Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Introducing London BoJo International Airport  
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7235 times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5581066.ece

The idea is that the terminal facilities be seperate from the maneuvering area. The article misses out a diagram that was included in the print version showing runways and gates on an artificial island in the estuary, while rest of the airport was onshore in Kent. Passengers would connect to the gates through tunnels. It's different, that's for sure.

The plans include the necessary rail and road connections including a connection to Crossrail, the Channel Tunnel link and the modifications to the M2. By putting the airside on the artificial island away from Maplin Sands, the birdstrike risks are mitigated and disruption to wildlife is reduced. Obviously, it means there is a no catchment area from arrival and departure noise so no operating restrictions would be required.

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7031 times:

London could keep it's role as the preferred interchange point for North Americans and as the overall busiest international air market if this were done.

Of course, it will never be done, or at least not until FRA/CDG/AMS so thoroughly overtake LHR that the politicians (and anti-airport minded constitutents) finally wake up to the fact that London's premier status in the world of international air travel is almost priceless, but simultaneously something that can not be re-captured overnight, once lost.

Cairo


User currently offlineVirginson937 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6901 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Very interesting idea as it would stop conflict over the new northern runway at LHR, but Johnson has got the location of the airport wrong. He should propose the new airport be closer to Reading so it is more accessible to the rest of the country. And this would mean the approach over London will move away from over the city centre.

VirginSon


User currently offlineVeeseeten From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6872 times:

Would BA be likely to build a presence at any new airport, given their commitment to T5 now? Perhaps a shift of LGW operations?

User currently offlineLHR380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6794 times:

Its an airport in a major river that attracts ALOT of birds.

Very good idea from our Mayor!!

What about all the people that live around LHR and surrounding areas. Some parts only survive because of the airport.
Move it far away and what happens??


User currently offlineIcLCY From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6777 times:



Quoting Virginson937 (Reply 2):
but Johnson has got the location of the airport wrong. He should propose the new airport be closer to Reading

That would be less controversial than building a third runway how? I not a fan of Bracknell or Swindon but bulldozing either place wouldn't be popular. I wouldn't be giving up my prime Berkshire farm land anytime soon for some half wit toff or disconnected haven't a clue government.

The next 3 yrs are going to be a scramble for 'Olympic Mayor' Boris doesn't stand a chance, he hasn't come up with any solid policies/results.

The Government couldn't finish the Dome on budget, the budget of the Olmpic's goes up on a daily basis, Cross rail is already over budget - I know lets build a brand new airport - yeah great idea!


User currently offlineLHR380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6748 times:



Quoting IcLCY (Reply 5):
The Government couldn't finish the Dome on budget, the budget of the Olmpic's goes up on a daily basis, Cross rail is already over budget - I know lets build a brand new airport - yeah great idea!

I fully agree there, such a major project as a WHOLE new airport will cause A lot of problems when you look at the above examples.


User currently offlineVirginson937 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting IcLCY (Reply 5):
That would be less controversial than building a third runway how? I not a fan of Bracknell or Swindon but bulldozing either place wouldn't be popular. I wouldn't be giving up my prime Berkshire farm land anytime soon for some half wit toff or disconnected haven't a clue government.

If there is any reclaimed land around the area, it could be a better possibility?? I agree the farming land wouldn't go that easily to the government at the moment anyway!!

VirginSon


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6346 times:



Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
The article misses out a diagram that was included in the print version showing runways and gates on an artificial island in the estuary,

Can anyone scan this image, or find it on the web somewhere?

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently onlineSyeaphanR From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No birds, because it's offshore?

"Build it, and they will come"....In great honking gaggles!!!!!!!!!!!

The name is obvious....Chesley Sullenberger International Airport....

Arrrrrgh!  banghead 


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11701 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5435 times:

The idea is in principle is excellent - get the aircraft away from densely populated areas and create a modern and spacious airport in the process. But as other posters have said, it's the wrong side of London for the rest of England - new M25 Thames crossing would have to be built, and the whole orbital would need enlargement again. So unless flights from all regional UK airports are going to be started, it's only going to benefit London - as usual  Yeah sure


Dan  Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineVirginson937 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5349 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

i completely agree PlymSpotter but again, land around the berkshire area would be quite hard to get hold of?

Regional Airports are expanding i.e Bristol (EGGD), so they are a good possibility.

VirginSon  Smile


User currently offlineFlyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4917 times:

This would just create more bird strikes, just demolish Sipson....... maybe relocate Sipson villagers to this spot instead and build a fast rail link for them to get to the Heathrow area more quicker?

What would really happen if the government just ignored all the fuss of NIMBYS and just built 2 more runways and 3 more terminals, would be interesting.

|Or just let LHR operate 24 hours round the clock, that would relieve some conmgestion for a while making the Sipson residents have more time while their relocation is built at Maplin Sands.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3053 times:

Prsumably he will produce the £40BN from his back pocket. I assume that he has taken account of the cost of housing and other infrastructure that will be required in addition to the Airport itself.

Is that 8 years to build it including the duration of the various Investigations/Enquiries/Appeals etc. If this is in service before 2022/2023 I would be most surprised. Is there any reason for thinking that it will be more popular in Kent.

Besides it means most customers having to travel through London or on the M25, (Orbital Carpark). Because it is even further into the corner. Why not put it somewhere else, virtually anywhere would be an improvement.

I have no doubt that this will not be the stupidest idea this year, (our leaders still have 11 months) but it must be a contender.


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...
Capital Region International Airport FIS Question posted Tue Jun 17 2008 12:09:24 by JetBlueGuy2006
Central Gulf Coast International Airport? posted Thu Jan 10 2008 08:41:22 by MOBflyer
Douala International Airport( Cameroon) posted Wed Jul 4 2007 10:07:28 by DID747
Auckland International Airport Transit Passengers posted Sat Apr 14 2007 23:54:10 by SA7700
King Fahd International Airport posted Thu Mar 29 2007 10:53:53 by Paulinbna
Mumbai International Airport Voted Best In India posted Tue Mar 27 2007 16:49:38 by Schipholjfk
New Port Columbus International Airport posted Thu Nov 9 2006 03:43:33 by JetJock22
Shortest International Airport Runway In The US posted Sat Oct 28 2006 20:07:50 by Fll2993
Louisville International Airport posted Fri Sep 1 2006 16:08:22 by NZ8800
International Airport Ticket Counters Vs US posted Sun Jul 30 2006 00:37:35 by ExRUAgentatDAL