Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

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

Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:42 pm

There needs to be a solid case for it; ie overcrowding at LHR, no room for expansion at LGW LTN and STN.

Otherwise it's another crazy idea with no hope of even getting to planning stage....
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
starrymarkb
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:19 pm

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

Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:30 pm

Something else to bear in mind is that Heathrow is well positioned for road access from much of the UK. Boris Island isn't anywhere near as convenient. You'd be looking at an extra hour's drive around the M25 (on a good day, which is rare) in order to access it. By public transport you'd have to go into central london, tube to another rail terminal to catch a train to the airport.
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1260
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

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

Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:43 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 50):
no room for expansion at LGW LTN and STN.

There is lots of room for expansion at Stansted, in fact a few years ago there were plans for a new terminal and to eventually have four runways there. That would also affect a lot less nimbys than a third runway at LHR.

Why this isn't still the best option for expansion I don't know, although Mr RYR objected to funding a new Terminal with his landing fees. Maybe the new owners of STN will be more motivated...

[Edited 2012-08-22 07:55:36]
 
jumpjets
Posts: 1465
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:17 pm

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

Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:53 pm

The pros and cons of Boris Island v heathrow expansion have been very eloquently outlined in this thread.

What is needed is serious long term transport planning by government, not just short term fixes driven as much by political capital as by the needs of UK plc.

I would like to see a multi-party transport commission set up that produces a long term strategy that would be best for Britain as a whole and which would be accepted by all the main political parties as a blue print for the future. I know this is easy to type but virtually impossible to achieve - but if long term planning doesn't get to the top of the political agenda pretty soon we may as well just blow up the boat in the Thames estuary, flood central London and tun out the lights at Heathrow.

PS I live on top of a hill so I'll be all right jack when the flood comes.
 
DrColenzo
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:26 am

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

Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:04 pm

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 53):
PS I live on top of a hill so I'll be all right jack when the flood comes.


I live in the Cambridgeshire Fens.

Oh Crap. 
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:17 pm

Boris' job is to promote London (and himself) so of course he wants billions £££ spent in the already rich part of the UK (Europe actually).
UK Plc is over a Trilliuon 3 - yes thats no typo.Our debt even as a ration to population is worse than Greece.It is our soverign pound (rather than a Euro) that saves us right now - Oh and the promise to the financial world that we will cut or borrowing requirement. Which we are failing to do right now.

This is a Boris fantacy island. There is not the money (even if it were necessary). We don't even have the money to start a new house building programme (The fastest way to restart an economy) our house building starts are at an all time low. Bit councils have been told that they must sell off their most expensive properties to then have the money to build new ones.
It's not a question of debating whether this is morally good or bad - It just shows how little money (none actually) there is.

Heathrow may be close to full capacity. (but not with twin landing / take off operations on both runways note). But the fact is that none of the other airports such as Gatwick or Stanstead are even in their present form.

Of course every airline would 'like' to be at Heathrow.So what.Heathrow needs to be our international hub - and only that. A luxury product if you like. Everything else should go to the other airports - whether they want to or not. That should free up some space!!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:45 pm

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 52):
There is lots of room for expansion at Stansted, in fact a few years ago there were plans for a new terminal and to eventually have four runways there.

Memory is a bit off right now, but one of them either Stanstead or Gatwick has some legal agreement which prevents expansion for set period of time, other can confirm.

Quoting parapente (Reply 55):
Heathrow may be close to full capacity. (but not with twin landing / take off operations on both runways note). But the fact is that none of the other airports such as Gatwick or Stanstead are even in their present form.

Operations wise, but if LHR is already loosing traffic to the continent because other's cannot enter and or expand, improving operations is not even a band aid fix.
Slots are the bigger issue and getting viable time frames for them, having the most expensive slots in the world is certainely a feather in one's cap, but in the long run...........
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1260
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

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

Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:52 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 56):
Memory is a bit off right now, but one of them either Stanstead or Gatwick has some legal agreement which prevents expansion for set period of time, other can confirm.

