Mizter T wrote:
On 08/05/2013 00:43, Recliner wrote:
[snip]
Exactly. Any new or greatly expanded inland airport will turn out to have
outraged neighbours just as unhappy as those who live under the Heathrow
flight paths. And one far enough away to annoy no-one will also be too far
away from the customers to be non-viable.

Not arguing in favour of Neil's Stansted option, but there would be fewer
"outraged neighbours" than a four runway Heathrow (where 'neighbour' =
people under the flightpath).

Looks like the Commons Transport Committee has seen sense:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22469502

Extract:
"The government should reject the "Boris Island" Thames Estuary airport
plan and expand Heathrow instead, a report by MPs has said.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson has argued for a new hub airport in the
Thames Estuary.

Yet the House of Commons Transport Committee warned it would be hugely
expensive.

The mayor insists London needs a new airport and the only possible place is
east of London.

But the report also warned the new airport could mean the closure of
Heathrow and could harm estuary wildlife.

The MPs argue a third runway at Heathrow is necessary instead and even
suggest a fourth runway might have merit.

A third runway is opposed by both residents and councils in west London.

The committee said adding new runways to expand other existing airports was
not a long-term solution.

Committee chairwoman Louise Ellman MP said: "Research we commissioned made
plain that building an entirely new hub airport east of London could not be
done without huge public investment in new ground transport infrastructure.

"Evidence to our inquiry also showed a substantial potential impact on
wildlife habitat in the Thames Estuary.

"The viability of an estuary hub airport would also require the closure of
Heathrow - a course of action that would have unacceptable consequences."