HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's one national hub airport, either fix it and make it work properly or allow it to wither.
When the French discovered Concorde wasn't a success they invested phenomenal amounts of money supporting Airbus to make Toulouse a world leader. Meanwhile Filton where the BAC Concordes were built is a housing estate. The problem some people seem to have, in my view of course, is that if they can't get what they see as their "fair share" in a competitive market, then the National Interest can go hang. Hence the love for Emirates, Etihad and Qatar with their shiney heavies despite being countries where as a gay bloke, I'd be jailed.
You think the Qataris spent more than a split second pondering the unfairness of it all when they just went ahead and built a proper airport?
When the French discovered Concorde wasn't a success they invested phenomenal amounts of money supporting Airbus to make Toulouse a world leader. Meanwhile Filton where the BAC Concordes were built is a housing estate. The problem some people seem to have, in my view of course, is that if they can't get what they see as their "fair share" in a competitive market, then the National Interest can go hang. Hence the love for Emirates, Etihad and Qatar with their shiney heavies despite being countries where as a gay bloke, I'd be jailed.
You think the Qataris spent more than a split second pondering the unfairness of it all when they just went ahead and built a proper airport?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 167 Likes
on
102 Posts
Skip
The competitive market is heavily skewed to a SE bias with regards to infrastructure spend, and the regions need some support. Asking people who do not live there to pay for another wonder project is just wearing thin with the population up here. You site the "National Interest" as the reason for this project. A national interest is where everyone benefits from the expenditure, not just the SE. Many people who live outside the area no longer use LHR for either business or pleasure and even people coming to visit my own company from overseas avoid the place. There is much talk of national interest but nobody seems able to show concrete irrefutable evidence of this, only vague figures and promises , much like those given about the Channel tunnel. The main driver appears to be improve connections to London on the ground so we can increase the commuter belt size !. As for trickle down ask the towns people of Lyon what the effect has been with the TGV link to Paris - office flight to Paris.
With regards to human rights in the Gulf States I agree with you and I have and do work there. But you must remember that if you were lucky enough to be born, or live in western Europe, North America, Australasia, and some small other areas eg Japan, you have drawn in life the Ace in the pack,the biggest Silver spoon in your mouth you will ever have !. The rest of the world is not yet like that and it will take more than either my, or indeed most probably your life for that to change. By the way I hope it does.
As for the use of the Gulf carriers we are going over old ground. BA is not as good as any of the carriers you mentioned in either equipment or service currently, and according to a colleague who used their new 380 to LA can not even get it right when they do have new equipment.
Regards
Mr Mac
The competitive market is heavily skewed to a SE bias with regards to infrastructure spend, and the regions need some support. Asking people who do not live there to pay for another wonder project is just wearing thin with the population up here. You site the "National Interest" as the reason for this project. A national interest is where everyone benefits from the expenditure, not just the SE. Many people who live outside the area no longer use LHR for either business or pleasure and even people coming to visit my own company from overseas avoid the place. There is much talk of national interest but nobody seems able to show concrete irrefutable evidence of this, only vague figures and promises , much like those given about the Channel tunnel. The main driver appears to be improve connections to London on the ground so we can increase the commuter belt size !. As for trickle down ask the towns people of Lyon what the effect has been with the TGV link to Paris - office flight to Paris.
With regards to human rights in the Gulf States I agree with you and I have and do work there. But you must remember that if you were lucky enough to be born, or live in western Europe, North America, Australasia, and some small other areas eg Japan, you have drawn in life the Ace in the pack,the biggest Silver spoon in your mouth you will ever have !. The rest of the world is not yet like that and it will take more than either my, or indeed most probably your life for that to change. By the way I hope it does.
As for the use of the Gulf carriers we are going over old ground. BA is not as good as any of the carriers you mentioned in either equipment or service currently, and according to a colleague who used their new 380 to LA can not even get it right when they do have new equipment.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if of course HAL want to throw £20B+ of there own money at this then by all means, proceed.
I think I made it clear Skip I have no issue with HAL spending their own money!
I do however object to the rest of us stumping up a third of the cost for what is ;
a) a highly questionable return, for us "up North " at least !
b) a project where those same costs seem to change daily usually in an upward direction.
Of course we need to expand LHR I am simply saying that IF its dependent on public money, well, that element needs thorough examination and indeed ringfencing.
