Tonight:
4°c
Boris slammed over plans for airport in Kent
Jack Lefley and Felix Allen22 Sep 2008
Airline chiefs today condemned Boris Johnson's plans to close Heathrow and open a new airport on an artificial island on the Thames estuary.
British Airways and Heathrow's owner BAA said closing Heathrow would cost 77,000 jobs and threaten London's position as an international transport hub.
Environmental groups also warned the plans could be "catastrophic" for wildlife in the sensitive and legally-protected estuary habitat.
Mr Johnson, who opposes building a third runway at Heathrow, has ordered a detailed study into building a four-runway international hub on a massive artificial island two miles off the Kent coast near Sheppey.
The proposed airport, similar to a £31.5 billion scheme first suggestedmore than five years ago, could operate 24 hours a day as planes would approach over the North Sea, away from residential areas, and would be built to cope with a predicted doubling of passenger numbers in the next two decades.
City Hall officials believe it could be built in six years at a cost of between £30 and 40billion, and are understood to be drawing up plans to ferry passengers to and from London in 35 minutes via a high-speed rail link.
A review has been completed and an engineering company is now conducting a feasibility study, the Mayor has confirmed.
His planning team, led by deputy mayor Kit Malthouse, hope it would lead to the eventual closure of Heathrow, which could be redeveloped as a hightech business park.
Mr Malthouse said: "I think it's madness to expand any of the other airports when there is an obvious solution elsewhere. If we can build St Paul's, the Gherkin, the Channel Tunnel and all the rest of it, then we can do this. We just need a bit of courage." But the proposals, already dubbed "Boris Island", have met instant opposition from politicians, campaign groups and airline bosses.
Baroness Jo Valentine, chief executive of business lobby group London First, called it "an idealistic solution which could take 30 or 40 years to develop".
BAA said: "What London and the UK need now is new runway capacity if we are to avoid losing our connections to the world, particularly India and China."
A BA spokesman said: "It would cost a vast amount. Where would the funding come from?" Strikes planned for tomorrow and Thursday by workers who operate luggage scanning machines at Stansted were called off today to allow fresh talks in a bid to resolve the pay row.
Reader views (72)
A sound example of blue-skies thinking!
My wife and I live under one of the Heathrow flight paths within a few miles of the airport: our choice was made to enable us to live near our daughter, son-in-law and our two grandchildren. It was a conscious and reasoned decision, but we were unprepared for the almost constant battering by aircraft noise and by the poor air quality which consistently fails to meet EU standards. The old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong was replaced by a totally new airport on a purpose-built 'island' and much of the new Dubai is also built on similar reclamaitions, so the idea and the technologies are not new - all that is needed is the will to put the health and welfare of the people of London ahead of the demands of business leaders.
The effects of a third runway on the environment are totally predictable; the great city of London would thrive as never before if its air was both quiet and clean due to the complete removal of high-volume commercial air traffic from the city's skies.
- Kiwi Expat, London, UK, 08/10/2008 12:17
Report abuse
Friends of the North Kent Marshes alongside the RSPB are wholly opposed to the construction of an airport anywhere in the Thames Estuary because of the immense damage it would cause to the area’s internationally important wildlife and the wider environment.The whole issue was exhaustively investigated between 2002 and 2005 in the Government’s Aviation White Paper. All the key players, including the aviation industry, contributed. The idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary was conclusively ruled out and upheld by the High Court. In addition to the unprecedented environmental damage and the resulting massive legal implications, the investigation found that an estuary airport did not make sense economically, would not meet the requirements of the aviation industry and presented a significantly higher risk of ‘bird strike’ than at any other major airport in the UK. It would potentially be the single biggest piece of environmental vandalism ever perpetrated in the UK.
- Friends Of The North Kent Marshes, Cliffe Kent, 02/10/2008 00:39
Report abuse
The idea certainly has some merit. Though one has to ask, if its such a fabulous solution, why was it not considered years ago before Heathrow was expanded?
