Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Heathrow "should Be Phased Out"  
User currently offlineSuperhub From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 478 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 9419 times:

From BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5024770.stm

---------------------
Heathrow airport should be phased out and replaced with a new international hub to the east of London, a planning charity has claimed.

The Town and County Planning Association argues 30,000 homes could be built on the "catastrophically" planned west London site instead.

A Thames Estuary hub would stop plane noise over London and further expansion of Heathrow displacing villages.

The group said the swap should happen over the next century.

The report also claims that a high-speed rail link, from the new site, would be an alternative to "environmentally damaging short-haul flights".

'Logistically impossible'

In the paper, Heathrow's 60-year history was condemned as "a series of minor planning disasters that together make up one of the country's truly great planning catastrophes."

The report's authors Tony Hall and Sir Peter Hall said passengers who fumed at the "long taxiing operations culminating in a take-off queue, or at long periods spent in the four holding areas" might well echo Dr Johnson's famous remark about a dog walking on its hind legs.

"It's not that it is done well, but you are surprised to find it is done at all," wrote Dr Johnson.

They also said it would be "logistically impossible" for the airport to be phased out in a short time scale of five or ten years.

A housing development at Heathrow could be worth more than £6.8bn, they said.

----------------------

74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 9398 times:

YAY NIMBYS!


Your post should be relevant to the topic discussed.


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 9367 times:

I saw this report and think the whole idea of a move would be nothing far short of ridiculous. Planning issues aside the geographical position of the UK's major hub away on the Eastern side of London makes no sense at all, not forgetting the damage it would do to the enviromenmt there.
And do we honestly think that with T5 on its way that the government would move across town.......me thinks not.....I am in no doubt that a third runway will be seen at LHR or at least planning agreed in 10yrs or so.


User currently offlineSuperhub From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 9367 times:

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 1):
Your post should be relevant to the topic discussed.

Sorry? I don't understand what you are trying to say. My post is a simple copy+paste of the BBC article. The thread title is the BBC title...it's not my own opinion.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 9367 times:

Oh please. No way is that going to happen.

It would also be more inconvenient to get to LHR for me.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 9273 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 1):
YAY NIMBYS!

Exactly, and in another 60 years time the "new" LHR will also be a pain for housing developments to the East. Will Heathrow then be moved further to the Eeast and be built on a man-made island (e.g. KIX) just a stone throw away from Dover??

Move the people to the estuary. LHR was there first.  twocents 


Rgds

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 9149 times:

One of the main reasons that there is such a housing shortage in the west of london is becasue of all the jobs that heathrow has created and continuously supports.

If Heathrow were to move then it would just create problems elsewhere.

And another thing, the housing they say will be worth £6.8billion but heathrow is almost certainly worth more than that, certainly to the economy.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlinePeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 581 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 9053 times:

London already has 5 international airports. I don't think it needs another one.

User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 8924 times:

What a bunch of amateurs those Town and Country Association people are.
Even if they closed the airport and built houses on Heathrow's land you can see Gatwick and Luton each tripling in size from the demand for service closer than `Estuary International'. Too funny.



` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineKazzie From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 8898 times:

Wont work

LHR's current location is perfect, Its linked to the tube network and coach networks very well, not to mention the link it has to the M25 and the M40.


User currently offlineMhodgson From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 5047 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 8874 times:

Stupid idea. LHR wasn't catastrophically planned; at the time it was the best site, and it simply grew up. Now people who move into the area think its the airport that shouldn't be there, rather than them!

Plus an airport in the estuary would require demolition of villages, and unless they built north-south runways would still require London overflights.



No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
User currently offlineBananaBoY From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 1585 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 8731 times:

Quoting Superhub (Reply 3):
Quoting Nosedive (Reply 1):
Your post should be relevant to the topic discussed.

Sorry? I don't understand what you are trying to say. My post is a simple copy+paste of the BBC article. The thread title is the BBC title...it's not my own opinion.