Perfectly sensible !
And again we are going over old ground, arguements over QRs record on human rights (or football), really does have precious little to do with LHR expansion, does it now !
BUT if as you suggest we are to make an example of an airline over human rights, a ban at the main hub would seem the best way to start , rather than at an airport that you yourself might descibe as of questionable significance at national level like Manchester.
By way of balance QR operate into Heathrow with much more capacity and at a much higher frequency !
oh so do Etihad, oh and Emirates, oh and SAUDIA and...and ... and etc
I think I made it clear Skip I have no issue with HAL spending their own money!
I do however object to the rest of us stumping up a third of the cost for what is ;
a) a highly questionable return, for us "up North " at least !
b) a project where those same costs seem to change daily usually in an upward direction.
Of course we need to expand LHR I am simply saying that IF its dependent on public money, well, that element needs thorough examination and indeed ringfencing.
Perfectly sensible !
And again we are going over old ground, arguements over QRs record on human rights (or football), really does have precious little to do with LHR expansion, does it now !
BUT if as you suggest we are to make an example of an airline over human rights, a ban at the main hub would seem the best way to start , rather than at an airport that you yourself might descibe as of questionable significance at national level like Manchester.
By way of balance QR operate into Heathrow with much more capacity and at a much higher frequency !
oh so do Etihad, oh and Emirates, oh and SAUDIA and...and ... and etc
Last edited by Bagso; 5th Feb 2015 at 13:21.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Bagso, sometimes money has to be spent nationally even 'though not all areas benefit. I live in Sussex and I'm pretty sure that Sussex won't see any benefit from HS2, whereas the North will, but my taxes still go towards it.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso
I suggest you read my post 3457 regarding the £6billion of so-called public investment. This is actually surface access investment which in reality is likely to be picked up by HAL, not the taxpayer. It's really just loose wording by Davies which might lead you to think that he is suggesting that this needs to be paid for by the taxpayer.
If you read the detailed Davies documents you will see that they acknowledge that scheme promoters (HAL in this case) normally pick up such costs, and recent precedent at Heathrow is that HAL has indeed had to get out its cheque book.
The detailed documents also calculate the impact on airport charges of HAL paying for this £6billion.
So you can rest easier that your taxes are highly unlikely to be used in support of LHR expansion.
I suggest you read my post 3457 regarding the £6billion of so-called public investment. This is actually surface access investment which in reality is likely to be picked up by HAL, not the taxpayer. It's really just loose wording by Davies which might lead you to think that he is suggesting that this needs to be paid for by the taxpayer.
If you read the detailed Davies documents you will see that they acknowledge that scheme promoters (HAL in this case) normally pick up such costs, and recent precedent at Heathrow is that HAL has indeed had to get out its cheque book.
The detailed documents also calculate the impact on airport charges of HAL paying for this £6billion.
So you can rest easier that your taxes are highly unlikely to be used in support of LHR expansion.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 167 Likes
on
102 Posts
Willy Wombat
This may come as a little shock, but I have yet to meet anyone up here in either business or socially, apart from some MP,s who want the new train set.
Fair deal frank
You may not be aware but the trains which run on the trans Pennine route are more often than not, just 3 or less carriages. Now I also have a flat in London from who's windows I can see the approaches to London Bridge as well as Thames Link and see trains of 10 + carriages. Why can we not have similar length trains to overcome the congestion that the commuters suffer up here, it would be a lot cheaper and a quicker fix than new track and tunnels ?.
Basil Brush
Who is paying for the public enquiry currently ?.
Oh I do like being back in this country it so Machiavellian how stuff does, or does not get done, unfortunately for the population usually the latter !.
Regards
Mr Mac
This may come as a little shock, but I have yet to meet anyone up here in either business or socially, apart from some MP,s who want the new train set.
Fair deal frank
You may not be aware but the trains which run on the trans Pennine route are more often than not, just 3 or less carriages. Now I also have a flat in London from who's windows I can see the approaches to London Bridge as well as Thames Link and see trains of 10 + carriages. Why can we not have similar length trains to overcome the congestion that the commuters suffer up here, it would be a lot cheaper and a quicker fix than new track and tunnels ?.
Basil Brush
Who is paying for the public enquiry currently ?.
