Boris Island

[LHRFlightman]

jogon said:

So for the sake of some birds and sparsely populated countryside we should triple the amount of aircraft flying over millions of residents of central and SW London.

This was August 2012, could you imagine what it will be like with 2 extra runways with flights going none stop from 4.30am till 11pm, like they do already.

TWO extra runways? And who is talking about a tripling of flights?

Can we stick to the facts please?

Edited by LHRFlightman on Wednesday 3rd September 12:43

[onyx39]

LHRFlightman said:

jogon said:

So for the sake of some birds and sparsely populated countryside we should triple the amount of aircraft flying over millions of residents of central and SW London.

This was August 2012, could you imagine what it will be like with 2 extra runways with flights going none stop from 4.30am till 11pm, like they do already.

TWO extra runways? And who is talking about a tripling of flights?

Can we stick to the facts please?

Edited by LHRFlightman on Wednesday 3rd September 12:43

I would love to see how someone of these people would have got on living in Hounslow, ( I lived midway between the 28l and 28r, as it was then flightpaths) with the constant roar or Tridents, BAC 111's 707's, DC8's etc. THAT was noise.

[Tuna]

It's funny that Boris island is going to be bad for the environment and wildlife, as if Heathrow is a bare moonscape that couldn't possibly be more blighted by an additional runway.

It's also depressing that it apparently it'd cost £100bn to build it, when Hong Kong airport (itself no small engineering feat) cost around £15bn. I get all excited when projects like Crossrail show we can do large engineering, and then it all goes pear shaped when we can't do something like this.

[Scuffers]

onyx39 said:

Not technically correct... I think you'll find that Heathrow opened in the late 40's !

OK, it may not have been called Heathrow, but it's been used as an airfield/airport since the first world war, international passenger flights since 1919 (it was called Hounslow Areodrome)

Tuna said:

It's also depressing that it apparently it'd cost £100bn to build it, when Hong Kong airport (itself no small engineering feat) cost around £15bn. I get all excited when projects like Crossrail show we can do large engineering, and then it all goes pear shaped when we can't do something like this.

I think you know the answer to this, if this project was in any asian country it would be a quarter of this.

[onyx39]

Scuffers said:

onyx39 said:

Not technically correct... I think you'll find that Heathrow opened in the late 40's !

OK, it may not have been called Heathrow, but it's been used as an airfield/airport since the first world war, international passenger flights since 1919 (it was called Hounslow Areodrome)


[\quote]

your correct, but only of respect of being in the same Borough, was not on the same site.

[Scuffers]

onyx39 said:

your correct, but only of respect of being in the same Borough, was not on the same site.

you sure about that?

looking at the old maps, it's either the same site or literally yards away.

[onyx39]

Scuffers said:

onyx39 said:

your correct, but only of respect of being in the same Borough, was not on the same site.

you sure about that?

looking at the old maps, it's either the same site or literally yards away.

Ill grant you, it's closer than I thought when you look at this view, but none the less..



Thank you for disagreeing with me, I have had an interesting hour or so researching this.

Edited by onyx39 on Wednesday 3rd September 15:49

[Thankyou4calling]

onyx39 said:

I would love to see how someone of these people would have got on living in Hounslow, ( I lived midway between the 28l and 28r, as it was then flightpaths) with the constant roar or Tridents, BAC 111's 707's, DC8's etc. THAT was noise.

Spent the first 26 years of my life n Hounslow immediately under the flight path and family still live near.

You barely noticed the plane noise apart from the magical sight of Concorde and I loved watching the planes come in on final approach often bringing their wheels down over our garden.

It's absurd to talk about tripling the number of flights, there's no demand for that much growth.

Adding a runway would reduce stacking and might even then reduce noise which for most is a non issue.

That map with all the red is also very misleading indeed. Go to Hounslow West and look at the planes coming in, at most you will see three, that is less than a dot in the great firmament of sky, it's simply not true to say the sky is full, the runway is.

I and many many thousands have Heathrow to thank for the areas prosperity. So many business are located around it, large and small, so many people are employed both directly and indirectly.

Local people have enjoyed massively rising house prices despite ( or more likely because ) of Heathrow.

I just wish the Government would crack on with what we know is inevitable and that is more landing and take off capacity at Heathrow.

[crankedup]

Boris must be relieved that 'his plans' have been binned, its all politics of course. Boris couldn't possibly suggest any alternative to his master plan for fear of upsetting his voter base. His not as daft as his worshippers.

[Randy Winkman]

Fittster said:

jogon said:

So for the sake of some birds and sparsely populated countryside we should triple the amount of aircraft flying over millions of residents of central and SW London.

I was under the impression that birds and jet engines don't get on.

I say we should settle for making the noisy, built-up area noisier and leave the birds and countryside alone.

[StevieBee]

Here's what I don't get.

Various voices say we need a bigger, newer airport as we're loosing business.

How so?

I do a lot of international work. What happens is that we win a bit of business, I fly to the country, do what's needed and fly back. Often several times throughout the duration of contract. If I'm lucky, I'll be working somewhere I can fly to direct. If not, I go via somewhere else.

What I don't do is say "sorry, I will not take on this business because the local airport is rubbish".

If I allowed the quality, convenience and location of an airport in relation to where I'll need to be to govern where in the world I do business, I'd work only in Southend.

[Chrisgr31]

I was pondering this earlier, and of course the reality is if we didn't have Heathrow or indeed Gatwick and were looking for a new airport for London we wouldnt build it at either Heathrow or Gatwick. In fact we'd probably build it in the Thames Estuary.

