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 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 20201 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 offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12877 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (5 months 6 days ago) and read 20043 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 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19735 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 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19454 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, 7254 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 19230 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, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18769 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 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18183 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 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18031 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, 3073 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 17802 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 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 17692 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 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 15872 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 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 15589 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 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 15250 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 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14777 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, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14537 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 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11801 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, 3901 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11377 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 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11237 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, 3468 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10664 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 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10049 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, 7254 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9893 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, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 months 5 days ago) and read 9582 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 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9387 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, 3468 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9325 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 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9251 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.


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 729 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9381 times:

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 21):

8. Let’s remember the claims that will come from the residents near LHR that will claim loss in property value.

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/income due to a business (albeit a large one) moving away from an area?

It seems residents around LHR want their cake and to eat it. They campaign against expansion because the extra
noise will hurt property values, but will claim compensation if the stiffled expansion causes a move that will hurt property values. So self serving and short sighted.


User currently offlinethijs1984 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9151 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1):
ilt up several meters above currently water levels to assure that as sea levels rise

comming from a country which is under sealevel.... you can engineer an island airport perfectly, even with rising sealevels.
Because the rise of the sea level is not that extreme, and even if it would be that extreme. than large parts of London would need protection anyway. So protecting a relative small piece of (is)land called Brittania airport would be within the current possibilies of man's technology

but to get back on topic. It's better to expand LHR. everything esle would be an huge waste of resources.


User currently offlineflyingthe757 From UK - England, joined Mar 2013, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9239 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 25):

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 of funding from HAL, and are needed to get workers and the public alike to the airport and local areas that have something airport related. Shut the airport, and schools loose kids, no one uses the buses, etc etc etc.

Boris and the publication don't really seem to mention that. Regarding the movement of people, a lot of airport workers (not all) share houses, or crew share houses, all close to the airport. Will there be places readily available for these kinds of people?


User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6604 posts, RR: 11
Reply 28, posted (5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8852 times:

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 23):
Where would you find rocks from in Southern England to replace the volume of sand required to build this airport in the sea

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 then just drop them where needed on the sea bed.

Depending on the seabed and depth of the sea, it may be possible to build on the sand. I would expect the perimeter would be dug deeper to act as a retaining wall and a complete wall would enclose an area that could be drained and then filled with the necessary construction materials. Or the whole thing will be filled with rocks. I'd expect dredging the seabed would provide lots of filler material rather than use rocks for the whole airport. Sand, or earth or clay, if hard packed, are what runways are built on anyway.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3468 posts, RR: 3
Reply 29, posted (5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8843 times:

Quoting oly720man (Reply 28):
Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 23):Where would you find rocks from in Southern England to replace the volume of sand required to build this airport in the sea
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 then just drop them where needed on the sea bed.

Depending on the seabed and depth of the sea, it may be possible to build on the sand. I would expect the perimeter would be dug deeper to act as a retaining wall and a complete wall would enclose an area that could be drained and then filled with the necessary construction materials. Or the whole thing will be filled with rocks. I'd expect dredging the seabed would provide lots of filler material rather than use rocks for the whole airport. Sand, or earth or clay, if hard packed, are what runways are built on anyway.

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 the site itself, they took a rocky island and flattened it. The problem with dredging the seabed in the South East of England of the vast amount of required material is that the voids will be filled with material subsequently eroded from the already receding coastline.
I don't think you have any concept of just how much infill would be required to construct a four or five runway offshore airport.


User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8825 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 25):
It seems residents around LHR want their cake and to eat it. They campaign against expansion because the extra
noise will hurt property values, but will claim compensation if the stiffled expansion causes a move that will hurt property values. So self serving and short sighted.

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 the 75,000 workers (and their families) and many thousands of regular business travellers who live within 15-20 miles, who are undoubtedly pro-LHR expansion. It is a shame that the media and politicians only focus on the vocal groups. It is also disappointing that the "pros" don't make their opinions better known / get themselves better organised - perhaps this is because they take the pragmatic view that, after all the shouting has finished, Boris Island won't be built and LHR will survive and will be expanded.

As one of those "residents", the (possible) extra aircraft noise isn't an issue, the depressing bit for me is all the roadworks and disruption we will need to experience in our every day lives as the M25 is built over, local roads are closed etc. but some sacrifices have to be made.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,B463,(..50 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 729 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8739 times:

Quoting flyingthe757 (Reply 27):
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 of funding from HAL, and are needed to get workers and the public alike to the airport and local areas that have something airport related. Shut the airport, and schools loose kids, no one uses the buses, etc etc etc.
Quoting GCT64 (Reply 30):
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 the 75,000 workers (and their families) and many thousands of regular business travellers who live within 15-20 miles, who are undoubtedly pro-LHR expansion. It is a shame that the media and politicians only focus on the vocal groups. It is also disappointing that the "pros" don't make their opinions better known / get themselves better organised - perhaps this is because they take the pragmatic view that, after all the shouting has finished, Boris Island won't be built and LHR will survive and will be expanded.

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 was generally asking if there is a precident for paying compensation when the goverment makes a decision to close an airport (here or any other country)? My initial reaction is that paying compensation for loss of housing value is not a good way to spend my tax money, if anyone can give me a good reason why it is, I'd love to hear it, after all, I'm here to learn and expand my knowledge of all things aviation. Schools, transport infrastructure etc would move with the airport, so that capacity would still be there but somewhere else, and you would hope it would be of a better standard.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 30):
but some sacrifices have to be made.

Allthough I don't live near an airport, I would like to think this is the attitude I would take. The people who will not sacrifice a thing make my teeth itch. 

Just for the record, I think at least another runway preferably two at LHR is the best solution to the south east lack of capacity issue. It solves the problem with the least amount of people inconveinienced as possible as far as I can tell. What I'd also like to see is serious planning for a second runway at LGW aswell, plan it now and get the permissions in place so when the currant agreement limiting it to one runway ends in (is it?) 2018, the work can start the day after.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7193 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8705 times:

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.


