Jimmie76

I can't tell whether you're being serious or not (again) as this is not a sensible suggestion no matter how many times you make it.

WHBM

This is a euphemism for "not right for me getting elected by my over-paid constituents, and be buggered to any implications for national economic well-being - oh, and excuse me, just pass me that huge overstuffed ministerial pay packet of mine".

Hopefully Cameron will discover that he is a man, not a mouse, and dump such a self-centred excuse for a national government minister. Especially one who struts around the media, as she has been doing this morning, loudmouthing off indirectly to Cameron about what he should do.

Retron

Might as well post this link again:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04920

For those in favour of Boris Island, have a read. It's all the schemes that have come up for the past 60-odd years, along with the reasons why they've all been turned down.

Jimmie76

Yeah that too! Wouldn't want to see a plane coming into land, crash into that thanks to a birdstrike would you.

but I like the quote from Mr Deakin, Head of NATS

"The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here. We're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat"

MNManInKen

I think LHR should get a 3rd, and as far as I am concerned 4th, runway as soon as possible.

Governments of all political colours over the last few decades have miserably failed in addressing this issue, illustrating over and over how short term thinking and electioneering take precedent over rationality in politics.

It is madness for the UK to let LHR be overtaken by competition and no way will regional airports constitute an alternative. It's clearly in the UK's interest to expand LHR. I doubt however very much that the political class will be able to get their act together.

oscietra

It's not at all in the UK's interest to expand LHR. The site is constrained and this R3 isn't the panacea people think it will be.

R3 is an easy concept for many to grasp and sounds straightforward, but it's not there's a village to bedemolished and another terminal to be built as well.

There's simply no room for a fourth runway, which is the crux of the problem. Build R3, and that's your lot, matey. For ever.

Do you really think all we need is a piddling little extra runway at Heathrow, and everything would be alright again for twenty years and more?

I don't understand why everyone's so wedded to Heathrow.

PotNoodle

Borris Johnson International Airport is the only long term decision for the UK to remain a hub. Air traffic will continue growing and it is necessery.

A 3rd runway is important for the medium term future as a brand new airport would take many years (10-15 years?). Heathrow is so congested that when the 3rd runway gets built then it would start to get full again then a fourth will be required and considering it has taken over 30 years and still no 3rd runway then what is the chance for a 4th?

For the short term mixed operations and perhaps a laxed curfew, medium term a new runway and long term a completley new airport.

As for the whole 'if you close LHR then West London will loose thousands of jobs' line then I don't care, they clearly hate the airport so can live with their community converting into a council estate if you can't support and maintain it then you don't deserve to have it. Anyway I doubt that will happen because there is a shortage of houses in the South East so a pile of new cheaper houses with a reasonable commute to central London would be desirable.

Whatever happens we should not let short sightedness and a pile of idiots who are stupid enough to live next to an intercontinental airport and complain ruin the hubbing and potential business and tourism for the ENTIRE COUNTRY be destroyed. People who live miles away from LHR are suffering due to foolish people.

MNManInKen

To put a new airport in the worst possible location is plainly silly and expensive for no good reason. And if there are fundamental problems, then they won't be overcome, at best papered over only to come back and bite you afterwards.

LHR is there - just get on with it and add a runway. If the political will would exist, this could be pushed through very quickly. Sadly, politicians are about the worst people when it comes to leadership and long term view.

oscietra

I don't think you're taking a long term view at all. Building R3 is about as short termist "I'm alright Jack" as it is possible to be.

destere

There seem to be three main options being thrown about.

1) Build a third runway.
2) Increase capacity at other London airports.
3) Build a LHR replacement.

In my mind, all of the above will need to happen. R3 will address the short to medium term issue. Expanding other London airports is needed as they will continue to grow regardless of what happens at LHR. There is no room for a runway beyond R3 at LHR and therefore a new airport is needed in the long term. I'm not suggesting this will be in the Thames Estuary, but something obviously needs to be done. Sadly there is no 'easy' solution but in situations like this you need to bite the bullet as we will pay for it in the future.

