Another runway at Heathrow

[DaveReidUK]

named after one Tam Daylell

Tam Dalyell (pronounced "deeyell").

[LN-KGL]

Actually it was the Ulster Unionist MP Enoch Powell that named it the "West Lothian Question" after Tam Dalyell had used Blackburn, West Lothian as an example in a discussion about the English town Blackburn, Lancashire.

And regarding the Heart of Midlothian, it's cobblestone heart on eastside St. Giles Cathedral very close to the Royal Mile, Edinburgh. The Old Tolbooth where Deacon Brodie was hanged on 1 October 1788 was very close to this heart.

This concludes the history and geography lesson from Oslo today

[Fairdealfrank]

Unless you're suggesting that they are being disingenuous, HACAN's position (per their website) is "to stop further expansion of Heathrow and to cut the noise people hear from the existing airport".

Hardly a pro-Heathrow or a neutral position is it!

Why are the British so afraid of taking a big innovative leap these days?

There was a time when the British led the way in exploration, technological innovation and bold decision making.

Now, we have a range of political parties who don't seem to have the ability to think or look outside of their small insular world.

Intellectual pygmies the lot of them. None of them has ever run anything or had a "proper" job.

If Labour get into bed with the SNP you could actually have Scottish MPs driving this. They may want independence BUT they also want connectivity to Heathrow, oodles of cash have been spent in propaganda in convincing them its a good thing (this despite them seemingly not having a clue that they ALREADY have a mass of shuttles from LHR to GLA, EDI and ABZ) .
A new runway will barely make one iota of difference to them.

We could end up getting a runway in the S East based on the Honorable members for Wick thinking they will also be getting a new shuttle !

Could "the Honorable members for Wick" have INV-LHR flights on their minds?

Actually it was the Ulster Unionist MP Enoch Powell that named it the "West Lothian Question" after Tam Dalyell had used Blackburn, West Lothian as an example in a discussion about the English town Blackburn, Lancashire.

Of course they were correct, not resolving this question has resulted in the present mess, last year’s referendum (neverendum?), and in the worst case scenario, the potential breakup of the UK.

[DaveReidUK]

Hardly a pro-Heathrow or a neutral position is it!

I don't know what constitutes a "neutral position" in this context, but it's perfectly possible to be simultaneously pro the continued operation of the airport and anti its expansion. For example, that's the standpoint of pretty well all the local authorities surrounding the airport, as well as the main campaign groups.

You appear to have been taken in by the "whoever is not with me is against me" fallacy (or "expand or die", as the airport rather disingenuously puts it).

[Bagso]

The RVR improves......

I'm indebted to a Mancunian poster who informs me that the BBC economics editor is a former senior Telegraph employee.

Should have seen it coming really shouldn't we !

Trying to disguise a puff piece for Heathrow expansion as informative journalism was non too subtle !!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly following my observation re Scottish influence, this duly appeared

Alastair Dalton: SNP MPs in transport driving seat? - The Scotsman

Not content with the hourly shuttle from all major Scottish airports they seemingly want more !

Has anybody up there actually checked the volume of flights already ?

OR indeed

The fact that Virgin are about to pull the Scottish routes ?

This really is breathtaking !

At least they are kicking up a fuss....., albeit totally misguided by skewed information !

Manchester MPs, "anybody there ?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skip

Would still be interested to know your views on the BBC News report re SE Airport expansion NOT RW3 itself.
I did indicate I was critical of the reporting not the subject matter itself, we all know where we stand there

Seemingly it supported your own view so you meekly choose not to question its authenticity ?

If the BBC ran a "PR trailer"( for in my opinion this is what this actually was), with which you didn't agree, how about human rights which you have touched upon in the past would you choose to accept it simply because "well its the BBC it must be OK", OR would you always seek to question and form your OWN view ?

Even if I agreed with a premise which the Beeb offered up I would not be eager simply to follow a particular line from any journalist, well excluding Private Eye which in my view is pretty fair and well balanced.

I don't consider myself an environmentalist but the interweb tells me that about 30 seconds was given over to their view on airport expansion against 3 mins for the pro LHR lobby. I might not agree with them but I am still fair minded enough to want to hear their views and THEN argue the case !

Is that the BBC , the paragon of virtue "making it clear" with well balanced debate ?

We had an interview with the CEO of Dubai airports presumably you happen to agree with him that airports should be free from political interference. This from a country which I "think" you have indicated is not exactly as tolerant as Blighty on other issues but you happen to agree with him on this issue so that's ok then ?

What it has to do with bloody Dubai is anybodys guess but I assume he is an old school chum of Mr Kamal and over there you simply bludgeon your way thru any issue without resistance and to hell with everybody else. There may be some merit in that airports being an example , but if it encompassed other areas would you be so quick to disregard ?

AND all this from Mr Kamal who went on to say we haven't built a new runway in this country since WW2 !!!!

