Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Consultation On London - Thames Estuary Airport  
User currently offlinedc747 From UK - England, joined Jan 2012, 4 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3520 times:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16606212

Can't believe this is getting serious consideration, why would you replace Heathrow, which I admit isn't the best airport in the world, but is close to a major catchment area like the M4 corridor, with an airport which would cut out this market entirely?

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinelhr380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3482 times:

Would love to know if they are going to include what will happen to the towns and villages around LHR that will loose a hell of a lot of people if this goes ahead. Half of west Drayton Staines Hounslow and slough etc work here.

VERY bad idea!!!!

I for one live right next to the airport, would take 20 min to walk thru the T5 doors. There are a number of crew houses, and staff that live in the village as well.


User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

Governments worldwide should be working together to improve ATC systems that are more intergrated if they what to increase airport utilisation,fat chance of that or an airport in the Thames I think.


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3437 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 1):
Would love to know if they are going to include what will happen to the towns and villages around LHR that will loose a hell of a lot of people if this goes ahead. Half of west Drayton Staines Hounslow and slough etc work here.

Aren't they the NIBY's?

Surely having blocked any further development at Heathrow, the job-loss for those living around Heathrow really isn't a massive concern.

AA1818



“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3413 times:

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 3):
Aren't they the NIBY's?

Surely having blocked any further development at Heathrow, the job-loss for those living around Heathrow really isn't a massive concern.

Don't be silly we're extremly good in the UK as wanting to have our cake and eat it - i.e. they want the jobs but don't want the associated disruption!


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

That's total airport porn!

Good to see the government is at least planning to hold a review rather than just knee-jerking a no answer to every possible solution. Having had the Hounslow NIMBYs oppose the third runway, Heathrow has to be considered a dead end.


User currently offlineTCASAlert From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3275 times:

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 3):
Aren't they the NIBY's?

When it suits them yes. Although mention them having to travel an hour to get to the airport and they suddenly change their minds.

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 1):
Would love to know if they are going to include what will happen to the towns and villages around LHR that will loose a hell of a lot of people if this goes ahead. Half of west Drayton Staines Hounslow and slough etc work here.

VERY bad idea!!!!

I for one live right next to the airport, would take 20 min to walk thru the T5 doors. There are a number of crew houses, and staff that live in the village as well.

But the towns and villages around the east side of London will see massive development and lots of jobs created. Towns such as Gillingham, Chatham and the towns along the Essex coast will suddenly have hundreds of jobs on their doorsteps, and won't have to travel around the M25 to get to LHR. Excellent news for that part of the country. Swings and roundabouts really.

Seeing as though there will be no further development at LHR it is obvious that something needs doing.

[Edited 2012-01-18 05:45:25]

User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

We English do some pretty mad things sometimes but this one takes the biscuit!

Heathrow is connected to.
1.2 major motorways M25 arterial and West the M4.From the M25 all other London motorways are available.Also directly connected to A4 for good measure.A triple carriage way into London.

2.Direct connection on the tube (Picadilly Line). Direct express train into Paddington (mere minutes). Soon this connection will run all the way through London to Liverpool street (The financial City).(Called Cross Rail).

3.A new proposal which has no real detractors for a Clapham Junction (Uk's busiest rail station) / Heathrow connection called "Airtrack Lite"(Can therefore connect with Gatwick with one change).

4.HS2 (high speed rail project just given go ahead -( £30Bn) has facility for spur to Heathrow thus connecting whole of central and wester Britain.

Now what would that cost to build from scratch.You would get no change from £100Bn.

Heathrow worker infrasrtucture.


1.Over 100,000 workers live around the airport to service it. And the 100K's of people and structure to support them - schools,shops etc etc.A whole city's worth!

2.Hotels.20 odd major hotels dotted all around the heathrow complex.

3.Freight. A massive infrastructure of all major freight comanies all around the Airport.


What would all that cost to rebuild - another £100Bn ? Oh and what about the 100's of thousands of people that loose their jobs. Oh no don't tell me - that can all up sticks to the Eastern Thames marshes leaving a Detroit like desert behind them!

Heathrow Terminals. 1,2,3,4,5 (and 6?)

