David_itl
Topic Author
Posts: 5946
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Wed Oct 23, 2002 7:54 pm


Sorry, 1st time up the planning chief's comment wasn't shown in the header!

This story in the Guardian newspaper says that one of British planning chiefs wants LHR to be closed and an airport built in the Thames Estuary instead i.e the Cliffe option that was bandied about in the proposed UK Airport white paper.

And of course, if this airport is built airlines will pick up the tab in the form of increased charges which they'll pass onto the passengers.

David
 
bmi330
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 9:04 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Wed Oct 23, 2002 9:34 pm

A would give the firemen what they want its probaly cheaper than closing LHR
 
Guest

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Wed Oct 23, 2002 9:43 pm

Totally agree.

Close Heathrow, start afresh, then we can really start competing with the likes of CDG, FRA, AMS etc.

 
richardw
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 3:17 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Wed Oct 23, 2002 9:49 pm

If they did build a new London airport it would have to be the best in the world, can't see the British achieving that.
 
AFa340-300E
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Wed Oct 23, 2002 9:58 pm

Hello,

Wouldn't the new airport be too far away from London's downtown? LHR gets the lion's share of the high-yield passengers (and airlines' demand) because the airport is close to the city's downtown. Wouldn't the battle for LGW be worse than what it currently is at LHR, in case the latter airport would be closed?

With such projects, there's always the risk of making a Mirabel or Malpensa airport again...


Best regards,
Alain Mengus
Air Transport Business
 
Guest

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:11 pm

LGW only has 1 runway, so I doubt there'll be much competition to get in there, especially if a new airport is built....and there aren't any plans to build new runways at LGW in the near future.

As for LHR, yes it is closer to London than LTN, LGW, STN but the problem as I see it, is how can you possibly expand properly at LHR?...the airport is hemmed in on all sides (especially to the east). And the problem is that we somehow have to cater for a massive increase in demand for air travel....in my humble opinion, trying to expand LHR is not the ideal solution....

If a new airport is built (I have my doubts, most people don't seem to like the idea), then obviously appropriate transport infrastructure must also be put in place....distance doesn't always stop people from flying from another airport in any case....look at the success of STN (yes, even with business travellers).

In any case, with high-speed connections to London (through road/rail), the 'friction of distance' needn't be relevant...
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:27 pm

I cant understand what the problem with expanding heathrow is - to the west is the M25 which could always be diverted into a tunnel - and other than the resevoir on the opposite side of the motorway there is plenty of land to expand Heathrow and build additional runway space etc. - it would also be possible to migrate the entire airport West giving a bit more breathing space to residents.

RickB
 
deltairlines
Posts: 6875
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 4:47 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow&qu

Thu Oct 24, 2002 3:20 am

This is ludicrous. If LHR wasn't so viable, why do we have DL, CO, NW, and US all wanting LHR rights? Location is everything, and it only takes 15 minutes by rail to get to the centre of London from Heathrow; I believe it is at least double that for LGW, and an hour for STN.

As for expansion, putting the M25 into a tunnel would be a mess. Take a look at what we have here in Boston, trying to put a 1.3 mile segment of the I-93 underground. This is Year 12 of the project, and the cost is $14 Billion dollars (£9 Billion). There is also signifigant red tape that would accompany the project.

Jeff
 
qantas744
Posts: 1658
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 6:25 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 3:25 am

To build a world class airport would require more space than is available without huge environmental impact-but in theory it's a good idea, the area currently taken up by Heathrow would almost certainly be put to industrial use. But such is the value of land in London that any vacant land that becomes available which is near good road and rail links (which it would be) would not be vacant for long!

Cliffe is a red herring and has no chance of becoming a reality within 15 years at least-so expansion is required at current London airports at least for the medium term.



Matt
you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 3:35 am

Proximity to Central London is not the reason for Heathrow's pre-eminence.

