Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Plans For £47.3Bn Six-Runway Thames Estuary

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2502512/Welcome-London-Britannia-Airport-Plans-47-3bn-runway-Thames-Estuary-Boris-Island-revealed-consortium-wants-scrap-Heathrow.html

A new six-runway hub airport to the east of London could be built within seven years at a cost of £47.3billion.

However, the ambitious plans would require the closure of Heathrow airport, which employs 76,000 people.

The proposed new airport would sit on a purpose-built island off the Isle of Sheppey in Kent in the Thames Estuary, some 50 miles east of central London, and would be known as London Britannia Airport.

article-2502512-195D031E00000578-97_634x351.jpg

Heathrow to be turned into housing? Is having the most critical airport in the sea really work or just folly?

Sorry airport closed due to flooding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article-2502512-195D40A500000578-149_634x417.jpg

I do think the idea of a remote check-in hub is a good one. Currently several airports have terminal extensions that you need to get to by a shuttle train, for example the C gates at Heathrow Terminal 5. It's not much different to extend the journey to another site.

It would also allow you to distribute the problem of getting to and from the airport to avoid traffic bottlenecks.

Edited by thecrashingisles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article-2502512-195D40A500000578-149_634x417.jpg

What a tangled mess.

If this is going to be the UK's main airport it should be at least vaguely near the population-weighted centre of the country, maybe with some extra weighting for London as the capital. Somewhere between Oxford and Milton Keynes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article-2502512-195D40A500000578-149_634x417.jpg

I do think the idea of a remote check-in hub is a good one. Currently several airports have terminal extensions that you need to get to by a shuttle train, for example the C gates at Heathrow Terminal 5. It's not much different to extend the journey to another site.

They can't do it any other way. Otherwise they would have to build extra road infrastructure and that would cost a fortune and probably annoy the nimbys just as much.

The real failing for me is that this airport is a long way away from the population centre of gravity, which is surely the ideal point for any transit centre.

Heathrow is viable from Oxford, Birmingham, southampton etc. This new site will be a lot more hassle. The "remote" hubs no doubt will charge huge transfer costs, a bit like the Heathrow express, which is I think the most expensive railway per mile in europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't do it any other way. Otherwise they would have to build extra road infrastructure and that would cost a fortune and probably annoy the nimbys just as much.

The real failing for me is that this airport is a long way away from the population centre of gravity, which is surely the ideal point for any transit centre.

Heathrow is viable from Oxford, Birmingham, southampton etc. This new site will be a lot more hassle. The "remote" hubs no doubt will charge huge transfer costs, a bit like the Heathrow express, which is I think the most expensive railway per mile in europe.

At the moment Heathrow sucks demand away from viable airports like Birmingham International. This would be a fit-for-purpose London airport and would give the other regions more scope to develop.

As for the hubs, you would be in the airport at that point so any transport cost would be hidden in the cost of the flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment Heathrow sucks demand away from viable airports like Birmingham International. This would be a fit-for-purpose London airport and would give the other regions more scope to develop.

As for the hubs, you would be in the airport at that point so any transport cost would be hidden in the cost of the flights.

Well, I suppose that makes some sort of sense. We are building a new airport because we need it because there is large amount of demand for flights, so we'll build it in a place where people find it difficult to get to so they will use other airports instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I suppose that makes some sort of sense. We are building a new airport because we need it because there is large amount of demand for flights, so we'll build it in a place where people find it difficult to get to so they will use other airports instead.

Because the bulk of the demand is for travel to and from London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the bulk of the demand is for travel to and from London.

I thought the idea of the really big airports is that they act as hubs for people to catch connecting flights on to other destinations throughout Europe.

I'm not sure how a hub airport is going to help the rest of the UK economy, existing capacity is probably fine for people actually coming to the UK, all the hub would be is a nice little earner for the owners charging fees for connecting passangers going on to other destinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the bulk of the demand is for travel to and from London.

The future UK could well be less London-centric. London's twin USPs of financial trickery and massive state spending are both looking a bit past it already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the idea of the really big airports is that they act as hubs for people to catch connecting flights on to other destinations throughout Europe.

