New Thames Estuary Airport in London
Jan 11, 2012, 9:15 am
#16
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,605
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
BHX.
Now with added High Speed 2, it would be 50 min to London, 30 min to Manchester, 30 min to Leeds. Plus the existing rail infrastructure to the SW and NE. A massive proportion of England within 1 hour of the airport.
Get some true integrated ticketing, and a decent MCT, and you would be at your destination quicker and more comfortably than any domestic flight.
BHX.
Now with added High Speed 2, it would be 50 min to London, 30 min to Manchester, 30 min to Leeds. Plus the existing rail infrastructure to the SW and NE. A massive proportion of England within 1 hour of the airport.
Get some true integrated ticketing, and a decent MCT, and you would be at your destination quicker and more comfortably than any domestic flight.
Jan 11, 2012, 9:50 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: somewhere north of London, UK
Programs: HH Gold, BA Silver, Accor Silver
Posts: 15,245
No please not BHX.
An airport that is rarely blighted by ATC delays, security problems, immigration hold ups (although someone needs to explain what a priority bag tag means...) and offers a week's valet parking with a reputable firm for just a shade over £50!
An airport that is rarely blighted by ATC delays, security problems, immigration hold ups (although someone needs to explain what a priority bag tag means...) and offers a week's valet parking with a reputable firm for just a shade over £50!
Jan 11, 2012, 11:04 am
#18
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,605
Don't worry - by the time it gets built the line will run over budget so they'll get rid of all the unneeded stuff like a station at BHX or the spur line to Heathrow.
Jan 11, 2012, 12:07 pm
#19
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Programs: BA EC Gold
Posts: 9,236
No, it's because successive governments have made taxes on flying very high indeed.
Jan 11, 2012, 12:15 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Europe & Indonesia
Programs: BAEC Gold, LH SEN, EK ex-Gold, IHG Plat
Posts: 11,571
Worked like that in Munich. Undesirable infrastructure was traditionally placed north of the city - the money tends to live in the south. The location of MUC isn't exactly ideal but that's where it went. And they totally messed up the rail connections even though they had all the time in the world.
Jan 11, 2012, 12:25 pm
#21
Moderator: UK and Ireland & Europe
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Biggleswade
Programs: SK*G, Lots of Blue Elsewhere
Posts: 13,611
Well, it wouldn't be the first time they tried to build a London airport in Bucks...
Jan 11, 2012, 1:43 pm
#22
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Programs: BA EC Gold
Posts: 9,236
Well, it wouldn't be the first time they tried to build a London airport in Bucks...
http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/
Jan 11, 2012, 1:44 pm
#23
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Programs: BA EC Gold
Posts: 9,236
Well, it wouldn't be the first time they tried to build a London airport in Bucks...
http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/
Jan 11, 2012, 2:39 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LON, ACK, BOS..... (Not necessarily in that order)
Programs: **Mucci Diamond Hairbrush** - compared to that nothing else matters (+BA Bronze)
Posts: 15,127
Jan 11, 2012, 2:46 pm
#25
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,605
More detail
Not for transit / transfer passengers nor arriving passengers.
Jan 11, 2012, 2:58 pm
#26
Join Date: Jun 2006
Programs: BD,Skyteam,QF
Posts: 541
Why can they not build the new London hub in the Olympic park? They will have no use for that land after July and it already has excellent train, tube and DLR connections and the Channel Tunnel rail link. Plus I think the number 25 runs there from Oxford Street. And it already has a bus link to STN.
I just checked on google maps, they could extend the runways straight up Hackney Marshes and tunnel the A12 under them a bit like CDG
I just checked on google maps, they could extend the runways straight up Hackney Marshes and tunnel the A12 under them a bit like CDG
Jan 12, 2012, 3:16 am
#27
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,546
And who exactly is going to build this new airport?
Unlike other countries (and unlike the rail infrastructure), London's airports are not owned by the government and they're not in single ownership.
