It amazes me that anyone flies anywhere within England or Scotland. Well, possibly to the very northern reaches of Scotland, but generally, not. There simply cannot be that much of an advantage, timewise, over taking high speed rail. Not England's version, but trains like the TGV. It's mentioned above that Brunel was wise enough to create broad sweeping curves; build new lines that meet that criterion, and up the speeds to 250 MPH or so. Then, price (tax) the airfares to a level where flying is cost prohibitive, and then people will take the train, which can be subsidized by those taxes. Now, the airport (Heathrow or any of the others) would be Very Much less taxed as to capacity. Use the correct mode of travel to achieve the desired result.

Schuyler Larrabee, Boston, Massachusetts USA

Let's think really big - how about at the same time we switch to driving on the right, and while we're at it, move London to somewhere more convenient in the middle of the country so all the northerners can get to the capital a bit quicker? Come on guys, it won't happen - this is England, not France or Hong Kong, and Theme Park Britain is more likely to use the Thames Estuary for a working recreation of the Battle of Trafalgar than a new airport - how ever much one is needed. Prepare for decades more misery or do what I did - emigrate.

Gavin Ryan, The Hague, The Netherlands

This is simplistic nonsense. Kansai airport was built on reclaimed land and cost a fortune and is suffering from major
subsidence problems. To rectify them will cost more than it
took to build the airport in the first place. They built hydraulic
jacks under the terminal to counteract the subsidence. One
small problem. the jacks reached the end of their travel and
the land is susiding faster than ever. The covered overhead walkway connecting the terminal buildiing to the railway
station highlights this. The terminal building to the West is
sinking faster than the rail terminal and the terminal is sinking
faster to the northern end. If the walkway doesn`t crumple
it will end up looking like a Mobius strip. I haven`t heard of
such problems at HK airport, but give it time.

Denver Watt, Osaka, Japan

The Thames estuary is the obvious choice as the article says. Planes will come into land over water and take off over water or a lightly populated area, sea trans shipment would be near at hand and a high speed rail link is also nearby. Heathrow as it stands today is just not sustainable for the future; the site is out of date and action should be taken soonest to close it. Also as the article says Gatwick could also be closed down. Very inconvenient having two airports, especially if one is in transit.. And just think how much quieter southrn England would become!

M.Wilcox, Guildford, Surrey, UK

Not all travellers are from London,so why not keep Heathrow as it is an build a new one further away to increase the traffic. Also look what happend to Wembley stadium, demolish a working model and build slightly bigger on t he same place? What is happenning in the UK these days. We have dullards as politicians, all they do is get the taxes raised more and more, yet the efficiency hasn't increased the slightest.

Ari L, London,

Heathrow IS in the wrong place, but with Climate Change raising sea-levels and with inevitable aviation fuel hikes, building a brand new airport is short-sighted.

The solution is a MAGLEV, linking Glasgow-Edinburgh to Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham and Heathrow at speeds of 500-600kph. This achieves 3 things. First, it allows us to greatly reduce the number of internal flights, freeing up capacity at Heathrow. Second, it allows us to develop regional airports as stronger international hubs because they will be more accessible. Third, it helps to 'rebalance' the economic geography of the UK so more of the population growth and hence demand for flights, will be in the North.

It works, and it's a damn sight cheaper than a new airport.

Brian H, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Come on the waters and rise over the whole of the stinking mess!!!

john, london,

Excellent idea!

Michele Votta, Wiesbaden, Germany

When looking for a solution to a problem you should never look straight to construction. You should look at comparatives, past development, and then try to think “outside the box”. Hong Kong is a fantastic airport but it is not a success because of its excellent terminal facilities, it’s a success because of its high-speed train. Stansted was a fantastic airport when it opened in 1991 but failed. Why, because the major airlines only wanted to fly to Heathrow and the Stansted Express was neither a high-speed link to London then or now. Kit Malthouse’s assertion is that Heathrow is in the ‘wrong place’. If you cannot change the place then change the name. Stansted airport was the old brick terminal built on the 1940’s aerodrome. The new terminal built on an expanded airport site should have been named Heathrow North, the existing Heathrow airport, Heathrow West and Stansted Express made to become a high-speed link to London with a journey time of less than 30 minutes.

