HEATHROW
All may not be lost - according to ITV News "The commissioners will be assisted by a panel of experts and can call on Government departmental funds to cover any extra work involving consultants if necessary".
Stand by your phones, chaps.
Stand by your phones, chaps.
Paxing All Over The World
Reported on the BBC from The Times:
BBC News - Boris Johnson wrong on Heathrow third runway, says Cameron
The prime minister says London Mayor Boris Johnson is wrong to dismiss a third runway at Heathrow and he will not be given a veto on the issue. (edit) "In the end the decision is a national decision that the government has to lead."
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, the same David Cameron who did in fact veto it on his first day in office, two years ago.
And when are we actually going to see this leadership?
Still, good to see DC say this; just pity he had to waste two years before recognising this. It seems to me that the govt knows exactly what it wants to do, but it just needs to get rid of the LDs, hence this committee to mark time until after the next election.
And when are we actually going to see this leadership?
Still, good to see DC say this; just pity he had to waste two years before recognising this. It seems to me that the govt knows exactly what it wants to do, but it just needs to get rid of the LDs, hence this committee to mark time until after the next election.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Who would be in your panel? Mr Silverstrata?"
Can I be on Silver's panel? It would be fun!
Quote: "Still, good to see DC say this; just pity he had to waste two years before recognising this. It seems to me that the govt knows exactly what it wants to do, but it just needs to get rid of the LDs, hence this committee to mark time until after the next election."
Time for Dave to show some leadership and face down the Libdems, let's face it, they ain't going anywhere, not now have their snouts in the trough for the first time in 100 years.
By the way, we know the terms of reference (sic) of the commission, we now know the membership thereof, but does anyone know how much this waste of taxpayers' money is expected to cost?
Isn't there a White Paper on aviation (e.g. 2003) that they can refer to? A bit of copy-and-paste, how hard can it be?
Can I be on Silver's panel? It would be fun!
Quote: "Still, good to see DC say this; just pity he had to waste two years before recognising this. It seems to me that the govt knows exactly what it wants to do, but it just needs to get rid of the LDs, hence this committee to mark time until after the next election."
Time for Dave to show some leadership and face down the Libdems, let's face it, they ain't going anywhere, not now have their snouts in the trough for the first time in 100 years.
By the way, we know the terms of reference (sic) of the commission, we now know the membership thereof, but does anyone know how much this waste of taxpayers' money is expected to cost?
Isn't there a White Paper on aviation (e.g. 2003) that they can refer to? A bit of copy-and-paste, how hard can it be?
Its still deeply frustrating that there are many people in the media who are commenting on this story that have just no idea of the issues.
There was a bloke on BBC Breakfast yesterday morning who commented that STN should grow yet admitted he didnt know what a hub was!
Lets make it clear - the UK and the SE in particular has a vast shortage of HUB capacity. In other words airlines such as British Airways filtering all their short and long haul flights into one central airport; providing connectivity and additional choice for their existing and potential customers. Some flights arent viable without a hub. And actually hubbing is good for the environment. Otherwise you'd get point to point services from every airport in the country and probably half empty planes!
Why do I get the feeling this is just going to be a whitewash/deliberate fudge (delete as appropriate), and they're just going to go for Heathwick.
There was a bloke on BBC Breakfast yesterday morning who commented that STN should grow yet admitted he didnt know what a hub was!
Lets make it clear - the UK and the SE in particular has a vast shortage of HUB capacity. In other words airlines such as British Airways filtering all their short and long haul flights into one central airport; providing connectivity and additional choice for their existing and potential customers. Some flights arent viable without a hub. And actually hubbing is good for the environment. Otherwise you'd get point to point services from every airport in the country and probably half empty planes!
Why do I get the feeling this is just going to be a whitewash/deliberate fudge (delete as appropriate), and they're just going to go for Heathwick.
Last edited by Dannyboy39; 4th Nov 2012 at 10:55.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davies 2013 interim report
The 1st question the Davies Commission needs to decide is whether the UK wants a single hub airport or multiple hubs; this will set the framework on which SE airport expansion and additional runways can be decided. Common sense dictates this decision should be made in the 2013 Interim Report, as LHR's owners need certainty as to whether it will be closed if a Thames Estuary airport is built and/or if they will be allowed to build any new runways.
Even if Davies rules against any additional LHR runway(s) there is still huge potential for increasing its passenger numbers arising from the "Toast Rack" rebuild of the terminals and stands. In fact BAA are cutting off their nose to spite their face in delaying the toast rack work, as they will want the additional passenger capacity; a possible short R3 is not intended to reduce the existing 480,000 atms on the two main runways, which will be filled up sooner or later with larger capacity aircraft requiring better facilities.