Don't worry Superhub ... that text has been used as a filler. The website returns that text (and more) when it thinks the post you are trying to add is too short to be of value.


Mark



All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
User currently offlineAvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 8693 times:

I wonder if we'll ever see vast tracts of urban/industrial wasteland in cities torn down and re-developed into an airport? I can think of a few cities in Canada with downtown areas that are all but abandoned and would certainly benifit from the employment and greenspace offered by an airport. Although I guess it has been done to an extent with LCY.


Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
User currently offlineAviationfreak From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1166 posts, RR: 40
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 8661 times:

Lets stop the building of T5 then  Wink

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 5):
Exactly, and in another 60 years time the "new" LHR will also be a pain for housing developments to the East. Will Heathrow then be moved further to the Eeast and be built on a man-made island (e.g. KIX) just a stone throw away from Dover??

Oh why not. In the Netherlands they are talking about a second off-shore AMS in the Northsea. Why not combining it with a 'second' Heathrow somewhere in the middle. Big grin



I love both Airbus and Boeing as much as I love aviation!
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 8595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's not going to happen, not in our lifetime anyway. The logistics and cost of relocating Heathrow would be too expensive and too time-consuming. Not to mention the bureacracy, paperwork and government commitees that would get in the way. It would be nice to have a Japanese-style offshore airport, but it's simply not feasible in the next 50 years. In that time LHR will be a completely different airport from what it is now. LHR is currently undergoing a major facelift, plus there's terminal 5 to come. It also doesn't make sense to build an airport to the east of London where there is already one, LHR is ideally placed in west London with good transport links to London and the surrounding counties. This article is simply a demonstration of nimby-ism and selfishnes, LHR contributes more than £5 billion to the UK economy annually, and provides the livelyhoods of thousands of people.


In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineNoelg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 8595 times:

They've been talking about this for years - I remember the arguments last time round about 5 years ago when they released proposed plans etc.

It's a great idea, especially if they merged the operations from the other London airports into that one.

Think Hong Kong's new airport to see the benefits that's had - more room for expansion from the outset. Add in a good transport link to and from London and the rest of the country and it would be great.

It will never happen in the UK though. It took years and years of public enquiries to get T5 and even that's still a couple of years from opening, so imagine how long it would take for a new London airport?

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 4):
It would also be more inconvenient to get to
LHR for me.

Of course! Stop the whole development because Singapore_Air will have a slightly longer journey to the airport!  sarcastic 

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 5):
Exactly, and in another 60 years time the "new" LHR will also be a pain for housing developments to the East.



Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 10):
Plus an airport in the estuary would require demolition of villages,

They are talking about making it in the Thames Estuary - i.e. an island with rail links in the estuary. There aren't many houses in the Thames Estuary!

Quoting Kazzie (Reply 9):
LHR's current location is perfect

...if you live in London. For the rest of the country it is a nightmare. For a start if you drive it means you driving on the worst car park in the UK - the M25. Rail links are poor - unless you live on that rail line it requires getting a train into Central London, then negotiating the London Underground with your cases. A coach to LHR takes at least 3 hours from the Midlands, from our house it's a good 4 hours (it goes through all the minor towns enroute too).

The proposed "new" airport would hopefully have much better transport links from the rest of the country, and not just be a "London International" airport.

Quoting Peterinlisbon (Reply 7):
London already has 5 international airports. I don't think it needs another one.

They're talking about replacing LHR, not adding another one...


User currently offlineFilton216 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 8537 times:

Why dont they move the villages near heathrow to the spot on the east side of London and build on from there.

filton216



Filton216 - The home of Concorde 216!
User currently offlineHighpeaklad From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 8493 times:

But think of the planning constraints! Ok, its seems like a good site to start with, but think on its a replacement heathrow we're looking at. I would think at least three or 4 runways so the area required will be vast. If its going in the estuary there's bound to be some wildlife affected so the environmentalists will be up in arms. It will need a new rail link, but which part of the already overcrowded network will that connect into, which line can take an extra 4 trains an hour in the peak. Where's the motorway running from the airport going to go? I would imagine the associated transport infrastructure required will need many homes to be demolished and would be even more of a problem getting planning permission than the airport itself. Where are the staff going to be found? Its unlikely all the tens of thousands of Heathrow staff will want to move 50 miles to the East so you've got another problem. Finally, planning. It took over 10 years to get planning permission for a new terminal just how long do you think it would take to get permission for a whole new airport the size of Heathrow?

