New London Airport

[Bald Rick]

It's an absurdity for Amsterdam flights to fly to Heathrow, Gatwick or Luton when Southend is right next to the sea.

Except that a significant proportion of people on Heathrow - Amsterdam flights are connecting at Heathrow - not much use if they are 2 trains and the best oart of 2 hours between them.

 

[AlastairFraser]

One interesting part of this discussion is that London doesn't really need a new airport, it just needs to use existing ones more efficiently. For instance, Southend is perfect for flights to the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, and it makes sense to restrict Benelux flights to using only Southend. There are a huge amount of daily flights between London and Amsterdam, and Southend could easily remove the vast majority of them. It's an absurdity for Amsterdam flights to fly to Heathrow, Gatwick or Luton when Southend is right next to the sea.

Agreed, you could move a huge chunk of LCC flights across from Gatwick and Luton to Southend.
I think it's unlikely flag carriers would move from the hubs to a smaller airport like Southend because of connections, but LCCs certainly would for the right price.
LSA's owners need to allow Ensignbus to restart the night Jetlink A1 out of hours though.

 

[etr221]

For an all new airport - with the aim of becoming 'London's Airport' - you are looking for an area perhaps 5 km square, pretty flat, sufficiently empty that acquisition and redevolpment as an airport won't be too big a problem or cause to much fuss, with potential flight paths for arriving/departing planes not going over too many homes, a convenient location to house workface, good communication links (which can be built if needed...) to London, the rest of the South East and and as much of the rest of the country as you can; then you need money (a lot, you'll probably have change from a trillion, but that's probably a good first estimate), political good will (again an awful lot, for a long time), etc - good luck, people have been trying to find such a site, and then the wherewithal to actually do it, for the last half or three quarters of a century, without success... As someone put it several investigations ago "An inland site is not on politically, and a coastal site is not on economically". Which doesn't give you much choice...

The bottom line is that while most people want an airport within easy reach, nobody wants one as a neighbour...

 

[Bletchleyite]

For an all new airport - with the aim of becoming 'London's Airport' - you are looking for an area perhaps 5 km square, pretty flat, sufficiently empty that acquisition and redevolpment as an airport won't be too big a problem or cause to much fuss, with potential flight paths for arriving/departing planes not going over too many homes, a convenient location to house workface, good communication links (which can be built if needed...) to London, the rest of the South East and and as much of the rest of the country as you can; then you need money (a lot, you'll probably have change from a trillion, but that's probably a good first estimate), political good will (again an awful lot, for a long time), etc - good luck, people have been trying to find such a site, and then the wherewithal to actually do it, for the last half or three quarters of a century, without success... As someone put it several investigations ago "An inland site is not on politically, and a coastal site is not on economically". Which doesn't give you much choice...

The bottom line is that while most people want an airport within easy reach, nobody wants one as a neighbour...

I think you could probably expand Stansted to become "London Airport" fully replacing the others, it's in the flat(ish)lands and in the middle of a field, then build a 300-400km/h high speed line into central London (though even the present StanEx isn't useless as it has the advantage of going directly into the City at Liverpool St). Like the Berlin airport project (I know it didn't go well, but the concept wasn't flawed) it could be done by building additional runways alongside the existing ones and a new terminal, then "switching over" when complete. There's lots of space to its north-east in particular, and room towards the motorway containing very little of consequence as well as not being a great place to want to live. It's also well connected to the motorway network.

I'm not sure there's much other practical scope - the South East of England is surprisingly hilly!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Maybe close Southend and City and build a "combined one" on Boris Island or Isle of Sheppey (with an additional bridge/tunnel rail express link to connect north of the river like the Luton Dart)

Maybe in the year 2099...?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe close Southend and City and build a "combined one" on Boris Island or Isle of Sheppey (with an additional bridge/tunnel rail express link to connect north of the river like the Luton Dart)

Maybe in the year 2099...?

