Boris Johnson: New London Airport Proposal

[Langur]

^ If enough people wanted these services then the airlines would provide them. However not enough do. The runways should be built where the demand is. Birmingham airport already has the runway capacity to expand more than threefold. The fact that it doesn't use that capacity at present reflects the level of demand.

[hoosier]

Originally Posted by Langur

^ A Bad solution. Birmingham itself has loads of excess capacity already. Birmingham Airport only has 10 million pax pa. Its runway has capacity for up to 35 million pa. The demand is in the Southeast where 20 million people live and where the government has been too timid to allow runway expansions at any of the airports for the last 20 years. Labour has given the go ahead to new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted which is exactly what London needs. If the Tories get in they will cancel all of these which is a complete disaster. You can build a high speed rail network to every nook and cranny in Britain at the costs hundreds of £bns and it still won't alleviate the problem at London/SE airports where 90% of traffic is international. That's why I believe the Tories are seriously jeapoardising London's future competitiveness and why I'll be voting Labour.

OK, I didn't know international flights consumed that high a proportion of total flights to and from SE England airports.

But still, if the government built a high speed line from Heathrow to Birmingham and one could travel between the two in 20-25 minutes, it would make flying in and out of Birmingham's airport quite convenient for Londoners.

[hoosier]

Originally Posted by Langur

^ If enough people wanted these services then the airlines would provide them. However not enough do. The runways should be built where the demand is. Birmingham airport already has the runway capacity to expand more than threefold. The fact that it doesn't use that capacity at present reflects the level of demand.

Perhaps the demand isn't there because it takes too long to get to London by rail from Birmingham. Building a HSL would cut travel time immensely and make the Birmingham airport much more appealing for Londoners.

[urbanfan89]

I don't think so. No matter what, the airport has to be of reasonable distance from the city it is designed to serve. Telling Londoners to go to Birmingham to fly is like telling New Yorkers to go to Philadelphia to fly. Or that Los Angeles will be served by a new super-airport in Bakersfield. Because London is already a global metropolis in its own right, it is entitled to airports within reasonable distance.

[Brums'grove]

I wasnt really arguing that londoners should have to use Birminghams airport but if i go to buy a ticket somewhere more than likely it will involve a trip to london either heathrow or gatwick. Now me going to london uses up londons capacity and it would be likely that this is the case for at least maybe 25% of its capacity if not more (dont quote me on that im sure someone will hit me back with figures). Maybe people who live in the capital wouldnt use it but those around would give it a thought. I understand that people dont want to travel to far to get on a plane but if those in scotland either have to travel to london or get a connecting flight from london then im sure some people would use a service that is say 20 minutes from the airport they usually use.

Then again i seem to remember some very outraged people in london complaining when they had to travel to cardiff for the final of the fa cup while wembley was being built.

Out of interest how many airports and runways does new york have to get a comparison with london.

[djfusion777]

Originally Posted by Brums'grove

Out of interest how many airports and runways does new york have to get a comparison with london.

New York has three major airports-

JFK: Four runways, 47,810,630 passengers a year in 2007
Newark Liberty: Three runways, 35.4 million passengers a year in 2008
LaGuardia: Two runways, 23.1 million passengers a year in 2008

There are two other small airports with total annual passenger traffic of less than 500,000 a year.

[geoking66]

Originally Posted by urbanfan89

I don't think so. No matter what, the airport has to be of reasonable distance from the city it is designed to serve. Telling Londoners to go to Birmingham to fly is like telling New Yorkers to go to Philadelphia to fly. Or that Los Angeles will be served by a new super-airport in Bakersfield. Because London is already a global metropolis in its own right, it is entitled to airports within reasonable distance.

There's recent trend in the US, especially in New York, to use regional rather than international airports because of terminal fees and capacity issues. Newburgh and Islip are now becoming higher low-cost destinations, giving international flights more capacity into JFK and Newark. And it takes at least a half an hour to get from Newark to Manhattan and 45 minutes to get to Manhattan from JFK but people still use them because of connectivity. Birmingham would get much higher usage if high-speed rail connecting it with London were implemented, even more so if airlines integrated it with the flight.

[taikoo.city]

Originally Posted by geoking66

Birmingham would get much higher usage if high-speed rail connecting it with London were implemented, even more so if airlines integrated it with the flight.