The owner(s) and airlines of LHR naturally want it to remain the only UK hub; though the Competition Commission did not agree when it ordered BAA to sell both LGW & STN. The new owners of LGW have no intention of allowing it to be used as a LHR annex; rather they want it to develop as a freestanding hub in its own right with improved rail links to London.
Even if Davies rules against any additional LHR runway(s) there is still huge potential for increasing its passenger numbers arising from the "Toast Rack" rebuild of the terminals and stands. In fact BAA are cutting off their nose to spite their face in delaying the toast rack work, as they will want the additional passenger capacity; a possible short R3 is not intended to reduce the existing 480,000 atms on the two main runways, which will be filled up sooner or later with larger capacity aircraft requiring better facilities.
The owner(s) and airlines of LHR naturally want it to remain the only UK hub; though the Competition Commission did not agree when it ordered BAA to sell both LGW & STN. The new owners of LGW have no intention of allowing it to be used as a LHR annex; rather they want it to develop as a freestanding hub in its own right with improved rail links to London.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong, and a common mistake. It is NOT about what the UK wants, that is really an emtpy statement, it can only be about what the market can support.
That's demonstrably a single hub. Every few years someone with zero commercial experience investigates "other" options, somehow the answer is always the same.
That's demonstrably a single hub. Every few years someone with zero commercial experience investigates "other" options, somehow the answer is always the same.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 4th Nov 2012 at 16:25.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a quick look a the OS map shows that to build 2 or 4 new runways immediately west of LHR would mean th demolition of Colnbrook, Poyle and probably Datchett plus the removal of some of the reservoirs
You would effectively be putting it in Slough and Windsor (home of our beloved Queen of course) and moving the noise big time over the Maidenhead, Reading, Bracknel triangle
There are some very very rich people around there who would fight this tooth and nail - it would never happen - all teh terminals exceot 5 would be inteh wrong palce and you'd have to spend a fortune on ne w roads - cheaper to go to Boris island and start with a clean slate
You would effectively be putting it in Slough and Windsor (home of our beloved Queen of course) and moving the noise big time over the Maidenhead, Reading, Bracknel triangle
There are some very very rich people around there who would fight this tooth and nail - it would never happen - all teh terminals exceot 5 would be inteh wrong palce and you'd have to spend a fortune on ne w roads - cheaper to go to Boris island and start with a clean slate
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "The 1st question the Davies Commission needs to decide is whether the UK wants a single hub airport or multiple hubs; this will set the framework on which SE airport expansion and additional runways can be decided. Common sense dictates this decision should be made in the 2013 Interim Report, as LHR's owners need certainty as to whether it will be closed if a Thames Estuary airport is built and/or if they will be allowed to build any new runways."
It's not for the Davies Commission, or the government, to decide where the hubs are. Those days are over!
It's the airlines who decide (a) whether to operate a hub (e.g. BA and VS at LHR) or a base (e.g. U2 at LGW), and (b) where the hub or base should be located.
LHR's owners do not "need certainty as to whether it will be closed if a Thames Estuary airport is built": LHR is not closing, even Boris now concedes this.
Quote: "Even if Davies rules against any additional LHR runway(s) there is still huge potential for increasing its passenger numbers arising from the "Toast Rack" rebuild of the terminals and stands. In fact BAA are cutting off their nose to spite their face in delaying the toast rack work, as they will want the additional passenger capacity; a possible short R3 is not intended to reduce the existing 480,000 atms on the two main runways, which will be filled up sooner or later with larger capacity aircraft requiring better facilities."
Terminal capacity is not an issue at LHR (for the time being), and there will be even more terminal capacity when the new LHR-1/2 is complete. Would expect the "toastracking" of what is now LHR-3 to take place sometime after the existing LHR-1 is rebuilt as part of the new LHR-1/2.
Quote: "The owner(s) and airlines of LHR naturally want it to remain the only UK hub; though the Competition Commission did not agree when it ordered BAA to sell both LGW & STN. The new owners of LGW have no intention of allowing it to be used as a LHR annex; rather they want it to develop as a freestanding hub in its own right with improved rail links to London."
TheCompetition Commission's rulings have nothing to do with hubs, or whether LHR is "the only UK hub", it is not their remit. They deal with competition, and it is/was their belief that LHR, LGW and STN should not be under the same ownership.
Whether these 3 airports compete with eachother is a moot point. Frankly, LHR competes with CDG, FRA and AMS, not LGW and STN.
It's not for the Davies Commission, or the government, to decide where the hubs are. Those days are over!
It's the airlines who decide (a) whether to operate a hub (e.g. BA and VS at LHR) or a base (e.g. U2 at LGW), and (b) where the hub or base should be located.