Isn't Boris Island an issue due to the number of birds?

 

[etr221]

I think you could probably expand Stansted to become "London Airport" fully replacing the others, it's in the flat(ish)lands and in the middle of a field, then build a 300-400km/h high speed line into central London (though even the present StanEx isn't useless as it has the advantage of going directly into the City at Liverpool St). Like the Berlin airport project (I know it didn't go well, but the concept wasn't flawed) it could be done by building additional runways alongside the existing ones and a new terminal, then "switching over" when complete. There's lots of space to its north-east in particular, and room towards the motorway containing very little of consequence as well as not being a great place to want to live. It's also well connected to the motorway network.

I'm not sure there's much other practical scope - the South East of England is surprisingly hilly!

A site which was suggested - and, from an airline/engineering point of view, seems practicable, was 'London Oxford (LOX)' on the Vale of White Horse just SW of Abingdon/NW of Didcot: see http://www.pleiade.org/loxreport2013.html - site was c 7 by 5 km, for four runways (Schipol is rather bigger, c7 by 7 km, 6 runways). Stansted is about 1 by 5 km, with one runway... a lot smaller: you could probably double it in size without too much difficulty - and there have been proposals (politically rejected) for a second runway - but more would be a struggle....

 

[Bletchleyite]

A site which was suggested - and, from an airline/engineering point of view, seems practicable, was 'London Oxford (LOX)' on the Vale of White Horse just SW of Abingdon/NW of Didcot: see http://www.pleiade.org/loxreport2013.html - site was c 7 by 5 km, for four runways (Schipol is rather bigger, c7 by 7 km, 6 runways). Stansted is about 1 by 5 km, with one runway... a lot smaller: you could probably double it in size without too much difficulty - and there have been proposals (politically rejected) for a second runway - but more would be a struggle....

The present site is that size, but there's absolutely loads of farmland surrounding it.

 

[nw1]

It would have been nice if North Weald was chosen as the site of a new airport instead of Stansted when it was still part of the Central line because it doesn’t really make sense to close Stansted now

Mind you isn't that area quite "green" and attractively rural?

I don't know - I've never been there - but I got the impression that the Ongar line passed through attractive countryside.

You want somewhere which has had industry and development in the past, so it doesn't negatively impact on the area so much. Somewhere like N Kent would probably be best as it isn't generally regarded as such an attractive area and in the recent past had many power stations and other industry. Plus it has a good road and rail network to hook into.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mind you isn't that area quite "green" and attractively rural?

I think there's a lot of difference between sprawling flatish farmland and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, though.

 

[nw1]

A site which was suggested - and, from an airline/engineering point of view, seems practicable, was 'London Oxford (LOX)' on the Vale of White Horse just SW of Abingdon/NW of Didcot: see http://www.pleiade.org/loxreport2013.html - site was c 7 by 5 km, for four runways (Schipol is rather bigger, c7 by 7 km, 6 runways). Stansted is about 1 by 5 km, with one runway... a lot smaller: you could probably double it in size without too much difficulty - and there have been proposals (politically rejected) for a second runway - but more would be a struggle....

That would probably be OK (good road and rail connections, not such an attractive area once you get off the chalk ridge, lots of current and former industry, had Didcot Power station in the recent past for as long as many can remember so people are used to "development")

I think there's a lot of difference between sprawling flatish farmland and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, though.

But as I said presumably there are other, better options where people are more used to development.

I'm guessing the North Weald area might be similar in character to the Romsey area. That isn't an AONB, AFAIK, but is still green and pleasantly rural - and thus not the best place in the south Hampshire area for development.

 

[MotCO]

Isn't Boris Island an issue due to the number of birds?

Doesn't Boris always have an issue with birds

 

[AlastairFraser]

Mind you isn't that area quite "green" and attractively rural?

I don't know - I've never been there - but I got the impression that the Ongar line passed through attractive countryside.

