[Anonymous]

[O.C.D.P]

I am a firm believer in the benefits of the whole integrated Thames Hub scheme as a positive boost for the economy in the short to medium term as well as the opportunity to revolutuionise our who infastructure to make it fit for purpose for generations to come. Does BT have an editorial line on this? What do others think should we continue to rehash constrained hubs such as LHR or press the decision makers to for once put politics and piont scoring aside and look to the long term?

http://www.thameshub.com

[VintageKrug]

Unfortunately BT doesn’t really take editorial lines. Here is a recent article on this issue:

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/thames-estuary-airport-plans-should-be-rejected

[O.C.D.P]

Thanks VK, it would be a shame if there is no editorial view on this, I have seen a few papers for example jump on the pro LHR anti development bandwagon but with no real explanation as to why! And with the House of Commons Transport Committee, i dont see why closing Heathrow would have ‘unacceptable consequences’ (as ever no real explanation as to why this is the case) and whilst damaging wildlife habitats would be regrettable, should this really stand in the way of a project to promote the long term economic well being of the country (and therefore you could argue indirectly contributing monies for the long term protection of wildlife elsewhere through GDP generated!)

[Tom Otley]

Hello,
I’ve made it clear in editor’s letters that BT takes the line that the Government ought to have an aviation policy with regard to airport expansion beyond “wait and see”.

We have made the argument over many years that the current position is untenable, that APD taxes British business, that other countries benefit from our short termism on everything from Chinese visa requirements to lack of runways. (we’ve run many articles on these issues – I’ll post some links).
eg: Our cover story in December 2012 showed an aircraft heading across the desert towards Dubai
http://www.businesstraveller.com/archive/2010/december-2010-january-2011/special-reports/new-world-order

Chinese visas
http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/uk-falling-behind-in-attracting-visitors

That said, what we don’t do is campaign for one solution (Boris Island, Heathrow West, an expanded Gatwick etc…) above others. We report the arguments more than make them.

[canucklad]

Strongly agree with the administrators point……

The business community should expect that UK PLC is managed by forward thinking innovative people…….instead, we have self serving short terminism……and worse, I’m afraid that we are now in a position were it seems that a decision has already been made, but rather than face the wrath of a specific public audience, we are now going to go through years of propaganda style leaks………..ending with the announcement of ………………………….in 2016

A definate 3rd and possibly 4th runway at LHR……

Let the merry dance begin…………….

[VintageKrug]

I don’t believe the decision has been made.

The Transport Select Committee really isn’t in a position to determine policy, and it would have been helpful for BT to at least have set that out in its piece on that Report (which I commented on in the link above).

What is needed is cross-party agreement (not just intra-Coalition agreement) on a solution, or it won’t get through, which is why it has to be delayed until after the next Election. Labour did nothing on this from 1997 to 2010, and deserves the opprobrium for its usual stance of doing nothing during the good years and leaving others to sort the mess out as things get critical, and then sitting by the wayside complaining and throwing brickbats wherever possible.

What is agreed is that a four-runway solution is best. Where it is sited is anyone’s guess; there are many existing vested interests busy lobbying for a maintenance of the status quo at LHR; the opportunities presented by Thames Hub are realisable, cost effective and very exciting.

A short Third Runway might have been a good solution a generation ago (and does seem to be supported by many of the retirees who post on this forum) but it is not the right solution for the next generation of business travellers.

I have a feeling the answer will be a another runway at Gatwick, another runway and terminal at Stansted with improved rail links to London and some APD reductions for regional airports to push marginal traffic away from Heathrow, and further consultation on the site for a Hub, which will be determined in about five years time, but will not be sited at Heathrow.

Once Crossrail opens in 2018, the argument that it is difficult to access an airport in the Estuary becomes increasingly untenable; the fundamental requirement of access from the West will already be in place.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/

[O.C.D.P]

Canucklad, I think its time for the business community to stop expecting and to start talking and campaigning. As we know from experience governments are reluctant to make bold decisions unless they are confident there is a will to do so, a lot of people do seem happy to just shrug their shoulders and accept the status qou on many issues which just breeds further apathy on all sides. I believe the money is there, the sense in long term planning is obviously there, and once the arguments are presented effectively i believe the will is there.

[BigDog.]

Before starting a new thread OCDP suggest you try the search facility which is just above the forum topic areas.

If you had bothered to put in “Thames Hub” you would have noticed many threads all covering the subject already including:

– A New Airport in the Thames Estuary
– The Moylan Report – A new Airport for London
– Boris Island
– London Heathrow 3rd Runway Ahead
– LHR Capacity
– Schipol is Heathrow’s 3rd Runway
– One Hub or None
– 4 Runways 4 Heathrow.

The pros and cons have already been well discussed in the above, if you have new information then consider using the threads already available. Do we really need another thread starting on what is probably the most discussed (posted about) subject on the forum already?

[VintageKrug]

What’s really needed is a clear and compelling proposition for what could be done with the Heathrow site once it’s closed.

[alexlondon]

The Economist recently came out in favour of the 4 runway solution at Heathrow, involving tunelling the M25 as the most cost effective and timely solution. It concluded that the costs would be lower than an estuary solution, and timescales would mean that a Thames estuary solution would mean that London would loose its status as a hub. It made sense to me.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21574486-expanding-heathrow-westwards-could-give-london-airport-capacity-it-needs-reasonable

[VintageKrug]

I read that and it did seem better thought through than a Third short runway.

But it didn’t really address the issue of construction towards the west of Heathrow, and proximity to the World Heritage Site of Windsor Castle. There is quite a lot of influence which would kaibosh that idea.

I simply don’t believe that they have properly costed the construction of the two new runways, nor taken into account the cost in terms of fuel and noise taxiing to them, or indeed the continued noise and pollution, not mention crash risk over central London.

Finally, and runways which involve approaches over Central London will require them to be closed six hours per day, reduce their capacity by 25%.

A four runway airport at Heathrow would provide significantly less capacity than the same four runway airport sited in the Estuary.

[canucklad]

One question more on this thread………because I do agree with BigDog………Isn’t the definition of insanity ……” Doing…..”

To Vk ………Who is going to reimburse Ferrovial for the massive amount of investment they have and are going to spend at LHR, when LHR shuts down, or is T2’s projected life span set at 10 years apx ??

[VintageKrug]

Ferrovial would make a massive profit on the land at Heathrow, or could be offered favourable terms to operate Queen Elizabeth International Airport….the terminal sheds would make excellent malls, and wouldn’t need much work to convert them.

It’s certainly possible to move airports, as British firms proved in Hong Kong.

[O.C.D.P]

alexlondon, i think the point that impresses me most with Thames hub compared to other options, particulary involving Heathrow, is the more holistic approach to national infrastructure which it envisages. Rather than looking at a hub airport as an individual entity (eg LHR), but as an integral part of the nation’s overall network, fully connected. Why not think big? The money will be there, yes it wont be cheap, but equally many costs will be recovered through land sales and future economic growth, as VK states its been done elsewhere, by our own companies, why not here?

[Author]

Posts