Its Gatwick that isn't allowed another runway until 2019, although GIP recently said in their plans that they weren't interested in another runway until at least 2030, which is strange.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

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

Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:55 pm

Quoting starrymarkb (Reply 51):
Something else to bear in mind is that Heathrow is well positioned for road access from much of the UK. Boris Island isn't anywhere near as convenient. You'd be looking at an extra hour's drive around the M25 (on a good day, which is rare) in order to access it. By public transport you'd have to go into central london, tube to another rail terminal to catch a train to the airport.

I suggest you read about the Thames Hub. It is much more than just the Boris Island. As the name suggest it is a new HUB for infrastructure. The airport is just a small part. At the moment the Thames Hub project includes linking the railways around London that is already crowded. As for roads the Thames Hub project has plans for everything connecting. Even ships, Internet and Power supply. The project is estimated to deliver a 150 billion pound benefit. The benefit-cost ratio is more than 3 to 1.

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

http://www.halcrow.com/thames-hub/

Quoting parapente (Reply 55):
This is a Boris fantacy island. There

Maybe, but the Thames Hub is a very serious project!!!
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
flyingcello
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:31 pm

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

Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:08 pm

Quoting oykie (Reply 58):
Maybe, but the Thames Hub is a very serious project!!!

I'm not sure it is. If it was serious, they might have taken the time to align the runways for the prevailing winds. Or spoken to NATS about the potential arrival and departure routes.

However, I do believe that this was a study, designed to stimulate the debate about future provision of airport capacity in the UK. Given that airports in the UK are now privately owned, there is little in the way of co-ordinated expansion. BAA (owners of LHR) have no incentive to support a new airport, and now that they no longer own LGW, and are being forced to sell STN, there is no benefit for them in rationalising sites either.

I do believe that LHR will get R3, as there is no other practical alternative in the short to medium term. I suspect that the government are using the forthcoming transport review as the mechanism to agree to R3 despite their promises that it wouldn't happen. If the (independent) review suggests it is necessary, then Cameron can agree to it, while claiming he never wanted it.

Beyond that, without a coherent long term policy, UK plc will continue to develop capacity in a piecemeal fashion, all the while losing ground to CDG, AMS etc. There is a very strong argument for the infrastructure to remain in public ownership, thus allowing an integrated strategy for development; leave the competitive element to the airlines.
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:56 am

Quoting oykie (Reply 58):

Maybe, but the Thames Hub is a very serious project!!!

Before World War 2 there was a proposal to build a new London Airport in the North Downs overlooking the Darenth Valley near Lullingstone in Kent. This was a very serious project to the extent that a railway station to serve the airport was actually built on the Holborn Viaduct to Sevenoaks line immediately south of the tunnel through the Downs between the current stations of Swanley Junction and Eynsford. The airport was never built and the station was never opened. It simply rotted away.

I bought my current home in the late 1960s. It is in northwest Hertfordshire around 10 miles south of Wing, the location for the then proposed new London (Cublington / Wing) airport in north Buckinghamshire.

This Wing/Cublington airport was a very serious project. I obtained (before purchasing my home) various detailed maps of the proposed development. These include detailed noise contour maps for the two parallel virtually due east-west runways. They also included general infrastructure maps. They showed the proposed new rail link between the airport and London. It was located to the west of the current West Coast line out of Euston. It followed a very similar line to the current proposed HS2 route. These maps also showed two new motorways from the proposed airport to the then still unbuilt section of the M25 between Kings Langley and St Albans. But the whole project was abandoned primarily on environmental grounds. .

