HEATHROW

[Windsorian]

HS2 from MAN to LHR

There is no train connectivity apart from central London.

Yes, I know there are at present flights from MAN to LHR, but for how long they will continue is another matter. Before Xmas (within 6 weeks) the HS2 Phase 2 consultation will begin with a HSR line between central Manchester and a new railway station outside of T5 on the Agenda. .

This is a link to Hansard for Monday 29th October 2012 House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 29 Oct 2012 (pt 0001) and scroll down to "High Speed 2 Railway Line" to read the proposals.

It is well believed that the dinosaurs died out because they were unable to adapt to the developing planet !

[Windsorian]

Have investors been misled ?

BAA's proposals were/are to provide terminal capacity of 125 mppa.

Yes, 125mppa terminal capacity between the main runways. This has nothing to do with a possible R3 and T6 (+ T7, T8 ?).

BAA's proposals for the additional terminal extensions (+ satellites) is in BAA's published documents including its annual CIPs and annual / half yearly results.

Or are you suggesting Ferrovial etc misled BAA's new investors (China, Qatar etc.) that R3 was a given ?

[Skipness One Echo]

Domestic connectivity has been falling for years, mainly due to improvements in mainland rail and airlines desire to move slots to more proffitable destinations. Despite T5 opening, LHR today serves less destinations than before, and the rail improvements are due to continue long into the future.

You are mixing up point to point domestic travel with international connectivity over a hub. ABZ/GLA/EDI/NCL/MAN/BHD and now LBA play an important part in plugging those regions into the world over LHR. This is a major part of BA's business model and feed to maintain viability of some long haul. It would be foolish to have them arrive in tents and be bussed given the current huge unpopularity of the current T5/T3 slog at a fraction of the distance. Be realistic.
Just to clarify, what airlines and what "small planes" are you removing from lounge access and existing terminals? It's not as easy in the practice as the suggesting.

[Libertine Winno]

@ Windsorian

I must confess that I love your optimism about HS2, but the initial line only goes to Birmingham and that won't be ready until the middle of the next decade, let alone the extension to Manchester! In addition, I'm not sure that it has been definitely agreed that the line will go via LHR anyway?!

You can be rest assured that flights from the regions will continue into LHR for the foreseeable future, especially as Virgin are launching services from there into LHR. I believe it was also a condition of the sale of bmi that BA retains some of the routes to the likes of Aberdeen, Glasgow etc?

[jabird]

Before Xmas (within 6 weeks) the HS2 Phase 2 consultation will begin with a HSR line between central Manchester and a new railway station outside of T5 on the Agenda

Err, the HS2 consult keeps getting pushed back. There have been proposals for running the line right under the toastrack, now it seems the GWML will take that route. There have been proposals for a loop into T5, and for a spur only from the north.

Now let's have a look at the reality. The current Phase 1 proposal has a very low BCR (ROI if you were UK PLC). If they are dropping a spur into T5, that will have an even lower BCR. How do you spend £4bn to serve a terminal that cost the same, and then expect a return when less than 10% of passengers come from the areas served by HS2?

Now you think Beardie, * and Skyteam will be happy with BA getting a subsidised shuttle service into their terminal when they don't?

It is well believed that the dinosaurs died out because they were unable to adapt to the developing planet !

Well the intellectual dinosaurs are the ones who go round thinking that high speed rail, as proposed, is the cure to all ills. It is deeply flawed in so many ways which have been done other threads, but just put the LHR context across - where else in the world do you have a major investment in airport to rail infrastructure that doesn't also serve the city centre?

I can think of one hulking great white elephant of a high speed rail station that does this, and oddly enough, many people have said it looks like a dinosaur skeleton, however beautiful a skeleton it may be!

[jabird]

"at the risk of sounding repetitive"

Err, aren't we now being doubly repetitive? Silver sinking sands never gives up v Windsor Northolt tents? The connection between the two?

Maybe we could shave £1bn off the cost of sinking sands airport by building it out of tents? It worked for Denver! Pitching tents in the sands has quite a nice ring to it.

[DaveReidUK]

Or are you suggesting Ferrovial etc misled BAA's new investors (China, Qatar etc.) that R3 was a given ?

As the saying goes, "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment"

[Gonzo]

I must say I am bemused by Gonzo who accepts that a LHR R3 is perfectly operational BUT appears obsessed by inventing problems for a NHT runway >6miles away.

No, I was trying to make the point that using Northolt, instead of a third runway, involves just as much, if not potentially more, work than that third runway.