Rather, it is the massive amounts of interline traffic from Europe, the Middle East and Africa that makes it so popular with carriers from all over the world. In this respect, it fuels its own popularity. Consider that for 75% of the world's airlines, LHR is their flagship route.

For many years LGW was more convenient to the centre of London via the Gatwick Express (which has been around for 20 years, as opposed to the Heathrow Express, which has existed for 5). However, LGW does not have the interline traffic like LHR.

Consequently, if you built an airport in the Thames Estuary and then moved all operations in a 'Big Bang' (like they did in HK with CLK) you would find the airport just as popular - in fact more so as all the US airlines currently out of Bermuda II would start ops.
 
Guest

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 3:38 am

"it's a good idea"

Yes, the thing is, the British Government doesn't like implementing good ideas, which is why it's drug policy is a shambles, as is its transport infrastructure and higher education........for good ideas, one has to look to mainland Europe....or even America, in the case of Higher Education.....
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 5:34 am

The idea of building a "new" London airport in the Thames estuary was considered and abandoned over twelve years ago, too late now I think....
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 5:58 am

I think we may see serious plans for a new airport built on the Thames estuary east of London.

For starters, it will allow for something like a six-runway configuration, which will allow for far more takeoffs and landings per day than it is now possible at LHR regardless of weather conditions. Secondly, if the airport is put in the right location we can even entertain the possibility of true 24-hour operations with British QC4 (eg., ICAO Stage III) noise limit rules, which could really allow air traffic load to be spread further apart on a 24 hour period. Thirdly, they could build a high-speed rail line from the new airport to any number of stations in downtown London. Finally, with an all new airport they could build the type of large terminals like we see at SIN and HKG, terminals with enough gate capacity to handle huge increases in traffic and even allow dual-level jetwalk access to the Airbus A380 or even a new Boeing large airliner based on blend-wing body (BWB) technology.

Because the airport will be built on the Thames estuary, they won't need runways longer than 11,500 feet to accommodate even the A380, since hot and high operations are not an issue here.
 
BA777
Posts: 2048
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 11:40 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 6:07 am

Now isnt the time, Air Travel is gonna boom through the roof.

Then again, when the likes of SQ and VS get the A380, LHR will have to "adapt" to them too.

Its a win and lose situation  Sad

BA777
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Some Geographical Facts About London

Thu Oct 24, 2002 9:24 am

London doesn't have a "downtown" - it's not Phoenix you know. London is a series of towns that join up, and Heathrow is only convenient for some of it. The financial centre ("The City") is in the east; if you get the Paddington Express (the very slick 15 minute rail link trumpeted above, incidentally the fare is £12 one way, that's twenty bucks for our American cousins) you're only halfway to The City (at least 15 stops on the tube or at least an hour by road from Paddington Station).

South London is more convenient for Gatwick, cos LGW is also one of the main train stations in the country and has brilliant rail links from many dozen southern towns and suburbs, plus the M23 motorway (straight to LGW and beyond to Brighton) starts in inner south London as the A23 and goes right through so it's easy to get on your way. I live roughly between LHR and LGW, closer to LHR (all the planes I see flying over my neighbourhood are to or from LHR) but LGW is much easier to get to, whether by road or rail.

Stansted is as nearly as good as LHR for much of north London, cos the rail link is from Liverpool Street Station (north north east London) and the M11 is a fast motorway trip through open country (about 45 mins). To get to LHR from north London by car is either a hellish struggle round the North Circular road (invariably awful), or out to the M25 (which is often stationary) then round to LHR. Train is either a lot of tube stops to Paddington and the Express (£12 remember) or A HELL OF A LOT OF TUBE STOPS (like 30) to LHR.

As said above, Heathrow is the number one interline station on the planet which is why it is so desirable, and a new London airport that had all of LHR's business plus room to expand would be the world's number one airport by a country mile. Demonstrators trying to sabotage the project wouldn't be environmentalists (well, they'd be in there somewhere) but mostly employees of AMS and CDG.

