Boris Island Rejected [Archive]

Private jet

2nd Sep 2014, 10:06

Sense has prevailed, with this one decision anyway.
Build an airport in an area surrounded by bird sanctuaries and prone to very thick fog in the autumn/winter (I know its not a problem for landing but it is for taxiing and parking and taking off again...collisions waiting to happen..)
What were they thinking of? Boris's vanity project I reckon.

I'm not sure why a second terminal at EGSS was not considered, there is still enough runway capacity albeit not during the morning and evening peak times, it needs some longhaul flights to take up the slow periods.

Gatwick at the moment is the best option but its "tucked away" down in Sussex and a pain for anyone north of London to get to.

IMHO they had a chance with the old Alconbury airbase a decade ago, perfect location, access from north, south, east and west (adjacent to the A1 and A14) and next to the east coast mainline railway as well! Simple to integrate into the existing airspace structure, long runway, lots of land to build a terminal, hangars, etc etc. Oh hang on though didn't John Major live a mile down the road? :hmm: :rolleyes:

Hotel Tango

2nd Sep 2014, 10:07

Don't be so hard dontdoit, Walnut is 66 and, as often I am, is stuck in the past ;)

I still think of airways as (Upper) Green/Red/Blue/Amber One/two etc!

I'm still trying to get my head around the runway change at my own local airport which was 04/22 for something like 35 plus years and more, which changed to 03/21.

pee

2nd Sep 2014, 10:47

A TRULY high-speed rail link directly to Manston with some new infrastructure to facilitate the flights there?

Spitfire boy

2nd Sep 2014, 10:49

I hope they let LGW and LHR build one new runway each. Interesting to see if LGW can finance one if LHR have a green light too given that the majority of airlines, LCCs excepted, prefer LHR over LGW.

DaveReidUK

2nd Sep 2014, 13:33

I hope they let LGW and LHR build one new runway each.

Ruled out some time ago.

HOODED

2nd Sep 2014, 13:43

Boris Island £70 billion! That's just what the UK needs more debt.... LHR is the best option but not politically so LGW will get the nod. As usual a typical UK short sighted approach. LHR will continue at capacity whilst airlines either fight for slots or go to LGW or worse AMS/CDG/FRA.

joy ride

2nd Sep 2014, 14:11

Lydd and Manston may not be ideal but could take some pressure off Gatwick and Heathrow.

I remember that airliner having to ditch in NY's Hudson River due to double bird strike .....of course, that could NEVER happen in one of Europe's largest sea bird breeding grounds! I wonder what Captain Sullenberger would think of the Thames/Medway junction as an airport site.

Luckily the Hudson ditching had no serious casualties, a ditching at Grain, where the tides of the Thames and the Medway clash together could be a very different matter; is not a clever place to build anything, let alone an airport. Many ferry and boat accidents have occurred in those waters and the death toll was high due to tides, fog and cold water. The sunken WW2 explosives ship USS Richard Montgomery is another potentially lethal hazard to consider if any sort of traffic increases there.

Boris's "Vanity Projects" are becoming quite numerous, anything that seems to him to be a good or grand scheme rapidly seems to get the "Boris" pre-fix!

Sadly, despite being a life-long fan of aviation, I think at some point a densely packed area like south eastern England, at a time of dwindling global resources, has to put a cap on airliner ops, and we are already near that point.

Skipness One Echo

2nd Sep 2014, 15:09

LHR is the best option but not politically so LGW will get the nod.
LGW won't get it, it's a stitch up for LHR to allow the "independent" commision to take the flack when the very tough and correct decision that the last Labour government rightly made is re-instated. No one in the business community except Gatwick Airport ltd is asking to expand LGW.
Lydd and Manston may not be ideal but could take some pressure off Gatwick and Heathrow.
Manston is closed, no one wants to fly from there, same with Lydd. The market, i.e. most of us, decided that.

nigel osborne

2nd Sep 2014, 18:37

Doubt if any final go ahead will be made for many years, a political hot potato decision that non of the parties wants to make.

Nigel

BARKINGMAD

2nd Sep 2014, 20:25

Private Jet-l agree with you on the Alconbury scenario.

Alconbury approach lights flash past the windows of the Eastcoast northbound trains exactly 35 minutes after leaving Kings Cross station.

But those who bought houses nearby will doubtless protest if such a solution is proposed......

Howzabout LHRs dep runway built as an image of Frankfurt, sod the M25, the longest circular car park in the world?

And the 4th "feeder" runway could be Northolt, rapid driverless trains to shift connecting SLF and baggage to/from the main site. But that would upset the too many, too senior RAF orifices who bleed the defence budget the same way as the more admirals than ships we have whose personal fiefdom would have to be shared with travelling peasants.....

