:confused: I'm in my early(ish) thirties and I support the Heathrow idea over the new airport idea (and would just about be able to fly in 50 years if the nurses let me! ;) ). I'm confused as to where any age bias has been suggested in this thread or the report.

Heathrow sort of makes sense in the short term, but any expansion will be costly, complex, disruptive and less efficient due to the curfew and has significant long term noise/pollution/crash risks for London and to a lesser extent Berkshire.

Add into that the cost of living near Heathrow making living/working nearby challenging and the need for more attention to the additional infrastructure needs of doubling passenger number through LHR, and even the short term option becomes less compelling, particularly if there is a finite limit on expansion on the site which could lead to it being closed anyway in the longer term.

Isle of Grain/Thames Hub is a 20-50 year vision; it's bold, difficult and game-changing. But it's certainly worth serious consideration, and a level playing field with the incumbent, well-funded, highly motivated Heathrow lobby groups.

The report also mentions a series of short-term measures to increase capacity until a new runway is built. Included among these are a southern rail link for Heathrow. Looks like Airtrack is back...

What would be the economic impact of closing (or even a major downgrading) of LHR on the Thames Valley and M4 corridor? The likes of Microsoft aren't in Reading because it is a nice place but because they are a next door to an airport from which they can get non-stop flights to Seattle and major cities around the world.

There is NOTHING special about the Thames Estuary, NOBODY visits it. It's an ugly part of the world and the birds and animals there will have to find new homes. Well oh dear - I'm sure we can all get over that and the world will survive.

Great Mother Gaia will have to take a back seat on this one. Apologies to all the back-to-the-landers out there.

You can't have it all. On this occasion the "environment" and its Green acolytes are of secondary importance.

Im still in my 20s and I can see that the Thames Estuary airport is a stupid idea.

Heathrow needs a new runway built within 10 years, and the government needs to do what it can to force that through.

Running parallel to that, someone needs to choose a long term plan. Expand LHR properly, ignoring the nimbys, or choose another venue somewhere a bit more practical than the River Thames and build an enormous hub airport there.

Having had the unfortunate "pleasure" of living in Chatham for a while, I'd have to agree with that, but can I request including the Medway towns in that classification, too please?! :D

(Ducks for cover)

^

Agree totally, just get on with it. And as for the NIMBYs, I'd love to know what % of them bought their properties in the last 20 years?

I am a little surprised that on the eve of the Pam Am flight anniversary people want more planes over London and the south East.

On, I believe, Bloomberg this morning, one question was raised how to get people to the airport using public transport more easily. The new airport in the Thames will be able to incorporate this easily. With the new modern trains, that most of the UK hasn't got, we will be able to develop the routes easily.

This isn't a report for now, now was 10 years ago. This is a report for 2050 and beyond. It appears many people in society cant see how the UK will develop over that period. Thinking big is the only option to stop the UK increasing becoming a joke.

:confused:

You don't half talk rubbish :)

+1.

Yeah, they'll probably end up being an underestimate :D

Of course, very few are able to count the cost from the inevitable incidents and crashes due to birds, and what happens when the airport gets a reputation for being unsafe.

Heathrow cleared for take-off? Third (and even FOURTH) runway plans
 

I think the new Thames estuary airport is the best idea, but I can't see how it would work. The main problem is the workforce. How are you going to get 50000 people to work there when it's in the middle if nowhere. All other examples if replacement airports eg. Munich were not so far away so could close one day and open the next. That just can't happen with Heathrow.

I thought this was the rubbish part ..... ;)

Expansion is need now, which means LHR or LGW. These are also the only two which can/would be able to provide decent access for the rest of the country.

It's very easy to adopt a London-centric viewpoint on this issue - an airport stuck out in the Thames estuary can still be reached easily via public transport and it may lessen the amount of overhead air traffic and therefore noise, at least for flights arriving from the East. All well and good.

For those of us out to the west, it will be as much use as a chocolate teapot. Or Stansted.