inspired by Swindon's Magic Roundabout?

Or how about six runways arranged in a Star of David? They could put the terminals in the middle until they run out of space. :O

[KING6024]

Wroughton isn't far away either.
Colin.

[racedo]

Dunno

How about M4eathrow, its lovely and flat (in places), not going to get NIMBYs complaining and already has a number of Terminal Options..........aka Motorway services along the way.

[Fairdealfrank]

The key is "near Heathrow", so could it be Slough (also on the Great Western Railway, but with no magic roundabout) rather than Swindon that may be obliterated? Apologies to John Betjeman who thought of it first.

What on earth are they on man....and can I have some?

BTW where does the figure of 13mi. for the distance between LHR and NHT come from? It's actually 6 mi.. More sloppy journalism?

PS isn't "London West" FR-speak for Bournemouth-Hurn?

[Burpbot]

Hmm let's think, an existing airport with infrastructure located in the centre of all major road and rail networks, plenty of room for expansion. A 2 hour drive radius to most of the uk's population and when hs2 arrives half hourish from London! Brainwave? Answers on a postcard......

Ignore the fact it's north of the m25 :mad:

[pax britanica]

Its on another thread but I will refloat my suggestion here that there is ample land just west of LHR-a bit undualting but earthmovers can fix that. Hardly any houses and they are all owned by the same Family so only one small group to deal with Also very convenient for Legoland and a popular castle, I cannot think why no one has looked at this option before.

I also made the point that by the time UK has made its mind up all the interline trafic will have gone elsewhere, AMS,CDG,FRA and a two runway LHR will be able to handle whats left of demand anyway.

Just build a third runway but give the good peopel of Sipson a fair and attractive settlement, I doubt many are that opposed to moving but frightened that as always the Government will spend a fortune to try and cheat the people who have to move to the greatest possible degree
PB

[Fairdealfrank]

Never going to happen! Forget about HS2, it is too far into the future and would take pax away from BHX to LHR, not the other way around.

And the airlines are going to leave LHR and shift to BHX because......

[Burpbot]

Bhx is not the only airport or location that fits the bill!

The sad truth is like the new wembly and the Olympics and just about everything else, the uk only exists inside the m25! :mad:

[Fairdealfrank]

BHX doesn't have the range of destinations and the frequency of flights.

No disrespect to BHX, but the fact remains that carriers tend to use MAN as a second UK destination rather than BHX (or GLA for that matter). There are only a handful of carriers at, and destinations served from, BHX that are not also at LHR.

HS2 won't change this any more than the motorway system did back in the day.

IF LHR operating at over 100% of capacity becomes untenable, BHX (and others) will be used purely as stepping stone to AMS and KL will be "quids in".

That is the problem in a nutshell: if LHR isn't expanded, traffic goes abroad, not to other UK airports, taking tourism, business, trade and inward investment with it.

It's not a difficult concept to understand!

[Fairdealfrank]

"Near" Heathrow is the key: so unlikely to be in Berks/Bucks/Oxon.

Are the 2 existing rwys included or do they mean 4 more?

Near LHR, adjacant to the Great Western railway, crossrail, and and the motorway network, large swathes of England accessible by train with one change (at Reading).........sounds like the area just north of LHR.

If it isn't, why the secrecy? and again, same as Fantasy Island, how do they persuade airlines and pax to use it rather than LHR?

[Phileas Fogg]

(That is the problem in a nutshell: if LHR isn't expanded, traffic goes abroad)

So it's a problem, in a nutshell, if much of the air and noise pollution goes abroad?

The reggie spotters might be disappointed if it goes abroad but I'd imagine many others would be dancing in the streets!

[A and C]

All this talk of an airport west of Heathrow is about defusing the opposition to the third runway at Heathrow from those living to the west of Heathrow.

It is a roundabout way of saying if you oppose the third runway at LHR we will build it next to your house!

With that message from the government a few extra flights going over your head at 6000 ft sounds like a lot better option, so best not say too much about the third runway.

[racedo]

How much do transit passengers really bring into the UK........... I mean real expenditure.

[Tableview]

Not a lot in terms of direct spend, but they pay APD and taxes (depending on route and stopover times) and as many of them fly on British carriers (not that there are too many of those left now) there is an indirect benefit.

Also, the friendly and efficient welcome they get at the major airhubs might encourage them to come back for a holiday or business trip ..... or maybe not!

[racedo]

Not a lot in terms of direct spend, but they pay APD and taxes (depending on route and stopover times) and as many of them fly on British carriers (not that there are too many of those left now) there is an indirect benefit.


Think APD is limited as its a transit


Also, the friendly and efficient welcome they get at the major airhubs might encourage them to come back for a holiday or business trip ..... or maybe not!

Dunno as few airports I have transited through have encouraged me to go and visit the city.

Yup there are some I will or have visited but transiting through ORD has made no opinion on me wanting to visit Chicago etc.

[airsmiles]

You've really got to think laterally here.

BA/IAG buy KLM from loss-making Air France. A new off-shore airport is then built for BA/KLM to share as their home base in the middle of the North Sea, well away from any people at all.

The new Schip-row Airport is built for a modest £1,000bn with 12 runways in all directions and will be completely self-sufficient due to the 10,000 wind turbines located on the rail bridges from London/Amsterdam.

HS3 is then built at £500bn so that both countries can access Heathrow-Baan in only 30 minutes from central London/Amsterdam.

[BHX5DME]

LITTLE has changed within the Coalition over its long summer (http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/343464/Bumpy-ride-over-airport#) recess. Both sides are still engaged in an unedifying squabble over key policies and nowhere is the strain proving greater than over airport policy.
The Coalition’s twice-delayed airport capacity consultation is due out this autumn, with Cameron apparently warming to backbench demands to put the ruled-out Heathrow third runway back on the agenda.

A Sunday Express poll reveals voters are just about equally divided over where a new hub airport should be located, though Birmingham Airport narrowly topped the poll.

It’s something perhaps for Cameron to consider when the Tories travel to Britain’s second city for their annual party (http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/343464/Bumpy-ride-over-airport#) conference next month.

[pax britanica]

The issue of transit passengers is not what they bring to UK/LHR in money terms its what allows BA and VS and others to operate such extensive networks and frequencies from LHR. Take away say 30% of the traffic and LHR becomes Stockholm or Brussels and a much much more limited service and thats what hams the UL economy in terms of tourism and commerce.
And it isnt like the traffic goes to the other side of the world it strengthens AMS CDG and FRA and the trend continues on

As for the comment about noise and polution-get real please , aircraft are a negligable source of polution in both CO2 and Noise compared to road traffic-are you advocating a return toa stone age economy?

Air travelis a must in the modern world and it must be properly managed both in terms of polution control and sensible managed growth

[dye]

Is this the 'secret' four runway airport. Pleiade | Projects | LOX | Documents (http://www.pleiade.org/lox_01.html) This report is for LOX airport, located between Grove and Didcot. Also has an option to move Brize Norton to this location.

[Fairdealfrank]

That really is the point as stated by pax britanica.

Would BA and VS fly to so many North American cities if it wan't for the transfer traffic. Would BA fly to so many cities in France, in Spain, in Germany, in Italy, etc., if it wan't for the transfer traffic to their longhaul at LHR. Would BA have a presence in India outside Bombay and Delhi, if it wan't for the transfer traffic?

Without transfer pax many destinations would be unviable, reducing choice for those starting and/ending their flights at LHR, and it's the same for any hub airport throughout the world.

[racedo]

Sorry guys but giving the "well we need transit pax as they would go elsewehre" doesn't really cut it.

Why should £x billion be spent on an airport if there is no payback.

Its not a P***** contest with AMS / FRA / CDG to see who has the biggest airport.

Spending billions on an airport so thousands of jobs will be created to be filled by economic migrants makes not much sense.

[Fairdealfrank]

Yes it is!

In business it is called "maintaining market share", and aviation is a business, not a public service.

Why do you think they talk about airports "competing" with eachother and "competing" to attarct airlines? Why do competition authorities get involved?

[pax britanica]

racedo
You have it hopelessly wrong.This is not about airports competing with each other -or a mines bigger than yours situation. It is about maintaining London and indeed Englands global competitiveness. And thats true even if all the jobs at the airport are filled by natives of Burkina Fasa or where-ever.
if you want your children to be unemployed or have no chance of a serious high level high quality job keep on complaining because no big airport for London means no big bucks and much as I dislike the unequal distribution of those bucks we are better off having them shared out here than France or Holland or Germany

[DaveReidUK]

Sorry guys but giving the "well we need transit pax as they would go elsewhere" doesn't really cut it.

OK, how about "well we need transit pax as they would go elsewhere and many of the services they used would thereby become unprofitable and cease, resulting in UK plc losing connectivity to many potential export markets".

What part of that do you not get ?

[Buster the Bear]

How about Brize after they close the RAF down for cost savings?

[racedo]

It is about maintaining London and indeed Englands global competitiveness. And thats true even if all the jobs at the airport are filled by natives of Burkina Fasa or where-ever.
if you want your children to be unemployed or have no chance of a serious high level high quality job keep on complaining because no big airport for London means no big bucks and much as I dislike the unequal distribution of those bucks we are better off having them shared out here than France or Holland or Germany

Global competitiveness of the UK is not maintained by spending billions on another airport with loads of just above minimum wage jobs in retail outlets / baggage control and other services.

