Although I wouldnt like a plane to try to land on the M25 either.

Which is why the logical thing to have done would have been to site London Airport at Shoreham-by-Sea in Sussex, as was mooted in the 1960's. The railway infrastructure was already there, with fast Brighton trains reaching London in 55 mins, the A23/M23 could have been upgraded and widened and an aircraft in trouble (which, statistically, is most likely immediately after takeoff or just prior to landing) could have ditched into the 'oggin and scared none but the seagulls!

Logic and Government White Papers don't necessarily see eye to eye!

Whilst I get your post abour crash landings in the sea.

I would like to point out that BHX is only an hour from London by train. Plane noise would only disturb non london people. ;) But people dont like that idea.

BHX (and also STN - which someone noted up thread was meant to become the main London airport at one point) both suffer from being north of Watford. Londoners are basically lazy people who get scared when they have to travel too far north ;) :p

The noise argument is a totally spurious debate made up by NIMBY supporters who have never lived in such a place. An extra runway could in fact contribute to less noise overall as a/c would have to circle less, furthermore guess what, if 40, 50 or 60 a/c pass on the same route constantly (as Jenbel said) then no one notices them. Ask anyone who actually lives near an airport (I read somewhere that something like 85% of those who lived near LHR moved there AFTER an airport was built there, they know what to expect) whether they hear the noise anymore, they don't. Visit a Muslim country, the first week, the call to prayer will be noticable and maybe will wake you up, soon you no longer hear it.

the BHX is unworkable

if all these Chinese airlines that apply for LHR slots dont want to fly to STN then why on earth would they want to fly from BHX?

I used to live under the flight path to LHR, although the planes were still fairly high) and they really didn't bother me. On ACK although usually much smaller planes they were much lower but again they didn't really bother me even when the flew straight over. They don't tend to do that any more as the FAA/Town are much stricter on keeping flights the required mile off shore. I know some people are more sensitive to this than others but it hasn't really ever affected me. It might be different I guess if I lived a lot closer but I've chosen not to.

I am reminded of the Cheers episode (5 Season 5 - House of Horrors with Formal Dining and Used Brick) where Carla buys a house on top of a cemetery and is horrified when told this after she has bought the house. Fearing it is haunted she enlists some of the regulars to stay the night with her at the house to save her from being haunted. At the end of the episode the whole house shakes violently and there is a very bright light flooding in through the windows. She is overjoyed to discover that infact the house isn't haunted but just next to the airport.

How about a multi-level airport... elevated runways above the terminals, with lifts (aircraft carrier style) or ramps to the gates below (can a plane taxi on an incline?).

They can also put heat pipes in while they are at it and giant fans to waft away the pesky fog.

Good thinking out of the box. ^

If we're talking fantasy...leave LHR to BA and VS and tell the foreign airlines to fly to the other London airports. It is British after all.

Why not take an Old RAF Airfield and turn it into the most efficient Airport in The World...

Oh somebody already did...its called Changi:p

http://www.singas.co.uk/changi/RAF_Changi_1966.jpg

Different people will react to aircraft noise in different ways. I have lived in Clapham SW4 right under the flight path since 2004 and still get woken up by aircraft at 5 and 6 am, especially in summer with the windows open.

FWIW I've also been 'living' in the Gulf for 22 years and still get woken up by the call to prayer as do members of my family who are there more long term. Although that noise does seem to be punctuated by the whump of tear gas shells, loud thud of exploding gas cylinders and the occasional clatter of light arms fire...;)

Labelling people with a different view (as NIMBYs for example) is unlikely to contribute to rational debate. Whether they have chosen to live in West London or not hardly makes a difference. These are residential areas and planned as such; some are the most attractive of London in fact (Richmond? Barnes?). They are not squatting in a derelict factory. They will suffer the consequences and these will be felt in their jobs, by their kids and local society as a whole. It's like saying if an area is grotty or heavily polluted there should be no improvement to it, because people had chosen to live there in the first place. Incidentally people may not be aware of (or irritated by) noise but still have a rather profound effect on them as plenty of studies show. The same is true for pollutants obviously.

There should be a rational debate where pollution, risk and noise are costed, not swept under the carpet. These are not unquantifiable entities - pretty good estimates can be made on them. Estimates for expanding as well as building from scratch and relocating can also be made. One can then compare the two and cost it over the life of an airport (>50 years) and see what is the most attractive option. It may well be that expanding LHR comes out as the preferable option.

If LHR was put in the wrong place in the 1950s it does not necessarily have to mean that we have to be stuck with it until 2200 and beyond. Boris is the first politician to say this openly. This is in stark contrast with the techniques used by BAA and BA to push the case for the third runaway as it is obviously the trivial solution in the short term to increase the number of flights which is ultimately what affects their share price.

I've spent 10 minutes jotting down my mini-masterplan for UK airports, feel free to comment away :)

To solve the issues we currently face I would:
- Open new 4 runway airport around "Boris Island" proposal, capable of 'mixed mode'.

- This airfield would have a 300 mile perimiter limit, banning flights shorter than that distance.

- Passengers travelling from destinations within the perimiter (Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Manchester etc) would arrive at the airport via a link to the the High Speed rail line which already runs east of London. An interchange could be created with Eurostar passengers arriving from the south and St Pancras, and also direct trains could run from HS2. Journey time from St Pancras via HS1 would be c.20 minutes.

- Close STN (or make it cargo-only) to offset the impact of the new airfield on the area east of London.

- Approve LTN expansion (new taxiway and terminal enhancements) to take some of the LCC capacity lost at STN.

- LGW's second operational runway would be approved with incentives for LCC use, encouraging long-haul operations to move to Boris Island and removing the need for BA/VS to split operations between two airports.

- Heathrow would be closed altogether and potential development for business or retail explored.

- Expand BHX to be 'the midlands airport' HS2 would open up BHX to new customers from the South e.g. High Wycombe area who might otherwise use Heathrow/Gatwick.

Overall benefits of this:
- increase in runway capacity of 2 runways (lose 3, gain 5).
- better integration of rail and air.
- no more 'over London' approaches or departures.
- noise benefits.
- builds on economic investments east of London around 2012 Olympics.

I take it you are a bloke. Try to travel with the 'fairer' sex or women as they are sometimes known. The rubbish they take on holiday or a weekend away is possible unreasonable. They need a gold card allowance to get the luggage to go on holiday.

A little known fact, culled from the mind of a cab driver, is that the road to the airport was built wide enough to function as an additional runway, should it be needed in an emergency.

The plant pots in the middle of the road are removable....perhaps we should look to the Bath Road as the solution..?