Stansted expansion
A clue - look for Labour-held marginal seats.
Near Luton there are Stevenage, Luton North & Luton South.
Near Heathrow - lots of London area marginals.
Near Stansted - solid Tory territory.
It's a no-brainer - put the unpopular airport where it won't affect your friends.
Stansted it is, right or wrong.
Near Luton there are Stevenage, Luton North & Luton South.
Near Heathrow - lots of London area marginals.
Near Stansted - solid Tory territory.
It's a no-brainer - put the unpopular airport where it won't affect your friends.
Stansted it is, right or wrong.
Last edited by Hawk; 12th Dec 2003 at 20:49.
mostly harmless
LGS6753
Please, have a look at a map of the constituencies. The constituencies you mention dont exactly have the profile you state:
eg
Luton North Labour maj 10 000 56% hardly marginal
Luton South Labour maj 10 000 55% hardly marginal
Braintree (nr STN) Labour maj 400 42% very marginal
Richmond Park (right under LHR flight path) LibDem maj 5000 fairly safe.
But only your own eyes will convince you.
Yes, of course local politics comes into it to an extent. But it's far from being decisively in favour of STN.
The legal situation concerning LHR emissions is driving the decision. Goodness knows the government wants to avoid winding up in court again.
And I think you'll find that it's Darling in the hot seat in transport, not Prescott.
The cowardly thing to do would be not to make any decision. Surely STN 2 + LHR 3 if emissions permit is better than zip?
answer=42
Please, have a look at a map of the constituencies. The constituencies you mention dont exactly have the profile you state:
eg
Luton North Labour maj 10 000 56% hardly marginal
Luton South Labour maj 10 000 55% hardly marginal
Braintree (nr STN) Labour maj 400 42% very marginal
Richmond Park (right under LHR flight path) LibDem maj 5000 fairly safe.
But only your own eyes will convince you.
Yes, of course local politics comes into it to an extent. But it's far from being decisively in favour of STN.
The legal situation concerning LHR emissions is driving the decision. Goodness knows the government wants to avoid winding up in court again.
And I think you'll find that it's Darling in the hot seat in transport, not Prescott.
The cowardly thing to do would be not to make any decision. Surely STN 2 + LHR 3 if emissions permit is better than zip?
answer=42
Stan sted
Stan do you remember one of my first posts a couple of years ago (round about the time of the Ash Bash), when I said STN would be the next one for expansion? looks like I might have been right, tee hee!
LTN man
In your scenario the answer is still STN, and always will be, due to geographical topography, air traffic management, and environmental impacts, and not least of all financial cost!
LTN man
In your scenario the answer is still STN, and always will be, due to geographical topography, air traffic management, and environmental impacts, and not least of all financial cost!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the money going to come from for this expansion? The cost put on the expansion of STN is huge (one figure I saw was GBP4bn - surely incorrect?). Although the govt is making the decision, it can't provide the money; BAA will have to and will have to (presumably raise it from STN). This, as Ghostboy pointed out above, would probably push FR out, BUT this isn't the main point.
BAA doesn't really want to add a new runway at STN - clearly in this scenario, without the possibility of raising new cash for STN from LHR, it wouldn't make business sense. Could it raise cash on the markets for this? Would the stock market be willing to support this without the government doing anything for what the city clearly wants (LHR)? To cut to the chase: can the government force BAA, a privately owned company, to take a decision which its does not wish to take and moreover, which may not represent the best decision/returns for the shareholders, to which the directors have a responsibility?
Will the government indemnify the BAA board? Is there a legal mechanism for them to be forced? What if they all jumped ship?
I'm not sure the government has really thought this through; it may be worried about environmental problems at LHR (SURELY not insurmountable!), but perhaps when the realities of company law - and the opposition of the business community - become clear, they may take a different view.
