Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
London Britannia Airport  
User currently offlineCaptainDJ From UK - England, joined Jul 2013, 6 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 20219 times:

Hi all, in a bold move for a first post I've provided a link to an article about the Thames estuary airport plan.

I don't know if it's been brought up lately but I thought it worth mentioning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24895965

I'm going to be even braver and say that I like the idea of this completely new airport although the inevitable closure of Heathrow to be used as a housing estate is not to my liking.

77 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12879 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 20061 times:

Two major problems: Global warming/climate change and environmental issues. Any new man made island airport would have to be built up several meters above currently water levels to assure that as sea levels rise, the new airport would be unusable. Then you would have the huge fights over the environmental impact of such a new airport that would add to the time to just get it approved.

User currently offlineHiJazzey From Saudi Arabia, joined Sep 2005, 855 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19753 times:

A daft proposal. So not only is the airport in the middle of nowhere, check-in is off-site which means passengers and baggage need to be transported over from the "check-in hub" to the airport. What a logistical nightmare.

User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19472 times:

There are a load of issues with this proposal, I really don't believe: "Testrad said there could be a new London borough in the Heathrow area with 300,000 new houses and about 200,000 new jobs" - the LHR site isn't really that large and what jobs are going be created when those businesses will be so far from London's airport?!   
What about all the jobs lost as businesses move because LHR isn't there any more? (and all the jobs actually at LHR)

Houses, yes obviously (that's a no brainer in SE England on a brown field site) but I just don't believe "lots of extra jobs".

Secondly how will all the very many businesspeople living W of London now get to the rest of the world? travelling to this island won't be an attractive solution. I guess they will go to LGW or LTN or BHX or OXF and get flights from there or connecting flights to CDG/AMS etc.

I was also interested to see that even the councils local to this island are anti- "Medway, Kent and Southend councils ... have opposed the plans" - and these are the very areas that are supposed to economically benefit!



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,B463,(..50 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7257 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19248 times:

Hmmm.

Already there is a conflict. The article states that problems of land-based airports would be avoided:

"A spokeswoman said those included demolition of houses, removal of green field sites, bird strikes, acquisition of private land and demolition of industrial infrastructure."

Yet it goes on to say:

"Medway, Kent and Southend councils, the RSPB and environmental campaigners have opposed the estuary airport plans."

The RSPB is, of course, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Now why would the RSPB object to the proposal if it would avoid bird strikes the proposer says are one of the four problems of land based airports that would be addressed by the proposal? Perhaps it is because the proposed site for London Britannia airport is just east of Sheerness and the Elmley National Nature Reserve:

http://www.elmleynaturereserve.co.uk/

I also find the concept of a "car free airport" intriguing.

No private cars? No hire cars? Everyone including tens of thousands of airline, airport and other employees, on public road transport either along the upgraded A249/M2 into London or on busses and coaches along the upgraded A249 and M2 to Ebbsfleet to catch the High speed train to Kings Cross?

Note here that Ebbsfleet is a 33 mile drive currently taking (according to the AA) 42 minutes from Sheerness which is situated between the airport site and Ebbsfleet. Imagine the F Class passengers arriving on a 469 seat BA 380 competing with its passengers and those off other aircraft to get on the next coach to Ebbsfleet instead of being met by his or her chauffer immediately after passing through customs.


User currently offlineSelseyBill From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18787 times:

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 3):
There are a load of issues with this proposal, I really don't believe: "Testrad said there could be a new London borough in the Heathrow area with 300,000 new houses and about 200,000 new jobs" - the LHR site isn't really that large and what jobs are going be created when those businesses will be so far from London's airport?!
What about all the jobs lost as businesses move because LHR isn't there any more? (and all the jobs actually at LHR)

Houses, yes obviously (that's a no brainer in SE England on a brown field site) but I just don't believe "lots of extra jobs".

Secondly how will all the very many businesspeople living W of London now get to the rest of the world? travelling to this island won't be an attractive solution. I guess they will go to LGW or LTN or BHX or OXF and get flights from there or connecting flights to CDG/AMS etc.

I was also interested to see that even the councils local to this island are anti- "Medway, Kent and Southend councils ... have opposed the plans" - and these are the very areas that are supposed to economically benefit!

This and more.