Do you think it would be possible to have check-in counters and baggage pickup in HSR station, and have the checked baggage transported directly to and from the passenger's flight via HSR? This would work in a similar way to the "In-town Check-in Service" of MTR's Airport Express, although the latter only offers it in the outbound trip.

[potto]

Of course. They did that with the Heathrow Express, baggage check in at Paddington Station.

"ARRISON, N.Y., June 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Now travelers using the Heathrow Express high-speed rail service to Heathrow can get off to a flying start in central London, with the launch of full luggage check-in facilities on June 23, 1999. From this date forward more than 20 airlines will be represented at the new Paddington Station luggage check-in facility, making it the world's largest city center service of this type. Customers will be able to check in for their flights at any of 27 airline desks, including British Airways, United Airlines, Lufthansa and British Midland.

Travelers will be able to check in luggage and collect their boarding cards at Paddington Station any time during the day of their travel up to two hours prior to flight time (one hour for carry-on luggage only). With their boarding cards and seat numbers issued in central London, customers can sit back and relax on Heathrow Express, go directly to the departures lounge at the airport and shop or dine.

Luggage-less in London

Those leaving their London hotels early on departure day can check in with their airline early, enabling them to enjoy a baggage-free final day in London, until the time when they are ready to head to Heathrow on Heathrow Express.

Check-in facilities are open from 5AM to 9PM daily (opening times may vary by airline)."

That was 1999. Fast forward to 2008 and the facility has been closed due to security fears....

[urbanfan89]

Originally Posted by geoking66

There's recent trend in the US, especially in New York, to use regional rather than international airports because of terminal fees and capacity issues. Newburgh and Islip are now becoming higher low-cost destinations, giving international flights more capacity into JFK and Newark. And it takes at least a half an hour to get from Newark to Manhattan and 45 minutes to get to Manhattan from JFK but people still use them because of connectivity. Birmingham would get much higher usage if high-speed rail connecting it with London were implemented, even more so if airlines integrated it with the flight.

There are five commercial airports in the London area. Five. Heathrow is the "flagship" expensive airport, City caters to bankers who need quick commutes, Gatwick is the "second" airport, and the other two cater to budget, low-cost airlines.

No other city in the world (not even NYC or LA) has this diversity of choices of airports.

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by geoking66

There's recent trend in the US, especially in New York, to use regional rather than international airports because of terminal fees and capacity issues. Newburgh and Islip are now becoming higher low-cost destinations, giving international flights more capacity into JFK and Newark. And it takes at least a half an hour to get from Newark to Manhattan and 45 minutes to get to Manhattan from JFK but people still use them because of connectivity. Birmingham would get much higher usage if high-speed rail connecting it with London were implemented, even more so if airlines integrated it with the flight.

All those are a similar distance to JFK than Stansted/Gatwick/LCY and luton are to Heathrow.

Birmingham-Heathrow is like Baltimore-JFK, i.e. a hundred miles! We need HST in this country (as does the U.S.) but it still won't attract passengers and airlines to Birmingham.

If we're going to go further out than Luton/Stensted, might as well reclaim land north of Felixtowe/Harwich and save some of the Suffolk coast into the bargain. Very expensive but no bird flight paths to crash the planes! Could make it massive and build a city too...

[somersetchris]

It returns

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...mes-estuary.do

Sheikhs to fund ‘Boris Island’ airport in the Thames estuary

Boris Johnson's plan to build an airport on platforms in the Thames estuary is being backed by money from oil-rich countries in the Gulf, it was claimed today.

“Boris Island”, as the £40 million proposed site two miles off Sheerness has been called, could be entirely bankrolled and owned by sheikhs.

The Mayor's deputy, Kit Malthouse, said it could be built within 10 years. Plans indicate it would dwarf the capacity of Heathrow's two runways.

He added: “We have had an incredible amount of interest from countries such as Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, which have signalled they would like to fund the airport. It is possible we could build it without taxpayers' money.

“Who wouldn't want to own an immovable fixed asset just off the coast? It's extremely valuable and the owners of sovereign wealth funds know they could bequeath it to their children.”

Mr Malthouse said the Chinese government had also indicated it may want to put cash into the project during discussions at the Beijing Olympics.

The interest from countries willing to fund the airport answers critics who dismissed the scheme as far too expensive.

The Government, which is planning to increase airport capacity through a third runway at Heathrow if it wins the next election, has previously called it “fantasy island”, while airport operator BAA has questioned where the money would come from.

In two weeks the Mayor will publish the first “surface level” feasibility study into the airport, which is looking for any “howler” hurdles that could prevent construction.

Mr Malthouse said it will show the two artificial islands built in four-metre deep water and holding up to six runways will be “technically possible”.

The islands are to be linked to terminals on the mainland by tunnels or bridges and the buildings would be powered by giant water turbines using the tides.

Planes would take off and land over the sea, solving the blight of noise from engines and allowing the airport to operate around the clock.

[RBRJ]

Originally Posted by somersetchris

It returns

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...mes-estuary.do

Sheikhs to fund ‘Boris Island’ airport in the Thames estuary

Boris Johnson's plan to build an airport on platforms in the Thames estuary is being backed by money from oil-rich countries in the Gulf, it was claimed today.

“Boris Island”, as the £40 million proposed site two miles off Sheerness has been called, could be entirely bankrolled and owned by sheikhs.

The Mayor's deputy, Kit Malthouse, said it could be built within 10 years. Plans indicate it would dwarf the capacity of Heathrow's two runways.

He added: “We have had an incredible amount of interest from countries such as Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, which have signalled they would like to fund the airport. It is possible we could build it without taxpayers' money.

“Who wouldn't want to own an immovable fixed asset just off the coast? It's extremely valuable and the owners of sovereign wealth funds know they could bequeath it to their children.”

Mr Malthouse said the Chinese government had also indicated it may want to put cash into the project during discussions at the Beijing Olympics.

The interest from countries willing to fund the airport answers critics who dismissed the scheme as far too expensive.

The Government, which is planning to increase airport capacity through a third runway at Heathrow if it wins the next election, has previously called it “fantasy island”, while airport operator BAA has questioned where the money would come from.

In two weeks the Mayor will publish the first “surface level” feasibility study into the airport, which is looking for any “howler” hurdles that could prevent construction.

Mr Malthouse said it will show the two artificial islands built in four-metre deep water and holding up to six runways will be “technically possible”.

The islands are to be linked to terminals on the mainland by tunnels or bridges and the buildings would be powered by giant water turbines using the tides.

Planes would take off and land over the sea, solving the blight of noise from engines and allowing the airport to operate around the clock.

What about bird strikes? How heavy would they be?

[WatcherZero]

Going to be a lot of wading and fishing birds in waters that shallow. Reminds me of the doomed London sands project with led to Heathrow in the first place!

[RBRJ]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

Going to be a lot of wading and fishing birds in waters that shallow. Reminds me of the doomed London sands project with led to Heathrow in the first place!

"Reminds me of the doomed London sands project with led to Heathrow in the first place!". Interesting statement, could you expand on this a bit more? I was under the impression that Heathrow was chosen as an airport as it had an existing runway and was in easy reach of London (oh! how short sighted).

[somersetchris]

What amazes me is that Boris could not accept an oil deal with Venezuela, but might accept an airport deal from the Middle East.

[Isaac Newell]

what about the ship full of TNT?

[slipdigby]

Originally Posted by RBRJ

"Reminds me of the doomed London sands project with led to Heathrow in the first place!". Interesting statement, could you expand on this a bit more? I was under the impression that Heathrow was chosen as an airport as it had an existing runway and was in easy reach of London (oh! how short sighted).

Heathrow was a bit of a con by the Air Ministry towards the end of WWII. Much of the land for the airport was commandeered for use as an RAF transit airfield in 1943, and then subsequently never used. At the war's end the site was turned over to civil use as "London Airport".

I think the "doomed" airport proposal that you may have in mind was at Maplin Sands off the coast of Essex. This was kiboshed by the Yom Kippur war and all the unpleasantness that followed. What London got instead for a new airport was Stansted.

Best regards,
Slip

[capslock]

Originally Posted by RBRJ

What about bird strikes? How heavy would they be?

Less risky than Heathrow.

Look at an aerial photo of Heathrow and count the reservoirs and lakes.

It's an argument for putting runways in the middle of the estuary as opposed to near the shoreline where most of the birds are (in the tidal margins), but not against the estuary airport as a whole.

[capslock]

Originally Posted by Isaac Newell

what about the ship full of TNT?

They might finally have to deal with it.

Build a wall round it to prevent waves, blow it up, fix the windows in Sheerness and cook the fish that float to the surface.