Oh I do like being back in this country it so Machiavellian how stuff does, or does not get done, unfortunately for the population usually the latter !.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, you're right that the costs of the Davies commission itself are taxpayer funded, at least in relation to its own costs. It would be interesting to know how these costs compare with the very large sums being spent by HAL and GAL on promoting their own schemes.
Actually I remember from when the Davies commission was set up that at least one interested party said that this was a relatively good deal for the taxpayer in that the scheme promoters were assumed to incur most of the costs. This was in contrast to previous inquiries where virtually all of the costs were footed by the taxpayer.
Even so, Davies's direct costs won't be cheap.
Actually I remember from when the Davies commission was set up that at least one interested party said that this was a relatively good deal for the taxpayer in that the scheme promoters were assumed to incur most of the costs. This was in contrast to previous inquiries where virtually all of the costs were footed by the taxpayer.
Even so, Davies's direct costs won't be cheap.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Brush
I have indeed read your post, always an interesting contribution.
When we get a definitive
"HAL are footing the whole cost".
at that point I shall of course retire from this subject.
Until then the sceptic in me has this nagging fear that should LHR go through, the amount coming from the public purse will somehow be signed off behind some "smoke and mirrors".
Continuing the animal theme Mr Wombat
And as Mr Mac rightly suggests HS2 is being "dressed up" as some kind of Messiah bringing salvation for The North !
I can assure you many of us are aghast at this expenditure, just give us a measly couple of billion NOW (not in 20 years) to improve what we already have cross country Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds Hull !
It does show the confidence trick being played out here that ordainairy folk actually believe the North is getting some kind of massive investment and depriving the rest of the country ...
Trust me it really is complete B..........
At this point the editor had to step in because of the number of profanities....
I have indeed read your post, always an interesting contribution.
When we get a definitive
"HAL are footing the whole cost".
at that point I shall of course retire from this subject.
Until then the sceptic in me has this nagging fear that should LHR go through, the amount coming from the public purse will somehow be signed off behind some "smoke and mirrors".
Continuing the animal theme Mr Wombat
And as Mr Mac rightly suggests HS2 is being "dressed up" as some kind of Messiah bringing salvation for The North !
I can assure you many of us are aghast at this expenditure, just give us a measly couple of billion NOW (not in 20 years) to improve what we already have cross country Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds Hull !
It does show the confidence trick being played out here that ordainairy folk actually believe the North is getting some kind of massive investment and depriving the rest of the country ...
Trust me it really is complete B..........
At this point the editor had to step in because of the number of profanities....
Last edited by Bagso; 5th Feb 2015 at 22:20.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't blame you Bagso for your vigilance. I agree with you that there should be no taxpayer contribution to costs that result directly from a private project.
All I can say is that I am aware of the virtual blackmail that BAA/HAL was put under during the T5 public inquiry to write a blank cheque for projects such as the Piccadilly Line extension etc. Since that time, the attitude of Governments on such matters has only hardened, particularly in these austerity-focussed times.
You won't get a commitment from Davies however as it's outside his brief, but I really think that it's inconceivable that a future Government of any colour would let HAL off the hook on this issue. HAL has already accepted the principle of paying for such costs - the argument is over the extent and scope. But HAL's negotiating position is very weak, as they know that planning permission would be refused otherwise (it's just a larger scale repeat of the T5 arguments really).
All I can say is that I am aware of the virtual blackmail that BAA/HAL was put under during the T5 public inquiry to write a blank cheque for projects such as the Piccadilly Line extension etc. Since that time, the attitude of Governments on such matters has only hardened, particularly in these austerity-focussed times.
You won't get a commitment from Davies however as it's outside his brief, but I really think that it's inconceivable that a future Government of any colour would let HAL off the hook on this issue. HAL has already accepted the principle of paying for such costs - the argument is over the extent and scope. But HAL's negotiating position is very weak, as they know that planning permission would be refused otherwise (it's just a larger scale repeat of the T5 arguments really).
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I have asked this before but what is the cut off point where the cost of expansion becomes untenable ?
£15B, £25B, £50B ?
HAL are a private company and have to be accountable to their own shareholders do they not and whatever "national interest" they are serving in terms of the UK if there profits are submerged by debt for years surely they won't get the ahead ?
How can they possibly gaurantee the same demand will exist in 20 years time ?
£15B, £25B, £50B ?