What about all the billions in compensation claims from residents and businesses in the immediate Heathrow area who will lose value in their homes and businesses when Heathrow shuts?

All those people that campaign against developing Heathrow conveniently forget that one of the main reasons why their properties are worth what they are is because of Heathrow itself.

Now I like Mayor Johnson as a politician, but this stance of his on a new Thames Estuary airport is beyond stupid.


User currently offlinenimool From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18201 times:

This is just a really stupid idea in my opinion.
First of all the idea of closing down Heathrow one of the symbols London is famous and known for and then building houses on it? is it just stupid to knock down the airport took years to get to this point?
Plus as others has mentioned in above replies how will millions of people from the west get to travel down to southend to get their business international flights? or even people from other cities?

Why wouldn't they just continue withe the LHR expansion plan which will Cost a lot less and also create more jobs as there will me more terminals to be built. and even there will be a noise reduction with the slough runway expansion plan, it would also probably increase London's economy with the increase in number of flights and passengers at LHR.



If its not Boeing im not Going!
User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1595 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18049 times:

Government cost of Borris Island / London Brittania Airport = £47.3bn

Government cost of LHR third runway = £0 (would be privately financed)


case closed.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3074 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 17820 times:

Quoting CaptainDJ (Thread starter):

I'm going to be even braver and say that I like the idea of this completely new airport although the inevitable closure of Heathrow to be used as a housing estate is not to my liking.

You just put every blue collar worker who relies on LHR on the dole, the nice swanky houses won't be for them now will they? Also, time to pony up some serious dough as BA and Virgin will need their maintenance facilities rebuilt on Fantasy Island aslongside the billions you shell out to Heathow PLC for closure of the business.

Still anything that get's Bojo in the news what?


User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6604 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 17710 times:

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 3):
300,000 new houses

In round terms if we say a house occupies 30ft x 30ft including any garden and road, that gives a total area of just about 10 sq miles for that many houses. With 10000ft runways LHR is around 2 miles x 1 mile, lets say 2.5 miles x 1.5 miles so 3.75sq miles, i.e. 1/3 of the area for the 300k homes. So the homes are very small or there will be a hell of a lot of expansion outside the LHR perimeter.

Looking at the photo on the BBC report is that a cruise ship terminal next to the airport? And how many will that cater for?
And are the runways really directly in line with the central terminal buildings? Looks like one set of parallel runways is for arrivals - towards the terminals - and the other set of runways is for departures - away from the terminals. Not seen that in any other airport around the world. Hardly safe in the event of an overshoot or some other misadventure on landing.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2985 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15890 times:

I like the idea myself and could imagine it being similar to the likes of HKG...

London should take advantage of its position as a coastal city, and will have the most minimal impact on the most heavily populated area of the UK. I think the South East of England is actually some of the most populated area in Europe...

I just take issue, that any resolution to the runway shortage in the UK is years away... The UK planning laws are so bogged down in red-tape and people able to take every step of the planning process to a judicial review, it will be 10-15 years before work ever begins!


User currently offlineTK773 From Turkey, joined Apr 2013, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15607 times:

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 7):
Quoting Richard28 (Reply 7):
Government cost of Borris Island / London Brittania Airport = £47.3bn

Government cost of LHR third runway = £0 (would be privately financed)


case closed.

Couldn't agree more with you.

Its a.) too controversial b.) too large a project for the British economy (despite it being just as essentially vital for future economic sustainability).

TK773


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3067 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15268 times:

Quoting CaptainDJ (Thread starter):
I'm going to be even braver and say that I like the idea of this completely new airport although the inevitable closure of Heathrow to be used as a housing estate is not to my liking.

While it isn't that common, there are several examples of old airports closing and redeveloping after new airports are established.
Denver Stapleton closed when DIA opened, now an urban village. Kaitak closed when Chep Lap Kok opened. Still waiting for Brandenburg to open while Tempelhof is closed. This is possible when a new airport more than compensates for the loss of an airport while still leaving room for expansion.

-Rampart


User currently offlineiliam From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14795 times:

This would also put a small dent into that, I would think...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mb-shipwrecked-Thames-estuary.html


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14555 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 12):
Quoting CaptainDJ (Thread starter):
I'm going to be even braver and say that I like the idea of this completely new airport although the inevitable closure of Heathrow to be used as a housing estate is not to my liking.