The idea that needing Heathrow with 100 million passengers per year will make UK super competitive is a complete nonsense.

Multinationals bosses not really that worried because why bother with Heathrow when you can use Netjets to a smaller aiport where it doesn't take hours in and out especially when your production facility is nowhere near.

[racedo]

In business it is called "maintaining market share", and aviation is a business, not a public service.
Thereby requiring a payback, spending billions on a new airport there is no payback in our lifetime.

As for Market share....................thats a nonsense.

[Dannyboy39]

Bhx is not the only airport or location that fits the bill!
Luton probably is.

[1013.25mb]

racedo

Billions spent by private firms that will payback into the public purse through job creation etc.

You either live on a different planet, or have nothing to do with the industry if you think that the UK's aviation capacity is adequate at this moment in time.

:rolleyes:

[LGS6753]

Danny,

The Liberal Dumocrats are on to it already. They want to rule out a third runway at Heathrow, and expansion of Gatwick and Stansted. What does that leave? Good old Luton!

PS Don't tell Ms Greening.

[pax britanica]

racedo
its not about the bosses its the thousnds of travellign business people who fill the seats on BA EAsy jet and Virgin plus USA AA etc every day.
if easy access for people on this scale is no longer possible-and frankly it is marginal now - companies will move or will choose to do business elsewehere.

As for your arguments on payback-who does a simialr calulation ona road railway line or hospital-no one. They are essential infrastructure and do not and cannot generate a direct payback but if you dont have them you dont have much of a society.
Its not ideal another LHR runway but it is the best option-i will not cause much more polution than today due to ever quieter and lower emission aircraft engines and a third runway approach paths touch surprisingly few people and with little coloateral impact seeing as all the construction is taking place next to an existing airport so envirnmental damage is very limited.
You have your right to an opinion of course but I think you are of the mark on this one

[DaveReidUK]

Multinationals bosses not really that worried because why bother with Heathrow when you can use Netjets to a smaller aiport where it doesn't take hours in and out especially when your production facility is nowhere near.

Well that's OK then.

Stuff the middle management, the salesmen and the entrepreneurs who do the spadework and put the deals together to win export business, except that they can't get to their markets any longer because the routes were only profitable with those transfer pax.

[racedo]

Billions spent by private firms that will payback into the public purse through job creation etc.

You either live on a different planet, or have nothing to do with the industry if you think that the UK's aviation capacity is adequate at this moment in time.

Sorry to give you really bad news..........................it isn't going to come from private firms.

There are no banks out there willing to lend billions to build an airport in London.

The myth it will payback billions to the taxpayer is a myth.

Taxpayer will have to fund billions in infrastructure with no hope of getting anything in return this shy of 2050.

[racedo]

its not about the bosses its the thousnds of travellign business people who fill the seats on BA EAsy jet and Virgin plus USA AA etc every day.
if easy access for people on this scale is no longer possible-and frankly it is marginal now - companies will move or will choose to do business elsewehere.


Nonsense as thousands of business people are not going to stop doing business because LHR West is not in existence.

Claiming the fact is stating that the North of England, Scotland and Wales have no business that deals with overseas because LHR has reached capacity.


As for your arguments on payback-who does a simialr calulation ona road railway line or hospital-no one. They are essential infrastructure and do not and cannot generate a direct payback but if you dont have them you dont have much of a society.


There has been no payback done which is why PPP contracts have the taxpayers screwed for next 25 years.

There is a real difference between providing services for population who live there and those who fly especially from another part of EU or US and pay no tax to UK so BA / Virgin / AA have profitable routes.


Its not ideal another LHR runway but it is the best option-i will not cause much more polution than today due to ever quieter and lower emission aircraft engines and a third runway approach paths touch surprisingly few people and with little coloateral impact seeing as all the construction is taking place next to an existing airport so envirnmental damage is very limited.
You have your right to an opinion of course but I think you are of the mark on this one

Taxpayer gets screwed whether its a new Airport or extension.

[marksi]

This is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

How do you reduce opposition to Bad Thing Number 1? You say "OK, we've listened and as a result of the opposition to it,we won't do Bad Thing Number 1, we'll instead do Even Worse Thing Number 2".

Suddenly Bad Thing Number 1 is not quite so bad after all.

[DaveReidUK]

Many people misunderstand the concept of a Hub airport. They call for expansion of regional airports. This is missing the point. Regional airports will expand anyway. There is a potential for smaller competitive Hubs in the regions. But we need to develop and modernise our main Hub, or get left behind in the global economy.

London is one of the great 'World Cities'. It needs a 24hr world class airport with sufficient capacity.

Whether it is a new airport, or a redevelopment of LHR. It needs to be done.


While some of BAA's current PR campaign is dire, bordering on disingenuous, they have actually made a rather good video explaining the dynamics of hubs, which should be required viewing for contributors to the debate:

What is a hub airport? - YouTube

Apart from the inexplicable reference to some place called "Dyce", wherever that is (it's actually the original name of what is now Aberdeen Airport).

Of course nothing in the video is specific to Heathrow, it would apply to UK plc's hub wherever that ends up being located.

[Skipness One Echo]

So it's a problem, in a nutshell, if much of the air and noise pollution goes abroad?
With us having left our future descendents indebted to pay for all our todays, perhaps it might be an idea to maintain some form of "jobs" and "industry". Something to get the economy going like a workable hub airport. Crazy notion in the current Green climate I know. I may be mad.

[racedo]

It's good to have racedo put the opposite viewpoint. Not because I agree with him, but because he represents a very common perspective among people outside our industry.
There is a very strong public opinion growing. Anti-business, anti-globalisation, anti-capitalism and sometime completely anti-development. Many people are questioning the whole concept of economic growth and the profit motive. There is a backlash against the 'greedy' rich. Especially bankers. There is a strong feeling of conspiracy involving bankers, politicians and big business.

I don't think racedo is approaching from this direction, but he questions the economic need for a large Hub airport.



People do not oppose progress but people question unfettered development with no rhyme or reason when the benefit is never going to be felt except some foreign transit passengers.

I also oppose HS2 because I see massive spending with little benefit to many.

Coming up with the standard "oh you don't understand aviation" pretty much ensures opposition because you then telling people to spend billions and trust us !!!!!!!!

I asked a reasonable question about how much was it physicallly worth to UK but nobody seems to know about this apart from rhetoric.

Telling me it will protect jobs or create them and taxpayer will benefit from some tax sounds great but so will a war...............

[davidjohnson6]

I'll have a go

Britain while a former manufacturing centre has closed many of its factories and our economy, for better or worse, now relies on the service sector and being a centre for trade and large global corporations having their European HQ in the UK. Yes, that ultimately means as money or goods pass through the London, our job is to take a small cut as a fee or commission, and then pass it on, incentivising other participants to keep the number of trade centres to a minimum. There is no significant Mittelstand to the extent that it exists in Germany.

An economy dependent on services and being a regional centre for megacorporations and trade relies on good connectivity with the rest of the world. Without that high level of connectivity, large corporations and the high paying jobs tend to migrate to places which are more suitable to their needs (namely Europe wide rather than just UK).

Chongquing in western China has a population of 7 million, but about 28 million if you include the urbanised suburbs. Yes, 28 million people. Chongquing airport in 2011 had 19 million passengers. China Southen and China Eastern both have substantial operations at Chongquing airport. There are currently no direct passenger links between Chongquing airport and a European airport, but there is already likely pent-up demand for a direct flight.

As Europe's regional trade centre, Heathrow is the obvious candidate for a route to Chongquing, but it's full, so Hainan Airlines are instead looking to a route to Paris CDG. The result is that all Chongquing trade is heavily based to go via Paris for the next few years, and London loses a bit of its sheen as Europe's trade centre.
Now do the same thing with Chengdu, Wuhan, Shenyang, Guangzhou, Xiamen, Kunming, Nanjing, Xian, Hangzhou, Changsha, Dalian and Qingdao and give some of the soon-to-be-needed Shanghai frequencies to Frankfurt. The result is that for Europe-China trade, the centre becomes somewhere other than London, and we end up with rather less substance to our claim of being a trade centre.

Rotterdam as the world's 3nd busiest port (recently trumped by Shanghai and Singapore) makes its money from being a transit centre for shipping of bulk goods throughout Europe. Much of the volume sent through Rotterdam is not intended for the Netherlands - it's all about being a European hub for shipping for subsequent distribution elsewhere. Their port is enormous and not a pretty sight with a significant environmental impact from the oil refineries built to be near a major port, but it keeps Rotterdam busy and ensures the Netherlands a place as a major distribution centre in the world. Rotterdam has 5 refineries, equivalent to over 80% of total UK oil refining capacity. If you want to import or export goods from Europe to the world on a regular basis, you have to be in Rotterdam just to get the frequency of shipping for container movement. An example is a Dutch court recently imposing restrictions on Samsung's new Android tablet device effectively causes huge damage to Samsung's European supply chain.

If trade migrates away from London to a sufficient degree, our claim of being a trade centre starts to look like the Emperor's new clothes, and megacorporations act accordingly.