The Cublington / Wing proposal was followed by something more substantial than another very serious proposal. This time the project was actually approved. In October 1973 Royal Assent was given to the Parliamentary Bill, the Maplin Development Bill. This decreed that a Thames Hub be built on Maplin Sands on the north side of the Thames Estuary just off Foulness Island near Southend in Essex. The airport and an adjoining deep water harbour for container ships was to be linked to London Liverpool Street by a new high speed railway line. The approval also included a large conurbation in the Rochford area to house the workers that the airport would require. The following year, 1974, the whole project was abandoned and the Maplin Development Authority, charged with implementing the proposal, was disbanded. The given reason was the escalation in the price of crude oil from its historic level of around US $5 a barrel up to around US $40 a barrel. But there was a military consideration - Maplin Sands was and still is a military testing range, And there were the usual environmental objections.

There was then a long interval with no new proposals. At last in the late 1990s we began to see a procession of new proposal, all very similar. The first of these was to build a new airport in the Thames Estuary near the Isle of Sheppey in north Kent . Again it was a serious proposal with a company, Thames Estuary Airport Company Ltd, formed to supervise its development. In 2001 the proposal was abandoned on the grounds of cost.

It was in 2002 that the British government identified Cliffe on the Hooe Peninsula, again on the Kent (south) side of the Thames Estuary as a possible site for a four or five runway airport . There were to be two pairs of parallel runways and the possibility of an angled fifth runway. This fifth runway was to be aligned so that the approach from either end was not over any built up areas. Hence it coulld be used, unlike the parallel runways, without a nighttime curfew. In 2003 the proposal was abandoned. Again the reason given was the high cost.

Shiverring Sands, the first "Boris Island" located off the Kent coast slightly east of north from Whitstable was proposed as the next location for a estuary airport in 2008. Although a feasibility study that found in favour of the development was carried out, this proposal seemed to fade away.

The current "Boris Island Mark 2" proposal, the Thames Hub Mark 2 had many similarities to the Maplin Sands Thames Hub proposal that was approved in the first half of the 1970s. It also includes an integrated land, sea and air transport, hub. It is located further west and nearer London at the Isle of Grain. Again it is off the north Kent coast,

What are the chances of the current proposal being approved and built. Forgive my scepticism but if the simple airport proposals for the Isle of Sheppey and and Cliffe were abandoned for high cost reasons during periods of economic boom, what real chanced does the current much larger Thames Hub proposal have during an economic slump. My view - for what it is worth - is that there are two possible practical outcomes. The first and I think the most likely is that, like Lullingstone, Cublington. Maplin Sands, Isle of Sheppy, Cliffe and Shivering Sands, it will go so far and then be abandoned until the next proposal. The second (less likely) is that the politicians will say and do nothing before publishing their manifestos for the next General Election. Then the Labour Party will include a promise to build a third LHR runway as, in an about face, will the Conservative Party, But the Liberal Democrats will promise not to build it. If Labour or Conservative win a majority then I think there would be a 50:50 chance of the third runway going ahead. But if we have a coalition government then there would be no chance for another five years,

Forgive my scepticism. But with six different proposals over the last 45 years with five abandoned, two on the basis of cost, what real chance is there of a new airport being built in ther current economic climate.
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:58 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 60):
Forgive my scepticism. But with six different proposals over the last 45 years with five abandoned, two on the basis of cost, what real chance is there of a new airport being built in ther current economic climate.

Very informative and interesting post, thank you for taking the time to write it, and share your very valuable insight with us.

Rgds.

G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
YVRLTN
Posts: 2344
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:49 pm

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:07 am

Quoting oykie (Reply 58):
the Thames Hub project includes linking the railways around London

Oh joy, imagine another few million people trying to get through Clapham Junction & Waterloo.

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 33):

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

That was me   I still think it is a great idea, its not going to be cheap, but cheaper than Boris Island.

How about a 4th runway north / south between the King George reservoir and the M25 and a small terminal to the west of Stanwell? My memory of the area is a bit hazy, I guess Stanwell Moor is in the way, but an impossible idea?
Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19727
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:05 am

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 27):
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.

