Thames Estuary Airport

IMHO More chance of developing Tracey Island than Boris Island.

Now THAT, I would put money towards!

Ah Boris Island rears its head again. No chance my friends.
1. As you’ve said high speed train links will free up slots. This is flavour of the month with the current gov.
2. No transport links out that far. Stanstead being turned into Heathrow 2.0 makes far more sense hence BAA wanting to keep it.
3. If you wanted an airport out that far why not develop Manston.
4. Global warming. How do you stop a new island sinking and being flooded as is threatening with another well known example.
IMHO More chance of developing Tracey Island than Boris Island.

You could have at least had the courtesy of acknowledging my analysis. You specifically asked for it I seem to remember. :rolleyes:

Why do I even bother. :confused:

You are correct. My error. Thank you for your reply…..you made many good points.

I didn’t offer an analysis, just raw data. The topic doesn’t require any analysis….

You could have at least had the courtesy of acknowledging my analysis. You specifically asked for it I seem to remember. :rolleyes:

Why do I even bother. :confused:

Expansion and development of regional UK airports into long haul, point to point with newer, less fuel hungry types such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 would potentially take the pressure off of Heathrow and Gatwick to expand or indeed be replaced. I suspect those of us currently fed up being herded through LHR only to fly back across our own neighbourhoods enroute to North America, for example, would welcome such a development.

Thus the reason for my inclusion of some of the area airports. Perhaps I didn’t include enough of the outlying British airports.

WRT some of the other criticisms……I didn’t offer an analysis, just raw data. The topic doesn’t require any analysis….the case is pretty obvious on it’s face. Perhaps one should just consider the individual airports themselves:

ATL – 5
CDG – 4
FRA – 3
AMS – 6
JFK – 4
LHR – 2

How much analysis does it take to realize you can’t have a major hub in a city of 14 million people with 2 measly runways?

LGW and LHR are already saturated….The time for planning was 25 years ago. There should have been shovels in the ground years and years ago.

In all fairness to Ship 741, one has to consider that Heathrow and Gatwick will become saturated at some point in the future. It is better to start planning early in that case. But the first point was the proposed cost. Obviously a lot of guys are going to try line their pockets out of the deal.

Expansion and development of regional UK airports into long haul, point to point with newer, less fuel hungry types such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 would potentially take the pressure off of Heathrow and Gatwick to expand or indeed be replaced. I suspect those of us currently fed up being herded through LHR only to fly back across our own neighbourhoods enroute to North America, for example, would welcome such a development.

Methinks Virgin Atlantic already have an eye on this approach with their GLA experiment the past few years and subsequent 787 and interim A330 orders…

In all fairness to Ship 741, one has to consider that Heathrow and Gatwick will become saturated at some point in the future. It is better to start planning early in that case. But the first point was the proposed cost. Obviously a lot of guys are going to try line their pockets out of the deal.

Why don’t you indulge me and “shoot to pieces” the argument again?

As already mentioned by Abutcher in the previous reply, you are very selective with which airports you include, and which you do not include. Why did you include Teterboro, Burbank, Palm Springs, Santa Ana and Le Bourget? I don’t mind you including those, but then be fair enough to add Farnborough, Biggin Hill, Northolt etc.

Second, you completely disregard local conditions. How many movements a runway can handle depends on local conditions. Some of them man made (buildings in the flightpath, taxi-way and ramp space, runway length, but mostly politics) some of them natural (weather).

Schiphol is a good example of that. Due to its proximity to the sea the wind varies a lot. Since planes have to land, ideally anyway, into the wind this means the approach path needs to change a lot as well. That is one of the reasons why LHR alone handles more movements with two runways then AMS does with six. That also the reason why LHR closed the cross-wind runway approximately 10 years ago, and the other cross-wind runway decades earlier.