The UK's economy needs global commerce to see London as the European centre for trade. If they don't, our future is stuffed

[Phileas Fogg]

Whilst GB likes to maintain it's famous (throughout Europe) "Island Mentality" GB/UK is actually in the EU these days, and has been for quite some time, and UK nationals have the rights to live and work throughout the EU.

Geography is against the south of England on this one, where to build a mega airport whilst minimising impact upon a local environment whereas the likes of France, Netherlands, Germany etc. have more wide and open spaces to construct such a mega airport, why not let a mega EU airport go to the close continent and then many a Brit could go and work there?

Oh, but then we'll have the nay sayers:

But we want to stay at home and not work away from our home domicile ..... Well best find a career outside of transport then, or:

But UK will lose so much in taxes ..... Which UK only wastes such as the £8bn+ it wasted on the Nimrod programme, the money it's wasting sailing an aircraft carrier around with no fixed wing aircraft to put upon or the money UK wastes fighting wars upon behalf of USA, or:

But we don't speak French, Dutch, German etc. ..... What do you call a person that speaks two languages ..... bilingual, what do you call a person who only speaks one language ..... English :)

[Fairdealfrank]

Excellent analysis, davidjohnson6!

Quote: "What do you call a person that speaks two languages ..... bilingual, what do you call a person who only speaks one language ..... English"

Always thought that the answer is: "American". Ho hum.


Quote: "This is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

How do you reduce opposition to Bad Thing Number 1? You say "OK, we've listened and as a result of the opposition to it,we won't do Bad Thing Number 1, we'll instead do Even Worse Thing Number 2".

Suddenly Bad Thing Number 1 is not quite so bad after all."

Indeed, allude to the idea of permanent all-day mixed mode operations at LHR as the only way to increase capacity (but not address delays) if there are to be no new rwys.

This means that flightpath residents lose their daily half-day of no planes overhead.

This concentrates minds, and 1 or 2 more rwys doesn't sound so bad after all, provided that segregated mode and alternation is retained.

[Fairdealfrank]

Much too far out!

[jabird]

As for your arguments on payback-who does a simialr calulation ona road railway line or hospital-no one.

In the case of the railway, and HS2 in particular, this is not true. The whole case against HS2 has been lead by arguments saying there is no business case, as the BCR (benefit cost ratio) produced by the DfT is extremely low, even by their own standards.

Any development at LHR would be covered by private funds, with a proven market already there. As discussed ad infinitum on the Boris Island thread, there is no mechanism to ensure the commercial viability of this new airport, as LHR would have to close to make it work.

A Sunday Express poll reveals voters are just about equally divided over where a new hub airport should be located, though Birmingham Airport narrowly topped the poll.

Well fortunately we aren't governed by opinion poll. If the plane had just been invented, and we only needed one airport to serve the whole country, then BHX, or better still the Rugby Airport proposal, might be a good bet. However, that is not the case, so back in the real world we realise than a London airport needs to be in the London area.

As for the comment about noise and polution-get real please , aircraft are a negligable source of polution in both CO2 and Noise compared to road traffic-are you advocating a return toa stone age economy?

Pollution caused by air travel is not negligible. Cars are replaced every few years, and electric cars will become the norm in a decade or so. There is no such alternative on the horizon for aircraft. We cannot pretend these problems don't exist, but as already pointed out, Heathrow is the least-bad place for them to be dealt with. Talk of new airports, whether east or west, is a useful diversion to make LHR R3 look better.

You either live on a different planet, or have nothing to do with the industry if you think that the UK's aviation capacity is adequate at this moment in time.

The arguments against us are reasonable and rational. Oil isn't getting any cheaper. Most of us believe climate change is a real problem which needs to be addressed. Some business can be done by virtual means. However, on the other side, the internet means more business opportunities, rising incomes in the developing world mean more people wanting to travel, and increased leisure time and longer retirements in the west mean more opportunities to travel.

There is also the argument that aviation leads to more tourist spending outside the UK than it brings in through visitors.

How does all this balance out? I've yet to read a balanced crystal ball article which covers all those issues and makes a long term projection. However, BAA clearly take the view that they can make a return on their investment, and how many of us here can genuinely say we have the figures and the research to counter-act their optimism?

As Europe's regional trade centre, Heathrow is the obvious candidate for a route to Chongquing

Did Helsinki not beat them to this about a year ago?

Now do the same thing with Chengdu, Wuhan, Shenyang, Guangzhou, Xiamen, Kunming, Nanjing, Xian, Hangzhou

Has a route to Guangzhou not just started?

As for the others, they can all have access to London if they want it badly enough. Either BA decide that a new route to this cities is a top priority (rather than, say, Zagreb or Seoul), or the respective airline that has a hub in that city accepts a route to Gatwick.

So will London get "left behind", when London, with its 6+ airports is already still well ahead? No it won't, but Heathrow misses out on the transfer traffic, which in turn makes more routes there more viable and pushes out the thinner routes to Gatwick and elsewhere.

This should ensure that the business case for a third runway at Heathrow remains strong, and that it remains a net gain to the UK economy. The noise problem still won't go away any time soon.

[PAXboy]

ETOPSHas everyone in UK aviation planning taken leave of their senses? Ahhh, you presume that there IS such a thing as 'UK aviation planning'? :}

What a quaint thought that is. ;)

davidjohnson6 :ok:

racedo I thibk it is helpful for you to have put the opposition case in a logical and calm manner. One area of jobs that depends on LHR to a very great extent is called the M4 corridor. The wealth of business' and housing and jobs runs all the way to Wales.

[Phileas Fogg]

irdealfrank,

Americans DO NOT speak English, they speak American as they do where I live now, even I'm using/spelling words such as faucet, meter (metre), license etc. etc. etc.

[DaveReidUK]

Has a route to Guangzhou not just started?

Yes, China Southern started LHR-CAN early June, 3 days per week.

[WHBM]

If the plane had just been invented, and we only needed one airport to serve the whole country, then BHX, or better still the Rugby Airport proposal, might be a good bet.
You will notice that when the plane WAS just invented, and there was only one commecrial airport of consequence developed in the whole country, it did so at - London Croydon.

We need to get away from the ludicrous academic studies (and by academic I unfortunately often seem to mean something that might come out of the fourth form geography class) that seem to be about the control-freak author deciding on an abstract location to push people towards. The location's success or failure will be decided by whether the air passengers pay to go there or not. And as far as those from overseas are concerned, they will choose between London, Paris, Amsterdam, etc. Birmingham is not relevant to them, and Rugby (which is even further from London than Mirabel was from Montreal) certainly not.

[A30yoyo]

I thought the first one was Hounslow Heath?
Re Heathrow....they should never have closed Heston (or Langley!):)

[Phileas Fogg]

WHBM,

When I were a lad the 194 bus ran to/from "Croydon Airport", I don't believe it was ever called "London Croydon Airport".

[felixflyer]

Sounds like White Waltham to me. May have to take some of the bumps out of the runway though. Would be interesting watching an A380 doing the Waltham bounce into the air.

[DaveReidUK]

When I were a lad the 194 bus ran to/from "Croydon Airport", I don't believe it was ever called "London Croydon Airport".

No, I don't think it was either.

One of Croydon's USPs was that it was nearer to Paris than Hounslow Heath was.

Perhaps Edwina Currie has a point. :O

[WHBM]

Very good chaps ! Just trying to help out our younger and overses colleagues.

Whatever you choose to call it, it's much nearer to the source of its passengers than any proposed Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh International ever will be.

[A30yoyo]

Weirdly now that London is a 24/7 City the buses run to the closed Croydon Airport all night long.
Here's an interesting pre-war London City Airport project...a kind of bridge/Thames Barrier/Stol runway?
Sketch Detailing Plans For An Aerodrome Spanning The River (http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/sketch-detailing-plans-for-an-aerodrome-spanning-the-river-news-photo/3378654)

[Phileas Fogg]

But WHBM, amongst BOAC's early main operating bases were Whitchurch and Hurn ..... they weren't called "London" either :)

[davidjohnson6]

When Croydon was a major airport all passengers were British so knew where Croydon was. Anyone else was a Johnny Foreigner and to even ask where Croydon was clearly was insolent and making an insult to the British empire. Well something like that at least.

[Phileas Fogg]

Who could mistake where Croydon Airport was ... it was near to the Crystal Palace :)

Best one is the foreigners who question why HM Queen chose to build her Windsor Castle so close to LHR Airport :)

[jabird]

Can we reverse merge this thread (I was here first, so there!).

[Walnut]

I have said it before & I will repeat. Northolt as a domestic hub with a high speed monorail link to LHR has to be a short term answer. The proposed 3rd R/W at LHR is not going to much longer than Northolts & so will only be suitable for similar traffic. I reckon you could increase the movement rate at the combined hub by 25%. Plus you could link the HS2 into the complex somehow. Build time would be quick with just a simple domestic terminal at Northolt & an elevated monorail, twin track which would have minimal disruption on the ground below.

[jabird]

We need to get away from the ludicrous academic studies / Birmingham is not relevant to them, and Rugby (which is even further from London than Mirabel was from Montreal) certainly not.