LHR's owners do not "need certainty as to whether it will be closed if a Thames Estuary airport is built": LHR is not closing, even Boris now concedes this.
Quote: "Even if Davies rules against any additional LHR runway(s) there is still huge potential for increasing its passenger numbers arising from the "Toast Rack" rebuild of the terminals and stands. In fact BAA are cutting off their nose to spite their face in delaying the toast rack work, as they will want the additional passenger capacity; a possible short R3 is not intended to reduce the existing 480,000 atms on the two main runways, which will be filled up sooner or later with larger capacity aircraft requiring better facilities."
Terminal capacity is not an issue at LHR (for the time being), and there will be even more terminal capacity when the new LHR-1/2 is complete. Would expect the "toastracking" of what is now LHR-3 to take place sometime after the existing LHR-1 is rebuilt as part of the new LHR-1/2.
Quote: "The owner(s) and airlines of LHR naturally want it to remain the only UK hub; though the Competition Commission did not agree when it ordered BAA to sell both LGW & STN. The new owners of LGW have no intention of allowing it to be used as a LHR annex; rather they want it to develop as a freestanding hub in its own right with improved rail links to London."
TheCompetition Commission's rulings have nothing to do with hubs, or whether LHR is "the only UK hub", it is not their remit. They deal with competition, and it is/was their belief that LHR, LGW and STN should not be under the same ownership.
Whether these 3 airports compete with eachother is a moot point. Frankly, LHR competes with CDG, FRA and AMS, not LGW and STN.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 5th Nov 2012 at 01:33.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Fairdealfrank I refer you to #2079 on 24th October 2012
One option is to base planes with <100pax at Northolt and bus transfers on single or double deckers; thus quickly freeing up LHR capacity.
Where only a handful pax transfer, an electric taxi or mini-cab may suffice !
One option is to base planes with <100pax at Northolt and bus transfers on single or double deckers; thus quickly freeing up LHR capacity.
Where only a handful pax transfer, an electric taxi or mini-cab may suffice !
It's not for the Davies Commission, or the government, to decide where the hubs are. Those days are over!
It's the airlines who decide (a) whether to operate a hub (e.g. BA and VS at LHR) or a base (e.g. U2 at LGW), and (b) where the hub or base should be located.
It's the airlines who decide (a) whether to operate a hub (e.g. BA and VS at LHR) or a base (e.g. U2 at LGW), and (b) where the hub or base should be located.
"The Commission will examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK’s position as Europe's most important aviation hub"
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the Davies Commission is more receptive to alternative ideas for expanding LHR passenger capacity than FR- and Skipness One Echo !
Way back in 1952 Northolt handled 50,000 atms, so they should be able to handle the same today. All I am suggesting is decanting the smallest existing LHR aircraft, requiring the largest wake separation distances, to NHT; thus freeing up capacity for additional larger aircraft on LHR main runways.
And I don't think we should be side tracked by talk of an expensive rail line from NHT to LHR as the A312 is a perfectly good dual carriageway road from the A4 at Cranford to the A40 Target Roundabout (or the Polish War Memorial). There is a tube station nearby at Ruislip Gardens for direct access to London and an A312 taxi or bus service should be adequate for transfer pax to LHR.
Publically available information is available at RAF Northolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then we could free up some more capacity by decanting the LHR holiday charter flights to LGW &/or STN !
Way back in 1952 Northolt handled 50,000 atms, so they should be able to handle the same today. All I am suggesting is decanting the smallest existing LHR aircraft, requiring the largest wake separation distances, to NHT; thus freeing up capacity for additional larger aircraft on LHR main runways.
And I don't think we should be side tracked by talk of an expensive rail line from NHT to LHR as the A312 is a perfectly good dual carriageway road from the A4 at Cranford to the A40 Target Roundabout (or the Polish War Memorial). There is a tube station nearby at Ruislip Gardens for direct access to London and an A312 taxi or bus service should be adequate for transfer pax to LHR.
Publically available information is available at RAF Northolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then we could free up some more capacity by decanting the LHR holiday charter flights to LGW &/or STN !
Last edited by Windsorian; 5th Nov 2012 at 08:14.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London hub airport capacity
@ DaveReedUK
I suggest you read the published info that refers to London being one of the best connected cities in the world; this is a reference to all London's airports - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, London City, Luton (& possibly now Southend) acting together as a multi-hub.
It's only BAA/IAG/supporters who falsely claim LHR is and must remain the UKs only hub airport; then there is the question of regional dispersal !
I suggest you read the published info that refers to London being one of the best connected cities in the world; this is a reference to all London's airports - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, London City, Luton (& possibly now Southend) acting together as a multi-hub.
It's only BAA/IAG/supporters who falsely claim LHR is and must remain the UKs only hub airport; then there is the question of regional dispersal !