Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do Londoners think of closing Heathrow and building an airport in the estuary? Will it be the greatest white elephant of aviation history? It's been almost 40 years since Mirabel airport was built in Montreal as the vision of the future back then. It now stands as a testament to planning incompatible with people's desires.
I'd heard of the idea of an Estuary airport, but have never heard of any suggestion of closing Heathrow!
Boris Johnson wants to develop the land where Heathrow is now as a residential village.
Most people who have never read about airport expansion believe that new airports are built and the old ones remain operational (maybe in a limited capacity). Bottom line is every new airport creates a group of people who would like to keep the old airport open (if just for regional jets). It is actually very difficult to do economically. I am only aware of three times in history when it was done.
(1) Dulles airport in Washington DC where the US federal government could subsidize Dulles for 20 years until it had critical mass to operate on its own. They did not close National airport near downtown. But this was almost entirely because congressmen wanted an airport a few miles from their office and homes.
(2) Mirabel airport outside of Montreal in 1970's. They bowed to public pressure and kept Dorval, the downtown airport open. It ended as one of the greatest economic disasters of the 20th century.
(3) Dallas Fort Worth (opened 1974) and Love Field (paved in 1930's) in Dallas. They kept Love Field open but severely restricted the flights permitted to operate.
Keeping the old airport open divides loyalty. Everyone wants to operate at the old airport where costs are cheaper, and passengers prefer the location. The new airport usually running at a loss for several years, and cannot afford to lose any airlines. I suspect that it will never happen again in the USA that the old airport remains open.
I should note that city planners talk about it all the time. Las Vegas constantly talks about building a new airport and keeping the old one open. I think it is totally naive.
Boris Johnson wants to develop the land where Heathrow is now as a residential village.
Most people who have never read about airport expansion believe that new airports are built and the old ones remain operational (maybe in a limited capacity). Bottom line is every new airport creates a group of people who would like to keep the old airport open (if just for regional jets). It is actually very difficult to do economically. I am only aware of three times in history when it was done.
(1) Dulles airport in Washington DC where the US federal government could subsidize Dulles for 20 years until it had critical mass to operate on its own. They did not close National airport near downtown. But this was almost entirely because congressmen wanted an airport a few miles from their office and homes.
(2) Mirabel airport outside of Montreal in 1970's. They bowed to public pressure and kept Dorval, the downtown airport open. It ended as one of the greatest economic disasters of the 20th century.
(3) Dallas Fort Worth (opened 1974) and Love Field (paved in 1930's) in Dallas. They kept Love Field open but severely restricted the flights permitted to operate.
Keeping the old airport open divides loyalty. Everyone wants to operate at the old airport where costs are cheaper, and passengers prefer the location. The new airport usually running at a loss for several years, and cannot afford to lose any airlines. I suspect that it will never happen again in the USA that the old airport remains open.
I should note that city planners talk about it all the time. Las Vegas constantly talks about building a new airport and keeping the old one open. I think it is totally naive.
Except that in addition to Heathrow, London already has four or possibly five other airports, so assuming none of them appeared simultaneously with another, they must all but one be examples of a new airport opening without another closing down in its place. And they're apparently all close to capacity, which would suggest you could probably build another viable airport in London.
But I think the idea with the estuary airport has always been that it would be absolutely huge, both replacing Heathrow's existing capacity and providing enough spare for a good time to come.
Building a train that could go from London to Edinburgh or Glasgow in in a couple of hours or so, or building a tunnel in the direction of Amsterdam, might be a better way to reduce long-term strain on the airports here, though...
We already have a tunnel "in the direction of Amsterdam" - the Channel Tunnel. It's been operating successfully for years now.
London to Amsterdam is an easy journey with a quick change at Brussels-Nord. Not sure why you've chosen Amsterdam as your example though... do dopers really spend that much on travel ?
We already have a tunnel "in the direction of Amsterdam" - the Channel Tunnel. It's been operating successfully for years now.
London to Amsterdam is an easy journey with a quick change at Brussels-Nord. Not sure why you've chosen Amsterdam as your example though... do dopers really spend that much on travel ?
Well Amsterdam is north-east from London and the existing channel tunnel points south-east - so not quite. But admittedly, it might be more realistic to have faster, direct train services from London to Amsterdam using the existing tunnel, albeit with the diversion that implies, rather than to build another, much longer one. But while I agree that the existing train journey, changing in Brussels, is not difficult, it's not fast or convenient enough to compete with air travel for most passengers on that route. As for why Amsterdam - for whatever reason, it's the second most popular air travel destination from London after Dublin.
Except that in addition to Heathrow, London already has four or possibly five other airports, so assuming none of them appeared simultaneously with another, they must all but one be examples of a new airport opening without another closing down in its place. And they're apparently all close to capacity, which would suggest you could probably build another viable airport in London.
The Stansted expansion would also require a newer faster rail link.
It is not clear if an expanded Stansted would replace Heathrow as the primary International hub.
Perhaps Heathrow would then become strictly for European flights instead of transcontinental ones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You must close the old airport in any city