I was merely saying that if we were going to have just one airport, then either of these locations might be up for debate. We don't and they are not (even if Rugby is slightly closer to London than Brum!).

Remember too that, for all their faults, the last govt went through a massive consultation on the issue, and afaik they looked at about 50 sites before having Rugby and Cliffe as the wildcard options. My theory at the time that Rugby at least was a way of making local heroes out of the two (Labour) MPs that the airport "would" have affected most, but they went in 05 and 10 elections respectively.

My question about the new airport is what research would this consortium have done that the government haven't already looked into? The estuary airport keeps moving around a bit, but it has always been the main site for a brand new airport, even if it is so deeply flawed.

Just where exactly do you fit this new behemoth with all the noise corridors it is claimed it would need without some very serious CP?

[jabird]

I have said it before & I will repeat. Northolt as a domestic hub with a high speed monorail link to LHR has to be a short term answer.

Well I think there's already a thread on this, but are there not three gaping flaws which also put this proposal in the academic category?

1) Runway alignment - and just as costly to rebuild E-W
2) LHR is already a sprawling mess with 5 terminals in 3 different areas. Still better to find space for a T6 than add a totally complicated monorail / people mover system which would need to have airside and landside compartments if also connecting to HS2.
3) You are still going to get a very vocal anti campaign, with more reason as NHT would see a massive increase in movements.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Sounds like White Waltham to me"

you could extend (and install) a runway all the way to Reading - right by the M4 and the GWR main line alongside

PERFECT!!! and I wouldn't have to move either :D:D:D

[jabird]

you could extend (and install) a runway all the way to Reading - right by the M4 and the GWR main line alongside

Sounds like a plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel. Did Eggwina suggest that one yesterday as well?

Just think, no more need to worry about opening up new parts of London to noise, just one great long stack of planes on approach to this mega runway!

Maybe they could build two more Shards as terminals, and then suspend this runway between them, further reducing the noise problem?

[Rivet Joint]

Let me get this straight, there is a recession on as we all know, and it is widely agreed part of the stimulus to turn things round involves a large, well functioning unrestricted airport to act as the gateway to the country and in particular to capitalise on the fast growing economies.

Right,

Point 1. Amsterdam, Paris are on the doorstep and are both as we speak capitalising on these fast growing markets, there is Germany building a new airport in its capital, the relentless growth of airports in the middle east like Dubai looking to become the new centre of the world.

Point 2. We have a long standing airport in Heathrow that is overwhelmingly accepted as the UK's hub.

Solution? Expand on this airport by building day and night, lock up all the nimby's, tell politicians what’s more important the nations standing or their pride and win the frontier of Europe's hub airport just as we have done in so many battles in the past.

Reality? Let’s build an airport in the middle of the Thames at great cost? Or let’s find a brownfield site big enough that just so happens to be within 30 mins of the most sparsely populated part of our country and build a whole new airport at great cost? (If such a brownfield site existed it would have become housing by now!)

Conclusion, politicians have tied their hands by making a ridiculous statement of no 3rd runway at our hub airport to win an election and in the process sold our country down the river.

HOW and I mean HOW?! Is it better to spend billions and billions on a whole new airport that will upset a whole new ecosystem, ruin the living standards of a whole new borough of London when we have a long standing airport that just needs another runway bolted on. Yes it is that simple, look at Berlin's so called new airport that is just a bolt on job.

It is actual insanity in practice, any other country in the world(!!!!!!!!) would not tolerate this lunacy when their economy is at stake.

Please someone out there tell me who is against Heathrow expanding and under what justification? 9apart from the politicians and because they promised)

[Bagso]

er hang on did I read correct..? Birmingham , Birmingham !

The status of Birmingham is on a par with it's football teams, ie below rockbottom !

This industrial wasteland swamped by the two mega economic mega giants of London and Manchester....get real, that really is a complete non starter.

A) Nobody wants to fly from there, even now !
B) We need a 4 runway airport, you aint going to put that in Birmingham, as the same principles applies as the constraints at Heathrow!

...as for second City, thats so outdated, I need to dust down my vinyl of "The Laughing Policemen".

Keep the faith Brummies, keep the faith.......thats all you got left !

[jabird]

Yes it is that simple, look at Berlin's so called new airport that is just a bolt on job.

Not really comparing like with like. If anything, the case over BER on paper defeats the LHR argument. BER is replacing TXL and THF, both of which are/were on heavily constrained, noise restricted sites. BER takes the noise problem out of town.

HOWEVER - we live in an environment where the case for a new airport must be made on commercial grounds. Moving airports away from population centres makes good political sense if it removes a noise problem. If we went by this logic, the government would dictate that LGW or STN should take the expansion, as they have much less of a noise footprint.

However, no commercial case has been made for expansion at either of these locations - GIP seem to have no interest in a new runway there, even after 2019, whereas if MOL does get his hands on part of STN, he'll be pushing for a Ryanway somewhere out in Suffolk, not to develop it into a quality hub facility.

So that takes us back to LHR, with its noise problems, but if it gets permission, there will be substantial Section 106 mitigation package to please the nimbys, but not one which is so great that it makes the scheme unviable.

[TartinTon]

Add 2 additional runways at LHR and concrete over Sipson/Harmondsworth plus Stanwell and Bedfont. The only loss will be to My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding who will lose 90% of its subject matter :E:E:E

[A30yoyo]

Relevant prog....Future silent airliner on BBC4 i-player for a few more hours (Prof Ann Dowling, pilot and engineer/mathematician)BBC Radio 4 - The Life Scientific (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015sqc7)
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/stories/2012/radio4_Dame_Ann_Dowling/

[pax britanica]

I certainly do not argue with Racedos right to an opinion and I am no fan of global capitalism belive me- a lot of them need putting up against a wall in a cellar somewhere but it is precisely ebcause odf the ordinary person that LHR needs extendign because they not the rich will lose their jobs and income.
And LHR already has a n airport-many of the local population work there (and decent peopel they are too-shame on you who made the gypsy wedding remark , perhaps you think that made in Chelsea people are more deserving?. The place where airport and runway development have the least impact is at LHR altho development south is a problem because the reservoirs get in the way and where on earth could you relocate those to.

This is one of those decisions that awkward for UK because we are such a small country but we do need to protect our economy and growth opportunities for the sake of our children
PB

[ZOOKER]

Birmingham isn't an airport, it's just an excuse for one.
The city's future obviously lies in its upcoming proliferation of 'managed motorways', and elevated to boot !
G'DUNK, G'DUNK. G'DUNK..........:E

[Skipness One Echo]

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/494488-new-london-west-airport-4.html

All in here already.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Not really comparing like with like. If anything, the case over BER on paper defeats the LHR argument. BER is replacing TXL and THF, both of which are/were on heavily constrained, noise restricted sites. BER takes the noise problem out of town."

No, it's nothing like. An accurate Berlin comparison would be: (1) close down LCY (equivelant of THF), (2) double the amount of rwys and build a new terminal at LHR (SXF) and (3) rename it "London Middlesex Airport" ("Berlin Brandenburg Airport").



Quote: "When Croydon was a major airport all passengers were British so knew where Croydon was. Anyone else was a Johnny Foreigner and to even ask where Croydon was clearly was insolent and making an insult to the British empire. Well something like that at least."

Forget about "Johnny Foreigner", today everyone knows Heathrow just as well, that's why we have "Heathrow" and "Gatwick" with all the other smaller airports are preceded by the word "London".


Quote: "Add 2 additional runways at LHR and concrete over Sipson/Harmondsworth plus Stanwell and Bedfont. The only loss will be to My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding who will lose 90% of its subject matter"

2 rwys can go north of LHR (they're shorter), no need to flatten Bedfont and Stanwell.

[DaveReidUK]

2 rwys can go north of LHR (they're shorter), no need to flatten Bedfont and Stanwell.

Not if you mean between the A4 and M4, they can't.

Unless you are envisaging one starting where the other ends, which would be rather a clever wheeze for ending up with one full-length runway.

[LN-KGL]

I would like to compare London with New York City. If we look at airports with scheduled passenger traffic within a 60 mile radius from both cities (with Buckingham Palace as the centre of London and Empire State Building as the centre of NYC) there are both differences and similarities.

Let's first start with passenger numbers for 2011
LON = 133.6 million
NYC = 106.4 million
London has 25% more passengers than NYC

Let's continue with counting the number of airports
LON = 7 airports (LCY, LHR, LGW, LTN, STN, SEN and OXF)
NYC = 4 airports (LGA, EWR, JFK and ISP)
London has 75% more airports within this 60 mile radius than NYC

What about the average runway length for these to cities?
LON = 2,625 metres
NYC = 2,624 metres
NYC is missing only 1 metre to have the same average runway length

There must be something else regarding runways - what about the number of runway?
LON = 8 runways
NYC = 16 runways
There we have a huge difference in favour of the Americans

What is the average number of passengers per airport then?
LON = 19.1 million (22.3 million if OXF is removed from the equation)
NYC = 26.6 million (35.2 million if ISP is removed from the equation)
There is a significant difference between the passenger numbers at LON and NYC airports

If we count the number of passengers per runway, what will the result be then?
LON = 16.7 million passengers per runway
NYC = 6.6 million passengers per runway
In reality the difference isn't that large since many of the NYC airports have crossing runways, but still ... We need also take in to account that the average number of passengers per aircraft is lower at American airports compared with LON airports. Here is a short list of average number of passengers per movement in 2011
JFK = 116
EWR = 82
LGA = 66
LHR = 144
LGW = 134
STN = 122
LTN = 87
LCY = 44

United States of America is seen as a country of private transport and then mainly private cars for ground transport. But the public transport to and from the three largest NYC airports is rather good compared with what is offered at the LON airports. In average it takes 40 minutes from the three NYC airports to Empire State Building using the best public transport compared with 65 minutes for the London airports (since ISP isn't in the NYC selection due to no public transport at all, I have taken out OXF for the London numbers) to the city centre.

