Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:19 pm

With all the problems that is facing LHR ( from the top of my head I can remember the negative for new runway(s), the noise restrictions, the long lines in immigration due to lack of space, baggage handling problems, unions not happy with the delays, days with fog... and probably there are some more that I'm missing ), could an airport located in the sea ( like Chek Lap Kok or Kansai ) be a solution for this ??

For example, the distance from London to Southend is around 60 kilometers, and with a good highway or a high speed train the travel time to reach the city could be irrelevant ( although I don't know how deep is the sea in that place ).

I know the investment, time and effort involved is HUGE, and Hong Kong and Osaka surrounding areas are not comparable with London, but in the long term the "freedom" of an airport located over an artificial island could be a good solution allowing many more daily flights carrying cargo and passengers and eliminate all the problems of what it looks like an "unfriendly" environment for the airport ...
The sum of all the factors that appear to be constantly hitting the airports in the London area ( not only Heathrow ) could make attractive this option in the future ?

( I'm just asking, this could be a totally crazy idea since I don't know what kind of terrain have the shores near to London )

Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10711
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:22 pm

Yes, there is currently a serious proposition to do this - Google 'Boris Island' and you will find out more.

The biggest issue will be removing a WWII wreck carrying enough explosives to create the largest (man made) peacetime explosion the world has ever seen. But that needs tackling anyway, so it's not a game changer to new airport ideas.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4465
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:23 pm

I believe there is/was a plan to build something at the mouth of the Thames river. Seems like it will not be done due to environmental issues.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:34 pm

The "Thames Estuary" airport has the best chance. London needs a 24/7 hub. The issue is for LHR is that declining capacity for hubbing makes the routes more 'brittle' to P2P demand changes (e.g., route seasonality). There is no question Long needs more airport capacity and it would be ideal to build 'big enough' to have another hub.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport

One major issue is the cost of shutting down LHR and LGW. IMHO, they would continue operating. Thus the Thames estuary would have trouble drawing traffic for its first decade or so.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1):
The biggest issue will be removing a WWII wreck carrying enough explosives to create the largest (man made) peacetime explosion the world has ever seen. But that needs tackling anyway, so it's not a game changer to new airport ideas.

The Richard Montgomery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery

A mere 1.4kt.  

The wreck is an issue. One that will have to be addressed soon due to the hull cracking. Soon as in within the next 15 years.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:59 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1):
Yes, there is currently a serious proposition to do this - Google 'Boris Island' and you will find out more.

The biggest issue will be removing a WWII wreck carrying enough explosives to create the largest (man made) peacetime explosion the world has ever seen. But that needs tackling anyway, so it's not a game changer to new airport ideas.

Thank you !! I was afraid that I could be flamed for posting this thread, glad to see I'm not totally crazy      

And about the WWII wreck, how the U.K. govt. never did something about it ?? Were they waiting until the thing just blows up ??

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
A mere 1.4kt.

The wreck is an issue. One that will have to be addressed soon due to the hull cracking. Soon as in within the next 15 years.

That will be one big, BIG explosion. And the hull cracking doesn't help... I had NO idea about this wreck...thanks for the info.

Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:28 pm

The new airport needs to be started. The question is when.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 4):
And about the WWII wreck, how the U.K. govt. never did something about it ??

Cost and the Kielce (another sunken explosive laden ship). When the Kielce exploded it quite a problem for the UK government, so they couldn't politically afford to create another such explosion. Due to the prior effort 'not going well,' the cost of dealing with the Richard Montgomery became extreme. Some is that the fuses are water soluble and thus risk went down with time but is now going up as the explosives were less "storable" than thought.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
theginge
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:53 am

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:43 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
the long lines in immigration due to lack of space,

That wasn't due to lack of space, it was due to not enough people manning the desks....
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:20 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1):
The biggest issue will be removing a WWII wreck carrying enough explosives to create the largest (man made) peacetime explosion the world has ever seen.

Another absolutely huge issue is the economic depression that closing LHR would create. This would be true whichever Thames Estuary site was chosen from those considered to date, be it Maplin Sands (Foulness), Isle of Sheppey, Cliffe, Shiverring Sands or the Isle of Grain. The wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery, a US Liberty Ship, and its 1,400 tons of explosive, sunk in August 1944, is only relevant to the Isle of Grain (the current "Boris Island") location.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 4):
And about the WWII wreck, how the U.K. govt. never did something about it ??

A significant amount of explosive was removed from the Richard Montgomery but I think the last efforts to continue the salvage operation were abandoned after a similarly dangerous wreck containing large quantities of explosive blew up in the English Channel in1967. The problem is the dichotomy of the risk of leaving a dangerous wreck containing 1,400 tonnes of unstable explosives compared to the dangers of trying to salvage it after getting on for 70 years. Is it more dangerous to do nothing? Or is it more dangerous to continue the salvage operation? Here it is worth noting that it has been suggested that if the wreck were to explode it would create a five metre high tsunami that would, despite the Thames Barrier, flood central London.

Returning to the economic issue, more than 70,000 jobs on LHR itself would move from west London to the Thames Estuary.

The 180,000+ off-airport workers whose livelihood is dependent directly or indirectly on LHR would loose their source of income or prosperity. As one simple example if you Google "Heathrow Airport Hotels" you will find a site listing 75 such hotels. Hotel employees are not over generously paid. Moving to the Thames Estuary would not be an option for them or many other in the local service industries. Others impacted would range from other low paid workers offering direct support services to the airport and arriving or departing passengers to professionals such as doctors and accountants dependent on airport workers for their work.