MelD, Cambridge, Cambs

When the North Circular and South Circular became capacity constrained we built the M25. Now that the M25 is near full capacity we need to connect the London airports directly with high-speed train links of journey time less than one hour and thereby take airport traffic away from the M25. Would this be palatable with the travelling public? Yes, if the stipulation to check-in 2 hours before your flight was relaxed to say 1 hour. Who would pay? The government up front, reimbursed on an annuity basis over the life of the rail links, and collected through the existing aviation tax on every airline ticket. And Gatwick? Heathrow South of course! Suddenly Heathrow airport has four runways, five in 2015 when a second runway is built at Stansted, and not one turf turned at Sipson. What happens when the new Heathrow capacity is reached? Put Southend in the equation, or should I say Heathrow East!

MelD, Cambridge, Cambs

I understood BAA owns Heathrow as this company has just been bought by a Spanish construction company,, surely it is the construction company that is going to build and take all the profits from this project back to Spain,,, We have to admit our stock exchange is an open and free level playing field and we happily sold our shares to this Spanish construction company at a nice profit

About Heathrow I can never image it closing, there is to much money involved.

I can see a green field site opening as another airport,,this is without doubt a good idea, as there is going to be large number of construction workers moving to the Olympic construction areas,,why not investigate if an airport can be build on the Olympic land after it is finished,,, I regulary see images of the old Olympic buildings in Australia and Greece not been used,,, if a big football team does not buy the stadium,, why not turn it into hard core for a super runway and a new airport. ,, as a starting idea its OK

Nicholas Iles, Oswestry, Shropshire, United Kingdom

Does Kit Malthouse own property near Heathrow/ West London I wonder?

Kim, London,

You actually expect a country that can't build a football stadium on time to build a complete new international airport? Get real! Once our politicians get involved progress goes out the window and realism takes a holiday.
Instead of giving a future chancellor an excuse to make more demands on my wallet, try cutting air travel down and using the spare capacity at other, existing airports. Oops - sorry - we can't do that can we, because a few years ago some other short-sighted, penny-pinching idiot decided to get rid of the railway system that would have supported that plan.

KR, Stockport,

Have you thought about tidal surges?

Jay, Reading, UK

I am sorry but moving an airport just to accomodate some bullies is just wrong. I am not familiar with Heathrow, let alone England but problems are similar everywhere. Most of those who complain about noise and airport's influence on their lives have themselves to blaim. People knew airport was there in the first place and people stil wanted to move in and live next to it. And now they realised airports produc noise and need to expand and now they want airport to move. I would keep it where it is for spite. Why not make people move to new, convenient, locations.

Igor, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Putting a new airport to the East of London obviously wouldn't work because most of the country is to the West of it. Nevertheless, if I remember rightly, a few years ago there was a superb scheme called Severnside International which envisaged a new airport on reclaimed land in the Bristol Channel, so that all take-offs and landings would be over water, combined with a tidal power scheme and a high-speed rail link to London. Though admittedly expensive in terms of investment, it would have solved pretty much every one of the problems stated and transformed the economy of South Wales, the West Country and the Midlands. I guess it was just too big a project to handle.

Stephen Morris, Shrewsbury, UK

Come on, West London has to be one of the richest parts of Europe, the M4 corridor is stuffed full of hi tech and other businesses that would employ people even without the airport, and there is not reason surely why there couldnt be a fast rail link from that side of London. In fact, if the airport was in the estuary - trains could run direct to it from all over the UK and europe. All those car journeys would be replaced by a greener mode.....

People living in London and the majority of those to the west of LHR - Windsor, maidenhead etc etc would jump for joy...

Gerry, Hounslow, UK

Sure tehr are issues but lets look at a real growth plan - lets site the airport in a place that actually makes a greater impact for all UK. The 40,000 employees will make a killing as house prices rise in areas that were blighted, the economy as a whole will benefit from this and of course we would all benefit here in west london - the 2 million people rather than the 40,000 - its a win win we have nothing to be frightened of except dreadful government execution and incompetence

Christian Ball, London, UK

Re-using WWII bomber bases to provide not-too-remote facilities for civilian traffic is a cost saving option creating a very tangible ''peace dividend' in the post-cold war era.

One was successfully exploited to create Stansted airport. There are other similar bases, some active and some derelict. RAF Mildenhall has a terrific runway but is a hub for transport to US forces in Europe. It's not too far from the A14 or local rail lines for these to be employed.

