blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:03 pm

The current trend is Asia is to re-claim the sea for new Airports.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=772322&size=L&sok=&photo_nr=

Not mention Hong Kong - Chek Lap Kok International (HKG / VHHH)

The EU could build additional airports in England and France.

A new airport in England of the coast would have reduced noise restrictions, easier landing and takeoff paths, and reduce congestion. They could use high speed train to connect to LHR and others.

What do you think?
BK
 
NumberTwelve
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:57 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:50 pm

BlackKnight, as long as there are planes with only few noise and we have enough space, why should we do?

And what airports in France you mean? Maybe it works for Nice or Bordeaux but you really want to build a mega airport for Paris in the atlantique or in the channel?

I don't think it's sencefull (ecological and financial).


[Edited 2005-02-07 15:51:17]
signature censored by admin - so check my profile
 
flylondon
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:37 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:20 am

A new airport in England of the coast would have reduced noise restrictions, easier landing and takeoff paths, and reduce congestion. They could use high speed train to connect to LHR and others.

Its already been suggested (and essentially rejected as a political move to get the other options pushed through)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/features/cliffe.shtml
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:18 am

The problem in the article is that they sited a location of controversy. Asia locates the airports off shore and away from the mainland or marshes. Just think of an airport 1 or 2 thousand meters off shore in the English Channel supported by high speed train.
BK
 
rtfm
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:35 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:58 am

And who is going to pay for all this then...? Island airports cost a huge amount of money. Airports in the UK are owned by private companies; the only way that BAA (for example) could afford to build a new airport off the coast of the UK would be for them to massively increase user charges at their existing airports. Current experience with the proposed plans for an additional runway at STN show how incredibly difficult this would be (i.e. the carriers who operate at LHR are adamant (and rightly so IMHO) that they are not going to fund a runway at a rival airport that will only benefit their competitors and existing carriers (e.g. FR) are equally adamant that they aren't going to fund it because they think that BAA are puting forward and an over-inflated cost for little need at present).

The only other alternative is that it is funded by governments. The problem with this is that governments don't have any money - apart from what they collect in taxation. Telling people in (for example) Aberdeen that they have to have their taxes increased to pay the billions it would cost to build an airport at the other end of the country would go down like a lead brick.

Japan has a tradition of huge, publicly funded infrastructure projects but they are not without their controversial issues. How many of these projects
(KIX for example) have actually made a return on the millions of Yen that the Japanese taxpayers have sunk into them would be an interesting question...

Japan's geography is also a major factor here. Because the country is essentially a series of mountain ranges with huge conurbations on the coast they have both the necessity and also the ability to site offshore airports near to large population areas. The same is not true in Europe where a great many of the population areas (Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid, Milan, etc) are not close enough to the coast to make this a viable option.
 
A350
Posts: 1010
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:40 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:14 am

France and Great Britain should build a giant new airport in the channel over the tunnel which replaces all airports in London and Paris. The new Airport will be an additional stop of the tunnel trains  Yeah sure

okay, that's irony, of course.

A350
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:38 am

The current trend is Asia is to re-claim the sea for new Airports.

....and do you have annnnnyyyy idea just how expensive that is?



Kansai alone, costed nearly as much as FOUR Denver International Airports.... the last major hub to be completed in the west. An estimated $252Billion (and that's dollars folks, not Yen) will have been spent to stabilize the airport in dual runway form, and that's not even counting the expectant third runway in Kansai's master plan.

The price to build Chek Lap Kok amounted to more than the entire multi-runway/terminal refurbishments of ATL, ORD, MIA, and SFO combined.




...the numbers just don't add up in the least.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:55 am

ConcordeBoy I do not disagree with the cost involved. The EU has shown they will spend the money as Asia to keep jobs coming. What hidden costs have been occurred to provide transportation, buildings, and support for the A380 in the EU. What did the tunnel under the channel cost? Look if they wanted it, it could happen. The better argument would be that it would not happen to protect the A380 investment.
BK
 
flylondon
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:37 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:09 am

Just think of an airport 1 or 2 thousand meters off shore in the English Channel supported by high speed train.