Throwing up to a quarter of a million people out of work would be economically devastating to West London.

All others (hundreds of thousands or millions?) living within commuting distance of the airport would likely see the value of their homes fall. Many would be left with negative equity in their home if its valuefell to below the outstanding debt

Because of these economic realities I believe that eventually - but no time soon - a third runway will be built at LHR.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:34 pm

Thinking of the birdstrike danger, this future airport has already been named Chesley Sullenberger International Airport... 
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 4):
And about the WWII wreck, how the U.K. govt. never did something about it ?? Were they waiting until the thing just blows up ??

Well, they used a live 22'000 lbs Grand Slam bomb as a gate guard at RAF Scampton after the war. Nothing unusual in that country.


David

[Edited 2012-08-21 13:41:32]
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13041
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:35 pm

About Boris Island :

Quote:
On 13 April 2012, Richard Deakin, the head of National Air Traffic Services, commented that "the very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here". He continued "we're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat"
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:24 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 7):
The 180,000+ off-airport workers whose livelihood is dependent directly or indirectly on LHR would loose their source of income or prosperity. As one simple example if you Google "Heathrow Airport Hotels" you will find a site listing 75 such hotels. Hotel employees are not over generously paid. Moving to the Thames Estuary would not be an option for them or many other in the local service industries. Others impacted would range from other low paid workers offering direct support services to the airport and arriving or departing passengers to professionals such as doctors and accountants dependent on airport workers for their work.

I respect your opinion ( and you are playing "local" here   ), but all your points will be valid only if you close LHR and leave the area occupied by the airport unexploited. If you develop urban projects ( there are so many options, you can have from big Malls to high quality/luxury buildings for living or offices ), you can give a whole new life to the place. In situations like this you have the advantage of making a plan picking the best options for that specific location, and develop the projects from the very beginning, before the terrain is even available ( something that is not always possible, there are many examples of "inorganic growth" in many cities around the world ).

Rgds.

G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4785
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:32 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 10):
but all your points will be valid only if you close LHR and

There have been loads of threads on this already. There is only a business case for Fantasy Island, IF and ONLY IF you close LHR. Hence you devestate employment in West London and cut off what we call the M4 corridor. Where all the technology companies are that need access to LHR and every business who flies based between London and Bristol.

Behind the scenes it is understood LHR runway 3 is the only game in town and serious pressue is being brought to bear in the government to get real. Indeed the Qatari wealth funds have just invested in BAA, they can see the lie of the land. LHR is going nowhere. Indeed with Crossrail underway and the multi billion pound Terminal 2 to be opened soon, it would seem unlikely it's closing soon.

http://airportinformer.wordpress.com...tar-buys-20-stake-in-baa-guardian/

Just to be clear, with LHR still there, there can be no Island Airport. The numbers do not come close to adding up.
Incidenatally, BA sees the idea as a non starter.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:50 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 7):
The 180,000+ off-airport workers whose livelihood is dependent directly or indirectly on LHR would loose their source of income or prosperity.

Many new airports have opened at rather distant locations compared to the former primary airport. HKG, KUL, MUC, CDG, DEN, NRT, BKK are several that come to mind. The cities survived quite well. And since the new airport would permit a significant increase in capacity, and thus permit more people to visit the UK, you have to take the overall economic impact into account.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4785
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:57 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 12):
you have to take the overall economic impact into account.

Yup and that's whay it is a bad idea. Generally you are correct, specifically in relation to this part of real estate, it's not realistic. Look at what people are doing, not saying.
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5983
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:04 pm

Something tells me that an island where the Thames meets the North Sea will not be devoid of fog delays.
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:47 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 10):
I respect your opinion ( and you are playing "local" here ), but all your points will be valid only if you close LHR and leave the area occupied by the airport unexploited.

This is a "what if" discussion. So all contributions are forward looking, intelligent estimates at best, pure shot-in-the-dark guesses at worst. And a "what if" implicit in this thread's title is that LHR would be "replaced" and would therefore be made totally redundant by the"Island Airport" that replaced it.

As for exploiting the decommissioned airport there are several relevant practical factors.

The first is that an airport and much of the supporting off-airport infrastructure (such as the 75 hotels) are labour-intensive service operations. The only service operation that I can think of that could occupy even a significant proportion of the airport would be a theme park. And I doubt that any theme park could directly employ 70,000 people or require the support of 75 hotels and the multitude of road transport carriers operating from the Heathrow area) and create employment for around 180,000 employees outside of the park.

The second is the assumption that LHR could be redeveloped so that it created work that utilised the skills and experience of the local labour force that has been built up over the last 67 years simply because air transport has grown significantly and LHR is the airport that has served one of the world's major cities over that period.

The third is the economic impact on the Heathrow area of the migration of higher paid airport and airline workers such as maintenance engineers and pilots away from the greater Heathrow area to those areas adjoining the Thames Estuary. Few if any of these employees will fancy a commute to employment some sixty or more miles away (as the aircraft flies) and directly on the other side of the large conurbation that is London.

Finally if the airport was to close how many years would it take for the airport to be redeveloped? What would those thrown out of work the day the airport closed do during the redevelopment period? Not every hotel receptionist, room maid or tug driver will be happy at the prospect of becoming a construction worker for several years until the redevelopment was completed.
.
 