- Roland, London, 01/10/2008 14:52
Report abuse
Rising oil prices and declining incomes will see the demand for air travel drop dramatically over the next decade. Ten years from now, it is unlikely that we will see sufficient flights to justify the airport capacity that we have right now, let alone even more airport capacity. Building a new airport or runway anywhere, is unlikely to be a wise investment. Politicians appear to be living in a fantasy world.
The government would do better to invest money in an upgraded electrified railway system, with double-decker trains and also trams within towns. This will improve the UK's resilience to the inevitable fuel shortages of the next 20 years.
- Tony, Kendal, 30/09/2008 10:46
Report abuse
Heathrow was originally designed with 4 runways and it should have them. People living in West London who bought their houses after 1950 have no right to object and hold up planning permission for years as they did with terminal 5.
Within 20 years we will need a new major airport and the Thames estuary seems to be the only logical site. I am sorry for the birds but they will adapt at least we will have less whining from West Londoners, many of whom depend on the airport for their livilihoods.
- Simon Wells, BRENTWOOD ENGLAND, 24/09/2008 19:29
Report abuse
It's difficult to know what's best, the area round Heathrow is certainly very busy and continuous flight noise creates problems, but the Thames Estuary is a highly important area for migrating birds. It would decimate their populations and BAA would probably have to instigate an ongoing cull to prevent bird strikes on planes
- Mcw, London, 24/09/2008 12:46
Report abuse
I get confused with BAA and BA when they scream we must compete with Paris and Schipol and Frankfurt and then say no to a new airport - The competition all have new airports all built up over the last 30 years and all sighted to MINIMISE pollution and noise for HUMAN BEINGS - no one who lives in West London expected that there would seriously be a proposal to end the peace and quiet people enjoy for half a day by ending alternation - enough is enough - the aviation lobby is the 21st century tobacco lobby and the science of its ill effects on those HUMAN BEINGS people are so happy to ignore will eventually mean the sort of civil action that has brought the tobacco industry to heal - sorry if you don't like what this does to your 2 weeks in the sun but asthma for our kids and an inability to function out of doors is inhuman and monstrous and i for one a law abiding citizen will take direct action and protest - this is a line in the sand and woo betide Ruth, Jim and Gordon and their labour stooges working in the aviation industry if they think for an instant they will get away with this one. People are angry and organised and when Ruth slips out her announcement on a bad news day just listen to the roar from the West - I would not use LHR for any money at that point - chaos will result.
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 23/09/2008 22:20
Report abuse
This is not a new idea, but thank God that someone has the guts to give it proper consideration. In case people hadn't noticed, the UK's LONG TERM ECONOMIC HEALTH relies on GOOD AIR TRAVEL. Heathrow is massively overcrowded, and very badly sited for any form of expansion, let alone noise pollution issues, etc. IF - and remember this is still only a feasibilty study - it offers a proper solution, then good for Boris for grasping this particular nettle.
- Tom Lister, London, UK, 23/09/2008 18:29
Report abuse
At least when George W has gone there will still be one laughing stock worthy of a few headlines. Arrogantly eating into Kent for a completely unsustainable project way beyond his childlike comprehension. An empty shell - I thought Johnson was "green"? Or is she just thick?
- Cms, London, 23/09/2008 08:40
Report abuse
What a great idea. Boris is bringing vision to the job and you will see in reactions from other less imaginative politicians just how ahead of them in brainpower he is. Heathrow is a dump and embarasses this country rather than potrays the best of Britain. Carry on Boris and ignore the dullards who will fear any change and get it done!
- David Miller, Chelmsford Essex, 23/09/2008 07:18
Report abuse
This should have occurred years ago before they began building Stansted and polluting one of the loveliest parts of rural Essex and driving us overseas. Go for it, Boris! You're the best thing that's happened to England in years.
- Patrick Neville, Willunga, south australia, 23/09/2008 03:30
Report abuse
I am sure this is possibly the most least thought out plan ever, I guess if I tried to take explosives to an airport, I would be considered to be doing wrong, so what is taking an airport to explosives then, utter madness, has everyone forgot about the SS Richard Montgomery, which has approx 1,400 tons of TNT on board, which lies in the Thames Estuary, and which the BBC stated at one time, would generate a 300m wall of water if it explodes.
