Thames Estuary airport

[TimberWolf]

covers most of the airports on that list.

The fact is that such increased demand as there is can be met by expanding the existing facilities (mainly terminal / passenger handling capacity rather than new runways) so there is no need for a whole new airport.

Heathrow however is running flat out, and further expansion will require a 3rd runway and better transport links (the M4 is already notorious for delays and the tube overburdened) as well as a new terminal. If you are going to build all of those things at once, there is no sensible reason not to build them somewhere else.

But is all that demand from Londoners, or people having to fly to or from London?

I fancy Birmingham airport will be expanding rapidly with the arrival of the HS2 anyway, which might relieve London a little. No idea of the numbers involved. Where are you obtaining your numbers?

[doodab]

All those passengers can be London bound surely? Perhaps London airports are busy because that's where the investment has been.

The investment has been all over the place, that is why there are 30 airports on the list you posted.

The point is that of the airports on that list, most of them have some spare runway capacity currently and will be able handle significantly more flights and passengers (as are predicted over the next 20 years) with limited expansion such as a new terminal. Passenger numbers could further be increased relative to the number of flights by using larger planes. The main difficulty they face is local pressure groups who oppose their expansion on the grounds of noise, and you will get the same if you try and build a new airport. There is really no compelling argument for replacing any of them with a new airport instead of expanding them.

Heathrow however is currently limited by runway capacity. It already handles a higher number of passengers per plane than anywhere else. Gatwick is not far behind. London does actually need more runways.

[IR35 Avoider]

Then I would hope London is paying for it.

Airline passengers who use it will pay for it. It should actually actually be a net generator of public funds. The time gap between construction spending and operating revenue receipts would be plugged by private investors.

[doodab]

I am saying redistribute some of the London traffic to the "under used" provincial ones and upgrade transport links to London if that is what is needed.

But it isn't what's needed.

For example: Make all transatlantic flights go from Manchester, or all European flights go from Birmingham or make it a % based system 50% London 25% Manc etc.

That way you do not need a new airport in London and the provinces get a better share of the traffic.

The reason ~40% of the airline passengers in the UK pass through Heathrow and Gatwick is because London and the south east is home to about 18 of the 52 million people in England and around 14-15 million foreign tourists a year visit London. Heathrow is also BA's hub so it has to cope with the transfer traffic.

If you move that traffic to Manchester then Manchester will need a new runway, you'll inconvenience a sizeable majority of the 70,000,000 people a year that currently use Heathrow because they are actually travelling to and from London & the southeast, and those people from "the provinces" as you so quaintly call it who travel to London at the moment will have to travel to Manchester instead, so aside from roughly quadrupling the capacity of the west coast main line you will need to improve transport links to everywhere else as well or you'll actually make life worse for them.

Meanwhile Gatwick will still be oversubscribed.

[doodab]

Where are you obtaining your numbers?

UK Airport Statistics: 2010 - annual | Aviation Intelligence | Regulatory Policy has some useful stuff about airports.

[Arturo Bassick]

doodab: There is nothing quaint about the correct use of the word provinces.
I have extracted an excerpt from a dictionary for your edification.

the provinces,
a.
the parts of a country outside of the capital or the largest cities.
b.
(in England) all parts of the country outside of London.

[doodab]

doodab: There is nothing quaint about the correct use of the word provinces.
I have extracted an excerpt from a dictionary for your edification.

It rather depends on the sense in which one is using quaint.

2. odd, peculiar, or inappropriate: a quaint sense of duty

Quaint | Define Quaint at Dictionary.com

In this case it's "quaint" as you talk about "the provinces" as if they are a place that could be served by a single airport.

[Arturo Bassick]

It rather depends on the sense in which one is using quaint.



Quaint | Define Quaint at Dictionary.com

In this case it's "quaint" as you talk about "the provinces" as if they are a place that could be served by a single airport.

I am NOT proposing a single airport. I am suggesting that some of the slots from London COULD be redistributed amongst all the provincial airports, thus reducing pressure on London and utilising the spare capacity available in the provinces.
I am sure you are right when you say that the majority of flights are taken by Londoners, but there will be a significant minority of folk who live elsewhere who could be better served outside London.
If it takes between 1-1.5 hours to get to the airport surely it does not matter whether that airport is in London or Luton. If the main UK airports were more central to the UK it would reduce many journey times from 3+ hours.

[eek]

I am NOT proposing a single airport. I am suggesting that some of the slots from London COULD be redistributed amongst all the provincial airports, thus reducing pressure on London and utilising the spare capacity available in the provinces.
I am sure you are right when you say that the majority of flights are taken by Londoners, but there will be a significant minority of folk who live elsewhere who could be better served outside London.
If it takes between 1-1.5 hours to get to the airport surely it does not matter whether that airport is in London or Luton. If the main UK airports were more central to the UK it would reduce many journey times from 3+ hours.

It won't work. What people want is an airport hub to which you fly from regional airport before departing to your destination. Why do you think KLM fly to and from everywhere in the UK. People fly to Amsterdam for 8am spend 2-3 hours waiting for their connection and end up in Denmark, Germany, Ukraine...

To do that you require a lot of runways in a single place. Boris Island is the only answer clearly confirmed by Ken being totally against it.

[Doggy Styles]

I am NOT proposing a single airport. I am suggesting that some of the slots from London COULD be redistributed amongst all the provincial airports, thus reducing pressure on London and utilising the spare capacity available in the provinces.
I am sure you are right when you say that the majority of flights are taken by Londoners, but there will be a significant minority of folk who live elsewhere who could be better served outside London.
If it takes between 1-1.5 hours to get to the airport surely it does not matter whether that airport is in London or Luton. If the main UK airports were more central to the UK it would reduce many journey times from 3+ hours.

I'm sure if it were worth it, airlines would do it now.

It's not as if all the current provincial airport slots are full up, or priced out of the market.