Floating Airport Proposed For London

[UAE77L]

New proposals for a floating airport in the Thames Estuary have been unveiled.

Proposals for London Britannia Airport, designed by architects Gensler, include four floating runways tethered to the sea bed.

The architect said the design allowed for future expansion to accommodate six runways when required.

Project director of the latest proposal Ian Mulcahey, said: "This will be a national infrastructure project that can inject new pace and dynamism into our economy.

 

"The airport can be quickly manufactured in the ship yards and steel works across the UK and can be floated by sea and positioned in the Estuary.

 

"This isn't a London airport, it is a global airport, designed, manufactured and built in the UK."

But Willie Walsh, chief of International Airlines Group, which incorporates British Airways, told MPs that he could not see how you could make an economic case for a new hub airport.

 

The "massive" cost, as much as £60bn, would have to be recouped from charges which deterred operators from moving there.

"You would have plenty of capacity but nobody would ever want to use it," he said.

 

Passengers coming by car would travel to three land-based terminals – two located north and south of the estuary and a third proposed between Canary Wharf and the Olympic Park. The proposal also includes plans to transform Heathrow Airport into an eco city providing homes for 300,000 people.

 

Source: http://www.guardian....hitects-visions

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ngland-19577410

 

[waleed]

Lionel, thanks for the heads up as it is an interesting concept.

 

Crazy (My opinion), but interesting.

[Matthew Kane]

If it isn't convenient to get in and out of then it could be a colossal failure. Montreal Mirabel airport is the perfect example of a modern concept that failed because it was too far away from the city. It is now used as a site to make Post Apocalypse films or that movie The Terminal with Tom Hanks was filmed there, and it is also converted into a race track.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ational_Airport

[ailchim]

Excellent idea.

 

Couple of decent outboard motors and we could hire it out for the Olympics, the World Cup etc. Birthday parties by arrangement only, oligarchs take note please.

[Richbro]

As a sailor I'm aware of the what the sea can throw at rigid constructions, and the idea of landing A380 on a less than stable runway is quite daunting to say the least. The whole idea is barmy and they must be clutching at straws to come up with something like this.

The location is right but the concept is utterly stupid.

 

This isn't an early April Fool's day joke is it?

[mgh]

This isn't an early April Fool's day joke is it?

 

There are full details of the joke here

 

Vehicular access would be dispersed to three new land-based departure/arrival terminals

 

Passengers would have a boat trip to look forward too as well as their flight.

[Tim_Sims]

Seems to me this is just a step on from the longstanding "Boris Island" airport proposal (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport). That's named after the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who's one of the main advocates (and a strong opponent of a third runway at LHR). But I guess even Johnson - who's known for his eccentric approach to politics - would draw the line at this.

[Tatave]

In my opinion, it just is not safe. If you really screw up with taxiing at a normal field, you run over a little bit of grass. Here, you go swimming.

[Rations]

I like airport islands such as RJBB and VHHH. Approaches over water are usually peaceful and relaxing.

[CoolP]

Just an additional checklist item. Floats, down and locked. ^_^ But look at RJBB for example, you can already get wet there. Or try an overrun at Gibraltar.

[Richbro]

It also occured to me that if this is tethered rigidly then when it's high tide it's a awash, and when it's low tide you get that terrible sloshing noise underneath!

The plus side is if it's not tethered rigidly, you can turn it to face the prevailing wind, hence no cross wind landings or take offs.

Brilliant concept!!! Go for it Gensler!

[pegger74]

It also occured to me that if this is tethered rigidly then when it's high tide it's a awash, and when it's low tide you get that terrible sloshing noise underneath!

The plus side is if it's not tethered rigidly, you can turn it to face the prevailing wind, hence no cross wind landings or take offs.

Brilliant concept!!! Go for it Gensler!

 

Well consider that to keep it from washing over at high tide, they would probably be smart enough to design enough freeboard to the field elevation. And then at low tide...well consider the draft that an object as large as this would need! I don't know how deep the Thames Estuary is, but if I had to guess, this thing wouldn't be simply tied to the bottom with a couple bungee cords. It would probably be sitting on a foundation and piles set firmly in the ground under the river.

 

It is certanily and interesting concept in a time where available space on terra firma is becoming more and more valuable. But you know what is always more interesting, is how your tax dollars probably funded the "study" that the "visionary" architect carried out.

[n4gix]

If it were floating, then the "field elevation" would have to be shown on charts as 100' ASL +/- current tide level... :wacko:

[CoolP]

They could use QFE then.

 

But you know what is always more interesting, is how your tax dollars probably funded the "study" that the "visionary" architect carried out.

Just a problem of perception. Tax money in science and studies doesn't offer many ways of rendering a profitable outcome. It aims at establishing knowledge in the first place. And knowing about what works, or not, or which ways form up feasible alternatives can later safe money. Don't know if that helps.

[mgh]

is how your tax dollars probably funded the "study" that the "visionary" architect carried out.

 

As a UK taxpayer I'd be delighted if this were funded by US tax dollars.

 

The reality is that several archtectural firms have proposed different schemes in this area for publicity purposes - not all are a silly as this one. No tax payer funding's involved.