Far better to develop Heathrow incrementally, new runways at Gatwick and Stansted and perhaps dedicated train links between all three to make transfers easier.

Good idea on paper. bad idea in practice.

Chris



Don't try to keep up with the Joneses - bring them down to your level !
User currently offlineVEEREF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 8440 times:

What exactly is a "planning charity"?

User currently offlineHS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 8185 times:

An airport on the Thames estuary has been talked about for more than thirty years. It will never happen - LHR will continue to expand, regardless of what the NIMBY's think.

User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 8002 times:

Quoting VEEREF (Reply 18):
What exactly is a "planning charity"?

Just guessing, something like Habitat for Humanity. If so, then you could add yet another level of NIMBYism to the reasons this will never happen.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 8002 times:

Shut down LHR????  boggled 

I must be dreaming....that's like shutting down ORD and expanding Midway 20X or 30X...IMPOSSIBLE and totally ludricrous!!!!!



The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3387 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 8002 times:

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 5):
Exactly, and in another 60 years time the "new" LHR will also be a pain for housing developments to the East. Will Heathrow then be moved further to the Eeast and be built on a man-made island (e.g. KIX) just a stone throw away from Dover??

More or less what was proposed nearly 40 years ago but closer to London.

Quoting Arsenal@LHR (Reply 14):
This article is simply a demonstration of nimby-ism and selfishnes,

Not exactly. IIRC expansion of Heathrow has been approved several times on the basis "thus far and no further".

Quoting Noelg (Reply 15):
It will never happen in the UK though. It took years and years of public enquiries to get T5 and even that's still a couple of years from opening, so imagine how long it would take for a new London airport?

If a new London airport were proposed east of London in the sea, a public enquiry could be relatively quick since the main inconvenience would be to fish.


User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 8002 times:

This "planning charity" is being a bit naive. What about all the jobs that LHR supports?

I thought the argument was that placing an new airport in the estuary would disrupt wildlife too much.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7681 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 8002 times:

Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 10):
Stupid idea.

Quite! And impossible. You simply cannot 'phase out' Heathrow. If it were to be 'phased out' it would be viable until the day BA moved - and, like their move to T5 it would be a day and it simply could not:

Quoting Superhub (Thread starter):
happen over the next century

The following day it would be non viable and more than 60,000 people would be redundant. So you either decide to keep it or build a new airport and transfer all operations over a very short period.

The idea of putting it to the east of London (to reduce the numbers of aircraft overflying central London) would, contrary to what the authors propound, be an environmental disaster. If you are planning a green field airport with environmental consideration you do not position it as far away from the centre of the population using the facility as you can. That simply multiplies the length of the average car journey to reach the airport and the one form of transport that is less environmentally friendly than the aeroplane is the automobile.

Of course here this group would probably argue that a new ground public transport system would supplant the use of the car simply because they do not realise how heavilly journeys to the airport are waiterd towards the very early morning when other people do not wish to travel. So having an exprerss raiul service from central London is no help if you cannot get into central London to catch the early departure you need to get to the airport in time to check in and go through security in time to board your 0730 hours flight.

From this perspective the proposal of the late 1980s to build a new airport at Wing / Cublington in north Buckinghamshire was the soundest. But now it is my view that an LHR / LGW / STN solution is the only viable one from which ever way you approach the issue. Any other approach would have massively disadvantagous economic consequences.


