View Full Version : SE England - new mega-airport required soon!!

Crosswind Limits
1st Jun 2001, 22:01
It was depressing to read yesterday's Times article about how Paris CDG "is" going to overtake LHR as Europe's main hub within the next few years. CDG is about to open a fourth runway next month and a sixth terminal by 2003. Even other major European airports such as Frankfurt and Amsterdam Schipol are expanding at a pace. As if that wasn't bad news enough, reading the preliminary reports about Terminal 5 and all the potential restrictions that are likely to be imposed on it should it be built made me wonder why I bother being British!

Why is Britain (I refuse to use the word "Great") so short-sighted and insular in its outlook towards future progress and prosperity? Time and time again good, even great ideas and inventions have been spawned in this country only to be squandered by those hell-bent on maintaining British mediocrity or governments or corporations unwilling to support projects in the long- term. When my father used to work for Bristol Aircraft in the 1950s there were so many good designs and developments that never got off the drawing-board or were short-lived, he sometimes wondered why he bothered at all.

I am totally sick of hearing or reading about Britain's decline!! :mad:

If LHR or LGW cannot be properly expanded then expand Stansted or build another bloody major airport but for gawd's sake do something quickly. This culture of stagnation and procrastination and over-concern about offending the sensibilities of the fickle-minded electorate is taking this country to the knacker's yard.

Will the government of the day please pull its finger out, grasp the political nettle and do something about long-term development of air travel in Britain. And while there, it can sort out public transport, education, health and a whole host of other dilapidations as well!

Yours frustrated,


[This message has been edited by Crosswind Limits (edited 02 June 2001).]

1st Jun 2001, 22:15
Am i mistaken or was i dreaming when I was an f/o on the 3rd aircraft to take off from the new runway at paris last year?? Admittedly I have had a change of fleet and havent flown into to CDG this year. Did they shut 27L or something?

But yes as a nation we need to pull ourselves together and balance up the national needs with the needs of local protestors and not take years to do it!

capt waffoo
1st Jun 2001, 23:05
We all know that new runways are desperately needed, the only new runway to be built in UK in 40 years is the new one at Manchester, and that doesnt give MCT true simultaneous runway ops. I have recently read a report that says southern UK will need at least 5 new international sized runways within next 10 years!!!!!!!!! Dream on. We wont even get one. The only new runway on the cards is at STN, and that is only an auxiliary runway like the spare taxiway at LGW and will in no way increase capacity. it is only needed to allow resurfacing of the original. Even more tragic is the fact that BAA owns all the farmland to the East of STN and is in a position to immediately build another true parallel runway on its own land if only they could get past the decades of public enquiries that would be needed. Still, at present STN is showing all the signs of maxing out on parking stands so even if the will & funds were there (and Swampy and his evil spawn were not) it would be 10 years of purgatory before the congestion was eased. Usual British problem - too little, too late.

Tragically I fear the bunny huggers and nimbys will prevent all attempts to increase out air capacity (look at how successful theyve been over T4 at LHR which has nothing to do with allowing more aircraft movements). Sadly these imbeciles will prevent our taking a full part in aerial transport in years & decades to come, and by their selfishness and ignorance will allow the prosperity and jobs go to sen sible folks like the French.

I dont suppose these dolts will refrain from complaining bitterly at the delays and spiralling costs whenever they go on holiday, or will have the intelligence/moral honesty to accept that theit redundancy/delays/expensive hols/damaged national economy is purely a selfishly inflicted injury.


Rant over!

2nd Jun 2001, 01:02
Alconbury! Trust me.

2nd Jun 2001, 01:07
Flyboy UK

27R not L has been shut @ CDG since being built although over the last few days there has been some movements

2nd Jun 2001, 02:22
Forget...with u on this dude.. wot about

Upper Heyford

and Greenham Common

And Bentwaters

And Wattisham

And Finningley

And.....you name em, there all there rotting away.

Mr Blair Get Your S**t Together or become a leader of the 3rd world!

2nd Jun 2001, 02:27
Oh, I forgot Dunsfold !

(Why is LHR the centre of the world.. theres nowhere to park?)

2nd Jun 2001, 02:29
Swampy and his mates don't care about the economy, because they wont bother getting a job, and rely on the next government to increase benefits for the eternally grubby.

capt waffoo
2nd Jun 2001, 02:58
Quite so!

If I was in the position of the simpering idiot in No. 10 I'd make sure Swampy and his sponging mates stayed grubby earning their benefit fraud by buildibg all those new runways, and serve em right too. Work would be a new experience to them, the idle louts.

2nd Jun 2001, 03:22
Hey Crosswind Limits

The "Great" in Great Britain has nothing to do with Greatness as in importance but referres to size as in "Brittany" as oposed to "Grande Brittany" the name given to what is now the United Kingdom by the Romans. And no, I don't call Britain great either. ;-))

Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.

2nd Jun 2001, 03:33
Wrong capt waffoo 09/27 at Liverpool wasn't opened until the 70's.

Out Of Trim
2nd Jun 2001, 05:44
Hey AOG-YYZ - Drop dead you ******* ****! you have nothing to boast about in Canada that's for sure! We will get our act together in time - a second runway at LGW is on the way for sure. There's no way to avoid it.

dallas dude
2nd Jun 2001, 06:20
Actually AOG YYZ does have something to boast about - a new runway to be opened on the east side of YYZ.