BAA doesn't really want to add a new runway at STN - clearly in this scenario, without the possibility of raising new cash for STN from LHR, it wouldn't make business sense. Could it raise cash on the markets for this? Would the stock market be willing to support this without the government doing anything for what the city clearly wants (LHR)? To cut to the chase: can the government force BAA, a privately owned company, to take a decision which its does not wish to take and moreover, which may not represent the best decision/returns for the shareholders, to which the directors have a responsibility?
Will the government indemnify the BAA board? Is there a legal mechanism for them to be forced? What if they all jumped ship?
I'm not sure the government has really thought this through; it may be worried about environmental problems at LHR (SURELY not insurmountable!), but perhaps when the realities of company law - and the opposition of the business community - become clear, they may take a different view.
mostly harmless
akerosid
Good post.
BAA would fund Stansted expansion in the way that is most profitable for them: by issuing bonds, syndicated loan, retained earnings, rights issue (unlikely), some combination of the above, whatever. The backing for the financing would be landing fees and other income from all London airports - we are agreed that there will be a cross-subsidy, notably from Heathrow.
So, as you ask, why should they do this, given that they are against STN?
In a word, because it is profitable. The government background document shows considerable economic benefits, some of which are captured in landing fees and other airport income, including a profit.
The point is that these economic benefits are less than would be realised from LHR-3. As you say, STN-2 is less profitable for BAA than LHR-3. The government state this clearly in the background document.
Sure BAA could say no to STN-2. But as a regulated business, they won't be allowed to build LHR-3 instead (assuming that we are right in saying the government is going for STN-2 first). If BAA say no to STN-2, they would be throwing away profitable business. But they could always make the threat ....
Cliffe (or I presume any other new airport) has fewer economic benefits than STN-2 (according to the government). That's why there won't be a new airport.
Next you come to the real point of the argument. Are the environmental considerations surmountable? Given time and money, probably not.
This is a classic economic benefits versus environmental benefits decision. They will be teaching this case study in universities for years to come.
The classic way to make a decision like this is to use peoples' valuation of the environmental benefits and weigh this against the economic considerations.
But this is not being done in this case. Because there is a legal commitment to avoiding emissions above a certain level, the environmental versus economic considerations are not being valued one against the other. It is only the legal threshold that counts.
OK, it makes for a clear decision. But it's far from the best way to decide these things.
Of course the government could be trying to push the industry (especially BAA) to make a clear, legally binding commitment to reducing emissions at LHR.
Good post.
BAA would fund Stansted expansion in the way that is most profitable for them: by issuing bonds, syndicated loan, retained earnings, rights issue (unlikely), some combination of the above, whatever. The backing for the financing would be landing fees and other income from all London airports - we are agreed that there will be a cross-subsidy, notably from Heathrow.
So, as you ask, why should they do this, given that they are against STN?
In a word, because it is profitable. The government background document shows considerable economic benefits, some of which are captured in landing fees and other airport income, including a profit.
The point is that these economic benefits are less than would be realised from LHR-3. As you say, STN-2 is less profitable for BAA than LHR-3. The government state this clearly in the background document.
Sure BAA could say no to STN-2. But as a regulated business, they won't be allowed to build LHR-3 instead (assuming that we are right in saying the government is going for STN-2 first). If BAA say no to STN-2, they would be throwing away profitable business. But they could always make the threat ....
Cliffe (or I presume any other new airport) has fewer economic benefits than STN-2 (according to the government). That's why there won't be a new airport.
Next you come to the real point of the argument. Are the environmental considerations surmountable? Given time and money, probably not.
This is a classic economic benefits versus environmental benefits decision. They will be teaching this case study in universities for years to come.
The classic way to make a decision like this is to use peoples' valuation of the environmental benefits and weigh this against the economic considerations.
But this is not being done in this case. Because there is a legal commitment to avoiding emissions above a certain level, the environmental versus economic considerations are not being valued one against the other. It is only the legal threshold that counts.
OK, it makes for a clear decision. But it's far from the best way to decide these things.