25 HS748 : You clearly have no idea what the Town and Country Planning Association is (so I'll enlighten you....) The Town and Country Planning Association is a
26 VV701 : This, of course, makes them 'professionals'. But professionals can still act like a bunch of amateurs. From my own experience - and I am not griping
27 BigB : I think it would be a good idea
28 Noelg : If it's so impossible, how did HKG, KIX, OSL all manage it? I'm sure there are plenty more examples of an airport 'moving'.....and last I heard CX, J
29 DfwRevolution : Don't forget DFW.. There's a decent history of moving airports, it isn't unheard of by any means. If the logistics of redeveloping the airport within
30 Wingscrubber : There's no need to move heathrow; it's where it needs to be, but of course its heavily utilised which incurs noise, traffic congestion and pollution.
31 Angelairways : Ha! Go away! How on earth are us people living to the west of London, going to get to some airport in the Thames Estuary? Why dont they go build all t
32 Amhilde : Thats for another charity to deal with! I think there are more difficult planning decisions to be made throughout the UK than proposing to move the d
33 VV701 : Please be good enough to read what I said before critiicising it. I said 'So you either decide to keep it OR BUILD A NEW AIRPORT AND TRANSFER ALL OPE
34 Par13del : Unfortunately for us, no one who supports and or understands the reasoning behind this suggestion is a member of this site, or choose not to engage in
35 Nosedive : Pretty much, BananaBoY. I was just getting to the to the heart of the matter, Superhub, and my message was too short.
36 Cxsjr : I personally think LHR is a frigging embarrassment; for what is one of the worlds most important cities, LHR doesn't even come close to airports like
37 Gigneil : While I agree it won't happen, your analogy is a little off. MDW is a close-in airport bounded on all sides by city. This is a bit more like closing
38 Post contains images Sllevin : I say we move everything back to Croyden! Steve
39 Post contains images Cosec59 :
40 Post contains images HighFlyer9790 : gimme a break. one of the busiest, largest airports in the world isn't going to be relocated by a bunch of planees on a board that has nothing else t
41 StarGoldLHR : I agree with this whole heartedly... No other city in the world do you arrive at an airport where: - The rail link is always delayed, suspended or ha
42 Irishmd11 : Why not upon the Isle of Wight, just in case of any slight emerging difficulty??? Gerry.
43 Post contains images Noelg : I say we eliminate the problem at the root - just completely flatten London and build a huge airport over the top of it! That way - no more NIMBYs, a
44 HS748 : I use LHR at least twice a week and I can only think of one occassion when the Heathrow Express has been suspended. Whilst it's certainly not cheap i
45 MainMAN : You've just reminded me why I've never used LHR for an international flight. It's alarming how much conflicting air traffic flies low over London. I
46 FlyDreamliner : I think the entire notion of moving LHR is stupid. Nearly every big airport on earth that is more than a few decades old has this issue. JFK in New Yo
47 MAS777 : I guess in an ideal world and environmentalists aside - expansion at LGW would have been the ideal answer with a new terminal and an additional runway
48 AussieItaliano : Well, there have been times when this has worked, and times where it hasn't. The one major situation where an attempt failed was in Montreal. When YMX
49 ReverseThrust : The airport would actually be quite cool if it A: Got finished. B: Made to look decent and C: given proportionate numbers of staff to deal with passen
50 Xwizard : I'm not sure that you have understood what they are trying to say. I doubt the report is suggesting that the operational swap would happen piecemeal
51 Motopolitico : I can't believe the number of LHR-bashers here! When I lived in the UK during my GAP year, I did do my best to avoid T3, but I thought T4 was a perfec
52 Post contains images Starlionblue : SK is profitable? But yes I will grant you it's possible. However... That's just daft. You can't take that long. Too much changes in a decade, let al
53 Stirling : Atlanta has never moved....the terminal has only shifted from one point of the airfield to another over time. As it stands, the current terminal comp