The largest difference between the NJNY approach, or we can actually say the American approach, versus the UK approach to airports is the ownership of the airports. This will move into politics, but I think it has to be said. All four NYC airports are publicly owned (The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and Town of Islip, New York), while six of the seven London airports are privately owned companies and the last is local government entity. The Board of Commisioners by the Port Authority consists of members appointed by either the New Jersey or New York governors. In other words, in NYC the politicians still have the power to influence or even provide guidelines for the direction to go in the future. In the UK, the only influence the politicians have is to not approving proposed changes.

The best analog to the London situation is: You have seven wild horses. You are not allowed to tame them. You are only allowed to fence them in. You are not allowed to give a policy for how human these animals are treated. You are not allowed to bring in a fantastic Lippizaner horse that will amaze the audience with what tricks it can do. The politicians, the citizen's representatives, have abdicated and will have no influence on the future of the aviation industry other than saying no.

[Skipness One Echo]

LON = 7 airports (LCY, LHR, LGW, LTN, STN, SEN and OXF)
Bunging "London" in the title does not make it a London Airport. Take off Southend and Oxford, well Oxford is a joke to even pretend to be "London". There are only five London airports.

[Phileas Fogg]

And London/Biggin Hill and London/Ashford, take LTN off the list also, LHR was 1st, LGW 2nd and then STN became the 3rd designated LON airport, until all 3 of those are pretty much maxed out there's little need for a 4th and thereafter a 5th etc.

[PAXboy]

Thanks for trying a different approach LN-KGL, but I'm not sure that it puts us any further forward in the debate. Corrections from both Skipness and Phileas are spot on.

It is true that the bastion of capitalism (NYC) is served mainly by publically owned and operated ports and London is not. However, the difference is the era of Thatcher and the abandonment of policy to the market. They sold off the airports and 25 years later - we still have the same sort of problems that we had before!

So, I would argue, with no change between public and private ownership/mgmt, perhaps it is simply - the British problem?

[jabird]

What about the average runway length for these to cities?

I think you picked a fair and relevant city to look at, but asked the wrong questions. For example, average runway length is irrelevant, all that matters is whether or not the runway is long enough for the flight that wants to operate out of that airport at the time in question. In both cities, the answer is nearly always yes, unless of course you want to fly from the financial heart of London to New York, in which case no.

The real question is not so much how many airports, but how many hub airports. Then ownership, and more importantly, planning systems, does come into play.

In this respect, I'd be looking at Paris together with New York. New York does indeed have two intercontinental hub airports, being one of a very small handful of cities with this situation.

Looking at airports from the point of view of spatial planning, surface access, local politics, and of course noise footprint, there is a strong case to put a second, or even a third, wide-spaced runway at Gatwick, and this would then create space for a massive "toast rack" terminal right down the midfield, leaving the existing terminals for low cost and IT.

The problem is - given the lack of interest from GIP in making any investment beyond the current airport footprint, and given the immense keenness for BAA to build a third runway at Heathrow, how would you legislate top down for a French style dictat to expand Gatters instead?

The bottom line is that you can't, not without renationalising what is now a Spanish asset, essentially creating the same problems that also make FBI or the Heathrow West plan a non-starter.

So ultimately, like it or not, all taxiways lead to Heathrow.

[jabird]

There are only five London airports.

If we take a broader definition of an airport as "a transport hub capable of providing effective, high speed transport between two major cities that are sufficiently far apart to make flights viable", then I'd say London has a sixth - the "SP / E / KX" complex.

I point this out not to start a willy waving contest about trains being better, but to point out to the Zac Goldsmiths of this world that the cities which are already reachable by rail and air from London already have a heavy modal split leaning towards the train (especially BRU, PAR, MAN & LBA).

Any talk of high speed rail as an alternative to air, unless it goes at least as far as Newcastle, is therefore just as much of a fantasy as Fantasy Boris Island.

[Jo Shock]

One site that might just be big enough is just south of Reading. The Prudential (PRIPIM) have been involved in land assembly since the 1990s and have been trying to develop land just north of the M4 and to the south at Grazeley. They have been unsuccessful in developing as residential. There is a very high probability that Crossrail will terminate at Reading and there are significant rail infrastructure works ongoing at Reading station. The town was a major transport hub under the previous regional plan and there has been a lot of improvements to J11 of the M4, immediately adjacent to the land available for any airport or similar infrastructure project. Reading is well connected to the M4 and has existing (as well as potential Crossrail) links to London that meet the 30 minute criteria. It is also a reasonably well developed commercial centre with existing business parks, major IT companies and a skilled workforce - as well as having a reasonable land supply for the additional housing that would be needed.

It might not happen as there are some nightingales lurking in nearby trees but they overcame the issue of Desmoulins Whorled Snail at the Newbury Bypass a while back. And this project seems to be funded to the tune of £4--£60 bn of private sector money. The land is currently used for agriculture and mineral extraction, with just a few redbrick farm cottages of no great value. Some of it is floodplain and there was limited local opposition to development last time around (around 5 years ago) but this project would bypass local planning as a major infrastructure project - if indeed anyone has thought of it.

[PAXboy]

I should also have pointed out that the USA has a national policy and department for ATC and regulation but, being a Federation, cannot own airports in 50 states. The UK is a very small island and has wildly different policies - as does most of Europe.

Also, obviously, the amount of domestic and continental traffic is so much larger than the UK.

So, again, I think the comparison by LN-KGL is not valid.

[jabird]

being a Federation, cannot own airports in 50 states

The other problem would be one of co-ordinating a policy for airport expansion across the metro area. As anyone who has ever got a taxi to or from there knows too well, EWR is in the state of New Jersey, whereas JFK isn't that far from the border with Connecticut.

At least UK PLC can made a decision about where it wants an airport to be built, getting the owner of said airport to build there is a different matter.

[Phileas Fogg]

PAXboy,

I'll think you'll find that there's more than one island to the UK!

[LN-KGL]

jabird and PAXboy, I think you both have not grasped the concept here. In the US it is still possible for the citizens's representatives to give guidelines for what they wish for the future (The Port Authority is owned by the two federal states New York and New Jersey). In and around London on the other hand the politicians are without any tools to influence the future airport structure and a unified system for air and ground transport will never be achieved. The result is a lot of airports smeared out so thinly that high speed ground transport link ups are impossible.

To say there is a vast difference between the New York Metropolitan Area and London (the regions Greater London, South East England and East of England) is wrong.
New York Metropolitan Area
Population = 22,085,649 (2011)
Area = 30,670 km²
Population density = 720 / km²
Greater London, South East England and East of England
Population = 22,656,000 (2011)
Area = 39,788 km²
Population density = 569 / km²
(It's only the southern part of East of England region that is part of the metro region and with that the number will be even closer to NY metro)

To say this and that airport need to come off the London list is not for the politicians to decide and neither can Skipness One Echo and Phileas Fogg can do this. It's the airports that decide what their prime market are, and usually for marketing purposes it is the area that can be reached within 2 hours from the airport. You can even argument against Stansted since it's within the borders of the East of England. But clearly have STN its main market within the Greater London bounderies. Southampton Airport is only 1 hour 33 minutes from Buckingham Palace, but I haven't included SOU as a "London" airport - but I assume Heathrow counts Southampton as their customer base. I have only selected airports inside a 60 mile wide circle with Buckingham Palace as the centre. Since both Southend and Oxford airports are mentioned, they can be reached by car in 1 hour 12 minutes and 1 hour 22 minutes from Buckingham Palace. The reason for me using car travel times in this example is because 58,8% of the ground transport at London airports in 2010 was with either a private car, a taxi or rental car.

To illustrate this even more, here is map of English and Welsh airports and the transparent bubble surrounding the airports shows areas that can be reached within one hour from the airport. It is easy to find areas in Greater London that have six airports less than 60 minutes away, now imagine how it would look like with two hour bubbles.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/23931688/Airports/1_hour_drive_UK_airports.jpg

[ZOOKER]

EGLL is not "maxed out" until there are 70 A380/B747 movements, every hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Not if you mean between the A4 and M4, they can't."

Are you sure? Check out the separation between Ringway's parallel rwys.

With a third rwy near the M4, a fourth could be fitted in between it and the existing rwys. They would need to be staggered and obviously more would be demolished.

Quote: "Bunging "London" in the title does not make it a London Airport. Take off Southend and Oxford, well Oxford is a joke to even pretend to be "London". There are only five London airports."

