Welcome back to the fray, Skipness. As you may expect, I must take issue with a number of your contentions.
Firstly, I must remind occasional readers here that whenever a contributor domiciled in the NW makes a post, you immediately introduce Manchester Airport into the discussion. You then run with a narrative which suggests that we oppose LHR R3 on the grounds of some notional Heathrow Airport versus Manchester Airport competition. Let's be crystal clear here. I for one have never done so, and it would be incongruous for me to support LGW expansion as I do (subject to rigid cost oversight) were that the case. MAN is a solution for the North, and can play a role in soaking up regional demand which in years past was obliged to route via LHR. But in this particular context MAN is not a core issue.
Bet you support Emirates flying three daily A380s to MAN and pretend you're unaware they do exactly the same thing to Dubai. But that's different 'cos that's big planes at your local airport?
Let's examine this quote. Let us acknowledge that connecting traffic is a net positive at most airports. However, whilst it is nice to have, it is not essential. At a highly congested airport such as LHR, there is an argument that connecting traffic may be better directed elsewhere. The key point which you fail to draw attention to is the
financial cost of facilitating that connecting traffic. There comes a point at which it does not make economic sense to do so. I would argue that the eyewatering numbers quoted in the case of LHR R3 place it very substantially beyond that threshold. The benefits of this particular LHR feed to UK plc is outweighed by the cost of provision many times over.
So to say that simply because LHR is private they need to pony up enough cash on their own for what is something crucial to the UK economy is naive in the extreme.
The issue isn't the principle of providing a public finance contribution to LHR R3.
It is the question of how much. It is suggested by TfL that the public contribution required for LHR support works alone falls between GBP12-18Bn. To put that into perspective, a recent report indicated that proposals for an 18-mile long Trans-Pennine road tunnel (one of the longest land road-tunnel projects yet considered in Europe) could be delivered for approximately GBP6Bn. The LHR publicly-funded support works alone would cost between two and three times this sum. And that is before the underlying cost of the core project itself - GBP18Bn-plus - which could yet default to the taxpayer if private funding initiatives fail. Quite extraordinary. Frightening, actually. Think about this: you could build FIVE 18-mile Transpennine road tunnels for the inclusive cost of increasing Heathrow's capacity by just one-third. Staggering, isn't it?
Let me remind you also of international comparisons which we have previously discussed. Istanbul Arnavutkoy: a new-build airport with three parallel runways, two terminals and capacity for 90m pax per annum (more than LHR) at a projected cost of EUR7Bn. New York La Guardia - in a high-cost city - to be "essentially torn down and rebuilt" for USD4Bn. Our own Channel Tunnel - around GBP13Bn at today's prices - could be built almost three times over for price of LHR R3 plus associated support works. And let's recall that this stellar LHR budget delivers just a 50% increase in the existing airport's capability, not a new-build mega-airport.
How many jobs do all those annoying transfer passengers support? How many routes would be lost without them?
An excellent question, Skipness. Enough to justify upto GBP18Bn in public funding for support works? Funding which could be deployed elsewhere in the UK to far greater effect? I suggest not. Absolutely not.
Why is MAG so keen to repeat that self same business model at MAN?
Since you insist on drawing MAN into the debate again, I'll answer you. MAN's investment programme - the TP (Transformation Programme) - is actually a modernisation initiative. It provides little change to airport capacity in its current form. And it is wholly privately-financed ... no begging bowl to HM Treasury. The price-tag is GBP850M in direct costs with a GBP150M contingency for a total budget of GBP1Bn. That is between 1/12 and 1/18 of the projected public contribution alone to LHR R3, and around 1/36 of the projected LHR R3 combined private/public cost. And for perspective, MAN handles 1/3 the passenger volume of LHR so it is no minnow itself. On that basis, perhaps MAN should be looking to spend GBP6Bn privately-funded and demand GBP4-6Bn in public support funding to match those LHR ratios? It is after all crucial to the UK economy in its own right! But realism applies outside the South-East bubble, does it not?
And the reason MAN would like to attract connecting traffic (since you asked)? Because it is nice to have. It is helpful for the reasons you outlined, a bit of icing on the cake.