User avatar
BasilFawlty
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:23 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:52 pm

Just demolish the villages of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington and built the third runway, there's no need for an island airport.
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10711
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:53 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 11):
Behind the scenes it is understood LHR runway 3 is the only game in town and serious pressue is being brought to bear in the government to get real. Indeed the Qatari wealth funds have just invested in BAA, they can see the lie of the land. LHR is going nowhere.

It isn't the only option, others are being studied beside a new airport. Some more sensible than others.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 11):
Indeed with Crossrail underway and the multi billion pound Terminal 2 to be opened soon, it would seem unlikely it's closing soon.

CrossRail would make a relocation more feasible, not less. Plans I have seen would call for a LHR 'lite' set up, with a single runway remaining (other areas developed into high grade office space, mitigating a considerable amount of the economic affect of 'closing' LHR) and a scheduled operation which appears to be based on BA CityJet, only envisaging larger aircraft like the A320 and a serious focus on business jets of all sizes. And yes the Qataris recently bought into BAA, but look at the price they paid for the stake - proportionally it was well below LHR's value as building land in London, and that's without considering all the other airports the group own.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 14):
Something tells me that an island where the Thames meets the North Sea will not be devoid of fog delays.

I'm not sure if there would be more or less fog than the valley at Heathrow.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 9):
About Boris Island :

Quote:
On 13 April 2012, Richard Deakin, the head of National Air Traffic Services, commented that "the very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here". He continued "we're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat"

But without Heathrow in its size and volume, that all changes. And he knows very well that it can all change anyway because the entire South East air traffic set up is currently designed around Heathrow.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 7):
Another absolutely huge issue is the economic depression that closing LHR would create.

As mentioned, that depends on what you do with LHR and how you handle the site. Employment, local economy, house value etc... would not necessarily experience the problems you suggest.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
bennett123
Posts: 9631
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:06 pm

I always thought that the "bomb wreck" was near Southend, or are there many of them.

Concerning environmental factors, how big a issue would salt corrosion be?. Also what affect would there be on shipping?.

As for removal of the wrecks, I suspect that it will continue to be a game of pass the (ticking) parcel, with successive governments hoping that it does not blow up during their term.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21816
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:33 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 7):
Another absolutely huge issue is the economic depression that closing LHR would create.

Would it need to be closed? London needs more air capacity overall and LHR could remain as an intra-Europe hub.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1):
The biggest issue will be removing a WWII wreck carrying enough explosives to create the largest (man made) peacetime explosion the world has ever seen.

Which would be AWESOME!   Actually, could it safely be set off if they cleared the area? Or would the wave swamp everything nearby?

Quoting VV701 (Reply 15):
The second is the assumption that LHR could be redeveloped so that it created work that utilised the skills and experience of the local labour force that has been built up over the last 67 years simply because air transport has grown significantly and LHR is the airport that has served one of the world's major cities over that period.

Why can't those people be moved? We're not talking about moving them to Germany. We're talking about 20 miles, right? Why can't they commute or move? When HKG-CLK was closed, it didn't lead to economic devastation. Nor did closing the old Osaka airport and replacing it with the new one.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:38 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 18):
As for removal of the wrecks, I suspect that it will continue to be a game of pass the (ticking) parcel, with successive governments hoping that it does not blow up during their term.

I'm very far from being an expert on explosives, but I found crazy that no one in the previous and current administrations in Downing Street has done something about this. Yes, there was a bad experience in 1967 with other wreck, but the technology has changed a lot in the last 40 years. There were studies recently ( 2004 was the last one ? ), but no one is taking any action...I will always prefer a planned detonation, evacuating the people in the nearest places, putting all the barriers I can to avoid massive flooding, over a non expected and random explosion that could cause panic and more damages tomorrow, or the next week, or the next month...
The airport construction now looks pretty irrelevant compared with the risk of 1.5 tonnes of explosives threatening thousands of people...
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:55 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1):
largest (man made) peacetime explosion the world has ever seen.

....was created by the Tsar Bomba with a yield of ~54-57 megatons.
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10711
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:58 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 18):

I always thought that the "bomb wreck" was near Southend, or are there many of them.

It is just off Sheerness - parts are above the waterline at low tide.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 18):
Concerning environmental factors, how big a issue would salt corrosion be?. Also what affect would there be on shipping?.

No more so than any other airport near the sea/ocean. Shipping would not be affected significantly.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 18):
As for removal of the wrecks, I suspect that it will continue to be a game of pass the (ticking) parcel, with successive governments hoping that it does not blow up during their term.

Unfortunately you are most likely right. It needs to be dealt with carefully with a controlled explosion at low tide, it would be suicide to attempt a reclamation after all these years. The cost of a controlled blast would be a fraction of a 'time-bomb' explosion and would mean nobody loses their lives.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10711
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:02 am

Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 21):
....was created by the Tsar Bomba with a yield of ~54-57 megatons.

Personally I would class that as Cold War and not exactly peace-time. Also to clarify - I meant non nuclear, but forgot to put this.


Dan  

[Edited 2012-08-21 17:03:27]
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
bennett123
Posts: 9631
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:04 am

Not sure where you get the figure of 1.5 tons of HE.

If you read the wiki article linked to reply 3, then the correct figure is 1,500 tons.

"CHASE 3 and 4, off New Jersey
On 14 July 1965, Coastal Mariner was loaded with 4,040-short-ton (3,670 t) of obsolete munitions containing 512-short-ton (464 t) of high explosives. The cargo was detonated at a depth of 1,000 feet (300 m) and created a 600-foot (200 m) water spout, but was not deep enough to be recorded on seismic instruments.

