£50bn Thames Estuary airport plan too expensive, says report (From Echo)

At last common sense speaks out.

The TEA is very silly idea. It would be much better placed on the Goodwin sands, where there would be no property take, all take-off and landing routes would be over the sea, would be near the line to the Channel Tunnel, and there would space for up to 8 runways and a Europort for freight and passenger liners

Charles Norrie wrote:
The TEA is very silly idea. It would be much better placed on the Goodwin sands, where there would be no property take, all take-off and landing routes would be over the sea, would be near the line to the Channel Tunnel, and there would space for up to 8 runways and a Europort for freight and passenger liners

Come back Maplin, all is forgiven!

There may well be enough capacity to last until 2030. But how long does it take to plan, design and build main hub airport? 15 years for something like the estuary proposals is reasonable, maybe even a little hopeful. So now is the time to start thinking about this.

LONDON THAMES GLOBAL AIRPORT, THURROCK, ESSEX.....in association with the LONDON GATEWAY SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE PROJECT (fishfarm & flood defence).......the future

So what happens when all the airports in the SE are out of capacity in 2030? Considering they reckon it will take 20 years to build... I'd rather have the airport out further in the estuary as Boris suggested instead of the one floating off the Isle of Grain though.

TrifidV wrote:
So what happens when all the airports in the SE are out of capacity in 2030? Considering they reckon it will take 20 years to build... I'd rather have the airport out further in the estuary as Boris suggested instead of the one floating off the Isle of Grain though.

Hopefully by then people will have woken up to the idea that airports can also be built in the north of the country.

I work in the design and build industry and have also worked on aviation projects. I believe this airport (or one very similar) is essential!
It will be expensive but that cost will be split over certain amounts of time and parts of the airport can open while the rest is being built. This will eventually add to our economy , boost our construction industry and sort our air congestion problems.
Plus once the design for the airport is done (which the basics are there, just needs detailed design) the airport will take less than 10 years to complete. Look at Hong Kong airport.. that is a "floating" airport and only took 6-7 years to build!

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

TrifidV wrote: So what happens when all the airports in the SE are out of capacity in 2030? Considering they reckon it will take 20 years to build... I'd rather have the airport out further in the estuary as Boris suggested instead of the one floating off the Isle of Grain though.

Hopefully by then people will have woken up to the idea that airports can also be built in the north of the country.

Oh yes, I can see the Chinese wanting to fly into that mega financial hub known as Middleborough.

They have enough trouble keeping the birds away from London's existing airports, just how would they manage it in the estuary, huge flocks of seabirds use the area. There would be a massive danger of bird strikes at this location.

There is no difficulty in keeping birds away from airport sites. At the moment the Goodwin sands re under water and have few birds on them. When they are dried out they become mud flats and there are all sorts of technique for getting ring of the.

like: no food on the flats; sparrow-hawks and kestrels; noise and lights; small aircraft imitating hawks and kestrels; No need to turn to poison. How many strikes are there at Heathrow or Kai Tak in a year.

Don't raise straw men arguments.

Charles Norrie wrote:
There is no difficulty in keeping birds away from airport sites. At the moment the Goodwin sands re under water and have few birds on them. When they are dried out they become mud flats and there are all sorts of technique for getting ring of the.

like: no food on the flats; sparrow-hawks and kestrels; noise and lights; small aircraft imitating hawks and kestrels; No need to turn to poison. How many strikes are there at Heathrow or Kai Tak in a year.

Don't raise straw men arguments.

Heathrow is not in the middle of one of the largest wetland migratory areas in Europe. There's also the question of the SS Richard Montgomery, sitting there with thousands of tons of unexploded WW2 munitions.

Add to that the airport would be on the KENT side of the estuary it offers absolutely nothing to the economy of south Essex. In fact it promises more unemployment and less investment.

You do not save a straw man argument by repeating the offence. In fact Heathrow has had bird problems in the past, because of the presence of refuse tips in the area, and these have been dealt with by scrupulously burying the rubbish. And Goodwin is underwater most of the year and is not a mud flat, except and extreme low water.

Your argument might apply to the TEa site, but not Goodwin.

Charles Norrie wrote:
You do not save a straw man argument by repeating the offence. In fact Heathrow has had bird problems in the past, because of the presence of refuse tips in the area, and these have been dealt with by scrupulously burying the rubbish. And Goodwin is underwater most of the year and is not a mud flat, except and extreme low water.

Your argument might apply to the TEa site, but not Goodwin.

Do you have any concept at all of what 'migratory' means? The Thames estuary, and the channel are one of the busiest bird migratory routes in the world. Slapping a massive air hub in the middle of that is foolhardy in the extreme.

I notice you did not address the economic impact such a hub would have on Essex.