But not at the main hub where the high potential connecting traffic. Far more routes would be economical at night if London had its major hub 24/7. I've theorized for a long time that lack of European hub expansion, in particular night operations, helped seed the growth of the mid-east hubs.

Demand will be met somewhere. IAD, CLT, DXB... or a London Airport. Premium customers want to sleep while they fly long haul. If that is a late departure, that is their preference. Or perhaps it is a late arrival allows for better sleep from the departure point. If the option is there, it will be used.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 29):
what would be the likely impact on the local economy?

I think the local economy is robust enough. Here is the catch... A split hub doesn't work. Do you care about the local or the London economy? I think we'll see enough people sell over a long enough period of time that the market disturbance would be small. LHR has phenomenal ground transportation links. People living near it would have zero issue finding transportation to work elsewhere. Besides, a new airport takes a long time to build. There would be plenty of warning.

Besides, there are far more homes near LHR than required to support the airport or the businesses the airport supports. Isn't it now a major suburb of London?

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
teme82
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:38 am

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:51 am

If I recall correctly the Thames Hub if built will have issues with AMS in terms of holding patterns and routing of out going traffic and incoming one. So do UK want to increase the traffic chaos in EU sky?

[EDIT] Here's the link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...spot-says-UK-air-traffic-boss.html

[Edited 2012-08-23 01:56:54]
Flying high and low
 
GDB
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:07 am

It's perhaps worth remembering that this whole 'Boris Island' idea is about politics, as in Boris Johnson's bid to stay London Mayor, which he did, but it was much closer in the election earlier this year than expected.
Boris needed to keep those who voted for him in outer London suburbs, many of whom have this odd idea that if you choose to live near/on the flightpath of one of the world's busiest international airports, you show somehow not be bothered by aircraft.
Not to mention, as stated, that LHR is basically the economic life support for their part of town.

So Johnson has his anti LHR stance, however he has to propose an alternative.
(Which to be fair is a slight improvement on the current government's stance).

We've been here before, a whole new airport out east of London was found to be a non starter 40 years ago. There were, are, major economic, environmental and safety concerns.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:22 am

Re Reply 64 above.

This is correct.It will 'clash' with AMS. The papers today suggest that the Conservatives will propose a second runway at either Gatwick or Stanstead in their next manifesto.But as previously stated split hubs don't work either.

In the end the sheer logic of a 3rd short runway at Heathrow will probably prevail.

But perhaps someone in Gov't will be able to think out of the box a little (not likley).

At the moment they are talking about wasting multi billions on a high speed railway to Birmingham that nobody wants or even needs. And Boris is talking about wasting another set of multi billions on an airport in the wrong place.

None of which even addresses the issue of increasing over dependance on London.

Now if one was to put a brand new airport somewhere between Milton Keynes and Northampton and run a high speed line into London (30 mins) you might be getting somewhere.

Such an airport would not only work for London it would also serve the whole of the midlands (our largest population center).It could also link to the M1/M6/M45 even A1M.

The high speed line to London could also link in with existing rail links to Birmingham /Leeds etc so it would actually get used for a range of traffic destinations.

As for the North. Simple. Just expand Manchester. That sounds a far better way to spend your multi billions - if you have to. At least it would offer a proper co ordinated long term UK infrastructural set of benefits.

Oh but it's not just about London - so it won't happen. (PS I am a Londoner)
 
DrColenzo
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:26 am

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:31 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 65):
Boris needed to keep those who voted for him in outer London suburbs, many of whom have this odd idea that if you choose to live near/on the flightpath of one of the world's busiest international airports, you show somehow not be bothered by aircraft.

Spot on, this is more about politics than actual need. There have been numerous Thames Gateway type transport projects over the years that have led to nought and I think this one is more concerned with placating Tory voters alongside the sedate western end of the Thames as well as those in Essex and Kent that would fall for these quixotic schemes.

Quoting GDB (Reply 65):
We've been here before, a whole new airport out east of London was found to be a non starter 40 years ago. There were, are, major economic, environmental and safety concerns.