Heligoland
On 18 April 1947 British engineers attempted to destroy the entire North Sea island of Heligoland in what became known as the "British Bang".[citation needed] Roughly 4000 tons[27][28] of surplus World War II ammunition were placed in various locations around the island and set off. The island survived, although the extensive fortifications were destroyed. According to Willmore,[28] the energy released was 1.3×1020 erg (1.3×1013 J), or about 3.2 kilotons of TNT equivalent".

You might also find these interesting, (http://uk.ask.com/wiki/List_of_the_largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions)
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:12 am

Right now LHR is down to ~30% connecting traffic. Moving to a new airport sized for 150 million passengers (not initially, but long term) would allow an instant addition of new routes fed by existing routes. As the new airport gains connections, it will stimulate local O&D demand. New routes could be easily started. (e.g., BA could fly more India and China routes with the 787 paired with new US destination flown with either the 787 or perhaps a TATL NEO or MAX).

That is something that must be considered: the new aircraft coming out will extend the range any hub is able to reach out to. The 787/A350 dramatically reduces the cost of long haul flights (per flight) thus enabling new destinations. The NEO and MAX open up new routes for narrow bodies. Either London participates or it will become less relevant as it is bypassed. My favorite example of that is NRT. In the 1980s, NRT was THE international Asian hub for TPAC travel. Today? Unless one is going to Tokyo, I just do not hear about it anymore: ICN, HKG, PEK, PVG and to a lesser extent CAN seem to have displaced it as Asian hubs from North America.

I'm trying to think 'big picture.' Eventually TK will have a new 5-runway airport and DWC will be built while aircraft ranges will improve cutting the cost of long haul and ULH travel. If BA/VS do not have a significantly larger (and 24/7) hub, then passengers will just grow to expect bypassing LHR unless London is their final destination.

I personally would like to see LHR and LGW closed to instantly 'spike' the connections at the new airport. Why? Having either stay open will dilute demand to the new airport. Those leisure destinations served from LGW would suddenly have far superior feed. Now this would mean 4 runways displace 3. Flights would quickly be re-timed to optimize the hubbing banks for OneWorld and whatever alliance VS joins; thus certain times would be maxed out from practically the airport opening. But there would then be 24/7 operation to grow. With more connections, most destinations will become ready to up-gauge quickly. (e.g., 763ER to 789, 77E to 77W, 77W to 747/A380, and 747 destinations to the A389!)

If LHR remains open... The new airport will only work if LGW is closed, but connections will be limited, so initial growth would be slow. I consider the likelyhood of a new airport opening and LGW remaining open remote (there is too much anti-airport NIMBYism locally to that airport).

Quoting VV701 (Reply 15):
The second is the assumption that LHR could be redeveloped so that it created work that utilised the skills and experience of the local labour force that has been built up over the last 67 years simply because air transport has grown significantly and LHR is the airport that has served one of the world's major cities over that period.

Which workers? The airport skilled workers are paid well enough to move. The big issue will be the cost to move the logistics and other support industries. But it has been done in other cities and can be done again. Low paid workers rent. They'll move.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 16):
Just demolish the villages of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington and built the third runway, there's no need for an island airport.

There is still a need for a British 24/7 hub. I've posted before that the mid-east hubs were (partially) enabled by the lack of European hub expansion. If the major London airport is closed at night, that leaves a significant need for a stopping point and thus enables stronger competition. For the interests of the British economy, a new airport is required. Since 'split hubs' notoriously do not work to stimulate connecting demand (NRT/HND anyone? Mirabel), the new airport must be built large.

Even with a 3rd runway at LHR, London will need a new airport. It is just a question of when.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 18):
I always thought that the "bomb wreck" was near Southend, or are there many of them.

The Richard Montgomery is the most famous of the known "bomb wrecks." It is indeed in the Thames Estuary. I tried to google for another known 'bomb wreck,' 'dangerous shipwreck,' and a few other terms and found no other known explosive laden vessel in British waters. However in the Pacific...

FWIW, the 'Port Chicago Disaster' alerted the Manhattan project that a large explosion will generate a mushroom cloud. After that explosion, there was far more interest in trying to prevent another liberty/victory ship laden with explosives from detonating. (That disaster actually had two ships, including their fuel, and numerous rail cars in an abomb like explosion.) But 1.4 kt isn't small. It is less than the Port Chicago disaster (estimates vary from 1.5kt to 5kt) which was extensively studied for the blast effects:

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/ManhattanProject/PortChicago.shtml

The other well known huge explosion was the 'Halifax explosion' where a WW1 explosive laden vessel detonated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_explosion

That was the largest explosion pre-Abomb. But it shows how deadly the Richard Montgomery will be when it detonates with parts that will fly for kilometers potentially.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 18):
As for removal of the wrecks, I suspect that it will continue to be a game of pass the (ticking) parcel, with successive governments hoping that it does not blow up during their term.

That is the strategy in a nutshell. I'm surprised the hull has done so well. I dove another sunken Livery ship and only the ribs remained. The decks and hull were eaten away with time. However, that was in far warmer waters.

Lightsaber
Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21816
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:45 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
When HKG-CLK was closed,

Pre-empting myself. I meant Kai-Tak closed. CLK is, of course, not closed (unless something happened in the last minute!).
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
BasilFawlty
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:23 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:46 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
There is still a need for a British 24/7 hub.

Why? Many airports in Europe are not 24/7. Traffic at night is mainly holiday charters and cargo, which is already handled at other London airports. I really don't see why a new LHR should be open 24/7, but maybe I'm missing something?
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
 
AAIL86
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:00 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:08 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 4):
And about the WW II wreck, how the U.K. govt. never did something about it ?? Were they waiting until the thing just blows up ??

They haven't even cleaned up all the WW I wrecks (German fleet scuttled itself there) at Scapa Flow up in Scotland. So many ships were sunk in both the wars that even seemingly high priority ones like this haven't been cleaned up (for whatever reason.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 16):
Just demolish the villages of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington and built the third runway, there's no need for an island airport.

Easy enough - unless its your town, or if your the one paying to relocate everyone. Hey - on a five hundred year timeline building a massive new airport in the London area makes a whole hell of a lot of sense, however starting to get that project going will be a terrible chore. Almost like trying to build the pyramids with a few of your buddies....
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamim Franklin
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:42 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 12):
Many new airports have opened at rather distant locations compared to the former primary airport. HKG, KUL, MUC, CDG, DEN, NRT, BKK are several that come to mind

One of the issues is where the new airport was built. Not all those listed are at rather distant locations compared to the former primary airport.

Consider CDG. It replaced LBG as a commercial airline airport. It was not built on the other side of Paris. It was built only six miles down the railway line from Gare du Nord. A Thames Estuary airport would be 10 to13 times further from LHR. It would also be on the diametricaly opposite side of London. Similarly Stapleton International Airport bordered Adams County. The replacement Denver International Airport is located not far away in Adams County.

Another issue is whether or not the new replaced the old airport. NRT is around half the distance from HND that LHR would be from any Thames Estuary airport. However HND is still a large airport today. Kuala Lumpur International Airport did not replace Subang Airport. Subang, now named Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport is still operatiional. The same applies to Suvarnabhumi Airport. It did not replace Don Mueang . Don Mueang is still open and Thai Air Asia moves its operations there on 1 October.

There was really no alternative but to replace Kai Tak. It was a single-runway airport almost in downtown Kowloon and on the edge of Victoria Bay just across from Hong Kong island. And Chep Lap Kok is less than 20 miles away only a third to a quarter the distance between LHR and any Thames Estuary airport

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Would it need to be closed?

No. But its closure is implicit in the thread title that uses the words "Replace LHR". However if LHR were to stay open it might be difficult to persuade BA to move,. The large BA HQ is at Harmondsworth just off-airport. BA own a very large maintenance area at the east end of LHR. So they pay no rent nor fees for aircraft parked there and rent out spare ramp space to the likes of SA. They have costly cargo handling facilities on the south side of the airport. I am not sure of the ownership of the ex-BD maintenabce facility. But if it is now owned rather then rented or leased by BA it further increases BA's investment in LHR.

So BA could be reluctant to move. If they were to stay how many other operators would also want to stay? It might be a case of deja-vu.

The terminal at Stansted was designed by Foster Associates who are the driving force behind the "Boris Island" proposal. The terminal was opened in 1991. But no airline was interested in moving from LHR to STN despite financial incentives from BAA.

The British media christened the terminal Europe's largest white elephant. BAA tried to get airlines to move at least some flights from LHR to STN using a stick, not a carrot. The US airlines led by AA threatened BAA with legal action. BAA retreated. They were saved by FR's new CEO, Michael O'Leary. He seized the opportunity and did a deal with BAA that equalled if not exceeded the deal he was to do with Boeing almost ten years later. That earlier deal acted as the springboard for FR's growth.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
Which workers? The airport skilled workers are paid well enough to move.

Exactly. If all the skilled, well paid workers moved from the Heathrow area to the Thames Estuary leaving the unskilled, relatively poorly paid workers behind and with much reduced work opportunities, what would be the likely impact on the local economy?
 
Oykie
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:26 am

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 27):
I really don't see why a new LHR should be open 24/7, but maybe I'm missing something?

Look at Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha. They enjoy European airports night ban and slot restricted airport. It is strange that Europeans does not see what should be obvious.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 29):
Exactly. If all the skilled, well paid workers moved from the Heathrow area to the Thames Estuary leaving the unskilled, relatively poorly paid workers behind and with much reduced work opportunities, what would be the likely impact on the local economy?

As others have said, a new airport is needed if London wants to continue to be relevant. The world city - London needs to stay relevant. You do need to see the larger picture than someone having to move. Moving the airport will not be a disadvantage for the British economy. It is the other way around. A new airport will increase the total number of jobs. A huge area like LHR would also ease houe pricing because there are few places to build in London. So this would be good for everyone as more jobs are added. Yes, someone might loose their current job, but if there is a net gain in total number of jobs, I am sure it will be beneficial for all.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
divemaster08
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:45 pm

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:31 am

This is the big discussion that we always see here nearly on a yearly basis.

LHR is indeed in need of an expansion, along with LGW. With the surrounding districts being the main stopping force, its not looking good.

However, IF the city of London is to make this new airport, it needed to start construction 10 years ago!

I am not just talking about the airport and the land, but all the infrastructure needs to be there from the first opening. High speed trains that connect to London, and the rest of the UK (if required through another London station but preferably not as most of the big stations for north traffic are on the wrong side of London for this). This alone will take many years to make this happen also. Roads will need to link up again to this new airport and be able to take the surge in demand.

Here is my major thing though that I believe is the major issue......