While it isn't that common, there are several examples of old airports closing and redeveloping after new airports are established.
Denver Stapleton closed when DIA opened, now an urban village. Kaitak closed when Chep Lap Kok opened. Still waiting for Brandenburg to open while Tempelhof is closed. This is possible when a new airport more than compensates for the loss of an airport while still leaving room for expansion.

And the old Munich Riem airport closed completely when the new airport opened in 1992. The former airport property, much closer to the city center than the new airport, has since been redeveloped into a mix of housing, offices, a shopping mall, and a large convention/congress center. You wouldn't know it used to be a busy airport except for the old control tower which was preserved. It used to be connected to the terminal building. Now it's all by itself surrounded by roads and new buildings.




A small section of the old terminal was also preserved and is now integrated into a new office complex.

http://www.rescue-tempelhof.org/img/Wappenhalle.jpg


The old MUC Riem terminal and control tower as it once looked. The preserved section of the terminal in the photo above is visible at the far left.

http://carsten-tauber.de/media/1jahr-fmr-archiv.jpg


User currently offlineCaptainDJ From UK - England, joined Jul 2013, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 11819 times:

Thanks for that info Rampart, I should have thought of those examples before.

Brandenburg apart though haven't the new airports in Hong Kong and Denver benefited those cities? It makes me wonder how many more major airports worldwide are relatively new compared to Heathrow's long history.

Yes, I would agree that there are an awful lot of problems with an island airport for London, I personally favour one or two more runways at Heathrow but if that is never going to happen then might a new airport be necessary? I don't know too much about the London airport debate but aren't there any locations in or around the M25 for a new project? Just ant to know more about this topic really.


User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3905 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 11395 times:

The problem with additional runways at LHR is that there is no readily available land. It means forced purchases of thousands of homes and, once built, noise pollution for a lot more people. And the question really is - would it result in an airport capable of handling London's transport needs for decades to come?

As for the housing, a lot of infrastructure around the airport itself will become available for redevelopment once LHR has closed. Think of all the hotels, warehouses, office-blocks with aviation-related businesses as tenants.


User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 11255 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 16):
It means forced purchases of thousands of homes and, once built, noise pollution for a lot more people.

That's not strictly accurate, the NW and SW options both each result in less than 1000 houses being lost and, as a local resident, I can say that the perceived noise levels are currently going down (787 is remarkably quiet on departure, and I expect the A350 to be so too, and the noisier of the current aircraft e.g. MD80s and 747s are being phased out).

The airport claims to support ~75,000 jobs directly, so a claim that "300,000 new houses and about 200,000 new jobs" (I note the phrase used is "new" not "additional" or "more" - duplicitous PR spin    ) can be created on the same footprint just doesn't ring true - I doubt anyone who has lived and worked around there would believe those numbers.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,B463,(..50 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3475 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10682 times:

My first question would be where will they get all the infill from in order to create this Island ? Chep Lap Kok was made by flattening a rocky island, this would have to be constructed by pumping huge quantities of silt from the sea bed. The east coast of England is already suffering from severe coastal erosion, removing such a volume from the sea bed would surely make the problem far worse.
If the Island is to be car free (and I thus assume truck free) where will all the cargo warehouses long term car parks etc go. They mention Ebbsfleet for check in and Sheerness for logisitics etc. A quick look at an aerial map shows that neither of these has a lot of spare space.
Its been mentioned elsewhere recently that LHR has approx 79,000 staff, in all likelihood the ancilary services liked to it employ as many again if not more. Just how do you move 160,000 jobs 60 miles across London ?


User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6604 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 10067 times:

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 18):
Just how do you move 160,000 jobs 60 miles across London ?

You get people to move, or commute, or you find new employees in Kent. Sadly the way things are. No different, really, from relocating any employer. At least it's in the same country.

Not sure how many will be willing to relocate to increased house prices (new airport) from an area with depressed house prices (airport closed). Or maybe prices will go up because it's quieter.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 18):
The east coast of England is already suffering from severe coastal erosion, removing such a volume from the sea bed would surely make the problem far worse.

If the removed silt is replaced by rocks then there may not be any overall effect, beyond a disturbance to the local seabed and the discovery of any WW1/2 memorabila that could be sunk there. The Thames is an estuary so the effects of coastal currents won't be as strong as they are further up the coast where it's more exposed.