But it is not essential. Connecting traffic will only play a modest but welcome supporting role at an airport such as this. And of course, MAN has spare capacity. It doesn't need to spend 12 to 18 billion in public funds to support its hub aspirations. MAN will never pay GBP1Bn for GBP100M of new business. The sums have to add up.
LGW has never been more than a bucket and spade leisure focussed airport
Yes indeed. But consider this (because nobody seems to want to).
The bulk of London's airport demand growth will come from the leisure sector. From Tenerife, Palma, Faro, Malaga, Ibiza, Barbados, Prague, Krakow.
Not from niche long-haul business cities currently unserved by non-stop flights. Growth from these will be a modest proportion of the whole, despite the impression the decision-makers are urged to believe.
We are told that UK plc is "losing GBP100M per day" because certain niche business destinations are not served non-stop from LHR. Seriously??? Has anybody stopped to consider that if a GBP100M contract is up for grabs in Bhopal, UK executives
will get there to submit their bids even if that means changing flights in DXB? That is the way commerce works in the real world. It isn't hard to do and it isn't rocket science. Regional business travellers change flights at en route hubs on a routine basis. They still win valuable new export contracts for UK plc. They aren't saying: "Nah ... we'd have to change flights in Beijing. Let's just stay at home!" If we are to believe that GBP100M per day LHR publicity stat, we'd have to believe that SE-based executives are saying exactly that. Are they?
It is the growth in leisure traffic which is bulking-out the SE airports system. That is why LGW is an eminently suitable solution to the problem (subject to private-funding of development and carefully-scrutinised costs).
it's the whole driving force behind the rebuild and redesign of a certain Manchester based airfield
Actually, it isn't. The TP replaces obsolete time-expired terminal infrastructure with new-build state-of-the-art terminal infrastructure. It doesn't currently provide for growth in passenger throughput. Hopefully that will follow, because as you rightly insinuate, growth is a good thing at the right cost.
Moylan is a millionaire Tory Boris wannabe clone who is anti Heathrow as one of his many homes is under the existing flightpath. Very close to Boris and working for GIP? Not credibly independent is it?
Since you highlight this claim, can I take it that you similarly condemn the CEBR report, commissioned by Heathrow, which was splashed across the media a couple of weeks ago?
Telegraph readers (amongst others) were advised that R3 will benefit every family in Britain to the tune of GBP24500 per family. How nice, bring it on! Only later are we advised that this alleged sum ... supposedly GBP24480 per family ... will accrue over 60 years! And the margin for error re this suggestion? Is this mentioned? Well, there will be few of us around to call them out on this nonsense 60 years from now. Oh, and apparently there will be GBP56Bn in GDP benefits to the regions too. How encouraging. Not credibly independent is it?
But there will be a whole lot more than GBP56Bn GDP benefit over 60 years in the regions if public infrastructure spending is at last distributed equitably nationwide instead of being concentrated exclusively in the SE. Maybe I should come up with some CERB-style projections in support of my own arguments? I'm pretty sure I'll be dead in sixty years from now, so how embarrassing can it be?
Meanwhile, the Moylan report which you dismiss does raise a number of entirely valid concerns. Who actually is paying for the relocation of the energy-from-waste plant and the BT Data Centre? This little detail alone will equal in cost the price of MAN's privately-funded TP with which you are keen to have us compare LHR R3. And what about the much-criticised financial-methodology pointed out by Prof Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce? Any answers on that?
As decision-day (apparently) approaches, it is disappointing to note that public discussion in the media has again shifted back to a purely operational perspective. Which is better ... LHR or LGW development ... as if they were both cost-free. They aren't cost free. They are both extraordinarily expensive, in LHR's case to a stratospheric extent, and they stand to draw monstrously on the public purse.
Prohibitive cost. GBP18.5Bn+ in private funding (publicly underwritten?) plus between GBP12-18Bn in public funding for associated support works. All concentrated in the South East bubble (again). Never mind operational niceties. This alone is the reason why LHR R3 should be summarily dismissed in the public interest. It doesn't make sense to pay two thousand pounds for a two pound sandwich, however tasty that sandwich may be. Especially with scarce public funds required for more compelling investments distributed across the whole of the UK.
NOTE: This reply was based upon Skipness One Echo's pre-edited post, before new text about LGW was added.