BlackKnight From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 241 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4169 times:
The problem in the article is that they sited a location of controversy. Asia locates the airports off shore and away from the mainland or marshes. Just think of an airport 1 or 2 thousand meters off shore in the English Channel supported by high speed train.
RTFM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4087 times:
And who is going to pay for all this then...? Island airports cost a huge amount of money. Airports in the UK are owned by private companies; the only way that BAA (for example) could afford to build a new airport off the coast of the UK would be for them to massively increase user charges at their existing airports. Current experience with the proposed plans for an additional runway at STN show how incredibly difficult this would be (i.e. the carriers who operate at LHR are adamant (and rightly so IMHO) that they are not going to fund a runway at a rival airport that will only benefit their competitors and existing carriers (e.g. FR) are equally adamant that they aren't going to fund it because they think that BAA are puting forward and an over-inflated cost for little need at present).
The only other alternative is that it is funded by governments. The problem with this is that governments don't have any money - apart from what they collect in taxation. Telling people in (for example) Aberdeen that they have to have their taxes increased to pay the billions it would cost to build an airport at the other end of the country would go down like a lead brick.
Japan has a tradition of huge, publicly funded infrastructure projects but they are not without their controversial issues. How many of these projects
(KIX for example) have actually made a return on the millions of Yen that the Japanese taxpayers have sunk into them would be an interesting question...
Japan's geography is also a major factor here. Because the country is essentially a series of mountain ranges with huge conurbations on the coast they have both the necessity and also the ability to site offshore airports near to large population areas. The same is not true in Europe where a great many of the population areas (Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid, Milan, etc) are not close enough to the coast to make this a viable option.
A350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1099 posts, RR: 23 Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4061 times:
France and Great Britain should build a giant new airport in the channel over the tunnel which replaces all airports in London and Paris. The new Airport will be an additional stop of the tunnel trains
okay, that's irony, of course.
Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4002 times:
The current trend is Asia is to re-claim the sea for new Airports.
....and do you have annnnnyyyy idea just how expensive that is?
Kansai alone, costed nearly as much as FOUR Denver International Airports.... the last major hub to be completed in the west. An estimated $252Billion (and that's dollars folks, not Yen) will have been spent to stabilize the airport in dual runway form, and that's not even counting the expectant third runway in Kansai's master plan.
The price to build Chek Lap Kok amounted to more than the entire multi-runway/terminal refurbishments of ATL, ORD, MIA, and SFO combined.
BlackKnight From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 241 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3909 times:
ConcordeBoy I do not disagree with the cost involved. The EU has shown they will spend the money as Asia to keep jobs coming. What hidden costs have been occurred to provide transportation, buildings, and support for the A380 in the EU. What did the tunnel under the channel cost? Look if they wanted it, it could happen. The better argument would be that it would not happen to protect the A380 investment.
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3883 times:
The problem with airports on reclaimed land is the amount of cost to reclaim land. To build an artificial island is extremely expensive.
There is another method of building offshore airports which is currently examined. To built them on swimming potoons and adjust them with long piles on the ground. But this method is far from being ready for practical use. There was an interesting internet side how such an airport could be built in Sydney, but all link seem dead now. Maybe you have more luck with googling.
But we have airports on reclaimed land in Europe. BCN, NCE, GOA come to mind. And not to forget AMS. It's name Schiphol means hell for ships translated to english. On the side where now is the airport was a graveyard for ships before it was reclaimed. But it is centuries ago.
Agill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1000 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3866 times:
Why on earth would they build islands when there are thousands of square kilometers of farmland to use? Hong Kong was pretty extreme since they didn't have any other options than to build it in the sea. For 20 Billion dollars you could buy a lot of farmland outside a city.
BrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1282 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3804 times:
Heard of a project for an airport off the coast of the Benelux in the North Sea. I don't know what happened to that idea. Anybody?
Generally Europe has enough space not to need airports so far away from cities or built at unreasonable costs. France has one of the lowest densities of population on the continent. Of course that doesn't apply to Paris but then you're quite a distance from the shore already and CDG has room to grow. Let's also not forget that weather conditions can get even more extreme once the body of water gets involved.
