HEATHROW
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 153 Likes
on
96 Posts
Bagso
Usually in my experience (5 airports worldwide) they right them down over either 25 or 50 years (accountant's like round numbers) for terminals and runways. Also I do not know if you read the Sunday Times this week but the HS3 train set fell at the first corner ie financial, and the electrification of the Trans Pennine route looks like going back 20 years.
Also, and I struggle to believe it was not an April fools come early, but there is talk of using ex tube stock which has been cascaded out of London, and fitting it with truck engines to replace the 40+ year old Leyland bus carriages up here. Just to make it even better some of the "new" trains we have got are being sent South to the Chiltern line. At the rate we are going they will be raiding the National Rail museum / preserved steam lines !. Bit of thread drift there sorry.
Skip
Maybe better looking at Italy or Spain both geographically better examples to the UK both having 2nr hubs, similar distances apart to UK. I missed the debate also, but does not appear to have been much of one anyway.
Fairdealfrank
I do not think you will see passengers flocking back to LHR even if they do get a new runway as habits have changed. Few of us going East want to spend 5 hrs + travelling and still be in the UK. On my "normal" commute East I am sitting having my cheese course over Bulgaria with a glass of Port after 5hrs, not being told by "Nigel" that we are awaiting a tug, or that we are 20th in line for take off. Even with a new run way I would not return.
Regards
Mr Mac
Usually in my experience (5 airports worldwide) they right them down over either 25 or 50 years (accountant's like round numbers) for terminals and runways. Also I do not know if you read the Sunday Times this week but the HS3 train set fell at the first corner ie financial, and the electrification of the Trans Pennine route looks like going back 20 years.
Also, and I struggle to believe it was not an April fools come early, but there is talk of using ex tube stock which has been cascaded out of London, and fitting it with truck engines to replace the 40+ year old Leyland bus carriages up here. Just to make it even better some of the "new" trains we have got are being sent South to the Chiltern line. At the rate we are going they will be raiding the National Rail museum / preserved steam lines !. Bit of thread drift there sorry.
Skip
Maybe better looking at Italy or Spain both geographically better examples to the UK both having 2nr hubs, similar distances apart to UK. I missed the debate also, but does not appear to have been much of one anyway.
Fairdealfrank
I do not think you will see passengers flocking back to LHR even if they do get a new runway as habits have changed. Few of us going East want to spend 5 hrs + travelling and still be in the UK. On my "normal" commute East I am sitting having my cheese course over Bulgaria with a glass of Port after 5hrs, not being told by "Nigel" that we are awaiting a tug, or that we are 20th in line for take off. Even with a new run way I would not return.
Regards
Mr Mac
Last edited by Mr Mac; 24th Feb 2015 at 19:17.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso
To answer your question about how long it will take to pay back the investment in R3 you need to understand how airport charges are set at Heathrow. These are regulated by CAA, and are set at a level which seeks to achieve payback (including a 'reasonable' rate of return) over the economic life of the assets.
Heathrow's policy on asset lives is on p24 of http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati...ember-2013.pdf
The short answer to your question is that payback will be achieved over the (weighted) average asset life, no more no less. This is currently 23 years, but we might expect it to be a bit longer for the new assets being constructed as a result of R3.
The long payback is not necessarily a bad thing - many investors in infrastructure look for reliable returns over a very long period. In this way they can match returns to liabilities, especially for investors such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. There is a seemingly bottomless pit of funds looking for reliable long term returns, especially as Government bonds no longer offer much of a return.
To answer your question about how long it will take to pay back the investment in R3 you need to understand how airport charges are set at Heathrow. These are regulated by CAA, and are set at a level which seeks to achieve payback (including a 'reasonable' rate of return) over the economic life of the assets.
Heathrow's policy on asset lives is on p24 of http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati...ember-2013.pdf
The short answer to your question is that payback will be achieved over the (weighted) average asset life, no more no less. This is currently 23 years, but we might expect it to be a bit longer for the new assets being constructed as a result of R3.
The long payback is not necessarily a bad thing - many investors in infrastructure look for reliable returns over a very long period. In this way they can match returns to liabilities, especially for investors such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. There is a seemingly bottomless pit of funds looking for reliable long term returns, especially as Government bonds no longer offer much of a return.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is absolutely no evidence that you need a single large airport to be successful - see Switzerland, the USA, Germany, China
Just curious.
Does anybody have a glimmer of how long it will take to pay for the cheaper of the two runway options ?
Does anybody have a glimmer of how long it will take to pay for the cheaper of the two runway options ?
However this option offers only 700,000 total annual movements compared to 740,000 for the northwest rwy.
So in reality, it’s impossible to compare like with like.
Fairdealfrank
I do not think you will see passengers flocking back to LHR even if they do get a new runway as habits have changed. Few of us going East want to spend 5 hrs + travelling and still be in the UK. On my "normal" commute East I am sitting having my cheese course over Bulgaria with a glass of Port after 5hrs, not being told by "Nigel" that we are awaiting a tug, or that we are 20th in line for take off. Even with a new run way I would not return.
