I have a question for all the people who say that nothing can be done, or that it will take years and years.

What if some catastrophic event wiped out LHR? Say for the sake of argument a tiny meteor hit right in the center of LHR and simply wiped it out.

Would it then take years and years to get a new airport built? Or would they, IMHO, have something up and running in a matter 2 or 3 months, then continue to add to it over time? In other words if the government and the commercial interests were forced to make it happen immediately, they could. And the residents and special interests could complain and sue all they wanted, but they could not stop it from happening.

I recall when the last big earthquake hit Los Angeles. The busiest highway stretch in the world, the 10 freeway, was leveled. The rebuilding of that freeway, which under normal circumstances would have taken years, instead took a matter of weeks with crews working round the clock and the contractor promised a $10 million bonus for finishing on time. Where there's a will, there's a way. And there is obviously not the will right now in England.

The idea was for a 180 mph airside train to zoom between LHR and LGW in a tunnel a long the M25.

It was a fantasy plan by some Tory MPs desperate to appease West London voters.

If they build the Thames airport with proper associated rail infrastructure, these people will be able to board a Cross Rail train at Maidenhead directly to the airport.

I'm quite sure that the M4 corridor would become a far less congested and noisy place with the LHR traffic (road and air) gone.

danny alexander has stated that the liberal democrats are against any airport expansion in the south east of England

the highlands of Scotland are heavily represented by lib dems in the uk parliament and the area does not have good links to the real London hub (heathrow) so if he wants to protect the seats they have its time to come off the fence and actually state what their solution would be

The costs in the report have been revised upwards. As per Sir Howard this morning on Bloomberg.

They could. However, Crossrail's calculator quotes a time of 65 minutes for a journey from Maidenhead to Abbey Wood, which I guess is as near as it's possible to get to a Thames estuary airport at the moment.

On the other hand, 20 minutes in the car will get you from Maidenhead to Heathrow T5.

I fail to see the improvement for travellers coming from the West of London.

Improved road links and trains to where ever the plan is will be about the same than getting to LHR. Not everyone flying does so from London.

As the UK is developing the train links, there is half the problem sorted out.

but on the other hand passengers from north of London!!

^^

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 7_0_4 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/537.51.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.0 Mobile/11B554a Safari/9537.53)

I'm not sure I understand the proposed runway extension at LHR either.

Are they seriously suggesting you could have a plane touching down at the current threshold of 27R while another one spools up its engines somewhere near the current T5 and heads off to the west? Does this happen at any other commercial airport.

Or are they just talking about mixed mode? In which case why the need to extend the runway? What would the gains be?

+1 for a vastly improved BHX as a second hub. High speed rail to London & Manchester (and their airports). Lower-speed rail to the SW and NE. A significant proportion of the population would be within 90 minutes journey.

Well I have now read through the Report, and by and large I like it. :)

Chapter 5 is unlikely to see much of the initial headlines, but it is crucial IMHO. Crucial as groundwork to getting the runway(s) situation through later; but also crucial to getting the other less obvious elements of the future infrastructure right (or at least much better) first.
Would be interested on T8191 thoughts on the potential air space revisions in due course.

I like what has been ruled in, and concluded out in the short-term fixes. I like the direction of travel towards an evidence based noise debate and (I think) balance. I like that a lot of thinking has been put into how the various stakeholders can improve to reduce delays under current Traffic Movements in the SE, and particularly Heathrow.

On the headline longer-term stuff. Hmm.
I do take the Commission's point over future aircraft orders (they mention c.60 A380 daily landings vs in the 100s for 787 / A350, by 2030). As such they put a lot of weight towards the potential for LCC entering long-haul markets and hence the "core strategy" for runway expansion needing to mitigate away from a mega-hub solution towards a more modest large-hub together with point-to-point capacity away from Heathrow. Hence their Gatwick & Heathrow+ direction of travel.

I also think its interesting they've put a 'figure' into the debate around potential net benefits at c.£65bn. This effectively caps any cost envelope at <£65bn. So, two very important issues for debates as we continue into the 2015 Election and beyond.

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 7_0_4 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/537.51.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.0 Mobile/11B554a Safari/9537.53)

I'm surprised the economic impact figures haven't been discussed. If they are accepted as presented, then NOTHING of any note will be developed, not now and not in the next few decades.

GDP impact is assessed as worst case 0.05% in 2030. Thats an obvious case for inertia IMO. Peston's has more details on the Beeb website.

I'm no expert on runway design but you can see the full proposal at http://www.heathrowhub.com/media/dow...0713_Rev_A.pdf

I am flattered, but not a well qualified/current as others here, such as waterhorse, scott pilgrim and Heathrow Tower ... to name a few off the top of my head. Gizza break - I retired from ATC in 94, and I've never worked in NATS Airspace Policy!! :D

However ... as you asked, any LHR expansion would inevitably require some airspace revisions, but then that has been happening for decades in an evolutionary manner without the World coming off its bearings. I suspect there might be some ATC implications, with additional control positions to handle traffic for the runway[s].

LBI (London, Boris Island) carries with it massive airspace implications in respect of the interface with Continental European airspace, I suspect. Simply getting aircraft "up and down" that close to Europe would be an issue, for a start. At least at LHR that can be done largely within our own airspace (to Scotland or the western reaches of UK [Cornwall, Wales, Liverpool) without any need for International 'agreement' ... which could have massive knock-on effects for airlines and also have political dimensions. I don't, off the top of my head, see that as being an easy road.

I will mull more coherently once I've read what's been said - that is a simplistic initial reaction from someone who thinks LBI is a stupid idea :)

:confused: Wherever there is an airport will end up eventually being surrounded by companies who want to be near it and people who want to work for those companies and for the airport itself. Or, it will turn into a white elephant and atrophy or die.