So maybe Boris is right!

[Mojocvh]

LHRFlightman said:

Looks to be quite a large area there that isn't overflown to me? And what are the heights of those aircraft flying at? A modern jet at 4,000 ft and descending isn't going to be that noticeable above the general hullabaloo of good old London Town!

As you said later, can we stick to fact please....

[Tuna]

StevieBee said:

Here's what I don't get.

Various voices say we need a bigger, newer airport as we're loosing business.

Isn't the point that by acting as a hub, we get airlines planning routes via this country? That improves availability of flights to the UK and brings down prices locally. If all the international flights to the US and Asia went via Paris, it would cost more and often include an extra transfer to get to the UK. On top of that, businesses can be run here that benefit from businessmen travelling between other destinations stopping locally.

[MarshPhantom]

StevieBee said:

Here's what I don't get.

Various voices say we need a bigger, newer airport as we're loosing business.

How so?

I do a lot of international work. What happens is that we win a bit of business, I fly to the country, do what's needed and fly back. Often several times throughout the duration of contract. If I'm lucky, I'll be working somewhere I can fly to direct. If not, I go via somewhere else.

What I don't do is say "sorry, I will not take on this business because the local airport is rubbish".

If I allowed the quality, convenience and location of an airport in relation to where I'll need to be to govern where in the world I do business, I'd work only in Southend.

Some people don't like idea of us not having the world's busiest airport. It seems be an odd thing to aspire to.

[anonymous-user]

hidetheelephants said:

Boris Island as proposed has aircraft approaching up the Thames, not overflying anything except water, mud and stehawks; as options go, this is about as low impact as it gets.

Really?
You are always either going to be under the long approach or under the departures depending on wind direction.

If you have wind coming from the east, the approach would put them coming in from over London (10 miles or so approach). Look at the approach for Heathrow at the moment, it starts around Tower Bridge.
Departures would be out to sea though (so a lower impact).

If you have a westerly wind, then approaches would be made from over the estuary (so a lower impact), but departures would be climbing out directly over South Essex or North Kent.

Hardly low impact, depending on wind direction you would either get aircraft on a long approach or departure.

We had an Easyjet A319 over last night at 2,700 feet at 10:30pm, rather loud. It had attempted a landing at Southend Airport and aborted at the last minute due to fog and was diverting to Stansted. That would be the altitude they would be at on approach to an Estuary Airport.

[jogon]

Randy Winkman said:

Fittster said:

jogon said:

So for the sake of some birds and sparsely populated countryside we should triple the amount of aircraft flying over millions of residents of central and SW London.

I was under the impression that birds and jet engines don't get on.

I say we should settle for making the noisy, built-up area noisier and leave the birds and countryside alone.

Its typical socialist behaviour, I take it you can't afford to live in central London.

[Magog]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Those aren't really desirable or expensive areas compared to many of the places currently blighted by noise from Heathrow.

[anonymous-user]

Magog said:

Those aren't really desirable or expensive areas compared to many of the places currently blighted by noise from Heathrow.

I wouldn't necessarily say that, many places around here are approaching or even over £1 million. The parents house in Langdon Hills is near half a million, and that is one of the smaller houses in the road. There are many houses around Westley Heights over £1 million. There are also very expensive sea front apartments in Southend, and huge LA size/style houses in Hadleigh, overlooking the Thames.

Sheffield, Brentwood and Ingatestone are desirable, and expensive.

The point is, if you move to somewhere like Twickenham, Richmond etc, you expect aircraft noise, the airport was there 70 years before you were. It is a bit different having your peaceful £1.5 million house in the outskirts of Brentwood suddenly having aircraft over your head every minute of the day.

[ViperDave]

StevieBee said:

Here's what I don't get.

Various voices say we need a bigger, newer airport as we're loosing business.

How so?

I do a lot of international work. What happens is that we win a bit of business, I fly to the country, do what's needed and fly back. Often several times throughout the duration of contract. If I'm lucky, I'll be working somewhere I can fly to direct. If not, I go via somewhere else.

What I don't do is say "sorry, I will not take on this business because the local airport is rubbish".

If I allowed the quality, convenience and location of an airport in relation to where I'll need to be to govern where in the world I do business, I'd work only in Southend.

Whilst you point is perfectly valid and doesn't stop lots of business traveling multi segment through rubbish airports, what you also need to consider is the CEO of some bank/law firm/about to be multinational etc in New York/Fargo ND/China etc who are just about to open their European HQ. Do they pick Amsterdam with a direct flight or London which now has to be reached via easyjet or ryanair via Stanstead after a connection in Schiphol? So its not the one job where one bloke has a crappy flight to get to it, its a whole buildings full of jobs in the city and M4 corridor, people who only go near an airport for their annual week to Benidorm, jobs going elsewhere because one CEO choosing between two EU Cites put LHR in the Con list not the Pro list when comparing the two potential HQ sites.

You also need to take into account that the CEO in Fargo ND doesn't start his trip on the long haul flight, he has already made a business express flight to get to MSP before his trans Atlantic, so he isn't really interested in the third takeoff on a puddle jumper across the north sea at the end of the very long day and night flight.

As for Boris, Bet he doesn't even realize the delays stacking have on LHR, It was most noticeable out of all my recent LHR approaches the only one that didn't seem to go in circles was the one where Boris was on-board and we pretty much made a direct approach to land.