New London airport considered on Thames Estuary

LONDON -- Fifty miles southeast of this city's glittering skyscrapers lies a quiet patch of sea that looks like any other. Only container ships disturb its peace, and the distant coast is a sleepy stretch of marsh and farm fields.

If London Mayor Boris Johnson has his way, this expanse of water at the mouth of the Thames river could be transformed into one of the world's biggest and busiest airports.

Proposals floated by Johnson's office for the site envision a four-runway airport, which would sit atop an artificial island or two, perhaps linked by tunnels. Boris Island, the tabloids call it. Johnson's critics call it "daft," "ridiculous" and "a crazy Bond fantasy."

Now Boris' fantasy island doesn't seem so daft after all.

The British government is now seriously mulling whether to build a huge airport in the so-called Thames Estuary region. Johnson has talked up an airport there since 2008, but his idea gained fresh impetus after Prime Minister David Cameron's government decided to kill plans to expand Heathrow, London's primary airport.

"We need to retain our status as a key global hub for air travel," Cameron said last Monday in reaffirming that a Thames Estuary airport is a serious option being considered in the government's aviation strategy. "Yes," he acknowledged, "this will be controversial."

The debate could shape the journeys of millions of Americans, who make nearly 2.5 million visits a year to Britain. The vast majority make landfall at the notoriously jam-packed and delay-plagued Heathrow, which also serves as a major transit point for U.S. travelers to Europe and beyond. In 2010, roughly 85% of the 57,000 reported U.S. flights to Britain landed at Heathrow, according to statistics from the Civil Aviation Authority.

A Thames Estuary airport would be "a clean sheet of paper," says Huw Thomas of Foster and Partners, a prominent British architecture firm that has proposed an airport near the mayor's site. "You're not facing any of the legacy issues that Heathrow suffers today."

Whatever its advantages, Boris Island faces opposition from an uneasy but powerful alliance of labor unions, environmentalists and residents of the Thames Estuary. The project's $60 billion price tag also works against it.

London's airport problem has "no clear-cut solution," says aviation consultant Mark Clarkson of ASM. "It's just a question of whether or not the government and industry bodies can … agree on going forward. Until they do that, in my view, the country's going to continue to suffer."

Heathrow's problems

Anyone who has flown to Heathrow regularly over the last decade knows what it's like to suffer. Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport as well as the busiest airport in Europe. In January alone, a record 5.2 million travelers rubbed shoulders in Heathrow's bustling lounges. Roughly a third were transferring to another flight.

The problem is that Heathrow was never meant for such traffic. From a small private air strip in the 1930s, it has grown haphazardly into a sprawling complex of terminals — but still has only two runways. Today, Heathrow's runways operate at nearly 99% of capacity, a surefire recipe for delays and cancellations.

In the summer, planes depart Heathrow an average of 20 minutes late during much of the day, according to a 2011 report by a government aviation task force. Jets are forced to wait in long lines to take off and often circle above the city in holding "stacks" before there's a slot to touch down. Wags joke that those landing at Heathrow can wave hello from the air to their houses over and over.

The airport's shortcomings have earned it a place on many Worst Airports lists and a legion of disgruntled fliers.

"We refer to it as 'Deathrow,' " says Frederick Harvey, an American retiree now living in Thailand who has passed through the airport frequently. "There are always so many people in that place. It's almost claustrophobic. … Just too many flights are scheduled to go through there."

In 2009, Britain's government gave the go-ahead for a third runway at Heathrow, which in theory would have reduced delays. But elections in 2010 ushered in a Conservative Party government with Cameron as prime minister. As promised, Cameron swiftly killed Heathrow's expansion, which was opposed by the voters living in the airport's flight paths.

At first Cameron seemed equally set against the idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary, the lightly populated area of the British coast where the Thames meets the North Sea.

The government "has no plans to build an airport in the Thames Estuary, Medway or Kent," Cameron told the House of Commons in late 2010, referring to districts close to the estuary. His government also promised not to allow new runways at two of London's smaller airports, Stansted and Gatwick.