That having been said, it's high time Westminster (and let's be honest, Blair inherited this clusterf...) either realises it needs to build a new airport in the Southeast or be overflown to the Euro mainland gateways.

I say this as an anorak who spent many half-terms on the roof of the Queen's Building, jotting numbers in my I-Spy books!

Get yer finger out indeed!


2nd Jun 2001, 06:57
I do believe FRA is the next airport after LHR, shame the UK might be missing another opportunity to lead the pack. Later, it will be difficult to catch up if they still want to be take part in the race. Thouhgt, wished, the uk was more on the ball http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

If you can't save the engine...save the airframe :D

2nd Jun 2001, 08:37
Re: the title of this thread.

It may well be needed but it's not going to happen. Do Cublington, Nuthampstead and Maplin ring a bell ? Land demands have not declined in the intervening 30 years. There will be no green field airport in the SE, or anywhere else in England for that matter.

No additional 'real' runways at LHR, LGW, STN or LTN either (well maybe LTN). Which leaves development of other existing airports/bases, some of which were mentioned but all of them are too far away from London to be viable. With a HSR link, Lydd would be a possibility were it not for the inevitable devastation of surrounding wetlands.

I'm pro-aviation and not particularly anti-British but facts have to be faced, however unpalatable. CDG, AMS and possibly FRA will eclipse LHR within the next ten years. Get over it.

2nd Jun 2001, 09:08
I’m afraid that it’s time to dust off those plans for Maplin (Thames Estuary) again. It’s the only place that would provide the space and airspace required for a major terminal. It’s also just about the only place close to London that isn’t in a conservative constituency, won’t destroy the only habitat for the lesser spotted yellow mushroom eating butterfly shagger, and impossible to be tunnelled under by Swampy. Also no shortage of Essex girls for future series of Airpork/Airswine.

Start building it ten years ago.


2nd Jun 2001, 11:38
Once upon a time UK was the last bit of land (OK, apart from Shannon) on the way to N.America, and aircraft had ranges that would just get them across the Atlantic on a tank-full.

So everybody from 'mainland Europe" had to fly to UK to jump off for US.

Now that ain't the case - no more "captive market" http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

Tony - if Joe Public puts you back in power next week, get your @ss into gear :mad:

as for the Euro - how about renaming it the N.Atlantic Peso. You really wanna join that http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

2nd Jun 2001, 12:48
'More operations needed at Heathrow' is a bit like the 'red car effect' (you know - manufacturers make red cars because people buy them, people buy red cars because that's what the manufacturers make!)

There is an assumption that the London/Essex SE England area must have all the runways, because that's where people wish to travel from. But is that really the case? For example, why do airports such as Bristol have such appalling road/rail links? Why have all the ex-USAFE aerodromes in East Anglia been allowed to deteriorate?

What is needed FIRST is investment and expansion of existing airports away from London, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Manchesterr BEFORE anyone starts trying to build green field airports. However, personally I think that Alconbury would be a reasonable site for a future airport. But would the interests of Conington, Sibson etc be protected? The only other real choice would be Foulness.....

Wee Weasley Welshman
2nd Jun 2001, 14:36
Well Stansted actually has a second runway over to the eastside, 11,000ft long but just turfed over awaiting the day when BAA unveil their fait acompli. Thats what some bloke in the pub told me last night and he works there...


Whipping Boy's SATCO
2nd Jun 2001, 15:51
Dagger D,you forgot

Brize Norton




2nd Jun 2001, 15:52
capt waffoo
I don't know what your definition of "true simultaneous runway ops" is, but at MAN we certainly do operate simultaneous operations on two runways without reference to each other. Fair enough, we have to cross a runway to get to the other, but that doesn't cause us too many headaches.
We just need more apron space to park aircraft, then the movement rate could be increased from 57/hr to something more befitting a dual runway airport.

2nd Jun 2001, 17:54
The major problem with any new airport in SE England will be the NIMBYs - the 'Not In My Back Yard' brigade. (I have to admit in all honesty that I was unfortunate enough to have my peaceful rural idyll about to be shattered by a new major airport right across the road, I'd probably be out there on the picket lines and in the courts with the best of 'em.)

Just as with Terminal 5 at Heathrow, local pressure groups, wherever they may be, will delay any planned new construction for decades with environmental impact studies, protests, local member's bills et al.

One answer, which would be enormously costly, but perhaps 'do-able', (but which would still meet concerted resistance from some quarters), would be a really huge floating airport in the Thames Estuary, similar to what has been suggested for San Franscisco (and somewhere in Japan?).

A reclaimed airport may also be possible, but I have no idea how shallow the water is in any such suitable areas. My first impression would be to say it's doubtful. I imagine a century or so of dumped munitions from two World Wars woulld have to be a serious consideration in any such reclaimation scheme.

2nd Jun 2001, 18:52
It might be no problem for you but I guarantee it is a problem for others, both aircrew and passengers.
Last time I flew from Manchester I was longer waiting to cross R1 than I was flying to Glasgow.

2nd Jun 2001, 18:59
Out of Trim
What do you find so offensive about my submission? It can't be the FACT that the Romans gave the British Island's the name "Great" to distinguish them from Brittany. Perhaps you would have liked them to be named just Britain and Brittany given the prefix "Petite". Oh I forgot, that is used for your inteligence quotient. :-))

Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.