You want somewhere which has had industry and development in the past, so it doesn't negatively impact on the area so much. Somewhere like N Kent would probably be best as it isn't generally regarded as such an attractive area and in the recent past had many power stations and other industry. Plus it has a good road and rail network to hook into.

Which is why I suggested a new huge airport on the Hoo Peninsula (politically untenable, but otherwise the most tenable option).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Maybe a "Southend Airport Express" rebrand is in order?

The airport gets THREE year-round destinations: Alicante, Amsterdam and Paris-Charles de Gaulle. I hardly think it warrants an Express rebrand. Especially when the trains to Southend Airport are hardly express services anyway.

 

[mpthomson]

Agreed, you could move a huge chunk of LCC flights across from Gatwick and Luton to Southend.
I think it's unlikely flag carriers would move from the hubs to a smaller airport like Southend because of connections, but LCCs certainly would for the right price.
LSA's owners need to allow Ensignbus to restart the night Jetlink A1 out of hours though.

They wouldn't as it immediately moves much of the catchment areas for the passengers to one that has far less people in it, a good chunk of which is the sea. All it would do is to significantly reduce the LCC schedules. Someone from, say, Oxford isn't going to go to Southend to get a short haul flight whereas they can easily get to Luton. Same goes for someone from Bognor or Brighton and Gatwick. They aren't going to go to Southend. There's a reason Southend has hardly any commercial flights now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They wouldn't as it immediately moves much of the catchment areas for the passengers to one that has far less people in it, a good chunk of which is the sea. All it would do is to significantly reduce the LCC schedules. Someone from, say, Oxford isn't going to go to Southend to get a short haul flight whereas they can easily get to Luton. Same goes for someone from Bognor or Brighton and Gatwick. They aren't going to go to Southend. There's a reason Southend has hardly any commercial flights now.

Of Luton it is worth noting that pre DART it was in many ways a North Home Counties and South Midlands Airport, certainly from an outbound point of view - most of the flights, certainly the orange ones, were duplicated from Gatwick and actual Londoners would tend to go there instead. Obviously now with the DART it will become more of a genuine London one.

 

[AlastairFraser]

They wouldn't as it immediately moves much of the catchment areas for the passengers to one that has far less people in it, a good chunk of which is the sea. All it would do is to significantly reduce the LCC schedules. Someone from, say, Oxford isn't going to go to Southend to get a short haul flight whereas they can easily get to Luton. Same goes for someone from Bognor or Brighton and Gatwick. They aren't going to go to Southend. There's a reason Southend has hardly any commercial flights now.

It depends on the fare and the airline landing fee. Stansted is a pain in the arse to get to/through, so a smaller airport could well attract passengers who prefer a quicker and simpler process (this is partly why Liverpool sways some passengers over Manchester).

 

[Bald Rick]

It depends on the fare and the airline landing fee. Stansted is a pain in the arse to get to/through, so a smaller airport could well attract passengers who prefer a quicker and simpler process (this is partly why Liverpool sways some passengers over Manchester).

Smaller airports that become more popular tend to become bigger airports…

 

[AlastairFraser]

Smaller airports that become more popular tend to become bigger airports…

There's a lot of capacity at Southend for expansion before you have to add another terminal.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's a lot of capacity at Southend for expansion before you have to add another terminal.

Not that much. Having used it, its’s quick to process (when few other passengers are there) but a pain to get to / from unless you‘re in the Southend / South Essex area or central London. It’s not well located at all for most of the people who use Gatwick and Luton

 

[AlastairFraser]

Not that much. Having used it, its’s quick to process (when few other passengers are there) but a pain to get to / from unless you‘re in the Southend / South Essex area or central London. It’s not well located at all for most of the people who use Gatwick and Luton

That could be solved by better public transport links if it got more flights to be honest

 

[Bald Rick]

That could be solved by better public transport links if it got more flights to be honest

They would have to be very good to tempt people from a whole swathe of North London, Beds, Herts, Bucks and the South and East Midlands to travel to Southend vs Luton. What would be the point?