I like Boris Johnson, I think he is good for London, but wish his team would protect him from himself sometimes.
- John Kirby, Crouch End, London, 23/09/2008 01:28
Report abuse
Brilliant idea, the cost of building the new airport could probably be recouped to a great degreee by sale of land and development of the existing heathrow airport into an ultramodern mini city provoding loads more homes and office space and jobs. And every can get a good nights sleep.It makes good sense all round.
- Chris Bennett, London, 23/09/2008 00:44
Report abuse
Brilliant idea, the cost of building the new airport could probably be recouped to a great degreee by sale of land and development of the existing heathrow airport into an ultramodern mini city provoding loads more homes and office space and jobs. And every can get a good nights sleep.It makes good sense all round.
- Chris Bennett, London, 23/09/2008 00:43
Report abuse
Many UK regional airports now have direct flights to lots of places across Europe - thanks to the low fares airlines - and beyond, eg Dubai on Emirates from Newcastle. This reduces the need for people to change planes at Heathrow, which with 5 terminals is a nightmare for passengers and luggage alike.
Heathrow should become a regional airport for West London and Berkshire. Amsterdam is a perfectly good transit hub for those hard-to-reach destinations. If, for economic reasons, we really need a big transit hub airport in the UK, there are plenty of underutilised airfiled sites around, such as Manston, Woodbridge & Bentwaters, Mildenhall, Machrihanish and Prestwick.
If I want to fly from Newcastle to Warsaw or Mexico City, and I can't fly direct, I want to change somewhere easy, cheap and quick; I don't want to stack over people's homes in London for ages then spend hours trogging through glorified shopping centres only to queue for ages to take off over more Londoners' houses.
Spread flights around the regions or have a hub away from London.
- Aidan, Tyne and Wear, 23/09/2008 00:11
Report abuse
Well I think it is a grand scheme. To those revellers that say Heathrow should stay, I say Heathrow has had its day. Unable to cope with ever increasing demand in air travel, proposing additional runway/s at the cost of bull-dosing peoples homes and societies. Tired looking and in-efficient architecture, the nightmare scenario of reaching it by piteous underground, road and rail networks. Lets just rebuild the thing with the infrastructure already there to add if needed.
I do think though that Gatwick could become a great 2nd airport for short haul and European flights and closing it would be a mistake should this all materialise.
Whatever I truly believe that BAA have not realised the strain that Heathrow is going to succumb to in the future as regards increases in air travel.
- Craig, London, London UK, 22/09/2008 23:26
Report abuse
What is a shame is that Kent International Airport at Manston has been ommitted from all plans. This site has great potential and with the minor re-alingment of the A road running along one of the widest runways in the country, a railway spur line being added from a nearby existing line and construction of a new passenger terminal. The current areas North of the existing runway could be rearranged to include cargo facilities, a low cost carrier terminal and general aviation complex.
This would be a great alternative to the expense of constructing an island. It might also be useful for longhaul connections with the development of links within Kent from both Ebbsfleet and Ashford International Railway Stations.
The other Key benefit over Gatwick would be the freedom from the legal obligations about no extra runway before 2019.
- Robin, Redhill, Surrey, 22/09/2008 22:57
Report abuse
A great and sensible long term solution which will almost certainly exclude it from ever getting built. You must have forgotten Boris, that in this country we have a masochistic relationship with our transport system and to build anything as sensible as an 24 hour island airport with high speed rail links, goes against everything we stand for!
- Rich, London, 22/09/2008 22:54
Report abuse
Good for Boris. It’s about time a politician had some vision and the courage to see it through. Whatever the outcome of this review, it’s good to see someone tackling the problem of our main airport being sited at the centre of a densely populated area.