In the middle of one of the world's busiest shipping lanes and even at Eurostar speeds still about and hour from London?
 
JoFMO
Posts: 1840
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:55 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:20 am

The problem with airports on reclaimed land is the amount of cost to reclaim land. To build an artificial island is extremely expensive.

There is another method of building offshore airports which is currently examined. To built them on swimming potoons and adjust them with long piles on the ground. But this method is far from being ready for practical use. There was an interesting internet side how such an airport could be built in Sydney, but all link seem dead now. Maybe you have more luck with googling.

But we have airports on reclaimed land in Europe. BCN, NCE, GOA come to mind. And not to forget AMS. It's name Schiphol means hell for ships translated to english. On the side where now is the airport was a graveyard for ships before it was reclaimed. But it is centuries ago.
 
agill
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:32 am

Why on earth would they build islands when there are thousands of square kilometers of farmland to use? Hong Kong was pretty extreme since they didn't have any other options than to build it in the sea. For 20 Billion dollars you could buy a lot of farmland outside a city.
 
Speedbird2155
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:44 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:55 am

Okay, I'm a little shocked that this is actually being proposed.

BlackKnight, would you suggest that Canada or the US or even Brazil do the same?? Just wondering why you think this is a good option for the England and France.
 
brightcedars
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:18 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:08 am

Heard of a project for an airport off the coast of the Benelux in the North Sea. I don't know what happened to that idea. Anybody?

Generally Europe has enough space not to need airports so far away from cities or built at unreasonable costs. France has one of the lowest densities of population on the continent. Of course that doesn't apply to Paris but then you're quite a distance from the shore already and CDG has room to grow. Let's also not forget that weather conditions can get even more extreme once the body of water gets involved.

Airports with runways aiming at the sea or extended in the sea are however a nice solution for coastal cities in order to reduce associated nuisances.
Look at NCE, AGP I think, and others... Also look at BEY (slightly off Europe's East frontier) with it's atypical landing on water sensation!

Other airports and their respective political authorities should have more insight into the future as to allow cities to grow around these modern ports and eventually suffocate them as well as those cities' inhabitants' lives.
I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:08 am

The EU has shown they will spend the money as Asia to keep jobs coming.

It's not whether they'll "spend the money"... it's how wisely they do so.

Why the hell would you spend tens of billions of dollars on a SINGLE island when you could build MULTIPLE airports elsewhere in the region on solid ground????
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:49 am

The issue is they are out of land as in Asia. I do not think that anyone would build in the water unless it was the last resort. Anyway I will play along show me land large enough in the LHR area to place another International Airport that is void of environmental rejections and noise restrictions. I will then back off. If you accept it or not eventually England will be forced to look hard at this proposal.
BK
 
bkonner
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:53 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:18 am

Howdy,

All EU countries have very good rail systems that the airlines must compete with. So building an airport too far from a city center would not work.

As was noted above, the cost of building an airport on the ocean is very expensive. Japanese airports that have done this have huge landing fees to pay the bills for building the airports.

Also, EU countries right now with the exception of Belgium and Holland that participate in using the euro have no cash to spend on airport construction as make work projects. Member states that use the euro are required to maintain fiscal and monetary discipline. They are supposed to keep their state budgets deficits below three per cent of their GNP (this was insisted upon by Germany in the early 90's as a condition for the creation of the euro). France and (ironically) Germany are in violation of this treaty and could face EU sanctions if they do not improve their budget deficits. Only Belgium (which has a budget surplus), Luxembourg, and Holland (I think has a small budget deficit) have the ability to do something like you propose. And none would need to at this point (particularly Belgium).

Bkonner
 
keno
Posts: 1809
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:46 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:38 pm

The current trend is Asia is to re-claim the sea for new Airports.

