[BigDog.]

Again who is WE – ? Who are you to limit discussion to your agenda – I look forward to the forum no longer being a one person playground.

[AllOverTheGaff]

BigDog. – 18/06/2013 08:47 GMT
Again who is WE – ? Who are you to limit discussion to your agenda – I look forward to the forum no longer being a one person playground.

+1

S-S-D-D.
Rgds.
AOTG.

[canucklad]

I’m afraid this thread is a perfect analogy of the mess that is the UK’s aviation policy, or not as the case may be….

Lot’s of doing the talk and talk and talk, and about as much walk as a parliament full of Jabba the huts

[transtraxman]

Just a few points to keep in mind.

1 – An estuary airport is a non-starter. It is too expensive and in the wrong place. Also the findings of the commissions of enquiry 40 years ago still stand up. Bird migration patterns and bad weather plus other known obstacles have not changed in that time.

2 – a new greenfield site for an airport is a non-starter. It is too much to ask to concrete over the green belt when so much is already concreted over with airports.

3 – that means there are four possibilities for expansion: Heathrow; Gatwick, Stansted and Luton. Anywhere else is off the map. Birmingham cannot expand and if you decide for East Midlands why not Luton?

4 – More than one hub is possible. Look at Paris (CGD and Orly) and New York (JFK, Newark and La Guardia).

5 – London´s airports are international and local. It is much more convenient to travel from Gatwick if you live in Hastings, while to get to Cambridge from abroad Stansted is the most convenient. Also look how Southend is developing. So closure is no option.

6 – From where do passengers want to fly?From where do airlines want to fly? I call this concept “supply and demand”. Persuasion is the only way to transfer travel patterns from one area to another. I remember that in the 1970s the government wanted to make better use of the underused Gatwick (spreading the load) by making all the foreign airlines move there who flatly refused screaming discrimination – this was a time when all BA´s routes were joint ventures with its foreign competitors – the same as the JVs over the North Atlantic today.

7 – closing Heathrow is no option after investing so much in its infrastructure over recent years. Extending the present two runways westwards towards the M25 could reduce some inconvenience over West London. A third runway is essential if only for safety/operational reasons – considering that LHR closed for some hours over the aircraft whose cowlings blew open. That was an incident which showed how fragile the operation is at LHR.

8 – Gatwick is a successful airport which needs a second runway for the same reasons as mentioned about LHR, and that is not considering increasing passenger movements.

9 – Stansted and Luton need to be looked at together, but as the potential for 4 (or more runways). STN has lots of room in the area but needs much better land connections North and West as well as to London. However, STN has lots of Nimbys in the area. Luton has much better connections both North and South into London. Its nimbys are fewer since the expanded airport would provide very welcome employment for the area. The terrain is more more challenging for development but certainly not so much as the quicksands of the Thames estuary, and certainly within the capabilities of the engineers and constructors. One of the two airports, depending on which is developed, would have to close or at least have its activity maintained at a low level so as not to interfere with the operations at the other as the main hub.

10 – public transport must be a priority in the development of any airport together with its connectivity with other airports and other points e.g. Central London, Reading etc. Strong dissuasory measures must be taken against the use of the car which is noisy, heavily polluting, the causeiof traffic jams and in most cases (in this context) completely unnecessary.

11 – Protection of the environment and the individual will come about by improved airframe and engine mechanics (the A350 on last Friday´s maiden flight proved to be surprisingly less noisy than expected), eliminating stacking by more runway capacity, by restricting certain aircraft types over built up areas and by restricting the total movements available so we do not reach saturation point as at present at LHR.

-My conclusions are that LHR should get its third runway and sixth terminal under strict conditions.
-Gatwick should get its second runway and make that the limit.
-A fast rail line should run from Reading through LHR and Gatwick to Ashford and the Channel tunnel. This could provide the possibilities of HS connections from the West, South Wales and Birmingham to the airports where passengers to Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Frankfurt (and places between)can travel thus dampening down demand for flights to/from those cities. This line would avoid London so not clog up the city as other proposals suggest.
-Luton should be promoted as an alternative hub expanding to four runways and improving its land links, especially to the WCML and the ECML.