A bigger worry, as noted earlier is rising sea levels, though if sea levels rise that much a few airports around the world may also disappear from the map and I expect we'll have other things to be worrying about.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7257 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 9911 times:

Quoting oly720man (Reply 9):
In round terms if we say a house occupies 30ft x 30ft including any garden and road, that gives a total area of just about 10 sq miles for that many houses. With 10000ft runways LHR is around 2 miles x 1 mile, lets say 2.5 miles x 1.5 miles so 3.75sq miles, i.e. 1/3 of the area for the 300k homes. So the homes are very small or there will be a hell of a lot of expansion outside the LHR perimeter.

The infrastructure of Heathrow Airport is significantly larger than the area occupied by the airport itself. For example there are the 95 hotels listed here:

http://www.tripadvisor.ca/HotelsNear-g186338-qLHR-London_England.html

claiming a connection with Heathrow many of which would be forced to sack their employees and close down. They would then be ripe for redevelopment. Yet . . .

What applies to the hotels could also apply to Waterside, the BA HQ off the northwest corner of LHR. Would the airline want its HQ at Heathrow if LHR disappeared?.

Despite this according to a study by Optimal Economics published in September 2011 there were 76,600 direct on-airport employees at LHR in 2009.

This report also states that in 2010 there were 7,700 direct off-airport employees. They worked in economic activities such as freight forwarding and other airline services not actually based within the airport boundaries. They would likely include BA Waterside employees

In 2010 Optimal also report that there were 11,100 indirect airport employees. Their employment was completely dependent on the provision of numerous services to airport based operators.

Finally Optimal reported that there were 18,600 employees whose work was "induced" by the airport. That is to say their work was totally reliant on demand from companies in the three categories described above.

Not included in the Optimal survey were those workers whose jobs had been effectively created by the economic activity of the 114,000 workers in the above categories.

So we are looking at a minimum total of 114,000 job losses primarily to local residents. On the other hand the proposer of London Britannia Airport claims that the redevelopment of LHR would create 200,000 new jobs (although where these would be located with all the new houses to be built on the site - see extract from Reply 9 above - it does not say). Nevertheless that at least sounds like a gain of 86,000 jobs for the area.

But wait a minute. The proposer also says that selling LHR to build 300,000 new homes will pay for the construction of Britannia Airport. If sold those 300,000 homes new homes will likely be occupied by between 400,000 and 550,000 economically active residents . All would effectively be new to the area. Add to them 114,000 job losses and we are looking at up to 600,000 job seekers in the Heathrow area trying to gain one of only 200,000 new jobs. The only compensating factor would be the transport facilities to other areas offered by the M25 / M4, the Heathrow Express and the Piccadilly Line.


User currently offlineBA0197 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2011, 229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 9600 times:

This proposal has to be one of the most idiotic things I have seen in my time. I see so many logistical and practical nightmares about this airport. In fact the only truly redeeming feature about this proposal is the name of the new airport (rather like it). I may be very blunt in my explanation below but this is truly becoming the largest mistake we could possibly do from a UK PLC perspective.

My comments:

1. The UK needs a hub airport. (Take CDG, FRA, and AMS)
2. It must be in London (self-explanatory really. Yes, the UK is London centric because it needs to be; there is simply not the population, business or resource anywhere else in the UK that could come remotely close to matching London).
3. Heathrow DIRECTLY contributes 1% of the UK GDP
4. Heathrow is Britain’s only hub airport (and is rapidly losing ground)
5. Heathrow is at 99% capacity
6. London Britannia would cost the UK tax payer £47 Billion
7. Building a third (and fourth) runway and Heathrow would cost £0 (the runways would be privately funded)
8. Noise will be reduced in the event of Heathrow expanding
9. How are airlines (especially BA) expected to grow under these current conditions? This puts British airlines at a huge disadvantage when compared to the 5, 6, and 8 runwayed airports in Europe where BA’s competition have no need to worry about lack of space.
10. The regions are not and never will be suitable for a mass of air travel (especially if one thinks of the efficiency of a hub and spoke system)
11. Rail lines to Heathrow are a priority (if the UK can even more so screw up HS2)

Problems with London Britannia:

