[Henkel.Trocken]

High Wycombe, such a sensible suggestion, the land is so flat around there. Planes would be able to go up and down without leaving the runway.

Boris Island is the only place to build the airport. Let’s get on with it.

[BeckyBoop]

Thanks Henkel, didnt know that. What do you think about Reading or Birmingham then?

[RichHI1]

Wherever the long term solution for 2032+ is, we need more capacity now. We cannot put this off for 20 – 30 years waiting for perfection.

[SBTadvice]

Is there an Elephant in the Room? The only solution which will be quickest and cheapest is a Berlin Brandenburg at LGW . The airport has loads of land and the infastructure is sort of already in place . We completely rebuild the airport with 4 runways and modern efficent terminals . Heathrow is closed . Rail link to Reading upgraded, new motorway to Reading built partly using X Heathrow Land , providing access from the West. Links to Central London upgraded as well . So Simple . The lucky people in vast country estates will just have to move !

[ScottWilson]

There are three major London airports that can be expanded:

– Stansted. Plenty of room, rural locale. Will be some local opposition, but hardly going to be serious. Problem is that it is running at less than 60% capacity now. Has good highway links and rail could improve with Crossrail (and new trains already being rolled out). Not a hub but if built (and after BAA sells it), it could incentivise a shift of LCCs from Gatwick, so buying some capacity there until…

– Gatwick post 2019. Plenty of room and although there will be local opposition, it offers a good chance for BA to build a second hub. Already seeing Korean, Lufthansa and Air China fly there. Good rail links, but road access lousy for anywhere not adjacent to the M25. Will take years to build second runway here, but it can be a Heathrow alternative for leisure oriented routes.

– Heathrow. There is no political appetite to take this on in this term, but maybe the next term there is. Cameron has decided to take on NIMBY Tory MPs for HS2, the question is whether he will do so for Heathrow. The case for a third runway is clear, the question is whether the government can argue it as being half for reliability and half for extra slots.

Heathrow has the road and rail links. Crossrail is part justified by connecting Heathrow to the City and Canary Wharf.

Boris Island and any other Thames airport concepts are flights of fancy simply because of money. Unless a case can be made to make money from the property released by closing Heathrow (and to tax the gains from those no longer living under a flightpath), it will remain fanciful.

The Conservatives can u-turn over Heathrow, but hand the Lib Dems the issue on a plate for the election. Otherwise, the u-turn can be for Stansted and Gatwick, which would look like aviation is being treated positively, but which doesn’t address the real issue – Heathrow is the only hub.

[BusinessTraveller]

We’ve just added a poll on London airport expansion here:

http://www.businesstraveller.com/polls/What-is-your-preferred-solution-to-London-s-airport-congestion

[RichHI1]

Thanks BT for poll.

I wish people could separate long term perfection to the short term crisis which aviation in the UK faces. Assuming that the economy improves in the UK then the air traffic will rebound to higher levels and at present LHR is already over capacity as is LGW. It seems criminal that short term electoral advantage has been prioritized above the UK economy.

[Bucksnet]

It is criminal Rich, and none of the 3 main parties will ever put the UK first.

[RichHI1]

Thames Estuary gets Wildlife Haven Status

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-17229988

Anyone who watched the US Air Airbus land in the Hudson knows what to expect if Boris Island goes ahead.

[Bucksnet]

So far around 2 thirds of those voting in the poll prefer the return of 3 runways at Heathrow. Shame there were not more options though.

[RichHI1]

The difference being these would be three runways that could be operated concurrently whereas the original runway layout at LHR had intersecting runways which prevented a high level of concurrent operation.

[Bucksnet]

Heathrow could still handle more flights than it does now.

[RichHI1]

Absolutely. I am just concerned that people may not understand why the other runways were dropped. I vote for 2 more urnways stright away. Put the A4 in a tunnel and build 1 runway right on top. PIA tried to land there anyway. And then Bulldoze Sipson as soon as possible.

[LeTigre]

I visit/pass through Sipson several times a week, as I have done for years and years and think that it is certainly in need of demolishing. It has become a ghost town and no-one can build anything without thinking it’ll be concreted over, so no improvements. But actually having said that, there is a far better location for a runway, if you don’t it being at the East end of the other runways.

Hatton Cross! Hatton Cross facilities should be relocated to Sipson to allow for a North-South runway. While it would effectively be at one end of the other runways, the perimeter distance to the other runways could be maintained and the runway would lie on top of the current Hatton Cross (just relocate the tube station slightly and the location would be perfect for a terminal station) as well as fields either side to the North and South rather than houses. This would minimise noise because planes only overfly a small part of London that is affluent and therefore less densely populated. While a bit messy, it would create a configuration rather like Schiphol or Frankfurt. Planes would not risk collision by have the runway lengthened in one direction in particular, not equidistant either side of the existing airport.

Heathrow is never realistically going to be a four runway airport, LHR needs 3 runways, LGW 2, STN 2, LTN 2 and LCY a longer one.

A north/south runway would maintain safety, add significant capacity and provide a noise effective if slightly costly option, mainly due to relocation of hangars, car parks, warehouses, etc, though the people relocating will be the ones benefiting from expansion so there shouldn’t be much objection.

It’ll never happen though…

[LPPSKrisflyer]

Wouldn’t a north/south runway result in a huge number of cross wind landings. Living close by (but not close enough to be affected by any runway developement!) the prevailing winds are in the main westerly with occasional easterlies. Northerlies or southerlies are rare.

[Author]

Posts