Airports with runways aiming at the sea or extended in the sea are however a nice solution for coastal cities in order to reduce associated nuisances.
Look at NCE, AGP I think, and others... Also look at BEY (slightly off Europe's East frontier) with it's atypical landing on water sensation!
Other airports and their respective political authorities should have more insight into the future as to allow cities to grow around these modern ports and eventually suffocate them as well as those cities' inhabitants' lives.
BlackKnight From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 241 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3750 times:
The issue is they are out of land as in Asia. I do not think that anyone would build in the water unless it was the last resort. Anyway I will play along show me land large enough in the LHR area to place another International Airport that is void of environmental rejections and noise restrictions. I will then back off. If you accept it or not eventually England will be forced to look hard at this proposal.
Bkonner From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3723 times:
All EU countries have very good rail systems that the airlines must compete with. So building an airport too far from a city center would not work.
As was noted above, the cost of building an airport on the ocean is very expensive. Japanese airports that have done this have huge landing fees to pay the bills for building the airports.
Also, EU countries right now with the exception of Belgium and Holland that participate in using the euro have no cash to spend on airport construction as make work projects. Member states that use the euro are required to maintain fiscal and monetary discipline. They are supposed to keep their state budgets deficits below three per cent of their GNP (this was insisted upon by Germany in the early 90's as a condition for the creation of the euro). France and (ironically) Germany are in violation of this treaty and could face EU sanctions if they do not improve their budget deficits. Only Belgium (which has a budget surplus), Luxembourg, and Holland (I think has a small budget deficit) have the ability to do something like you propose. And none would need to at this point (particularly Belgium).
Foxiboy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 208 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3611 times:
Where would they place it as somebody has already said the channel as the busiest shipping lanes in the world SO build an airport re-route the ships or have them negotiate past an airport,also it would be to far from London for it to work,would you want to fly for 14 hours from the far east then have to get on a train for a couple of hours.
MauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2487 posts, RR: 27 Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3511 times:
untill last year, the government was planning an Sea airport at the coast near Zandvoort, wich is close to AMS, during the many complaint about noise in the Area were AMS no is and the space they would get if they build it into sea, nearly made an new Airport into the sea.
But then there were even more protest from foundations like WNF, etc
BlackKnight From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 241 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3434 times:
With the threat of EK and its Mega hub in Dubai BA and others using LHR will need to find additional capacity even with the A380. Regardless of opinion deep down most will feel that frequentness of flights will rise at most international airports. All I am suggesting is that England prepare for the EK Mega-hub. A well planned Mega-hub near London would pay for itself and relieve congestion. Whether or not its reclaimed from the ocean or half in half from both land and ocean. I think England is out of available land for a new Mega-hub. (Why are there more than one airport in the New York area? JFK has expansion room. Why have more than one? ) There is demand and England could protect the route system as is with an additional airport. A new airport could be the show piece of the world. Most of the current International hubs were created before the A380. A new Mega-hub in England could be designed for both High capacity and many flights.
Lets open it up, most of us have thought about what the perfect airport layout would look like. If there was to be a new Mega-hub near London how many runways would it have? What would be the pattern? Think A380 stretched versions and hundreds of A320/737/A330/787s with a mix of A340/747/777.
AirWales From UK - Wales, joined Oct 2004, 453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3335 times:
Sounds great in theory except the Irish sea, Atlantic coast and around Scotland is far to stormy to build an airport. With the winds and seas that wip up around here it would be shut more than open (this goes for France as well as the UK with the Atlantic/Bay of Biscay coast). The English Channel from Plymouth right round to Harwich (north of London) is some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Anything North of this is too far north of London, Birmingham etc.
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 63 Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3296 times:
Basically the problem lies with Britain itself. We are a nation of NIMBYs - and nobody wants a new airport. We need one, no question about that. But its never going to happen. To push something through like that would be politically very damaging - and in the New Labour culture of spin, nobody wants to do things like that.
Heathrow will get a new runway, but it will take 25 years, as planning will be delayed by neverending protests and appeals, then appeals to the EU that building a new runway will infringe the human rights of the people who live there. The EU will be in no hurry to allow this runway to be built and work cannot start if the appeal is referred to them. Their enquiry will take a decade or more. Meanwhile Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and Paris all grow and modernise.
