[RichHI1]

It would be interesting to see a map of the UK showing passenger flights by residence. There is a lot of talk about access from different places but I do not know if the demand statistics have ever been gathered.
Building an airport in the Thames Estuary would be a tiny part of the challenge. With the exception of 3-4 trunk roads running in and out from the M25 the roads in Essex and Kent cannot cope now. The extra road traffic for passengers, freight and operations would require road building on a scale we have not seen since the sixties. Further, bringing the roads over or under the Thames would add expense. The UK is in austerity mode and toll roads to airports have dubious trak record as people avoid them. In an era when so much is being cut I cannot see road building on this scale going ahead. Investing in infrastructure in a recession is more Keynesian, more akin to Obama’s policies or FDR’s new deal rather than the politics of the current chancellor.

[Bucksnet]

If the Airport Junction station north of LHR was re-opened, and all trains stopped there, then connections could be made there saving half an hour or more.

I cannot see why LHR has to be closed. If the new airport opens, some airlines could choose to move there, and then LHR would be a lot less congested than it is now. Oh yes I can see why after all, it’s just not viable unless you force airlines to move. Why not close Gatwick as well? There would be more than enough capacity after all.

[RichHI1]

One world at LHR, sky team at LGW and Star Alliance in the thames? 🙂

[BeckyBoop]

WW is all for 3rd runway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9325936/UK-government-is-damaging-aviation-industry-warns-BA-boss-Willie-Walsh.html#

[VintageKrug]

To quote a particularly apt phrase “he would say that wouldn’t he”.

WW is for additional capacity in the South East, and with BA having invested millions in T5, LHR more generally and also having a significant proportion of slots, BA’s dominance relies on LHR.

BA also has a significant value in its accounts placed on its LHR slot portfolio (valued in the billions).

The minute a new airport is put into use, that leverage is lost.

As a shareholder, I’d be disappointed if Willie took anything other than a pro R3 position.

But you need to understand the motivations which sit behind that view in order to understand why he is taking that position.

R3 is still a sticking plaster which does nothing to solve the strategic need for more longhaul capable, 24 hour runway capacity in the South East, and nor does it identify scope for expansion beyond that interim measure.

The key is in the name. Thames HUB means all the infrastructure required for a HUB will be built.

When LHR was first built, there was no M1, no M25 and the M4 was still the A4 and there were no flyovers into London; the tube didn’t go there and the Heathrow Express was only started in the 1990s IIRC.

The point is, over the next quarter century it’s entirely possible that all that infrastructure could be built, just as has been the case at LHR.

And LHR would make an excellent site for overflow from London for business and residential use, with fast trains making the additional journey time immaterial.

[SimonS1]

One reason for going along with the hub idea is it would be a great stimulus for the economy in the current environment.

Unfortunately though the reality in this country these days is that we are incapable of managing big projects like this within a sensible timescale. Planning, public enquiries, finding the money, green lobby, environmentalists, archaeologists, construction, changes of Govt, the inevitable cost overruns etc all come into play before you even get into other questions like who runs it (I certainly wouldn’t have Calamity Colin and his crew anywhere near a new facility).

You only have to look at how long T5 took – 20 years from the start of plans until opening, including 4 years for the longest public enquiry in history. So it would be a bit fanciful to expect anything to be operational this side of 2040.

There are plenty of other examples, Crossrail has been talked about for decades, and at the last count Thameslink 2000 looked as if it might finally limp over the line in 2018.

So I would say a Plan B would definitely be in order….

[TimFitzgeraldTC]

Transtaxman – liked your blog. Not sure if all those routes would be flown (without subsidy) but certainly interesting. Like I mentioned earlier if LHR is to be the future (the pint of this thread?) then the conversation will need to quickly move onto R4.

Also, why do runways have to be so far apart? Other countries seem to have parallel runways much closer together. I’m no safety expert – but what margins are being built in here. How close are runways in the rest of Europe – let alone the rest of the world?

[Bucksnet]

VK, why would anything be lost the minute a new airport is put into use? LHR will always be the preferred choice of a lot of people.

Tim, runways in the US can be a lot closer together, as I have explained before, and still used simultaneously. Just look at EWR and SFO.

[VintageKrug]

SimonS1.

One word. Olympics.

LHR is a dead horse; to continue flogging it isn’t going to do the next generation of business travellers any favours.

[ScottWilson]

It isn’t outside the bounds of possibility that the government would:
– Agree to a third runway at LHR to relieve congestion and stacking only, new slots only for aircraft that meet specific emission/noise thresholds (e.g. 787/A350/A380).
– Agree to a second runway at Gatwick to open post 2019 for competition.
– Full investigation into Thames Estuary/Boris Island etc. options for a new long term airport, with the intention that it completely replace Heathrow, which would be closed and the land used for housing to recover part of the cost of relocation. Timing for opening 2030.

Not that I’m advocating this, just that it might get around the politics by saying the third runway at Heathrow is environmental.

[VintageKrug]

I think second runways at Stansted (asap) and Gatwick (after 2019) would be hard to argue against.

I’d be VERY surprised if a Third Runway at LHR is given a green light.

Then there’s a big push to use technology and other restrictions on some flights to make bettere use of existing assets at LHR.

Finally, a thorough enquiry into Thames Hub would be helpful, but we all know that will only result in procrastination. So I’d hope for more positive news on that front.

Otherwise the UK is stuck with two runways at Gatwick, two at Stansted and two at Heathrow – and that would pretty much be it for the next half century; surely that can’t be the right solution?

[TerryMcManus24]

Find that I am in TOTAL agreement with VK…

[SimonS1]

VK – not sure what the relevance of the Olympics is? If you mean it was built quickly I think there is a big difference between something that will bring a feel good factor to the country/provide sports facilities for years to come and an airport which is generally seen as bad news with pollution, noise etc.

[canucklad]

1976 Olympics built Mirabel at Montreal and plunged Canada into years of debate about cost, long term viability and low and behold eventually customers and airlines abandonded the white elephant and are now back at square one. Square one being Dorval. Be careful what you wish for VK ! It is time that the government stopped procastinating though! And being totally selfish I will probably just use Schipol as my transit hub. BA”s loss I’m afraid !

[Bucksnet]

Probably one of the reasons why they want to close LHR down, as the new airport would not be viable without a reduction elsewhere.

[Author]

Posts