Tin hat is on, awaiting incoming......... :confused:

DaveReidUK

2nd Sep 2014, 21:04

l agree with you on the Alconbury scenarioFortunately, formulating airport strategy involves a bit more than just flying around England looking for existing large strips of concrete.

On the beach

2nd Sep 2014, 21:10

Sadly, the small-minded, non-aviation, supposed "experts" have chosen the easy politically-minded option of "no decision". Anyone in the aviation industry knows that the third runway at Heathrow ain't gonna happen and Gatwick as a hub? Give me strength.

So, Britain will remain a second-rate aviation "hub", whilst Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt, not to mention Dubai etc are all quietly sniggering at the lack of imagination of the so-called "British Aviation Planners".

At least Boris gets it!

Ever likely so many in the aviation industry have emigrated and probably not through Eefrow!

stephent

2nd Sep 2014, 21:40

Completely naive question, but if the main objection to Heathrow is basically noise, is there a reason why the Heathrow runways can't be rebuilt and 'rotated' 45 (or more) degrees so that planes overfly much less densely populated areas of London?
Is it purely due to prevailing winds - with a modern airliner I wouldn't have thought that would be a huge issue?

Thx

Dairyground

2nd Sep 2014, 22:50

New runways don't happen overnight, so there is still a need for somewhere from which additional services can operate in the immediate future. Various non-UK airlines seem to be building profitable operations from outside SE England, going both east and west. If the UK industry is not to lose more market share, it needs to look beyond the London area.

On the other hand, London-Calais would be as accessible as Boris Island, not have the birds and bombs, and would even avoid APD.

controlx

3rd Sep 2014, 06:49

Four stage solution:

1) Realign Northolt (NHT) runway, extend and make parallel with LHRs (RWY No. 4) - easily done

2) Continue to build third runway north of current pair at LHR (RWY No. 3)

3) Connect NHT with LHR via underground road tunnel and overground maglev monorail

4) Reinstate Upper Heyford (RWY 5) as 'London West'/'London Oxford' - whatever, and integrate with LHR via improved M40/M25 links plus another maglev system running parallel with M40 - 20+ minutes run between the two on high speed monorail - longest runway, best for freight-24 hours, long haul etc. - half way to Midlands already, less London centric.

Five integrated runways for a lot less than $70 Billion - all the right side of London

DaveReidUK

3rd Sep 2014, 07:23

Five integrated runways

Here we go again ...

Capetonian

3rd Sep 2014, 14:42

Video: Airport expansion: what next for Heathrow and Gatwick? - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11070062/Airport-expansion-what-next-for-Heathrow-and-Gatwick.html)

Skipness One Echo

3rd Sep 2014, 14:55

Five integrated runways for a lot less than $70 Billion - all the right side of London
Oh God I despair.
Utterly commercially unappealing.
Scenario 1. Get off an aircraft at Schiphol, walk to gate, connect.
Scenario 2. Arrive at Upper Heyford. Get on a train. Hope your luggage makes it. Arrive LHR. get on another train to RAF Northolt. Pray your luggage makes it. connect.

Just because something is possible technically does not mean it is comercially attractive and competitive and it absolutely needs to be.

Fairdealfrank

5th Sep 2014, 00:22

So now we are down to 3 options for the new London area runway
Sir Howard Davies's airport commission today rejected Boris Island but let the other 3 go through
So which option will win?
I believe the extension of the LHR North runway is least likely as it would be bound to slow down the current movement rate of the existing runway whilst it was being built
The new runway to the North of 28R will demolish up to 1000 houses, that is difficult politically
So I believe Gatwick will get the nod as its the cheapest and has the least environmental problems
Credible analysis if we're taking the soft option, but that would not resolve the problem of a lack of hub capacity, so it would be a pointless decision.

Well I for one am delighted that the estuary airport has been rejected!
Me too, though it was expected.

I don't think the Thames Estuary siting is by any means dead and it's going to rear its head again in time to come.

I also happen to think it's the least bad alternative. The others are really only papering over the cracks.
It’s actually not. Not only for all the reasons listed many times, but also because LHR expansion is still needed as a stopgap between now and the 2050s. So we might as well just expand LHR and have done with it.

Sense has prevailed, with this one decision anyway.
Build an airport in an area surrounded by bird sanctuaries and prone to very thick fog in the autumn/winter (I know its not a problem for landing but it is for taxiing and parking and taking off again...collisions waiting to happen..)
What were they thinking of? Boris's vanity project I reckon.