I have often wondered why they don't build something in open country or in the Thames, and the land Heathrow is on would be very valuable. Don't know what a new airport costs but the sale of the LHR property would be a great down payment.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:17 pm

Anyone want to make a cost comparison,

Choice A.) Buy out most of the Nimbys around LHR and reconfigure the runways, and build new ones to allow for dual landings and departures. At least 4 pararell runways, and a crosswind runway.

Choice B.) Build from scratch a new airport, including all needed infastructure (fuel tank farms, substations, rail links, highways, sewage etc) with atleast 6 runways and enough terminal/gate space to house all that are fit to serve the the airport.

Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
ctbarnes
Posts: 3269
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 2:20 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heather"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 1:34 pm

The Thames estuary idea has been around for years. It does have the advantage of being big enough to absorb LHR's operations and then some, and could be a serious rival to CDG or AMS who are now siphoning off a lot of the transit traffic for people who find LHR a real chore to connect through.

The downside is that building an airport on a landfill would be near prohibitively expensive, would need viable transport links, and a realistic way of getting people from west London and beyond out there without having to go to the hassle of trying to fight through Central London at rush hour. The old Cross-rail idea might have to be put back on the table in order to do it. In addition, the environmentalists would be apoplectic, tying up the project for years, further driving up the costs.

It might be cheaper to buy up additional land around LHR-but then the nimbys and the environmentalists would have a fit about that too...

Charles, SJ
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
 
Sean-SAN-
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:02 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 3:48 pm

I second the notion that LHR is only popular because of connecting traffic. Taking the underground to LHR or Gatwick Express to LGW takes almost the same amount of time, at roughly the same price.

-Sean
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 6:40 pm

Ctbarnes, the Crossrail concept is very much 'on the table'. In fact, it's more likely to happen than it's ever been! Visit http://www.crossrail.co.uk.

(For any one who doesn't know, Crossrail is a high speed, high-capacity railway system that will link Reading in the West with Docklands and Essex in the East, using two tunnels through central London. It is very much on the lines of the RER in Paris - but where the RER took over the Suburban lines, Crossrail will use the main lines. Crossrail Line 2 is the new name for the Thameslink 2000 project.).

I agree with above. Build to replace Heathrow. Give the new facility a cincrete infrastructure, move all ops in a 'Big Bang' and then demolish LHR for housing!



(Much as I love LHR, I'd have no compunction about sending it to its death.)
 
qantas744
Posts: 1658
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 6:25 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 7:06 pm

Unfortunately Crossrail has been on the table since 1987, and although it looks as if it will eventually go ahead the fact remains that it should have been finished 10 years ago. Look at the Railtrack/Virgin West Coast Mainline upgrade fiasco which is now 500% over budget and will never reach it's potential, it's no surprise to see that private investment is so hard to find for public transport projects such as this and Crossrail. I don't think there are any monetary issues to prevent rebuilding Heathrow, but whether there is sufficient capital available for the ancillary services such as new rail lines (that's new lines not just new services on existing lines) is a different matter-and without such infrastructure there is little point in expanding Heathrow.


Matt
you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll
 
GAWZU
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 3:10 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 7:49 pm

Taking a broader view of the situation in the south east UK, closing Heathrow and constructing a new multi-runway airport in the Thames estuary certainly has its merits. The plans released by the Government in July generally overestimate the demand for air travel, and I can't see a second hub airport at Cliffe being economically viable if LHR remains open. Primarily, LHR is the preferred London airport for most airlines, and it would take significant financial incentives to lure airlines away from a fully operational LHR to Cliffe.

As it stands, Heathrow is a mess and there is virtually no room for expansion now T5 has the go ahead. To state it is an airport fit for the C21 is ridiculous. Granted, it is theoretically possible to bulldoze the surrounding area to make way for new land, but this would naturally suffer severe opposition in the locality, and would be more than likely be decided by a lengthy, time wasting, money draining and generally pointless public enquiry, just like we endured with T5.