Some terrific opportunities were missed whe RAF stations at Heyford (Oxfordshire, close to the A43 east-west trunk road)and Alconbury (straddling the A1/A14 junction and the east coast main line) were closed.

If I may, I'd like to lodge a plea to all involved in designing airport terminal buildings. Please can we have no more conversion of roomy and airy booking halls into shopping malls. As a frequent traveller through Stansted airport I lament vandalism done to Norman Foster's brilliant design by Claire's Accessories

Amanda Treefield, Higham Ferrers, Northants

the airport should be north of london, not east, if it needs to be accessible ot the whole country.

a london-centric view would leave it where it is as it is damned easy to reach from london and wouldn't be if it were anywhere else. to cut down on the amount of traffic, just expand a northern or central airport instead. of course that might be a problem for transfers. so, sorry, out of towners, but you'll just have to accept london is where most people want to arrive.

it's not as if there aren't already flights from other airports.

if heathrow does move, then those who work there curretly can move. it's for the good of everyone, so don't be so selfish.

jem, london, uk

Excellent idea and vision.

It would need to be a gradual process, and I'd suggest keeping one runway at Heathrow, and Terminal 5 (no one would miss T1,2 and 3). Start with 2 runways, then move to 4. You could use Cliffe, which is already above sea level (though would need some more raising), and far enough out that the noise contour is almost exclusively over the Thames.

You'd also need a new motorway from the M20 to the M11, bypassing the M25. (Would be a good thing anyway)

A link to the High Speed 1 would put it about 20 minutes from St Pancras. And a new airport would enable a five minute walk from platform to checkin.

The only problem is the RSPB. The welfare of wading birds is much more important than the residents of West London. I guess that wasn't a problem in Hong Kong.

Alex, Tunbridge Wells,

Just move it 7 miles WSW - there is a load of empty parkland south of some place called Windsor.

Steve, Cumbria,

Finally the obvious solution has surfaced. Of course Heathrow is no longer compatible with its current London location. And just like the other major cities of the world, Heathrow will eventually move. However it may take living with a few more runways and terminals being crammed in until the situation becomes so desperately impossible that even the Government agrees.
Where are the Health and Safety police when we need them?

Jack Felt, Richmond, Surrey, UK

We have been down this road before.

In the seventies serious consideration was given to building an airport on Foulness in Essex.

That was to have been London's third airport. That idea was rejected on cost, remoteness and lack of transport links.

Instead Stansted has become London's third airport by building there quietly and without anybody seeming to notice.

Phillip, Leigh on Sea,

Lets not forget the environmental benefits of a new airport. Wildlife resident in the Thames estuary aside, planes pollute the most when they are idle, i.e. taxiing on the tarmac! The line of planes queing up to take off at Heathrow increases their emmissions. New airports, such as CDG, Munich or Denver are designed to make the taxiing of a plane from runway to terminal gate as quickly as possible. Once at the gate, almost everything can be shut down.

Rhodri, London,

So you move the aiport and put 60,000 + people out of work by shutting down Heathrow and Gatwick, great idea that. Essentially ruin the economy of those areas, turn prosperous towns into places with massive unemployemnt, Or do you expect all of those people to relocate ??

Unfortunately as much as its a nice idea from some of the Northerners or Scots to move the main hubs north. The travelling tourists want to go to London, I doubt very much if they would fancy flying elsewhere and travelling Afterall London is probably the lifeblood of the british economy.

I think people need to deal with the reality Heathrow is and will continue to the main UK hub, expansion at the regional airports is needed, with more direct flights overseas to take some of the strain.

mark, Crawley, west sussex

I don't care where they put a new London airport - so long as it's nowhere near me. I lived in Wandsworth forty years ago and the aircraft noise was horrendous. God knows what it's like now. Like most things wrong with London, the problem is not success, but excess, and there's no sign of that changing anytime soon.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, Merseyside

What about global warming and rising sea levels ?
Heathrow seems 3rd world compared to most international airports.

roger, london,

It's a great idea - what a shame it will never be built.
Politicians are in power for 4 years at a time - if a project cannot be completed within this time it hasn't a hope.

G J BUNTON, SLOUGH (very near Heathrow), BERKSHIRE

Absolutely!

One more negative factor about Heathrow -- it's EMBARRASSING.