Britain has so many signs of underinvestment and short term thinking, it's painful. Yet so many people are quite complacent and content with moaning about the way things are. You only have to look at the Tube to see it. Thankfully something is being done now to improve it, albeit at the expense of many weekend services.

Jimmie76

No I don't think R3 is the end of it but at the same time I don't think Boris Island is the answer either, for the objections listed above. They can't all be 'just overcome' and it won't work only solving just one or two of them, no matter how many positive vibes are put towards the Boris Island idea.

It would be better if we started work on R3 ASAP for short term relief whilst considering all the alternatives for future expansion elsewhere in the longer term.

oscietra

I think you're almost right about ALL THREE needing to happen, but I'd challenge your first point as there's quite a bit which can be done to increase capacity at LHR without adding more tarmac.

We need to be thinking about outcomes, not inputs.

The outcome we all want is more capacity in the short term at Heathrow, recognising that its life is limited in a world of triple, quadruple the demand we see today.

More capacity at Heathrow can be delivered in plenty of ways, from larger aircraft, reducing cargo and private aviation (yes, you can still pop into Harrods on your GV via LHR if you pay enough..), stopping domestic flights, banning aircraft under 100 seats and opening 30 minutes earlier with select future ultra-quiet airliners (and the 787 might be the first) being allowed limited operations during the midnight-6am curfew, particularly if only for a limited number of years.

So rather than focussing on a disastrous, short termist R3, let's think about what can be delivered at LHR within current constraints and focus on delivering the real investment where it's most needed at our other current airports and in delivering a plan for a new Hub airport, wherever that might best be located.

bernardd

So far as I can see the issues involved with building additional runways at both STN & LGW are significantly less then either of the other solutions. Even if they added in the expense of tearing down the current LGW North so the runway can be sited where it ought to have been in the first place, adding two runways would be an order of magnitude easier and cheaper than trying to build Boris Island, while the combined cost would probably be less than a third runway at LHR. Add to that the fact it further breaks the BAA monopoly and it ought to be winner.

The next closest greenish field site that would work after Boris Island is somewhere in the Pas de Calais, which would also be a perfect solution IMO - it won't take much longer to get there than it currently does to get to STN from central London.

oscietra

I agree with the need to expand STN and overcome the Council ban on a new runway at LGW; there are already two so weasel lawyers could get round that constraint and the constructions could focus on building the runways further apart to allow concurrent operation.

Pas de Calais? In France, you mean? Siting London's Airport in France is daft.

If you waste resources building R3, LHR becomes more deeply embedded as the Hub airport it was never designed to be and the problems will just be exacerbated.

The supposed objections really fall away if closely examined. JFK has greater birdlife issues than Thames Hub; one catastrophic birdstrike in 60 years of operation. Make other areas more attractive for the birds and they will move away.

The objections of the NATS guy don't seem to stack up; of course a Thames Hub airport wouldn't work well with the current Air Traffic set up; but redesign the current set up to accommodate the new airport (and that might mean closing LHR and/or City) and things would work out; add into that the use of technology for better approaches, proximity warnings and self-guided aircraft and a European-wide co-ordination of Air Traffic and the objections aren't sustainable.

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a large fuel farm right near T5C so the proximity of a refinery isn't such a big deal.

There's an old WW2 arms ship with possibly unexploded bombs; this is within metres of one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, and at any rate needs investment to clean up as the hull is now breaking up and a new Airport project would no doubt be an ideal opportunity to deal with this issue.

Every single objection can be challenged, and more than that, the upside opportunities are huge.

I used to be a supporter of R3, but I've looked into it more closely and recognise that it is not the right solution for the long term; Thames Hub is a relatively recent idea (though with some of the characteristics of previous plans) and while they were often discounted for political or economic reasons, the pressing economic case for a new Hub was never as stark as it is now, and technology and construction techniques have moved on a great deal since the likes of Cliffe were first proposed, so the old objections are no longer relevant.

Globaliser

And we could restore that part of our border to something like the year 1347 ...