[This message has been edited by AOG-YYZ (edited 02 June 2001).]

2nd Jun 2001, 19:08
Thanks dallas dude, however I must point out that R6 has just been approved and that the C$4. billion "Terminal New" which will be capable of handling 60 million + pax per annum is about 9 months ahead of schedule and the Air Canada "State of the Art" cargo facility is now operational.
I think the above news may put "Out Of Trim" OUT OF SORTS. :-))

Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.

2nd Jun 2001, 19:16
Spot on, PT.

Quote: wot about
Upper Heyford
A car park
and Greenham Common
Dug up
And Bentwaters
Moonies/business park/houses
And Wattisham
And Finningley
A bit inconvenient for London.

And.....you name em, there all there rotting away

Yup. I am as sad as you, but reality supervenes.

2nd Jun 2001, 19:52
It's always been a mystery as to why BA and the BAA or similar partners dont bite the bullet, and make an investment in one of the former military bases available North of London. Sure - it is a big injection of cash, but the in the long term they would see a massive return on the investment and have their own airport nearer to Central London.
The development at Finningly is subject to final planning enquiries, and has only been held back by government interference from Jonny 2 Jabs/Jags.
As he's highly likely to be a cabinet cast off in the next government, let's hope it succeeds.
A bit inconvenient for London? I don't think so - right at the end of a motorway, has it's own railway station, require very little further development as the infrastructure is in place, (apart from a terminal), and in fact it's probably better placed for Central London than Bristol, Cardiff, Manston et al. I'm not a potential employee of the organisation - just stating the reality - which is cauing much worry at Humberside and Leeds Bradford. ;)

It wasn't me.

2nd Jun 2001, 20:06
Sorry, Spoonbill but Finningley, at 180 miles or so from London, is a non starter.

Would you want to deplane from your Tenerife charter and hop on to a coach for a potential 6 hour drive? It would be quicket to go to Florida in the first place.

2nd Jun 2001, 21:28
Why not run more transatlantic services from Glasgow and Edinburgh instead of the present nonsense where we have to go via Heathrow or Gatwick and then fly back over Scotland four hours later ?

That would take a lot of the load off the SE.

2nd Jun 2001, 21:33
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Would you want to deplane from your Tenerife charter and hop on to a coach for a potential 6 hour drive? </font>

Didn't think Ryanair served Teneriffe :)

2nd Jun 2001, 22:00
My solution to Londons congestion is to plus through Amsterdam or Dublin, if my UK destination is other than South East England. I get a far better choice of UK destinations from either of these airports than I would flying to any UK destination other than inconvenient LHR.
PS: Usually cheaper too!

2nd Jun 2001, 23:32
Ah yes,
We have the "magic" word here...LONDON
Admittedly it is the "political" capital of England, [that's it since Mr Blur]
Last time I used the x-channel ferry, I drove past "London-Lydd" airport ;).
Best choice foe a 4th/5th/6th London runway is Brum :). Or at a pinch EMA:
we aim to please [otherwise, it upsets the cleaners]

3rd Jun 2001, 01:33
There must have been extenuating circumstances to your delayed crossing. Normally there is minimal delay at the crossing points (when I'm on 118.62 anyway :) )
You may have to wait a while once you're across there, but I bet you didn't hold in the air on arrival. Air holding is much reduced.
Ground holding waiting for a stand, now that's a different story!

3rd Jun 2001, 01:39
Nobody seems to have thought about Bedford:

great big runway!

As for Maplin/Foulness, I believe the original design envisaged 4 14000ft runways on reclaimed land in the Thames estuary. Too late now I suppose.

3rd Jun 2001, 05:11
From (long and sometimes faulty) memory, Maplin was a no-go due to insufficient bedrock. Didn't stop the Japanese though - is KIX still above water ?
Also flooding was perceived as a very real danger, the Thames Barrier being one of the byproducts of Roskill.

3rd Jun 2001, 23:32
Just had a look at a site called ACI, which lists the world's busiest airports in terms of pax, movements and freight, together with growth rates. Heathrow is as follows:

Pax 64.607m (up 3.8%)
Frt 1.402m tons (up 3.4%)
Movements 466,185 (up 1.9%)

If you take a growth rate of 4% over 20 yrs, you're looking at 141m pax. So where are they all going to go?

Gatwick? Stansted? Remember, this growth rate is well below the likely rate if constraints are minimised. Air transport is expected to grow at around 5-6% over the next 20 years. If the UK's transport infrastructure is unable to deal with it, tourism, trade and (perhaps less importantly) the UK's standing as an aviation centre will suffer.

So, looking at the growth potential we have now (such as it is) and what we need, a new airport may well be the best solution. Not too easy to find a 15-20,000 acre green field site, but this may well be what is needed. It's better, to the greatest extent possible, to find a way, once and for all, for the next 20-30 or more years to find a way to provide the aviation growth the economy needs, without the perennial planning concerns, investigations and reports that seem to be required for every inch of growth now.

Time to start thinking long term . . .