If they are to make this, then I would have to say you need to shut down LGW and LHR and merge them together at this one airport (which makes this new airport then have to be HUGE!). If one can stay open, it wont work as then that would be considered bias to one of the major companies that runs the airports. If they allow LHR and LGW to remain, then the point of this new airport wont work.
Low cost carriers will probably not want to move to this new airport also as the costs of running there will be higher (i think) and then they wont fly into there, and go to either Stansted of Luton (not really a big deal, but the folks in the south will complain!), but then they will require expansion...... and they also have problems doing that!

Its going to be a political nightmare if you ask me.

TBH, if I was incharge, i would say yes to expansion at LHR and LGW, sorry folks but economy gotta turn and it would be a rough 10 years of so (with probably me being sacked for causing this!) but its what is required!
New decent paths and holding patterns could be created to move traffic away from certain runway operations and make it seem like the airport is trying to be a friendly neighbour (also keep a night ban and reduce traffic levels after a certain period).
My dream, is to fly, over the rainbow, so high!
 
AR385
Posts: 6935
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:53 am

Well, I thought that the idea of acquiring IB was to essentially acquire MAD. Wouldn´t that and a third runway at LHR pretty much take a lot of the urgency to build that estuary airpot for at least a few years?

[Edited 2012-08-22 01:00:26]
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2192
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:55 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Why can't those people be moved? We're not talking about moving them to Germany. We're talking about 20 miles, right? Why can't they commute or move? When HKG-CLK was closed, it didn't lead to economic devastation. Nor did closing the old Osaka airport and replacing it with the new one.

It's not so easy as Boris island will be just the airport and not all of the other assoiciated airport development and part of the reason for putting a new airport in the sea is that a huge part of the counytyside isn't concreted over but if you're goign to do the same for workers houses that rather spoils it!

My feeling is that the eggs have already been broken for the locations of the current airports so one of these has to be done:

Massively expand LGW and build a direct high-speed rail link (I know that the new runway can't open until 2019 but that's not that long away)

Or as suggested by someone else on here, buy up RAF Northholt when it closes and build a new town to replace the houses lost when Sipson etc is buldozed to make room for R3 and North Terminal at LHR

But whatever you do GET ON WITHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
charliecossie
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 5:17 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:04 am

I wonder how many have actually looked at a map of the proposed location for Boris Island?
There's absolutely nothing there. It isn't just the building of an airport (on an imaginary island) but also the infrastructure required for about 200,000 people to live in the area.
For this plan to be workable, Heathrow **must** be closed (and probably Gatwick too) so the airport alone would be a massive construction project. When you add in everything else that would be required for all the people that would have to move there, it's mind boggling.

The bureaucracy that was required prior to building Heathrow T5 took more than ten years. That for Boris Island is unimaginable.
 
DrColenzo
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:26 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:17 am

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 16):

Just demolish the villages of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington and built the third runway, there's no need for an island airport.

I agree with that 100%; these are barely villages in the nice old English sense but rather large and ugly post 1945 housing estates.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 9):
On 13 April 2012, Richard Deakin, the head of National Air Traffic Services, commented that "the very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here". He continued "we're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat"

Sums up my view of architects; I just look at a aeronautical chart and a quick scan of the sites that provide live radar footage show that the Thames Estuary is a busy area. Maybe that would change somewhat with the proposed closure of LHR, but looking at this I am seeing a lot of traffic for other UK airports and a fair bit for AMS, too.

In my view, 1500 tonnes of HE and the currently poor transport links aside (I hate travelling 'south of the river' and avoid it on principle) the whole Boris Island/Thames Estuary Airport project is only superficially a good idea and when the side effects are taken into account, the whole project takes on a vastly complex and expensive character.

My 10 cents worth? It is a proposal to please NIMBY Conservative voters living in South West London and nothing more.
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:07 am

I think balancing traffic between LHR and other London area airports (STN is one of them) is a much more viable solution over building a new airport and shrinking/shutting down LHR. What needs to be built in this scenario is a network of fast, reliable and frequent terminal-to-terminal rail links between all these airports (and central London as well), so that changing hub or having to use an alternate airport is not an issue anymore. Not cheap and not without urban planning issues, but probably a lot cheaper and less impacting than a new airport at sea (or on land), and less devastating for the local businesses (ie hotels) existing owing to the presence of LHR and other airports.
Also, there is no reason why LHR is traditionally the 'business' hub and all others the 'leisure' and LCC hubs, except for the reason that it has always been so... meaning that this could change, if properly thought ahead.
When I doubt... go running!
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10711
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:27 am

Quoting charliecossie (Reply 34):
For this plan to be workable, Heathrow **must** be closed (and probably Gatwick too) so the airport alone would be a massive construction project.

That's simply not the case and closing Gatwick too wouldn't work. Say you build a hub capable of handling 150mppa to facilitate growth and new flights. By closing LHR and LGW you are just delaying the problem of overcapacity recurring because, even if it opened tomorrow, at current levels of passenger growth, the new airport would be at capacity again 5-6 years from opening.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 29):
No. But its closure is implicit in the thread title that uses the words "Replace LHR". However if LHR were to stay open it might be difficult to persuade BA to move,. The large BA HQ is at Harmondsworth just off-airport. BA own a very large maintenance area at the east end of LHR. So they pay no rent nor fees for aircraft parked there and rent out spare ramp space to the likes of SA. They have costly cargo handling facilities on the south side of the airport. I am not sure of the ownership of the ex-BD maintenabce facility. But if it is now owned rather then rented or leased by BA it further increases BA's investment in LHR.

My understanding is that much of the maintenance would stay - presumably for this reason.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4885
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:38 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
Which workers? The airport skilled workers are paid well enough to move.