Really ? This underlines the autheticity in the reporting !

When I get a line like that I really start to question what I am watching, basically he has either not got his facts correct OR its a deliberate lie!

Basically you cannot have it both ways !

Was it sloppy journalism or possibly, well how shall we say contrived with ref to a convince a gullible public of a certain viewpoint ?

What do YOU actually think of the way this was reported because to me, being probably the one area I have a wee bit of knowledge ref the subject matter it would not have been out of place in a piece of Orwellian literature !


And I don't want a thousand words, just top level in terms .....ta.

[SR71]

What we need is another runway at both LHR and LGW with one of these running underground between them: Japan's maglev train breaks world speed record with 600km/h test run | World news | The Guardian

That'll give us a 5 runway hub with a connection time between "sites" of less than 10 mins.

[DaveReidUK]

Good luck trying to run trains through tunnels at that speed.

And, if you take a way the underground aspect, you're left with the London Orbital/"Heathwick" concept (also based on a Maglev, albeit on the surface). The Airports Commission dismissed that proposal at a fairly early stage in their deliberations.

[BasilBush]

Quote (by Shed): "I understand 'the harsh realities of how this market works' very well, and it boils down to this: cost of delivering LHR R3 exceeds benefits to be derived therefrom by an order of magnitude!"

What is the basis for this assertion? I'm no defender of the costs of the R3 scheme, which I also believe to be too high, but all the Davies analysis suggests substantial economic benefits from the R3 scheme. The Business Case and Sustainability Assessment estimates overall economic benefits ranging between £112bn and £211bn, several times the cost of the project. See https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...west-final.pdf

The financial viability assessment estimates that HAL would have to increase its airport charges by around £10 per passenger to generate a commercial return on the investment, even if all of Davies's £6bn of surface access costs are paid for by HAL. Given the very high slot values at Heathrow, such an increase in airport charges is extremely unlikely to choke off demand. And, of course, HAL's own estimates of the scheme costs are a fair bit lower than Davies, implying a smaller increase in airport charges.

Overall the business case for R3 looks pretty robust. Unless, Shed, you've seen other evidence?

As for the TfL arguments about higher surface access costs, be careful what you wish for. Their basic argument is that congestion in the Heathrow area is already unacceptable at peak times, and that further growth would only worsen this, even if Heathrow's contribution to overall road traffic (etc) accounts for only a minority of current and future congestion. That's a very dangerous argument, which if applied more widely would rule out pretty much any airport expansion in busy conurbations. It would certainly rule out Gatwick R2, given the already unacceptable congestion on the London-Brighton rail line, the terrible state of road links into London from the south, and the permanent congestion on the Surrey/Kent stretch of the M25. Perhaps more relevant to Shed, Bagso and myself, it could also rule out any expansion of MAN, on the basis of congestion on the M56, M60 and indeed other motorways that are affected by traffic into the airport, potentially including the M6 and the M62. It's a very dangerous argument and one that needs to be knocked on the head.

[anothertyke]

One question worth asking TfL is what their assessment is of the benefits to local (ie non air traveller) traffic of all this new infrastructure. Have they done the old dodge of sticking in all the costs and none of the local benefits as a starting point for negotiations? Heads we win, tails you lose.

[Fairdealfrank]

I don't know what constitutes a "neutral position" in this context, but it's perfectly possible to be simultaneously pro the continued operation of the airport and anti its expansion. For example, that's the standpoint of pretty well all the local authorities surrounding the airport, as well as the main campaign groups.

You appear to have been taken in by the "whoever is not with me is against me" fallacy (or "expand or die", as the airport rather disingenuously puts it).

It’s not quite as simple as that, but also not that difficult a concept to understand. There is no "neutral position" in this context because supporting the status quo is anti-Heathrow, because the status quo is highly unsatisfactory.

Back in the 1970s, when the government declared Heathrow "full", it was obsessed with two things.

First, a third (sic) London airport. The government faffed around looking for a site, but the best site, open land adjacent to Heathrow north of the A4 trunk road wasn’t even considered.

Second, successive governments wanted to build up Gatwick as a hub airport with a privately owned UK carrier hubbed there. Unfortunately, successive carriers taking on this role all went bust. Only Virgin survived because it shifted its hub to Heathrow.

So Heathrow wasn’t expanded when it should have been, the penny did not even drop when a four rwy airport was opened in Paris in 1974.

Teresa Villiers, a former transport minister, coined a cute but ultimately meaningless slogan "make Heathrow better not bigger" a few years ago. Unfortunately as Heathrow is now running at 100% capacity, it is impossible to make it better without making it bigger.

How is the status quo, with extra pollution and noise caused by the routine delays and congestion, be considered to be pro-Heathrow?