'Asia' is far too general. Make that Japan, Hong Kong & Macau where land use is at an extreme premium.


Look at NCE, AGP I think, and others... Also look at BEY (slightly off Europe's East frontier) with it's atypical landing on water sensation!

... whereas these kind of airports are very common and not terribly expensive either.
 
foxiboy
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 12:34 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:28 pm

Where would they place it as somebody has already said the channel as the busiest shipping lanes in the world SO build an airport re-route the ships or have them negotiate past an airport,also it would be to far from London for it to work,would you want to fly for 14 hours from the far east then have to get on a train for a couple of hours.
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2563
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:01 pm

Don't forget Seoul's Incheon, as it was also reclaimed land, albeit marshy land.

With the exception of London, many of the currently gridlocked airports are not within reasonable distance to the sea.

SFO expansion is about the only land reclamation projects outside Asia, but this project has been bogged-down on environmental issues, etc.

If Chicago were bordered by hills or mountains, surely planners would have thought of reclaiming Lake Michigan but putting an airport in rural Peotone is a much cheaper alternative.
 
mauriceb
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:50 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:36 pm

untill last year, the government was planning an Sea airport at the coast near Zandvoort, wich is close to AMS, during the many complaint about noise in the Area were AMS no is and the space they would get if they build it into sea, nearly made an new Airport into the sea.

But then there were even more protest from foundations like WNF, etc
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:49 pm

With the threat of EK and its Mega hub in Dubai BA and others using LHR will need to find additional capacity even with the A380. Regardless of opinion deep down most will feel that frequentness of flights will rise at most international airports. All I am suggesting is that England prepare for the EK Mega-hub. A well planned Mega-hub near London would pay for itself and relieve congestion. Whether or not its reclaimed from the ocean or half in half from both land and ocean. I think England is out of available land for a new Mega-hub. (Why are there more than one airport in the New York area? JFK has expansion room. Why have more than one? ) There is demand and England could protect the route system as is with an additional airport. A new airport could be the show piece of the world. Most of the current International hubs were created before the A380. A new Mega-hub in England could be designed for both High capacity and many flights.

Lets open it up, most of us have thought about what the perfect airport layout would look like. If there was to be a new Mega-hub near London how many runways would it have? What would be the pattern? Think A380 stretched versions and hundreds of A320/737/A330/787s with a mix of A340/747/777.
BK
 
AirWales
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:43 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:22 pm

Sounds great in theory except the Irish sea, Atlantic coast and around Scotland is far to stormy to build an airport. With the winds and seas that wip up around here it would be shut more than open (this goes for France as well as the UK with the Atlantic/Bay of Biscay coast). The English Channel from Plymouth right round to Harwich (north of London) is some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Anything North of this is too far north of London, Birmingham etc.

 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:44 pm

Basically the problem lies with Britain itself. We are a nation of NIMBYs - and nobody wants a new airport. We need one, no question about that. But its never going to happen. To push something through like that would be politically very damaging - and in the New Labour culture of spin, nobody wants to do things like that.

Heathrow will get a new runway, but it will take 25 years, as planning will be delayed by neverending protests and appeals, then appeals to the EU that building a new runway will infringe the human rights of the people who live there. The EU will be in no hurry to allow this runway to be built and work cannot start if the appeal is referred to them. Their enquiry will take a decade or more. Meanwhile Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and Paris all grow and modernise.

Stansted needs a new runway, and the one at Gatwick is the most heavily use single runway in commercial use today. You can bet they need another one, and soon.

What people fail to realise is that the Government will give a good and fair price for the land and houses they require, its not like its being robbed off them or that they will be out of pocket.

The ideal would be this.

Heathrow is THE prime location and should be exploited. Two new runways, and a huge new terminal where terminal one and two now stand. The new runways should be capable of useage AT THE SAME TIME as the 27 and the 9 already as they do at Atlanta and Los Angeles etc.

The London Underground links should introduce trains that only stop at the Heathrow terminals and London King's Cross. This may obviously mean widening the tunnels etc.

