CaptainDJ
Topic Author
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:52 pm

London Britannia Airport

Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:52 pm

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.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:16 pm

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.
 
HiJazzey
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:00 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:34 pm

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.
 
GCT64
Posts: 1260
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:27 pm

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,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,(..53 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:18 pm

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.
 
SelseyBill
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:38 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:55 pm

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 avatar
nimool
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:44 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:24 pm

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.
Iran Air, we take you there, we take you back!
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 1619
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:33 pm

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

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


case closed.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 3368
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:45 pm

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?
 
oly720man
Posts: 5740
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:50 pm

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
 
gilesdavies
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:51 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:28 am

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!
 
TK773
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:42 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:09 am

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
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:01 am

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
 
iliam
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:21 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:20 am

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mb-shipwrecked-Thames-estuary.html
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18838
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:56 am

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
 
CaptainDJ
Topic Author
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:52 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:20 am

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.
 
vfw614
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:07 pm

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.
 
GCT64
Posts: 1260
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:20 pm

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,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,(..53 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:14 pm

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 ?
 
oly720man
Posts: 5740
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:20 pm

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
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:38 pm

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.
 
BA0197
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:09 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:51 pm

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.
 
oly720man
Posts: 5740
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:52 pm

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
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:10 pm

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.
 
art
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:39 pm

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 avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:03 pm

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.
 
thijs1984
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:41 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:42 pm

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.
 
flyingthe757
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:44 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:03 pm

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?
 
oly720man
Posts: 5740
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:23 am

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
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:29 am

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.
 
GCT64
Posts: 1260
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:41 am

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,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,(..53 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:22 am

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.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:34 am

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.
 
CXfirst
Posts: 2875
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:13 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:35 am

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
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 1619
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:23 pm

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.
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:05 pm

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.
 
thijs1984
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:41 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:23 pm

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.
 
JHwk
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:18 am

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.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:20 am

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.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:44 am

I think that you forgot the  

You could lose London City in one corner of LHR.
 
vfw614
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:17 am

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.
 
offloaded
Posts: 900
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:56 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:28 pm

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
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:15 pm

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".
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:58 pm

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.
 
JHwk
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:27 pm

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]
 
GCT64
Posts: 1260
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: London Britannia Airport

Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:00 pm

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,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,(..53 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:52 pm

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.
 
spottingpete93
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:16 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:08 pm

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.
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Sat Nov 16, 2013 3:41 pm

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.
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: London Britannia Airport

Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:17 pm

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.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.