- Chris, Uxbridge, 22/09/2008 22:22
Report abuse
We already have Stanstead airport to serve Essex while Gatwick serves Surrey and Sussex. I reckon an airport west of London lets say Henley in Oxfordshire would complete the circle and be a much better place to reach via an updated crossrail than Kent which has a high speed railway and therefore no need of an airport.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 22/09/2008 21:21
Report abuse
As usual any attempt to drag this country into the 21st century is met with opposition and negative waves. Why bother Boris. The country is stuck in a rut of ancient thinking. Do what I am proposing to do and that is pack your bags, withdraw your money and go somewhere
that has a future. My children did. My grandchildren are there and they have never looked back. I will be joining them. 77,000 jobs will be lost if Heathrow is allowed to stagger along as the worst airport in the world bar none. Its popularity is waning. Travellers are fed up to the teeth with it. I am and refuse to travel from it. A brand new airport would re-ignite the air traffic to England. Heathrow land, worth a king's ramsom, would be available for bold, new development. The overall cost would be levelled out and the jobs prospects would be double 77,000. But narrow minded thinking will just force our London hub to Paris or Frankfurt.
- Albert Hall, hove england, 22/09/2008 21:04
Report abuse
This is a brilliant idea; and for the naysayers, just look at Hong Kong and Seoul in terms of what can be achieved with vision. And the development time? Well, we could employ the Chinese, as it it took six years and US $20 billion to build. At the current exchange rate (including adjustments) it will still be a LOT cheaper than estimates. So Boris, go for it, this type of legacy is rare in life, and you will actually achieve something worth fighting for.
- Alex D, Beckenham, Kent, England, 22/09/2008 20:56
Report abuse
I think it`s a great idea. It was also suggested 30 years ago. Heathrow cannot expand any further and putting a new airport on the coast is the a solution that we already see adopted all over the world.
- Keith Dehaverland, London, UK, 22/09/2008 20:39
Report abuse
How can any sensible politician propose shutting Heathrow and opening another airport in close proximity. It is beyond belief, the costs would be enormous and completely out of bounds.
Get a grip Boris
- Robert Sylvester, Fulham, LONDON, UK, 22/09/2008 19:24
Report abuse
Its pie in the Sky as the CAA head of air traffic control pointed out when the last moron floated this idea, to do it you will have to re route half the air transatlantic air traffic in northern europe.
Also Boris there is the small matter of a sunken WW2 ammunition ship to deal with which sits off the isle of Sheppey. A few terrorist minded individuals could lay waste to your airport with a water proof clock and plastic explosive.
Its funny how peopel who moved into the flightpath of heathrow and hate tinks its perfectly OK for someone else to have it. YOU moved there you stop whinging.
- Duncan Bailey, Kent, 22/09/2008 18:32
Report abuse
Continued expansion of Heathrow will only lead to gridlock throughout west London and unacceptable levels of noise and air pollution for millions. This is a visionary and sensible proposal, provided 
the ground links into central London are genuinely high speed; (ii) consideration is given to how the Thames Corridor will be serviced for air travel, perhaps by expanding Bristol airport or converting a miliary airbase (e.g. Boscombe Down) to civilian use; and (iii) additional airport capacity is created by replacing many UK domestic flights with a new high speed rail (not maglev) network (requires radical revision of the planning laws).
The financial analysis for such an initiative must be conducted over a timeframe consistent with the life of the resulting infrastructure (40 years, say), with credit being given for environmental (congestion, pollution) cost savings that the project will bring. (Currently we treat our environment as a free asset; this lack of cost transparency is skewing many decisions in favour of the business lobby).
- Michael Johnson, Dartmouth Park, London, 22/09/2008 18:24
Report abuse
EXCELLENT IDEA! I purposely avoid traveling through Heathrow and choose Frankfurt or Paris wherever I can. Heathrow is dingy, overcrowded, hot and chaotic. BA are only complaining because they just built T5 - it's about time somebody shut the place down and built London a modern, spacious airport with more than two runways.
- Nick, Chicago, USA, 22/09/2008 18:19
Report abuse
Just look at the absurd amount being spent on the UK Olympics just for a couple of weeks or the horrific amount being spent on a couple of new nuclear submarines!
This money would be far better invested in new airport instead for the long term benefit of the country and its people. But I have a better idea, do something about the appalling poverty in the UK first because it's a disgrace.
- Mel Barrows, Tenerife Canary Islands., 22/09/2008 18:17
Report abuse
An airport near London but without the over flight of major cities would be a sensible thing. Especially in these potential terrorist times. The planes would be able to flight 24/7 without any major disturbance. Jobs would be provided on construction , rail connections, shipping docks, the potential list is endless. None of our EEC partners would be able to compete with our unic situation of a 24/7 airport with out major disturbance. Thus circumnavigating the EEC rules about Airport noise.
Good on you Boris. Go ahead and get it done!!!
- A.Winsley, london England, 22/09/2008 17:59
Report abuse
I've a better idea.
Why don't I pay some consultants thousands of pounds to write a study on how we could build an airport where Boris lives?
- Mike, Whistable, Kent, 22/09/2008 17:15
Report abuse
Go for it Boris and make this happen. BA and BAA are two colossal vested interests. They have no interest except their own viability and profit. Don't listen to their crap about what is good for BA and BAA is good for the UK - it's simply good for those two Companies!
- Londonken, London, 22/09/2008 17:08
Report abuse
This is about the first time I have agreed with Boris(he needs a make over and name change.. but anyway) Heathrow is a nightmare to get to unless you live on one of the flight paths. And when you arrive at the airport it gets worse. It can take 20 minutes to walk to your departure gate. How can anyone think of expanding it?. The Thames Estuary would seem the perfect gateway to Europe/Middle east/Asia whatever...with flight paths 24 hours a day, keeping nobody awake, planes are landing over water not houses.
- Bondy, london, 22/09/2008 16:51
Report abuse
Why not use and expand Manston. It has the size and there were plans to put a station in a couple of years ago.
- Den, London, 22/09/2008 16:26
Report abuse
Boris was actually kidnapped when on his visit to China. What we now have is Boris the Clone. Boris will do lots of mad and stupid things, which will destroy London, and China will become the world's No1 centre for business and commerce.
Oh yes! and of course they'll have to have the Olympics again, as Boris has already forgotten that London is supposed to host them.
- David, london UK, 22/09/2008 15:51
Report abuse
Amother crazy idea from albino boy.
- James Hennessy, london england, 22/09/2008 15:51
Report abuse
I am not all that sure people will be able to afford to fly so often in 15-20 years time, given the escalating cost of fuel. It could very well turn out to be a White Elephant.
For those complaining about the noise because of the proximity to Central London, try living in the Inner Western suburbs of Sydney for a bit, and you'll see how bad things can REALLY get. They have abandoned their idea of moving the airport to a far flung place in No Man's Land, and it looks like they are stuck permanently with an airport 3 miles out of the CBD.
- David, N10, 22/09/2008 15:49
Report abuse
As a frequent flyer in and out of the UK, I ahve to say this proposal is an excellent idea. LHR, has had it's day, it is far too noisey,overcrowded, hot, and uncomfortable. For the lead airport in the UK, it is a major let down. Building a high speed train infrastructure to support connects throughout the UK would be of great value in ensuring this airport would succeed. IN relation to jobs, where does it state that only people working in West London @ heathrow are entitled to have jobs just in the area. Moving to kent, is a lovely county, plus if you ahve a good train set up, commuting is all part of working life!
- Big D Nyc, New York, USA, 22/09/2008 15:39
Report abuse
What is ridiculous plan! £31.5bn 5 years ago - so that'll be over £50bn at todays prices. For that you could introduce high speed rail across the country meaning that people wouldn't need to get the plane from London to Manchester or Scotland and therefore cutting down on the number of flights needed. I hope that not a penny of tax payers money is being wasted on this pie in the sky idea. When is Boris actually going to bother producing any actual, you know, practical policies for London? "I'm scrapping the bendy buses - and to design new buses I'm having a competition for school children to enter!" I can't wait to see the winning design - what's the bet that it's got a waterslide and/or firemans pole as the way to get down from the top deck?
