Exactly, fdf for Mayor - let there be some common sense!
Thank you for the kind comment,
indie cent!
Somewhat ironically, as Frank so aptly illustrated, the third runway allows for respite. Coupled with steep(-er) approaches and the next gen 787, 350 320neo and 777X the low noise contours would be worth the enormous economic benefit - Trying to explain this to the local political groups is another matter though!
Not as much respite as 4 rwys, of course.
The NIMBYs don’t want to hear it, it undermines their already very weak case. They would rather have fuel wasted and pollution/extra noise unnecessarily created by aircraft queuing up to take off and stacking up to land.
EZY have identified what I "think" was 50 routes they would potentially start out of LHR. There were listed at the runwaysUK debate Monday.
That would impact on LGW dramatically, LTN, etc would it not, why would you duplicate , would they really operate from all bases ?
Would it also impact where they would cherry pick juicy routes jeopardising the much vaunted BA connections, does that not then undermine the whole ethos of connectivity ex LHR ?
In its evidence to the Commission in support of LHR rwy expansion, U2 mentioned basing 30 aircraft at LHR.
Why would it do this? Probably to grab some of the business from the very rich catchment area west of London - probably the same reason that BE floated the idea of a base at NHT.
Yes, some U2 routes would overlap existing BA routes, so what? Price wars may be welcomed by pax, who can say?
Don’t understand how or why U2 at LHR undermines connectivity at LHR, please explain.
U2 will either enter into through ticketing agreements with some longhaul carriers/alliance or leave pax to self-connect.
Just because U2 isn’t doing it now doesn’t mean it could not happen in future.
fdf
NHT ? Are you smoking the same substance as the politicians
Only asking? Hey man, is it good weed?
Unless airlines want to fly from somewhere, there's no point expanding the facilities. Think Mirabel, Stansted and the empty airports in Spain. It's not simply a need for a runway, it needs to be supported by a commercially effective group of operators using the facilities, any serious legacy long haul operator chooses LHR and ignores Gatwick, alliance members tend to pick additional services into alliance hubs, Garuda being the exception as they fly (recycled) fresh air between LGW-AMS-CGK, except on weekends....
AMS provides sufficient numbers of premium/business pax and adequate onward connections for GA, so it can live with an LGW add-on.
If access to LHR-4 became available, would expect GA to be in there like a "ferret down a drainpipe", just like VN recently, and that would probably mean the viability of non-stop flights.
This golden nugget does not appear in the final report, at least I could not find it, but does appear in the
Business case and sustainability assessment: Heathrow Airport north west runway
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...n-final-report
This forms an appendix to the Final Report.
I wonder how many Labour and SNP MPs have read this ?
4.37
From the Commission’s market soundings, based on the range of sensitivities presented at consultation, the scheme is considered to be financeable in a situation where all of the surface access costs are borne by the scheme promoter,
Splendid News, water tight, ringfenced and certainly allays a concern that I and few others had misgivings over re surface costs!
but wait what's this
......however the Government may decide, for instance in a situation where the risks noted above increase, to contribute funding to some or all of the surface access requirements, and a commitment to do so may provide investors with a level of assurance and so reduce the price they place on the risks discussed.
Does this mean that in effect if things start going "belly up" the taxpayer picks up the tab in order to protect HALS investment or have I read that the wrong way ?
Don’t get too hung up on surface access costs. Much of this infrastructure investment will be necessary sooner or later,
whether there’s a third rwy or not.