Indeed it doesn't, but where should the line be drawn? Apparently SEN is an official IATA "London" airport (for what it's worth). If the Fantasy Island is ever built you can guarantee that they will want a "London" prefix, and it's further out than STN and SEN.

Quote: "And London/Biggin Hill and London/Ashford, take LTN off the list also, LHR was 1st, LGW 2nd and then STN became the 3rd designated LON airport, until all 3 of those are pretty much maxed out there's little need for a 4th and thereafter a 5th etc."

BIG isn't that far from London, nearer than all the rest except LCY. To be fair LYX wasn't on the list, nor were other potential "London" contenders: MSE, CBG, NWI, SOU and BOH.

Quote: "It is true that the bastion of capitalism (NYC) is served mainly by publically owned and operated ports and London is not. However, the difference is the era of Thatcher and the abandonment of policy to the market. They sold off the airports and 25 years later - we still have the same sort of problems that we had before!

So, I would argue, with no change between public and private ownership/mgmt, perhaps it is simply - the British problem?"

Very few countries have privately owned airports, the UK is possibly unique in this(?). Some have publicly owned and privately operated airports (franchise arrangements, concession, contracted out, etc.).

The trouble is, that having sold off the airports, the government will not leave them alone, it cannot resist interfering and obstructing.

Quote: "Looking at airports from the point of view of spatial planning, surface access, local politics, and of course noise footprint, there is a strong case to put a second, or even a third, wide-spaced runway at Gatwick, and this would then create space for a massive "toast rack" terminal right down the midfield, leaving the existing terminals for low cost and IT.

The problem is - given the lack of interest from GIP in making any investment beyond the current airport footprint, and given the immense keenness for BAA to build a third runway at Heathrow, how would you legislate top down for a French style dictat to expand Gatters instead?

You'd have a job to do this: Crawley and Horley are in the way! Indeed, it could be argued that LGW is more constrained than LHR.

Could be that GIP at LGW, as a commercial organisation, cannot see a return on another rwy, while BAA at LHR most certainly can.

The commercial case at LGW becomes even weaker if LHR gets the go-ahead, as many longhaul operators will migrate accross.

The bottom line is that you can't, not without renationalising what is now a Spanish asset, essentially creating the same problems that also make FBI or the Heathrow West plan a non-starter.

So ultimately, like it or not, all taxiways lead to Heathrow.

Exactly, nicely put! A simple concept, but one that many appear to have a problem understanding.

Quote: "I should also have pointed out that the USA has a national policy and department for ATC and regulation but, being a Federation, cannot own airports in 50 states. The UK is a very small island and has wildly different policies - as does most of Europe."

Being a federation has nothing to do with it. It is entirely possible for a federal government to own. Check out Canada and India for example.

[DaveReidUK]

With a third rwy near the M4, a fourth could be fitted in between it and the existing rwys. They would need to be staggered and obviously more would be demolished.

Don't you think that, given the furore over the destruction of Sipson, if the planners thought that they could add both R3 and R4 in one fell swoop with a MAN-type offset dependent parallel arrangement, we would have seen some proposals before now ?

Instead, it's being mooted, in some quarters at least, to flatten Stanwell and Bedfont to provide a fourth runway at roughly the same distance from 09L/27R as the proposed R3 is from 09R/27L. While that will never happen (no government will ever sanction 12,000 people being displaced) we're not going to see R4 north of the existing airport either.

[Libertine Winno]

Thinking of a location for a 'West London' aiport, if we simply look at where there is logical space could it not fit either north of the M4 between Reading and Maidenhead, or south of the M4 between Maidenhead and Bracknell?

There would be enough space for a brand new 4 runway airport, which would have direct connections to the M4 and either the M40 or M3 depending on which site is chosen (saving the car park on the M25) and could also link directly to Crossrail and the existing West Coast mainline, plus potentially HS2 if it ever gets the go ahead, providing a truly integrated transport hub.

Of course there are issues, such as the inevitable demolition of existing buildings and the small matter of having to force the closure of LHR (still not seen an argument as to how this could be done by those who propose a Boris Island solution).

However, the benefits in addition to the above include less noise disturbance to local residents as the two northern runways could be used for take offs and the southern two for landings, with glidepaths mostly over relatively open land instead of central London, and the LHR site could be turned into some kind of 'Heathrow Garden City' as I've seen proposed before.

In addition to this, the entire economic and social environment around the M4 corridor could remain instead of having to be rerouted out East to Kent.

I have drafted a nice pretty picture, but no idea how to upload it on here!

[DaveReidUK]

However, the benefits in addition to the above include less noise disturbance to local residents as the two northern runways could be used for take offs and the southern two for landings

That would be an unusual confiuration. For an airport with 4 parallel runways, assuming the terminals are in the middle, the norm is to use the two outers for landings and the inners for takeoffs.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Thinking of a location for a 'West London' aiport, if we simply look at where there is logical space could it not fit either north of the M4 between Reading and Maidenhead, or south of the M4 between Maidenhead and Bracknell?

There would be enough space for a brand new 4 runway airport, which would have direct connections to the M4 and either the M40 or M3 depending on which site is chosen (saving the car park on the M25) and could also link directly to Crossrail and the existing West Coast mainline, plus potentially HS2 if it ever gets the go ahead, providing a truly integrated transport hub.

Of course there are issues, such as the inevitable demolition of existing buildings and the small matter of having to force the closure of LHR (still not seen an argument as to how this could be done by those who propose a Boris Island solution).

However, the benefits in addition to the above include less noise disturbance to local residents as the two northern runways could be used for take offs and the southern two for landings, with glidepaths mostly over relatively open land instead of central London, and the LHR site could be turned into some kind of 'Heathrow Garden City' as I've seen proposed before.

In addition to this, the entire economic and social environment around the M4 corridor could remain instead of having to be rerouted out East to Kent.

I have drafted a nice pretty picture, but no idea how to upload it on here!"

Possibly, there is the space, but is there the commercial and political will?

There is also the problem of persuading the airlines to leave LHR, and the problem of an airport 30 or 40 mi. west of London when there is already a perfectly good one 20 mi. west.

The 'Heathrow Garden City' concept is all very well but how do persuade BAA to close profitable LHR, leaving it without an airport near London, and if LHR stays open, how to persuade airlines (and pax) to move from profitable LHR?

Yes, there are fewer problems with this concept than the crazy Fantasy Silver Island idea - it is on the correct side of London, it is near the cluster of enterprise that clustered around LHR, and motorway access is good.

But the point has to made yet again (yawn): if you sell off your country's airports and airlines, you cannot then dictate where they go.

[Libertine Winno]

@Fair Deal

Totally agree with you, and as I said I've still yet to see anyone in the pro-Boris Island camp explain to me exactly how you force a private company to close the world's third busiest and presumably one of the most profitable airports.

Perhaps some kind of solution where BAA are majority owners in the new airport? no idea how it would work practically though, but in essence the country needs to find a way to build a four runway airport on the west side of London, and if that's not at LHR then they also need to figure out how to close LHR...

[jabird]

jabird and PAXboy, I think you both have not grasped the concept here.]

Trust me, both PAXboy and myself have grasped your concept, we just don't agree with it.

The result is a lot of airports smeared out so thinly that high speed ground transport link ups are impossible.

That's because such a link is not needed. Airports rarely work in pairs - there are a few Asian cities with airports on the same side where you can easily take a metro between what are essentially international and domestic terminals.

Everywhere else, airports work as independent entities. They are not linked, and certainly not airside-airside. Any existing LGW-LHR or CDG-ORY transfers are a side show, they are not the main deal.

borders of the East of England

There is no such thing. In terms of government entities we elect, there are local councils, counties (in some cases), one or two mayors and the Westiminster seats. Only the Euro constituencies have any relationship with regions, everything else to do with them is just through qangos.

Southampton Airport is only 1 hour 33 minutes from Buckingham Palace

Is that with Phil driving, or is there some kind of secret tube station under Buck House with a direct link to Waterloo?

58,8% of the ground transport at London airports in 2010 was with either a private car, a taxi or rental car

Again, you aren't using relevant stats. What matters is the modal split at each airport, and especially at the primary hub (LHR), not the average across all airports.

Also, public transport usage from the city centre is much higher than that.

So in SOU's case, it is actually much more of a London airport than SEN or STN for almost anyone living in the Southwest trains catchment area.

in essence the country needs to find a way to build a four runway airport on the west side of London, and if that's not at LHR then they also need to figure out how to close LHR

The problem here is one of simple maths. It is not really a four runway airport. Assuming that Heathrow has its third runway by the time this thing opens, then it is only 1 new runway, as there is no way this new airport could open here without airspace conflicts.

Even with status quo, it is still two runways for the price of four, hardly a good value proposition when shareholders, not mandarins, have to cut the cheque.

could also link directly to Crossrail and the existing West Coast mainline, plus potentially HS2 if it ever gets the go ahead, providing a truly integrated transport hub

Except that the closest thing to that hub already exists right in the centre of Reading. Now I know it isn't the most exciting of places, but there's no way it is going to be flattened!

So you are basically talking about "Reading Parkway" airport. Crossrail could easily be extended there, but 30 mins from west London? More like an hour+. To bring the GW line in, you'd need some sort of loop, some would call there, most wouldn't just a bit messy.