Trust me, as an expat Brit who's had many lousy experiences there, if you're a foreigner visiting Britain and you land at Heathrow, the airport becomes emblematic of the entire country. Poorly planned, ugly, chaotic, confusing, mired in the past, kluged together by a committee of intellectual midgets. What a fabulous first impression.

Britain's main gateway should represent the very best of the country, not the very worst.

Howard Bennett
Laupahoehoe, Hawaii

Howard Bennett, Laupahoehoe, Hawaii, US

What about Fog and sea mist closing the Airport?

mike, Cyprus,

1) Within a few decades, at most, the price of our depleting oil supplies will be so high that air transport will be contracting. Even if - a big if - we have fairly cheap electricity, that cannot power planes.
2) The Maplin project has been mentioned - near Foulness (Cape of Birds). More recently Sheppey was suggested by BAA (to the indignation of the RSPB). BAA then withdrew the idea, in favour of Heathrow, which they had wanted all along; Sheppey was a diversionary tactic by BAA. But the point of Maplin/Foulness & Sheppey is birds. The Thames estuary has tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of seabirds, mainly gulls. How many gulls can a jet engine consume before conking out? It should be interesting to watch - from the ground.

Dave, Wrexham,

This is one of few political issues that I recall, in outline, in the late sixties early seventies, when I think it was then much as you have put it now, but it was the environmental factors that ostensibly defeated the Thames estuary plan. Probably they were just an excuse for other less marketable reasons, but I think it would be just as contentious today as it was then if it is reconsidered.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Why should aditional airport capacity be added to Heathrow? For the majority of Brits it is an awkward and expensive place to get to. Its extension is just a sop to the chattering claases who have already had £800million spent on St Pancras and £6billion spent on their link to the continent.

If additional airport capacity is required the site that would provide most utility to most people is BRUNTINGTHORPE in the midlands. This is an airfield developed to take heavy bomber (eg B52s) in the cold war. It has a 10,000foot runway. It is near to the Midland main line and to the West coast main line (at Rugby) Nearby runs the M!. Shouls a High speed rail line be built to the North it would run close to the site.

Get the blinkers off you so called planners and take a look a little furthe out than the M25.

Regards

W D Toulman

W D Toulman , Walkington East Yorkshire, UK

There is already a 3rd runway - at Northolt, which was proposed for domestic flights and a good rail link would achieve the same. BEA operated from there in the 1950's.
Historically, the central terminals were for short taxing for propellor aircraft, giving them a choice of the best runway into wind.
Another good example of getting out of town is Austin, TX who moved to an ex-SAC base; for some reason politicians have always opposed this - eg Greenham Common and Upper Heyford.
Finally, Heathrow was originally built without planning permission; it was a cabinet decision to build an RAF Bomber base, quickly changing to a civil airport after completion.

Chris Davies, Reading, UK

The Heathrow debate is irrelevant to me - never flown from there - never will (hardly fly at all - 1 short haul flight in 6 yrs).
I did however work there for 6 months and was rather taken aback by the phrase 'beautiful modern airport'.
From my experiences behind the 'public face' of the reception areas, I'd describe airports as noisy, filthy hell holes, covered in greasy aviation fuel fallout - think run down bus station someone has lovingly sprayed down in chip fat.
Or, if you prefer, think of them in the same way as 19th century coal powered industrial factories - deeply unpleasant places where people make lots of money.
By all means describe these places in terms of economic need with a serious adverse environmental impact - please don't romanticise them.

Rob, Bournemouth, UK

Why was Heathrow built where it is? It is a good location for an airport. The one place it shouldn't have been built was in or around the Thames estuary. Far too much work and weather involved.
What LHR needs is tidying up somewhat with the silly T1,2,3 reduced to one large terminal. T4 and 5 are/will be OK. Use both runways concurrently and you've improved it no end. Start fining BAA for poor service too. Most of the remaining problems with LHR would come from actually getting to the airport (BAA's antics notwithstanding). Improving traffic flow into and around the airport is critical. Has anyone thought of building another tunnel? Or two?
Heathrow's other major problem is the housing around it. Perhpas it's time to consider a light industrial barrier around the site where noise is worst.
PS For Patricia de la Tour: of course planes don't dump fuel before landing, whoever told you that? They do dump fuel if overweight before emergency landings - and then, not over populated areas.

Paul, Cusco, Peru

A well researched piece and I wish that our generation had enough vision and courage to make such an inspired decision.

As with all solutions to many problems the answer is obvious...move if you can!!