3rd Jun 2001, 23:55
I believe that the easyJets, Ryanairs etc. have found a way around the present and future congestion, not to mention costs, associated with Heathrow and that is to operated from "near UK" airports and offer cheap flights to where passengers want to go.
For example, someone travelling from a North American gateway to Preston, Lancs. would be far better using Amsterdam and plussing to Liverpool or the same passenger trying for Nottingham would find it easier to connect through AMS for EMA. I believe airports like Amsterdam, Antwerp and Dublin have a very bright future ferrying UK destined international passengers to their closest destination airport. And for airline proffesionals I would think that passenger convenience would be the criteria, rather than the jingoistic "my airport is busier than yours" attitude.

It would be interesting to know just what the figures are for SE England destined versus connecting passengers through Heathrow.

Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.

4th Jun 2001, 15:55

Are you suggesting that someone should decide to overfly Great Britain and then fly back to LPL and then travel from there to Preston when that person can (a) fly to LHR and connect on the BA shuttle (why bother?), (b) fly to LGW and connect on the BA pseudo-shuttle (why bother?) or (c) fly to an airport that has daily flights from these US hub airports:

Newark (Continental), Chicago (American + bmi/United), Atlanta (Delta), Washington (bmi/United) and Philadelphia (USAirways).

In addition, there are daily plus flights from this airport to JFK from both BA and Pakistan International.

This particular airport having been placed 5th in overall customer satisfaction in the 2000 IATA Global Monitor Airport survey.

Time for people to understand that "North Britain"-bound passengers have a growing number of intercontinental destinations from Manchester, and that the accompanying railway station offers destinations both near and far!

4th Jun 2001, 16:32
I'm with 'flyboyuk' on this one.

This country needs to stop trying to please all of the people all of the time and make some decisions that will benefit our future prosperity. Everywhere you look on every bl@@dy issue there are people protesting about this or complaining about that. Whatever happened to live and let live.

This echoes the complete shambles that was(is) the new runway at Manchester. At my local flying club we have express instructions not to fly anywhere near certain villages/towns because someone might complain to the CAA. Don't these people have anything better to do with their lives!! :mad: Apparently they sit with binoculors looking for tail numbers. WHAT IS THEIR PROBLEM! :mad:

You'll probably find that some EU directive has stated that Heathrow has been world leader for too long and its about time some other European country had the largest european destination.

4th Jun 2001, 17:24
My bets on Stansted as its the least environmentally damaging option and most cost effective,(STN T3 in 15 years anyone?) Heathrow will get T5, and possibly a growth cap of xx million pax per annum. In the London area Gatwick has the village of Charlwood?, in the way to the northwest of the airport, far too costly to pull that down!, ooh look green fields at Stansted!

Manston: wrong side of London, no suitable infrastructure for cost effective use.
Brize/Fairford: too far out of London, same as Manston re infrastructure.
Bedford: now partially immigration and motorsport centre, lack of infrastructure.
Alconbury: well placed, road and rail infrastructure, already failed due lack of support as a cargo airfield, to be sold for non-aviation industrial use.
Finningley: too far north for London, the size of the development means it was always goint to end up as a public enquiry, the fact that 2 jags lives down the road, means he might actually look at something he's employed to do!.

Environmental considerations mean that existing facilities will be used first, no government or private company will bank roll a completely new airport, its too expensive to recover costs for GBPLC or the shareholders in a reasonable time frame. Infrastructure in terms of road and rail links are essential so any development would naturally gravitate towards those with existing links.
Finally consider this: we are 4 years into the current government's 10 year transport programme,and with what results?, funny that no party has made tree hugging an important issue this election!

4th Jun 2001, 17:29
Yes Ringwayman,
I am suggesting people overfly Britain to get a better choice of destinations, I do. Heathrow is a nightmare for UK destined conx pax. Both Amsterdam and Dublin offer more UK destinations than Heathrow and as for MAN, unless your destination is Greater Manchester you would be much better off flying to your local airport via a continental airport. Why would I want to travel to Manchester when my final UK destination is Hartlepool, Harrogate, Leicester, Liverpool, Leeds, Nottingham, Carlisle, Wolverhampton, Bristol, Belfast, Cardiff, Edinbrough, Glasgow etc. all of which either have their own airport or one closer than Manchester. UK flights from Amsterdam, Dublin and Antwerp are all less than one hours flying time to a local UK airport which is surely far less congested than either London or Manchester and closer to ones final destination.

Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.

Crosswind Limits
4th Jun 2001, 17:31
Good to see a lively discussion! :) Over the weekend I was talking to my brother in law and we moved on to the subject of increasing the number of runways in the south east and as soon as I mentioned EGSS he baulked at me as if all the aircraft being vectored on to final would overfly his house at 1000'. Unfortunately I didn't dare explain that where he was situated (Hornchurch) there wasn't much danger of that, just the usual activity at 4-5000'. A definite NIMBY http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

Next time he decides to moan due to his charter flight to Spain being delayed, perhaps he might like to ponder that one of the reasons for the delay might well be the limited runway capacity vs the ever increasing pax traffic! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

[This message has been edited by Crosswind Limits (edited 04 June 2001).]

4th Jun 2001, 19:51
A few "facts".
1 Overfly UK and return add at least 2.5 hours to the journey.
2 All repeat ALL of your "destinations" are less, repeat LESS than that by Rail, Coach or even private car.
we aim to please [it keeps the cleaners happy]


5th Jun 2001, 03:50

Your "facts" have not been my experience, but we see them as we find them. I will still plus through Amsterdam when my final is Derby, Newcastle, Liverpool, West Bromwich etc.

Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.