LHR - BAA
LGW - Global Infrastucture Partners
STN - BAA but has to be sold - Regulatory ruling
LCY - Global Infrastructure Partners
LTN - Local authority
SEN - Stobart
If a new operator came along, these different businesses will make every effort to stop their exising users move to the new airport.
If the government said it would build it, surely these owners would sue?
And why would one of the existing airport owners invest in a new project that would remove value from their existing assets?
Unlike other countries (and unlike the rail infrastructure), London's airports are not owned by the government and they're not in single ownership.
LHR - BAA
LGW - Global Infrastucture Partners
STN - BAA but has to be sold - Regulatory ruling
LCY - Global Infrastructure Partners
LTN - Local authority
SEN - Stobart
If a new operator came along, these different businesses will make every effort to stop their exising users move to the new airport.
If the government said it would build it, surely these owners would sue?
And why would one of the existing airport owners invest in a new project that would remove value from their existing assets?
Jan 15, 2012, 12:48 am
#28
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,641
Jan 18, 2012, 2:41 am
#30
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,641
There's no such thing as "impossible". Just takes a bit of brain and gumption.
I'm certain a way can be found to reduce the populations satisfactorily, perhaps using the corpses for main courses in flight!
Thankfully, a proper consultation now launched into these proposals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16606212
Funding for the airport itself isn't a problem (should easily be manageable with private sector and sovereign wealth fund assistance) it's more the infrastructure connecting to it which the government would have to pay for; but it's about time we launched any investment putsch in the Eastern parts of our capital city, and improved transport - not just for the airport..
Crossrail has undoubtedly helped with this. As will HS2 if it can be properly integrated.
Once the birds are exterminated and the unexploded bombs removed, the question will move to what to do with the Heathrow site post 2030. I'm certain it would make an excellent technology park, with plenty of opportunity to build another Canary Wharf style community, and especially so with the good (but not excellent!) transport links the site affords - an overspill for London just as one will be sorely needed.
LCY might close, or become a heli-terminal, but with such short journeys on high speed rail out to the new airport, I shouldn't think it'll matter much, especially as capacity is also constrained in the long term there, and planes must cause significant disturbance to those living under the flight path.
Lord Foster's plans for an airport on existing land or Thatcher International Airport as it should certainly be called, are well worth viewing in the video below:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...n-airport.html
Perhaps this thread should be stickied as it's undoubtedly a subject which will recur over the coming weeks, and is of specific interest to FTers...
I'm certain a way can be found to reduce the populations satisfactorily, perhaps using the corpses for main courses in flight!
Thankfully, a proper consultation now launched into these proposals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16606212
Funding for the airport itself isn't a problem (should easily be manageable with private sector and sovereign wealth fund assistance) it's more the infrastructure connecting to it which the government would have to pay for; but it's about time we launched any investment putsch in the Eastern parts of our capital city, and improved transport - not just for the airport..
Crossrail has undoubtedly helped with this. As will HS2 if it can be properly integrated.
Once the birds are exterminated and the unexploded bombs removed, the question will move to what to do with the Heathrow site post 2030. I'm certain it would make an excellent technology park, with plenty of opportunity to build another Canary Wharf style community, and especially so with the good (but not excellent!) transport links the site affords - an overspill for London just as one will be sorely needed.
LCY might close, or become a heli-terminal, but with such short journeys on high speed rail out to the new airport, I shouldn't think it'll matter much, especially as capacity is also constrained in the long term there, and planes must cause significant disturbance to those living under the flight path.
Lord Foster's plans for an airport on existing land or Thatcher International Airport as it should certainly be called, are well worth viewing in the video below:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...n-airport.html
Perhaps this thread should be stickied as it's undoubtedly a subject which will recur over the coming weeks, and is of specific interest to FTers...
Last edited by oscietra; Jan 22, 2012 at 10:21 am