I'm not sure why a second terminal at EGSS was not considered, there is still enough runway capacity albeit not during the morning and evening peak times, it needs some longhaul flights to take up the slow periods.

Gatwick at the moment is the best option but its "tucked away" down in Sussex and a pain for anyone north of London to get to.

IMHO they had a chance with the old Alconbury airbase a decade ago, perfect location, access from north, south, east and west (adjacent to the A1 and A14) and next to the east coast mainline railway as well! Simple to integrate into the existing airspace structure, long runway, lots of land to build a terminal, hangars, etc etc. Oh hang on though didn't John Major live a mile down the road?

A TRULY high-speed rail link directly to Manston with some new infrastructure to facilitate the flights there?
Both sites much too far away from London, 100+ mi. each (compared to 20 mi. for Heathrow), and who pays?

I hope they let LGW and LHR build one new runway each. Interesting to see if LGW can finance one if LHR have a green light too given that the majority of airlines, LCCs excepted, prefer LHR over LGW.
Ruled out some time ago.
Makes sense, ruled out or not. That which is ruled out can later be ruled in, and vice versa of course.

LGW won't get it, it's a stitch up for LHR to allow the "independent" commision to take the flack when the very tough and correct decision that the last Labour government rightly made is re-instated. No one in the business community except Gatwick Airport ltd is asking to expand LGW.
That’s my impression too, hope it’s the correct one and let's speed it up!

Four stage solution:

1) Realign Northolt (NHT) runway, extend and make parallel with LHRs (RWY No. 4) - easily done

2) Continue to build third runway north of current pair at LHR (RWY No. 3)

3) Connect NHT with LHR via underground road tunnel and overground maglev monorail

4) Reinstate Upper Heyford (RWY 5) as 'London West'/'London Oxford' - whatever, and integrate with LHR via improved M40/M25 links plus another maglev system running parallel with M40 - 20+ minutes run between the two on high speed monorail - longest runway, best for freight-24 hours, long haul etc. - half way to Midlands already, less London centric.

Five integrated runways for a lot less than $70 Billion - all the right side of London
This is a reheated "Heathwick", it’s was nonsense then, it’s nonsense now.

Who pays for (1), (3) and (4)?

SARF

5th Sep 2014, 01:12

The estuary bird life in the thames is not relevant. I live there. There are not flocks of Canadian geese size birds belting around at 500 feet. There are loads of small wading birds but to be honest there are more starlings this time of year like anywhere. The reason for not building the airport there is because its **** place to build it. Especially when all the huge airport expertise is on the m4

onyxcrowle

5th Sep 2014, 03:22

How coukd they put it there anyway. I'm. Not over familiar with A TV and airspace I enjoy this forum. As someone who's health prevented me from becoming a pilot .
Byt through reading the (don't flame me for admitting this) Flight sim and observing The complex movements on FR24.
So maybe somebody here with the technical knowledge can explain how they would slit it so close to.Southend Airport. Lydd ok tgats Empty at the moment but im willing to bet it will. Do.well quite quickly.
And then LCY which is in the East . Plus im.sure ive seen Stanstead and Luton bound traffic vectoring over that area.
LCY has plans for was it 6 million a year or was it 3 either way a hell of a lot. Plus extensions . And id not be surprised despite saying otherwise they'd gain a second runway or a heft extension.
Money is power and LCY in the heart of the City coukd make it happen.
Simply from an Air traffic point of view. It's going to be mayhem or would be.
And you've got as again FR24 . Shows flights to Bristol Bhx all descending there. And albiet much higher but Manchester bound stuff seems to start its decent there.
So that's a lot of existing traffic. Before you add a four or six runway superhub.
They then have to have the days when they have to approach from the west . Which means more noise for a greater swathe of London. .It would mean redrawing all those approach charts and redesign new approach paths.
Yet on the flip side Heathrow is at the end if it's usefulness.
A third runway which isn't going to be very long will be a sticking plaster at best.
The only way lit could work is to have two 12000 or longer to allow take offs and landings from the same runways to the Northwest and southwest.
Totally wiping out sips on. And other areas the southwestern runway. Wouldn't that impinge on the resouvuoir.
Then where do you put the Terminals.
And your still faced with a very fast expanding LCY and the sheer extra number of flight movements coukd mean that all the tcas in thecworkd may bit be enough in bad weather to prevent at least more than one mud air accident.
They'd be come tragically regular. I read its already on the brink now.
So Do they reopen and rebuild Northolt. Extend and give that a second runway.
Link it by high speed train or tube or Maglev to Heathrow and reroute every single uk and Irish domestic flights into there. And id probably add Amsterdam , Paris And Frankfurt in And Brussels.
Basically All Domestic and The nearest EU flights.
But how many slots woukd that give them.
Without a nrw runway?.
Or maybe the Main alternative is staring them in the face.
HS2 Is to Run directly beneath East Midlands.
If they can build a full sized underground station for cross rail they could build a stop at the airport.
I woukd look at EMA its right by the motorway . Going to be ontop of HS2 there's land a plenty to build another three runways.
The Cargo ops could shift up to DSA. THAT'S getting a full link road fro. The motorway and is attached to a new rail freight terminal.
And again perhaps with a link from there onto THE ECML some international flights especially eastern European flights eg LOT and Tarom. S7 and many others could do.well at DSA its built quite a niche with Eastern Europe .
But EMA would be an ideal half already made UK hub Airport its nearer the middle of THE UK.
Surrounded by motorways abd close to railways.
Huge Populations close by. And id bet on HS2 40 mins into central London.
Close Heathrow. Redevelope the cause and finally regenerate a terribly run down part of London .
The UK Hub Airport should not be set in stone that it has to be In London.