HS2 is going much further east than that. Unless we're talking about and HS4 or 5 doing London - Reading - West Airport - Bristol and so on.

I think we'll be on to teleporting by then.


EGLL is not "maxed out" until there are 70 A380/B747 movements, every hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Including Beardie using his new A380s on the MAN and EDI routes? By the time you've loaded, an A320 has already landed.

Could be that GIP at LGW, as a commercial organisation, cannot see a return on another rwy, while BAA at LHR most certainly can.

That is exactly why there is so little mention of Gatwick in the discussions. Point taken about the neighbours, but even if there was the political will, it is worthless without a commercial case. Unless these "Chinese sovereign funds" started piling in to GIP - after all, it is long term yields they'd be looking for, not status symbols for another country.

The commercial case at LGW becomes even weaker if LHR gets the go-ahead, as many longhaul operators will migrate accross.

Absolutely, for a runway at LGW to look like a good bet, Cameron would have to turn his "no Heathrow runway" manifesto pledge into a binding law. As that would no doubt be challenged all the way by the Spaniards, there's no way it could happen.

[jabird]

Correction - so - what if this airport didn't actually replace LHR as we've assumed, but actually complemented it? What if two new runways were built around a long toast rack terminal strip, connected to the LHR complex by a 3 compartment super-fast train - one landside, one airside, one for baggage.

I think that might be the sort of fantasy that is being dreamed of here, but even if all these four runways were aligned, how on earth do you deal with all the different traffic. Maybe Eggwina was on to something?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Correction - so - what if this airport didn't actually replace LHR as we've assumed, but actually complemented it? What if two new runways were built around a long toast rack terminal strip, connected to the LHR complex by a 3 compartment super-fast train - one landside, one airside, one for baggage.

I think that might be the sort of fantasy that is being dreamed of here, but even if all these four runways were aligned, how on earth do you deal with all the different traffic. Maybe Eggwina was on to something?"

The airport will not replace Heathrow, for exactly the same reasons that the Fantasy Island won't. The "3 compartment super-fast train" sounds like a variation on the desperation that is the "Heathwick" proposal.

An airport to complement LHR has to be built on land north of the A4. In other words, it has to be 2 more rwys at LHR, and Eggwina isn't on to anything realistic.

[DaveReidUK]

An airport to complement LHR has to be built on land north of the A4.

In other words, it has to be 2 more rwys at LHR

Two mutually inconsistent statements.

You have yet to justify why you - alone among all the planners - believe that two autonomous runways can be accommodated in the space between the A4 and M4.

[Pain in the R's]

Phileas Fogg (http://www.pprune.org/members/93466-phileas-fogg) wrote

And London/Biggin Hill and London/Ashford, take LTN off the list also, LHR was 1st, LGW 2nd and then STN became the 3rd designated LON airport, until all 3 of those are pretty much maxed out there's little need for a 4th and thereafter a 5th etc.

So London City airport does not count and nor does Luton which is closer to London than Stansted. Maybe Stansted should not be called a London airport.

Have to say that calling Southend a London airport is a complete joke. Travel to London from Southend and there is not an inch of motorway to travel on. Better the place was called North Sea Southend Airport so Jonney Foreigner might then get a clue that the airport is on the East Coast.

[Dannyboy39]

Aircraft door to London, from Luton you could probably get to the Olympic Park, quicker than Heathrow.

[Phileas Fogg]

PIR,

I was referring to officially designated London Airports which are LHR, LGW & STN ... LCY comes along but isn't a real airport only being able to accept Puddle Jumpers.

It's not about location, it's about designation, if it were all about location then we could have London/Denham, London/Fairoaks, London/Stapleford Tawney, London/Rochester, London/Redhill, London/Farnborough, London/Blackbushe, London/White Waltham, London/Elstree, London/Booker, London/North Weald etc. etc. etc. and all of these, much the same as Luton, Southend, Lydd & Oxford etc. have, could call themselves "London" whilst not being designated as "London".

[DaveReidUK]

I was referring to officially designated London Airports which are LHR, LGW & STN ... LCY comes along but isn't a real airport only being able to accept Puddle Jumpers.

There is, of course, only one London Airport:

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/photo/img/old-signs/29.jpg

Joking aside, I don't know what constitutes "officially designated" but you can't really argue with the IATA classification (used by all the GDSs), which includes LCY, LTN and Southend.

[Fairdealfrank]

Wouldn't any of the fantasy airports (west or east, island or dry land) have the IATA designation "London"?

They're all far out from London, so why are they deserving of the "London" name while the above-mentioned are not?

Incidentally, BIG is nearer to London than all the "London" airports except LCY.

Would love to see NHT added to the list, not as a "third rwy" (impractical) but as a small regional airport (like SEN).

[jabird]

LCY comes along but isn't a real airport only being able to accept Puddle Jumpers

Maybe, but very high yield carrying puddle jumpers. I suspect if you were to evaluate which airports actually made a significant positive contribution to UK plc, rather than which sucked more money out through displacement to foreign tourism, you might only be left with LCY, LHR, and EDI?

[jabird]

The "3 compartment super-fast train" sounds like a variation on the desperation that is the "Heathwick" proposal. /// and Eggwina isn't on to anything realistic.

It is just that. I'm just trying to see how this latest fantasy could even get onto a drawing board, let alone get off it. Reading is WAY to the west of LHR!

Maybe they want to buy out Eton Dorney, now the Olympics has finished, and build two short parallel runways either side of it, a la LCY? Given the money they'd need to buy out the very wealthy school guv'nors, maybe that explains the £40-60bn tag?

[jabird]

OK, so the plans are here, not much text to go with them but does there need to be?

http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/LOX/pdf/LOX02.1.3_airport_layout.pdf

Apart from the small problem of how you carve up quite a large portion of southern Oxs, I don't think they have really done anything other than cut and paste other well known airports with a mid field and parallel runway left / right format.

From a surface access point of view, this is a non-starter. A definite nul-points. Why would people only want to approach from the south? And why would you want to change from the main GW line onto a local train just to go a mile to the terminal? Surely the terminal building should be in Didcot (there's not much else there), where you would have a genuine 3-way interchange. Then send people on a transport system to get to the councourse. If not in Didcot itself, then put the terminal on the GW line and then divert the Oxford line to run underneath it, and then in to Oxford. That would also cover the Cross Country line.

Except that this is still nowhere near the 30 mins to London claim - unless you also took a spur from HS2 right across southern Oxfordshire and into it.

That also might explain the £40-60bn price tag!

[Fairdealfrank]

If you're having an airport as far out as Oxfordshire, it might as well be in Cameron's constituency. THAT is the way to concentrate minds!

Imagine that, you'd never see a faster U-turn or a third rwy built so quickly!

The diagram looks suspiciously like the Fantasy Island plan, and just like it, no land set aside for expansion. Will they never learn?

[jabird]

Imagine that, you'd never see a faster U-turn or a third rwy built so quickly!

No you wouldn't minister!

The diagram looks suspiciously like the Fantasy Island plan, and just like it, no land set aside for expansion. Will they never learn?

FBI-on-land?

I'm also slightly confused - is that supposed to be four runways? Outer for landing, inner for take-off, hence no approach lights? CDG has lights on both, not to mention MUCH more space between both sets of runways, although you are going to need to take out a few more villages to do that here.

If it is just 2 runways / c. 60 mppax pa, we really are just onto Heathwick Mark II.

[Phileas Fogg]

Regarding LTN, SEN, Lydd, Oxord calling themselves "London".

T'was in 1985 that the government announced that Stansted was to become London's third airport ... after Heathrow and Gatwick.

Correct me if I am mistaken but the government has never, NEVER, made such an announcement regarding LTN, SEN, Lydd, Oxford and all these other regional airfields that like to call themselves "London".

And as for IATA, the international Association of Travel Agents ... Travel agents are in business to sell travel, what do they know, I'd place more faith in Estate Agents knowing what they are talking about than I would Travel Agents. :)

[DaveReidUK]

And as for IATA, the International Association of Travel Agents ... Travel agents are in business to sell travel, what do they know, I'd place more faith in Estate Agents knowing what they are talking about than I would Travel Agents.

Actually, it's the International Air Transport Association (the airlines' trade association), nothing to do with travel agents.

But either way, it's pretty pointless arguing about designations, we all know where those places are, and how near or far they are from London. Changing names won't change that.

[Phileas Fogg]

DR,

You'd be surprised how many people don't realise where these places are ...

I was working in association with an Italian airline and we needed to get a Captain from Frankfaurt am Main to Rome (FCO) ... the morons booked him a 6am departure from Hahn ... try explaining to a senior Captain that he needs to get up at 1am to travel pretty much all the way to the Luxembourg border to then travel on the sh1ttiest of airlines to the wrong airport on the wrong side of Rome!

[Dannyboy39]

Re: That diagram. Do we not have any imagination in airport design any more?

[DaveReidUK]

This is by no means a new scheme. It's basically the original Cliffe design transplanted to Oxfordshire, and dates from about 10 years ago.

The DfT commissioned a review of the proposal in 2003:

http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/LOX/pdf/dft_aviation_031864.pdf

Makes interesting reading.