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2927 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8700 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 31):
What I'd also like to see is serious planning for a second runway at LGW aswell, plan it now and get the permissions in place so when the currant agreement limiting it to one runway ends in (is it?) 2018, the work can start the day after.

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 start building it, so that they can start operations on it the day after the restriction ends. And if it is the former, then I agree, they should start planning soon (although, I expect they have preliminary plans already done, with differing options).

As for my opinion on LHR. The rational side of me says get a 3rd and 4th runway at LHR, with the enthusiast in me is saying build the estuary airport. I think a new superhub on the Thames estuary would be incredibly cool, but then again, I am no longer a resident in the UK, so the financial side and the location doesn't really affect me.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1595 posts, RR: 6
Reply 34, posted (5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8493 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 33):
Is the restriction not letting them build it, or to not operate a 2nd runway?

the agreement is here:

http://www.gatwickairport.com/Public...9_Runway_Agreement_Actual_Copy.pdf

seems to indicate, in lengthy terms, that no runway should be built..... "the BAA will not construct or cause or permit to be constructed on land at Gatwick Airport a second operational runway ot any part of such a runway for taking-off or landing of fixed wing aircraft"

So planning could be done ahead of 2019, with bulldozers starting work only when the agreement has expired.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7254 posts, RR: 17
Reply 35, posted (5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8301 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 25):
It seems residents around LHR want their cake and to eat it. They campaign against expansion because the extra noise will hurt property values, but will claim compensation if the stiffled expansion causes a move that will hurt property values. So self serving and short sighted.

Protestors protest against something substantial and not up-in-the-air plans. So currently protestors against noise under the LHR flight paths are those whose voice we hear.

Just wait and see if there is a firm proposal to build a new London Airport AND to close LHR. The noise of protestors over the loss of jobs will vastly exceed that we have recently heard over the loss of 900 jobs with the end of ship construction at the Portsmouth Naval Dockyard. Here note that the planned continued Naval Dockyard operations at Portsmouth, including its role as 'home' to the two new RN very large aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, that are currently under construction, will continue to employ at least 11,000.

We will also probably hear protests against the likely destruction of the 4-hangar, 8-bay British Airways Technical Block A at LHR. It is a "Listed" building. The south pen still has its original concrete span exterior. It is currently legally protected from destruction or alteration.

But until there is a real threat of mass redundancies and/or the destruction of BA's TBA, all will be relatively quiet. After all there have been previous proposals for a Thanes Estuary Airport to replace Heathrow in 1971 (Maplin / Foulness), 1990 (Isle of Sheppey), 2002 (Cliffe), 2008 (Shivering Sands) and 2011 (Isle of Grain). The Foulness project actually received government approval in October 1973. This resulted in the formation of the Maplin Development Authority. Then with a change in government in 1974, it was cancelled.


User currently offlinethijs1984 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8063 times:

Quoting oly720man (Reply 28):
Depending on the seabed and depth of the sea, it may be possible to build on the sand. I would expect the perimeter would be dug deeper to act as a retaining wall and a complete wall would enclose an area that could be drained and then filled with the necessary construction materials. Or the whole thing will be filled with rocks. I'd expect dredging the seabed would provide lots of filler material rather than use rocks for the whole airport. Sand, or earth or clay, if hard packed, are what runways are built on anyway.

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 recently finished an huge expansion by an landfill.
Dregers have formed an island. Which will be surounded by an retaining seawall which is constructed later. the north sea provides more than enough material for building the island.


User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7888 times:

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 will be lost. There is a lot of history on what cities have done and why, and a new airport almost always seems to win. No solution is perfect, but starting with a clean slate is a lot easier than working with a facility that has 80 years of history behind its layout.

The mere fact that Heathrow directly and indirectly employs 100k people is actually more of an argument for why it will eventually need to move: can it really support a 50% increase in staff?

All the obstacles can ultimately be addressed. Yes, there is cost that nobody is factoring in for all scenarios; that is the nature of public work.

The only alternative is that UK aviation moves away from London as a passenger and freight hub, and hopefully everyone understands that this is a worse solution for both London and the UK.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3396 posts, RR: 29
Reply 38, posted (5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7681 times:

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 work just fine.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7193 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7651 times:

I think that you forgot the  

You could lose London City in one corner of LHR.


User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3901 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7587 times:

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 need additional runways, but also much more landside and airside infrastructure. I am not talking about 2025, but 2055 or 2075. If LHR gets two additional runways, London Britannia will be on the agenda in 2030 or 2035 again, because LHR simply is no sustainable location for decades to come. Therefore, the idea to take a clean sheet approach is certainly necessary. The problem at the moment is apparently that two groups are discussing with each other - some with the year 2030 in mind and others with the year 2060.


One interesting point that has come out of this discussion has been for me the proposal to create a much larger airport halfway between Cardiff and Bristol as relocating the main London airport further east will force folks and businesses living to the west of London looking for alternatives. Any place west of Slough would be closer to a proposed new Cardiff/Bristol airport than London Britannia. So we are looking really at a whole new airport infrastructure for the south of England.


User currently offlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7326 times:

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. I'd better email Boris.


To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (5 months 3 days ago) and read 7217 times:

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 motorway, underground and railway to London. Part of the reason that Heathrow is so full to capacity wheareas other London airports are not is it's location. It is the closest to the city, and it is also not too difficult to reach from other parts of the country (especially major cities in the west and the north). The location for this new airport is inconvenient for anyone coming from anywhere other than London. They would have to drive through or around London, and then continue on for another 100km or so to get to this island. Even for people from London this airport would be an inconvenience - it would be expensive and difficult to get to. People in London would just avoid it and go to Luton, Gatwick or Stansted instead as these airports would become the closest one's.