Of course the government could be trying to push the industry (especially BAA) to make a clear, legally binding commitment to reducing emissions at LHR.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely, how do you put a financial cost onto an environmental issue?
If the new runway at Heathrow is built it has been calculated that 35,000 people would be exposed to levels of nitrogen dioxide exceeding the annual EU limit and even with advances in engine technology, this would only be reduced by 5,000 by 2015.
321,000 people would be affected by a noise level of 57db (this is classed as the onset of community annoyance) by 2015 if a new runway was built at Heathrow. These figures are from the SERAS stage 2 findings and the UK sustainable development policy.
Stansted doesn't have anywhere near the environmental impact that Heathrow does/would have.
Cliffe to be honest was never going to be a real proposition, the cost both financially and environmentally would just be too high. estimated at around £11.5 billion excluding transport links! Compare this to Heathrow at around £3.85 billion including T5 and T6. BA's figures for the financial benefit of an expanded Heathrow are in the order of £37 billion over 60 years.(A bit higher than the Dft at £7.8 billion!)
Unfortunately I can't see the real drivers of Government policy being anything but political, which is why I would be very surprised if Heathrow doesn't get a new runway. Not being cynical of course!!
If the new runway at Heathrow is built it has been calculated that 35,000 people would be exposed to levels of nitrogen dioxide exceeding the annual EU limit and even with advances in engine technology, this would only be reduced by 5,000 by 2015.
321,000 people would be affected by a noise level of 57db (this is classed as the onset of community annoyance) by 2015 if a new runway was built at Heathrow. These figures are from the SERAS stage 2 findings and the UK sustainable development policy.
Stansted doesn't have anywhere near the environmental impact that Heathrow does/would have.
Cliffe to be honest was never going to be a real proposition, the cost both financially and environmentally would just be too high. estimated at around £11.5 billion excluding transport links! Compare this to Heathrow at around £3.85 billion including T5 and T6. BA's figures for the financial benefit of an expanded Heathrow are in the order of £37 billion over 60 years.(A bit higher than the Dft at £7.8 billion!)
Unfortunately I can't see the real drivers of Government policy being anything but political, which is why I would be very surprised if Heathrow doesn't get a new runway. Not being cynical of course!!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: South East UK
Age: 69
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just caught up with some of the points on this which are well made.
1. Regarding the breakup of BAA, and the particularly good post about governments making decision for private companies and the ramifications for directors responsibilities to shareholders and cross subsidies etc, why shouldn't the BAA offer Stansted up for sale ? There's enough funding going into T5 to push their finances to the brink, so why make matters worse by trying to build a new runway at STN - sell the place, let MOL and the low co's take a stake and they can build the new runway at half the cost !
2. Interesting point about not starting an airline at LGW. Why not ? Surely LGW has capacity, they haven't got back to pre 9/11 traffic levels yet, there are slots in the off peak, the charges are pegged to inflation and there are good transport links rail and motorway.
3. If, as some of you suggest, LHR is so appalling why is everyone clamouring to get in there - I'm sure if the US/UK govts sorted out the open skies / bi-laterals, the 5 US carriers at LGW would be up the road the day after the deal was signed .... which leads me to conclude all this ranting about airport charges is diversionary - LHRs charges are going up by inflation + 6.5%, but is anyone walking away ?
1. Regarding the breakup of BAA, and the particularly good post about governments making decision for private companies and the ramifications for directors responsibilities to shareholders and cross subsidies etc, why shouldn't the BAA offer Stansted up for sale ? There's enough funding going into T5 to push their finances to the brink, so why make matters worse by trying to build a new runway at STN - sell the place, let MOL and the low co's take a stake and they can build the new runway at half the cost !
2. Interesting point about not starting an airline at LGW. Why not ? Surely LGW has capacity, they haven't got back to pre 9/11 traffic levels yet, there are slots in the off peak, the charges are pegged to inflation and there are good transport links rail and motorway.
