[Anonymous]

[Bucksnet]

This makes more sense in some ways than eastern options as it’s better located for passenger demand: –

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ios-exclusive-secret-plan-for-fourrunway-airport-west-of-heathrow-8100772.html

http://news.sky.com/story/979774/secret-plans-for-london-west-airport

[Binman62]

Will need to see more details but I think I have more chance of winning a multi week Euro Millions rollover than this idea taking off……no pun intended. There are simply too many people living west of Heathrow and even my NIMBY hackles were raised by this idea.

The Thames Estuary or something similar offering quick access not just to Londown but to Main cities of Engalnd Scotland and Wales is the way forward. It need to be Abel to operate 24/7 and actually be open 24/7….. Including places to eat and drink unlike LHR which claims to operate around the clock but actually closes at 11pm.

An approach and take off route over water and sparsely populated area is the only way forward.

[Bucksnet]

How is an airport in the far south east corner of England going to have quick access to other main cities in England, let alone Scotland and Wales?

[NTarrant]

This idea has more relevance than Boris Island and is most sensible. The connectativity to other parts of the UK are easy and cheaper to install than Boris Island will ever be.

Even Boris Island won’t be able to operate 24/7 as there will be take off and landing over London

[canucklad]

The reason why LHR is so popular is the reasonable closeness to the city.once you start moving further afield any new airport risks isolating itself ( mirabel being a prime example) especially if LHR is allowed to stay open!

Whatever happens, we had better get a move on before the horse bolts across the channel

[VintageKrug]

An utterly ridiculous, completely barmy proposition.

[AnthonyDunn]

Well, it looks like April Fool’s Day is over-running this year. This idea is such palpable nonsense, the chances of this getting past legions of Tory shire MPs corralling their NIMBY constituents into a Daily Express fuelled spat of self-righteous indignation is the square root of zero.

[LHREXPANSION2012]

How about 4 runways built over the M25, and existing terminals retained?

This suggestion is from a serious political think-tank:

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima…%20quieter.pdf

[AnthonyDunn]

@ LHREXPANSION2012 – 05/10/2012 15:19 GMT

This URL will permit access to the PDF download.

As this paper is written by someone I have known for quite a long time, I should declare this interest.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/bigger-and-quieter-the-right-answer-for-aviation

[LHREXPANSION2012]

Cheers Ant. It’s worth a read though, even if it’s way off the mark. Imagine the taxi times from a westerly landing back to T2C! but the most important part of the document is the detailed facts about the importance of Heathrow and its location. After reading this im now confident that a Thames estuary airport is a complete non-starter even though i was warming to the idea.Its never going to happen, ever.

[Bucksnet]

This proposal is barmy – runways and terminals over the M25. An ideal terrorist target – just drive a lorry bomb underneath.

It should be noted that the pairs of runways are about the same distance apart from each other as I’ve been proposing, but the 2 pairs are a lot closer to each other.

The proposal also states that all 747s should be banned, even the 747-8 which uses the same quiet engines as the 787. This needs to be changed.

[transtraxman]

The proposal to extend the runways 3 kilometers west of the present Heathrow layout is rather overboard. It does not take into account the effect on Old Windsor, Windsor itself and Datchet.

Even if that is the price to pay, the runways do not need to be extended three kilometers. If you extended them(the northern runway 800 meters while the southern even up to 1.5 kilometers) to the M25 you could help alleviate the noise problem over west London. Planes would just have to land further down the runway.

However, it would not solve the need for a third runway. If R3 were pushed up to as near as possible to the M4 as legalities and practicalities permit, as well as being started nearer the M25 at its western end, then even a lot of the demolition of properties would not be necessary.

The other solutions, as offered in the document from “Policy Exchange”, are also viable but more complicated. It is a very interesting read – better than a lot I have seen in the last few months.

Thanks Anthony Dunn

[BeckyBoop]

Bucksnet – 05/10/2012 21:30 GMT

This proposal is barmy – runways and terminals over the M25. An ideal terrorist target – just drive a lorry bomb underneath.

You are forgetting the spur road that links T1,2 & 3 to the perimeter road that already runs under a runway.

[LHREXPANSION2012]

I totally agree with Transtraxman here, even better, why not build 2 runways, one 380m north of 27R/9L and another 380m south of 27L/9R around 3km in length with staggered thresholds say 1000m to the east. Should squeeze them in without crossing the M25.

[Author]

Posts