Please do point out which problems I have invented.

[Windsorian]

HS2 Phases 1, 2 & 3

.... about HS2, the initial line only goes to Birmingham in middle of the next decade .... let alone the extension to Manchester!

Earlier this year the Commons Transport Select Committee held an Inquiry into Phase 1 of HS2; BAA were interviewed and BAA asked whether they were satisfied with the LHR HS2 link being included in Phase 2 - and BAA replied YES; so there is no point now moaning about the late connection.

Personally I was (and still am) a supporter of the Arup Heathrow hub proposal for an interchange / terminal on the GWR between Iver & West Drayton. Interestingly Heathrow hub Ltd are one of the parties in the HS2 judicial review due to take place before Xmas.

With a further HS2 Phase 3 extension past Manchester, Leeds & Newcastle now being considered by the new Transport Secretary, it is possible (Glasgow / Edinburugh) by HST will take under 3 hours.

In terms of train substitution it is thought HSR (HS1+HS2) could eventually take between 10% and 20% of LHR's existing atms to UK and near EU airports.

[pwalhx]

Windsorian I do not doubt your correct about hS2 as and when it finally starts to run, but as had been said at best this is a medium term solution, I thought your suggestion was a short term one?

It also relies on the fact that people will take the train. Personally I think what will happen is even more people will shift to fly MAN/LBA/GLA/EDI ETC continental/middle eastern hubs rather than catch the train but I have no evidence to support it.

I can, currently, but not for much longer I admit, go on to ba.com and be given options to fly MAN-LGW-LHR - XYZ(Wherever that may be), I would not consider flying to Gatwick getting my bags and then trolling to Heathrow to connect, the same would be true for most if the option was Northolt my contention remains that your proposition is a non starter.

[jabird]

BAA asked whether they were satisfied with the LHR HS2 link being included in Phase 2 - and BAA replied YES; so there is no point now moaning about the late connection.

The only way they would reply an unqualified "yes" would be if they really didn't think it would make that much difference. Otherwise, of course they would want the link asap.

Personally I was (and still am) a supporter of the Arup Heathrow hub proposal for an interchange / terminal on the GWR between Iver & West Drayton. Interestingly Heathrow hub Ltd are one of the parties in the HS2 judicial review due to take place before Xmas.

With a further HS2 Phase 3 extension past Manchester, Leeds & Newcastle now being considered by the new Transport Secretary

I have always been deeply critical of HS2 as it stands, namely because, from the point of view of air to rail modal shift, it delivers next to nothing. I have always felt that going to EDI / GLA in this respect would be a game changer. However, all I have seen so far is that PM wants to speed up the build process (who wouldn't apart from the builders)?

I have seen so suggestion that there will be a phase 3, so we have to continue to evaluate HS2 for what is being proposed, not what might happen by 2112.

Also, for clarification - HS2 PH2 will go to Leeds + join ECML somewhere around York, not Newcastle either, although that bit has at least been costed.

In terms of train substitution it is thought HSR (HS1+HS2) could eventually take between 10% and 20% of LHR's existing atms to UK and near EU airports.

There is no such thing as "it is thought". Either you do some modelling and come up with a range of figures for the spin doctors to massage or you otherwise might as well just roll a dice.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, 125mppa terminal capacity between the main runways. This has nothing to do with a possible R3 and T6 (+ T7, T8 ?).

BAA's proposals for the additional terminal extensions (+ satellites) is in BAA's published documents including its annual CIPs and annual / half yearly results.

OK, enough of this nonsense.

Firstly, have a read of this from the 2012 BAA CIP (or Strategic Capital Business Plan, as it's now termed);

"Changing airline business models, most noticeably a shift in network strategies which has slowed the trend from smaller to larger aircraft. New aircraft have allowed airlines to achieve lower unit costs per seat with smaller planes. Airlines have also benefited from greater flexibility or shorter lead times in making capacity decisions. These changes have allowed network carriers to respond to the challenge of short haul low cost carriers and increased network competition. The need to maintain a viable network with a mix of short and long haul connections also slows the overall trend at Heathrow to switch from short haul to long haul flights. In the last couple of years, premium traffic has become a larger portion of many network airlines’ business also resulting in lower seat densities."

And the previous year's CIP points out that, over the last decade, the average seat size of aircraft using Heathrow has actually decreased (to under 200 seats), and yet you want us to believe that it could grow to 350 seats per ATM (which would be necessary to achieve your 125 mppa in 480,000 movements).