54 Cloudy : Its amazing the ideas people advocate when they think others are going to pay the bill. If they have to pay it themselves, suddenly they get much more
55 GatwickA320 : The current Heathrow works. Everybody is familiar with it. Sure things haven't run smoothly recently but then things never do!!! Build the houses on t
56 StarGoldLHR : Actually I have taken the Heathrow express more times than I can remember. only twice did it actually arrive on time. 9/10 times it arrived within it
57 Speedbird2155 : I work at LHR and alternate between the HEX and Piccadilly lines depending on the times I go in or finish work. The HEX has worked and been ontime we
58 Post contains images Kazzie : and unfortunately this seems to be happening a lot recently.. If they want to move the airport they should be prepared to also move the staff who liv
59 Starlionblue : Well, seems you've been unlucky. Taken Heathrow Express about 25 times in the last 12 months and it's been (10 minutes) late all of once. I also disa
60 BCAL : The trouble with LHR is that it is an airport, designed for air travel in the 1950/60s, operating at the turn of the Millennium to maximum capacity. C
61 Post contains images NZ8800 : Surprising that there would be strong protests about wildlife being destroyed? This is the United Kingdom we are talking about!!! I sometimes think t
62 Incitatus : One of the main problems is lack of capacity, both terminal space and runways. What is your proposal to give Heathrow 5 runways, double the number of
63 Starlionblue : Sounds good in theory, but east of London is a long drive for many who use the airport today and who don't live in London near a station connected to
64 LTBEWR : They are going to have to segerate LHR for 'long-haul' operations and a limited amount of connecting, short haul, domestic/EC flights. Shift some inte
65 StarGoldLHR : A Delay is a delay is a delay...I dont care what causes it.. the train stops we all wait, but no one gives you the £26 of service you expect. If the
66 StarGoldLHR : Lets think about it... The Capital city has three aging airports, all built many years ago, all built at different times. All have poor transport link
67 Starlionblue : You have a good point actually. Incidentally, my friend calls London "the world's largest temporary construction".
68 BCAL : As I pointed out in Reply #60, they tried and failed. In the 1970s, the UK civil aviation authorities decided that to ease congestion at LHR and to e
69 Cornish : er yes - except just to clarify that BBI is actually being built on the site of Schonefeld, albeit on the otherside of the airfield.
70 VV701 : I may not have understood what they are trying to say but I clearly understand what they actually said. They said: Now saying something should be 'ph
71 Scouseflyer : When planes land and take off vertically using magnetic fields - airports will be tiny regional things - every town will have one!!!!!!!
72 Post contains images Starlionblue : Yes! Unless you created sub 20 minute rail links that took you between STN/LGW/LHR (throw in Paddington and Liverpool Street as a bonus). Some of the
73 Post contains images OyKIE : Be careful when saying that. When a group of people wanted to move Oslo's main airport from Fornebu (which is 15 minutes away from downtown in a Taxi
74 Post contains images Lightsaber : First, Between birds and airplanes, birds always win. The suggested location makes no sense to me. London really needs more capacity to hub. Good hubs
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Are The NH 744's Eventuallygoing To Be Phased Out? posted Tue Sep 20 2005 09:32:06 by Ktachiya
They Should Be Kicked Out From Their Alliance! posted Tue May 10 2005 16:59:17 by RootsAir
AerLingus& Iberia Should Be Kicked Out Of Oneworld posted Thu Dec 30 2004 06:33:41 by Qantasclub
Airborne/ABX Scheme Will Be Phased Out posted Thu Mar 4 2004 05:20:19 by Skymileman
Which "failed" Plane Should Be More Popular? posted Mon Jul 28 2003 11:25:02 by NoelG
Should Boeing Be "Playing The Game"? posted Thu Jul 25 2002 04:01:09 by Reggaebird
British "Air Force One" Should Be..? posted Mon Oct 8 2001 19:07:57 by Heavymetal
"All Skies Should Be Open Skies. Except America's" posted Tue May 30 2000 14:10:31 by Tailscraper
FAA: "The Standard Is 1.50, And Has To Be Met," posted Thu Apr 6 2006 04:09:44 by BoeingBus
BA Citiexpress To Be Renamed "BA Red"? posted Sat Aug 13 2005 17:29:47 by Demoose