1. Cannot be called “London” Britannia. It is practically in Kent.
2. Who’s idiodic idea was it to develop these remote check in areas? If we thought getting to the airport 2 hours early was bad, by the look of this a 3-4 hour check in would need to be recommended
3. No cars, really. People do drive in Britain and all the engineering facilities of the airlines would have to be based off the airport (in Sheeroam)
4. Would the environmentalist be upset about the corrosion of the UK’s eastern shores and the movement of extremely large quantities of earth needed to build this completely man-made island? Don’t forget about the birds either. Their arguments seem to go out of the window the more they complain.
5. We know the inside will not look like that
6. Does someone have an idea about how they will move and airport 80 miles across London (and the Thames estuary)?
7. Let’s just make over 100,000 employees commute from west London to Britannia. This will not be a problem at all.
8. Let’s remember the claims that will come from the residents near LHR that will claim loss in property value.

The Heathrow Proposals:

1. Using the 2 runways, 4 usable runway proposal, only 1000 homes would have to go.
2. This would move the flight path 2 km further away from London
3. Runways would not cost the UK taxpayer any money
4. Could be completed (along with new Terminals) by 2019 if work began early next year (know that’s never going to happen with the UK’s red tape in planning permission). Nonetheless about 10 years earlier than Britannia could open.
5. Not a logistical nightmare for airlines
6. BA could expand like its peers
7. The UK would quickly have more access to the world
8. Airport workforce does not have to remove themselves and move 80 miles away.
9. Noise would be reduced by 18% by 2018 even with 4 runways and the extra capacity

This joke has gone on long enough and the UK needs to take quick and decisive action if it does not want to continue to lose their position in the aviation world. Our political masters are making a right c**k up of this whole fiasco. Everyone from the Green Party to the residents of West London to people in the Shetland Islands need to realize the Heathrow is vital to the UK and that it is the only airport that can keep this country connected to the foreign lands effectively (and attract the businessmen/ women that keep our economy running). Business people like convenient airports not one that is 40 miles away from the City. Just like they do not flying into Luton or Stansted, no one will like flying into Britannia. Unfortunately this country does not have the backbone to make a crucial decision like this one, even when it is so clear, within the reign of the current monarch. This is hurting our economy and our way of life.


User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6604 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9405 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 20):
The infrastructure of Heathrow Airport is significantly larger than the area occupied by the airport itself. For example there are the 95 hotels listed here:

95 hotels don't take up a large amount of space in the grand scheme of things, and the last 15 on the list are getting on for 6 miles from LHR, Slough one way, Teddington the other (which could equally claim to be good for the centre of London so may not necessarily rely on LHR trade). Sure there are lots of businesses outside the perimeter that rely on LHR, but the space occupied by them doesn't compare with the area of the airport itself and is unlikely to be reclaimed on a piecemeal basis to build houses, or light industry, or whatever on.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3475 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9343 times:

Quoting oly720man (Reply 19):
You get people to move, or commute, or you find new employees in Kent. Sadly the way things are. No different, really, from relocating any employer. At least it's in the same country.

Its true that many jobs get relocated, when businesses move, its also true that in many cases staff decline to move due to family commitments. Additionally this would be a relocation on a scale far in excess of any other in the UK, exceedingly problematic to say the least, remember how difficult it was to move BA long haul across the airfield from T4 to T5

Quoting oly720man (Reply 19):
If the removed silt is replaced by rocks then there may not be any overall effect

Where would you find rocks from in Southern England to replace the volume of sand required to build this airport in the sea ? Most rock armour used in the UK is already imported from Norway.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 9269 times:

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 5):
What about all the billions in compensation claims from residents and businesses in the immediate Heathrow area who will lose value in their homes and businesses when Heathrow shuts?

They will not be able to claim if their property loses value because a large local employer has shut down.

Quoting TK773 (Reply 11):
Its a.) too controversial b.) too large a project for the British economy (despite it being just as essentially vital for future economic sustainability).

Being too controversial could stop it happening. Whether it cost £10 billion or £50 billion does not matter too much - the absence of a London hub airport able to handle traffic demands would be a severe blow to the British economy.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 18):
If the Island is to be car free (and I thus assume truck free) where will all the cargo warehouses long term car parks etc go.

Are there any other car-free hub airports in the world? How close could one get to the airport by car? If you had to dump the car and wait for a shuttle service to the airport your journey time would be increased by 30+ minutes I think. No good as far as I am concerned.


