Reason077

If O'Leary is against it, it's probably a good idea!

origin

I fail to understand why it would really affect Ryanair. The hub system, which the UK needs to expand, deals with different flyers to his yellow submarine. If the boris island does take off, (sorry) then that would free up LHR. This would enable him to move into the cash poor Surrey folk, who need to fly to the middle of Italy or somewhere to visit their holiday home.

NickB

Even if it did not affect Ryanair, it does not follow that MoL would necessarily consider it a good idea. MoL can have opinions on it even if that does not direct affect FR (and god knows that MoL is not exactly short of opinions ).
I think the FR angle, though, is that MoL would favour an increase of facilities at existing airports, including those used by FR rather than resources being devoted to building a new one.

oscietra

Good to see some great illustrations of what Thames Hub could look like:

Jenbel

It could look like that - but even if it does get the go ahead, we all know it probably won't.

oscietra

I prefer a more positive outlook; when you take a look at the artists' impressions of Beijing's Capital Airport, here:



...you'll see they're not that dissimilar to the actual building:



Beijing was realised by Foster + Partners, the same people who propose to design the terminal at Thames Hub.

It's important we leave the small mindedness of the past behind; there's no reason the visualisation won't resemble what's eventually constructed.

A terrific new terminal for an economically sustainable new Hub airport for Europe.

HIDDY

All pie in the sky of course and not to be taken seriously.

How many designs have been published already for this new airport? I can certainly think of a few....and each of them get more futuristic as the years go by.

Jenbel

Here's one reason. The different costs involved in land reclamation versus building on shore. Here's another reason. There has been no geotech investigations done (except for the London array) of the sea floor to understand its load bearing capacity.

But hey, why bring realities into it? We know you don't like those, much preferring puff pictures

origin

Whilst I like the idea of the sea hub or boris island. It does need the support of the UK main airlines. This includes BA or IAG. They dont seem so convinced. Infact BA dont really like flying from anywhere other than LHR. One presumes Willie likes his little home on the Wentworth Estate or wherever he is based.

I personally feel that the UK could do with two hubs. Island and LHR however not many seem to think that can work. Air travel over the next 30 years will increase. I am not so sure that BA really want to develop the routes they have.

The two hubs system will alllow BA and others to develop the routes they want at present instead of waiting 20 years before we decide to do somthing. Whilst the present construction work and the Olympics was done well, in the past things havent gone so well.

I appreciate that the UK isnt in a good place at the moment. Many mistakes have been made since 2000. Its a shame that some how this country has got itself in this mess. We really need to deal with the airports now to enable to he UK to be part of the World.

origin

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-Channel.html

Another airport in the middle of the sea. I would prefer more action and less ho ho ho.

oscietra

The one you reference above is indeed bonkers.

But the proposal on the table, Thames Hub, is not an island in the middle of the sea. It's a perfectly credible land-based project.

origin

I wonder what effect this will have on BA especially \ or the HKG and New York flights

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avia...ight-path.html

origin

The latest thinking on Boris Island

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/12277944-6...#axzz2IvM4RFC1

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/polit...s-8465089.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21189476

oscietra

Looks like good news in support of Thames Hub:

Standard reports:

"[The Parliamentary Committee] concluded that building a hub airport instead of expanding Heathrow could still offer “good value for money” if it led to significant economic benefits for Britain."

BBC reports:

Oxera [the independent consultant] stated "From a public [purse] perspective, the project may still offer good value for money, depending on the scope of wider benefits that the airport could facilitate."

Mayor's office reportedly stated:

".....there was “nothing new in this report”. A spokeswoman added: “The Mayor has always said that road and rail connections to serve a new airport would need to be provided by the Government. We feel that a new airport would be able to wash its face financially over time.”

[outsize image deleted]

lhrsfo

Thank Heavens I'll be retired well before any new white elephant airport between Essex and Kent is built. Despite oscietra's endless posts in favor (perhaps part of the project team??), building an airport in a place many miles from its core user base, and which requires transit straight through one of the world's largest and most congested cities, is simply not credible.