Stansted needs a new runway, and the one at Gatwick is the most heavily use single runway in commercial use today. You can bet they need another one, and soon.
What people fail to realise is that the Government will give a good and fair price for the land and houses they require, its not like its being robbed off them or that they will be out of pocket.
The ideal would be this.
Heathrow is THE prime location and should be exploited. Two new runways, and a huge new terminal where terminal one and two now stand. The new runways should be capable of useage AT THE SAME TIME as the 27 and the 9 already as they do at Atlanta and Los Angeles etc.
The London Underground links should introduce trains that only stop at the Heathrow terminals and London King's Cross. This may obviously mean widening the tunnels etc.
Faster Heathrow Express Links from Paddington.
An identical link into London Waterloo.
Both links joining to a mainline railway station linking LHR with the UK rail network so that travellers need not transit London if not required.
A new category of ultra quiet jetliners (A380/787, A330, V2500 powered A32X family) etc that can use the airport after current curfew times - no CFM56s, JT8s, JT9s, etc. Make sure that one of the new runways is positioned so that noise to local ressies is minimised, and that noise abatement procedures dont affect other operations.
A new non-BA handling terminal for Fed-Ex, UPS etc as well as for Eva, Cathay, Korean and JAL etc for their new UK base. This then leaves BA with their cargo centre for themselves.
Thats all i can think of right now.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
RTFM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3225 times:
CHRISBA777ER - ah, if only... but as you start off by saying - not likely with any UK government I can forsee.
Joust one correction - the BA Cargo centre at LHR is only used by BAWC; all other carriers use various facilities to the west of that (around the horseshoe) and/or off airport. I have seen BAA schemes to rebuild the (non-BA) part of the cargo area but I don't think they are likey very soon. BAA at LHR have cargo way down their list of priorities...
GuyBetsy1 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 836 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3207 times:
I'm sorry, but the British just simply do not have the foresight to see any plans for the future. If it did, you'd have road tunnels linking the North and South burrow under London instead of having to go through the city now. Read: Traffic nightmare. You'd have a bigger and better managed airport than Heathrow with its current 4 Terminals and an aging old fashioned transfer system (ie by Bus) between Terminals airside. You'd also have a internal terminal transfer utilising a proper transit system ie FRA airport.
I say graze Windsor castle to the ground and build a new airport there.
EU is mostly landlocked, so reclaiming the sea isn't an option.
25 CHRISBA777ER: "I say graze Windsor castle to the ground and build a new airport there" Not in my lifetime buddy. Anywhere but there.
26 RTFM: Wow - love to see the size of the sheep that could 'graze' Windsor Castle to the ground...!!
27 Nudelhirsch: It just does not make sense in the EU. Anywhere in the sea would be anywhere in the middle of nowhere, somewhere close to the outward border of the EU
28 Spike: You know what the colonies are like in their 'in-breeding'. Sheep the size of Ozzies. Could graze anything to the ground. 280 gates at LHR is big enou
29 BlackKnight: The focus is really on England as an island and part of the EU. The EU needs to protect their international aviation interests and a Mega-hub funded b
30 Arsenal@LHR: Building airports has nothing to do with the EU, that is the job of the governments of the respective countries. Since we're talking about the UK, it
31 Boeing7E7: 1. Huge money. 2. You must have a shallow, protected coastline. 3. Did I mention huge money?
32 Mir: Why are there more than one airport in the New York area? JFK has expansion room. Why have more than one? All three New York airports are currently pa
33 CURLYHEADBOY: As far as I know there are plans in my country to build an off-shore airport to replace/expand FCO. I saw an artist concept on a magazine, nice stuff
34 BlackKnight: Look right or wrong, $billions of pounds or not the world is changing around England and BA. The sad fact is the major tool to do the change seems to
35 BlackKnight: I was not going to mention this but I will... Innovation is the key to success. The 747 was ran over by the A380 because Boeing made the choice not to
36 Incitatus: The future of London Heathrow is here and it is called JFK. It will be relegated to local traffic while mainland hubs such as Madrid and CDG while ha