They can't just up sticks and move. To do so they will need to sell their house, and who is going to buy it? There will be thousands of houses coming on the market in the area, with no job prospects for anyone who chooses to move there. The house prices will crash and the market will grind to a halt. The only way anyone will be able to move is if the government steps in and buys out all the homeowners. This alone will cost hundreds of millions, and will turn the local area into a council estate.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 10):
If you develop urban projects ( there are so many options, you can have from big Malls to high quality/luxury buildings for living or offices ), you can give a whole new life to the place. In situations like this you have the advantage of making a plan picking the best options for that specific location, and develop the projects from the very beginning, before the terrain is even available ( something that is not always possible, there are many examples of "inorganic growth" in many cities around the world ).


All of this takes time. Only once all flights to LHR have been moved can you begin to redevelop the land. This will take years to demolish all the terminals, rip up the runways and taxiways and construct any kind of shopping mall or office complex. What are all the former airport workers going to do in the years it is going to take to build these new facilities?

And you cannot just build malls or office complexes and expect them to be a success, there has to be a demand to fill them. London is relatively well served by shopping facilities, is there enough demand for a new one?
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:00 am

Personally I think it's time to have a new LHR based on an island. How much longer can we have aircraft flying over central London in a critical stage of flight (remember the BA 777 with no engines running).

We also need an airport that can operate around the clock which we can't allow LHR to do as it would affect too many people below the flight path.

In terms of employment we closed down mines and steel works where the jobs just disappeared, in this scenario the jobs lost at LHR will reappear in Essex or Kent. Companies will have cheaper rentals too the other side of London. The airport can be as big as it likes.

The only drawback I see is that BAA will probably charge £56 one way on their trains.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:14 am

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 38):
They can't just up sticks and move. To do so they will need to sell their house, and who is going to buy it? There will be thousands of houses coming on the market in the area, with no job prospects for anyone who chooses to move there. The house prices will crash and the market will grind to a halt. The only way anyone will be able to move is if the government steps in and buys out all the homeowners. This alone will cost hundreds of millions, and will turn the local area into a council estate.

There is a major housing shortage in London and it is not like all residents near LHR actually works at the airport. People will still want to live in London even with the airport gone.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
charliecossie
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 5:17 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:33 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 37):
That's simply not the case and closing Gatwick too wouldn't work.

That *is* the case. If Heathrow is not closed no airline will move. Keith and Willie have already said that BA will not move to Fantasy Island unless Heathrow is closed.
If BA don't move, no one will move.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 37):
My understanding is that much of the maintenance would stay - presumably for this reason.

BA carry out only line, casualty and minor maintenance at Heathrow.
Line must move, obviously. (Daily check, weekly check, defect rectification, etc)
Casualty must move, obviously. (Casualty, for example, would be something like jacking a plane to change seals on an undercarriage oleo.) Casualty needs a hangar.
Do you think BA will ferry loads of Jumbos, Triples and Busses to Heathrow just to carry out an A chk? I don't think so.
A and C checks need a hangar.
 
art
Posts: 3380
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:34 am

Thinking long term (20 years ahead) LHR would need 4 runways to cope with a 100% increase in traffic. Adding 1 extra runway at LHR would be a temporary fix. It seems more sensible to build a new airport somewhere where 4 runways can be built. If the only place near London where it is feasible to have 4 runways is an island east of London, build an island. If more runways were needed further down the line (25, 50, 75 years after opening the airport), that would be relatively easy to do by extending the island, if necessary.

What would happen to LHR? I don't see why it can't be kept open to handle P2P traffic (tourist flights etc). Keeping LHR open would preserve many jobs and avoid the need to expand the capacity of LGW, STN and LTN as traffic grew over the decades.

I wonder if there has been any consideration of Wisley. It was used as an airfield by Vickers (later part of BAC), is located within a mile of both the M25 London orbital motorway and the main A3 road into SW London and is surrounded almost entirely by farmland and woods so development would not involve the demolition of hundreds of houses.

[Edited 2012-08-22 03:43:08]
 
User avatar
BasilFawlty
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:23 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:48 am

Quoting oykie (Reply 30):
Look at Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha. They enjoy European airports night ban and slot restricted airport. It is strange that Europeans does not see what should be obvious.

Yes, but in that part of the world they don't care about the neighbours and the environment. This is Europe, where neighbours have rights and where there are strict rules when it comes to noise, pollution, etc... 24/7 does not work in Europe.  
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
 
Gingersnap
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:09 pm

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:27 am

Quoting charliecossie (Reply 41):
That *is* the case. If Heathrow is not closed no airline will move. Keith and Willie have already said that BA will not move to Fantasy Island unless Heathrow is closed.
If BA don't move, no one will move.

BA wouldn't move to the shiny new airport with the best facilities? If they say so.

Then it does make sense because if everyone else moves, then BA could have LHR to themselves.
Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W B788 C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:02 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
The wreck is an issue. One that will have to be addressed soon due to the hull cracking. Soon as in within the next 15 years.



So long before any decision on a new airport is taken..

Quoting VV701 (Reply 7):
Another absolutely huge issue is the economic depression that closing LHR would create.



Could you explain more what depression a closure of LHR would create. I could see a few structural problems and ground transportation issues, a few thousand people moving from West London to East London - the economic growth due to the giant investments and long term more efficient airport would be large compared to what gets lost at Heathrow, only averaging over the London area.
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:19 pm

Quoting charliecossie (Reply 34):
I wonder how many have actually looked at a map of the proposed location for Boris Island?
There's absolutely nothing there. It isn't just the building of an airport (on an imaginary island) but also the infrastructure required for about 200,000 people to live in the area.
For this plan to be workable, Heathrow **must** be closed (and probably Gatwick too) so the airport alone would be a massive construction project. When you add in everything else that would be required for all the people that would have to move there, it's mind boggling.