3. If, as some of you suggest, LHR is so appalling why is everyone clamouring to get in there - I'm sure if the US/UK govts sorted out the open skies / bi-laterals, the 5 US carriers at LGW would be up the road the day after the deal was signed .... which leads me to conclude all this ranting about airport charges is diversionary - LHRs charges are going up by inflation + 6.5%, but is anyone walking away ?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: england
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would baa put stansted up for sale why spend so much money in the past 15 years look at the roads around the area or dead ends its all marked for somthing as for stansted not making money any big company tkaes money from the profitable one to give to the other just to get the business like look at luton stansted on locos all the pax in the terminal r spending money new shops opening every week more rent baa. if tbi wanted the business surley they would give the lading fees away as well . all i say harry up branson come to stn.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who has had the dubious pleasure of working at LHR on and off since 1970 and having spent 73-74 at STN I can recall without any doubt that STN was always going to be the third London airport even then. There was no question about it.
Back to LHR and the present issue. LHR is a dump and has been for the last decade and longer. Whatever your views are, LHR is third world and lacks proper communications and road systems to get pax away or into the airport.
Why after forty years was no monies spent on another entry tunnel to the CTA. Why was the railway not connected up years ago to the GWR.
Even with the Heathrow express you end up at another bottle neck at Paddington and since Nov 11 the check-ins have all closed.
This situation is once again the product of mismanagement a condition that UK plc is very good at. Surely the answer should be to expand Northolt as the third (LHR) runway and expand STN and LTN looking to open a new airport within the next decade.
Back to LHR and the present issue. LHR is a dump and has been for the last decade and longer. Whatever your views are, LHR is third world and lacks proper communications and road systems to get pax away or into the airport.
Why after forty years was no monies spent on another entry tunnel to the CTA. Why was the railway not connected up years ago to the GWR.
Even with the Heathrow express you end up at another bottle neck at Paddington and since Nov 11 the check-ins have all closed.
This situation is once again the product of mismanagement a condition that UK plc is very good at. Surely the answer should be to expand Northolt as the third (LHR) runway and expand STN and LTN looking to open a new airport within the next decade.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My own points, in no particular order:
LHR:
1) M25 is already suffering from massive conjestion around the LHR area, and it will be even worse now the 10 year long widening project for the London Orbital Car Park has begun. Heathrow does have the Heathrow Express, but if your trying to get into LHR from anywhere other then central london by rail it is a nightmare as you need to get into central london.....
2) Why dont we just choose to ignore the EU pollution regulations? Other EU countries ignore EU law when it suits them.
3) The major flag carriers want to come to LHR as it offers the best onward flight connections to europe and smaller UK airports through BA / BMi and other European majors. The likes of Cathay, Emirates, United, American, Japan etc etc do not want to go to STN. In fact STN does not even have the security infrastructure anymore to deal with transfer pax and baggage.
STN
1) 45 mins from London on train, not that different in that respect to LGW. Major road improvements now completed with M11 sliproads and new A120 just opened which is a massive improvement from the country road it used to be. Also the new hotel will open within a year.
2) STN does not suffer with delays such as ramp congestion, lack of stand availability and runway slots as much as LHR and LGW although I think we get a bit more fog at STN due to its elevation (350ft vs LHR 70ft).
3) Maybe some validity in charter airlines at LGW moving more of their work to STN as landing fees cheaper, less slot delays etc etc. Possible financial savings in this competitive age.
4) Some change of mindset needed amongst certain areas of BAA staff at STN. They seem to forget sometimes that the passenger / airline / handling agent is their customer etc.
5) CSA still at STN as they carry large amounts of mail on their flights here, up to 3 tonnes daily. Mail = mega bucks.