The decisions outraged the business community. Business leaders argue that without more air capacity, London risks losing foreign investment and transfer passengers to rivals such as Amsterdam and Paris. Those cities' larger airports give passengers a greater choice of destinations, especially in the Far East, than Heathrow does.

Air connections are "absolutely critical," says Ashley Steel, head of infrastructure, government and health for the British branch of consultants KPMG. "History shows that where you build out good transportation infrastructure, economies grow and develop and flourish."

Facing pressure from business, Cameron's government softened its disdain for what supporters call Heathrow by Sea. And Cameron pledged the "pros and cons of a new airport in the Thames Estuary" would be considered by the government, which is devising a new aviation policy.

If the government decides that London should get a shiny new airport, aviation experts say the Thames Estuary is the logical spot, simply because it's one of the very few areas near London that still offers large stretches of open space.

"I can't think of anywhere else it could be located, if we were to build a new airport," says David Banister, head of Oxford University's Transport Studies Unit.

Accommodating jumbo jets

Flights to the Thames Estuary airport site proposed by Foster and Partners would approach mostly over the sea, minimizing both noise pollution and danger to humans, the firm's Thomas says. And an airport built from scratch could be designed to accommodate 21st-century superjumbo jets, as well as more convenient transfers between flights.

Unlike Heathrow's five far-flung terminals, a new airport would offer "the ability to interchange incredibly quickly in one facility," Thomas says. "It's an excellent location that gives you all these aviation advantages."

The site chosen by Thomas and his colleagues is on the coast, west of Johnson's proposed locale in the estuary's waters. Even so, the architects' plan has drawn favorable reviews from the mayor, who has said he's not wedded to a particular spot. Johnson's office did not respond to USA TODAY's requests for comment.

An airport with more runways would offer passengers more destinations and more frequent flights than Heathrow can now, says John Holland-Kaye, commercial director of BAA, Heathrow's owner and operator. The number of destinations available from Heathrow has dropped recently, he notes.

Heathrow has embarked on a series of massive renovations, so the airport "will keep getting better," Holland-Kaye says. But without an additional runway, "We just won't be able to offer the choice people need."

For every advantage offered by a Thames Estuary airport, there are significant obstacles:

•Resources. Estimates of the cost of a Thames Estuary airport and the accompanying rail and road links start at $60 billion — a tall order at any time and especially so now, as the government slashes spending.

•Resistance from the airlines.British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, the major carriers between the USA and Britain, are wary of a Thames Estuary airport, citing its cost and 15- to 20-year development. BA chief Willie Walsh has threatened to move some of his operations overseas if Heathrow doesn't get a third runway.

•Birds. Much of the area is a strictly protected habitat for the hundreds of thousands of waterfowl and wading birds that flock to the Thames Estuary to spend the winter. A decade ago, the government killed proposals to build a Thames Estuary airport partly out of fears of potentially disastrous bird "strikes" on jets.

•Inertia. Some 76,000 people work at Heathrow, which is surrounded by businesses that have sprung up to take advantage of the airport's proximity. Heathrow would almost certainly close if a new airport opened, leading unions such as GMB, whose members include airport security guards and check-in staff, to oppose a new Thames Estuary facility.

Faced with such barriers, it would take substantial political will to get a Thames Estuary airport off the ground, experts say. And the level of Cameron's enthusiasm isn't clear. Some observers say the recent signs of support have more to do with London's upcoming mayoral election, in which Johnson is seeking re-election, than with what's best for air travelers. Johnson, like Cameron, is a Conservative.

"Conservatives in central government need (Johnson) to win, so they have now gone along with his estuary project," George Jones, an emeritus professor at the London School of Economics, says. "There is no real commitment by central government to the scheme — no resources are committed nor legislation promised soon."

Few are optimistic that the Thames Estuary airport — or any other way to solve Heathrow's problems — will go ahead.

"There's currently no solution that has majority support," Clarkson says. Any option that's chosen "will inevitably be discussed, changed and delayed further."