5th Jun 2001, 06:43
I have to agree with AOG-YYZ. I'm flying to OZ in September. I fly from Brimingham to Frankfrut with BA and then connect with the OZ bound Qantas flight there. It is costing me the same as flying from Heathrow to Oz via Bangkok/SingaPore route. Yes it means a few hours more in a flying time and two stops Vs one stop, but the actual 'door to door' traveling time is about the same. It's no contest really.. :)


[This message has been edited by OzPax1 (edited 05 June 2001).]

5th Jun 2001, 12:06
I'm surprised that Southend hasn't been mentioned. Granted that the place is a turd-hole but has plenty of existing infrastructure (radar,ils,railway,roads).

5th Jun 2001, 15:19
Madly expensive as it sounds, here in Cambridge, Marshalls have said they would be prepared to move and give up the Cambridge Airport site for housing IF an alternative location should be found and paid for nearby. If Cambridge Council, Marshalls and BAA / a.n.otherAirportOperator got together it might just be feasible to reopen Alconbury / Wyton etc.

Riping up Cambridges perfectly good runway complete with ILS and local maintainence facilities seems an expensive way of doing it however! EGSC even has a fast (45min) railway line to London running alongside the site! Cambridge is a NIMBY hotspot however.


Just keep it Ginger!

5th Jun 2001, 16:35
Heathrow is busy because it's in the right place - eg: West of London, and easily accessible via rail, M3 and M4. The M25 also allows access from further north and further south, too. Gatwick's too far into the bottom right hand corner, Stansted is too far into Essex (If it was on the M1, maybe, perhaps even the A1, but the M11 is a step too far). East Midlands is too far to serve London (plus no rail link) and Birmingham is rendered impossible by the game of chance of the M6.

So where?

Greenham would have been perfect (an hour from West London on the Motorway, within easy spitting distance for a new Motorway spur - or if they'd built the by-pass on Eastern side, instead of the West) and with existing railway existing to Newbury racecourse - within walking distance of the base). What a huge missed opportunity!

Fairford's might be OK but would need major road and railway building.

How about Brize? Blackbushe? Boscombe? Lyneham (good proximity to the M4 and Swindon)? Or how about Odiham? Or Upper Heyford?

5th Jun 2001, 17:11
I know this isn't exactly related but at EGLK we can't even get permission to add concrete squares to park on to save sinking in the mud.

- nothing worse than doing an 'a' check and having to dig a trench so you can drive it out!

5th Jun 2001, 17:34
I reckon they should wait until whatever government it is shuts all the RAF bases in this country then the civil world could then take their pick. ;)

With an army of about 7, an airforce of roughly 2 and a couple of canoes to defend us (as well as more cuts on the horizon), it surely can't be a long time coming.

[This message has been edited by bow5 (edited 05 June 2001).]

Biggles Flies Undone
5th Jun 2001, 18:16
I’m surprised that Manston is not mentioned more. There’s bugger all around it, most approaches could be flown over the sea and it has loads of room to expand.

Not far from the M2 (and the Thanet Way is mostly 2 lane these days) and when (if) the Channel Tunnel fast rail link gets built it won’t be that far away.

My bet is that, once the infrastructure was sorted, a passenger could get to the centre of London pretty much as quickly as from LHR or LGW.

5th Jun 2001, 21:12
AOG-YYZ - just a small historical correction. This has only been "Great" Britain since the Act of Union (with Scotland) in 1707. The Romans called the island "Britannia" from around the 1st Century BC(apparently it had been known to earlier Greek traders as "Prettania"). The Romans knew Britanny as "Armorica".

5th Jun 2001, 21:56
Thanks for the correction Sigmund. I would be interseted in your source material as mine is obviously outdated. Thanks in advance for any info you can supply.

My information came from an old edition of the 'Encyclopedia Britannica' Quote "The Roman general Gaius Julius Ceaser (q.v.) visited Britain in 55BC and returned the following year to conquer the island for Rome ,naming it Grande Britannia."

The same publication gives reference to the Greek navigator Pytheas who visited the British Isles in the fourth century BC and gave the first known description of the islands and their inhabitants.

Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.

[This message has been edited by AOG-YYZ (edited 05 June 2001).]

6th Jun 2001, 00:01
YYZ-AOG, thanks for the reply. I know this is slightly off the original thread but your encyclopaedia is misinformed and this is a case for going to the primary sources. Julius Caesar (who did not conquer Britain - that was Claudius in AD43- though he did visit twice on exploratory raids in 55 and 54BC) nowhere calls these islands Great - just "Britannia". Plain old "Britain" is similarly mentioned by a number of other classical authors and the term "Great" is only seen much later.
The First act of Union (1 My 1707) formally created Great Britain (the second Act in 1801 added Ireland). In practice, as James I was originally James VI of Scotland there had been unity since 1603, though I don't think it was referred to as Great at that time.
rgds again!

6th Jun 2001, 00:19
Why not just get rid of the RAF from Brize Norton and use that? It's big enough, is close to the motorway and has a lot of room for expansion. Besides, it doesn't take that long to get there from London.

Surely it would also take a bit of weight off of LHR & LGW -since everyone in the West wanting to fly wouldn't have to go all the way to London to do so.

Just a thought.

6th Jun 2001, 00:30
Thanks again Sigmund.

Every man has his price and the incorruptible man the highest price of all.