Solutions are always possible but by looking at the whole picture and exercising some lateral thinking.

[VintageKrug]

And once Gatwick’s new runway (with which we are in agreement) and Heathrow’s extra short runway, closed six hours per day, fill up, what will you propose to add capacity then?

[BigDog.]

Become more informed – SUGAR and Empannage for starters – helps avoid posting nonsense.

[transtraxman]

VK

It helps that you read to the bottom of a post. You should not try to manipulate what other posters say. I have never said anything about an extra short runway at LHR, just a runway capable of accepting the largest aircraft likely to land at LHR in case of emergency, though not for regular use.

All this you know as you try to parry comments that are uncomfortable for you.

Six hours closure is no issue for a runway. Are you trying to say that the good people of Sheerness or Southend would not be bothered by aircraft movements at 04.00hrs. over the waters of the estuary? -of course they would because sounds carry much more over water, and at night, so the bother would be greater.

As I said the capacity issue is solved by expanding Luton, as well as LHR and LGW. Do not try to manipulate my comments.

[SimonS1]

It will be interesting to see how it all pans out – maybe the tube line to Boris Island will be sponsored by Emirates, just like the ‘Air Line’?

[Agrumble]

Heathrow Airport serves more than just the greater London area, it is the only major airport in the country and many of the 60 million people who do not live in or near London have enough difficulty reaching this major gateway to the world. Talk of moving it east to the Thames estuary will serve Londoners, perhaps, but 52 million of us would prefer better links to Heathrow where it is. As it stands now, the only train link is via Heathrow Express from Paddington. Very insular.

[TerryMcManus24]

Heathrow Connect is also a Train line out of Paddington and a lot cheaper that the gold plated express.

Big advantage of an estuary Airport is that it could also connect up with the Euro-Tunnel-Star Express Services and soon to br included Germanys DB .

With a little bit of Imagination our wonderfull powers that be (excuse me while I laff) could easily build a joined up connection of interlinked rail lines (sound mega complicated …) and with a little bit of …sorry laffing again a NEW UK 1 International Worldclass Airport could be accessed from not only the whole of the UK but also the EU…millions and millions of more passengers and …
O yes much more trade…..

but we dont want that …do we?

[BigDog.]

HAL (Heathrow Airport Operators) are lobbying to have the recently introduced airport charge cap cancelled as they fear that potential investors in a 3rd runway would not see a return, thus preventing the expansion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10141619/Cutting-Heathrow-charges-would-be-bad-for-passengers-and-bad-for-the-UK.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10141649/Funding-for-new-Heathrow-runways-under-threat-says-chief-Colin-Matthews.html

…chancing ones arm springs to mind.

[BigDog.]

As a sop to the nimbys, Heathrow is suggesting that if a 3rd runway is built it would rule out a 4th for 25 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10178297/Heathrow-to-rule-out-fourth-runway-until-2040.html

Methinks additional runways at LHR, LGW (after 2019) and probably STN will be included in the final report especially as point-2-point traffic appears to be growing, providing a reasonable alternative to the hub and spoke approach.

A scheme on the outer Thames Estuary, which has been dubbed “Boris island” after it gained early support from the Mayor is still being touted. Boris’s second choice is an expanded STN.

[LuganoPirate]

Phew. 30 pages. Is this a record?

Now the government looks to be ruling out HS2, could part
of this money now be used for Runway 3?

[transtraxman]

From BBC News today, 17th July´13.
“Heathrow to hand third runway plan to Davies Commission”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23337754

This to add to Boris Johnson´s comments on 15th July,
“Airport capacity: Boris Johnson announces three proposals”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23314264

This on the BBC but also other media.

[canucklad]

On Radio 5 live, the ex head of BAA (no less) came out against the 3rd runway option……

His preferred choice being an airport where landings and take-odds happened over water….

And then went onto say how difficult it would be to build anywhere due to environmental issues….

And LP, I predict this will move onto 40 pages : ))

A perfect metaphor for this governments transport policy……talk the talk without the walk the walk !!
Friday’s relatively minor incident proves that we can’t keep dithering
: (( !!

[Author]

Posts