The bureaucracy that was required prior to building Heathrow T5 took more than ten years. That for Boris Island is unimaginable.

I did, ( I have a good big Map in my wall )...Yes it's mind boggling. It requires, like I said in my OP, a HUGE effort. But is not impossible. There were nothing in Chek Lap Kok, and today there is one of the biggest airports of the world. There were no highway, bridges and railway either, and all of that was build. And was build running against the clock ( the project was planned to be finished before the return of Hong Kong to China ). IIRC, the HKG project cost was around USD 20.000.000.000, and took 7 years of hard work, but the economy of Hong Kong couldn't survive without it. There is no way Kai Tak could stand with the traffic volumes that CLK handles today. LHR could be facing similar challenges in the future. An airport in open sea gives you the chance of start with 4 runways if you want, and like others said, you can have 6, or 8 runways if you need them in 50 years.

Quoting babybus (Reply 39):
The airport can be as big as it likes.

  
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
Oykie
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:35 pm

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 43):
Yes, but in that part of the world they don't care about the neighbours and the environment. This is Europe, where neighbours have rights and where there are strict rules when it comes to noise, pollution, etc... 24/7 does not work in Europe

We (Europeans) are envrionmental friendly as long as we can afford it... And we keep on getting poorer. There is a reason why the Middle Eastern countries owns a larger part of London properties including buying airport stocks. I think that the pendulum is swinging and not in favor of the environment. Either way, nature always wins in the end....  
Quoting art (Reply 42):
Thinking long term (20 years ahead) LHR would need 4 runways to cope with a 100% increase in traffic. Adding 1 extra runway at LHR would be a temporary fix. It seems more sensible to build a new airport somewhere where 4 runways can be built. If the only place near London where it is feasible to have 4 runways is an island east of London, build an island. If more runways were needed further down the line (25, 50, 75 years after opening the airport), that would be relatively easy to do by extending the island, if necessary.

I agree. A third runway at LHR is just a stop gap. It will not be a permanent solution for London for the next 20-75 years. Unless London is not the City with capital C in the world any more.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10711
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:38 pm

Quoting charliecossie (Reply 41):
Do you think BA will ferry loads of Jumbos, Triples and Busses to Heathrow just to carry out an A chk? I don't think so.

BA are short on maintenance facilities for their future fleet and would be even shorter for an expanded fleet at a new airport - they were looking to create a further base (in Wales IIRC) a short while ago. So yes I can imagine light checks would take place at the new airport but, as I say, the maintenance facilities would apparently stay open at LHR. It doesn't take much imagination to see what the strategy would be.

Quoting charliecossie (Reply 41):
If Heathrow is not closed no airline will move. Keith and Willie have already said that BA will not move to Fantasy Island unless Heathrow is closed.
If BA don't move, no one will move.

Heathrow, as it is, would be closed in such a scenario and a vastly smaller operation would remain. Now I can imagine enforcing that and making operators move would be difficult to plan, but there are ways and it's not unfeasible.

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 44):
BA wouldn't move to the shiny new airport with the best facilities? If they say so.

Exactly. The purchase of bmi and its slots will satisfy growth and new routes for now, but then what?


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10263
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR?

Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:42 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 29):
One of the issues is where the new airport was built. Not all those listed are at rather distant locations compared to the former primary airport.

If London has the space within a few miles of the existing LHR then the same can be done, if they do not, then you have two choices, continue on as is, or build a new airport as close as possible. If they are having difficulty now using land in close proximity to the existing airport to add an additional runway I do not think it is possible for them to get land in close proximity to build a whole new airport. The physical situation is different, so LHR cannot be compared to the other locations which had vacant property available, on decide to reclaim land from the sea.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 29):
However if LHR were to stay open it might be difficult to persuade BA to move,.

So let BA and her alliance partners stay, everyone else would move to the new airport. If traffic really is growing it would be a win win for everyone, the airlines, the government, tax payor and pax.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 29):
Exactly. If all the skilled, well paid workers moved from the Heathrow area to the Thames Estuary leaving the unskilled, relatively poorly paid workers behind and with much reduced work opportunities, what would be the likely impact on the local economy?

Which local economy, London in general since new jobs will be created elsewhere in the city as construction commences, if LHR is not closed additional skilled and unskilled workers will be required at the new location once completed.
Who should be asking this question, the individual worker, the government, the airlines, the citizens in London, the UK at large?

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 38):
They can't just up sticks and move. To do so they will need to sell their house, and who is going to buy it? There will be thousands of houses coming on the market in the area, with no job prospects for anyone who chooses to move there.

Interesting thought process, thousands of homes will be needed in the area of the new airport, if the government then buys the homes of the folks at the old location, do they also pay to build the thousands of homes needed in the new area?
Does the government then factor the cost of purchase and building and decide that it is too expensive and thus decline to approve the building of the new airport even if privately financed?
What about persons in the area of London now that is being proposed who are not doing well and are not connected to LHR, does the government also have an obligation to them to provide job options, one of which can be construction of the new airport.
How does a government balance the economic viability of projects if they compete with each other, is the answer to limit competition to the betterment of the folks currently employed over the creation of new job options for others?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos