New airport planned for London

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

I agree. It must be far more economical to use existing resources, than to build a whole new airport, as well as the whole transport infrastructure that goes with it.

There is far more chance of expanding the existing airports than building some fantasy single airport that requires far more space than anyone would ever get past the environmentalists.

---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The only warning you're all going to get: discussing who you have on ignore, and why, constitutes a personal attack on another member of this forum. Any more of it and there will be infractions.

Sorry Chris

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Sirius

There is far more chance of expanding the existing airports than building some fantasy single airport that requires far more space than anyone would ever get past the environmentalists.[COLOR="Silver"]

Very true.

As I said previously, Stanstead already have the land levelled out , but just grassed over. And Luton has the town on one side, a cliff on another that drops down to a road, and on the other two sides it is farmland. So there shouldn't be any real environmental concerns.

I don't really know about any environmental issues surrounding Gatwick or Heathrow. But idf there are any, then it would make sense to concentrate expansion on Luton and Stanstead.

[Hugh]

Or perhaps expand a Midlands/Northern airport or two (East Midlands Airport and/or Manchester, perhaps), as quite a lot of people don't live in the South....

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or perhaps expand a Midlands/Northern airport or two (East Midlands Airport and/or Manchester, perhaps), as quite a lot of people don't live in the South....

thats my thinking birmingham and manachester particularly under used.

Think Heathrow, Gatwick, stanstead, luton cater south population. Northern midlands people should be flying nearer home to ease polution and travel costs. To do it at least 2 northern airports need significant increase.

I used to work at gatwick years ago it was nightmare its not just saying expand this etc. The car park for staff is huge. I dont know if its still 12 hour shifts. Simply roads round there just could not cope with it all. Literally had to go two hours before work get in.

Expand it you would have triple car parking staff and passengers tripple rail link to crawley and london.

Its not what the airport can take in capacity its what the infrastructure can cope. Gtawick airport under used in terms aircraft passenger. Its at breaking point with its road rail parking links. Cant be increased for that reason would not be suprised others in similar boat.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or perhaps expand a Midlands/Northern airport or two (East Midlands Airport and/or Manchester, perhaps), as quite a lot of people don't live in the South....

Well whatever airports need expanding. But this discussion was about a London airport.

---------- Post added at 00:58 ---------- Previous post was at 00:55 ----------

Originally Posted by mertle

thats my thinking birmingham and manachester particularly under used.

Think Heathrow, Gatwick, stanstead, luton cater south population. Northern midlands people should be flying nearer home to ease polution and travel costs. To do it at least 2 northern airports need significant increase.

I used to work at gatwick years ago it was nightmare its not just saying expand this etc. The car park for staff is huge. I dont know if its still 12 hour shifts. Simply roads round there just could not cope with it all. Literally had to go two hours before work get in.

Expand it you would have triple car parking staff and passengers tripple rail link to crawley and london.

Its not what the airport can take in capacity its what the infrastructure can cope. Gtawick airport under used in terms aircraft passenger. Its at breaking point with its road rail parking links. Cant be increased for that reason would not be suprised others in similar boat.

The M62 corridor actually has 4 airports already, with Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds/Bradford, and Humberside. Out of these probably Leeds/Bradford or Humberside would benefit most from expansion.

[mertle]

Tim Deegan I know humberside very well sadly dont see it able to increase much not near motorway only dangerous narrow A roads. Lincolnshire roads deathraps increase volume on that A18 would be disasterous was on telly monday how bad it is. Britain worst road its too narrow lacks verge, in major mess and lacks barriers. Twisty too it was on monday bbc2 programme. Many avoid it sure would and does put people off going to airport.

again its about not what the airport can handle believe its one few with 24 hour licence but not used. Its what the infrastructure can handle. doubt Humberside could cope significant increase without upgrading road support of a rail link which it has not got.

Its also got quite cargo section to the airport and offshore heliport. Would need terminal increase.

There been issues on its runway increase with village one side its right up to A18 which got lights it has taken a big aeroplane in emergency once but runway not really long enough.

There is though fields around so could be increased but kirmington village oposed few things the council known to side with nimby's.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

what are do londons airports serve then?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport, Heathrow is often touted as the world's busiest airport. If you take into account the total number of passengers (domestic and international), it's fourth (behind Atlanta, Bejing and Chicago O'Hare) busiest. It is, however, the busiest airport in Europe, and in 2010 had about 25% more passengers than Frankfurt.

In terms of International passengers, it's the busiest in the world, beating the number of passengers in Frankfurt by 25% again.

By merging all the London airports into one you would, in my opinion, be giving terrorists the message that they could take out one of the busiest transport hubs in the world (if not the busiest) just by threatening one airport. They wouldn't even need to actually do anything, just issue a threat.

It would, IMO, be monumentally stupid to reduce our air transport infrastructure in this way.

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Well whatever airports need expanding. But this discussion was about a London airport.

---------- Post added at 00:58 ---------- Previous post was at 00:55 ----------



The M62 corridor actually has 4 airports already, with Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds/Bradford, and Humberside. Out of these probably Leeds/Bradford or Humberside would benefit most from expansion.

I agree, but if airports outside the London area were expanded, there may be less of a need to expand the London airports....

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree, but if airports outside the London area were expanded, there may be less of a need to expand the London airports....

Agreed. As I understand it, a lot of the passenger traffic through the London airports (and Heathrow in particular) consists of those who are changing to a joining flight elsewhere. It's not going to make much difference to either them or the airline if they change flights at an airport 100 miles north of Heathrow. Not if they are travelling a couple of thousand miles already.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree, but if airports outside the London area were expanded, there may be less of a need to expand the London airports....

plus less travel M1 A1 M25 A23 you take that headache away of people travelling 100 miles plus to airport.

The only question is infrastructure like said over humberside .

the concern manchester has is leeds/bradford not far away rework of possible holding pattern to cope influx more flights.

Yes needs to be more pragmatic way to or airtravel. Another airport or upgrade if possible to london airports assume all passengers either southern or london bound.

How much of the uk population further than 50 miles of luton thats the are needs catering at present the design would mean those could never fly from this airport.

[Stuart]

You are ignoring business flights (which is actually a large chunk of Heathrow's income). How much of a percentage of the companies who would need international flight are based in London?

If there isn't the demand from local businesses for air travel elsewhere in the country (there clearly is in London), it may not be viable to extend/upgrade airports in other regions.

Remember, the Airports are no longer nationalised. They are run by private companies. the best way to get a private company to do something is persuade them it will be more profitable for them to do something somewhere than it will somewhere else.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by mertle

Tim Deegan I know humberside very well sadly dont see it able to increase much not near motorway only dangerous narrow A roads. Lincolnshire roads deathraps increase volume on that A18 would be disasterous was on telly monday how bad it is. Britain worst road its too narrow lacks verge, in major mess and lacks barriers. Twisty too it was on monday bbc2 programme. Many avoid it sure would and does put people off going to airport.

again its about not what the airport can handle believe its one few with 24 hour licence but not used. Its what the infrastructure can handle. doubt Humberside could cope significant increase without upgrading road support of a rail link which it has not got.

Its also got quite cargo section to the airport and offshore heliport. Would need terminal increase.

There been issues on its runway increase with village one side its right up to A18 which got lights it has taken a big aeroplane in emergency once but runway not really long enough.

There is though fields around so could be increased but kirmington village oposed few things the council known to side with nimby's.

I've never flown from there myself, but my mum lives about quater of an hour away.

As with most airport expansion plans, these usually include improving the road network. With Humberside airport there is the M180 just down the road, and also there is easy access from the M62.

Luton airport have already improved the road system ready for expansion. Making it very easy to get from the M1 straight into the airport.

---------- Post added at 23:07 ---------- Previous post was at 23:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree, but if airports outside the London area were expanded, there may be less of a need to expand the London airports....

Possibly, but you have to remember that all except Docklands airport are outside London anyway. And they attract passengers from quite a wide radius.

Where I live I am 20 mins from Luton, 40mins from Stanstead, but can also make it to Gatwick, East Midlands, or Birmingham in 90 mins on a good day.

---------- Post added at 23:10 ---------- Previous post was at 23:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

Agreed. As I understand it, a lot of the passenger traffic through the London airports (and Heathrow in particular) consists of those who are changing to a joining flight elsewhere. It's not going to make much difference to either them or the airline if they change flights at an airport 100 miles north of Heathrow. Not if they are travelling a couple of thousand miles already.

That is true for around 25% of passengers I believe. However you also have to cater for the other 75% of passengers on the plane.

Maybe the best option would be to have two hubs like Heathrow. The other one being in the north.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

There is far more chance of expanding the existing airports than building some fantasy single airport that requires far more space than anyone would ever get past the environmentalists.

---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ----------



Sorry Chris

They will not even let the exsisting 4 main airports.

This new airport idea of mine is more eniviromently friendly than the 4 london airports as it means less homes will be effected by aircraft noise and more people can use public transport to get to this airport

it is not environmentalists you need to worry about, it is local residents and the polticans that back them, sasticfy them and you have won the agument

---------- Post added at 09:20 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Very true.

As I said previously, Stanstead already have the land levelled out , but just grassed over. And Luton has the town on one side, a cliff on another that drops down to a road, and on the other two sides it is farmland. So there shouldn't be any real environmental concerns.

I don't really know about any environmental issues surrounding Gatwick or Heathrow. But idf there are any, then it would make sense to concentrate expansion on Luton and Stanstead.

There is strong opposition against expanding Luton and Stansted, plus Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all oppose expanding Luton and Stansted

---------- Post added at 09:30 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or perhaps expand a Midlands/Northern airport or two (East Midlands Airport and/or Manchester, perhaps), as quite a lot of people don't live in the South....

International airlines will not serve those airports, because more people know more about london than any cities in the north (sadly!!!), plus more people are concentrated in the south east than in the rest of the uk, lastly how are you going to convince BA (plus BMI) and Virgin Atlantic to move flights to those airports

BA has withdrawn from Manchester (apart from linking flights to London Heathrow and Gatwick), Virgin wants more slots at heathrow more than anything elise. BA has bought BMI for its slots at heathrow plus it is likely to sell (or close) Bmibaby, so BA will not use bmibaby's slots at Belfast, Birmingham or East Midlands

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree, but if airports outside the London area were expanded, there may be less of a need to expand the London airports....

The dual-hub model exists to a certain extent between LHR and LGW and BA, in particular, is known to hate it with a passion. For point-to-point domestic or European travel the solution is either to expand the other airports within the London system or else throw the national wealth behind high-speed rail (or more likely, a combination of both).

What we really need is to kill, as far as possible, domestic flights in and out of Heathrow by putting those journeys onto the railways. I believe we need HS2 to push as far north as possible as quickly as possible in order to achieve this. If we can't expand Heathrow then we need to make more room for the international long haul traffic that needs to use that particular airport.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chris

The dual-hub model exists to a certain extent between LHR and LGW and BA, in particular, is known to hate it with a passion. For point-to-point domestic or European travel the solution is either to expand the other airports within the London system or else throw the national wealth behind high-speed rail (or more likely, a combination of both).

What we really need is to kill, as far as possible, domestic flights in and out of Heathrow by putting those journeys onto the railways. I believe we need HS2 to push as far north as possible as quickly as possible in order to achieve this. If we can't expand Heathrow then we need to make more room for the international long haul traffic that needs to use that particular airport.

who would want to travel by plane within the uk?

and yes i would back you about HS2

however about 70% of flights are international