[fairflyer]

The only option that makes the remotest sense is Upper Heyford redevelopment - over and above the 2003 'LOX' proposal:


Its current runway is good enough for A380s - huge
Assuming 300m+ spacing, there's space to the north for at least two more runways in the zone between somerton, Fritwell, Ardley, Lower Heyford and Middleton Stoney. To the west the land drops noticeably but within that zone, it's pretty flat.
The M40, junction 10 is under a mile away, the Marylebone rail line is meters away from the end of the runway.
Significant improvements to that line could in theory bring London access in 30 minutes - the establishment of HS2 nearby - if that happens, with a spur to Heyford would bring London access in a little over 20 minutes
Bicester, a few miles away, is a rapidly growing town with a massiver house building program and significant redevelopment anticipated over the next decade - the main shopping zone (Bicester Vilage) there already sees six million shoppers a year
A lot of the infrastructure isn't in bad condition - built for cold war bombers etc. taxiways and aprons are built like proverbial brick outhouses
It's halfway between Birmingham and Heathrow
Developers and Cherwell District Council have been mucking around for 15 years wondering what to do with the site with no real progress whatsoever
There's many more pointers as to why this is more viable to other schemes, alas airspace issues, noise and environmental concerns would all have to take a hike. Residents of the afforementioned villages would have a heart attack but the approaches are far less crowded than other sites.

Right now, the world and their wife want to put up wind turbines all over this area, so a little debate on these lines ought to put the cat amongst the pidgeons!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Thinking of a location for a 'West London' aiport, if we simply look at where there is logical space could it not fit either north of the M4 between Reading and Maidenhead, or south of the M4 between Maidenhead and Bracknell?”

Nice one, the latter is slap bang in the middle of Teresa May’s constituency!


Quote: “That would be an unusual confiuration. For an airport with 4 parallel runways, assuming the terminals are in the middle, the norm is to use the two outers for landings and the inners for takeoffs.”

Permanent segregated mode? with alternation or not?
　
　
Quote: “Don't you think that, given the furore over the destruction of Sipson, if the planners thought that they could add both R3 and R4 in one fell swoop with a MAN-type offset dependent parallel arrangement, we would have seen some proposals before now ?”

Quote: “You have yet to justify why you - alone among all the planners - believe that two autonomous runways can be accommodated in the space between the A4 and M4.”

Don’t need to. By the way, am NOT a planner.

(1) Look how close other pairs of parallel rwys are, on all the plans for new estuary airports, at Ringway, etc., so it will easily fit in.

(2) Did mention the need for more demolition (not as much as south of the airport obviously), so yes, there is room for two 7,200 ft rwys. Am not alone, there are many suggestions for 2 more rwys including talk about crossing the M25 for a third and fourth (persumably to allow longer rwys). All options appear to be on/off the table.

(3) Actually it’s more realistic than the often mentioned 2 more rwys at Gatwick, as Horley and crawley are in the way. These are big towns as opposed to already blighted villages north of Heathrow (blighted because of thirty years of dither!).

(4) Of course BAA haven’t applied for this, look at the stick they are getting over just a third! Perhaps they should have as they'll have to sooner or later.
　
　

Quote: “I was referring to officially designated London Airports which are LHR, LGW & STN ... LCY comes along but isn't a real airport only being able to accept Puddle Jumpers.

It's not about location, it's about designation, if it were all about location then we could have London/Denham, London/Fairoaks, London/Stapleford Tawney, London/Rochester, London/Redhill, London/Farnborough, London/Blackbushe, London/White Waltham, London/Elstree, London/Booker, London/North Weald etc. etc. etc. and all of these, much the same as Luton, Southend, Lydd & Oxford etc. have, could call themselves "London" whilst not being designated as "London".”


It’s not just airports subject to this nonsense. There is, for example:

“West Thames College London” (former Isleworth Polytechnic, and nothing to do with London University);

“Kingston University London” (former Kingston technical College and nothing to do with London University);

and “West London University” (former Thames Valley University, former Slough and Ealing Technical Colleges).

Students attending these establishments may not be aware of the long train journey plus one or tube rides to get up to London and the same might to people staying at “London Twickenham Travelodge”.

Also don’t forget about going to "the dogs": “London Wimbledon Stadium”.

Guess it some kind of trendy passing marketing trend/fad (yawn).



Quote: “This is by no means a new scheme. It's basically the original Cliffe design transplanted to Oxfordshire, and dates from about 10 years ago.

The DfT commissioned a review of the proposal in 2003:

http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/L...ion_031864.pdf (http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/LOX/pdf/dft_aviation_031864.pdf)

Makes interesting reading.”

What a load of nonsense, and overtaken by events: Kidlington is now “London Oxford“!

A sensible librarian would put it on the “fiction” shelves.

Not surprising they then approved Heathrow expansion in 2003!

It’s fantasy island all over again, and way too far out. If we’re seriously considering airports this distant, should we criticise FR if they decide to rename Hurn and call it “London West”?

[DaveReidUK]

Am not alone, there are many suggestions for 2 more rwys including talk about crossing the M25 for a third and fourth (presumably to allow longer rwys).

All options appear to be on/off the table.

Well that option's not on any table that I've ever seen.

Could you point us to a documented example of a serious proposal showing how two runways would be laid out north of the existing airport ?

By that I don't mean back-of-the-envelope stuff, we can all do that.

[katanapilot]

I've just spent an hour reading this thread, and despite being a massive fan of an all-new airport, I think that I would go for a massive expansion at the current London airports instead. Why?

1) Very large construction cost of new airport. Whilst Abingdon and Boris Island would be fantastic facilities, they would require huge ancillary construction of houses, roads, railways etc, and associated disruption/outcry.

2) Long lead time - even if the decision was made today, we are probably 10 years away from the start of construction

3)LHR, LGW and STN have the required infrastructure connections already in place - you have a decent motorway and rail link to each airport.

Therefore, we should:

LGW - build new runway following line of A23 north of Crawley. New terminal. Extend M23 into central London as was planned in 1970s.

STN - new parallel runway.

LHR - effectively re-define the land use enclosed by the following area: M25/M4/A312/A30. There is space to put a close parallel runway along a line of the A4, and a new segregated runway on a line of the M4. This plan requires demolition of all buildings between 09L/27R and West Drayton, and puts the M4 in a tunnel.

You may balk at what I propose for LHR, but on balance it's less destructive then a new-build airport.

[DaveReidUK]

LHR - effectively re-define the land use enclosed by the following area: M25/M4/A312/A30. There is space to put a close parallel runway along a line of the A4, and a new segregated runway on a line of the M4. This plan requires demolition of all buildings between 09L/27R and West Drayton, and puts the M4 in a tunnel.

A runway along the line of the A4 would be pretty pointless (and presumably we're talking about another tunnel here for the road itself, as well as the M4 one).

You may balk at what I propose for LHR, but on balance it's less destructive then a new-build airport.

Hmmm. I'd have said you were doing pretty well as it is - obliterating Sipson is taken as read for R3, but you have also zapped the whole of Harlington, Cranford, West Bedfont, Stanwell and Harmondsworth, not to mention razing BA's HQ.

That's quite some land-grab.

[WHBM]

I see Boris is starting to examine "alternative uses" for Heathrow once Boris Island becomes operational.

I trust they won't include housing, because housing values all around Heathrow will plummet once air traffic starts to be reduced. Well done all those who winged and whined about aircraft passing by. There goes your children's inheritance (and quite possibly their jobs as well).

There are, what, 50,000 total employees who report to Heathrow in aviation and allied services, they will all be selling up and moving over to the east (to houses in Kent which, of course, don't exist yet and will be vigorously opposed by Nimbys. Or they could commute by M25. Only about 150 miles round trip every day, by that well-known, always clear, Dartford Tunnel.

Meanwhile, compared to the current motorways from four directions, Underground, rail link, local roads, etc, to access Heathrow, every plan I've seen of Boris Island shows one access road over the sea and one rail link "express", only to Central London. Yes, just one rail link for the UK's premier port of entry. Goodness, Al Qaeda and Bob Crow between them must be licking their lips ........

[fairflyer]

Couple of points re Upper Heyford - its a bit over 60 miles from the west end but the M40 is the fastest motorway in the UK and has less traffic or congestion than all the other key London arterial routes - it's just 50 miles from the M25 (40 minutes drive). A high speed link like the Shanghai monorail would get people there from central London in 20 minutes - likewise any HS2 spur would be a sub 30 minute run, easily.

Were a hub established there and Heathrow wound down or limited to any degree, LHR employees/staff would find it a lot easier to migrate up the road to Heyford rather than across London to any scheme around the estuary or indeed an expanded Gatwick.

It's really the only relatively flat piece of ground with scope for three runways in that Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire arc.

It's a far better bet than the original 2003 'LOX' proposal next to Abingdon or the re-development of Brize Norton which are notably further and of course not in a direct line between the UK's second city, Birmingham and London.

[DaveReidUK]

It's really the only relatively flat piece of ground with scope for three runways in that Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire arc.

Must be a different Upper Heyford from the one I'm looking at on the map, with a river/valley to the west and a railway to the north and east.

The only direction UH could expand is to the south, which would put the 30,000 residents of Bicester under the R4 approach (nobody is going to promote a replacement hub with only 3 runways).