Again, look at this from an economic geography point of view and ask: where are the customers? In short, take a map, a piece of string measure out 150 kms to scale and draw a circle around Heathrow. Then look at places like the M4 and M3 corridors, the research arch between Cambridge and Oxford, the M40 corridor and all the business. That is not to say that Essex and Kent are not as economically active, but by closing an airport like Heathrow and building another one to the east in the Thames Estuary would not just require money to building and airport, it would require a colossal spend to increase the transport links to link the area to the frontline UK economy in the south-south west-north west, north and north eastern arch around London.

Two words, Narita and Mirabel. I love the former and feel sad for the latter, but whilst Narita has been slowly evolving, the boondoggle that is Mirabel Airport never had a chance because of poor transport links to a very remote location in comparison to the populace it was supposed to serve.

A Thames Gateway airport may be cool and I love the concept, but the economic consequences in terms of cost and dislocation will be so very high and detrimental to the UK, I sincerely hope it never gets built.
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:47 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 66):
Now if one was to put a brand new airport somewhere between Milton Keynes and Northampton and run a high speed line into London (30 mins) you might be getting somewhere.

More deja-yu.

Check out this earlier reference to the late 60s proposal for a Wing / Cubblington sirport:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 60):
This Wing/Cublington airport was a very serious project. I obtained (before purchasing my home) various detailed maps of the proposed development. These include detailed noise contour maps for the two parallel virtually due east-west runways. They also included general infrastructure maps. They showed the proposed new rail link between the airport and London. It was located to the west of the current West Coast line out of Euston. It followed a very similar line to the current proposed HS2 route. These maps also showed two new motorways from the proposed airport to the then still unbuilt section of the M25 between Kings Langley and St Albans. But the whole project was abandoned primarily on environmental grounds. .

Wing is located only a dozen miles from Milton Keynes but due south and not to the north in the direction of Nothampton.

Effectively this proposal was more than looked at over 40 years ago. It was rejected on environmental grounds. But so what? Have we not since had no fewer than five different proposals all located in the Thames Estuary with the last four somewhere along the north Kent coast? And what goes around comes around! Further a change (from the Thames Estuary proposals) is as good as a rest.
 
DrColenzo
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:26 am

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:35 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 68):
Now if one was to put a brand new airport somewhere between Milton Keynes and Northampton and run a high speed line into London (30 mins) you might be getting somewhere.

What about RAF Alconbury? The airbase is right beside the East Coast mainline, which can go a lot faster than is currently allowed (signally), there is space on the site for at least two more runways and it is away from any major conurbations vis a vis noise issues. Crikey, the residents put up with the noise of F4s and F5s for quite a few years, a nice turbofan airliner must be a relief after all that!

I err towards a Berlin Brandenburg type solution here, perhaps that would make more sense?
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:59 pm

VV701. Sorry I missed that! Nor was I aware that such a proposal ever existed. Well I fully understand the resistance from any local community.On that basis though nothing will ever be built other than in the middle of a river where there are no voters!

However Wing/Cublington would at least serve the whole of the midlands as well as london (and links to the North) - and indeed require a high speed railway that could be used in many ways. But if the objections are too strong for this then , as I say, they will be too strong for any proposal. All are in the 'home counties' all Tory strongholds.As such we will have to wait for Labour to get back into power. Which will be 7 years at the earliest.

As such we better make sure that Heathrow does the best job it can in the intervening many years!

At a rough count there are 90 (yes 90) airlines that fly in and out of Heathrow. May I suggest that this number is reduced to 60? Then you will have the slots needed.Looking at the names on that list I don't thing that Heathrow's ability to 'Hub' would be impacted that much.

Just offer these airlines incentives that are too good to turn down.It would be far far cheaper than a new 'super hub' airport!