fa2fi

5th Sep 2014, 04:07

S7 are Russian. The Russians are busy buying up London, not interested in DSA.

I can't see a network carrier like LOT being interested. Wizzair has service to DSA and that's about as much service as you're going to get from DSA.

peterhr

6th Sep 2014, 07:58

If building new, what would be wrong with Upper Heyford?

It's not too bad for London - distance wise. It's OK for the rest of the UK

It has good communication links nearby, realign HS2

There is space and it's not hilly

DaveReidUK

6th Sep 2014, 10:37

There is space and it's not hilly

Space? For how many runways? :ugh:

Pandy

6th Sep 2014, 17:41

LHR is used by a great swathe of the populous from Norfolk down to
Wales and the west country.

In the area south of Brum and west of LHR there's no LH capable runway
in anything like an airport friendly place. BOH, NQY and CWL (for length)
are the only ones that come to mind with long enough runways. All are geographically as appealing as Boris Island, ie in the back end of nowhere

The Commission is not meant to be partial to any particular geographical area in its terms of reference

If runway(s) are needed why not fill in the void south of Brum and west of LHR

Is the south east to have 5, 6 or 7 LH capable runways and the area described nil?

onyxcrowle

6th Sep 2014, 23:51

Why not double the size of EMA. Add thee runways.
It has HS2 beneath it. They could build a dedicated station.
Short distance by tgst train to central London.
Move a. The freight ops to DSA which is about to be connected to a major rail freight hub and massive business park and cargo facility.
Even build a station at DSA linked to the ECML.
And perhaps persuade some EU carriers Eg Lufthansa and German wings . For example to shift spme uk destined flights there.
Not every flight neefs to Land at LHR.
But EMA is Right off the M1 and close to MR M62.
Has an already large catchment.
With the frieght ops moved to Dsa which is geared toward major freight ops has we hour ops.
It would free up the old Cargo terminals at EMA to become new state of the art passenger terminals.
It has a dedicated station now.
So why can't we make it the UK hub.
Encompassing Scotland and Wales its central for the whole UK.
With all cargo relocated to DSA. and it's not vastly bust slots and airspace are not an issue.
Granted Ryanair would need to move out. But again they can go to DSA.
Any holiday routes can do the same Eg Thomson .
Monarch have left already.
DSA can support more movements and I see cargo being a big thing.
EMA is perfectly placed as a hub.
Thers open fields galore to build all the runways and taxiway you'd ever need.
Ok the M1 woukd need widening again to D5 which would mean widening toward Kegworth.
Might be tricky v but achive able.
Perhaps a new Airport junction and Motorway spur From.the M1 would help.
And it keeps this London centric old boys network of everything must go.through London or the world will end quiet because in the end they would see it makes sense.
Close LHR and regenerate that area.
But vastly improve the line upto Nottingham and push through HS2 extension asap.
There's too much dithering.
London airspace is so crowded .
What with noise and pollution.
Plus All the Surrounding London airports including LCY there has to be a point where there can be no more airspace capacity.

DaveReidUK

7th Sep 2014, 07:03

East Midlands didn't bother making even an initial submission to the Airports Commission.

Hint:
Who owns EMA? Who owns Stansted?

Heathrow Harry

7th Sep 2014, 08:01

SWBKCB

7th Sep 2014, 08:09

So the airlines pay for somebody else's asset - interesting approach.

Heathrow Harry

7th Sep 2014, 08:11

as long as it isn't the taxpayer

peterhr

7th Sep 2014, 16:58

There is space and it's not hilly
Space? For how many runways?