HAL are a private company and have to be accountable to their own shareholders do they not and whatever "national interest" they are serving in terms of the UK if there profits are submerged by debt for years surely they won't get the ahead ?
How can they possibly gaurantee the same demand will exist in 20 years time ?
Last edited by Bagso; 6th Feb 2015 at 08:59.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS have sold 1 of their 21 daily slots at LHR. Any speculation as to who they have gone to?
SAS Scandinavian offloads Heathrow slot pair for $60mn - ch-aviation.com
SAS Scandinavian offloads Heathrow slot pair for $60mn - ch-aviation.com
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$60m is a gamble indeed on Davies' findings.
This is a most interesting discussion, but I'm not sure we're assessing total economic benefit entirely fairly. Without wanting to stray off-threat too much, I think Bagso and willy wombat perhaps underestimate the extent to which HS2 will benefit the country more widely. For instance, by relieving the West Coast Main Line (which is under significant pressure as is) of thousands of passengers, there is more room to accomodate freight. Given that the North of England as a whole does most of its trade with the UK and, within that, with the South, reducing the time and cost of rail freight between the two represents a benefit to each area as a whole; not just the local environs.
Similarly, taking pressure off the road network (with similar benefits) by allowing more passengers and freight to travel by rail benefits the country more widely.
I won't go on and on but there are a load of ways that HS2, like LHR R3, benefits trade across the country - not just in London, Birmingham or Manchester. When trade is made easier, businesses benefit and thus their employees benefit. So to say that HS2, or LHR R3, won't benefit 'the regions' isn't quite true - sorry to state the blooming obvious but it's perhpas been missing from the debate somewhat.
This is a most interesting discussion, but I'm not sure we're assessing total economic benefit entirely fairly. Without wanting to stray off-threat too much, I think Bagso and willy wombat perhaps underestimate the extent to which HS2 will benefit the country more widely. For instance, by relieving the West Coast Main Line (which is under significant pressure as is) of thousands of passengers, there is more room to accomodate freight. Given that the North of England as a whole does most of its trade with the UK and, within that, with the South, reducing the time and cost of rail freight between the two represents a benefit to each area as a whole; not just the local environs.
Similarly, taking pressure off the road network (with similar benefits) by allowing more passengers and freight to travel by rail benefits the country more widely.
I won't go on and on but there are a load of ways that HS2, like LHR R3, benefits trade across the country - not just in London, Birmingham or Manchester. When trade is made easier, businesses benefit and thus their employees benefit. So to say that HS2, or LHR R3, won't benefit 'the regions' isn't quite true - sorry to state the blooming obvious but it's perhpas been missing from the debate somewhat.
Spacing at LHR
An article from the Beeb magazine today, on a NATS proposal on spacing. Apologies if it is out of order, or over past threads.
BBC News - A new way to stop the gridlock in the skies
Slough Boro' Council have agreed to take the money and support Heathrow expansion
BBC News - A new way to stop the gridlock in the skies
Slough Boro' Council have agreed to take the money and support Heathrow expansion
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 167 Likes
on
102 Posts
Aero Mad
The freight argument really does not work in the UK apart from perhaps Scottish traffic and container and bulk traffic from Ports as the transhipment time and charges eat into making it viable. If you remember many years ago BR had Freightliners running around the country to various terminals from within the UK as well as overseas. With a few exceptions these terminals have gone. In Germany / France rail freight works due to the shear size of the country. It would be better looking at the Netherlands as a similar example to the UK which has one high speed rail line and has plans for no more and apart from Port freight most stuff is on a barge or truck.
Regards
Mr Mac
The freight argument really does not work in the UK apart from perhaps Scottish traffic and container and bulk traffic from Ports as the transhipment time and charges eat into making it viable. If you remember many years ago BR had Freightliners running around the country to various terminals from within the UK as well as overseas. With a few exceptions these terminals have gone. In Germany / France rail freight works due to the shear size of the country. It would be better looking at the Netherlands as a similar example to the UK which has one high speed rail line and has plans for no more and apart from Port freight most stuff is on a barge or truck.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for thread creep, but I think you underestimate the role of rail freight. Between 1995 and 2013 volumes increased by 60% (with 105 tonnes carried in 2011/12), to a level not seen since the early '80s. It now has a market share of 11% of surface freight transport.
