there's an awful lot on here about Heathrow. Good job it's not railways or we'd feel the wrath of trolling!
All
I think there are a number of issues which can be quite quickly summarised as follows :-
LHR Runway - Too expensive and of little value to the regions, money could be better spent elsewhere.
It’s Heathrow shareholders’ money, expect it to be spent at ..... Heathrow, if the government would allow it.
BA - Not interested in the regions and slowly pulling out it appears. Also why would you go to LHR to use them, with the current range of other better carriers available on most routes.
BA was unable to make money with a Ringway hub, hence the withdrawal.
Some use Heathrow for one-stop longhaul, others use Amsterdam, Dubai, etc.. Good to have a choice! A third rwy at Heathrow increases that choice as more longhaul destinations would become available there.
Manchester Hub - Have to agree with Skip, there just is not sufficient business travel yet, and there is no based carrier as BA pulled out.
So, not just BA then. Can no other carrier make money with a Ringway hub either?
HS2/3 - Can we have the money for something else please, as even the House Of Lords have now queried its viability and cost.
Agree, but an intercity standard rail link between Liverpool, Manchester, Ringway, Sheffield, Leeds and Hull is badly needed.
Incidentally have been away on business but came in on lunchtime EK which was full in Business, and apparently quite full in First as well.
Regards
Mr Mac
Yes, EK is very well entrenched at Ringway, this could be inhibiting the establishment of new non-stop longhaul routes.
I respectfully await his explanation concerning the value-for-money offered to UKplc by LHR's extraordinary R3 price-tag. And whilst I respectfully note expressions of opinion to the contrary, Davies currently suggests that £6,000,000,000 of that will be drawn from the public purse. So my question to him is entirely legitimate.
No, Davies is not suggesting that the £6bn should be taxpayer funded. You are mixing up the fact that this work (if required) will be UNDERTAKEN by public bodies (as HAL has no jurisdiction outside the airport boundary) with the question of who will pay for it. Davies states quite categorically that it is normal procedure for such costs to be the subject of negotiation between the public bodies and the scheme promoters (ie HAL). I'm afraid I have form in such matters, and I can assure you that HAL will get short shrift from the public bodies if it doesn't stump up, and indeed is highly unlikely to get planning permission unless it does. That was the case for T5, where BAA/HAL was effectively blackmailed over the cost of projects such as the extension of the Piccadilly Line, and it will be even more the case for R3.
Exactly, it’s not £6bn from public funds. Suspect that any planning permission would have a great deal of "planning gain" attached and that Heathrow shareholders would be paying a fair amount for motorway diversions, etc..
If this isn’t the case, then it’s the price for decades of indecision and dithering.
Had the rwy been built when it was needed, in the 1970s, motorway diversions would not have been an issue.
Indeed HAL R3 seems a relative bargain when compared with the cost of saving 10 minutes on the Manchester-Liverpool rail journey!
Maybe, but certainly a bargain compared to a few minutes off London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds!
I would find it really helpful if any individuals who had a professional interest in a particular airline or airport, e.g. BA or Heathrow, clearly declares it on their posts. It would allow me to understand the context of their comments; take the facts more seriously and their opinions with a more open mind.
Nothing to declare in my case, independently minded and proud of it. My view and opinions are my own and based on common sense and reality. Am always happy to have them demolished with superior arguments.
Surely the investments in motorway and heavy rail links to MAN have been taxpayer funded to some degree?
Well of course they have!