Building a whole new articicial island and airport on it in the Thames estuary
21 September 2008, 03:08 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Building a whole new artificial island and airport on it in the Thames estuary
...is apparently a better alternative to building a Third runway at LHR 
Boris thinks it's a great idea
Who thinks of these rediculous ideas? Who's gonna pay for it, how many zillions will it cost.
Crazy.
Boris thinks it's a great idea
Who thinks of these rediculous ideas? Who's gonna pay for it, how many zillions will it cost.
Crazy.
Last edited by Scoobychick; 22 September 2008 at 11:01 AM.
21 September 2008, 09:02 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be a nightmare here.
1. Can you imagine how long the public enquiry would be? The entire South East airspace would need to be changed. You have every green nut in the SE complaining that any proposed solution would adversely affect them.
2. As above, it would take years to design the airspace.
3. How are people going to get into and out of the place? Lots of new infrastructure needed.
4. The environmental assessment would take years, and be challenged.
5. East London, and beyond would see marked increase in aircraft noise. Benefit to West London though.
6. And who pays for it? HMG wont' and I can tell you Ferrovial ( LHR owners ) wouldnt pay for it,
7.Forgot to add that Maplin sands is on the migratory route for birds. If anyone fancies flying out of an airports that regularly has 10's of thousands of birds flying round it, be my guest!
1. Can you imagine how long the public enquiry would be? The entire South East airspace would need to be changed. You have every green nut in the SE complaining that any proposed solution would adversely affect them.
2. As above, it would take years to design the airspace.
3. How are people going to get into and out of the place? Lots of new infrastructure needed.
4. The environmental assessment would take years, and be challenged.
5. East London, and beyond would see marked increase in aircraft noise. Benefit to West London though.
6. And who pays for it? HMG wont' and I can tell you Ferrovial ( LHR owners ) wouldnt pay for it,
7.Forgot to add that Maplin sands is on the migratory route for birds. If anyone fancies flying out of an airports that regularly has 10's of thousands of birds flying round it, be my guest!
Last edited by FlightMan; 21 September 2008 at 09:28 PM.
22 September 2008, 08:40 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FM, I agree with you totally.
BUT, they had a public enquiry on the new 'super-port' being built on the Thames. That was just a show. It was agreed well before that started.
Mind you though, what does 10 thousand birds going through a jet engine do?
BUT, they had a public enquiry on the new 'super-port' being built on the Thames. That was just a show. It was agreed well before that started.
Mind you though, what does 10 thousand birds going through a jet engine do?
Trending Topics
22 September 2008, 11:39 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard about it on the radio this morning. Would be interested to see where exactly its planned.
Given the choice, would people go for expanding Heathrow, landing more planes at an already busy facility, or relocating some of the traffic to a new location in the SE rather than the SW and W
Given the choice, would people go for expanding Heathrow, landing more planes at an already busy facility, or relocating some of the traffic to a new location in the SE rather than the SW and W
22 September 2008, 11:55 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 September 2008, 11:56 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
As FM said, it's not a good idea at all.
HK had one tiny, cramped airport with a crazy approach right over the city. They needed the island-port.
London has Four airports already and building a Third runway at the biggest one is the most sensible option.
I'd love to see the cost and environmental impacts/figures broken down for Rwy 3 Vs Island-port
HK had one tiny, cramped airport with a crazy approach right over the city. They needed the island-port.
London has Four airports already and building a Third runway at the biggest one is the most sensible option.
I'd love to see the cost and environmental impacts/figures broken down for Rwy 3 Vs Island-port
22 September 2008, 11:59 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR is tiny by comparison to other hub airports, it's cramped and has an approach right over the city.
But, for the reasons I quoted above, it is a bad idea and will not happen.
22 September 2008, 11:59 AM
#16
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 September 2008, 12:00 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
The one at osaka, Kansai International, doesnt float its actually attached to the sea bed.
It cost a massive amount of money, and its sinking slowly, but it hasnt stopped them from building a second one.
The japanese government has also paid millions to the local fishermen for loss and damage to fishing grounds. This has also happened in Hong Kong.
It cost a massive amount of money, and its sinking slowly, but it hasnt stopped them from building a second one.
The japanese government has also paid millions to the local fishermen for loss and damage to fishing grounds. This has also happened in Hong Kong.
22 September 2008, 12:02 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yeah i know it's small compared to Schipol and CDG etc but it's just had a load of £££ spent on it, and is currently having a load more, and if they get Rwy 3 it will be a huge improvement as you know. Knocking all that down (how much?) and spending £20 Billion odd on an island is crazy!
22 September 2008, 12:08 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northants. 22B sold, as-new Lotus Omega instead.
Posts: 2,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This story comes round as often as April Fools day. Panic, panic: we need more runways!!! Let's stick it an airport in the Thames estuary (or North Kent).
Why? They're taxing the passengers out of the sky, aircraft are considered the greatest evil of modern times by the environmentalists, and airlines are failing on an almost weekly basis.
We just don't need another airport or another runway. And no I don't live close to any existing or proposed airports!
Why? They're taxing the passengers out of the sky, aircraft are considered the greatest evil of modern times by the environmentalists, and airlines are failing on an almost weekly basis.
We just don't need another airport or another runway. And no I don't live close to any existing or proposed airports!
, even when refreshed.
22 September 2008, 07:39 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a red herring designed to make the third RWY at Heathrow seem like the better option, although there are some who choose to believe it but as Flightman says it would take an inordinate amount of work to redesign the airspace in that area, throw in Eurocontrol and the whole thing doesn't stack up.
22 September 2008, 07:47 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a red herring designed to make the third RWY at Heathrow seem like the better option, although there are some who choose to believe it but as Flightman says it would take an inordinate amount of work to redesign the airspace in that area, throw in Eurocontrol and the whole thing doesn't stack up.
Stack up.
Love it!
23 September 2008, 10:48 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be a nightmare here.
1. Can you imagine how long the public enquiry would be? The entire South East airspace would need to be changed. You have every green nut in the SE complaining that any proposed solution would adversely affect them.
2. As above, it would take years to design the airspace.
3. How are people going to get into and out of the place? Lots of new infrastructure needed.
4. The environmental assessment would take years, and be challenged.
5. East London, and beyond would see marked increase in aircraft noise. Benefit to West London though.
6. And who pays for it? HMG wont' and I can tell you Ferrovial ( LHR owners ) wouldnt pay for it,
7.Forgot to add that Maplin sands is on the migratory route for birds. If anyone fancies flying out of an airports that regularly has 10's of thousands of birds flying round it, be my guest!
1. Can you imagine how long the public enquiry would be? The entire South East airspace would need to be changed. You have every green nut in the SE complaining that any proposed solution would adversely affect them.
2. As above, it would take years to design the airspace.
3. How are people going to get into and out of the place? Lots of new infrastructure needed.
4. The environmental assessment would take years, and be challenged.
5. East London, and beyond would see marked increase in aircraft noise. Benefit to West London though.
6. And who pays for it? HMG wont' and I can tell you Ferrovial ( LHR owners ) wouldnt pay for it,
7.Forgot to add that Maplin sands is on the migratory route for birds. If anyone fancies flying out of an airports that regularly has 10's of thousands of birds flying round it, be my guest!
Les
23 September 2008, 10:51 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
23 September 2008, 11:45 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sub-Subaru
General Technical
1
28 September 2015 12:47 PM
MightyArsenal
Wheels, Tyres & Brakes
6
25 September 2015 08:31 PM