However, my point wasn't about rail freight - that was an illustration - it was about the benefits from big infrastructure projects being (in turn) bigger than they seem prima facie. Back to thread...
However, my point wasn't about rail freight - that was an illustration - it was about the benefits from big infrastructure projects being (in turn) bigger than they seem prima facie. Back to thread...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Stringer could have been more vociferous in promoting the idea that by encouraging growth at regional airports and allowing them to satisfy more of their own demand on direct services, this can help the situation in the SE. This would free up some, albeit small, amounts of capacity for people who really need to go to or through London's Airports. This will become increasingly important as whatever happens in the SE won't add much extra capacity in the short term.
They are unrelated because (1) LHR is operating at 100% capacity and obviously needs more rwy capacity; and (2) increased or decreased activity at non-London UK airports does not alter that fact.
The perfectly reasonable argument for more destinations and flights at non-London UK airports is not dependent on the fate of LHR expansion. It really has a lot more to do with economics: can an airline make money on such a route? is there enough premium business?
Indeed, LHR has needed a third rwy for forty years and it has not been delivered putting that airport at a major disadvantage relatively, but the non-London UK airports have failed to capitalise on this.
Why? because carriers that want to be at LHR but are unable to be end up either at (1) AMS, CDG, FRA, etc..; or (2) in the waiting room at LGW. Carriers that operate out of non-London UK airports usually operate at LHR as well (except the holiday based and no frills carriers of course).
I'm getting fed up of being told how the South East pays more tax than the rest of the country and subsidises the rest of the UK and this justifies the huge infrastructure costs in the the south east.
Of course there is a problem , we are not in London but could investment in an airport that is
Central to the vast majority of the UK population.
Serves 22m people
Connects all the regions of the UK from Inverness to Newquay,
Has thee best rail connections of any airport in the UK
AND is less than one hour from 5 of our largest Cities
..... not be considered to be "In The National Interest" ?
Central to the vast majority of the UK population.
Serves 22m people
Connects all the regions of the UK from Inverness to Newquay,
Has thee best rail connections of any airport in the UK
AND is less than one hour from 5 of our largest Cities
..... not be considered to be "In The National Interest" ?
Another rwy at Heathrow (or not) doesn’t have a bearing on any of this.
I suspect Frank is polishing the keys on his laptop as I type !
Skip
The competitive market is heavily skewed to a SE bias with regards to infrastructure spend, and the regions need some support. Asking people who do not live there to pay for another wonder project is just wearing thin with the population up here. You site the "National Interest" as the reason for this project. A national interest is where everyone benefits from the expenditure, not just the SE. Many people who live outside the area no longer use LHR for either business or pleasure and even people coming to visit my own company from overseas avoid the place.
The competitive market is heavily skewed to a SE bias with regards to infrastructure spend, and the regions need some support. Asking people who do not live there to pay for another wonder project is just wearing thin with the population up here. You site the "National Interest" as the reason for this project. A national interest is where everyone benefits from the expenditure, not just the SE. Many people who live outside the area no longer use LHR for either business or pleasure and even people coming to visit my own company from overseas avoid the place.
Another rwy would enable this. Many areas of the UK desperately need and want a link to LHR, so the "national interest" is argument is valid.
If you honestly believe that no third rwy at LHR automatically means more infrastructure spending in the north you are deluding yourself.
Ask yourself why it never happened in the 40 years that LHR needed, but was denied, a third rwy. Also ask yourself what has changed now.
Fair deal frank
You may not be aware but the trains which run on the trans Pennine route are more often than not, just 3 or less carriages. Now I also have a flat in London from who's windows I can see the approaches to London Bridge as well as Thames Link and see trains of 10 + carriages. Why can we not have similar length trains to overcome the congestion that the commuters suffer up here, it would be a lot cheaper and a quicker fix than new track and tunnels ?.
You may not be aware but the trains which run on the trans Pennine route are more often than not, just 3 or less carriages. Now I also have a flat in London from who's windows I can see the approaches to London Bridge as well as Thames Link and see trains of 10 + carriages. Why can we not have similar length trains to overcome the congestion that the commuters suffer up here, it would be a lot cheaper and a quicker fix than new track and tunnels ?.
Both are needed: longer trains now, along with better signalling and shorter journey times as soon as, and a HS3 express route in the longer term.