Heathrow is already losing out to its competitor airports, they all have more destinations than Heathrow. Without expansion, and with Tokyo-Haneda and Chicago snapping at its heals, how can Heathrow maintain its status as the world‘s third busiest airport? How long will it be until Dubai overtakes Heathrow as the world‘s busiest airport for international pax?

Heathrow is falling behind the rest of its peer group and must expand to keep up, just like they have. The UK has traditionally had a huge advantage with its aviation industry, but, unfortunately, governments seem intent on throwing it away.

This is why a "neutral position" in this context or support for the status quo is every bit an anti-Heathrow position as that of the green lobbies, that of the vocal nimby minority who live miles away from Heathrow, or that of the Boris Island fantasists.

Hope this helps.

What we need is another runway at both LHR and LGW with one of these running underground between them: Japan's maglev train breaks world speed record with 600km/h test run | World news | The Guardian

That'll give us a 5 runway hub with a connection time between "sites" of less than 10 mins.

Even better: have both rwys at LHR and no maglev. Billions cheaper, more effective and preferred by pax and carriers.

[DaveReidUK]

So Heathrow wasn’t expanded when it should have been, the penny did not even drop when a four rwy airport was opened in Paris in 1974.

Paris didn't have a 4-runway airport in 1974. CDG had 2 runways for its first 24 years of operation.

Though of course, unlike Heathrow, it was designed from the outset with space earmarked for future expansion.

[PAXboy]

Heathrow expansion: Major blow for plans after court rules incoming government must make cutting air pollution top priority - Home News - UK - The Independent

[BasilBush]

Yes, paxboy, another example of airports being lumbered with the consequences of problems they haven't caused. The air quality problem around Heathrow is primarily a M4/M25 issue.

It's pretty irresponsible of Stewart Wingate (Gatwick's CEO) to latch gleefully onto this. Just wait until someone suggests lumbering GAL with the cost of upgrading the London-Brighton rail line, expansion of M23/M25 etc. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Regrettably all airports are vulnerable to such arguments. It's akin to the archetypal American lawyer, who always looks to sue the person with the deepest pockets rather than the most culpable.

[nigel osborne]

Basilbrush.


I think LHR does play a part in the SO2 pollution. The queues off the M4 to get into LHR the last couple of times I have driven their support that.

Nigel

[BasilBush]

Yes, indeed LHR plays a part, but a relatively small one compared to the emissions from non-airport related traffic on the M25 and M4. The unfairness is when the totality of the problem is attributed to an airport, or used to justify restricting airport development. It's equally unfair at any airport, not just Heathrow.

[BasilBush]

Quote from Willie Walsh today, as part of IAG's Q1 results:

"Walsh reiterated his stance that there was “no business case” for Gatwick expansion, but said Heathrow would also need to review its proposals. “Heathrow is the most expensive airport around and increasing costs here would be unacceptable to us, so I think they’re going to have to sharpen their pencil and come up with a way to make it more cost-effective.”"

Seems a fair approach. It's clear that pressure needs to be put on HAL to reduce the cost of their scheme (and also on Davies to change their approach of adding up to 40% to costs to reflect "risk"). Certainly the CAA as the regulator needs to be putting a line in the sand, otherwise the cost-plus approach that led to the ridiculous pricetag on T5 will be repeated.

[anothertyke]

But if WW finds it unacceptable that the project is funded with any aero charge supplement whatsoever at Heathrow, he might have said that to the PM five years ago because that would be curtains for the project. Getting the costs down, yes ; funding it entirely out of growth, out of the question.

Of course as the owner of 60% of a very valuable scarce property, the name Mandy Rice-Davies comes to mind.

[Fairdealfrank]

Paris didn't have a 4-runway airport in 1974. CDG had 2 runways for its first 24 years of operation.

Though of course, unlike Heathrow, it was designed from the outset with space earmarked for future expansion.

Yes, had forgotten that, but as you say, it was in the plans. The penny should have dropped with the UK government (which ran Heathrow at the time)!

[BasilBush]

Anothertyke

I think your Mandy Rice-Davies analogy is very good! I am also inclined to be sceptical about BA's "support" for T5. Certainly the entry into LHR of easyJet would put a rocket under BA's inefficient short-haul operation, potentially undermining their hub operation unless they could reduce costs to compete.

I would hope, however, that if R3 doesn't go ahead the competition authorities would be on the ball so as to ensure BA did not abuse its dominant market position. But it's difficult to see what the remedy might be in that situation.

Leaving all this aside, I do think that pressure needs to be brought to bear on HAL to sharpen its pencil on R3 costs. The CAA has hitherto proved useless in keeping HAL's costs down, so a bit of early pressure from BA and others will do no harm.

[Bagso]

Post-election indecision will halt airport expansion in south-east, says BA boss | Business | The Guardian

Apols if already posted....

I don't wish to be a picky but .......

if "Overall the business case for R3 looks pretty robust."

why is the Top Neddy at IAG saying "it's a bit ropey?"