Looking at the picture of the proposed airport , its a good job all pilots go to spec savers , otherwise I can see how someone might land on what appears to be the approach road rather than the runways.

the 'South East Local Enterprise Partnership' is far, far, far! from independent..

statement from there website..

This is the largest single regeneration area in Europe and the strategic focus of our wider LEP area. With DP World’s new container facility and the Port of Tilbury in Thurrock, Ebbsfleet’s fast rail services to Europe, and Southend Airport, the Thames Gateway alone provides four key drivers of economic growth for our LEP area. As a national priority, the growth planned in the Thames Gateway provides significant opportunities for new businesses in new sectors and new employment opportunities.

part of there economic strategy includes.... yes you guessed it! Southend airport..

all these clowns want do do is pack aircraft around our other wheezing and congested international airports like a flock of pigeons around a discarded big mac. why worry about the long term future when these clowns want to make profit now..

jayman wrote:
the 'South East Local Enterprise Partnership' is far, far, far! from independent..

statement from there website..

This is the largest single regeneration area in Europe and the strategic focus of our wider LEP area. With DP World’s new container facility and the Port of Tilbury in Thurrock, Ebbsfleet’s fast rail services to Europe, and Southend Airport, the Thames Gateway alone provides four key drivers of economic growth for our LEP area. As a national priority, the growth planned in the Thames Gateway provides significant opportunities for new businesses in new sectors and new employment opportunities.

part of there economic strategy includes.... yes you guessed it! Southend airport..

all these clowns want do do is pack aircraft around our other wheezing and congested international airports like a flock of pigeons around a discarded big mac. why worry about the long term future when these clowns want to make profit now..

Building more and more airports is even more shortsighted.

Actually, I'm not in favour of building airports in general, but only as a temporary fix. What we need is underground vacuum tubes with maglev trains in them capable of 5000kph.

Charles Norrie wrote:
There is no difficulty in keeping birds away from airport sites. At the moment the Goodwin sands re under water and have few birds on them. When they are dried out they become mud flats and there are all sorts of technique for getting ring of the.

like: no food on the flats; sparrow-hawks and kestrels; noise and lights; small aircraft imitating hawks and kestrels; No need to turn to poison. How many strikes are there at Heathrow or Kai Tak in a year.

Don't raise straw men arguments.

What rubbish, you can't keep the skies clear with ANY of these tactics. As a birdwatcher I can assure you none of the flocks that fly over this area will take any notice of your so called scarers. Yes, they won't land on the airfield, but they do fly along the estuary & WILL be a hazard. Birds follow set routes, & the Thames estuary is their version of the M25.

And I watch birds too, and they really aren't a very serious hazard. Apart from the film "The Birds is coming", how many airports have been closed by our feathered friends?

Charles Norrie wrote:
And I watch birds too, and they really aren't a very serious hazard. Apart from the film "The Birds is coming", how many airports have been closed by our feathered friends?

Fifteen pounds of Goose into a jet engine is a very serious hazard. Even more so if a plane hits a whole flock.

Look, I know it is. That's why I want you to look further than airports. Like Maglev.

And one reason why RR has problems with developing their new engines in the 970s was that they forgot to de-freeze the simulated goose before funnelling it into the new carbon fibre blades under power.

True.

Charles Norrie

It recommended expanding other airports in the south, including Gatwick and Heathrow, to meet increasing air travel demands.

& hopefully Southend Airport.

Now, I take The Echo reporting with a pinch of salt, but.....

Mr Fuller, 54, from Westcliff, said: “If Heathrow was managed more efficiently and short-haul flights were moved to other airports such as Gatwick, Stansted or Luton, which still have capacity, there would be no need to replace the hub airport.

So if i am correct, Mr Fuller suggests existing Airports should be used more efficiently instead of building new?

However Mr Fuller is doe's not realise that Heathrow is at capacity and if you move the Short haul flights away from Heathrow (assuming the operators would want to move), you no longer have a Hub. It is the Hub that attracts global business to the UK and the reason it it vital the UK provides the capacity. But I too agree that using existing Airports is the best way (without building a Boris Island) to help absorb the demand.

So then, why is Mr Fuller so against the development of Southend Airport which is an existing Airport brought upto modern safety requirements to allow it to do what it used to do whilst doing exactly as he suggests by reducing the need to build a new hub Airport?

Then again god fordid anyone would suggest any kind of development or increase in activity at any Airport in front of Mr Fuller....

http://www.saen.org.
uk/tag/jon-fuller/

Well, what's all the fuzz about? The thing is dead, once again, and am I ever pleased about that. Can you even begin to imagine the environmental impact this would have on just the region?

Peek oil has been and gone, fuel, any fuel will become ever more expensive, putting up prices for flights, reducing (hopefully) the number of fliers, reducing the number of flights and airports required.

Flights are way too cheap anyway but that doesn't matter anymore, the thing has just been laid to rest again.