Added to that I can add political considerations. In some respects LHR has a very favourable political sitatuation. Now before you hit the reply button to vent, let me explain myself. Yes, LHR can not add a runway, but the runways it does have are used to full capacity. Schiphol has an artificial limit due to noise and environmental considerations. This year the whole of october the Kaagbaan (06/24, Schiphol’s primary runway) was effectively closed for all traffic as noise limitations for the year had been exceeded. (schiphol’s noise is measured from november to october)

Another thing you do not factor in are the neighbours. It is a lot easier for CDG to be expanded. When it was opened in 1974 it was in the middle of the country side. Today the city has grown closer by, but still not as close as is the case at LHR. Also, the French had the foresight to reserve vast stretches of land for future expansion. This was not done at LHR, and you now have to live with it. Worse still, lessons where clearly not learned. Just look at the title of this thread, Thames Estuary Airport. The plans for the next LHR, are in the middle of a massive housing project. The Southeast is one large building pit. Yes, land is at a premium in the southeast so you will always annoy people when building an airport there. So why propose an airport there in the first place? Stansted has plenty of space but is apparantly not as fancy as a new island.

Oooh, and to get back to CDG, you can not underestimate the importance of the “French factor”. If French politicians set their mind to something, it’s gonna happen. If they decide on a new port, railline, motorway or airport there is no stopping them. Just compare French rails versus UK rail, compare the long term planning of CDG versus the (non existant) long term planning of LHR etc. Speaking of “French factor”. In the UK everything has to made economic sense, in France national prestige comes in to play as well. Does CDG need 4 runways? They could do with 3, maybe even 2 since their movements are not too dissimilar to LHR. But they can get away with it since it is a “projet nationale“.

Airport lay-out also serves a role in how many runways are needed. You mention ORD as an airport with more runways then the greater London area. But that is only half the story. Yes, there are more runways. But because they cross each other they can never be used simultaneously. Therefor ORD is being re-developed. Some of the runways will be closed and I think one more will be added. The net result is fewer runways but due to more efficiency the capacity will still increase.

The fact remains that London does not have enough runways for either it’s population or for it’s future status as a major hub.

I agree with that, just as last time around. It’s just that your reasoning is flawed.

If your argument is not strong enough for an aviation enthiousiast like myself, you definately are not gonna convince a NIMBY or a environmentalist.

Why don’t you indulge me and “shoot to pieces” the argument again?

The fact remains that London does not have enough runways for either it’s population or for it’s future status as a major hub.

This data is completely meaningless…

If we’re going to include Teterboro and Le Bourget where almost no commercial services operate, then we need to include Northolt, Biggin Hill, Farnborough, and Luton… Duxford? Cambridge? Southend?

This list means nothing without context

Ooooh come one now, not this list again. Are you sure you can’t figure out how to post a link to the previous thread? It would not be related to us having shot this list to pieces last time around, would it?

Why don’t you indulge me and “shoot to pieces” the argument again?

The fact remains that London does not have enough runways for either it’s population or for it’s future status as a major hub.

If there were good rail links, the need for dozens of flights to places like Manchester every day would be removed and that extra capacity would serve the international flights …. perhaps?

Exactly. Flying to UK regional airports makes very little sense. If there were no domestic flights from Heathrow someone on here will know exactly how many slots would be released.

As for a new Thames Airport at probably £100 billion by the time it is finished the money just isn’t there. Private investors cannot see the return and the public purse is bust. We need to spend what we have to borrow on key capital projects like nuclear power stations or even conventional power stations, if Cameron has the balls to tear up our ludicrous emmission targets.

Energy is what we will be desperate for very soon, not runways.

True. If carriers like BA and bmi wouldn’t mind losing revenue from feeder traffic into LHR, some slots could be freed up. I, personally, still think more would need to be done to help ease the congestion and restraints – be it a third runway or new airport.

A lot of the discussion is about domestic links and links to the airports. Agreed this needs addressing in the UK, but is one of the main arguments for this airport not to remain competitive internationally? With many foreign airlines choosing to fly into Heathrow and not Gatwick, Heathrow is becoming over saturated with flights – and not everyone flying into Heathrow will want to/be able to use the A380. With very little room to expand, the runway/taxi way space is very constrained and the terminals are suffering also. Therefore, to remain internationally competitive and retain all the money that is brought into the country from Heathrow – one of the largest hubs – perhaps they need to start afresh?