How many runways do you want?
There's lots of lovely green fields just waiting for the concrete - build four runways to start with.
Reserve the space for two more, call it car parking, warehouse space - anything that is cheap to tear down ... whatever happens don't use the space for housing or as prime office space and always declare that runways will be built there so the nimbys cant complain when the build starts

DaveReidUK

7th Sep 2014, 18:03

build four runways to start withI suggest you take a long, hard look at the Upper Heyford site on a topographical map. The surrounding terrain drops on all 4 sides (steeply, in the case of the western boundary):

"The former RAF Upper Heyford air base occupies about 505 hectares on an exposed plateau above the Cherwell Valley"

Cherwell District Council - Interactive Local Plan (http://npa.cherwell.gov.uk/LocalPlan/written/cpt2.htm)

Heathrow Harry

8th Sep 2014, 17:03

didn't have much problem in Hong Kong terra forming space for a major airport...............

But it's a non -starter - you have to drive past LHR & Birmingham to get there

Fairdealfrank

8th Sep 2014, 19:45

interestingly there is a growing amount of comment asking WHO is going to pay for this expansion (where ever it is) - lots of people thinking it the airlines should stump up up front if they want it....................

Indeed there are. People come up with all these grand schemes for airports miles away from London then bang on about high speed rail links, etc., etc., as if that’s all the infrastructure that would be needed. They fail to spell out who pays.

Back in the real world, it clearly won’t be the private sector, as a business case cannot be made for any of these.

It certainly won’t be the airlines, surely you know that they ALL want LHR expansion.

So who does that leave? Yes you’ve guessed it, the good old taxpayers.

didn't have much problem in Hong Kong terra forming space for a major airport...............
HKG isn’t comparable, it’s about as far from Hong Kong as LHR is from London - about 20 mi., not 100+mi. like some of these suggestions.

BARKINGMAD

8th Sep 2014, 20:55

And of course the last brick of the new expansion, wherever it is finally located, will be laid as the price of fuel/peak oil etc renders the whole exercise superfluous and futile....... :suspect:

Walnut

9th Sep 2014, 06:19

Fairdealfrank

9th Sep 2014, 23:25

As I understand it one of the rationales for this airport expansion is that the UK is losing out because it does not have a decent expandable hub airport.
I have just read that DXB is about to build a second airport. Clearly its not needed for the local population so therefore does it matter that the new London hub airport is actually close to London.
On this point Boris Island does have some merit.?

Er yes! it's a hub airport, so it has point to point pax AND transfer pax. The presence of potential transfer pax makes some routes viable that would not be purely on point to point traffic. So they all have to be at the same airport, i.e. Heathrow only. It really isn't rocket science.

Boris Island makes no sense on ANY point.

Walnut

10th Sep 2014, 20:32

Fairdealfrank

10th Sep 2014, 21:09

You missed the point if these multi R/w airports can spring up in the desert without any discernible local traffic then so too could Boris Island. The problem is we are trying to make it face both ways. A true hub like Dxb feeds on itself hunreds of interconnecting flights with 95% transfer traffic.
London is now missing out to this traffic , people use Ams Cdg Fra etc as it's easier to interconnect.
Don't think so, the major difference is that each of the "desert" airports have a major carrier providing the hub functions: EK at DXB, EY at AUH, QR at DOH. Boris Island clearly will not have this.

BTW the desert "multi R/w airports" have 2 rwys each.

Boris Island has more in common with YMX rather than DXB, AUH, DOH.

If the 3rd r/w is built there will be yet another terminal associated with it leading to yet more complexity. I am not sure this will make travelling through Lhr any easier
Another terminal with a third rwy will be effectively an annex of LHR-5 mainly for one world carriers currently in LHR-3, so it's not particularly complex, it will make things much easier.

DaveReidUK

10th Sep 2014, 21:50

Boris Island has more in common with YMX rather than DXB, AUH, DOH.

You're joking, of course. Even Boris wouldn't be daft enough to want to re-invent Mirabel.

PAXboy

10th Sep 2014, 22:25

DXB is in the cross roads of Euope / Mid-East / Far Aast /Oz + NZ. Boris would not be.

DXB can be justified (almost) on the hub alone. LHR or Boris cannot be.

Fairdealfrank

11th Sep 2014, 11:03

You're joking, of course. Even Boris wouldn't be daft enough to want to re-invent Mirabel.
Don't count on it. He may not intend to, but it could be the result.

Boris is working on the assumption that he can close Heathrow. The truth is that Heathrow isn't closing, hence the owners investing in new terminals. Unfortunately, proposed investment in new rwys is blocked.

Boris cannot force Heathrow to close, consequently no carrier and none of the premium business would to ill move to Boris Island. So it could very much resemble Mirabel.