By closing Heathrow and constructing a new multi-runway airport in the Thames estuary, runway capacity in the south east would grow by 2 or 3 or even 4 new runways and there would be a significant reduction in the negative effects suffered inland at least. From my perspective, this therefore has to be a commendable option and is good to see someone on this namby-pamby island has a brain between their ears.

Heathrow is by no means the be all and end all of London airports. It would certainly be the last choice on my list if I needed to fly, especially given the close proximity of Stansted nearby.
 
Guest

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 7:59 pm

Qantas744,

You sum up neatly the problem with getting anything properly & efficiently done in this country....although I have certainly enjoyed my few years here in England, I've noticed the English (or British, whatever you prefer...) have this amazing ability to make things more complicated than they have to be, yet they somehow manage to make it all work in the end....just...and even then, not always.

Mad dogs and Englishmen? So true, so true.... Oh well, at least they have a great sense of humour....  Nuts  Big grin
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 8:07 pm

The good captain is right, this is not an easy country to get anything done. I don't know what the locals would complain about it they were bought out, it's not nice around Heathrow, thoroughly scary in fact. If I lived there and the BAA offered me above market value for my pad, I'd tear their arm off in pure excitement. "Honey! We're finally getting out of this crime-ridden industrial hellhole! Get the kids! No, today. Right now! Engine's running, get in, get in!!"
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
Catflap
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:55 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 9:02 pm

Isn't the key decision point, next months court case in which the government appeals against a European Court of Human Rights ruling against night flights at Heathrow ? If the government loses, the scene will be set for an end to night flights from Heathrow.

There may also be huge financial issues because the individuals who won the case have been awarded compensation. Should the appeal fail others may also be able to claim that they have been similarly afflicted, and claim similar amounts. As I understand it, in the long-term Heathrow won't be able to compete with the likes of Schipol and CDG if night-flights are banned. The key point about Cliffe (or the 'floating' option) is that it will be designed from the outset to ensure that no-one is exposed to noise levels sufficient to wake them up.

As for the costs I don't see these as quite the issue that some others do. Large infrastructure projects are seen as benefitting the economy by creating employment and giving the government a good excuse to claim back some of the money we give to the EU. In fact, I think you'll find that construction companies donate heavily to government and the more expensive the project, the better as far as they are concerned. Whilst the scale of investment may appear large, you have to remember that it will pay-back over 50-100years.

The road and rail improvements needed will not only benefit the airport. They will form a major element of plans to regenerate and expand the derelict areas to the East of London (The Thames Gateway Development) In esssence what you have to bear in mind is that they aren't planning to just build an airport. They are planning to develop the Thames Gateway. The airport is a central feature of this plan and will provide the excuse needed to invest large sums of public money in infrastructure improvements. I remember people saying that the Channel Tunnel was a non-starter because of the cost. Now, they are talking about building another one.
 
GAWZU
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 3:10 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 10:18 pm

Catflap is right with regards to the upcoming European Court of Human Rights ruling against night flights at Heathrow. What bugs me with regards to night flying is that despite their cause, the majority of anti-noise campaigners are quite happy to use an airport when it suits them.

Using Stansted as an example, I know countless numbers of local people who take several extra short breaks every year with the LCCs. Many of these strangely oppose any airport expansion however - they don't appear to realize that they do nothing more than justify the Government's forecasts!
 
Catflap
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:55 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 10:36 pm

The following letter from BA has been sent out to a number of people protesting against the plans for Cliffe. The last paragraph neatly sums up the government's dilemma. However, the one quote I have heard repeatedly from government ministers and DoT officials is that "doing nothing is not an option" One suspects that the government expects to get opposition, whatever they decide to do, and has already steeled itself to make the decisions that successive previous governments have ducked.