In which case having it on an island is perfect.

I'm not sure how a hub airport is going to help the rest of the UK economy, existing capacity is probably fine for people actually coming to the UK, all the hub would be is a nice little earner for the owners charging fees for connecting passangers going on to other destinations.

Having a hub had plenty of knock on economic benefits. International businesses want to locate where they have good access to regional markets and will prefer a location with a hub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the bulk of the demand is for travel to and from London.

How viable is it going to be to conduct international business if you are that far away from the airport ?

At the moment I live 50 miles from Heathrow, not in London. It is good because by travelling to heathrow I can get all over the world to many places that Birmingham will not and will never service. By pushing this international airport over to the other side of London you are making running international business out of that 100 mile zone to the west of Heathrow that much less viable. So what will happen is anyone running that sort of business will pile down into London and the SE, further pushing up property prices and the economic inbalance of the country.

Hell, why not just build a wall across the SE and call it a different country ? How does spending 50 billion on an airport that they can never practially use help an international business person in Birmingham ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey we have got two aircraft carriers being built. Can't we just use them instead :P

Luckily they can handle one aircraft at a time... You either take off or land. If only there was someway to get the flight deck to do both...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utterly stupid idea (and this from someone just south of the main Heathrow flight path who will certainly get more noise if Heathrow is expanded).

You just made it harder for three quarters of the people currently using Heathrow to get there. It's closer to France than it is to some of the current catchment area for Heathrow. Totally idiotic proposition.

There are far more sensible ways to do this, for example built a pair of runways and some satellite terminals at RAF Northolt, and build a super-fast underground shuttle (5 miles, 5 minute trip). Plenty of room for expansion both sides of the A40. At a fraction of the cost and wider economic impact of shutting Heathrow. Even has the benefit of being already served by the Tube (Metropolitan line)!

Edited by montesquieu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily they can handle one aircraft at a time... You either take off or land. If only there was someway to get the flight deck to do both...

British invention, angled flight deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British invention, angled flight deck.

How about catamaran carriers?

If it is only a hub then putting it somewhere like this makes sense (purely from a location point of view, everything else sounds like a pie-in-the-sky ridiculous idea). You'd still need Heathrow as a major London airport though, since that will get a fair share of traffic still and City is too small and Gatwick too far out, but then there's the question about how practical totally separating out hub and local traffic is (if your'e going to do that then you may as well have more long-haul flights from other UK airports, which seems to have been tried and failed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heathrow can't close, the devastation to the local economy and workforce would simply be lunacy.

Just build a 3rd runway and get on with it.

Noise level probably exceeds the EU's 'laws'. Thus the world must stop on its axis to appease the Eurocrats.

People call this 'boris island' but its been on the cards since at least the 60s i think. IIRC it was called maplin sands airport back then, and the A13 (would have been M13) would have been a very long road bridge south of southend. Might have been a barrage too, a bit like those dutch road bridges with flood defenses incorporated under them.

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/ringways/northern/m13.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposed location is pretty silly, as others have said regarding population locations. And the costs is astronomical. £47 billion quid, £1,500 for every adult in the country is an absurd sum to even consider spending on an infrastructure project.

More than half of which would probably be covered by redeveloping Heathrow and substantially denting the shortage of housing in London at the same time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposed location is pretty silly, as others have said regarding population locations. And the costs is astronomical. £47 billion quid, £1,500 for every adult in the country is an absurd sum to even consider spending on an infrastructure project.

Still cheaper than HS2 will probably end up...and people actually use planes, cant see all that many people wanting to go from london to birmingham (unless they price people off the roads and regular trains, which given how sick they are, they probably will, just so they can say people use it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposed location is pretty silly, as others have said regarding population locations. And the costs is astronomical. £47 billion quid, £1,500 for every adult in the country is an absurd sum to even consider spending on an infrastructure project.

Still cheaper than HS2 will probably end up...and people actually use planes, cant see all that many people wanting to go from london to birmingham (unless they price people off the roads and regular trains, which given how sick they are, they probably will, just so they can say people use it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.