Photos: London's new Britannia Airport on man-made Thames Estuary island

Well, there's the massive cost.

And the fact that London probably doesn't really *need* an airport to handle three times the current passenger movements any time in the next few decades, making this a potential disaster on an even larger scale than... what's that unused airport at Montreal?

And the fact that this is further from town than Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted/Luton though possibly quicker to get to due to high speed rail (but then again, why not just build high speed rail to Luton?) 

And finally, just wait 'til the local environmentalists get a hold of the idea that you want to build a giant airport on the oh-so-fragile Thames estuary which is, no doubt, home to some unique species of mud worm or something.

Even talking about the cost.. it says the airport will cost £47b and sale of the old land to developers will reap £45b?  So even the cost in the long run, is practically nothing (well ... what's £2b compared to £47b?)

It says the airport will cost 47 billion dollars and that the sale of Heathrow will yield 45 billion dollars. It also says it can be built in six years. I'd wager all these numbers are equally fictitious.

Sorry, I meant pounds, not dollars, but you get the idea.

To afford the gap between the sale of Heathrow and the building of this new airport, it will probably be partly privatised and bits sold off to other companies. 

Catch = Poor project management + Political backtracking + Environmentalist nuts jobs + blue rinse brigade from your local council

Call in your Japanese and Singaporeans to deliver the project and just watch it happen.

London alone has 1/3 of all Australia population. Plus it is big hub that serves whole Europe on way to Americas, Asia and even Australia.

 Meanwhile in Australia we have virtually no external transit (just some Kiwis) and we have to support 3 (or even 4 if Perth counts) relatively big international airports.

 Mate, we are small nation sitting in far corner of globe (though huge one) – there are certain benefits in this situation as well as certain disadvantages.

 Cheers.

Hi Serg,

I do take on your point, however in this case population isn't necessarily the yard stick we should use in this case.

The best yard stick should be aircraft movements, as we are really discussing runway usage. This is because it takes approximately the same amount of time for a light turbo-prop / light jet aircraft to occupy a runway as it does for heavier aircraft such as an A380/B747. I do understand Brisbane (or Australia for that matter) is not an international hub, and that due to our geographical position, that Brisbane has a lower flow of international traffic. However ,their dominant traffic 'movements', by a significant number, are domestic (including FIFO) aircraft.

Statistically in 2012 London had 1288 movements per day for two runways i.e. 644 per main runway.

In 2012 Brisbane had 574 movements per day per main runway.

So to break it up on a movement (per runway) basis, Brisbane's runway is only 11% quiter (less occupied) than Heathrows at any given time. Heathrow Airport can't grow in terms of movements anymore (99% capcity as per the article), Brisbane AIrport continues to grow at approx. 4% per year.

Which is why they have had a need for over a decade now for a 2nd runway at Brisbane. (The street directories have had the 2nd runway penciled in for 6 years already!). Slot allocations for operaters have been introduced, and runway occupancy procedures are just about to be implemnted to help alleviate the extensive holding that most aircraft suffer when flying to Brisbane Airport.

Population make all the difference. Actually not population as such but passenger number that ultimately depends on population (plus transit). Money came from taxes and from tickets. Amount of taxes depends on population. And as per your explanation we actually far worse – in Brisbane they have more small aircrafts with fewer passengers that occupy the same time slot as massive jumbos with hundreds of passengers and those jumbos actually even queued for takeoff.

Once again – we are small nation, yet we have to support massive infrastyructure.

Without the needed infrastructure Serg the economy will suffer . Those smaller FIFO planes go to small communities (mines) that help generate billions for the economy.

According to estimates the runway is expected to cost $1.3 Billion dollars.The economic benefits for the queensland region are expected to reach $5 billion per year, by 2035. 

The long-term proposition is the economic gains for the community, significantly outweigh the cost of the infrastructure. 

This airport is even more of a pipe dream than Badgery's Creek at this stage, so I wouldn't get too worked up about how quickly they do things over there compared to over here. There is absolutely no way the Brits are going to actually build this thing in six years.

Just for reference, the initial design studies for Heathrow Terminal 5 started in 1988. The architect was hired in 1989. The proposal was formally announced in 1992, and a formal planning application was submitted in 1993. A public inquiry into the proposal began in 1995, and ended in 1999 after sitting for 525 days. In 2001, the government granted permission for the terminal to be built. In 2002, they actually started construction work. And in 2008, the terminal opened. 

And that was just one terminal. And it was built on land, not water.

Alvin, given this airport would not even be built until 2020 (if it's built at all, as it's only a proposal) I think you don't need to worry about which airport CX would use until, well, 2020...

Does that mean 7 more years of Heathrow?

No, it means several more decades of Heathrow, because strip away the attention-grabbing BS inserted into the press release and this is nothing more than some computer renderings and some wishful thinking.

2020 is barely six years away, government decisionmaking doesn't move that fast. At best you can expect the completion an initial inquiry to recommend that another inquiry be set up into determining whether a formal design study should be undertaken.