DXB is in the cross roads of Euope / Mid-East / Far Aast /Oz + NZ. Boris would not be.

DXB can be justified (almost) on the hub alone. LHR or Boris cannot be.

Nor should LHR be justified "on the hub alone", it is much more than that.

LHR is at the crossroads of the world, as are AMS, CDG and FRA of course.
Most routes via DXB, AUH and DOH are on one hell of a long "dog-leg".

PAXboy

11th Sep 2014, 11:51

But it's a dog leg that has huge backing and a desire to win.

Amongst many other factors.

On the beach

11th Sep 2014, 15:55

Whilst the politicians procrastinate the only interim solution is for Heathrow to go to 24 hour unlimited operations with mixed mode on both runways. That should allow another 12 months of increase in traffic, after that........

The problem with a third (and sensibly a fourth) runway is that construction should have started at least 5 years ago.

Never mind. Scotland will most likely vote YES next week. The tories will win the election next year having got shot of the West Lothian Brigade. Cameron will be ousted having "lost" Scotland, Boris will be elected PM and ...........sanity will be restored to the world of aviation. :E

peterhr

11th Sep 2014, 18:27

Most routes via DXB, AUH and DOH are on one hell of a long "dog-leg".
They will become more important if Tzar Putin (the expansionist) closes Russian airspace to European airlines.

Walnut

11th Sep 2014, 19:16

Whilst I am not particularly a supporter of Boris Island I do think one has to wonder if LHR really knows where it's going. Trying to squeeze more into a tiny plot has little future, just to build one R/w is going to be mega disruptive Circa 1000 homes distroyed and hellish transport problems with M25 put into a tunnel widened to 10 lanes whilst it remains the major road artery around London. The disruption will be hellish, not just to London but the airport itself. Then there is another terminal with links. By the time it's finished in say 10yrs it will be swamped with traffic
So what then?
This is where Boris has vision, it may be nice for all the vested interests to just think LHR but sensibly we do have to move on

onyxcrowle

11th Sep 2014, 19:47

Whst about making Manchester a hub.
It has a huge investment from the Chinese.
I'm sure they coukd double the size.
It can be linked to HS2 if they start next year on HS2 and it's northern arms at the same time Eg Start HS2 In the North and South Simultaneously .
Give Manchester two more runways and new terminals.
Bring BA up lock stock and Barell .
Manchester like EMA is in the physical middle of the map.
In real terms its not too far from Most of England , Wales and Scotland.
Granted there woukd have to be serious investments and slits from Newquay and Exeter perhaps reopening Plymouth to give the Southwest equal accsess to it by means if regular feeder traffic
Heathrow can continue to be a large airport but if you had another UK hub mainly for the UK carriers it it would surely Free up LHR to a host of new routes and international carriers.
Perhaos even the likes of Ryanair with no bother of expansion .
I just dont see how continously expanding Heathrow is the answer.
It can't be.
Because sooner or later yiyr going to.run out of safe airspace

DaveReidUK

11th Sep 2014, 20:45

What about making Manchester a hub.

Another airport (like EMA) that didn't feature in any of the proposals made to the Airports Commission.

Fairdealfrank

11th Sep 2014, 21:31

Whilst the politicians procrastinate the only interim solution is for Heathrow to go to 24 hour unlimited operations with mixed mode on both runways. That should allow another 12 months of increase in traffic, after that........Guess it's one way to "persuade" the anti-Heathrow expansion vocal minority that a 3rd and 4th rwy are needed.

Trouble is that much of the vocal minority live miles away and are unaffected by aircraft noise.

The problem with a third (and sensibly a fourth) runway is that construction should have started at least 5 years ago
Should have been completed 5 years ago!

Never mind. Scotland will most likely vote YES next week. The tories will win the election next year having got shot of the West Lothian Brigade. Cameron will be ousted having "lost" Scotland, Boris will be elected PM and ...........sanity will be restored to the world of aviation.
It's not cut and dried. If the Scots vote "yes", then all bets are off.

Expect an early election and new party leaders - oh, and the Airports Commission reporting several months earlier.

Whilst I am not particularly a supporter of Boris Island I do think one has to wonder if LHR really knows where it's going. Trying to squeeze more into a tiny plot has little future, just to build one R/w is going to be mega disruptive Circa 1000 homes distroyed and hellish transport problems with M25 put into a tunnel widened to 10 lanes whilst it remains the major road artery around London. The disruption will be hellish, not just to London but the airport itself. Then there is another terminal with links. By the time it's finished in say 10yrs it will be swamped with traffic
So what then?
This is where Boris has vision, it may be nice for all the vested interests to just think LHR but sensibly we do have to move on
Yes, yes all very visionary, but what do we do in the intervening 50 years?

