Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

Good idea? Bad idea?

London needs more airport capacity. They are never going to get permission to expand Heathrow, probably rightly as it is too close to habitation (in my view).

The obvious solution is to build to the east of London with departures to and from the open sea to minimise impact on humans. Problems with wildlife? They will move elsewhere, particularly if encouraged by the creation of similar and protected habitat.

To me, apart from the projected cost of 50 billion (300 billion by the time it is actually built), it is a no brainer. Britain needs to retain its hub capability and open up new routes to Brazil, China etc. Far far better spend of money than on the The Boys HS2 trainset.

Not sure why a new Thames barrage has to be included? can't the land just be built up more?

[Nick W]

London needs more capacity? It's frequently mentioned, but there's been no proof of it. Besides, are the five existing international airports really not enough? That's not counting the likes of Biggin Hill, North Weald etc for business jets. Not to mention that there are airports arlong the south coast(Southampton, Bournemouth etc), in the Midlands, Norwich etc. And isn't it tourist traffic, rather than business, that's supposed to be increasing, which makes the need for extra traffic to China etc look extremely unlikely.

There is nowhere near London where an airport could be built that isn't already too close to habitation. Or it's too far from London to count.

The proposed site already has a power station, deep water port and massive LNG storage site that has been under construction for several years and is nearly finished. None of these are easily moved! Lets not forget that there have been several attempts over the last few years to open up Manston(effectively next door to the proposed site), which have come to nothing. And that's already a huge site, with a massive runway for big jets.

As for the money, IF it's so necessary, there is absolutely no need for any public money to be spent on it, as it would be recouped with no trouble. Instead we'd likely end up with the same farce as the Chanell Tunnel, where it was poorly budgeted, and have to be bailed out.

As the economy is in such trouble at the moment, I think we'd be better off not spending it all. But if it had to be spent there are far more worthwhile uses for it!

[Lazydocker]

London needs more capacity? It's frequently mentioned, but there's been no proof of it. Besides, are the five existing international airports really not enough? That's not counting the likes of Biggin Hill, North Weald etc for business jets. Not to mention that there are airports arlong the south coast(Southampton, Bournemouth etc), in the Midlands, Norwich etc. And isn't it tourist traffic, rather than business, that's supposed to be increasing, which makes the need for extra traffic to China etc look extremely unlikely.

There is nowhere near London where an airport could be built that isn't already too close to habitation. Or it's too far from London to count.

The proposed site already has a power station, deep water port and massive LNG storage site that has been under construction for several years and is nearly finished. None of these are easily moved! Lets not forget that there have been several attempts over the last few years to open up Manston(effectively next door to the proposed site), which have come to nothing. And that's already a huge site, with a massive runway for big jets.

As for the money, IF it's so necessary, there is absolutely no need for any public money to be spent on it, as it would be recouped with no trouble. Instead we'd likely end up with the same farce as the Chanell Tunnel, where it was poorly budgeted, and have to be bailed out.

As the economy is in such trouble at the moment, I think we'd be better off not spending it all. But if it had to be spent there are far more worthwhile uses for it!

Trouble with that is that it may never get finished. Dubai Ports (the owner/operator of the proposed port) have been dragging their feet because of the huge deep water expansion at Felixstowe Mind you, I hope it does come off as they originally promised to pay 20% more than Hutchinson were at Felixstowe to any experienced worker. I could be tempted to apply if that comes off and employ someone for my business

[Rods2]

London and Gatwick runways are at capacity, if you miss your landing slot, you circle London for ages, if you miss your takeoff slot then you wait for hours for another one. I don't know many airports in the world that have this problem, so if you are a foreign businessman looking to invest in a subsidiary in Europe then you are much better off picking Ireland (which includes low 12.5% corporation tax) or Schropol in the Netherlands, the airport has 4 runways and is rapidly becoming the biggest hub and freight airport in Europe and being locating in the Netherlands has the advantage of being on the European mainland.

If you want the business and wealth / Jobs created here then transport infrastructure has to be improved. If we want the City of London to stay as the premier financial centre in the world, then airport capacity has to be increased, so more flights to the far east are essential. Personally, I would give the population a choice at Heathrow a 3rd runway or 24 hours a day 7 days a week flights. But there again I'm not a nimby as I realise we are a small island and in the southeast including where I live, with very high population density, you just have to put up with noise pollution, if you don't like it (including me) go and live elsewhere.

If Europe keeps on its current course: Green / Low CO2 / Nimby / I've got rights / I'm entitled to benefits / Pay 50p in tax (if your lucky) and Expect £0.5m back for health care / benefits etc. Then it is going to become the economic backwater, that is currently predicted by 2030, where the USA and Europe will account for less than 30% of global GDP and the rest of the world 70%, the opposite of where we are now. If we want that then UK and Europe just need to carry on their current course.

Once you are a poor country with few natural resources it is very, very difficult to come back as much of Eastern Europe is finding. Russia is the exception, due to their vast natural resources, particularly Oil and Gas.

Currently, I think our living standards and our cost base (including Government spending) need to drop by about 30% for this country to become competitive again. 13 years of Labour Governments / EU laws have killed the Golden economy we had from the 1980's to 1997, when we we in the top 10 most competitive economies in the world, now we are 37th. With the continued socialization of our education system, where we were in the top 10 countries for Maths, English and Science, where now are struggling to stay in the top 20, puts the UK in a very bad position. Globally, there is a shortage of computer programmers, but in this country the number of computer science graduates produced each year by our universities is going down.