But again, none of this automatically happens if LHR is denied a third rwy.
Yes, you're right that the costs of the Davies commission itself are taxpayer funded, at least in relation to its own costs. It would be interesting to know how these costs compare with the very large sums being spent by HAL and GAL on promoting their own schemes.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, LHR has needed a third rwy for forty years and it has not been delivered putting that airport at a major disadvantage relatively, but the non-London UK airports have failed to capitalise on this.
Just find it funny that an airline that let all and sundry grab a portion of the MAN-HKG service operating over hubs for years and years as it wouldn't be profitable serving this route themselves is now openly talking about wanting to boost a non-stop MAN-HKG service to daily "as soon as possible". It's not the lack of premium demand that's letting down the regions. It's the attitude of airlines.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My impression, I may be wrong, is that HAL do not think the entire cost of either of the Heathrow schemes could be funded commercially. So if you take the view of some here -- not a penny of taxpayers money-- I disagree with Basil Bush, I think R3 is unlikely to happen on those terms. It really depends on a proposition that an expanded Heathrow warrants a significant public contribution, say £6bn.
At the moment, Gatwick are saying their scheme is fundable with a relatively small public contribution to works on the London to Brighton line which are needed for many reasons not just airport ones. Could they really fund their scheme? Maybe with difficulty.
Bagso--- remember these companies are regulated utilities. They do not have 'their money'. They have revenue streams from passengers, shoppers, freight. Gatwick is in the middle of the market so how much price premium it can command vis a vis Luton and Stansted for its main traffics is an interesting question.
At the moment, Gatwick are saying their scheme is fundable with a relatively small public contribution to works on the London to Brighton line which are needed for many reasons not just airport ones. Could they really fund their scheme? Maybe with difficulty.
Bagso--- remember these companies are regulated utilities. They do not have 'their money'. They have revenue streams from passengers, shoppers, freight. Gatwick is in the middle of the market so how much price premium it can command vis a vis Luton and Stansted for its main traffics is an interesting question.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi another tyke
If you look at the "Funding and Financing" document on the Davies commission website you can see that they consider a range of assumptions about HAL's financing of the project.
They state that the funding of surface access projects (c£6bn) would be subject to negotiation between HAL and the various public sector bodies, noting that it is customary for the scheme promoter (in this case HAL) to make a contribution. However, it states that Davies is not taking a position on this (as it has no power to pre-empt such negotiations) so figures are shown representing the two extremes.
Under the scenario where HAL is assumed to pay "only" the R3 scheme costs of £18bn, airport charges would have to rise from c£20 per passenger now to a peak of c£31. If HAL also has to pay the £6bn of surface access costs, then airport charges would peak at c£34 per passenger.
Although these charges are high in relation to benchmarks, they would almost certainly be achievable in the attractive Heathrow market.
Therefore, it seems pretty likely that HAL can fund the investment irrespective of whether the £6bn of surface access costs are included or not.
Based on T5 precedent, I really do think it highly unlikely that HAL will succeed in arguing that the taxpayer should contribute to surface access costs. HAL's negotiating position is extremely weak, as planning permission would certainly be refused unless the essential surface access projects go ahead.
If you look at the "Funding and Financing" document on the Davies commission website you can see that they consider a range of assumptions about HAL's financing of the project.
They state that the funding of surface access projects (c£6bn) would be subject to negotiation between HAL and the various public sector bodies, noting that it is customary for the scheme promoter (in this case HAL) to make a contribution. However, it states that Davies is not taking a position on this (as it has no power to pre-empt such negotiations) so figures are shown representing the two extremes.
Under the scenario where HAL is assumed to pay "only" the R3 scheme costs of £18bn, airport charges would have to rise from c£20 per passenger now to a peak of c£31. If HAL also has to pay the £6bn of surface access costs, then airport charges would peak at c£34 per passenger.
Although these charges are high in relation to benchmarks, they would almost certainly be achievable in the attractive Heathrow market.
Therefore, it seems pretty likely that HAL can fund the investment irrespective of whether the £6bn of surface access costs are included or not.
Based on T5 precedent, I really do think it highly unlikely that HAL will succeed in arguing that the taxpayer should contribute to surface access costs. HAL's negotiating position is extremely weak, as planning permission would certainly be refused unless the essential surface access projects go ahead.