Faster Heathrow Express Links from Paddington.

An identical link into London Waterloo.

Both links joining to a mainline railway station linking LHR with the UK rail network so that travellers need not transit London if not required.

A new category of ultra quiet jetliners (A380/787, A330, V2500 powered A32X family) etc that can use the airport after current curfew times - no CFM56s, JT8s, JT9s, etc. Make sure that one of the new runways is positioned so that noise to local ressies is minimised, and that noise abatement procedures dont affect other operations.

A new non-BA handling terminal for Fed-Ex, UPS etc as well as for Eva, Cathay, Korean and JAL etc for their new UK base. This then leaves BA with their cargo centre for themselves.

Thats all i can think of right now.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
rtfm
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:35 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:52 am

CHRISBA777ER - ah, if only... but as you start off by saying - not likely with any UK government I can forsee.  Sad

Joust one correction - the BA Cargo centre at LHR is only used by BAWC; all other carriers use various facilities to the west of that (around the horseshoe) and/or off airport. I have seen BAA schemes to rebuild the (non-BA) part of the cargo area but I don't think they are likey very soon. BAA at LHR have cargo way down their list of priorities...
 
GuyBetsy1
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 4:00 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:05 am

I'm sorry, but the British just simply do not have the foresight to see any plans for the future. If it did, you'd have road tunnels linking the North and South burrow under London instead of having to go through the city now. Read: Traffic nightmare. You'd have a bigger and better managed airport than Heathrow with its current 4 Terminals and an aging old fashioned transfer system (ie by Bus) between Terminals airside. You'd also have a internal terminal transfer utilising a proper transit system ie FRA airport.

I say graze Windsor castle to the ground and build a new airport there.

EU is mostly landlocked, so reclaiming the sea isn't an option.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:52 am

"I say graze Windsor castle to the ground and build a new airport there"

Not in my lifetime buddy. Anywhere but there.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
rtfm
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:35 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:56 am

Wow - love to see the size of the sheep that could 'graze' Windsor Castle to the ground...!!  Big grin
 
nudelhirsch
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:20 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:09 am

It just does not make sense in the EU. Anywhere in the sea would be anywhere in the middle of nowhere, somewhere close to the outward border of the EU.
The Mediterranean Sea and North-Sea (England, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark etc.) would be the only exception.
But do people want to land between the fishes? Nope.
They want to go to Frankfurt, Paris, Rome, London, not to some wet spot in the sea.
The difference to Asia is, look at Hong Kong - they are running out of ground and are located on the coast.
Look at Japan, most places in Japan which would support a big airport are on or close to the coast.
In Europe, the important destinations are all in the country, only very few are close enough to the sea. Take Berlin, Frankfurt, Paris... you would need a long train ride or a connecting flight, which in the end does make no sense.
It would be an idea for cities like SEA, SFO, LAX... that are close to water... but they have enough ground to burn which is way cheaper than exploring the sea...

daniel
Putana da Seatbeltz!
 
Spike
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:08 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:12 am

You know what the colonies are like in their 'in-breeding'. Sheep the size of Ozzies. Could graze anything to the ground. 280 gates at LHR is big enough for me.
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:44 am

The focus is really on England as an island and part of the EU. The EU needs to protect their international aviation interests and a Mega-hub funded by the EU near the shores of England would combat the EK Mega-hub in Dubai. The Mega-hub could then farm out regional flights to the rest of the EU. A sea based international airport though expensive would be less costly as reclaiming any land large enough and paying the price of years of costly court battles. Why couldn't the EU develop a Mega-port for Ocean going vessels and Aviation traffic? The support structure for both would be less than if they were separate.