From:
Date: 23 October 2002 14:15

Our position is that we very much welcome the government's consultation
process on future airport development .

We believe it provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that
Britain's international trading prospects, which owe so much to this
country's historic pre-eminence in international aviation, are protected
and enhanced by sensible and timely provision of new runways and other
essential infrastructure.

Our view is that Heathrow is Britain's only international airport capable
of competing effectively with the major airports on the European continent.
We believe therefore that the unique position of Heathrow must be protected
by the provision of a third regional runway. We believe this can be done in
keeping with essential principles of sustainability and while achieving the
necessary balance between economic, social and environmental interests.

The consultation is founded on an assumption that demand for air travel may
double in the next 20 years and triple in 30. On such as assumption
several new runways would be required in the South East.

We have not taken a specific view on Cliffe, but what does seem clear is
that the huge investment that would be necesssary to build and commission
such an airport, with all its attendant road and rail communications and
other infrastructure may only be justified if that airport was to replace,
not supplement Heathrow.

I am familiar with the strength of feeling against the Cliffe proposals
that you express. In fairness I have to say that feelings against airport
development are strongly expressed wherever it is proposed. I have to say
that the government will have a difficult task in reconciling the public's
appetite for flying with the public's apparent reluctance to support the
means for doing so.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Regards

Don R.
 
AFa340-300E
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Thu Oct 24, 2002 10:45 pm

Hello,

Proximity to Central London is not the reason for Heathrow's pre-eminence.

This very argument was mentioned -- among others -- in surveys conducted prior to the approval/denial of the AA-BA alliance.

London is by far the single largest O&D market in Europe, ahead of Paris and Frankfurt. The figures that Air France has published in its public reports was that London's market equaled about 1.5 times that of Paris. And this led Robert Ayling to alter BA's strategy from a heavily hub-and-spoke network to a more point-to-point one.


Best regards,
Alain Mengus
Air Transport Business
 
BHXviscount
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 8:45 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 4:32 am

If the 'cliffe' project was to go ahead it would have a devastating effect on the economy of west London and the 'M4 corridor' towns like Reading Slough Uxbridge etc. Whilst providing jobs in North Kent what will replace the 10's of thousands of livelyhoods that depend on LHR? You simply couldn't ask them all to move with the airport 'switch' - its TOO late to move/replace LHR it should have been done 15 years ago. The only option is T5 and 3rd runway and better use of other airports and not just in southeast of the UK. Isn't 30% of LHR pax per annum UK people who can't get the flights they want from other UK airports plus the fact that CDG and AMS are supplying alternative depature points for UK passengers. The UK needs to ditch the reliance on LHR to supply needs that can be catered for with a proper UK wide air transport policy thus freeing up more slots for LHR. Anyway thats my view....Mark
No officer, its NOT a surface to air missile its a camera..for taking photographs.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow&qu

Fri Oct 25, 2002 5:04 am

If the proposed airport @ Cliffe were to be built, some of the airports in the region would have to be closed regardless. By adding another airport to the ATC mix in this region, some ATC responsibilities would actually have to be handled by ATC centers in France due to the increased air traffic in the region. Close either LHR or LGW, and make the other airport a cargo only airport. This would impact the planned expansion of cargo ops @ Manston, but perhaps all cargo flights into the London area should be centralized. STN or LTN should be closed as well, and the other become an airport for domestic flights only (much like DCA in the U.S.). The Cliffe site would allow a sizable airport and allow the facility to grow without worry of running out of space for quite some, much like the way DFW was designed. With adequate motorway and railway connections, the airport could serve the region better than the current airport sites.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 5:23 am

Someone tell me how you actually "close" LHR? LHR is not a small corner shop in the high street, it's a international airport.

In Arsene we trust!!
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 6:06 am

Well I think it's totally ludicrous.

A new airport would cost loads, will go over the budget for sure and will take such a long time there's no point.