Club Tropicana
7th Jun 2001, 00:38
You may not be far off the mark there. Wheels are already in motion to move those occupying the southern part of the airfield up north by a mile or so and it is rumoured that a well known public figure associated with aviation bought the option to buy some adjoining land to the south a few years ago. Carterton is the only town in Oxfordshire with planning permission to expand significantly over the next few years and the rail link is pencilled in for 2006(I think). The next bunch of aircraft currently programmed to arrive are dual role civ/mil A330's or maybe B767's but this is perhaps somewhat of a red herring as I would bet that by the time they arrive, the civilian side of the airfield will be doing business.
I doubt whether this will turn Brize into a huge international airport but it may well relax some of the pressure LHR is set to receive over the coming years.

[This message has been edited by Club Tropicana (edited 06 June 2001).]

8th Jun 2001, 18:12
Which motorway is Brize close to? Which fast rail line? Why not leave the RAF where they are and turn Lyneham into LONDON-SWINDON INTERNATIONAL?

8th Jun 2001, 18:16
Crazy Pilot,

You seem to be forgetting that Brize is one of, if not the top RAF base with a lot of aircraft stationed there.

8th Jun 2001, 18:46
jp263...how do you come to your conclusion Southend's a "turd hole"???
Sounds like an ill informed comment to me

8th Jun 2001, 18:47
jp263...how do you come to your conclusion Southend's a "turd hole"???
Sounds like an ill informed comment to me

9th Jun 2001, 23:11
Sounds fair to me. It's in Essex, the @rse-hole of England, after all!!!

10th Jun 2001, 00:22
Did someone mention coaches ?

We'd love to do this if asked !

After all we are "Britain's lowest flying airline "

13th Jun 2001, 16:34
Maybe the solution is joint mil/civil airfields? In my time flying those VC10s that are clogging up the pans at Brize Norton I thought that the concept seemed to work well enough at places such as Honolulu Intl/Hickham AFB and Franfurt/Rheinmain.

Brize has a great 10,000ft runway and is geared up to handling big aircraft (including 747 size) and could easily fit a number of civil aircraft in alongside the 20 or so VC10s, handful of Tristars and 4 C17s.

Thye road links are good - west london is less than 1 hour by A407M40 and the airport express coaches already go to Oxford, so a link to Brize is no trouble. Rail is poor though - the branch line shut down 25 years ago and the station is now an industrial estate.

Surely this would provide cheap international airport access for the airlines and a revenue boost for the RAF.

No comment
13th Jun 2001, 16:47
Shame really. Just a short walk from my house is an old playing field, a recently demolished 1960's council towerblock, a school and some new houses. All that remains is a bit of apron from what was more commonly known as Croydon airport.
I would have no problem if that place was tarmacced over again and opened to traffic.

18th Jun 2001, 19:27
Reading so many posts lamenting the lack of new runway capacity is interesting but people don't seem to fully realize just how negative is the official UK attitude to anything concerning aviation. Everyone here seems to hate having aircraft anywhere near them, but the same people are the ones who complain if their tickets to Benidorm cost too much, or the airport is too far away-sickening!
Only this year another airport, it's 6000' runway ideal for business and GA operations and only 25 miles from London, was ripped up for ever-Hatfield.
There is a complete lack of vision from our so called planners-"low compression side-valve people" to a man, whether it be concerning road, rail, or air. With the level of incompetence allied to corrupt practices present, we can be sure that if another airport in the south East is ever built, it will cause maximum devastation of the environment, etc.etc. as in the meantime more and more existing runways are ripped up for hardcore and for housing estates.


19th Jun 2001, 01:36
aircam, Hatfield did open as a business/GA airfield, it never made any money!.

All the mil sites are in the wrong place, even Greenham was, the development has to cater for MILLIONS of pax and TENS of thousands of flights every year. Whilst the runways might be long enough at Lyneham and Brize, are the local councils going to allow the building of new towns in those areas to house the thousands of workers required to operate a new airport?, I think it unlikely. Mixing the mil and civil traffic would be a nightmare, commercial traffic trying to make ATC slots and mil wanting to do circuits and bumps, not a very productive mix for either traffic type.

Most of the pax for the new airport/runway are originating from the southern home counties, greater London, and London itself, therefore driving/travelling past Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted to get to Wilts or Oxon doesn't make much sense in either Commercial or Environmental terms.

Whipping Boy's SATCO
19th Jun 2001, 09:56
jumpseater, read this link. Paul Wesson of Caterton (Brize Norton) has access to County Planning information; he's on the council!. I don't think you should discount the military bases that easily

19th Jun 2001, 10:51
Am I missing something?

By making better use of your local airport you have solved the SE
congestion problem. Well over half the passengers travelling through the
two main London Airports originate from outside London and the immediate
south-east. Why must Scottish residents have to travel down to London?

What is wrong with making more use of other EXISTING airports in the UK?
Glasgow/Edinburgh, Newcastle, Manchester/Liverpool,
Birmingham/EMA/Coventry, Bristol/Cardiff, and yes, even Exeter, Norwich,
Bournemouth/Southampton and the like.

19th Jun 2001, 12:22
I know most people on this site hate bunny-huggers/Swampy and their ilk, but does it ever occur to those who want rapid expansion of our mass transport systems that we are taking our species down the trash chute to extinction if we go on like this?