As for noise, the noise levels have been reducing year by year due to aircraft becoming quieter and now it's hardly the issue it once was. This will continue as new aircraft models are introduced. I think it wouldn't do anything for the environment either. It would turn the Thames into a huge building site for the next 10 years, new motorways and railways would need to be built to connect it, and then it would create huge flows of traffic in and around London with each passenger having to travel 150km by land for the round trip, whereas before they might have just taken the underground. Then the current Heathrow area would become a huge building site and the whole area would become a wasteland full of employment and decay. And they want to build houses there once they've finished taking the jobs away? Maybe they'll end up selling them for 5$ like in Detroit.

I think a better title for this post would be "Boris plans to spend 47 billion on building a new airport somewhere in the North Sea and turn Heathrow into a crackhead infested slum".


User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3468 posts, RR: 3
Reply 43, posted (5 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7090 times:

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 42):
I think a better title for this post would be "Boris plans to spend 47 billion on building a new airport somewhere in the North Sea and turn Heathrow into a crackhead infested slum".

Quote of the week, if not the year   

Quoting JHwk (Reply 37):
Ultimately a replacement airport is going to be needed, or a lot more than 10,000 homes will be lost.

The LHR proposals show that two new runways can be built with the loss of less than 2000 homes. LHR would then have sufficient capacity for the foreseeable future

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40):
A much larger airport does not only need additional runways, but also much more landside and airside infrastructure.

All three LHR additional runway proposals include additional terminals and other infrastructure.


User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (5 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7035 times:

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 43):
The LHR proposals show that two new runways can be built with the loss of less than 2000 homes. LHR would then have sufficient capacity for the foreseeable future

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 modest 1% annual increase in passenger volume. If you expect any increase in aircraft movements (0.5%) then you are out of luck. To make Heathrow work for the next 30+ years you will need to focus on rail transit much more both within UK and in Europe. Yes, I know Europe is way ahead of the US on rail, but it still doesn't have the speed or capacity to compete with air from London once you go beyond Paris or Brussels.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 42):
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 motorway, underground and railway to London.

It is fundamentally space constricted. By the time anything like Boris Island can be fully up and running you are looking at 15 years from now optimistically. The problem is that lead time never changes, and you need to make a decision... made worse by the fact that a real decision has been delayed well over a decade.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40):
he problem at the moment is apparently that two groups are discussing with each other - some with the year 2030 in mind and others with the year 2060.

        

Way back when, I worked on the Bangkok Airport project. All the exact same issues being discussed about London were also issues then. The process is far from painless, but ultimately some action is required.

[Edited 2013-11-14 09:28:19]

User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6908 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40):
Any place west of Slough would be closer to a proposed new Cardiff/Bristol airport than London Britannia. So we are looking really at a whole new airport infrastructure for the south of England.

Very important point. From my location, South Buckinghamshire (less than 20 minutes from LHR), I would not be even considering using Boris Island. I would be looking first to LTN & LGW (35 mins & 45 mins driving time) and then to STN and BHX (~1h15m each) for my flying. It's going to take longer than 1h15m to get from the car parking in Kent to the terminal on the Island (only slightly tongue in cheek   ).

The customer base for the island may be a lot less than the proponents think..... just a thought.



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, 3468 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6688 times:

Quoting JHwk (Reply 44):
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 modest 1% annual increase in passenger volume

Two extra runways would double LHR's capacity, on that basis it would have capacity for 30 years at 2% compound growth.


User currently offlinespottingpete93 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6300 times:

Quoting JHwk (Reply 37):
The mere fact that Heathrow directly and indirectly employs 100k people is actually more of an argument for why it will eventually need to move: can it really support a 50% increase in staff?

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 equivalent number of workers elsewhere if the new airport is substantially further away from the current site as proposed with island airport! The cost of this entire project would balloon way way over the the estimated 50bn or whatever it is to build the airport itself purely because of infrastructure to support the project plus the change in the whole economic landscape of the south east of England. And who says that the new airport would even be as attractive to the current catchment area of LHR if they did move the hub airport further to the east. We could end up with a bigger airport with less passengers because all those passengers who currently live to the west and north west of LHR will just go elsewhere.

Too many economic unknowns - too much cost - and both at a time when we don't need either in the UK.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7254 posts, RR: 17
Reply 48, posted (5 months 1 day ago) and read 6014 times:

Geographically the proposed location of Britannia Airport is excellent from a noise perspective. From most other environmental considerations it is more than a poor choice.

One example is that there is no other possible site within 60 miles of London that is less accessible to the airport's catchment area than the Britannia Airport site. That is to say it will require a greater aggregate of surface travel miles and therefore carbon emissions than any other site because of its remote location on the north side of the Kent peninsula. Tucking the airport away in this southeast corner will require a large proportion of passengers to either cross through London or suffer the M25. While LHR has significant geographical disadvantages, it is at least not far from the population weighted centre of a main London Airport catchment area.

Another example is the environmental destruction that Britannia Airport would require. Much of the area impacted is covered by the Ramsar International Convention on Wetlands. See "Thames Estuary and Marshes" here:

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-...n/ramsar/1-31-218%5E15868_4000_0__

Here is what the RSPB says of the proposal on its web site at

http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/casework/details.aspx?id=tcm:9-304003

"The construction of a Thames Estuary airport is likely to result in an unprecedented level of damage and destruction to internationally recognised and protected coastal wetlands in the UK. In addition, we have serious concerns about the wider impacts of aviation expansion on people and wildlife as a result of the increased carbon emissions."

If you access the second link above you will see that the RSPB talks of an increased risk of bird strikes. Compare this with the claim that Britannia Airport will reduce such risks!

Environmental damage will not only be caused by the airport itself. There will be a need for infrastructure to house and support significantly more than 100,000 airport employees and their families. This infrastructure must include all the necessary support services. They would range from food and other retailers to sewage disposal. They would include churches, hospitals, schools and doctors' surgeries. This infrastructure would decimate what is currently either open countryside or that that is often referred to as the Garden of England.