What many of you may not realise is that Quantitative Easing (QE) by the current Government (£275bn) is selling your children's and your grand children's futures with many of the bonds they are buying with this money are dated to to be paid back between 2038 and 2060. The last Government and to a very slightly lessor extent, the current Government are spending your children's futures now, including the record £17.5bn they are spending on overseas aid. 

Personally unless this country reinvents itself I think is in for a very steep long term decline and that's why as soon as I've sold my house I'm getting out.

The Thames Estuary airport fantasy is just an exercise in kicking the can down the road, it will never be built and it is the wrong side of London to service the South East. Fantasizing on this is much easier for politicians (and it makes them look like they are doing something) than confronting the difficult but necessary expansion of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead and Luton airports.

[Gaffers]

Why not create a high speed link direct to Farnborough?  Lots of real estate for a decent terminal and the bees knees of runways already in place 

[the alarming man]

VERY BAD IDEA as down the road 40 miles away there is an already sat there bloody good airport that no one flys in or out of apart from a tuesday or wednesday....so the idiot at number 10 could keep the 57 billion and spend on more needed things....and the odious tit boris wants to learn he is mayor of london not medway

[the alarming man]

Good idea? Bad idea?

London needs more airport capacity. They are never going to get permission to expand Heathrow, probably rightly as it is too close to habitation (in my view).

The obvious solution is to build to the east of London with departures to and from the open sea to minimise impact on humans. Problems with wildlife? They will move elsewhere, particularly if encouraged by the creation of similar and protected habitat.

To me, apart from the projected cost of 50 billion (300 billion by the time it is actually built), it is a no brainer. Britain needs to retain its hub capability and open up new routes to Brazil, China etc. Far far better spend of money than on the The Boys HS2 trainset.

Not sure why a new Thames barrage has to be included? can't the land just be built up more?

does'nt impact on humans??....well if this farcical stupiness is allowed my mate who as lived in his house for 35 years will have too move along with 200 other families ...ridiculous

[the alarming man]

and one thing boris the div has'nt answered is what happens to HMS montgomery..??...a second world war ship sunk with 2000 tonnes of explosives...cant be raised or blown up.....as if it goes it will cause a very bid tidal wave which knock out the isle of sheppy(which tbh no one will miss)...parts of gravesend,bluewater,and parts of south london....but one thing for sure is this boat is not stable enough to put up with the heavy duty air traffic they are proposing

[Rods2]

Why not create a high speed link direct to Farnborough?  Lots of real estate for a decent terminal and the bees knees of runways already in place 

I agree and why not have Farnborough as south runway and lengthen the runway and expand Blackbush as the North runway. Good location, both already airports. Farnborough already has much of the infrastructure in place where it is a major business jet airport and right on top of M3 Junction 4a. You could then link Blackbush to this and take the spur motorway a few miles further north to join the M4. 

Looks like we have got a much better plan that would serve a much bigger population area in minutes, who going to email Boris? 

It would be good for BA crew and airport workers as many already live in the Sandhurst / Crowthorne area.

[albitz]

and one thing boris the div has'nt answered is what happens to HMS montgomery..??...a second world war ship sunk with 2000 tonnes of explosives...cant be raised or blown up.....as if it goes it will cause a very bid tidal wave which knock out the isle of sheppy(which tbh no one will miss)...parts of gravesend,bluewater,and parts of south london....but one thing for sure is this boat is not stable enough to put up with the heavy duty air traffic they are proposing

And thats bad because ? 

 

[the alarming man]

come to think of it albs your right...thing is there are some many problems with this air brained scheme it is ridiculous...not to mention the 20 million birds that migrate to that area....do you think they will listern to the mayor of london?

[albitz]

I dont think its a serious idea tbh. Just Boris getting his face on TV and front pages,as hes scared London voters might forget about him.

[ted_one]

Farnborough and Blackbush oooer!!That would be mean joining you on the exodus from the area as we are already under the LHR flight path and marginally the LGW stack,could get mighty crowded with the other two joining the mix.

[Rods2]

With or without these as airports, I would quite happily continue to live in Sandhurst as I like where I live and the immediate community I live in. The reason I'm leaving the UK is that I think the prospects are very poor for this country long term and where all my business interests are internet based I can continue to earn what I'm earning now (or more), on a much lower cost base, and pay far less tax, so I have a more comfortable life and better standard of living. Now I might be completely wrong, but if you don't try these things you never know. 

I also have a number of projects that I want to develop, in what is a high risk area, where I have made good money in the past, but the current tax structure in this country does not make the risks worth it once you look at the post tax rewards!  In a lower tax, lower development cost environment they do. 

[Nickbat]

Do we need a third airport?

Yes, we do. If we can't have an extra runway at LHR, we need to look somewhere else.

Why?

Mainly because the emerging economies, especially in Central & South America are very poorly served by direct UK routes. Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt have quite a number of direct connections. There is no room for further slots at LHR and LGW expansion is not really on the cards.

So, where should it be?

I'm minded to think that Manston is the obvious choice. There is an airport there already and it no further from central London than either Stansted or London, thus it would be far less expensive to expand than the fresh start which would be necessary for Boris' plan.

Just my two-penneth, as they say.