Boris Island

[LHRFlightman]

ViperDave said:

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.

A nice thought, but only 45% of LHR arrivals hold in the stacks.

[Stevanos]

If they go for the Heathrow plan, I have not seen any talk about what to do with the M25, they built that near my old house in Leatherhead when I was a young boy, now it has been expanded a few times and it is still not fit for purpose. I can't really see them expanding it much more near Heathrow unless they go double-decker?

[hidetheelephants]

I'd have thought they'd do a cut'n'cover alongside, then divert once it's all built and build runway 3 over the top.

[Randy Winkman]

jogon said:

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.

I live in SE London so whatever they do makes no difference to me. Whenever I'm in west London I think "Do people really pay millions to live here? You could get somewhere fabulous in Chislehurst for that cash. But I suppose if people like plane noise, it's up to them. No point trashing the countryside though.

[Magog]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And an Estuary Airport has been on the cards for a while now too, South Essex is much less densely populated than West London, and it's not just West London, it's the Central areas too, as well as Windsor where HRH lives. I expect the authorities could prove a big drop in numbers impacted by aircraft noise by a Boris Island airport if they were so minded.

[lamboman100]

Cannot believe this nonsense is still dragging on.

Just build 3 more runways and terminals at Heathrow.

It is only a bit of tarmac and a few sheds. Can be done in under a year if the country pulled its finger out.

Stuff the Heathrow Nimbys. What part of "next to an airport" did they not understand when they bought their house.

Boris Island is miles from anywhere and a waste of time. Gatwick is too far south for a national hub. Stansted is a rural airport. Heathrow is perfectly suited for access from most of London and most of the rest of the country.

Heathrow is the world's most successful international airport. For the good of the country, we need to increase that success. Get the extra runways and terminals built now.

[rs1952]

LHRFlightman said:

A nice thought, but only 45% of LHR arrivals hold in the stacks.

Only 45%?

ONLY 45%?

Think of this in a slightly different way:

"There's no problem - only 45% of trains are held waiting a platform outside of Waterloo/ Paddington/ Liverpool Street etc"

Do you think the railways would be allowed to get away with it without there being riots?

[rs1952]

lamboman100 said:

Cannot believe this nonsense is still dragging on.

Just build 3 more runways and terminals at Heathrow.

It is only a bit of tarmac and a few sheds. Can be done in under a year if the country pulled its finger out.

Stuff the Heathrow Nimbys. What part of "next to an airport" did they not understand when they bought their house.

Boris Island is miles from anywhere and a waste of time. Gatwick is too far south for a national hub. Stansted is a rural airport. Heathrow is perfectly suited for access from most of London and most of the rest of the country.

Heathrow is the world's most successful international airport. For the good of the country, we need to increase that success. Get the extra runways and terminals built now.

I almost wholeheartedly agree.

The only caveat I would add is how much cheaper would it be to compulsorily purchase the NIMBYs houses than to build Boris Island? Its worth somebody doing the sums

[paolow]

rs1952 said:

I almost wholeheartedly agree.

The only caveat I would add is how much cheaper would it be to compulsorily purchase the NIMBYs houses than to build Boris Island? Its worth somebody doing the sums

I've no doubt there will be considerable expense - but less than a hundred billion pounds I would hope

[LHRFlightman]

rs1952 said:

Only 45%?

ONLY 45%?

Think of this in a slightly different way:

"There's no problem - only 45% of trains are held waiting a platform outside of Waterloo/ Paddington/ Liverpool Street etc"

Do you think the railways would be allowed to get away with it without there being riots?

If the railways were as crowded as Heathrow then they would be waiting outside the stations!

[onyx39]

lamboman100 said:

Cannot believe this nonsense is still dragging on.

Just build 3 more runways and terminals at Heathrow.

It is only a bit of tarmac and a few sheds. Can be done in under a year if the country pulled its finger out.

Stuff the Heathrow Nimbys. What part of "next to an airport" did they not understand when they bought their house.