You can flame away at me as much as you like, but it wont change the fact that the atmosphere is deteriorating rapidly. Global warming is real. It is accelerating faster than we had anticipated. Recent events in Texas (37 inches in 4 days) are a hint of what is waiting for us.

People now fly for the most fatuous reasons. My sister and brother-in-law have flown to New York three times in the last year to go shopping. They stay for 24 hours, and usually buy the same sort of cr*p you can get at Brent Cross. Also during the past year, the 4 secretaries in my office have holidayed in Vietnam, China, Kenya, Thailand, Florida, and California. Yesterday we had a visiting scientist fly over from Wisconsin to give a 45 minute talk which was attended by 6 people, one of whom fell asleep.

Does anyone on Pprune ever think of the tons of combustion products that they are injecting into the upper atmosphere every day of their working week? Why are you all so keen to increase this activity? Can't any of you think beyond the end of the month? We are almost certainly the last humans who will get to enjoy the earth as it now is.

Flat Cap
19th Jun 2001, 13:25
Ah there is one your all forgetting, the old RAE Thurleigh site, 2 runways inc. 1 11,000 footer. Postioned convieniently between the M1, & A1 and only about the a mile from the Midland Mainline with direct connections to LTN LGW, and "The City". Just perfect for the job present use - a car park.

So here we are with too many cars that can't be sold, sat blocking one of the most valuable resourses in the SE (a decent runway) meanwhile we spend our time making pretty circles in the sky above Biggin, Lambourn and Brookmans Park, ah you know it makes sense!

Flat Cap

Hear all - say nowt
Sup all - pay nowt
Never do owt for nowt

19th Jun 2001, 13:41
I think that Rockwell has got it right.
If only the airports at the various parts of the UK were properly utilised the nightmare of the South East would be solved.
As it is, people travelling from anywhere apart from the South East on long haul flights generally have to go to the South East first. Increasingly and understandably they are choosing to make their connections elsewhere in Europe.
British aviation beware, there is no quick fix for the South East's problems, if you don't start to look after the customers elsewhere in Britain the future will be bleak as their business goes to airlines in other parts of Europe.

Billy the Kid
19th Jun 2001, 14:31
I don't know if this has been covered yet but in 1970 we started building one near southend on Maplin


This article talks about the politics surrounding Stansted and Maplin latter to be known as Rising Bung Island to the Yotties.
Or Birdsh!t Island to the locals...

19th Jun 2001, 14:51
Seems we are avoiding the main question here - why do we need to build the biggest/busiest/funkiest airport in the Uk? We have one of the highest population densities in europe (especially if you take into account the fact that to be viable it would have to be in the overcrowded SE), so surely it makes sense to simply build the facilities where the room is. So what if we fly our long haul out of CDG or FRA?

We dont make ships any more cos others can do it cheaper, we dont mine coal cos open casts in Aussie and S America are far cheaper, we shouldnt be trying to compete with the world grain price cos we will destry our countryside by turning it into those dreadful prairies, so why should we blight our lives even more with a huge new airport? We should compete in areas where we can compete - services, finance, etc etc and not waste time and money in areas where we cant.

Schipol can build into the sea, CDG can expand cos they dont have the planning processes we (rightly) have in this country, so let them. Given the choice as a pax, would you want to transfer at LHR? We have to learn that you dont have to have the biggest product to compete, after all, every single other country in the world has a less busy international airport than LHR and it doesnt seem to do them any harm to concentrate on customer service rather than just size.

Just my 0.02

20th Jun 2001, 02:21
Satco, I'd previously seen Paul Wesson's comments re Brize, and I don't doubt that the military airfields could handle some traffic, but I feel it would always be a relatively small amount. The proposed growth does mean literally Millions of pax, and having lived in Oxfordshire for a while, I seriously doubt whether the good people of oxfordshire (Sting included?), are prepared to accept the environmental consequences of that size of development.

Flat cap I mentioned in one of my earlier posts Thurleigh, and again the environmental and economic cost of generating the infrastructure to meet the demand at that location, is in my opinion too high. I believe in the Beds county structure plan that all civil airport development should be concentrated on Luton and Stansted, and the Bedford ring road passes to the south of the town.

Someone has already asked the first question that the politicians and our industry, need to answer, and that is should GBPLC meet this proposed demand? If so why? and if not why?.

Answers in crayon and no joined up writing to Mr J. Prescott, Hull.

Whipping Boy's SATCO
20th Jun 2001, 09:56
Third runway at HRW? Bulldoze the Post House Hotel etc............

20th Jun 2001, 13:27
re jumpseaters earlier post in which you said that Hatfield never made any money as a bizjet airport-that can be easily explained-the rent charged for the executive jet Centre by the lands owners was astronomic,(so I have been told by someone who worked there) making any commercial aviation activity unviable. Given owners more sympathetic to aviation development, Hatfield would have prospered as a Biz and GA airfield, plus industrial park (not warehousing, as is the new use)in the process relieving Luton and Stansted of that type of traffic. Look at the tarmac of Luton now and you see a LOT of bizjets-so the demand is there.Hatfield sic transit gloria!


20th Jun 2001, 19:23
If there is so much opposition to extra runways, try this one. Dig a large ditch at LGW and fill it full of water. Then use it to launch flying boats.(It doesn't count in the definition of a runway). Then you fill it full of concrete , coat it with tarmac, problem solved.