- Stephen, Lewisham, 22/09/2008 15:33
Report abuse
And where are all the staff to run this place going to live?
Will they commute form Hounslow and Slough?
Kent has been screwed up since Thatcher covered half of it in concrete, this will really finish it.
I have an idea move it to Scotland instead.
Revenge for them sending us their rubbish politians.
- Kedge, Marlboro wilts, 22/09/2008 15:29
Report abuse
Maybe if it did move, Hounslow would stop being a dumping ground for all asylum seekers in this country!
- Raminder Bhalla, Northolt, 22/09/2008 15:21
Report abuse
This is an OLD OLD OLD idea. In the 1970s there was active planning for an airport at Maplin Sands. The plans must still be knocking around. Millions were spent on assessments etc. At least someone is taking a long term view, I support a third runway at Heathrow but we can't keep patching it up forever!
- Simon, London, 22/09/2008 14:55
Report abuse
Seems like a no-brainer to me to move the airport out.
There should certainly be no question of expanding the airport and increasing noise and other pollution where millions of people live!
In any case should be not be planning medium-term for a reduction in air travel to hit environmental targets?
- Nick, London, 22/09/2008 14:53
Report abuse
Best thing that could happen to Sheppey, knock it all down and build an Airport. It has the highest percentage of banjo players per square mile of any place in the UK.
- Fred, Singapore,, 22/09/2008 14:51
Report abuse
Not a single sane person would disagree with Boris - including former mayor Ken who devoted his term of office to making London a greener and quieter place to live. Boris would get majority cross party support if the issue was given over to a free vote in parliament. Funding would present no problem at all since private syndicated loan investments would be rock solid and could be structured along the lines of the channel tunnel. One may safely predict full subscription to a fund raising roadshow. Institutional investors would pile in. I predict the City will be first off the starting block to applaud this idea since it fits neatly with ethical/green opportunities. Bird life in the area will be unaffected since the airport island will be some distance from the coast and in reality few airports discourage birdlife, oddly enough. Most have a problem with too many birds attracted to the green runways. Phasing out Heathrow over say five years would solve any unemployment problems by giving ample time for retraining, plus the viable inducement of free redundancy compensation shares in the new venture. Methinks BAA protesteth too much. The Thames was the gateway to old style shipping for centuries - why not tomorrow's Airbus A380's which are too big for Heathrow anyway? Go for it Boris!
- David, London, 22/09/2008 14:46
Report abuse
Finally sounds like a progressive, forward thinking idea.
What's the alternative to the inevitable increase in passengers and air travel? More and more runways, busier roads and noisier skies over West London.
A radical solution is required and this sounds like a good-ie.
- Joff Wilson, Hackney, London, 22/09/2008 14:46
Report abuse
This is a great idea - Boris is absolutely right to investigate the alternatives. Even if a 3rd runway does get built at Heathrow (which I am against) it is only a short term solution. Thre reality is that London needs a 1st world 21st century 24 hours a day airport like the off-shore airports in HK and Japan. Even with a 3rd runway Heathrow cannot compete. Wildlife v 2 million Londoners - please! Get a life.
- Sam, E14, 22/09/2008 14:25
Report abuse
Makes total sense. I would like to see where the jobless figures came from - surely they're simply not just counting negative from one area and fogettting to add back the jobs created in the other.
Some of the nicest areas this side of London are currently spoilt to a degree by planes taking off and landing nearby - especially otherwise peaceful areas like Richmond Park.
It also makes total sense to move the potentially dangerous flight paths over water rather than densely populated areas.
I would also like to see how the 24 hour running of the airport would hook into Londons transport system for workers and passengers alike. Dare I say it, some Tube lines would also have to run 24 hours? This would be good news!
PS Mark H, you sit in your garden watching planes fly overhead and you're suggesting that someone else should get a life?
- Waldopepper, London, 22/09/2008 14:13
Report abuse
Boris getting it right........again!