If we took Gatwick for instance (a perfectly fine airport that is having a fair few bob spent on it at the moment).
The connectivity by rail to London is fine. And interestingly if the 'Air track lite' project goes ahead (Boris has backed it). Then there would be Heathrow connectivity via Clapham Junction if required.

OK not optimal - but at least the 2 airports would be connected.

Stanstead is also a perfectly fine airport IMHO.

So lets send the second tier airlines to either/both of these airports.
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:13 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 70):
At a rough count there are 90 (yes 90) airlines that fly in and out of Heathrow.

And will be 91 if LAN starts flights from South America after the arrival of the 787 fleet... At least this is a route mentioned in several threads in this site and other places re LA new destinations whit the 787...

Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
slinky09
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:03 pm

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:29 pm

I couldn't agree more that a long term and this time an 'actionable' air transport policy is required for SE England ... what the last two governments have or have not done it's just got silly. In my view that means:

1. Allowing dual runway use at LHR now to lesson delays (and add 'green' impact) and add some small and controlled capacity increase.
2. Plan and build R3 at LHR - which I understand requires little to no public money because BAA will invest.
3. Keep LGW and STN as is to mollify some people.
4. And yes, plan for the longer term including evaluating an estuary airport, just don't let that stop acting now. Although like many I agree the case for an airport on sea is very poor:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 7):
Because of these economic realities I believe that eventually - but no time soon - a third runway will be built at LHR.

For this and your other posts, thank you, completely agree.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 11):
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.

As we agreed in the last long thread on this ... the cost of an estuary airport = buy it + build it + link it + close LHR and compensate all the airlines + social security for all those left behind + business cost (ever wonder whether proximity to Heathrow was a reason Glaxo Smithkline built their worldwide HQ west of London) etc. I mean, if a high speed rail link to Birmingham is going to cost £20bn that's just one link to an estuary airport, now do that math!

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.

As I hear, with sensible voices like Mr Osbourne saying say, while that useless transport secretary dithers on even a consultation. Oh dear.

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. The cities survived quite well.

I'd have to check, but most of those replaced another airport that was closed down I think, see above on closing Heathrow.
 
GDB
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

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

Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:48 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 70):
As such we will have to wait for Labour to get back into power. Which will be 7 years at the earliest.

I would not be too sure of that, the Coalition were banking on two things, that the economy would be recovering nicely by now, that Cameron would get his MP reduction/Boundary Changes through. Forget the first, 'austerity' until at least 2017 and some 80% of cuts still to come. The second now looks unlikely, since even the Lib Dems can only be dumped on so many tines by the Tories until they retaliate, since those changes would hit them more than Labour, they'll almost certainly block them.

My own view is that the half of the Lib Dems who are more centre left than Clegg and his crew, or just those who survive the next election, will form a Coalition with a minority Labour government.
They'll not like it, but they'd likely accept a 3rd LHR runway. Not that it would be a major part of any agreement.

But both major parties are guilty of vacillation and delay on airports, ironically that the last Labour one (Andrew Adonis), broke that mould, was regarded by officials in the Ministry as the best Transport Secretary for decades, was prepared to stand up to and even extract from, The Treasury.
Recently, a senior Treasury Civil Servant, when asked about his biggest achievement in his long career, reckoned that it was delaying Crossrail for 20 years , was disappointed that he could not kill it.

That is what Adonis was up against.
Not much use having someone like that at the end of a government's life though.

Quoting parapente (Reply 70):
As such we better make sure that Heathrow does the best job it can in the intervening many years!

At a rough count there are 90 (yes 90) airlines that fly in and out of Heathrow. May I suggest that this number is reduced to 60? Then you will have the slots needed.Looking at the names on that list I don't thing that Heathrow's ability to 'Hub' would be impacted that much.

Just offer these airlines incentives that are too good to turn down.It would be far far cheaper than a new 'super hub' airport!