Nothing?

Realistically, LHR would have to be expanded in the interim anyway, so let's just concentrate on that site only and do it properly.

Whst about making Manchester a hub.
It has a huge investment from the Chinese.
I'm sure they coukd double the size.
It can be linked to HS2 if they start next year on HS2 and it's northern arms at the same time Eg Start HS2 In the North and South Simultaneously .
Give Manchester two more runways and new terminals.
Bring BA up lock stock and Barell .
Manchester like EMA is in the physical middle of the map.
In real terms its not too far from Most of England , Wales and Scotland.
Granted there woukd have to be serious investments and slits from Newquay and Exeter perhaps reopening Plymouth to give the Southwest equal accsess to it by means if regular feeder traffic
Heathrow can continue to be a large airport but if you had another UK hub mainly for the UK carriers it it would surely Free up LHR to a host of new routes and international carriers.
Perhaos even the likes of Ryanair with no bother of expansion .
I just dont see how continously expanding Heathrow is the answer.
It can't be.
Because sooner or later yiyr going to.run out of safe airspace
Great idea - if we were under a "command economy" system.

We aren't, most of aviation and related industry is in the private sector, and therefore any scheme has to be a good business proposition.

Another airport (like EMA) that didn't feature in any of the proposals made to the Airports Commission.
Hmmm, EMA, MAN, STN, any one noticed what they have in common?

Walnut

12th Sep 2014, 06:41

DaveReidUK

12th Sep 2014, 07:56

a purely domestic hub

If it only serves domestic routes, it's not a hub.

Heathrow Harry

12th Sep 2014, 16:35

try telling US airlines that - the definition of a hub airport is one where a major airline concentrates traffic for inter-lining

it doesn't need to be international

DaveReidUK

12th Sep 2014, 18:44

try telling US airlines that - the definition of a hub airport is one where a major airline concentrates traffic for inter-lining

it doesn't need to be international

My comment was specifically in relation to a UK "domestic hub", which clearly is a non-starter.

Walnut

12th Sep 2014, 19:07

Clearly I did not explain myself clearly
Heathrow is 98% full. I am unsure of its domestic movements but even if its only 10% & all domestic flts are shipped to Northolt with decent connections to LHR, maybe HS2 could route through it too, then that buys 3yrs of growth at 3% pa, not much I know but it buys time.

Fairdealfrank

12th Sep 2014, 20:22

quote --- so what do we do in the next 50yrs---
Build Boris Island which has much the same time scale with far less disruption
& link Northolt to LHR with a monorail making it a purely domestic hub thus eliminating all the immigration and customs headaches.
Here we go again, banging on about grandoise infrastructures that business won't fund and nor will the government. Tweeking the number 90 bus route to go via LHR-1/2/3 and extending it from Northolt station may be the only way to link NHT and LHR.

NHT would only work as a small local airport like LCY and SEN for thin routes and possibly for "no-frills" operations to serve the large area west of London.

Without rwy realignment it would be a very limited operation. It has no role as a LHR third rwy on a "Heathwick" style arrangement.

Ho ho, and how do you think Boris MP would react to an expanding airport in his constituency.

Oh, he's up for selection this evening.

If it only serves domestic routes, it's not a hub.

try telling US airlines that - the definition of a hub airport is one where a major airline concentrates traffic for inter-lining

it doesn't need to be international
Correct in the USA, Canada, China, Russia and other big countries, but in European countries, the chances are that any hub would be international.

Clearly I did not explain myself clearly
Heathrow is 98% full. I am unsure of its domestic movements but even if its only 10% & all domestic flts are shipped to Northolt with decent connections to LHR, maybe HS2 could route through it too, then that buys 3yrs of growth at 3% pa, not much I know but it buys time.
You're having a laugh! The days of 10% domestic operations at LHR are long gone. You said it: LHR is 98% full, pretty obvious then that it should have been expanded years ago.

LHR needs expansion urgently. The case is answerable. Let's get on with it.

PAXboy

12th Sep 2014, 20:25

I'd say that Heathrow is at least 150% full - because it has zero spare capacity. if anything goes wrong they shed 20/30/40% of the traffic.

Not to mention the incredile stacking that takes place for every hour that the airport is open. The waste of time and fuel is an enormous cost usually ignored as most folks don't look at the figures. If the airport had the correct capacity - then that would not be needed to anything like the same degree.

That's just part of the reason why two more runways shoud have been completed ten years ago.

DaveReidUK

12th Sep 2014, 21:03

The days of 10% domestic operations at LHR are long gone.The proportion of Heathrow movements that are to/from domestic destinations is almost exactly 10%.