More importantly IMO, it would be far away.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
Guest

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 6:06 am

Well, there are probably quite a few examples out there....look at Kai Tak, for one.

As with everything, there'll be a cost/benefit equation to work out, that will of course not just be a purely commercial cost/benefit analysis...  Big grin  Insane

Just as long as they hurry up....
 
voodoo
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:14 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 6:44 am

The Thames Estuary idea reminds me of another place.
Build London's Mirabel
and in 20 years everything will be back at London's Dorval.

Alain Mengus, above, is absolutely correct.
Plus LHR is the only airport in the prosperous West quadrant
out from London. No way will anyone there travel `round the M25 to Kent
...they'll all rather start crowding Gatwick and LTN/STN or adding to AMS and CDG's income.
Hence the Thames Mirabel analogy. Thames Tumbleweed Plaza.
` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
 
RayPettit
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 9:04 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:04 am

Has anyone considered the political fallout of closing LHR? Many firms in the area would be lost or at best relocate, putting tens of thousands of liveliehoods at risk. True, some people would be happy to move to say North Kent, but try telling the politicians that when their seats are on the line.

Anyway, glad I don't have to take the decision (if there ever is one).........

Ray
 
qantas744
Posts: 1658
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 6:25 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:08 am

Thanks for the earlier comments Captain, most Brits are not prepared to accept how small (and sometimes quite unimportant) the UK actually is. We are about the same size as California but we think we are bigger than Canada!

In such a small country with such a huge population there are bound to be problems with big infrastructure projects like airports, but despite Britain's close ties with America we are far closely allied to Europe than many people like to admit to, hence the enormous concentration of business and population in the South East of England. I was in Singapore last week and the difference couldn't be more stark-a large population on a small island, a centre for international business, a 'hub' airport known throughout the world and so on.
But it works in Singapore, I don't know enough about politics and culture in Singapore to know why, but it does. If only the UK was like that!!

As far as LHR goes I'm quite happy for it to expand further but it really needs to a 'renewal' type expansion rather than just improving bits at a time. By that I mean get rid of the dreadful central area, kick out the hotels on the northside, move the residents on the southside (which includes me), and let's have four East-West runways to enable all four runways to be used at once if needed, let's also have at least 4 brand new terminals, a rail staion that has direct services to Central London, the South coast, the Midlands and the North and maybe even a new observation deck(!).

The government had a chance to really change the way that big projects like this were handled-but as usual they threw it away. At least I have the satisfaction of knowing that my flight back from SIN gave the NIMBY's in Richmond something to complain about (maybe we were a little low on the glideslope as the captain applied quite a bit of power as we came in over Richmond Park!).


Matt
you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll
 
qantas744
Posts: 1658
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 6:25 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 am

Ray:

Unfortunately Hounslow Borough council is providing funds towards the cost of HACAN's night flights protest in the European courts, and my local MP (remember I'm only a mile from LHR) is also campaigning against expansion at LHR, so I feel somewhat disenfranchised by my elected representatives. LHR employs 80,000+, and it's only the skilled staff that will be offered the chance to move to Cliffe if it becomes a reality-that leaves a hell of a lot of shop employees, clerical types and other lower paid staff who would become unemployed. And the local MP's etc don't seem to be that bothered by it.

This thread went into more detail:http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/800113/6/


Matt
you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll
 
Guest

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:46 am

If the decision swings in favour of expanding LHR, then I agree, let's have a meaningful, significant expansion and improvement of present facilities, instead of some half-assed, limp 'extra runway'. How about doing something with the number of terminals or somehow coordinating the flow of connections into the same terminal?

Well, the next few months will be very interesting. You can bet this is going to appear in the press very frequently, so great from an enthusiast point of view!

As Nike say, JUST DO IT!