If we took Gatwick for instance (a perfectly fine airport that is having a fair few bob spent on it at the moment).
The connectivity by rail to London is fine. And interestingly if the 'Air track lite' project goes ahead (Boris has backed it). Then there would be Heathrow connectivity via Clapham Junction if required.

OK not optimal - but at least the 2 airports would be connected.

I could not agree more, it's so blindly obvious isn't it?
But then, the NIMBY's who'd not like this are wealthy, connected, they vote, they have the spare time to campaign too.
 
StanleyJ
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:05 am

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

Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:26 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):

Of course, with the new airport at Chep Lap Kok, it wasn't just a massive new island for the airport. Aside from infrastructure (roads and railways), they basically converted the sleepy fishing village of Tung Chung into a new town, current population ~80,000, and has a target population of 250,000. That's as big (population wise) as Nottingham, Wolverhampton of Stoke-on-Trent! Said new town was to provide housing for airport workers, though in reality, because of the hyper-efficient metro/bus services, a commute from any other part of Hong Kong is basically a non-issue. Plus the fact airport workers have travel expense subsidies.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:15 am

Thinking about it a little more we can see exactly why nothing has happened and nothing will.VV701 pointed out that the obvious and by far the best solution was (perhaps unsuprisingly) decided upon over 40 years ago.'Wing/Cublington airport'. This spot clearly sorts everything out in one go London- Midlands and high speed connectivity.

So what happened? The usual. NIMBY pressure. Remember this is the South where all the Conservative voters live.So Edward Heath came up with a plan to build it where nobody lived.Maplin on the Thames estuary. Of course it was stupid and of course it never happened.

Then it was Margret Thatcher's turn.She looked at the next obvious solution then. Twin runways for Gatwick and some connectivity to Heathrow. OK not as good as Wing/Cublington airport but a good second best. What happened? NIMBY/Conservative voters! Not only did they win, they secured an act of parliament that nothing would be/could be built until 2019!!

Then the third solution a third runway at Heathrow. Once again an election, once again a tory heartland once again an idea is not just dropped or reconsidered it is buried. Why buried? To ensure you are believed and keep your votes!

They say, Oh we can now reconsider twin runways at Gatwick - why? Has it become a Labour stronghold in the last 40 years? I don't think so! So not a chance in hell of it happening.

This can only be sorted by Labour as they are free of 'voter interest'. BTW I am not a labour supporter I am just looking at the hard facts.

So my question is.

What would it take to move 20-30 second tier airlines out of Heathrow. Indeed what is the legal position? This question is one of serious economic national interest.London is the countries lifeblood. Can a gov't 'force' airlines to move? I imagine this would be difficult. If not then how to 'persuade' them.

What if the gov't offered to pay for their landing/TO fees for 5 years? Plus they keep the money for selling their Heathrow slots? Would that do it? The cost would be peanuts compared to the alternatives.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

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

Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:38 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 48):
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.

The trend these days, even for major carriers, is to outsource heavy maintenance to cheaper parts of the world to cut costs.
 
charliecossie
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 5:17 am

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

Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:57 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 76):
The trend these days, even for major carriers, is to outsource heavy maintenance to cheaper parts of the world to cut costs.

Yes, that would be Wales and Scotland in BA's case.
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

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

Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:11 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 75):
So my question is.

What would it take to move 20-30 second tier airlines out of Heathrow. Indeed what is the legal position? This question is one of serious economic national interest.London is the countries lifeblood. Can a gov't 'force' airlines to move? I imagine this would be difficult. If not then how to 'persuade' them.

What if the gov't offered to pay for their landing/TO fees for 5 years? Plus they keep the money for selling their Heathrow slots? Would that do it? The cost would be peanuts compared to the alternatives.