- Ian, Reading, England, 22/09/2008 14:08
Report abuse
As the Government is determined to encourage more night flights, this idea is worth thinking about.
But research needs to be done on the impact upon jobs, industry and freight handling in the area; will the M25 and rail networks be able to handle all of the goods that need to be distributed to/from the West side of London?
- Jools, London, 22/09/2008 14:05
Report abuse
At last a politian who realises that you cannot go around patching a broken old wreck, where a third runway would not come close to solving the long-term capacity issues. London needs a four-runway airport, and one with all the high-speed rail connections to a major transport hubs in all our major cities. Building with capacity for future growth now will save a lot of time being wasted on Heathrow.
- Em Jay, London, 22/09/2008 14:03
Report abuse
At last, someone who recognises that LHR cannot be extended any further and that an alternative must be looked at. The Heathrow focus should be on upgrading the airport - it's so old, dirty and dated compared to other key airports worldwide (it's an embarrassment to London) - and on improving air quality and reducing noise pollution for those living in the surrounding areas.
- Susie, London, UK, 22/09/2008 14:01
Report abuse
Great idea but it won't take six years - it will take forever for final approval is given and work starts. We need additional capacity in London now. Build the new runway at LHR as a stop-gap until a new airport is designed and built.
- Mark, London, 22/09/2008 13:52
Report abuse
It's a crap idea - and not a million miles away from the abandoned 1970s idea of building London's third airport at Maplin sands in Essex. We don't need more runways and aircraft - all this growth simply means more chavs going on boozing holidays. Flight levels should be capped at existing levels and prices allowed to rise accordingly.
- Austen, London, 22/09/2008 13:29
Report abuse
What a Joke this wqs tried by the nimby Tories in the Gatwick area you bought a house in Twickenham its on the flight path to Heathrow you can't complain about plane noise.
The Medway Estuary is a world heritage site conatining one of the few marsh lands left in this country. Stop treating north kent as adumping ground for west london and stop wasting taxpayers money to gain votes
- Duncan Bailey, Kent, 22/09/2008 13:17
Report abuse
It's a terrible idea - the effect on wildlife will be awful and congestion in Kent/Essex dreadful. Two ideas:
(a) much of Heathrow's traffic is of passengers in transit who are not visiting the UK - stop protecting vested interests (BA etc) and let the passengers go elsewhere (ie. via Amsterdam).
(b) If it's really necessary, Stansted is a perfectly fine airport with good transport links already so put another runway there instead of concreting over what's left of southern England
- Ab, London, 22/09/2008 12:20
Report abuse
Boris is doing absolutely the right thing by investigating the feasibility of a new airport in the Thames Estuary. It is just typical of BAA to start throwing their weight about with scare stories of job losses etc when they should welcome the opportunity of developing a modern airport for London.
Before immediate reactions to the initiative are made I suggest that the outcome of the study is awaited. Until then all further expansion of Heathrow and Stansted should be postponed.
- Steve Chambers, London, 22/09/2008 12:19
Report abuse
Well done Boris , heathrow is just one big carpark, one road in so ideal for terrorists.
Lets hope it is better planned than the Olympics.
I live in East London in a quite one way street, which because of the Olympics Commity and the closure of Waterden road wehave endured for the past year heavy traffic mainlt BRETT CONCRETE lorries and London Buses. 2 cats have been killed and I'm sure they won't be the last
- Sally Smith, london,united kingdom, 22/09/2008 12:17
Report abuse
There is an issue with runway capacity at Heathrow as anyone who has sat in a line of planes waiting to take off or has been held in a stack will know. The answer IMO is to tear up previous agreements and build a second runway at Gatwick, an airport with existing first class road and rail connections.
- Tonyb, Twickenham, 22/09/2008 12:09
Report abuse
It is crazy to have aircraft overflying London at their
two most critical stages, take off and landing.If that
recent emgine power failure had happened two seconds earlier the plane would have crashed on a built up area.
If Heathrow didn't exist only a lunatic would think of building it where it is.