Fairdealfrank

13th Sep 2014, 13:29

I'd say that Heathrow is at least 150% full - because it has zero spare capacity. if anything goes wrong they shed 20/30/40% of the traffic.Good observation, amazing that it can be reduced to 99% full through the judicious use of statistics.

Not to mention the incredile stacking that takes place for every hour that the airport is open. The waste of time and fuel is an enormous cost usually ignored as most folks don't look at the figures. If the airport had the correct capacity - then that would not be needed to anything like the same degree.
Yes, have wasted much time queueing up to take off and going round in ever-decreasing circles on landing, completely hacked off with the situation.

It's laughable that the allegedly environmentally friendly Libdems are happy for this nonsense to continue. They have once again re-iterated their opposition to new rwys anywhere in their "pre-manifesto" manifesto.

John McDonnell MP (Lab Hayes and Harlington), and the allegedly environmentally friendly Zac Goldsmith MP (Con Richmond Park) should also be ashamed of themselves.

That's just part of the reason why two more runways shoud have been completed ten years ago.
Indeed.

The proportion of Heathrow movements that are to/from domestic destinations is almost exactly 10%.
Are you sure, thought it was 8% a few years ago and lower now. Either way, it's probably too much for NHT to cope with at present. Airline operations at NHT would have to share with the military, VIP traffic, and GA.

NHT would also need some infrastructure investment, such as a terminal with access roads and a station on the adjacant railway.

Walnut

13th Sep 2014, 18:51

So clearly my guess of 10% domestic traffic at LHR was about right. A simple terminal at NHT and the existing R/w could easily cope with that. I am sure the ViIP s could easily fit in their limited movements.
I am not suggesting LHR could not be expanded, but cramming more & more into one area has no long term future. Almost every other major city now has several airports ie JFK IAD CDG/ORY Berlin IST etc this gives diversity & providing the links between them work then travel is hassle free
Why do the supporters of a bigger LHR not think that other parts of the Uk should not have good links too. London has a population of circa 10M about 1/6th of the Uk population so it should not call all the shots.

DaveReidUK

13th Sep 2014, 19:44

So clearly my guess of 10% domestic traffic at LHR was about right.Yes, your guess was right.

But your proposal is a non-starter. If you're going to remove domestic feed traffic from Heathrow, there's little point in sticking it into Northolt or anywhere else.

A passenger getting on a flight from, say, Edinburgh or Glasgow who is now going to be looking at an MCT of at least 120 mins to a longhaul connection at "Heathholt", with a far from seamless transfer, is simply going to fly via Paris or Amsterdam instead. That, in turn, would impact on the viability of at least some of the longhaul routes from LHR.

I suspect that's not quite the solution you had in mind to the capacity problem.

Walnut

13th Sep 2014, 20:39

I believe you are wrong A monorail journey of 10 miles would take 15min from NRT to T5 with no customs or immigration to consider It would be like LCY where you can be on a train within 10min of disembarking it would just be like a spoke of T5

Fairdealfrank

14th Sep 2014, 20:21

Why do the supporters of a bigger LHR not think that other parts of the Uk should not have good links too. London has a population of circa 10M about 1/6th of the Uk population so it should not call all the shots.
We don't, at least this one doesn't.

Expansion should be allowed wherever a business case can be made.

Under the UK system it has to be a business case because most airports (certainly the major ones) are privately owned and the govt also doesn't have any spare dosh.

Realistically expansion away from LHR on it's own isn't going to solve the "LHR problem".

BTW, it's not about the proportion of the UK's population, LHR is a global airport, the UK's only one, and one of just four in Europe.

I believe you are wrong A monorail journey of 10 miles would take 15min from NRT to T5 with no customs or immigration to consider It would be like LCY where you can be on a train within 10min of disembarking it would just be like a spoke of T5
It's slightly more plausible than "Heathwick" because the distance is only 6 mi. and no international-international transfers would be involved, but it's still unfeasable.

There isn't going to be a monrail, the best you could achieve would be a dedicated bus link, but that would be proned to traffic congestion, road works, accidents, etc..

In the real world, you have to ask your self the following:

Is there a business case for at least a terminal and railway station at NHT (with a station and fast trains on Chiltern, NHT would be as convenient for London as LCY)?

Would any carriers be interested in NHT operations (it is in a very large and very rich catchment area)?

Would the military be happy with such arrangements (it could be a nice little earner)?

Would Boris try and have it shut down and 200,000 houses built (NHT is in his constituency)?

There could be potential for a small local airport at NHT, but as LHR's "domestic terminal", not a chance.