I never said LHR was in a perfect place. As I said, there will be arguments against many if not most major airports out there.

What I am saying is that the tradeoff isn't nearly as sweet as some make out.

I had a chat recently with someone from the political arena on the tube during a delay, who was on his way to Heathrow. He said that LHR was the choice most politicians didn't want to have to name, but is their preferred choice. The reason for their refusal was the damage to their majority that it would cause. If they could support it annonymously they would do so.

So unless Boris becomes PM.......;) or should that be :eek:

Well relocating the 80,000 LHR peeps Littlegirl mentions to work at Boris Island works out at around £8bn (@£100,000 per person) and that ignores the cost of company relocations.

Yes except that the approaches to Boris Island would be over London. And that's not my opinion the head of NATS Mr Deakins said it, if anyone should know where the flights would be going it's him you'd have thought.

To quote the man:

Watching the tv show on Sunday night, Built in Britian

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ain_Episode_1/

It would appear that Mr Walsh is slightly changing his tune to the next or the new airport. He still wants runway 3. Well he cant really change his mind on that one. However he was or appears to be willing to be open to a new airport.

As Ryanair is out of purchasing Stansted maybe its time to develop that airport at least for the short term. Include the High speed rail to go past its door, then onto LHR and BHX. Ofcourse back into London as well.

Air travel is increasing, the UK needs to be part of a future world. If we keep going at this rate, farmers in China will be sending us money.

I was only on here quickly over the weekend. My post didnt include all the comments.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19451615-post599.html

Reading that article from the Torygraph they quote Mr Moylan as saying that Boris Island will cost £50bn, so we've lost £10bn somewhere already :eek:.

It doesn't really matter what it costs - within reason.

It's not like welfare or that daft Dome; this is a productive asset, which not only will generate income itself, but also will add many multiples of its cost in growth and tax income to the Exchequer. £10bn here or there isn't really the issue.

I'm sure there will still be a few flights over London, but dramatically fewer than is the case currently, and the majority will approach from over the sea, and be able to turn in time to avoid the densest populations in Central London.

I believe Thames Estuary Airport is the way to go.

LHR is in a silly place.

And BHX being a hub is just a pipe dream of the owner.

A 'central UK' hub in Yorkshire or somewhere is also a silly idea.

Why do you think that the BHX airport is not a good idea or event?

If or when the high speed rail is in service, it will go straight to BHX from London. It has all major roads of most of the UK. It is in the middle of the country to help everyone. Has plenty of staff to help run and work in the airport.

Why? See the comments about the costs of moving everyone and everything associated with London 50 miles to the east. Then you have £15 billion of transport infrastructure build which will exists PURELY to serve the airport. Add to that the further concentration of economic life in the SE (which even the SE locals would moan about) and it rapidly becomes obvious that an estuary airport is a non-starter before you even get to the European wide air traffic changes that would be needed or the embarrassment of having repeated emergency landings (or worse) due to bird strikes.

No-one disagrees with that - but it's there and it's a case of making the best of a bad lot

It would be as easy to reach as an Estuary airport for most of the people who would use it

Can't recall anyone suggesting it - but if the purpose of the Hub airport was just to facilitate connecting passengers then it wouldn't matter where the airport was, it could even be in the Shetlands

What is to stop a 3rd/4th runway being built over/just to the West of the M25, lined up North to South? Aircraft would be approaching from the North/taking off towards the North ie well out of the way of the current runways, and there is about 10 miles of green belt up there with noone to complain about noise until the aircraft are already high up out of the way.

Plenty of other airports operate multiple runways facing in different directions, and the biggest obstacle to a 3rd runway right now is the people who live East and West of it.

It is when it's my money that they're talking about especially when the cost could reach £100bn, which is possible given the likelihood of of cost overruns on a project like this. Also given global warming and the rising tides aren't we tempting fate by sticking this thing right on the coast (not to mention the birds)? The Dome has actually been a success story for the firm that bought it, it just wasn't for the public purse.

Well you clearly know more than the head of NATS (NATS Holdings Limited aka National Air Traffic Services) who thinks it's the worst place to put an airport, and that the approaches would be over London.

In my article, they said the would keep LHR open for Londoners to use point to point. As many people travel by train from Manchester area and by plane in from local Uk, why would being in Birmingham matter.

Birmingham is nearer to Manchester than an Estuary airport. And I can't see why LHR would be kept open for Londoners if an Estuary airport opened as many of the point to point destinations are also used by people connecting so you'd split the passenger load thus requiring more aircraft and crew