Print

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

[05omegav6]

Utter tosh

Modern airports are fully automated, require no maintenance or service staff, and of course people go to airports to fly, not sleep in hotels

It will take a decade to build, will require all of Heathrows staff plus a couple or three thousand more andbird strikes will become irrelevant given all the birds will have long buggered off when they start building it

As for navigation, the approach and departure headings will be near identical to Southend and London City. Fog might be more of an issue, although Heathrow does sit on the Thames flood plain, so birds and fog aren't exactly news

[MR MISTER]

I thought it said 'Heathrow too close". I was going to advise moving....to...say...Azerbaijan.

[the alarming man]

tbh Boris island cannot work...for one over the past year that area as been fog bound for 254 of those 365 days, and secondly why the hell would you land a plane next to the biggest LNG terminal in Europe which they have just spent millions on making it bigger. Bloody suicidal   Don't get me wrong some thing as to happen but there is already an airport already built in minister which as the longest runway in England as Hercules used to land there makes more sense to adapt that

[05omegav6]

The fuel farm at Heathrow is between the runways, with a mains feed from Fawley what could possiby go wrong...

Me thinks people worry too much

[Nickbat]

Modern airports are fully automated, require no maintenance or service staff, and of course people go to airports to fly, not sleep in hotels

For a minute, I thought you being serious! 

[Rods2]

All they will then need to do is build all around it for the 100,000 staff that directly support Heathrow operations and for the other 900,000 that support those staff, but aren't directly connected with it. They can then start the lobbying with complaints over noise. 

The estimated cost will be at least four times that, if previous Government projects are anything to go by and it will have been build by 2836, by which time the rest of the world will have been moving about for several centuries using intercontinental hypersonic maglev systems. 

I really don't think they have considered the infrastructure implications for all of the support staff having to migrate and by putting it well away from a population centre, there will be considerable extra time and distance to travel from London and the southeast compared to Heathrow.

A model of it has on display for sometime along the A30 in Camberley.

Here is a picture of it........

[Varche]

Of course it might all be reverse psychology.

Something like we need more flights (that is a given) . Propose a hideously expensive, impractical alternative then capitulate and be seen to be saving 50 billion . Knock down a few hundred houses and build two more runways etc to triple the current size of Heathrow. Everyone is happy except for a few householders and local residents. the householders with knocked down properties will get above market rates so they will be happy. Could be worse, they could live in Spain and be compensated what they paid for the house.

The Chinese would have had two more runways operational and running at 75% by now.

[05omegav6]

You might have a point there Varche

Losing a couple of hundred homes and diverting the A4 is a very small price to pay in the scheme of things...

Given that Heathrow has been an operational airfield since 1929, I would politely suggest that 99% of the people living within 2 miles of the airport have moved there after 1929, and that 80% of those people have either worked at the airport or know someone who has. Stands to reason that anyone moving to a property near an airfield should expect aircraft and associated noise

Gatwick is allowed a second operational runway in 2019, and you can be sure it will be started within the next 3 years ready to open the minute the restriction expires

[iansoutham]

If looking for a "solution" to Heathrow, an off shore island is the only possible outcome IMO. Nobody will want it built anywhere near their own backyard, and anywhere with space will have conservation issues.

Actually, no. There is another option . . . .

 . . . totally flatten Reading and the surrounding area and simply relocate Heathrow a few miles along the M4 

No problem with the first part, but the residents of Reading may not be so keen on the second part.

So flatten Reading as well then if they want to complain and use that area for the airport staff living facilities and long stay car park. Second problem solved 

[PhilRich]

Have they forgotten the SS Richard Montgomery, I can't see too many takers for that clearance job!

[Sir Tigger KC]

Of course it might all be reverse psychology.

Something like we need more flights (that is a given) . Propose a hideously expensive, impractical alternative then capitulate and be seen to be saving 50 billion . Knock down a few hundred houses and build two more runways etc to triple the current size of Heathrow. Everyone is happy except for a few householders and local residents. the householders with knocked down properties will get above market rates so they will be happy. Could be worse, they could live in Spain and be compensated what they paid for the house.

The Chinese would have had two more runways operational and running at 75% by now.

...... and the residents and householders in China would just be kicked out, no compo, no alternative accommodation, no nothing!! 

[05omegav6]

Have they forgotten the SS Richard Montgomery, I can't see too many takers for that clearance job!

That should take a year or three off the build time by levelling the Isle of Sheppy

Hell, give me a boat and a bloody long stick...

[the alarming man]

Have they forgotten the SS Richard Montgomery, I can't see too many takers for that clearance job!

if that goes up it will flatten everything from the isle Sheppey (not a bad thing) up to and including Greenwich (so the navy say)...you need a big stick though al as the gas ships that come in steer around the bloody thing...go about 10 foot which is way to close...in fact at low tide you can see its masts

[Entwood]

Actual info on the SS Montgomery here ....  the masts are visible at all times, and there is some argument as to what would occur IF it went up ...

"According to a BBC news report in 1970, it was determined that if the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery exploded, it would throw a 1,000-foot-wide (300 m) column of water and debris nearly 10,000 feet (3,000 m) into the air and generate a wave 16 feet (5 m) high. Almost every window in Sheerness (pop. c20,000) would be broken and buildings would be damaged by the blast. However, news reports in May 2012 (including one by BBC Kent) stated that the wave could be about 4 feet (1 m) high, which although lower than previous estimates would be enough to cause flooding in some coastal settlements."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery

[chrisgixer]

Let TB at it. He'll sort it right out. No problem at all.