If there were good rail links, the need for dozens of flights to places like Manchester every day would be removed and that extra capacity would serve the international flights …. perhaps?

The simple fact is that London has an abysmally small number of runways for a hub OR for a city it’s size. Please see the attachment which I created a year ago and am now reposting.

Ooooh come one now, not this list again. Are you sure you can’t figure out how to post a link to the previous thread? It would not be related to us having shot this list to pieces last time around, would it?

There was a thread on this very topic a year or so ago….I am not smart enough to figure out how to post the link into a thread….perhaps someone can assist.

The simple fact is that London has an abysmally small number of runways for a hub OR for a city it’s size. Please see the attachment which I created a year ago and am now reposting.

If aviation enthusiasts can’t agree that airport expansion is necessary, how likely is it that the rest of the population will?

A lot of the discussion is about domestic links and links to the airports. Agreed this needs addressing in the UK, but is one of the main arguments for this airport not to remain competitive internationally? With many foreign airlines choosing to fly into Heathrow and not Gatwick, Heathrow is becoming over saturated with flights – and not everyone flying into Heathrow will want to/be able to use the A380. With very little room to expand, the runway/taxi way space is very constrained and the terminals are suffering also. Therefore, to remain internationally competitive and retain all the money that is brought into the country from Heathrow – one of the largest hubs – perhaps they need to start afresh?

The problem as I see it within the UK is the fractured nature of the Public Transport system it’s not public transport as it’s provided by private companies in the business to make money. From what I know about European public transport parts of it are state owned and run as well as subsidised by the central and local governments. Infrastructure investment by central government the people that used to be able to commit large amounts of secure funding to projects in the UK has not been welcomed by many. Network Rail for instance has had its allocation of funds within the transport budget cut several times while targets have been changed and things micromanaged as new projects get forced upon them.

I always liked the idea of a Thames airport(mainly because i live in a depressed area of the south east) but theres just so many problems, for a start at the moment to get just a regular train to gatwick or heathrow costs more per person than the fuel and parking costs for a week for a car, so if there’s a large group/family the train costs miles more. These new highspeed trains we have in the southeast already cost more than the regular ones and thats with the rail link already in place.

The whole public transport infrastructure in the UK needs a good kick up the ****, service is awful and way over priced compared to most of the rest of europe, your not gonna drive your car and park it at your nearest towns station for 2 weeks whilst you go on holiday, thats if you can get a train from where you live to get you to the airport in time for your early morning flight.

A 24hour airport needs to be serviced by a 24 hour society, talking of society what will all the Gatwick and heathrow staff do when flight numbers drop, what will happen to the areas, and where in London and the south east will all the workers at the new airport live? It’ll have to be treated like an old rig, with staff doing weeks on and then weeks off!

Any money would be far better spent on the decrepit rail infrastructure by improving the main routes connecting the country to a modern standard so that high speed rail could be utilised. What I mean by high speed rail is proper high speed rather than the current 140mph Javelin service something that is a bigger leap in speed and technology. Hopefully in doing so would reduce the amount of domestic short haul flights within the UK which should also have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Being greener of course is something of a difficult point as the electricity is still produced from fossil fuels but this could change as part of a wider project renewing parts of the national grid alongside new rail infrastructure. The problem is any large expenditure is near impossible as the United Kingdom is utterly bankrupt and has no money to spend on anything and will not have for quite some time. Even if we were not bankrupt I’m sure the green nutters would still find something wrong with rail improvements and there would be opposition elsewhere that would rather the money be directed to welfare projects.

Hello,

I am actually for the idea in general. The key to the whole idea is the land-side links to the airport, there really needs to be a focus on public transportation and in particular the high-speed rail with links all across the south/southwest England. If you could pair this to the proposed high-speed link to the north of England and Scotland then you have the potential to remove a lot of domestic flights and make an international-class hub that the UK needs and requires.

At some-point in the future Heathrow and Gatwick will have outgrown itself, and are already quite landlocked. You would be gaining prime development ground, reduce low-flying aircraft and the noise associated with aircraft in general. Needless to say, remove traffic from the already heavily congested M25.