25 ncfc99 : Is his actually an issue? Is there a precedent in this country for the government paying compensation for a loss of property value/business value/inc
26 thijs1984 : comming from a country which is under sealevel.... you can engineer an island airport perfectly, even with rising sealevels. Because the rise of the
27 flyingthe757 : Schools, business and transportation links in the local LHR area are as they are today because of the airport. A lot of the bus routes have some kind
28 oly720man : Why would the rocks have to come from S England? The airport's in the sea so it would be no real hardship to fill ships with rocks from anywhere and
29 bongodog1964 : The further away you source the materials the more expensive the project becomes, I mentioned earlier that all the fill for Chep Lap Kok came from th
30 GCT64 : I think you are making the assumption that the majority of residents, rather than a vocal minority, are against expansion. There are a lot, not least
31 Post contains images ncfc99 : I understand the above and yes its the minority that have the bigger mouths and, I believe, are the self serving/short sighted element of society. I
32 bennett123 : I think that it is 2019, rather than 2018. The problem is that there is an election in 2015. Do not expect bold decisions in 2014, let alone 2015.
33 CXfirst : Is the restriction not letting them build it, or to not operate a 2nd runway? If the latter, then they shouldn't take too long before they actually s
34 Post contains links Richard28 : the agreement is here: http://www.gatwickairport.com/Public...9_Runway_Agreement_Actual_Copy.pdf seems to indicate, in lengthy terms, that no runway
35 VV701 : Protestors protest against something substantial and not up-in-the-air plans. So currently protestors against noise under the LHR flight paths are th
36 thijs1984 : this is exactly the procedure which will be used for building the island. If it will be build. Just across the northsea, the Port of Rotterdam has re
37 JHwk : Expansion vs Replacement comes down to your event horizon. Ultimately a replacement airport is going to be needed, or a lot more than 10,000 homes wil
38 TheSonntag : I like the idea. I love gigantic projects. Lets face it, the days of LHR are counted. Build a Transrapid rapid line to London City, and this should wo
39 Post contains images bennett123 : I think that you forgot the You could lose London City in one corner of LHR.
40 vfw614 : The problem simply is that the two additional runways at LHR would be, in the long term, a makeshift solution. A much larger airport does not only nee
41 offloaded : Save most of the £47billion. Build the new airport (seaport) in the estuary and spend a couple of billion retrofitting floats to aircraft. Job done.
42 peterinlisbon : Why build a new international airport when you have just finished rebuilding one that has 5 terminals, that is in an ideal location connected by motor
43 Post contains images bongodog1964 : Quote of the week, if not the year The LHR proposals show that two new runways can be built with the loss of less than 2000 homes. LHR would then hav
44 Post contains images JHwk : Be specific in duration. It may be adequate for the next 15-20 years demand, but it is unlikely to be adequate for the next 30+, even assuming a mode
45 Post contains images GCT64 : Very important point. From my location, South Buckinghamshire (less than 20 minutes from LHR), I would not be even considering using Boris Island. I
46 bongodog1964 : Two extra runways would double LHR's capacity, on that basis it would have capacity for 30 years at 2% compound growth.
47 spottingpete93 : 100k is an awful lot of people to put out of work and find replacement jobs for. We would also, need to build new infrastructure to support an equiva
48 Post contains links VV701 : Geographically the proposed location of Britannia Airport is excellent from a noise perspective. From most other environmental considerations it is mo
49 babybus : London Stansted is no where near London either. Back in the 60/ 70's BEA had check-in in central London. So not a new idea at all. Many airlines have
50 goosebayguy : A new airport in the estuary is the perfect solution to the UK's hub airport crisis. If you compare the economic benefits between the current high spe
51 Richard28 : except its on the wrong side of London, and will mean the forced commute or relocation of thousands of people, straight through the middle of London.
52 PanHAM : No comparison. The West London Air Terminal was convenient with frequent non-stop bus connections to T1. People had the choice to check in there or a
53 VV701 : The Britannia Airport proposal is to ban all cars from the airport. It is that all passengers would be carried the 38 miles along the updated A249 an
