But let's return closer to the topic - the capacity of London's airports. In 2013 London's five airports LHR, LGW, STN, LTN and LCY had close to 139 million passengers and with only 6 runways available that gives an average of more than 23 million passengers per runway. In Mancunian terms that is 1 million more passengers than you had in 2014 without being allowed to use the second runway. Since I mentioned CDG above, this airport has four runways and with 62 million passengers in 2013 that gives only 15.5 million passengers per runway. AMS, another competitor to LHR, has an average of just above 13 million passengers per runway (only 4 of its 6 runways can be operated on the same time). The only conclusion I can see for London and its airports from a safety perspective is to give three airports carte blanche to build as many runways as they need/want to invest in, and the three airports for me are clearly LHR, LGW and STN.
Interesting way of putting it: so LHR is doing a whopping 36 million pax/rwy,
more than double that of CDG and AMS. In these terms, the case for 2 more rwys at LHR is unanswerable.
There is no point having another rwy at STN, it operates way below capacity, and if LHR has 1 or 2 more rwys, an extra one will not be needed at LGW for the foreseeable, so it may not bring the airport company a sufficient return.
Or are you suggesting that Heathrow should have a third runway that isn't aligned east-west, so that incoming flights don't route over the capital ?
Not possible, new rwys there have to be parallel to allow simultaneous use. LHR is too busy for any other arrangement. The former cross rwys were disbanded for that reason (and the need for space for terminal expansion).
Whilst that is not relevent to me personally if they continue to escalate (Sorry Basil)I have this nagging nay legitimate fear that despite Basils assurance, HAL will infact execute a handbrake turn and be tugging vigourously at the coat tail of Westminster for some funds to redesign the periphery M25/Railways/Tunnels/ Flood Defences et al. This could amount 25% to 30% of what is already an extraordinary amount of money.
50 years of indecision, dithering and delays comes with a cost. We have to live with that.
I may be wrong but inbound transfer passengers , a substantial part of Heathrow passenger flows travelling from say the US and onto Europe pay no tax to the UK. Yes they contribute to airline costs, provide employment etc etc etc but I think I am correct in saying there is no benefit to the Exchequer. Again can we call on our resident number cruncher from Basil Associates to clarify the position ?
Not quite that simple. Transfer pax allow routes to exist that would not otherwise be viable.These routes also have point to point pax who pay the APD. It’s only about 30% of LHR’s pax anyway, so a pretty low figure.
Forgive me Skip, but isn't that a not very subtle way of avoiding the perfectly reasonable issues that Bagso raises? Are you saying LHR should get its third runway whatever cost may end up coming out of the public purse?
Regrettably, yes.
It’s for the greater good. As mentioned above, 50 years of indecision, dithering and delays comes with a cost.
In order to demonstrate total consistency of argument, allow me to make a firm commitment to you from a "localist" MAN perspective. It is widely anticipated that MAN will at some time this year announce plans for a wholescale redevelopment of its terminals complex, likely at considerable cost. So here is my promise to you. If MAG announces that the cost of their terminal redevelopment plans exceed the inflation-adjusted price-tag of constructing the Channel Tunnel almost three times over, I do solemnly swear that I will vigorously oppose the project on the grounds of its business case making zero financial sense. Exactly like the proposed third strip of concrete at LHR.
Not comparable, Shed, Ringway’s terminal development was not needed 50 years ago. Look forward to seeing it.