(I love the 'Just done it riposte!)  Laugh out loud
 
BHXviscount
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 8:45 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 8:14 am

What about expanding west? M25 should't be a probelm moneywise to move/intergrate/improve as cost of Cliffe would be enormous, better save some money and reaaly go to town on LHR and redesign as some have suggested. The UK Labour government said it wanted to be radical when it got elected so rebuild LHR -will take time but any new runways under recent government proposals would not come into effect untill 2010 so enough time to do something right for a change!
No officer, its NOT a surface to air missile its a camera..for taking photographs.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 8:31 am

Not possible to expand to the west, first you have the M25 (aka world's largest car park), then ofcourse there's Slough, Reading in Berkshire. No space towards the south side of LHR, too many residential areas. A new runway and T5 is the best we can hope for in the near future.

In Arsene we trust!!
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3540
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 8:44 am

Personally, I think that when T5 is finished, they should move the T1 and T2 traffic over there, knock down T1 and T2 and re-build them, then once that is completed do the same with T3. I know that this would take a long time, but it's one of the only real practical ways of getting rid of the old terminals once and for all.

If the builders were employed to work on it 24-7-365, then it could be completed in next to no-time, but the way things are built here in the UK, it seems that workmen only work half days, here and there, so things take years to be completed.

Another alternative that my manager actually proposed to the BAA was to pull down all the car parks in the central area, demolish the tower (new one is shortly begining construction anyway) and build one huge check-in hall that links all the previous terminals 1,2,3 together, this way it would become kind of like AMS is now, just one huge terminal with satellite piers for the boarding gate areas.

The 3rd runway would slot in nicely between the A4 and the M4, and to save demolishing as many houses etc, if it way made shorter than the present runways it could just be used by short haul a/c. Or how about using the 2 runways that are already there, and operate both of them for simultaneous take-offs and landings. Traffic could be increased with no new runway.

Just my 2p's worth

 Smile
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
 
BHXviscount
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 8:45 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 9:06 am

Arsenal@LHR- west of LHR is A3044 then west of this is stanwell moor then also in location is that sewage plant there is available land to expand and moving M25 down 40ft to allow a runway taxiway can be done, also thier is a resevoir in the area too. The current LHR has crammed in expansion so why not use land outside of current boundery to get an uncrammed fiished product?
No officer, its NOT a surface to air missile its a camera..for taking photographs.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 11:50 am

I would tell the EU to mind their own business, throwing lots of money at folks around LHR to either shut-up or move out would be way cheaper than spending at least $10 -12 Billion for a new airport.

If you don't like the noise don't live next to an airport, how many people lived there before the airport? 0 ?

That means they knew it was there and that it can be loud.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 11:51 am

Buyer/renter beware.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:21 pm

Folks,

I personally think the British government should seriously consider building a "super airport" out on the Thames estuary with high-speed rail connections back to London and with a Eurostar stop at the airport.

I think such an airport--if located at the right spot on the Thames estuary--will offer the following advantages:

1. You can build as many runways as you need. This means parallel takeoffs and landings even in ICAO Category IIIc "total zero" visibility conditions. It also means the traffic load can be much higher.

2. Because of its location, airport noise is no longer an issue. This means we could have round-the-clock operations conforming to British QC4 (ICAO Stage III) noise standards. With 24-hour operation flight schedules can be spaced out to lower peak traffic levels.

3. With the new airport, the terminals will be properly sized and designed for future growth with modern amenities. That means lots of gates at every terminal, plentiful capacity for immigration/customs processing, lots of eateries and shops, and there will be plenty of space to design gates that can accommodate tomorrow's airliners that will benefit from dual-level jetwalk access (e.g., A380). It may even make it possible to have US Federal Inspection Service (FIS) pre-processing for Customs and Immigration at the new airport's terminal(s) so you don't have to go through Customs and Immigration in the USA itself when flying from this airport.