Back in 1971 an estuary location at Foulness / Maplin Sands was considered and initially approved by the UK government. In 1974 this proposal was scrapped. This was primarily because of its environmental impact. But back then there was no concern over increased carbon emissions that would have been the result of the relatively remote location of the airport on the periphery of its catchment area, many miles from its population weighted centre.

Over the last 40 years our concerns have changed. Today carbon emissions are high on our priority list. Nevertheless aircraft noise is still at least a perceived problem.

Yet technology has changed. Back in 1974 there were no PCs, no cell / mobile phones. Residents under flight paths had to endure the noise generated by BAC 1-11s and Concorde . The aircraft that will form the backbone of tomorrows fleets using LON airport will be even quieter than those in common use today. A noise sea-change has occurred in the intervening 40 years. Hopefully we will not make a decision tomorrow on airport location based on emotions formed by a situation that was real all those years ago but becomes less significant with the introduction of each new aircraft type. Hopefully the decision will address today's and not yesterday's issues.


User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 49, posted (5 months 23 hours ago) and read 5984 times:

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 21):
Cannot be called “London” Britannia. It is practically in Kent.

London Stansted is no where near London either.

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 21):
Who’s idiodic idea was it to develop these remote check in areas?

Back in the 60/ 70's BEA had check-in in central London. So not a new idea at all. Many airlines have remote city check-ins.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 29):
I don't think you have any concept of just how much infill would be required to construct a four or five runway offshore airport.

We could stop sending our rubbish all the way to India and China. We could fill any size hole in a week.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 42):
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 motorway, underground and railway to London.

T5 is all glass and from a re-build viewpoint very cheap. The M25 is London's biggest car park. The underground is painfully slow into central London. The railway is extremely expensive and outside of most peoples budgets.

The more I hear about a new London airport in north Kent the more I like it. The idea of an airport that could operate 24 hours is good for everyone. Jobs are needed in Kent as they are around the Slough area. I'd also like to see planes not flying over central London. After that BA 777 incident we don't want planes flying overhead the most populated place in the UK.


User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 370 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (5 months 23 hours ago) and read 5976 times:

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 speed rail and this new airport which both cost roughly the same then you would clearly see the airport gives far more bang for your buck. Strangely though the UK Government is opting for the rail option.

Strange.


User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1595 posts, RR: 6
Reply 51, posted (5 months 22 hours ago) and read 5851 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 50):
A new airport in the estuary is the perfect solution to the UK's hub airport crisis.

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.

For many people, an estuary hub would no longer be located in an ideal place, driving some traffic to other, nearer airports.

Such dilution in demand would mean an estuary hub would not attract the same custom base as LHR and would therefore not be as successful as a hub.

LHR is better for three reasons: Location,Location & Location.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 50):
If you compare the economic benefits between the current high speed rail and this new airport which both cost roughly the same then you would clearly see the airport gives far more bang for your buck. Strangely though the UK Government is opting for the rail option.

Agreed the railway is largely a waste of money... but then so would an estuary airport be, especially when you consider the same capacity could be gained at no cost to the government by expansion at LHR, which would be privately funded.

[Edited 2013-11-16 09:45:55]

User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8736 posts, RR: 28
Reply 52, posted (5 months 22 hours ago) and read 5862 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 49):
Back in the 60/ 70's BEA had check-in in central London. So not a new idea at all. Many airlines have remote city check-ins.

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 at the Airport, not only that, they had the choice of getting to the Airport from wherever by their own means of Transport.

The concept we discuss here is so restrictive and unconvenient to the average traveller that People living in London or the west end will avoid Britannia Airport by all means. I might be quicker from my home 30 km north of FRA to catch a connection to the US than a Londoner . good for me, bad for Londoners.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7254 posts, RR: 17
Reply 53, posted (5 months 20 hours ago) and read 5758 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 49):
The M25 is London's biggest car park. The underground is painfully slow into central London. The railway is extremely expensive and outside of most peoples budgets.

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 and M2 to the existing HS1 service at Ebbsfleet. There they would board a train to King's Cross. From there they would make their way to their final destination. However I suspect that they could be met by personal transport at Ebbsfleet.

The above seems to me to be a much more expensive, considerably longer and significantly more tortuous journey than that by public transport to London from LHR.

The Underground route from LHR offers the choice of 34 destination stations between Hounslow West and Cockfosters including King's Cross. The Britannia Airport proposal offers the simple but restrictive choice of Ebbsfleet or King's Cross.

Much of the road journey from Britannia is not even on a motorway. The first 14 miles is on what the proposal describes as the "upgraded A249". Imagine everyone pouring off a couple of 380s. They will then struggle onto one of many coaches / busses with their luggage. After been carried the 14 or so miles along the upgraded A249 their transport would turn onto the "upgraded M2" to complete the 34 mile road journey to Ebbsfleet. There they would struggle with their luggage and board the HS1 train. Later they will arrive at just one of the 36 possible destinations from LHR on the Underground, King's Cross Station. Now they can start their own journey home.

Travelling around 60 miles from Britannia Airport to King's Cross by both road and rail including a stretch on HS1 will be considerably more expensive than the Heathrow Express. It would take considerably longer than the journey from LHR into central London on the Piccadilly Line. Boarding and leaving both a bus and a train with your luggage will be more hassle than using either the Heathrow Express or the Piccadilly Line.

Finally the convenience of being able to use your own car or transported by other personal transport at LHR with the adjacent M25 and M4 is significantly more convenient than having to use public transport from a point where the nearest motorway is 14 miles away. And you will need to be a very rich to be able to travel to Britannia Airport by taxi unless you live in East Kent. (Here I assume that taxis will not be banned like private cars.)