Stefan, Baughurst

Stefan, Baughurst, UK

John Lynch has the far better idea. Now that Heathrow is well established it would be far more cost effective to remove the people in the surrounding areas. The opportunity could be taken to relocate them much closer to their place of work, thus also reducing one of the major causes of travel congestion in London - people travelling to work.

Patrick Griffin, London,

You'll never get away with it.

Have you forgotten that the Thames Estuary is the world's premier habitat for the lesser saddlebacked slug (or something similar)?

Why not suggest bulldozing Peterborough or Milton Keynes? - Much more acceptable.

What with nimbys, greenies and vote-sensitive politicians your obvious and logical solution would, like the aircraft, never get off the ground.

R Bingham, Lauzun, France

What a great idea. Just a shame Britain wont take it on.

John Pemberton, Uxbridge, UK

Hi,
Is Heathrow in the wrong place ? we have to think fundamentally about travelling. Within Europe a modernised train service is an advantageous alternative to flying. Flying should be restricted to ware the natives live this on environment cal and sociological grounds . The medical, physiological and social effects of a high concentrated airport is predestine. We must dilute things.
Regards Dr. Terence Hale Zandvoort

Terence Hale, zandvoort, Holland

Thank you for the introduction of common sense into the matter of Heathrow that has been allowed to grow like topsy because politicians can only think short term. It will bite the politicians back and then they will just blame each other.
Heathrow is not going to go - it will always be an important hub but just as we have to change our approach to the car and public transport so we have to for air travel. It will be a cost factor to keep the air travel numbers into Heathrow at no greater a level as now and have the future benefit of proper facilities, lower noise and pollution levels from the new generation of aircraft coming on stream.
The lower cost travel will continue to be to Luton and Stansted that should be expanded. Perhaps also a new airport to the East of London closer and easier for the people who work at Canary Wharf contributing enormously to our economy. In the meantime perhaps the Government can improve the rail links to Stansted and Luton in the short term.

John Oxley, London,

Planes take off into the prevailing wind - far more important than landing into the wind. Hint why - weight. Therefore, Heathrow is in the perfect place to avoid planes taking off over London. A Thames Estuary airport would mean aircraft taking off towards London, not over the North Sea.

Can nobody remember the debate about Maplin Sands? We've been through all this before about a Thames Gateway airport. I was expensive and impractical then and it is now. Heathrow's Land would not even pay for the costs of the transport links to a Thames Gateway airport. The cost of Crossrail and HS1 prove that. There is no suitable station in London from which trains can run - Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street do not have the capacity.

Most of the cties cited, have not 'moved' their main airport - they have built new, bigger ones - you can fly from Orly and Charles de Gaulle. New York uses JFK, Newark and La Guardia. You can still fly into Reagan at Washington (and Baltimore).

C Wall, Cambridge, UK

Whole hearted agreement, move Heathrow out of earshot. I cannot think of any other major city that that is subject to the constant bombardment of landing planes. Why no congestion charge for every overflight of central London? Of course a third runway will add to the nightmare. Don't landing planes also empty their extra fuel into the atmosphere before landing ? Charge them, the airlines, and Heathrow, for air pollution. Move Heathrow out of our fresh air.

Patricia de La Tour, London, U.K.

Why the London-centric view? Because approximately 1/7th of the country's population lives in London, and the majority of visitors to the UK come to the UK to visit London. Maybe, build the new airport with a fast rail link into Central London, but also fast rail links to the rest of the country. Having spent four years travelling from London to Edinburgh and back again, the current railway has improved (I had too many 8 hour journeys involving multiple changes), but it could be much better. Also, decrease the cost of rail travel (rather than having the current ludicrous situation where it costs less to fly than take the train).

Lisaq, London and Edinburgh,

I remember well the proposals some years ago to build a replacement for Heathrow on Maplin Sands. The green lobby as usual went ballistic and had their day and their successors (and the rest of us) now have an even greater problem. The NIMBYs and green whingers are so degrading the UKs infrastructure that we are well on the road to third world status. We need better roads, better rail links, better airports better power generation all have been proposed all have been opposed and not just on cost. Those who worry too much about their children and the planets survival should consider the fact that those living in the strongest of economies are the most likely to survive. Don't try and knock us back into the stoneage

mike, bournemouth, uk

Great idea rip the heart out of the economy of western London,
What's going to happen to the 40,000 odd people who work at Heathrow not to mention the countless others who work in the area providing services for Heathrow and those who work there. And all the companies that are located in the area because of the Airport.
You may gain 2,500 acres of prime land to build on. but who would want to live there. There would be rife unemployment in the area, and no employment. There would also be a glut of existing housing as people move away to find work.
This guy is standing for the London Assembly ..?
Well he's just insured that he does not get a single vote from West London.