BK
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:29 am

Building airports has nothing to do with the EU, that is the job of the governments of the respective countries. Since we're talking about the UK, it is the UK governments responsibility to study the proposals and decide what's best for the country. At the moment, an island airport is unrealistic as far as the UK is concerned, the bureacracy, public consultations, anti-aviation protestations etc would mean we would get nowhere. Not to mention the massive costs involved in investing in a mega airport. Such a big project might lead to costs being burdened on the British taxpayer, something which will not go down well with the public. The UK govt's aviation policy is about investing money, infrastructure and effort into the current airports available, that means expanding Heathrow, Stansted and/or Gatwick. Building a new mega airport off the coast is quite far fetched at the moment.


In Arsene we trust!!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:04 pm

1. Huge money.
2. You must have a shallow, protected coastline.
3. Did I mention huge money?
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:12 pm

Why are there more than one airport in the New York area? JFK has expansion room. Why have more than one?

All three New York airports are currently packed in, and are pretty much unexpandable.

LaGuardia: Lots of homes and the Garden State Parkway on one side, and Flushing Bay on the others. Simply no way to expand it.

Newark: They just finished a refurbishment of one of the main runways, and have the NJ Turnpike on one side and developed areas on the others.

Kennedy: They're adding a bit of terminal room, but in terms of runway additions, forget about it. Residential areas to the north and west, and Jamaica Bay to the south and east.

New York needs the three airports. And it faces a problem as air traffic increases in that they are going to get to the point where they can no longer find space to put airplanes.

As for coastal airports, it would only work for a city on the coast. Not too many cities with lots of air traffic that fit that description. Only AMS and FCO come to mind, and both of those airports are perfectly fine. Also, it does cost a lot.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
curlyheadboy
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:56 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:32 pm

As far as I know there are plans in my country to build an off-shore airport to replace/expand FCO. I saw an artist concept on a magazine, nice stuff but unlikely to be realized soon.
We'd also need a large intercontinental airport up north to serve the Milan area, since MXP proved to be inadequate. No chance to go for the offshore solution since the coastline is too far away though...
If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:52 pm

Look right or wrong, $billions of pounds or not the world is changing around England and BA. The sad fact is the major tool to do the change seems to be the A380. (The 787 will also play a role, but for now EK is using the A380) Check out the following thread:


http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1949499/

Come on where are EK going to get enough passenger traffic to fill hundreds of A380s daily? Some time ago the common thought was the world was flat, the moon was to far away for anyone to visit, etc. Something is always impossible until someone proves otherwise. What does EK see the rest of us do not? Why so many A380s? We have all asked how they will fill them. Do the math they need traffic from LHR and other ports to be successful. With the added notes from the thread above they must think they can steal a lot of the traffic.
BK
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:25 pm

I was not going to mention this but I will... Innovation is the key to success. The 747 was ran over by the A380 because Boeing made the choice not to keep it competitive. When others (Airbus) suggested the idea of a new mega-plane Boeing laughed and said it would cost to much money and serve to little of a market. It is strange to me that this issue is the same. EK and Dubai are now playing the role of Airbus with their new mega-port and England has become Boeing. The point is...wake up and smell the coffee or someone else will have your brew.

BK
 
incitatus
Posts: 2691
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: The EU Should Follow Asia's New Airport Plan

Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:02 am



The future of London Heathrow is here and it is called JFK. It will be relegated to local traffic while mainland hubs such as Madrid and CDG while handle connections to other parts of Europe.

CDG is passing FRA in passenger traffic and within 6 years it will be approaching LHR.

LHR should be closed down. Its real estate should be re-zoned and sold in pieces for the construction of a "new London" - a future car-free neighborhood that only a city like London deserves. The billions raised could be used to build a massive airport either over Stansted or off-shore.



Stop pop up ads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 787fan8, AA777223, airtechy, Baidu [Spider], EGNT, Freshside3, frmrCapCadet, FSXFlyguy, gdg9, Google Adsense [Bot], gregn21, haynflyer, keesje, Kilopond, legacyins, MAH4546, Miami, Mikey711MN, msycajun, olle, Quantos, StTim, tcaeyx, United1, V90Ambulanse, YYZYYT and 347 guests