Alternatively you tell the protestors that you will close LGW at night, but you need another runway to cope with the traffic during the day.

Pigs fuelled and ready to fly!

Indiana Jones
20th Jun 2001, 22:52
Everyone...you are missing the point here.BAA has under invested in the OPERATION of their airports since they lost the duty free revenue. I'm a Tory through and through but question that BAA in hind sight should have been privatised.They put their money into RETAIL which is where they get the biggest return for their investment.They are always playing catchup with the operational areas because they can earn more from retail.And what are we the airlines left with? Dark,dingy,overcrowded filthy shopping centres that are a DISGRACE to this country.Again the travelling public are playing second fiddle to those on the continent. Then they have the audacity to publish high jetway usage.The airlines pay a lot of money to tow aircraft on and off gates so that BAA can stand up and proudly admit 96% pier service in terminal A,B or C.Its either a tow or a two mile bus ride. Disgraceful.Three years ago Janis Kong the current MD of GAL told the airlines three years ago to start bringing in bigger airplanes. Has GAL caught up with them.NO they havent and any future development is heavy on smaller stands not larger.

So come on TWO JAGS and the rest of you, pull your finger out before we become the laughing stock of the aviation world.

EVERY airport I go to is cleaner,has more light and is a nice experience. A BAA airport is sheer bloody hassle from start to finish.

Feel better now..............and being Indiana Jones, I've been to a few airports around the world I can tell you!

20th Jun 2001, 23:34
Manston has been briefly metioned here. Manston was a large military base which has been sold to 'Wiggins Group' and is now officially named LONDON MANSTON. Large developments are already underway. It is intended that it will be the airport to serve UK and the continent. I am surpised that Manston's developments and proposed future is not alrady a featured on Pprune !

682ft AMSL
21st Jun 2001, 00:47
Re: the comments of Rockwell regarding the greater use of regional airports to ease congestion at the main hubs, the movement and pax stats for MAN make intersting reading.

According to the CAA, 25% of all ATMs and 50% of all passengers at MAN last year were generated from charter services. Roughly speaking, the figures equate to 25,000 punters from 125 flights each & every day of the year.

Now, considering the every other airport north of East Mids and south of Newcastle handles relatively little charter traffic, then clearly a significant proportion of these passengers must be originating from the major conurbations in Merseyside, West / South Yorkshire etc.

Threfore an alternative to R2 at MAN must surely have been to use airports such as LPL, LBA, HUY to relieve MAN of this bucket & spade traffic, releasing runway, apron and terminal space at MAN for the expanding medium / long-haul scheduled market. The benefits? Well a huge chunck of the Cheshire countryside would still be here today, 2m or so car journeys per year would have been taken off of the M62 and generally over time a more balanced and equitable distribution of avaiation services across the North would have developed.

Of course when the said same argument was put forward by LPL at the R2 public enquiry, it was immediately dismissed by representitives of the charter industry. In short, they had no intention of upping sticks from MAN regardless of the outcome of the enquiry. (This desire to see expansion at MAN as opposed to moving ops out to the regionals will be interesting in comparison to the views likely to be put forward by the industry at the Finningley enquiry).

21st Jun 2001, 01:00
MAN does deserve some credit here; it's the only airport where the operator pays anything other than lipservice to a decent and co-ordinated infrastructure - excellent rail and road links, with the Metrolink coming soon - not to mention the bus network.

As someone who works at a BAA airport day in, day out, I believe that MAN is a shining example of what it is possible to achieve with decent management and some vision.

21st Jun 2001, 04:27
YES! Rockwell & Snooky are (in my opinion)correct, and I still maintain that both Amsterdam and Dublin are more convenient for plussing to UK regional airports than either of Londons major airports or Manchester.

LTN man
21st Jun 2001, 09:51
Still plenty of slack at Luton. A consultation document that is doing the rounds shows Luton with a capacity of 20 million within its existing boundaries. There is plenty of land to the south of the runway to expand the airport beyond the 20 million mark. The big difference with Luton compared with other airports is that the local council is pro expansion, which isn’t a big surprise as they get millions of in income each year. The shortage in runway capacity in the S.E. is graphically illustrated at Luton by the shear number of executive jets that now use Luton, as they have nowhere else to go

21st Jun 2001, 15:05
.......unless the cloud drops!

21st Jun 2001, 16:53
You're quite right about the operating costs of Hatfield, however with land for housing and industry still required in the South East under Govt policy, the re-development of 'brownfield' sites such as Hatfield and no doubt in due course Radlet, the sale for this use was always going to happen. As a landowner would you take the cash (for your shareholders)or run at a loss?, especially when you look at the civil side's performance on the open market. Also the integration of air traffic from Hatfield was frequently a problem for ATC, with the recent growth at STN and LTN that would only have got worse, severely restricting the 'convenience' of the airfield for GA/Bizjet traffic.

Unfortunately the South of the airfield is Hertfordshire, I think you'll find their County Structure Plan directs all air traffic growth to STN and LTN, but not using any of their land, end of story. The LTN development plan I think you'll find if you look, is for the North East side from the cargo centre to past the run-up bay identified as an area for development. This would have been tied in with the Councils plans to use that area for commercial use as well.

22nd Jun 2001, 01:43
682amsl, there are approx 5 million passengers that would be better served from Liverpool than the passengers travelling to MAN for their flights.