- M Wilkinson, London UK, 22/09/2008 12:06
Report abuse
I live under the flight path and do shift work, so I sleep at all hours of the day. My house isn't sound proofed, but the planes arriving & departing Heathrow don't bother me. In fact I quite like sitting in my garden watching them fly over-head.
It makes me laugh when people complain about noise and pollution. The airport was there long before most people bought their houses in the affected areas. Todays jets are nothing near as noisy as the older jets that I remember...To all those complaining...Get a life and move away 'cos this is just a piece of political gesturing...Your stuck with Heathrow like it or not.
- Mark.H, London, 22/09/2008 12:05
Report abuse
When the first airliner crashes on a city, the prudence of moving airports to less risky areas will be recognized. As the recent financial crisis has shown greed and self interest always overwhelms rational action.
- Brian Edmonds, Farnham UK, 22/09/2008 12:02
Report abuse
At last, a far-sighted and truly visionary idea that tackles a problem with a lon term and dynamic solution.
Given prevailing weather conditions, it makes sense to build main airport to the east of the city and with high spped rail possibilities, the distance from central London becomes less of a problem.
The transport infrastructure already in place around Heathrow will not be wasted and will form basis for business and housing development there.
For once, how good if we embarked on a real project!
- Bernard Lockett, Folkestone, Kent., 22/09/2008 11:55
Report abuse
Brilliant and far-thinking idea. Which is why it will probably go the way of Crossrail and never happen. Shame, as this is exactly what London needs.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland, 22/09/2008 11:55
Report abuse
If they'd had the courage to go ahead with a similar plan in the 1970s we would not be in this dilemma now. While Labour tries to impress us with its pathetic state childcare plan for toddlers just out of nappies, Boris shows real long-term vision.
- Paul, Essex, 22/09/2008 11:51
Report abuse
Boris is correct as Heathrow was badly located many years ago and it is believed strategy decisions were made because Churchill was asleep and no one wanted to waken him up.
Geographically speaking it is a shambles so we should encourage this forward thinking of Bojo and Kitty
- Ms Jeanette, London, 22/09/2008 11:43
Report abuse
About time the 'powerful' met their match in delivering 'progress' to other areas rather than seeking compulsory purchase orders to shove communities out of their way.
- Tony Islander, Denham, Herts, 22/09/2008 11:24
Report abuse
Great idea Boris - although not a new one - look at the new Hong Kong airport that replaced the old Kai Tak airport in Kowloon that had all the problems of Heathrow. BA and BAA are dinosours stuck in the past.
- Peter Haldane, London, 22/09/2008 11:07
Report abuse
Couldn't agree more, it's a fantastic and visionary idea. It looks to the future, and will benefit not only west London, but all of us who want to be able to travel without the clogged up misery that currently exists at Heathrow.
- John A, London, 22/09/2008 11:06
Report abuse
Rather than dismiss the idea of out hand, Boris is right to commission a study and at least work out whether the idea is really crazy or potentially workable. We forget that a Boeing 777 almost crashed on the approach to Heathrow not so long ago. 120 planes an hour fly right bang over central London on approach to Heathrow blighting the lives of millions in West London. Heathrow is not accessible by rail except from Paddington (i.e there are no through trains there from any other destinations). There's going to be a hell of a fight to get a 3rd runway through planning. It seems a really sensible time to at least float the idea of a new airport and do a feasibility. As for who is going to pay for it and how much it will cost, these are open ended questions until the study has reported back.
- Neil, London, 22/09/2008 10:46
Report abuse
Oh, mustn't upset the ducks and geese, must we? Just carry on making life a misery for hundreds of thousands of people in West London and spreading pollution over the capital.
- John R, SW14, 22/09/2008 10:35
Report abuse
Great idea!
- Peter, London, 22/09/2008 10:30
Report abuse
Its about time heathrow was closed, we having been living with noise distruption now for over 30 years with no one in government listening, why would 70,000 jobs be lost, all those that work at the airport would just relocate, kent has some fantastic property which is cheaper and one of the best education results in the country.
- Raminder Bhalla, Northolt, 22/09/2008 10:23
Report abuse