Boris Island is miles from anywhere and a waste of time. Gatwick is too far south for a national hub. Stansted is a rural airport. Heathrow is perfectly suited for access from most of London and most of the rest of the country.

Heathrow is the world's most successful international airport. For the good of the country, we need to increase that success. Get the extra runways and terminals built now.

2016 they are finally going to "plumb" Heathrow into the direct main line, with a main line station at T5. Presumably a high speed line to Gatwick would be what, half an hour? turn LGW and LHR into effectively one airport.
I'm pro expansion btw.

[LHRFlightman]

onyx39 said:

2016 they are finally going to "plumb" Heathrow into the direct main line, with a main line station at T5. Presumably a high speed line to Gatwick would be what, half an hour? turn LGW and LHR into effectively one airport.
I'm pro expansion btw.

One airport owned by competing companies? Anyway 'Heathwick" has rightly been ruled out.

[eccles]

I just wish they would do something!
This whole issue has been on the cards for 20 years, and the way they are faffing about and dodging the issue at the moment, it will be another 20 years before they start to think about doing something, and by then it will be too late.
Poxy politicians, stop thinking about yourself and your votes, and think about what's good for the country.

[rs1952]

LHRFlightman said:

onyx39 said:

2016 they are finally going to "plumb" Heathrow into the direct main line, with a main line station at T5. Presumably a high speed line to Gatwick would be what, half an hour? turn LGW and LHR into effectively one airport.
I'm pro expansion btw.

One airport owned by competing companies? Anyway 'Heathwick" has rightly been ruled out.

It wouldn't actually be feasible without building a lot of new railway.

LHR is already connected to Paddington by a reasonably fast Heathrow Express service, and there are plans (although as far as I am aware not far from only being on a wish list) to put in a triangular junction near Hayes & Harlington so that trains can run direct to the airport from the west.

Getting a train from LHR to Gatwick, however, runs "against the grain" as far as the railways in that neck of the woods are concerned, because almost all lines, and certainly all high-speed ones, lead to or from central London.

You would either have to run the trains via Acton and the West London line to Clapham Junction and then onto the clogged southern approaches to Waterloo and Victoria (to say nothing of the speed restrictions on the West London line in the first place) where there is no room for them. The alternative would be to run them down the GW main line to Reading, put in a new triangular junction and knock down half of Earley and Winnersh to do it, and then upgrade the line between Reading and Redhill which currently has a 75mph restriction (IIRC) and a bottleneck at Guildford. Even then a reversal would be required at Redhill unless you knocked half of that down as well to build another triangular junction.

Option 3 would be to build a completely new railway, and the easiest way to do that would be to close a couple of lanes of the M25 and lay tracks on it. Somehow I don't think that that plan would receive a rapturous welcome

[rs1952]

eccles said:

I just wish they would do something!
This whole issue has been on the cards for 20 years, and the way they are faffing about and dodging the issue at the moment, it will be another 20 years before they start to think about doing something, and by then it will be too late.
Poxy politicians, stop thinking about yourself and your votes, and think about what's good for the country.

Crossrail was first proposed in 1947.

Go figure

[Randy Winkman]

I think some people just like Boris.

[The Don of Croy]

Perhaps they dropped a clanger proposing Boris island so far out.

I'd advocate flattening Thamesmead (and Erith/Crayford). Oh, and build the airport there, too. Although just the first part of this plan appeals enormously.

[Thankyou4calling]

Resurrecting this old chestnut.

I had cause to visit the Holiday Inn at "London" Southend airport last week and worked in the lounge for about four hours. I didn't see a single flight take off or land. On checking it saems they average less than 10 arrivals and departures A DAY!!!

So with so much under used capacity two questions

1. Clearly the only demand seems to be for extra capacity at Heathrow and to a lesser extent Gatwick.
2. How can an airport be sustainable on that level of activity?

[Puggit]

Obviously the demand is high at Heathrow because it has so many other links, it's kind of self-perpetuating.

There's an airport at Angers in France which has one flight a day, to/from LCY. The local government pays money to make it viable.

[swamp]

There is no shortage of airport capacity in London and SE. There is a shortage of hub capacity.