If the British government were far-sighted enough to build such an airport this could make it possible to replace both LHR and LGW simultaneously. The land that used to be LHR and LGW could be converted to residential/light-industrial use.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 4:14 pm

If nightfligths are banned from Heathrow, it is only a matter of time before they are banned from all competing airports too.
In fact, the Belgian Green party (which at the moment has a big say in their government) wants to do exactly that. They want to ban night flights from Belgian airports (starting with Zaventem (Brussels) but they do understand that such can only be done effectively (i.e. without loosing too much tax income from companies that move to other countries) if the ban is European and not just Belgian.
Given that the Germans too have a strong Green party who are even more out of touch with reality, and the treehuggers have an extremely strong lobby with the EU it might just come to pass that the nightskies will be clear of aircraft over Europe in the not too distant future.
I wish I were flying
 
qantas744
Posts: 1658
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 6:25 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:30 pm

Here's a link to the estuary plans-note that this is not the Cliffe option outlined in the white paper.

http://www.teaco.co.uk/report.htm#Introduction


Matt
you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 8:50 pm

Even when,assuming Cliffe goes ahead,the new airport is fully functional,LHR would still be useful to have as an O&D airport.
 
Catflap
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:55 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 9:20 pm

STT757 This is the kind of outdated attitude that is fuelling the anti-aviation movement. If you simply tell people to put up with something, and they don't want to, they will fight you. This is precisely what has happened at Heathrow, and the government has come away with a bloody nose. To put it another way, the courts don't see things the way you do. I'm afraid that the days when the aviation industry could do what it liked are over, and you'd better get used to it. Airports are going to have to learn to live with their neighbours. You have a choice. Start dealing with the noise issue, or remain a dinosaur and die. If a purpose-built airport in the Thames estuary offers a way of dealing with the noise issue once and for all you should welcome it with open arms.
 
GAWZU
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 3:10 pm

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Fri Oct 25, 2002 10:24 pm

Regarding Catflap's previous comment, I believe that this is becoming increasingly the case. STT757 is certainly correct in that "[residents] knew it was there and that it can be loud", but if the current anti-airport campaigns in the UK are anything to go by, the points raised by Catflap ring truth.

Take a look at http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com. This a local group formed in July 2002 to fight the Government's proposals for up to three new runways at Stansted. At present, this group (plus several other similar organisations) have by far the majority of local support in comparison to the Government, and if this county is a democracy, the Government will listen to these and make decisions accordingly. And if its comes to legal action (as is almost the case here at Stansted), yes, the courts will side with the campaigners as we saw with regards to the night time noise issue at Heathrow.

Living so close to Stansted, I personally don't have any problem with the associated noise, but I share the view of many others that an airport can't be expanded on such a scale that it comes at the expense of the homes and livelihood of others. However, at the same time I believe that any developments to air capacity in the SE should be significant and well thought out as to avoid any of the current frustrated debate again. On the subject of an offshore airport in the Thames estuary, I believe this offers the best solution for all. A C21 airport without half of the environmental concerns associated with an inland airport.
 
BHXviscount
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 8:45 am

RE: UK Planning Chief Says "Close Heathrow"

Sat Oct 26, 2002 6:25 am

GAWZU- sounds just like anti BHX campaign! got really bad feeling that BHX will close and STN left alone, a little tinkering er bodging with LHR T5 and that and NEW midlands airport will be built to supply SE overspill and midlands traffic 60+m pax per year 3 runways... only 60 or so homes to demolish can't be many people complaing, and its only in 1 consituancy as opposed to LHR closure -alot of seats could be lost in next general election for government if LHR to close so they will duck the issue and the anti anti's will have won!!
No officer, its NOT a surface to air missile its a camera..for taking photographs.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], cougar15, daninovandri, DavecFlyer, Google Adsense [Bot], heathrow, kaitak, Lothar99, LY777, rutankrd, teahan, UAinAUS, UltimoTiger777, Whoopeecock, wjcandee and 196 guests