Nigel, Bracknell,

Agree that we need a complete re-think.

But the Thames Estuary ? Errr, how does the majority of the population get there?

My suggestion? Milton Keynes area - with the high speed rail link to take you into London in 15 mins

M Price, Manchester,

Typical Londoner's view: everyone wants to get to and from Central London.
Look at big airports and what do you see, apart from terminals and runways? CAR PARKS, loads of them. People need to get to and from airports, unload their luggage and to park their cars once they arrive. Fancy millions of extra vehicles per year trying to get to the East London area?

Harry Collier, Malmesbury, UK

There are two faults with your plan.1.It must be inland.2.If global warming is going to raise sea levels,are the air liners going to turn into submarines,.or are you saying G/W is a GREAT JOKE and only for the government to ,take our money from use to squander.

john baker, maidstone, uk

In 40 years time conventional oil will have run out. Replacements in terms of heavy oil, tar sands etc will be very expensive to recover and so aircraft fuel prices will escalate to a level where cheap flights will no longer be available and there will be an overall decline in traffic. By the time Heathrow is expanded (or moved) there will be no need for the additional capacity.

Peter King, London,

Takeoff is noisier than landing. You've just put the takeoff path straight over London. Try again.

Ric, London, UK

So simple. Just relocate the airport considerably further from where it is now. Don't bother to think of the staff who currently work at Heathrow. Are they expected to move their homes as well or just travel long distances. Or are they all to be made redundant and new staff appointed who live closer to the new airport.

Christopher, Sydney, Australia

I agree, a great idea, and something which could be done very easily and probably faster than building a new runway at Heathrow (I speak as a construction engineer). There is plenty of of room offshore. To those who are concerned about access from the rest of the UK, the answer is a dedicated fast trains with baggage check in at the stations at the main towns. These trains can have all the security checks that we have now in the terminal so when you arrive you can get off at your gate.

One reason this might not have been done before is fear of fog. With today's electronics, not an issue.

Chris, Cairo, Egypt

Having been involved with HK's airport I couldnt agree more. It can be done but in this country with enquiry after enquiry followed by Judicial Reviews 2100 might be optimistic. We need a Government with vision to take a step like that. I fear that there are too many vested interests to prevent this ever getting to first base.

Neil, London, UK

Great idea in principle. The drawbacks are that:

a) 30-40% of the time the winds come from the east and thus landing patterns will still be over London

2) Fog is going to be much more of an issue over the estuary than it is even at Heathrow today

3) Oska's new airport, which was similarly built on reclaimed land out to sea, is sinking

Nigel , Reading, UK

I agree. But how can we get the government to change its mind? The problem seems to be an inherent preference for bodging things together in a make do and mend strategy. Sometimes throwing everything away and starting again is the best option. Is there some sort of organised campaign for such a sensible idea?

John Small, Faversham, UK

Great idea in principle, but when the Italians moved Milan's main airport from the convenient and centrally-located Linate out to Malpensa some 40 miles away, neither the airlines nor the travelling public wanted to use it

Richard, Bexhill, UK

I agree with the vision behind the idea but like some of the other writers I ask what is this fixation with London? London is overcrowded, has possibly the worst road system of any capital in Europe adn we are told that the skies above are alomost at saturation point. OK let's spell it out - vested interests! It may come as a surprise to those living and working in London but the rest of the country don't WANT to travel to London to fly out of the UK. Especially when going to the US they have to fly up the UK back over their home base.
But just go to the hotels around Heathrow and Gatwick during school holidays and you will find them full of families having to pay for at least one night before flying off on holiday. Lots of money - not to mention the extortionate parking fees too.
And of course many of these families have had to pay air fares or rail fares to get to the South.

George, Glasgow, UK

damn, i truly hope you get on the council with ideas like this.

Jon, chelmsford,

I remember in the 1950's the terminals were on the main road, and you could see the Pan Am planes up close. Behind it was Hounslow Heath. What ever happened to planning?

