This is so true, the fixation with LHR is beyond belief matched only by a total absence of creativity in the Davies Commission review.
It's a view shared in the media as again these so called analysts keep spouting on about LHR though various sympathetic outlets, The Telegraph and The Spectator leading the charge.
Disagree, the “fixation” with LHR is because that’s where the capacity constraints exist all day every day, quite uniquely amongst UK airports.
MAN already doubled its potential rwy capacity some years ago. LHR needs to follow suit and quickly.
I agree that a 3rw is required, somehow it will now have to be shoehorned into LHR, lords knows how they will do it re infrastructure , but that is another argument.
It will have to go north of the existing airport and also use open land across the M25, and it and other roads will need to be diverted and/or tunnelised.
Having gone through the time and expense of the infrastructure changes, a fourth parallel rwy will also be needed in that location, sooner or later, rather than to the south west.
It increases slots by over 50%, there seems an automatic presumption that they will be filled ?
Trust me they’ll be filled, not all on day one obviously, but expect an initial surge, as a “catch-up”, then a gradual increase over the years.
With a such a deluge the value will drop like a stone, a major issue for LHR based airlines where these slots appear on the balance sheet.
That’s the idea, get rid of the secondary slot market that puts LHR at such a disadvantage, and make the playing field with its competitors (AMS, CDG, FRA) more level. It’s not an issue for the UK economy or the Davies Commission if slot ownership appear on carriers' balance sheets.
It immediately negates the need for the existence of LGW, I suspect HAL will almost certainly go after this business aggressively, but that is simply moving pieces on a chess board.
Not at all, there will always be a need for such a diversified airport like LGW. It would reduce the
immediate the need for another rwy there.
Of course there will be some tinkering but will there actually be the massive expansion that everyone assumes will happen ?
Many routes seem to have peaked already in terms of frequency so is building a 3rw using a sledge hammer to crack a nut ?
Look at domestic points not served, the commission implied these will suddenly reappear, er I doubt it !
A LHR third rwy is not
only about domestic connectivity, although that is part of the story because it would allow the return of thin routes from smaller airports (some possibly on PSO arrangements).
Despite the ME3 and others, domestic connectivity
is vitally important and is needed to feed the new thinner longhaul routes that the UK lacks and needs; to help regeneration in some regions; to assist the export drive; to encourage inward investment to areas other than in the southeast; and to ressurect struggling local airports.
That doesn’t mean that we do not need more longhaul routes out of MAN, we need both, and the more the better! But it is not an issue for Davies.
Anyone looking at the Newquay thread will be aware that there is simply no desire from the main operator BA to reconnect with all domestic points that have been slashed previously and yet according to the Commission and so called analysts this remained one of the main arguments for expansion ! If anything domestic connectivity is falling.
BA would not be on any of the thin domestic routes that may become available with a third rwy, it doesn’t have aircraft small enough. There are other UK airlines who could fulfill this, possibly in association with BA and/or VS.
A huge amount of Gatwick's traffic is only there because they can't get into LHR, so runway #3 at LHR would do huge damage to them.
Yes, BA longhaul and VS and carriers in the “waiting room” would almost certainly shift to an expanded LHR. Some carriers could probably be at both LHR and LGW (in the same way as BA goes to both ORY and CDG, HND and NRT, and JFK and EWR).
It is also likely that carriers would shift to LGW from LTN and STN, and the holiday companies would stay at LGW. Think there would be more damage to LTN and STN than LGW, which would also be saved the immediate expense of building a second rwy.
If LHR doesn't get runway #3, the UK as a whole will lose out financially, there is already a huge bleed of PAX to AMS from the UK regions heading east.
Indeed, a third/fourth rwy at LHR does not adversely affect MAN.
The main remit of the Davies Commission was a review of UK Airport Capacity, and not UK Aviation Policy as such. It would be extremely difficult for them to conclude there is a shortage of airport capacity outside the SE corner - if anything in most of the UK there are probably too many airports competing for the same business, and losing large piles of money as a result. Just look at the sad state of airports like Teesside and Doncaster Sheffield, to name but two.
Exactly, and the smaller struggling airports would be helped by having a link to LHR.
BTW If Davies was not going to include MAN in the debate was it not somewhat pompous to conclude that "long haul flights from the regions were environmentally damaging because the chances of filling these flights was lower than from LHR". Is that a comment on capacity OR is it straying into aviation policy ?
Sounds a bit like aviation policy, the rwy
capacity issue does not apply to MAN.