Periphery airports, no inland flights allowed
 

I know nothing of aviation, other than planes flying over my home.

I recall not long back that the PM (Johnson) was going to redraw the UK's flight paths, why I cannot be sure. However, I had always thought it a good idea, from a home owners point of view, to build airports all along the coast of the British isle, and not allow flights to criss-cross inland. I can imagine that would sound nonsensical to a great many enthusiasts here, but would like to know the practicalities of that please.

The advantage of train travel (when it works) is that it usually drops the passenger off in the middle of a busy area, or not far from it. Whilst at many large airports, passengers are dropped off in the middle of nowhere, or just very far away from where they need to be. The advantage of the idea of only allowing passenger planes to land on the periphery of the UK I see as the following:

• No planes flying over peoples homes
• Forces train infrastructure to pick up the slack, but also recieves many more paying customers
• More new, smaller, airports to spread the pressure, also spreading money throughout the UK
• Lower threat of terror attack

I would just like to know your thoughts thanks !

Please post a map of the UK where a 12 sq mile area of land can be found on the coast that is available to use. Bulldoze the whole of Brighton to build an airport so someone else (who bought a house under a flightpath) can get a better night of sleep?

Crayons on standby.

The government in the end decided on an alternative strategy, which is simply to dismantle the UK's aviation industry.

Boris wanted a new airport in the Thames estuary but that died.The cost, both financial and Eco, (political) would be too much.
I live near a costal airport, (Bournemouth), and don't mind the dozen or so flights a day but a half million others in the area may not like lots more.
If you mean right on the coast then all those holiday beaches could be covered in tarmac for runways.
I think we have to stick with the system we have, but why HS2 isn't going via Heathrow I don't understand and also connecting with HS1?
Dixi.

I thought that the unsurmountable issue with the Thames Estuary airport was the bird-migration routes that have existed for thousands of years ? It would be unlikely that the various bird species would alter their behaviour and would make safe flying impossible in the vicinity due to engine ingestion.

In theory it would have made eminent sense for London, compared to the ring of airports currently in operation from a noise and emission standpoint, especially with a hyperlink to whisk passengers to/from the location. Sadly such a utopian port will be unlikely. We have Prestwick, if our Scottish cousins haven't broken away by then. Except for a small number of the population, we are all guilty of using the transport options that cause us the most irritation.

Indeed, the puzzling strategies of the UK transport authorities. Europe has mainline stations at nearly all the major airports in each country, in the UK I can only think of Gatwick, Luton (sort of) and Southampton off the top of my head, although branch lines go to some others. No joined up thinking.

Prestwick is a perfect example of an airport on the periphery. Train station to the city, etc etc etc.

Number of passengers who want to fly from there = zilch. Thus number of airlines who want to fly from there = zilch as well.

Birmingham Airport has a mainline station. I believe the HEX tunnel at Heathrow T5 extends out to the west a little to enable a future connection to GW at Reading should funding be available.

Thank you for all of the informative replies.

Where would you suggest would be a good place for an airport outside of London in the south of England ?

Where would new airports make sense ?

Quite a few UK airports have stations and as a country i don tthink we can be criticised too much other than Heathrow Express which should have gone to Reading which is probably the best connected station other than Birmingham in the whole country., All the London airports have rail you include Luton and the Stansted one is not great because it is quite slow, Southampton and Southend have stations but are not exactly major airline hubs, nor is Teesside /Durham which has a station but no airlines. No UK airport has a proper mainline station like CDG,AMS and FRA but LHR has both express and Underground making it very accessible from all across London

. The idea of having airports in coastal locations would pretty much fall down at a glance. In UK coastal locations are:-
1 Not necessarily flat , especially in the west,
2 very windy and not necesarily in the direction where you can get 5-6 Kms of flat open space
3 Very popular with large seabirds
4 Foggy , esp in east and where not windy
5 Seldom close to rail links

Unlikely any Boris idea will come to fruition as we now know most of what he says is either a lie or impractical, Current back of envelope scheme seems to be Scotland -NI tunnel eventually being declared the next. pointless enterprise but a goldmine for consultants.in the meantime .

Filton? Greenham Common? Manston?

IIRC Boris planned to commission 1000 mechanical replicas of his fine self to scare the birds away

I always thought Greenham Common would have been the perfect location for Heathrow's third runway. 12000ft long, far enough away to have a separate traffic pattern and an upgraded rail link to make it about 30mins away. ( It can take longer than that to get from one terminal to another).
All the Trans-Atlantic traffic could have moved there leaving Heathrow to deal with the rest of the world.

The Airports Commission examined, and then thoroughly demolished, the idea that transfer passengers (which account for about a third of total Heathrow traffic) could realistically arrive at one airport and depart from another.

Indeed. Worked well in Montreal (where it was also the initial idea), didn't it ... or not :(

In fact the Montreal split between International and Domestic (which includes USA) was said to be behind airlines deserting Montreal for Toronto as their principal Canadian entry point, and in turn contributing to Montreal's decline as the principal Canadian commercial centre. Later reversed, and the new Mirabel closed, but by then it was too late.

You can add it to the various crackpot ideas that politicians with no commercial aviation understanding come up with from time to time. I'm waiting for all arrivals to be at one airport, and all departures at the other ...

How would building airports on the coast stop overlying of houses? Aircraft takeoff and land into wind... mostly.

How about this? Aircraft like to take-off downhill and land uphill. Use the mud dug up from HS2 to build a long ramp runway down from the cliffs at Dover, then nobody needs to fly over land.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5b1ad43773.jpg

No more preposterous that the first post, surely?

Circular runways is wot we need. With circular descending approaches. And conveyor belts. Most have conveyor belts. See to it Elon.

Dixi,
I think you'll find a certain factory just down the road making buckets of instant sunshine (allegedly).
Back in the 1980's USAFE wanted to base a dozen KC135's there. The locals went nuts! Were you to try putting a major airport there, insurrection would surely follow.
In any event, it's all academic as the runway has been dug up years ago. The only big stuff left being the control tower and the cruise missile bunkers.

The tankers eventually went to Fairford.

I don't think Aldermarston was the real problem but the well-heeled and influencial in the area would have put a stop to any development.
I drove past the Swan pub on the old A34 one night in the late '80s and came accross a convoy of cruise missile trucks with police escort blocking the road. Had to wait about 10 minutes before I could be on my way.
I also remember IAT shows at Greenham before the move to Fairford.
Dixi.

I think the ideal spot would be about 12 miles east south-east of Maidenhead.

PDR