A New Airport in the Thames Estuary

Back to Forum
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 58 total)

  • Airpocket
    Participant

    I would have no problem with Les Bleues running the transport links. As for the Americans…haven’t any of you seen Airplane or Airplane II??!! Do you really want them in charge of anything?:o)


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    Seems that 90% of airlines are against it:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8545118.stm

    If anyone is still reading, having clicked on the above link and been navigated away from the BT site via its very own in house developed software….

    What is not mentioned in the “oh so impartial BBC” report is that several airlines quasi-monopolistic presence at LHR on certain routes, and have massive resources sunk into serving that hub, as well as supporting their various alliance partners

    To support a move, not knowing the fate of LHR, and not knowing how good the infrastructure supporting such an airport, would be commercial suicide.

    Probably also a dig at Boris, just for the hell of it. My the Trots are scared.


    FCTraveller
    Participant

    Well of course, the last thing airlines operating at Heathrow want to see is a level playing field.


    ScottWilson
    Participant

    The start of this thread uses language that I think has some misnomers.

    “We” are not pouring any money into a third runway at Heathrow. BAA is. This isn’t like rail, where taxpayers pick up much of the tab, Heathrow is not subsidised.

    If an entrepreneur wants to build a brand new airport, charge landing fees to pay for it, and attract airlines from Heathrow (which could only be done if it is permanently capacity constrained), good luck to it. However, it also should pay for rail and road links.

    The British taxpayer is hardly in a position to fund this sort of thing, which of course would be a massive transfer of wealth to property owners in West London (given Heathrow has been there for some decades, and aircraft have become more frequent but less noisy it would seem rather unfair).

    “Boris Island” sounds like a great idea, but that’s all it is. The private sector wont pay for it, the debt ladened government hardly should, so that leaves it a great idea and nothing else. Of course had previous governments not spent small fortunes on grandstanding like the Olympics or running near perpetual budget deficits since 1945 then it might be a bit different.


    FCTraveller
    Participant

    “We”, the travelling public will by paying for a third runway in the form of increased landing fees passed on to passengers and airport fees.


    transtraxman
    Participant

    The possibility of building an airport in the Thames Estuary was looked at nearly 40 years ago – Maplin Sands – and rejected at a public enquiry. I do not see how the adverse weather conditions and wildlife habitats will have changed substantially in that time.


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    But projected travel volumes, environmental impact of LHR, risk of a crash over central London, the shift East of the Financial Centre, regeneration of the East End post STratford Olympics, man-made island technology and the potential for high speed rail have all changed since the 1960s.

    The original evaluation is outdated and revisiting its conclusions in light of the above and other factors certainly has merit, if only to determine what the real impacts and benefits really are in current times.


    FCTraveller
    Participant

    And I suspect that the very same people opposing a third runway at LHR would also be against closing Heathrow.


    NTarrant
    Participant

    Part of the problem with an airport in the Thames would be the additional travelling most users would have to endure and creating the need to travel through London. Those of us that live on the south coast have no direct rail link to LHR, what chance an airport in the Thames.


    ScottWilson
    Participant

    Actually I think many of those opposing a 3rd runway at Heathrow are anti-aviation, anti-economic growth and part of the radical environmentalist movement that treats aviation with road transport and electricity generation from fossil fuels as evil.

    It is certainly worthwhile doing a full assessment of the costs and benefits, but the bottom line is there will need to be more capacity at a UK hub


    transtraxman
    Participant

    Without a doubt there is a need for new runways in the South East.

    Apart from Maplin Sands, Stansted was also looked at as a third London airport and was rejected. It would be interesting to look at the relevant report and compare the traffic predictions for 2008-10 with the actual figures. I do not remember the principal reasons for rejection but some are possibly still valid. It should be pointed out, however, that Stansted has indeed been expanded much more than was probably anticipated – very much by stealth.

    Of course, when the public enquiries were held for Maplin Sands and Stansted Mayor Boris was still in his cot so will not remember the enquiries.Any repetition of those enquiries would be wasteful, time consuming and expensive. I insist, though, that meteorological (fog and winds etc.) and wild life habitats (destroying them or causing increases in bird strikes) are still very much valid arguments against the Maplin madness.

    Initially, until proven otherwise, I would be in favour of permitting Stansted, Gatwick and Luton to expand to two parallel runways. This would provide runway capacity which should be sufficient to cover any crisis – such as accidents. Runway closure due to weather I think is a question for the airlines which are reluctant to end up with aircraft “out-of-place”. That can be solved if the airlines (or their alliances) have infrastructure at more than one airport but it is something which cannot be legislated.


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    Interestingly, it is a little known fact that Gatwick is already a two runway airport.

    The problem is they are too close together to permit concurrent operations (the second runway is used as a taxiway).

    LAX recently moved its runway 20 metres; when you fly out of LGW you can see there is plenty of land to the south of the existing main runway for this expansion to take place; with far less impact than at LHR.

    I don’t buy the inaccessibility argument about a THames Estuary; Jubilee line would be just as good as Piccadilly is to LHR, a fast MagLev style underground train from the West of London and the City would parallel the Heathrow Express.

    Close LHR and use the land for a mixed housing retail/office development and ease pressure on Central London.


    NTarrant
    Participant

    LHR is accessable from four points of the compass, by road at least but lacks rail access from the west and south. Thames Estuary would only have access from three points of the compass. Most of these will require travel via London. Even if there is a MagLev style train from London it still requires people to travel to London.

    LHR and LGW are the best placed airports with relatively easy access, LGW being better connected by rail than LHR. Not everyone lives in London. It is a non-starter really as the wildlife aspect will stop it.


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    I thought CrossRail would stop all the issues with having to stop at a London terminus?

    Slap a whopping great artificial island off Kent and be done with it. The birds will soon learn to avoid the planes unless they fancy becoming instant KFC.


    NTarrant
    Participant

    I think you are missing the point VK. Those of us living in the SWT and Southern areas would have to travel to London Waterloo or Victoria when we don’t have to now, despite there being no direct rail link, there is the coach via Woking to LHR.

    You are right about the aims of Crossrail but it was not designed to serve an airport in Kent. Don’t under estimate the power of the bird lobby, they only have to visit the place at Christmas and it becomes protected. The birds that is, not the lobby!

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 58 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Business Traveller March 2024 edition
Business Traveller March 2024 edition
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls