Building a whole new articicial island and airport on it in the Thames estuary
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; Sep 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
From: Runway two seven right.
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; Sep 21, 2008 at 09:28 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 0
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
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
From: S.E London
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
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
From: Runway two seven right.
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
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
From: Runway two seven right.
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.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
From: West Yorks.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 0
From: On the Cat and Fiddle
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.
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!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,027
Likes: 0
From: Northants. 22B sold, as-new Lotus Omega instead.
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.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
From: www.tiovicente.com
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.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
From: Runway two seven right.
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!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
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
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
From: Runway two seven right.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MightyArsenal
Wheels, Tyres & Brakes
6
Sep 25, 2015 08:31 PM