I do not think you will see passengers flocking back to LHR even if they do get a new runway as habits have changed. Few of us going East want to spend 5 hrs + travelling and still be in the UK. On my "normal" commute East I am sitting having my cheese course over Bulgaria with a glass of Port after 5hrs, not being told by "Nigel" that we are awaiting a tug, or that we are 20th in line for take off. Even with a new run way I would not return.
It appears that the airport operators and carriers clearly disagree with you,
because with LHR expansion, all that you complain about goes away.
The point that millions of pax, old and new will have increased choices of destinations, hubs, timings and prices, with LHR expansion is valid and still stands.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spain has one hub at Madrid with Iberia. Barcelona is point to point Vueling with IB only flying MAD-BCN, long haul is inbound US and ME3. Like MAN but with more sunshine. Italy has Alitalia which is a money shredder. Bad example.
Hub connectivity is lacking in both examples.
Hub connectivity is lacking in both examples.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of comparing the Jock Lowe scheme with HAL's own scheme the payback period will be the same - it's just that the level of airport charges will be different for the two schemes. The Davies reports show that airport charges would peak at around Ł31 for the HAL scheme compared with Ł29 for the Lowe scheme.
Fairdealfrank is right to point out the mutterings over patents, but given that Jock Lowe is over 70 I can't imagine he would want the negotiations to take too long!
Fairdealfrank is right to point out the mutterings over patents, but given that Jock Lowe is over 70 I can't imagine he would want the negotiations to take too long!
Apparently there are some issues about patents for the extended-then-split rwy scheme, so there's potential for years of litigation should it emerge as the favoured scheme.
Here's the patent:
Patent Images
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 153 Likes
on
96 Posts
Skip
BCN has links down to South America as well so it is a good example of two hubs in close proximity. Alitalia do however have a two HUB strategy and I and II guess you do not know if their financial losses are due to this or other issues.
Fairdealfrank
Going East from MAN apart from Cathay it chesses and biscuit's over Bulgaria trust me its a twice a month hop for me currently. On CX I agree you are some what East of St Petersburg when the Port comes around. As MAN has no other carriers operating to northern Far East destinations that is currently the lot, though hopefully may change. My point is that I can leave home, check in, and get on plane, and be 1/2 way to the mid East before I have even left the UK going via LHR, never mind the valid concern that my bags may not be on board. With regards the carriers in to MAN I hope to see more from further a field looking at MAN as a good alternative, and perhaps if IAG did not try to put them off so to speak we may see them.
Regards
Mr Mac
BCN has links down to South America as well so it is a good example of two hubs in close proximity. Alitalia do however have a two HUB strategy and I and II guess you do not know if their financial losses are due to this or other issues.
Fairdealfrank
Going East from MAN apart from Cathay it chesses and biscuit's over Bulgaria trust me its a twice a month hop for me currently. On CX I agree you are some what East of St Petersburg when the Port comes around. As MAN has no other carriers operating to northern Far East destinations that is currently the lot, though hopefully may change. My point is that I can leave home, check in, and get on plane, and be 1/2 way to the mid East before I have even left the UK going via LHR, never mind the valid concern that my bags may not be on board. With regards the carriers in to MAN I hope to see more from further a field looking at MAN as a good alternative, and perhaps if IAG did not try to put them off so to speak we may see them.
Regards
Mr Mac
@ Mr Mac
All fine and dandy for you. I periodically visit relatives in Germany and I find that it is cheaper to fly from Heathrow with BA rather than fly from my local airport of Bristol.
Once the rail link from the west direct to Heathrow is in place it will be even easier for me to get the Heathrow. No more sodding coaches from Reading.
I believe the rail link will also make it far easier to access Heathrow from the north. Not only that but AFAIK the rail link is due to take place regardless of any decision on a third runway.
All fine and dandy for you. I periodically visit relatives in Germany and I find that it is cheaper to fly from Heathrow with BA rather than fly from my local airport of Bristol.
Once the rail link from the west direct to Heathrow is in place it will be even easier for me to get the Heathrow. No more sodding coaches from Reading.
I believe the rail link will also make it far easier to access Heathrow from the north. Not only that but AFAIK the rail link is due to take place regardless of any decision on a third runway.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? Calgary to a lesser extent
and there was me thinking there were two airports in Paris...........
BCN has links down to South America as well so it is a good example of two hubs in close proximity.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil
The short answer to your question is that payback will be achieved over the (weighted) average asset life, no more no less. This is currently 23 years,
Would the infastructure be subject to standard depreciation rules ?
If say that were done on the reducing balance basis to take into account usage, wear and tear etc and was set at say 10% per annum, would that not mean that effectively with such an astronomical build figure the LHR owners would be hamstrung with a colossal write down of circa Ł2Billion each year based on a build price of Ł20 Billion ?
You seem quite knowledgeable on these matters hence the request to yourself !
FDF
Always good to see your postings.
Given the high estimation of such a substantial handling cost per passenger to cover costs who would provide the "additional" connectivity to those "unserved" UK domestic destinations ?
Clearly we are looking into a crystal ball 20 years hence but establishing what might happen on current events, is the enormous timescale not a major part of the problem ?
