Boris’s 2nd report on his Estuary Airport (megalomanic) dream

 The Greater London Authority has now produced the second part of the Mayor’s report into his plan for a mega-giant airport in the Thames estuary. The first part of the report came out in January (details below).  It would appear that this monster airport, with up to 180 million passengers per year, (which is almost x3 the size of Heathrow) would only get this size if aviation climate targets are reduced and if other airports in the south east, or in the rest of the UK, have fewer passengers.  Megalomania indeed.

 

A new airport for London – Part 2

21 NOVEMBER 2011

This report puts forward the economic and business case for building a new hub airport to serve London and the South East.

The Mayor has warned the Government that the nation faces economic paralysis unless a new hub airport is built in the southeast of england.

He has published the second of what will be a series of reports examining why more aviation capacity is needed. The latest report sets out in the greatest detail yet provided why there is an undisputable economic argument that greater aviation capacity is required both by the capital and the whole of the UK.

It concludes that a new hub airport should become a pillar of the Government’s planning for economic growth and warns that without one the UK will lose its place at the top table of the global economy.

The first report, A new airport for London: Part 1 – The Case for New Capacity from Daniel Moylan, Deputy Chairman of TfL, was published in January 2011. This put forward the economic and business case for a new hub airport for London.

A new airport for London – Part 2.pdf  5.52 MB

 

AirportWatch comment on the report:http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/new-airport-london-part-2 

This is now talking about  Boris Island being a 180 mppa airport; Foster’s Folly was 150 million passengers per annum.  Bearing in mind that Heathrow currently has around 65 mppa and the UK as a whole in 2010 had about 214 mppa …

Since the test is: ‘How does this deal with climate constraints?‘, you can find the answer on pages 18:

“It is essential that the UK meets its climate change and environmental requirements and aviation must play its part in this.”  and  “The Mayor believes a new hub airport could be compatible with the committee’s recommendations and that it should be viewed in the context of the uniquely valuable benefits it can deliver.”

… and page 93:

“179. 180mppa is broadly equivalent to the size of Heathrow in the DfT’s capacity unconstrained [AirportWatch emphasis] central case forecasts. While 180mppa could not be accommodated within the Committee on Climate Change’s 2009 limits if London’s existing airports operate as is currently envisaged, there are a number of circumstances in which a new 180 mppa hub airport serving London could be compatible with environmental commitments. These are identified in Appendix B.

180. Since ‘priority growth’ is at the hub, it is assumed that passenger numbers at other London and regional airports would adjust to be consistent with the requirements of reducing emissions in line with meeting climate change targets, rather than at the hub.”

Table 15 underneath has an alternative 2050 forecast allocation, with the Estuary Hub taking ‘up to 180mppa’ = the total  SE allocation, with other London and regional airports: “Demand to be allocated in accordance with climate change commitments”

[ i.e. other south east airports would get lower numbers of passengers than now ….? ]
and 113 – Appendix B:

“While an airport accommodating 180mppa would be much larger than any airport in operation in the world today, there are a number of
circumstances in which a new hub airport serving London accommodating 180 mppa could be compatible with environmental commitments: …

 – When the DfT reports in March 2012 on whether the Committee on Climate Change’s 2009 recommendations remain appropriate, it concludes
that a greater level of growth across the UK is permitted.”

–  [and see also] “The proportion of the UK’s total aviation demand that is accommodated in London and the South East is greater than it is
currently (approximately 60 per cent). This could occur if growth at a hub airport serving London was prioritised.

So as is also the case with Foster’s Folly, this is talking about not so much repatriating demand to the national Hub from the regions as taking SE originating demand off all the other SE airports (as well as maybe something off the regions).

So the sheer megalomania of the proposal will unite all the other airports against it from the start.

 

Commentators on pprune have been remarking on the disconnect
between an apparent national demand for “international connectivity”
and the places airlines actually choose to fly their planes to. They thought
that releasing slots is more likely to result in yet more frequent
trans-atlantic flights at improved frequencies (with mid-sized planes)
rather than the use of less frequent big planes serving those
destinations with new flights going to the Chinese cities that only
Boris has heard of.  It is apparently something to do with maximising
profit and giving our unenlightened passengers “what they want”.

 

 

 

 

Earlier, back in January 2011, there had been Part 1 of the report;

 

A new airport for London – Part 1

 

18 JANUARY 2011

This report puts forward the economic and business case for building a new hub airport to serve London and the South East.

The report from Daniel Moylan, Deputy Chairman of TfL argues that London needs a new hub airport to cope with increased passenger demand and ensure the capital retains its excellent international air links.

Key findings include:

  • Demand for London’s airports is set to grow from 140 million passengers per year in 2010 to 400 million by 2050. It is therefore essential that we develop a new vision to cope with this demand, or risk falling further behind our European competitors.
  • Heathrow is not the answer. The Government should consider new locations to best accommodate this growth. Environmental constraints and wider economic benefits must be taken into account too.
  • If we do not act now, tens of thousands of jobs will be exported to cities such as Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Madrid and Paris. Jobs that as a leading world city with unrivalled international links should belong to London.

A new airport for London – Part 2 was published in November 2011.

Attachment Size
Attachment Size
A new airport for London.pdf 1.61 MB