Hmmmm Yup brand new terminals and some under construction as we speak. Cost???

Then their is the airport itself. That is of course already there. Twin runways that are being tested as we speak for dual mode T/O and Landings.So short term expansion is already possible.On top of that the A380 will in time reduce congestion by the fact that it can replace 2 for 1 where the capacity allows.

Boris sights that we don't fly to enough secondart destinations into China and Brazil.Is this because we (BA) can't? No it due to business considerations. But look a short way into the future...

Slots.BA is now not slot constrained due to the B Mid T/O. It (now) can (fly to these destinations) if it wants to.
Aircraft. It has ordered the ultimate long thin route aircraft the 789. The reason it does not use them is that they are 5 years late.Not their fault. They will arrive.The noise signature of these new aircraft is over 30% less than existing planes.

So there is no issue here what so ever.

Long term.
The correct plan (a short haul only third runway) has been shown to be feasable. At a very low cost. The planes that will fly into it will be 737NG Max,s and A320 NEO's. These new (small) planes with state of the art engines will also have a noise signature far lower than anything we have today.

Of course someone will get some extra noise.They will whereever you put a runway.You could put it at Gatwick (in the country).You could put it at Stanstead (in the country). But people will and have complained. They will complain wherever you put it.NIMBY. That's not to blame them who would not.

But government (good government)is about making the RIGHT decisions not just to pander to some potental voters.

One of the key reasons that London is the No1 city in the World IS because of Heathrow.The others (Paris/Frankfurt) must be holding their breath with glee watching this debacle.

So build a small third runway in the nearish future and upset a few people. OR

Spend £200 Bn and flip London on it's head by putting an airport where no one wants or needs it making 50 years of infrastructure (and people) redundant?

It beggers belief that it is being discussed at all.

Oh and by the way. The future. The future global hub will not (is not ) Heathrow it is and will be Dubai.Heathrow will grow yes,but do not over estimate the geographical shift that is happening right in front of our eyes.

It is total madness. Please see sense. (From someone who lives under the Heathrow flight path).

PS. As someone who does live under the flightpath I know that it is not the volume of aircraft.It just takes the one NOISY aircraft in the morning or night.With all the noise of a major city around you it is not an issue at all during the day. People older than me remeber the screeching turbojet 707's that burst your eardrums.I recall the equally noisy turbo jets of Concorde.I know what the primary offender is today.It is the 747.

Tomorrow all such aircraft will have gone,replaced with aircraft that literalyl whisper overhead.Compared to Busses,lorries (trucks) Police sirens and Rattling metal on metal trains the planes are silent! Come on guys do your research.


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2684 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

Hey chaps, stop panicking !

Why do you guys think LHR will close down?

If London will handle 400 million passengers by 2050, as the article suggests, its a sure bet that LHR will not close down.

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3098 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 8):
If London will handle 400 million passengers by 2050, as the article suggests, its a sure bet that LHR will not close down

Why would anyone move to Fantasy Island if LHR was still open? The whole business case is based on closing LHR. The fact that this would leave the M4 corridor bereft of an airport shows how unlikely this is. Put it this way, behind the scenes the Conservatives and the DFT acknowledge that this is nuts but the politics is dirty.

Are BA backing this? No
Aside from architects getting fuzzy about billions of pounds in investment, who in the industry is asking for this? Lufthansa? KLM? Air France? easyJet? Ryanair? Nope, there's a clue.It's about getting Boris re-elected then once the bills come in, quietly shelving it as the Eurozone calamity means the economy is still sunk. By that time, Boris will be an MP again and you know what happens next God help us....

Wiff waff anyone?


User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 7):
the A380 will in time reduce congestion by the fact that it can replace 2 for 1 where the capacity allows.

True, in as much as the A380 cuts the movement total thus possibly the pax throughput total. You can land 3 smaller aircraft in the gap that one A380 requires!


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2965 times:

Quoting everyone.

That's all very well and arguments against make alot of sense but 'something' will need to be done.

In 25 years time if we havn't all been blown to bits I'm pretty sure LHR will either be alot bigger than it is or there will indeed be a brand new airport.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8976 posts, RR: 39
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

My suggestion would be first do away with the pricing regulations at LHR. This will promote more efficient use of that airport. This should be very good news for Airbus and its A380 program for that matter.