Phil Whithair, Cape Town, South Africa

Everything you write is true. The problem is the British mentality which prefers "sew and mend" solutions. The last time I went back to the UK I saw teams of decorators re-painting the external wooden doors and window frames along the platforms of a railway station! I could hardly believe my eyes. I also read about plans to "renovate" Birmingham New Street station. Renovate! The station should have been demolished decades ago. When will the British learn that it is cheaper and better to build major things like airports from scratch rather than fiddling about with existing facilities? My recommendation : award a 50-year contract to the Hong Kong Int'l Airport Authority to build and run a new airport in the Thames Estuary - and build a new city on the Heathrow site.

Graham, Central, Hong Kong

Nice idea, like the part about making a profit on the deal. But don't bother, fuel will be prohibively expensive in another 20-30 years. No one will be flying anyway.

Steve, London, UK

Whole-heartedly agree. Waht a prospect for the whole of the East Anglia which desperately needs jobs and also people. What a great way to enter Britain in a modern purposeful airport worthy of a developed nation. Not Heathrow which would make even the people of the least develoed parts of China never want to travel by air. They would not want to e seen in an airport of such dirt, disorganisation and rudeness.

Patrick, Taipei, Taiwan

So Londoners would get another piece of infrastructure to benefit them whilst the vast majority of people from the north and west would have to tackle the M25 to get there! In terms of construction and operation, the Thames Estuary with it's tides and threat of flooding is also a very different challenge to Hong Kong - and that's before the environmentalists get invloved.

I agree, however, that a more radical solution is required and that vision will be needed to ensure it is a success story for future generations.

Peter (Bristolian), Sydney,

Aaaagggghhhhh!!!!!! No, no, no, no, NO! It's the Millennium Dome and the Olympics all over again. Stick it out to the east of London, so everyone from a sane part of the country (i.e. north of Watford) has to travel even further and be even more incommoded by getting to the damn place.

There are two solutions to the problem, but Malthouse has come up with neither of them. They are:

(1) Leave Heathrow where it is, expand it but knock down all the houses around it

(2) (Better) Build a new fit-for-purpose airport in the centre of the country, where we can all get at it. Visitors who want to go to London can be in Euston from Birmngham International in an hour. You wan't do that from the Thames Estuary.

And just think -- with our wonderful planning regime, if we get on with it now it could be completed by 2080.

John Lynch, Whittington, UK

There was a plan several decades ago to do just what you propose, but as normal short sighted fools in goverment failed to take action. The goverment even owns a firing range that way, so the land is all ready there.

Brian, Windsor, UK

Okay, you've convinced me. Let's do it. But as part of the vision for the future, for god's sake let's not give it to BAA to run.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Kit Malthouse display a great vision but it is still London-centred. We need a UK-wide view.
Many Heathrow users go there because there is no alternative, and have a long journey to get there. Even going to Heathrow from Central London or Kent or Surrey takes a long time.
How long will it take to build another Heathrow runway? What else can be done in the same time span?
The high speed rail service through the channel tunnel to Ebbsfleet/St.Pancras can be extended. Here is a major rail terminal serving passengers to/from the north. In the time it takes to build the new runway at Heathrow, the new high speed rail link could be extended to link with the west coast main line services to Glasgow. From this line, there can be a link to a ready made and under used airport at Prestwick. The distance from London may seem a lot to southern England-based people but it is small beer to eg US travellers and will be closer for many who currently travel south to Heathrow.

John Wild, Gillingham, Kent

Kit Malthouse display a great vision but it is still London-centred. We need a UK-wide view.
Many Heathrow users go there because there is no alternative, and have a long journey to get there. Even going to Heathrow from Central London or Kent or Surrey takes a long time.
How long will it take to build another Heathrow runway? What else can be done in the same time span?
The high speed rail service through the channel tunnel to Ebbsfleet/St.Pancras can be extended. Here is a major rail terminal serving passengers to/from the north. In the time it takes to build the new runway at Heathrow, the new high speed rail link could be extended to link with the west coast main line services to Glasgow. From this line, there can be a link to a ready made and under used airport at Prestwick. The distance from London may seem a lot to southern England-based people but it is small beer to eg US travellers and will be closer for many who currently travel south to Heathrow.

John Wild, Gillingham, U.K.

What a superb, compelling, original argument. Does Britain have the guts and the vision to do it?

Philippe Legrain, London,