Let's do some simple arithmetic.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, you were able to decant 50,000 A320 movements from LHR to Northolt, and replace every one of those with an A380. That would still only generate another 17m or so seats per year, bringing the average seat size per ATM up to about 235 (way short of your required 350) and the pax pa up from 70m to about 83m (assuming a 75% PLF).

So how are another 42m passengers on top of that figure (your 125m less my 83m) going to be accommodated on the two runways without any additional movements ?

Answers on a postcard, please.

[Libertine Winno]

There will always be a requirement for short haul aircraft to feed the long haul network, particularly at the largest hubs, simply because it cannot be possible to fill all the seats on the long haul networks purely with transfer traffic from other long haul flights, or from the locality around the hub itself.

In the longer term, presuming that the improvements are made to the railway network westwards and northwards, then LHR may become slightly less reliant on the short haul feeder network than it currently is.

However, that is a big IF and and even bigger WHEN...!

[Windsorian]

A maths lesson from the master !

(Passengers per plane = ppp)

Can we agree todays average of 70mppa divided by 480k = 145 ppp

BAA already have planning permission (T2) for 95mppa = 197 ppp

So 3 extra satellites T2D, T5D & T5E (30mppa) 125mppa = 260 ppp

So how do you make this 350 ppp ??? I think you are confused !!!

The reason I have stated a max of 125+ mppa is because I cannot see the plane loadings beyond 260 ppp in a reasonable timescale.

CIP 2011 was written when the coalition had firmly ruled out R3 /T6, whilst CIP 2012 has one eye on hopes of changing government policy as the result of all the £M it has spent on lobbying.

A380 maximum certified carrying capacity is 853 passengers in an all-economy-class layout !!!

[Skipness One Echo]

it is possible (Glasgow / Edinburugh) by HST will take under 3 hours.

Or three times as long(!) as flying?

[Haven't a clue]

Doesn't these calculations assume a) 100% load factor which while desirable is not always possible, and if not achieved pushes the average ppp downwards and b) no cancellations due to low viz, ash cloud, blocked runway etc, which pushes the movements downwards and thus the average ppp up assuming rebooking. Suspect that they don't cancel each other out, and average yield (BA is something like 80% I think) wins....

Factor that in and you are looking the need for more movements to fill these terminals.

[DaveReidUK]

So how do you make this 350 ppp ??? I think you are confused !!!

No, you are the one who is confusing two different metrics.

PPP (passengers per plane) isn't the same as seats per plane (unless you are assuming that every arrival and departure has 100% of the seats filled, which clearly isn't going to happen). The mix of traffic and markets at Heathrow mean that a ratio of pax to seats (load factor) of 75% is more realistic, so that's what I've used.

The reason I have stated a max of 125+ mppa is because I cannot see the plane loadings beyond 260 ppp in a reasonable timescale.

OK - and your 260 passengers per plane (compared to the current average of just under 150) at 75% load factor gives an average aircraft seat size of 350, which was the figure I calculated too.

So we're in agreement on the maths, where we differ is that you think you can run a hub operation with 350-seat aircraft, whereas nobody else does.

[Gonzo]

Windsorian, where are all these nothing-but-heavy aircraft going to park? Many stands at LHR are for small aircraft. Taxiway restrictions abound for the larger aircraft types, especially A380s. You might find that if you resize all possible stands, you just don't have the capacity to cope with 1380 movements a day.

I would argue that 100% load factors are not desirable, as that shows the airline that they have underpriced the tickets. Ideally, you'd want a few empty seats on each flight to prove that the pricing was just ever so slightly high to fill up the aircraft. If every seat was full you would have no idea what prices the market could take.

[Gonzo]

Windsorian, if you think that a current LHR long haul airline could make money filling an A380 with 850 economy passengers, then you need to think again.

Emirates have seating capacities of 480-520, and I believe QANTAS 440-480, Singapore has 470.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “No, you haven't read the proposal properly.

It says "A fourth runway to the south would be situated A30 [sic] (the Staines Road) and incorporate Ashford Football Club".”


Indeed I have read the Free Enterprise Group’s proposal (including the bit about over 65’s still at work having to pay NIC’s), but don’t agree with all of it.

My point is that if there is enough money available for the very generous compensation they recommend for 20,000 people (combined populations of Bedfont and Stanwell), then spend it on road diversions and build the two rwys on open land west of the M25.

Incidentally, the A30 is not parallel with the existing rwys.