 

[AlastairFraser]

They would have to be very good to tempt people from a whole swathe of North London, Beds, Herts, Bucks and the South and East Midlands to travel to Southend vs Luton. What would be the point?

Moving from Luton and Gatwick to free up valuable landing slots at Heathrow and thus avoiding the need for a 3rd runway is a very good incentive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Moving from Luton and Gatwick to free up valuable landing slots at Heathrow and thus avoiding the need for a 3rd runway is a very good incentive.

Southend is absolutely useless if you live in the Home Counties. It would be easier and quicker to use Birmingham or even Manchester/Liverpool than Southend.

Luton is primarily (pre DART) a South Midlands and Home Counties Airport, not a London one. Assuming it only exists to serve the bit within the Zones is what leads to such suggestions.

 

[mpthomson]

It depends on the fare and the airline landing fee. Stansted is a pain in the arse to get to/through, so a smaller airport could well attract passengers who prefer a quicker and simpler process (this is partly why Liverpool sways some passengers over Manchester).

It still won't get people travelling from Brighton or Oxford to Southend though, Southend is much too far and difficult to get to for much of the catchment areas of Gatwick and Luton. Fares and landing fees aren't going to alter the fact that people simply won't do that journey. As a result the LCCs will have zero interest in moving there. If they did it would quickly cease to be a small airport.

There's similar comments made about the size, speed, simplicity of Doncaster/ Humberside/ Teeside airports and why people prefer them as a result, but then the same people demand that flights are introduced to all sorts of (normally) sunshine destinations without understanding that the reason that the airports are, or were in the case of DSA, so quick and pleasant to navigate is precisely because they have a tiny number of flights. Southend is no different.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It still won't get people travelling from Brighton or Oxford to Southend though, Southend is much too far and difficult to get to for much of the catchment areas of Gatwick and Luton. Fares and landing fees aren't going to alter the fact that people simply won't do that journey. As a result the LCCs will have zero interest in moving there.

You don't necessarily need to get Gatwick's core catchment in Sussex and outer South London, you could work with East London, Essex and North Kent.

Southend is absolutely useless if you live in the Home Counties. It would be easier and quicker to use Birmingham or even Manchester/Liverpool than Southend.

Luton is primarily (pre DART) a South Midlands and Home Counties Airport, not a London one. Assuming it only exists to serve the bit within the Zones is what leads to such suggestions.

It depends where in the home counties - Kent, Essex, East London, eastern Herts could be easily reachable for Southend.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It depends where in the home counties - Kent, Essex, East London, eastern Herts could be easily reachable for Southend.

But not Bucks, Beds, west Herts and Oxon, a far larger area.

As the hilarious Fascinating Aida put it, "a taxi to the a*** of the world was more than a hundred pound" - and that was of Stansted, Southend is even further out!

 

[CastlebarKeith]

Wherever any, IF any new airports are built in Britain good RAIL ACCESS should be a primary consideration.

PS PLEASE REMEMBER Manston in Kent closed in recent years because few people used it.
There are also Lydd and Lympne in Kent already

 

[AlastairFraser]

But not Bucks, Beds, west Herts and Oxon, a far larger area.

As the hilarious Fascinating Aida put it, "a taxi to the a*** of the world was more than a hundred pound" - and that was of Stansted, Southend is even further out!

The thing is with Southend, ground transport is easily improved.
The rail access is already there, it just needs more buses and coaches.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing is with Southend, ground transport is easily improved.
The rail access is already there, it just needs more buses and coaches.

The M25 is not something I particularly want to get involved with when going for a flight. If going to Stansted (which I avoid, both because of the location and because of the awful airline that dominates it) I go cross country. For Southend that'd take forever.

Even less so in a coach where I can't re-route to my preferences.