Then, if there is still a capacity problem, you start thinking about multi billion controversial projects.

[Edited 2012-01-18 07:26:27]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinebananaboy From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 1589 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

The developers have a website with further information.

http://www.halcrow.com/Thames-Hub/

Mark



All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4069 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 7):
We English do some pretty mad things sometimes but this one takes the biscuit!

Mad is to leave Heathrow in similar size to today's and expect London to have any global relevance in the long term.

So yes, the English do some pretty mad things.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineFlyingCello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2606 times:

Have you guys never watched "Yes Minister"?

David Cameron has said publicly that there won't be a 3rd runway at Heathrow. That was good for votes, but he really knows that a 3rd runway is the only short term option that makes sense.

So what does he do? He does what any government does...hold an inquiry! The outcome of said inquiry can almost be written now...Thames Estuary airport would be vastly expensive, heavily impact on the environment, would cause massive demographic shifts in the South East, leave the Heathrow corridor a ghost town, cause major knock-on traffic effects as everyone commutes from West London to East London etc. etc.

Dave now has an independant voice saying that Thames Estuary is not viable...and that Heathrow R3 is the only viable option. Dave then says that, reluctantly, he accepts that the new runway must go ahead, despite his concerns for the residents around Heathrow...

We all get a new runway (and a little breathing space) at Heathrow, and Thames Estuary gets canned for another thirty years.

Simples!!

The best bit though, is that in thirty years, when we're finally discussing Stansted runways 3 and 4, the government of the day will play the very same game all over again!


User currently offlinetheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

As much as a new hub airport is a good idea, location not ideal though, this is the UK....

Large infrastructure takes years or doesn't get built at all. Look at Terminal 5, 10 years late. LHR 3rd Runway, should be built, not happening. 2nd runway at Stansted and Gatwick, not happening....
New High Speed rail link up north from London, first section may start building in 5 years time, then be ready in 10 years from then. Then next section to where it really matters, Manchester / Scotland not due for 20 years from now.

So any new airport is going to take at least 20 - 30 years by the time you have had a few elections, changes of transport minister and political mindset.

The UK just needs to get on and build stuff not waste time with endless consultations and inquiries.


User currently offlinelhr380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2302 times:

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 15):

I do hope this is the case!!!!


User currently offlineLGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

What a waste of money this idea would be! Why are they planning this when we have LGW, LHR, STN, LTN!!! I mean this country is suffering huge debt problems and we are getting rid of most of the armed forces. If they are so desperate why don't they add the runways to the main 4 London airports we already HAVE!


3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
User currently offlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3393 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 15):
We all get a new runway (and a little breathing space) at Heathrow, and Thames Estuary gets canned for another thirty years.

You forgot the part where another party is elected to government, they cancel Cameron's LHR runway three project, and start a new enquiry to make sure the Thames estuary is really a no-go.



Attamottamotta!
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...
Ryanair Pax To Be Charged 7EUR In Riga Airport posted Wed Dec 28 2011 05:31:23 by smbukas
Concorde To Get Home On Thames In London. posted Wed Oct 13 2010 01:20:07 by imag
SLC-NRT To Be Cut On Oct 1st? posted Wed Aug 5 2009 02:29:51 by Vincentslc
YNG Soon To Be In Need Of New Airport Director posted Fri Jul 17 2009 21:25:35 by YNGguins
Thai A380 To Be Used On BKK-LHR Route posted Sat Aug 9 2008 09:07:28 by Bochora
BBC News To Be Shown On AF LHR-LAX Flights posted Sun Apr 6 2008 04:44:40 by TUIflyer
AC 777s To Be Featured On NBC Today Show posted Fri Apr 27 2007 21:19:48 by ACFA
Cargo No Longer To Be Carried On Passenger Planes? posted Mon Apr 2 2007 08:28:00 by Tugger
Bogotá Airspace To Be Closed On Sunday posted Thu Mar 8 2007 04:29:50 by RCS763AV
Security Fees To Be Doubled On Intra-US Flights? posted Sun Feb 12 2006 10:13:45 by LH492