The reason why it gets a regular ressurection is because people won't read the previous reports that have said why a Thames airport won't work. So they get some expensive consultants in to re-do the work and come up with exactly the same conclusion as they did ten years ago and the ten before that and the ten before that as to why it won't work.

The same people also massivly underestimate the costs and the timescales for building such a massive piece of infrastructure.

And whilst there might be land available to build the actual airport what about all the ancilliary businesses? Where would the caterers have their production plants for example? where would the workers live? where would their children go to school? what about hospitals etc

As Jenbel said (great post) btw there are some people who seem to have this beliefe that these issues can go away 'because I said so' yet the world dosen't work like that

People are entitled to their own BELIEFS but they are not entitled to their own FACTS

Some obstacles are possible to overcome but at what cost, some are just not at any cost.

I hear what you say Jenbel and you have always been consistent regarding a Thames estuary airport not being at all viable because of the birdstrike risk.

However, the fact it is still so heavily promoted and continually resurrected by Boris, Foster et al leads me to think the problems are not insurmountable. Because:

a) No one in their right minds would promote and authorise something that would so clearly be a huge safety risk. No airlines would move there either as they all have their own safety and risk departments - and what with the UK's corporate manslaughter rules too. No one wants blood on their hands.

b) Millions and millions would not be continually being spent on consultants and feasibility studies if the whole project is a total non-starter from a safety perspective.

So it simply seems things are not adding up here thats all :)

See post #48 point a)

I think the Thames Estuary is a stupid idea, however JFK does in fact sit at the edge of a giant bird refuge and is a prime migratory area, They have sharpshooters and Hawks to deal with the problem.

And yet I see you and oscietra constantly in denial. Neither of you have even bothered to read the reports outlining what can be done, how limited it is and what the problems are, but you are convinced that 'something can be done'. Why can't those promoting it be of a similar mindset to you and oscietra? There are many people who have the mindset that you two have - that it's 'just' wildlife and of course something can be done, and just assume that anyone who says is scaremongering and doesn't get 'it' - that if you throw enough money at something it goes away.

Wildlife doesn't. It's annoyingly intractable like that. I'd love it if we could, would make lots of things a lot easier, but it doesn't.

But if you are a developer, then you might chose to assume something can be done, because of the rewards if you can get the scheme through. What's not adding up is people's greed, their ability to ignore unpalatable facts, and their assumption that problems can always be made to go away, combined with their willingness to accept an expert view. It's something I have to say I've seen over and over and over when it comes to developments near airports which cause bird flight safety risks. And sometimes, they'd go all the way to Inquiry, so determined would they be that birds would not get in the way of their developments - and they always lost. Then the next eager developer would come along, and refuse to learn from case law in this area and try all over again and lose again. The MOD/CAA had a 100% record at objecting to developments which created a birdstrike risk, going to public inquiry and having their objection upheld and the development not allowed. Despite the fact that surely something could be done? The best thing you can do is not create the hazard in the first place...

Just as in the Thames. How many proposals have now been shot down by concerns about flight safety? Won't stop others trying...

There does seem to be a tendency for some of the airport's promoters to apply a "we'll cross that bridge when we'll come to it" attitude to the bird issue.

As Jenbel has pointed out there may not be a bridge to cross.

It is called 'people not learning from the past'

It is Homer Simpson constantly making the same mistake over and over again because he hasn't learned from his previous mistakes - the fact he keeps getting hurt trying to get that 4-pack off the electricity wire.

It's called 'sticking fingers in ears and going la la la la la' because you know better than everyone else.


A bad idea from the start is still a bad idea no matter how many consultants tell you it MAY be a good idea.

Lots of politics there, which meant PANY had to start a shooting programme. Because of their location, they also have to have some of the best bird control in the US, have settled out of court at least once (AF, Concorde engine taken out by geese).

And despite that, they still recorded 220 in 2010 (that's not necessarily a bad thing, it can be a sign of a good system).

If you were building a new airport for NYC, you would not build it there now - the gulls moved in after the airport had.

Borris is a politician who chases headlines, so he is going to propose something like this. If only to undermine Cameron and keep himself in the media spot-light

Foster- no great loss for him to knock a few designs together. But just because he think's it might be a good idea, does not mean it is.

IMHO : Its a bonkers idea, on so many levels. It is time to expand LHR and get the the third runway in.

218

Did someone suggest a Shooting Party?

How jolly!

http://www.ballindallochcastle.co.uk...ages/party.jpg

Considering nearly 50% of passengers connect at LHR rather than stepping outside the terminal doors the effect on the UK economy because of not having a third runway is hysterically exaggerated....plus those buggers get away with paying less for their tickets.

Would it be possible to expand at LGW or is that sleepy little hollow restricted in size for expansion as well?

LGW has some legal arrangement that a new runway cannot be built until 2019 at the earliest. IIRC it is pretty legally watertight too.

But 2019 is only 7 years away...

No one is going to build an airport with that has such a clearly identified safety risk....because no airline will fly from there as their own risk assessments will totally prevent this @:-)

I have yet to read any article where an airline has said "if it is built we will not operate from there on safety grounds". Some (including BA) have said they do not think a Thames estuary airport is viable....but NOT on safety grounds. But tthat would surely be their trump card to kill it dead and get the focus exclusively on LHR R3?

I simply don't accept that so many organisations (private and public) would continue to both promote it and fund it...to the tune of millions of pounds if it is such a huge safety risk that cannot be mitigated.

Am happy to be proven wrong of course.

I think you might have hit on something here.

Gatwick has two runways, but only one can be used at any one time:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...atwick_203.jpg

There is an agreement with West Sussex County Council that there will be no second runway before 2019; but that's not far off now, and assuming that ban is on the operation, rather than the construction, of a runway, there's nothing to stop GIP breaking ground now.

They'd probably need another terminal, though they have built a huge swathe of apron space in the past few years. Almost as if in anticipation of future growth....

My feeling is that after huge resistance to 3rd Runway, the "least worst" option will be a proper second runway at Gatwick as a stopgap measure, coupled with some actions which will make LHR's runways more efficient in the interim, while the long term solution in the Estuary begins groundbreaking, with an opening date of around 2030.