54 bongodog1964 : T5 just has a glass façade, like any other major terminal buildings its central core consists of tens of thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel.
55 spottingpete93 : So at the price that public transport costs in the UK the airport workers won't be able to afford to commute their and neither will the passengers! W
56 Viscount724 : NRT isn't anywhere near Tokyo either. By surface it's almost 50 miles (75 km) from central Tokyo. When NRT opened and all international flights had t
57 flyingthe757 : Questions I don't understand the train bit. If I read it correctly, a train would arrive every 4 min, and on this train would be the baggage already l
58 peterinlisbon : I wonder on what basis they've decided that the number of aircraft movements is going to keep on increasing exponentially forever and ever... The pric
59 vfw614 : Do you guys seriously expect that even an enlarged LHR will be able to cover the transport needs of the nation in the year 2050 or 2070? The real ques
60 Post contains links VV701 : I do not think so. After all we already have London Gatwick (with a second runway likely to be built as soon as the 60 year legal moratorium dating f
61 Post contains images Nav20 : Interesting discussion. I used to live north of London (Barnet, Hertfordshire) when I lived in Britain - and my mother came from the western suburbs,
62 rampart : The same thing as when any major airport closed and moves elsewhere. (As mentioned before, BER, MUC, DEN, HKG.) The existing infrastructure and comme
63 flyingthe757 : The same way that any large airport with satellite terminals works, only extended This is the train from Ebbfleet, not intra terminal. The proposal st
64 Richard28 : The proposal is that the new Britannia airport would mean an enforced closure of LHR, meaning the jobs, infrastructure, homes,supporting industries,
65 rampart : I understand. It's simply an extension of the intraterminal idea. Passengers check their bags and take a train to the terminal, either way. In this c
66 PanHAM : 15 Trains per hour in each direction Need a capacity of 1000 Pax each plus their baggage. But they also have to shuttle the personell, including frlig
67 Post contains links ndhair37 : Chaps and Chapettes; I haven't taken the time to look through all of the replies as it would take too long; HOWEVER I am going to be able to make a nu
68 SimProgrammer : I'm an advocate of an estuary airport but ndhair37's proposal is excellent.
69 alexvk380 : What will happen to Heathrow Airport Holdings if Heathrow has to close? They'll still have Southampton, Glasgow and Aberdeen but they pale in comparis
70 Post contains images ndhair37 : My thanks indeed. Anybody fancy giving me a job? I'm more than a one-trick pony The way I see it; if Heathrow was made into the five-runway hub; Gatw
71 Post contains links and images PITrules : Perhaps not, but I doubt a new airport if opened in 15 years would also be able to cover the transport needs in 2070, especially with the closure of
72 Indy : Maybe it has been mentioned already in one of the many replies but wouldn't it be cheaper just to buy property around LHR and expand that way? Even if
73 carledwards : if only it was that easy! Nothing to do with the cost; they have an endless fight with noise campaigners
74 skipness1E : BAA were doing that for years, the main problems are from well to do type burghs in West London which are in marginal constituencies, given the need
75 Indy : This is all quite unfortunate. Obviously LHR cannot continue to operate at 99% capacity. Building an artificial island is too expensive. What about m
76 SimProgrammer : The cost of building an island is not the issue, it's the cost of connecting it to London. The obvious connection points by train would be from Kings
77 VV701 : This issue is addressed in the link provided by the thread opener. The BBC report says: "Passenger check-in and arrival terminals would be at Ebbsfle
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...
Another New London Hub Airport Plan posted Wed Dec 19 2012 12:02:41 by PlymSpotter
London City Airport Ramp Space? posted Thu Dec 6 2012 04:53:18 by KaiTak747
"Luton Should Become London's Main Airport..." posted Mon Oct 15 2012 12:12:26 by gilesdavies
Heavy Sunset Departures \ London Heathrow Airport posted Tue May 1 2012 21:48:37 by AY104
Could London City Airport Ever Get Air Bridges? posted Wed Mar 14 2012 09:07:39 by SKAirbus
Runway Extension At London Southend Airport Open! posted Thu Mar 8 2012 14:00:47 by countvis
London Southend Airport New Website! posted Wed Dec 14 2011 01:41:08 by 8herveg
London City Airport Question? posted Fri Sep 30 2011 17:02:34 by wnflyguy
BA At London City Airport (LCY) posted Sat Nov 20 2010 09:49:34 by gayrugbyman
London Southend Airport Development posted Tue Aug 17 2010 06:24:20 by BAfan