It is not just Easyjet and Ryanair who are expanding out of STN. Overseas operators are beginning to come to STN in greater numbers. The list of foreign carriers at STN is now growing (current schedules)
Flag Carriers Charter
El Al Kirbrish Turkish
CSA Cyprus Airways
Air Malta Helios
Viking
BRA
Onur Air
Low Cost Cargo
Air Berlin Fedex
Sky Europe UPS
Iceland Express TNT
Flying Finn Asiana
Air Polonia All Nippon
GermanWings Cygnus
Transavia Egypt Air
Norweigan Japan Air
It gets very busy at the runway holding points and on the culdesacs at certain times of the day when you add the likes of Easy and Ryan to that lot and through in the odd Britannia, My Travel, Air 2000, Thomas Cook, European, Titan, Channel Express, Aurigny, Eastern Airways, Global Supply. Get the point, we need another runway and some more satellites at STN because it is where more and more people want to come despite the long distance car parking and the transit train.
LHR:
1) M25 is already suffering from massive conjestion around the LHR area, and it will be even worse now the 10 year long widening project for the London Orbital Car Park has begun. Heathrow does have the Heathrow Express, but if your trying to get into LHR from anywhere other then central london by rail it is a nightmare as you need to get into central london.....
2) Why dont we just choose to ignore the EU pollution regulations? Other EU countries ignore EU law when it suits them.
3) The major flag carriers want to come to LHR as it offers the best onward flight connections to europe and smaller UK airports through BA / BMi and other European majors. The likes of Cathay, Emirates, United, American, Japan etc etc do not want to go to STN. In fact STN does not even have the security infrastructure anymore to deal with transfer pax and baggage.
STN
1) 45 mins from London on train, not that different in that respect to LGW. Major road improvements now completed with M11 sliproads and new A120 just opened which is a massive improvement from the country road it used to be. Also the new hotel will open within a year.
2) STN does not suffer with delays such as ramp congestion, lack of stand availability and runway slots as much as LHR and LGW although I think we get a bit more fog at STN due to its elevation (350ft vs LHR 70ft).
3) Maybe some validity in charter airlines at LGW moving more of their work to STN as landing fees cheaper, less slot delays etc etc. Possible financial savings in this competitive age.
4) Some change of mindset needed amongst certain areas of BAA staff at STN. They seem to forget sometimes that the passenger / airline / handling agent is their customer etc.
5) CSA still at STN as they carry large amounts of mail on their flights here, up to 3 tonnes daily. Mail = mega bucks.
It is not just Easyjet and Ryanair who are expanding out of STN. Overseas operators are beginning to come to STN in greater numbers. The list of foreign carriers at STN is now growing (current schedules)
Flag Carriers Charter
El Al Kirbrish Turkish
CSA Cyprus Airways
Air Malta Helios
Viking
BRA
Onur Air
Low Cost Cargo
Air Berlin Fedex
Sky Europe UPS
Iceland Express TNT
Flying Finn Asiana
Air Polonia All Nippon
GermanWings Cygnus
Transavia Egypt Air
Norweigan Japan Air
It gets very busy at the runway holding points and on the culdesacs at certain times of the day when you add the likes of Easy and Ryan to that lot and through in the odd Britannia, My Travel, Air 2000, Thomas Cook, European, Titan, Channel Express, Aurigny, Eastern Airways, Global Supply. Get the point, we need another runway and some more satellites at STN because it is where more and more people want to come despite the long distance car parking and the transit train.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 47
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightmapping,
The answer is simple is you are a government accountant.
£5 Mil for the actual runway,
The rest - secretly drawn into the governments "Oops we
up slush fund" aka "Tony's holiday pot".
My view:
Downsize STD & LHR, then throw more money by way of regions and let London sit in it's own self pity
D
The answer is simple is you are a government accountant.
£5 Mil for the actual runway,
The rest - secretly drawn into the governments "Oops we
up slush fund" aka "Tony's holiday pot".My view:
Downsize STD & LHR, then throw more money by way of regions and let London sit in it's own self pity
D