I think that one of the factors to take into account when the cost calculation is made should be the future impact on the economy with an airport not capable to deal with the demand ( both passenger and cargo ). I'm aware that the impact of the airport in the city of Hong Kong compared with London are not the same ( re trading and financial aspects ), but I insist in this example because could be a good analogy, only with a different scale. I found a little strange that the politicians in the UK, and the experts working in the government, are not ( apparently ) looking at the future impact that a situation like this could have. Obviously the adverse financial situation in the present days could inhibit the intention of any announcement, but the general consensus seems to be that LHR, third runway or not, will be overwhelmed by the traffic in the mid term, and the consequences for the economy of the city/country can be very bad....
Innovative ideas are desperately needed to solve this problem, and soon. The man/woman that came up with a solution for this problem could gain an important support in the long term and develop a solid base for being a relevant candidate for political positions, even a PM if he/she can show to the voters how important was the ( new ) airport in the economic stability.

Rgds.

G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
art
Posts: 3365
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

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

Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:29 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 75):
What would it take to move 20-30 second tier airlines out of Heathrow. Indeed what is the legal position? This question is one of serious economic national interest.London is the countries lifeblood. Can a gov't 'force' airlines to move? I imagine this would be difficult. If not then how to 'persuade' them.

What if the gov't offered to pay for their landing/TO fees for 5 years? Plus they keep the money for selling their Heathrow slots? Would that do it? The cost would be peanuts compared to the alternatives.

Good ideas, particularly because there is a capacity crisis at LHR now, so something needs to be done quickly. Even if a 3rd runway were sanctioned today it would be several years before it came into operation so some kind of interim action would be required.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 78):
Obviously the adverse financial situation in the present days could inhibit the intention of any announcement, but the general consensus seems to be that LHR, third runway or not, will be overwhelmed by the traffic in the mid term, and the consequences for the economy of the city/country can be very bad....

Like you the problem I see with building 1 more runway at LHR is that LHR would likely reach full capacity again (possibly within 10 years of the runway being built). For that reason I think a new airport capable of accomodating at least 4 runways should be built to serve London. It would make more sense financially to me, too: why spend £billions on an existing hub when you know you will need to spend £billions again on a new hub not so far into the future?
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

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

Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:19 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 75):
What would it take to move 20-30 second tier airlines out of Heathrow. Indeed what is the legal position?

Under EU regulations airlines with slots at slot controlled airports own the grandfather rights to those slots. Effectively they are therefore owned by the airlines and, indeed, may be sold by those airlines (unless there are specific restrictions preventing this as is the case on the LHR-BOS and LHR-MIA slots surrendered by AA/BA as part of the deal that granted AA/BA/IB North Atlantisc ATI).

If new or returned slots become available at a slot controlled airport, EU competition regulations require that applications for those slots by newcomers be given preference over applications from airlines already operating from that airport.

So the answer to the question on the legal situation is that such a programme would likely be a breach of EU Competition Law.

Quoting charliecossie (Reply 77):
Yes, that would be Wales and Scotland in BA's case.

This is fair comment.

However BA have recently had major maintenance procedures carried out on ex-BD 320s in Sofia (by Lufthansa Technik). It seems likely that this maintenance was part of the deal under which IAG bought BD from Lufthansa Group.

BA also ferried 744 G-BYGA to Singapore for heavy maintenance by Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Co, Singapore on 27 May. It was returned from HAECO to LHR on 7 July. However HAECO carried out the maintenance on this aircraft because BAMC (British Airways Maintenance Cardiff where most twin-aqisle aircraft maintenance and refurbishment is carried out) had insufficient engineering capacity.

One ex-BD 320, G-MIDS, is currently at Iberia Engineering at MAD. I think it may return to LHR as the first ex-BD 320 in BA livery

However in addition to theirpermanent UK engineering bases at Heathrow, Gatwick, Cardiff, Glasgow and Castle Donnington, BA have also leased the ex Polar Airways hangar at Prestwick where engineers from BAMG are currently carrying out inspection and maintenance work on the wings of the entire BA Airbus fleet. Two aircraft at a time have been rotated through this facility virtually continuously since last autumn. Currently these two aircraft are b oth 319s, G-EUOB and 'OC.

Who is online

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