User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3468 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (5 months 19 hours ago) and read 5632 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 49):
T5 is all glass and from a re-build viewpoint very cheap.

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. It is totally unable to be relocated.


User currently offlinespottingpete93 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (5 months 18 hours ago) and read 5575 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 53):
The Britannia Airport proposal is to ban all cars from the airport

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! What a stupid proposal! Please tell me where there is another airport in the world where there are no vehicles allowed?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 56, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5220 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 49):
Quoting BA0197 (Reply 21):Cannot be called “London” Britannia. It is practically in Kent.
London Stansted is no where near London either.

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 to move, there must have been many of the same issues now being discussed for a new LON airport. Thousands of airport workers who previously worked at HND must have had to make the long trip to NRT, or find a new place to live. And passengers coped with the long trip.


User currently offlineflyingthe757 From UK - England, joined Mar 2013, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5103 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 loaded in bins. How would that integrated operation work?

With no cars heading to the airport, where are the large staff car parks going to be?

A large number of back of house staff are in house shares. (Same with crew and check in staff) will there be availability to move close and have reliable transport links to the network connecting to the airport?

What will happen to the 14/15 hotels at LHR and their staff?

What will happen to the integrated transport hub at LHR?

What will happen to the local bus network at LHR?

I think some of the local NIMBYs forget that a lot of what is available locally (transport shops etc) are only here because of the airport.


User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4873 times:

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 price of oil is very high now and it is likely to increase sharply as demand increases and supply declines. This will inevitably make flying very expensive, and at the very least will limit growth if not lead to a massive decline in passenger numbers. And even if despite this passenger numbers were to double over the next 30 years we can take care of that by flying in larger aircraft - there are already enough movements with direct flights to almost everywhere in the world. We already have 6 airports in London, we don't need a 7th. I think that Boris should just send the 47 billion pounds to me by paypal and I'll see if I can find something better to do with the money.

User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3901 posts, RR: 5
Reply 59, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4723 times:

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 question is how long you can keep LHR as a location for the UK prime hub going - and consequently, whether or not to start the inevitable sooner rather than later.

User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7254 posts, RR: 17
Reply 60, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 59):
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?

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 from 1957 expires). Then there is also London Stansted, London Luton, London Southend, London Manston and London Oxford Airports quite possibly soon to be joined by London Cambridge Airport in the mix:

http://www.cambridgeairport.com/news...e-airport-welcomes-etihad-regional

Many (including myself) think that some of these airports are stretching things a little far by using "London" in their title. But, nevertheless, they all have a their own catchment area that includes at least some of the greater London catchment area.

In terms of the transport needs of the nation in the year 2050 or 2070 and not just those of London, there are many other airports of significance that do not currently use the "London" handle and today have significant spare capacity.

Nevertheless a 50 per cent plus capacity increase at LHR, the world's third largest airport measured by number of passengers in the January-July period of 2013 behind only ATL and PEK, would likely meet a significant proportion of both London's and the nation's growing needs. (Note here that in terms of passenger numbers the growth at LHR compared to the same period of 2012 (+2.9 per cent) exceeded that at both ATL (-1.2 per cent) and PEK (+2.6 per cent).


User currently offlineNav20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 61, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4426 times:

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 51):
Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 50):A new airport in the estuary is the perfect solution to the UK's hub airport crisis.except its on the wrong side of London

Interesting discussion. I used to live north of London (Barnet, Hertfordshire) when I lived in Britain - and my mother came from the western suburbs, whereas my father was from the eastern ones. In those (now far-off) days there was a definite cultural divide between the prosperous west and the somewhat 'under-privileged' east - I've no idea whether that still persists, but I expect that it does. As it happens, I also had a long-term girlfriend who lived to the west, near Heathrow - and every time I visited her home, someone was complaining about aircraft noise..........

And, of course, whenever I needed to fly somewhere, I faced about a two-hour journey by train, into Central London and out to the west. Unless I drove to Heathrow, which was a bit quicker - but the cost of parking, even for a few days, pretty well rivalled the plane fare.........  

My own feeling, just 'off-hand,' is that, given the apparently 'unstoppable' growth of air traffic, an extra airport to the East would merely accommodate some of that growth, and do no harm at all to Heathrow's business prospects? Or cause noise problems, either, being on the river? And, if East London still remains the 'poor cousin,' it could do quite a lot to create extra, well-paid employment opportunities there (doing no harm to anyone else, given that air traffic is, as far as I know, still growing at a satisfactory rate, and Heathrow would continue to more than hold its own)?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3067 posts, RR: 7
Reply 62, posted (4 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4253 times:

Quoting flyingthe757 (Reply 57):

A large number of back of house staff are in house shares. (Same with crew and check in staff) will there be availability to move close and have reliable transport links to the network connecting to the airport?

What will happen to the 14/15 hotels at LHR and their staff?

The same thing as when any major airport closed and moves elsewhere. (As mentioned before, BER, MUC, DEN, HKG.) The existing infrastructure and commercial development is repurposed.

Quoting flyingthe757 (Reply 57):
What will happen to the integrated transport hub at LHR?

Invent another urban center around the transport hub, if it can be useful as a regional hub (sans airport).

Quoting flyingthe757 (Reply 57):
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 loaded in bins. How would that integrated operation work?

The same way that any large airport with satellite terminals works, only extended.

Incidentally, this idea has been proposed for NYC airports.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 59):

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?

Compare 1950 to 2000, or 1900 to 1950. It's really hard to envision the transport needs of 50 years in the future. That said, most large airports that started in the 1950s are running now, and have adapted. But using those same airports into 2050 means a facility will have been in continuous use 100 years! I think the best anyone can expect is to set some land (or sea) aside and see what happens. Maybe it will be needed, maybe not. Enormous land for new airports worked in DFW, DEN, MCO, and IAH. It did not pan out for Los Angeles, Miami, or New York, and failed at YMX.

-Rampart


User currently offlineflyingthe757 From UK - England, joined Mar 2013, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (4 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4157 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The same way that any large airport with satellite terminals works, only extended

Quoting rampart (Reply 62):

This is the train from Ebbfleet, not intra terminal. The proposal states bags will be loaded onto the train (let's use the HEX as an example) with trains arriving every 4 min, how will the bags get out into and out of the system in a Timely manner?


User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1595 posts, RR: 6
Reply 64, posted (4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4021 times:

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 61):
My own feeling, just 'off-hand,' is that, given the apparently 'unstoppable' growth of air traffic, an extra airport to the East would merely accommodate some of that growth, and do no harm at all to Heathrow's business prospects?

The proposal is that the new Britannia airport would mean an enforced closure of LHR, meaning the jobs, infrastructure, homes,supporting industries, freight etc etc would all have to be transferred from one side of London to the other.

This would mean loss of jobs (as well as creation of course) lots of pollution, a shifting of the noise pollution (there would still be some noise pollution with Britannia - with areas like Southend more affected - hence their councils opposition to the plans)

Of course the new airport would also be far less environmentally friendly, as the new construction of the airport and the reconstruction of LHR into homes etc would cause vast amounts of CO2 emissions - one of the reasons why I think they have decided to make the airport car free - to try and appeal to the green lobbies.

The car free idea is crazy. I live in Hertfordshire and would not be able to park long term at my local train station to connect into Kings Cross and get to the airport only by train. The only viable option would therefore be to drive to Ebbsfleet and catch the train from there. So the "car free" idea merely shifts the pollution problem elsewhere and means a slower less efficient, less friendly airport. not a solution that will stand proper scrutiny - I would hope....


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3067 posts, RR: 7
Reply 65, posted (4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3826 times:

Quoting flyingthe757 (Reply 63):
This is the train from Ebbfleet, not intra terminal. The proposal states bags will be loaded onto the train (let's use the HEX as an example) with trains arriving every 4 min, how will the bags get out into and out of the system in a Timely manner?

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 case, the only difference is that the distance is farther, and the carted, presorted bags come with the same trains (I think, that's what I understand, not separate baggage trains), and not their own baggage conveyer system. The baggage sorting occurs landside. Would the process be longer, apart from the greater distance for both passengers and baggage to get to the concourses? I can't think of why it would be. But maybe I'm missing something.

-Rampart


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8736 posts, RR: 28
Reply 66, posted (4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3744 times:

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 frlight Crew as well plus all kinds of Merchandise sold and used on the Island, not speaking of cargo.,

That's not only a logistic Problem but a cost Problem as well which has to be added to each ticket Price and each Kilo of freight. Passengers may pay that, freight not because there will be cheaper aternatibes at other UK Airports and the continent whoich are easier to get to on top. That takes away a vital part of income on a extremely high cost of operations site.

Next, what happens if a Train breaks down in the tunnel, there are many questions which Need an answer and once the answers are on Hand the solution will be, Keep LHR and add 2 runways. Plus extend the other Airports surrounding London.

This will simply not happen. Nice architecture, brilliant engineering. Economically not viable.



.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlinendhair37 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2013, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3552 times:

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 number of observations which relate to my career and life as a railwayman; and one who is tasked with doing "air traffic control of the rails".

Heathrow is our option. An island is not. It's just basic logistics... We cannot put too many more trains onto our High Speed One to get to "London Britannia"; and we should not build a high speed line which basically means you have to go to some sort of irrelevant station like Euston or St Pancras to get to an airport. You can't check bags in at Stratford or Ebbsfleet and then be separated from them; it's wholly ludicrous. Instead, we do need to work on expanding Heathrow.

The scheme is rather simple; HeathrowFive. That's right. Five runways at London Heathrow. Take the existing two "continental" runways; add another pair of "continental runways" parallel to one another to the west (between King George Reservoir and Horton, http://goo.gl/maps/V0BQB) and then add a "domestic" runway parallel to 09L/27R (between Harmondsworth and Harlington, http://goo.gl/maps/BpJ3X).

The reason is that I as a railwayman can get hundreds of railway carriages per hour; along with a number of other roadway schemes and such; to that airport.

The first is the removal of the Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect (stay with me). Replace it with 12-car Crossrail services from Abbey Wood, Canary Wharf, the City, the West End and Paddington. Where the Crossrail service will be operated by Transport for London and its concessions; we can look to a functional yet comfortable interior; suitable for large amounts of luggage (the Piccadilly line is not an example of that).

With Crossrail, we would see two timetables; Monday to Friday Off Peak Saturday Sunday OR Monday to Friday Peak. The former would be 8 trains per hour, all formed of 12 coaches, running through from Abbey Wood and Canary Wharf to Heathrow. The latter would have the same as above; but with another four trains per hour, formed of 12 coaches each, running from Gidea Park to Heathrow. The services from Abbey Wood would run fast from Old Oak Common to Heathrow North, a new station for a new domestic terminal between the new "domestic" runway and 09L/27R. The services from Gidea Park would call at all stations between Old Oak Common and Heathrow North via Ealing Broadway and Hayes & Harlington.

Heathrow North, as previously mentioned, would be a new station built with two platforms to serve the domestic terminal. Trains would then run to Heathrow Central; where there would be five platforms. Three for Crossrail (two through, one reversal) and two for the Piccadilly line. The peak-only services from Gidea Park would terminate at Heathrow Central. The services from Abbey Wood would continue on a new line to Terminal 4, before swinging round to Terminal 5, and heading out to a station at Heathrow West; which would serve two new terminals (6 and 7) between the two new "continental" runways. What we currently know as Terminals 1, 2 and 3 would be merged into two terminals (2 and 3); and the new "domestic" terminal would be Terminal 1. The Piccadilly line would have either 18 or 24 trains an hour to Heathrow; whether it be M-F Off Peak/Sa/Su or M-F Peak. There would be a constant 10-minutely service using the "Terminal 4 Rounder"; and then either 2 or 3 trains every 10 minutes from Hatton Cross to Central, T5 and West.

So; we've covered that part. So far, we've got between 26 and 36 trains every hour from the West End and City to Heathrow's many parts; where there currently exists a constant of 18. Not bad, right? Calculate it out and we've got a peak hour capacity of (12x12) (24x6) = 288 carriages. Every hour. Each carriage holds at least 70 people, at that. Off Peak / Weekend capacity is (8x12) (18x6) = 204 carriages.

But we're not done. Oh no. As the new runways to the west would be 14/32 in angle, they run parallel to the "Windsor Lines" of South West Trains. That means we can path 4x10 car trains down to Heathrow West (Terminals 6 and 7) every hour (Monday to Friday, Peak or Off Peak; Saturday and Sunday). Wraysbury station would be demolished in favour of a transport hub. The Windsor Connection would allow the service from Slough to Windsor to be operated by South West; meaning that you would have Slough and Windsor to Heathrow; as well as Heathrow to Staines, Feltham, Richmond, Clapham Junction and Waterloo.

There needs to be a way of connecting "Heathrow West" with Wraysbury; which would fall to the Middlesex Transit. Building on the success of the Croydon Tramlink; we build one between Wraysbury Interchange, Heathrow West, Poyle, Thorney, West Drayton and Uxbridge; with part of the Tramlink being constructed on the Colnbrook Freight Branch. That service would run every 7-8 minutes; except during late evenings and Sundays when there would be a reduction to every 12 or 15 minutes.

Finally; the road route between Feltham Station (2 trains per hour from Reading, 2 trains per hour from Weybridge, 4 trains per hour from Windsor and thus 8 trains per hour from Waterloo and Clapham Junction) would be upgraded to a dual carriageway in each direction as far as a vastly rebuilt Hatton Cross. This would provide two dedicated Bus Lanes, and two general traffic lanes. Thus, there would be a two-minutely bus link from Feltham to Hatton Cross; where buses would originate from areas such as Kingston, Hampton, Twickenham and Fulwell and extend to the likes of Terminal 5 (8 minutely), Terminal 4 (8 minutely), Heathrow Central (8 minutely) and Heathrow North (8 minutely); with additional routes from Hatton Cross to Heathrow Central. Thus, people for Heathrow West would have a maximum wait at Hatton Cross for the Piccadilly line of... 6 minutes.

Am I done on the public transport part? Yes. Did you get that? Let's re-cap...

- Middlesex Transit Tram from Uxbridge and West Drayton to the new Terminals 6 and 7 built over the reservoirs.
- Heathrow Transit Buses from Feltham to Hatton Cross and other Heathrow Terminals on dedicated lanes.
- Crossrail services at least every 8 minutes and with some 4 minute gaps in peak time to Heathrow.
- Capital programme upgrade to the Piccadilly line to allow up to 4 trains every 10 minutes to Heathrow; with the fifth service running to Uxbridge.
- Windsor Line to be extended to Slough with 4 trains per hour to Waterloo and Clapham Junction.

Turn now to Heathrow itself.

What we currently call 27L would remain as is; whereas 27R would become 27C. The domestic runway would then become 27R. The new runways would be 14L/32R and 14R/32L. There would be 'simultaneous' take offs from 14L and 14R, with 'simultaneous' arrivals on 27L and 27C. Domestic arrivals and departures on the new, short 09L/27R would take off and arrive in a 'mixed-mode' method with some slick control work. Departures from 27R would take an immediate turn to the north to avoid conflict with 14L/14R take-offs; whereas landings would be parallel to 27L and 27C landings per normal.

Heathrow currently runs at 98% capacity. At an airport with 5 runways; of which one is limited to smaller aircraft in a 'feeder' (hub and spoke) method; that would be only 42-43% usage. This therefore means that if the number of arrivals and departures grew to provide 70% capacity; we would not require as much "holding"; and would be more capable of reacting to delays and disruption. The field would also be far more flexible; as the "standard" method of ops (27 arr, 14 dep) could be switched to 32 Arr and 09 Dep.

The M25 would be tunnelled below the new airport; but this would allow more traffic flow with better exit and entry slips etc.

One key idea would be the movement of all British Airways, Iberia and One World flights (excluding domestic) to a single terminal; notably Terminal 6. This terminal would be double the size of Terminal 5 by overall area (including stands and satellites). Taking inspiration from the new terminal in Doha; the First/Business facilities could be located in the roof; with things like swimming pools, spas, restaurants, bars and such. It's a case of making Heathrow the world-leader...

Britain remains a key layover point between parts of Europe and North or South America; and between Africa or the Middle East and North or South America. With the OneWorld alliance (along with Star Alliance and Sky Team) all taking advantage of this new hub with copious amounts of capacity, this would secure London and Britain's position in the world; whilst also connecting new webs of cities in North America, South America, Africa, the Middle East and Europe seamlessly through a world-leading airport with capacity for future growth.

It's a long shot; but I've got a really poor but simple animation here:

http://imgur.com/zuPN0Rk

I hope everyone enjoys reading!


User currently offlineSimProgrammer From France, joined Aug 2004, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3481 times:

I'm an advocate of an estuary airport but ndhair37's proposal is excellent.


Drive a bus, an Airbus, easier than a London bus!
User currently offlinealexvk380 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

What will happen to Heathrow Airport Holdings if Heathrow has to close? They'll still have Southampton, Glasgow and Aberdeen but they pale in comparison to Heathrow and are potentially going to be sold off anyway. You can't just force a company to sell two of their major airports and then close their primary source of income.

Who's going to own the new airport?


User currently offlinendhair37 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2013, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3383 times:

Quoting SimProgrammer (Reply 68):

My thanks indeed. Anybody fancy giving me a job? I'm more than a one-trick pony  
Quoting alexvk380 (Reply 69):

The way I see it; if Heathrow was made into the five-runway hub; Gatwick would become a two-runway airport with around a 75% capacity increase. It would cater solely for low-cost and leisure/charter flights. Then, Stansted would close to commercial passenger craft to become a new World Cargo Hub. Cambridge and Southend would have runway extensions and capacity expansions to cater for some of the shortfall; whilst Gatwick would pick up a load more. Luton would convert to Corporate, Royal and Private aviation only.

The following airports in England, Wales and Scotland would be also be upgraded for more passenger or cargo use:

City
Birmingham
Coventry
Norwich
Biggin Hill
Manston
Lydd
Oxford
East Midlands
Manchester
Leeds Bradford
Doncaster
Newquay
Bristol
Cardiff
Southampton
Farnborough
Glasgow
Edinburgh
Aberdeen
Inverness

And as Heathrow would only be at 70% capacity with daily departures of 1085; we could grow that figure to a proposed ceiling of 90% capacity and 1395 departures (thus 1395 arrivals also).


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3026 posts, RR: 4
Reply 71, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 59):
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?

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 LHR. When the new airport gets saturated in the decades ahead (which it will, with 'only' 4 runways), how much will it then cost to add more runways to an island airport?

These proposals are nonsense. A tremendous amount of money has been spent on upgrading LHR's infrastructure, and it is ongoing. When current work is finished, it will be more up-to-date on a RELATIVE (to time period) basis than it was in 1970, even though it will be 45 years later! Add at least the third runway, and set aside land at LGW and STN for substantial build out. There is no reason London can't support 3 major airports like many other great cities around the world.

As far as the LHR NIMBYs are concerned, this was the plan for the airport in 1946! -



So that is up to 3 additional runways in the area where one is now proposed, almost 70 years ago! They get no sympathy from me.



It seems so logical that this is what London's 3 major airports should look like in the decades ahead:

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/51e6f9996bb3f73779000002-1200-/screen%20shot%202013-07-17%20at%204.06.21%20pm.png
http://www.gacc.org.uk/resources/2002%20map.JPG


With the above, you have much more capacity and operational flexibility at the fraction of the cost of a new Thames River airport, which would be very difficult and expensive to expand further. Many of the major pieces are already in place at the 3 existing airports.

[Edited 2013-11-20 15:23:47]


FLYi
User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4522 posts, RR: 18
Reply 72, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

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 the property were outrageously expensive I would have to think it would still be a fraction of the price of an island airport. Not to mention the environmental cost. Aren't there a number of issues plaguing the island airport in Japan?


Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlinecarledwards From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2613 times:

Quoting Indy (Reply 72):

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 the property were outrageously expensive I would have to think it would still be a fraction of the price of an island airport. Not to mention the environmental cost. Aren't there a number of issues plaguing the island airport in Japan?

if only it was that easy!
Nothing to do with the cost; they have an endless fight with noise campaigners



Directoria
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3073 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

Quoting Indy (Reply 72):
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 the property were outrageously expensive I would have to think it would still be a fraction of the price of an island airport

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 to win these, politicians put their needs before the strategic national interest. Until we get a cross party consensus, we can't beat the system here.


User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4522 posts, RR: 18
Reply 75, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

Quoting carledwards (Reply 73):
Nothing to do with the cost; they have an endless fight with noise campaigners
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 74):
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 to win these, politicians put their needs before the strategic national interest. Until we get a cross party consensus, we can't beat the system here.

This is all quite unfortunate. Obviously LHR cannot continue to operate at 99% capacity. Building an artificial island is too expensive. What about moving further west, building a new airport, demolishing LHR and selling off the land to recover part of the costs? I don't know the layout of the land so I don't know how practical it would be but what about south or southwest of Legoland. Then run a high speed monorail or something back to town. Maybe even use part of the old LHR location for parking and make it a monorail stop. Probably a lot cheaper to buy up the land outside of town and probably fewer noise complaints. Just don't know if it is flat enough to support an airport.



Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineSimProgrammer From France, joined Aug 2004, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

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 X, Paddington Waterloo, with possible checkin desks at these locations. The shanghai pudong maglev would do it (Siemens rapid transit) pax cars and containerised bags (in front cargo hold). Conventional wheeled/engined trains not the best solution.

Then there is the road bridge. Banning cars from an airport will not work. It has to be connected to a north and/or south M25 extension(s).

£100bn, borrow it, private sector it, whatever. How much is LHR's land worth as domestic and commercial real estate?

London will otherwise stagnate if politicians are too faint hearted other than suggest temporary quick-fixes on LHR.



Drive a bus, an Airbus, easier than a London bus!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7254 posts, RR: 17
Reply 77, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

Quoting SimProgrammer (Reply 76):
The obvious connection points by train would be from Kings X, Paddington Waterloo, with possible checkin desks at these locations.

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 Ebbsfleet, next to the high speed rail link, and at St Pancras International in London."

Ebbsfleet is an intermediate station on the existing HS1 (High Speed 1) railway line linking St Pancras International Station to the Channel Tunnel. As I have already pointed out, Ebbsfleet is a significant drive from Sheerness:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 4):
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.

As I said back then I have difficulty in imagining the passengers from a couple of fully loaded 380s in the early morning transferring with their luggage to public road transport to be carried on the journey from Britannia to Ebbsfleet.

The HS1 travel time from Ebbsfleet to St Pancras International is currently 18 minutes. The journey between Britannia Airport and Ebbsfleet would be along what the proposal describes as the M2 and the "upgraded A248". Allowing for transfer / waiting times at the airport and at Ebbsfleet Station, the journey to St Pancras International is likely to be somewhere between 90 and 120 minutes. Then, once passengers have arrived at St Pancras International, they can set out on their selected route to their final destination.


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