Based on the "here and now" only Flybe a "LoCost" airline would appear to have the equipment, would they contemplate entering this market having just exited LGW for similar reasons.
With little appetite from BA to expand outside the current markets of MAN,GLA EDI etc etc all of which sufficient high frequency OR is part of the thinking to provide frequencies every 30 mins which to me at least seems wholly unneccessary, it begs the Q who steps in ?
The short answer to your question is that payback will be achieved over the (weighted) average asset life, no more no less. This is currently 23 years,
Would the infastructure be subject to standard depreciation rules ?
If say that were done on the reducing balance basis to take into account usage, wear and tear etc and was set at say 10% per annum, would that not mean that effectively with such an astronomical build figure the LHR owners would be hamstrung with a colossal write down of circa Ł2Billion each year based on a build price of Ł20 Billion ?
You seem quite knowledgeable on these matters hence the request to yourself !
FDF
Always good to see your postings.
Given the high estimation of such a substantial handling cost per passenger to cover costs who would provide the "additional" connectivity to those "unserved" UK domestic destinations ?
Clearly we are looking into a crystal ball 20 years hence but establishing what might happen on current events, is the enormous timescale not a major part of the problem ?
Based on the "here and now" only Flybe a "LoCost" airline would appear to have the equipment, would they contemplate entering this market having just exited LGW for similar reasons.
With little appetite from BA to expand outside the current markets of MAN,GLA EDI etc etc all of which sufficient high frequency OR is part of the thinking to provide frequencies every 30 mins which to me at least seems wholly unneccessary, it begs the Q who steps in ?
Last edited by Bagso; 25th Feb 2015 at 18:20.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 153 Likes
on
96 Posts
Skip
Last time I was there I watched direct flight to Chile leave with LAN and I believe Singapore go to Sao Pau so not all routed through the "empire". Do not know if LAN are still on this route but I believe SQ are, as I was talking to cabin crew who had been on that route when flying with SQ late last year.
Sam
Perhaps you should lobby as hard for Bristol as us in the North do for our regional airports, but I sympathise with the transport difficulties of your region. As for high speed rail, HS3 looks as though its been put back in the play box, and HS2 is mired in conflict / cost and is not as popular up here as you seem to think. The other thing is people are inherently lazy, and are to some degree getting worse, in that they do not want to put up with traveling to a hub airport all the time when they can go from their local airport direct, or change on route. The 787 bless it was designed around this concept of long range on thinner routes.
Regards
Mr Mac
Last time I was there I watched direct flight to Chile leave with LAN and I believe Singapore go to Sao Pau so not all routed through the "empire". Do not know if LAN are still on this route but I believe SQ are, as I was talking to cabin crew who had been on that route when flying with SQ late last year.
Sam
Perhaps you should lobby as hard for Bristol as us in the North do for our regional airports, but I sympathise with the transport difficulties of your region. As for high speed rail, HS3 looks as though its been put back in the play box, and HS2 is mired in conflict / cost and is not as popular up here as you seem to think. The other thing is people are inherently lazy, and are to some degree getting worse, in that they do not want to put up with traveling to a hub airport all the time when they can go from their local airport direct, or change on route. The 787 bless it was designed around this concept of long range on thinner routes.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso
Yes there will be a very large increase in HAL's annual depreciation charge as the R3 assets come onto its balance sheet. But this be a much smaller percentage than you suggest. Depreciation is on a straight line basis using the asset lives that are shown in the link in my earlier post. The average annual depreciation of R3-related assets is more likely to be around 3% of the capital costs (I would guess the weighted average asset life to be around 30+ years).
Even so it will add substantially to the existing depreciation charge, although the assets will come into the books gradually so it won't all happen at once. The increase in depreciation is one of the factors in the regulatory calculations of the required future level of airport charges.
Yes there will be a very large increase in HAL's annual depreciation charge as the R3 assets come onto its balance sheet. But this be a much smaller percentage than you suggest. Depreciation is on a straight line basis using the asset lives that are shown in the link in my earlier post. The average annual depreciation of R3-related assets is more likely to be around 3% of the capital costs (I would guess the weighted average asset life to be around 30+ years).
Even so it will add substantially to the existing depreciation charge, although the assets will come into the books gradually so it won't all happen at once. The increase in depreciation is one of the factors in the regulatory calculations of the required future level of airport charges.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I was there I watched direct flight to Chile leave with LAN ... Do not know if LAN are still on this route
Flying through LHR has never been an option for me on my long haul business flights, but for visits to our subsidiary in Hampshire LHR is perfect.
But let's return closer to the topic - the capacity of London's airports. In 2013 London's five airports LHR, LGW, STN, LTN and LCY had close to 139 million passengers and with only 6 runways available that gives an average of more than 23 million passengers per runway. In Mancunian terms that is 1 million more passengers than you had in 2014 without being allowed to use the second runway. Since I mentioned CDG above, this airport has four runways and with 62 million passengers in 2013 that gives only 15.5 million passengers per runway. AMS, another competitor to LHR, has an average of just above 13 million passengers per runway (only 4 of its 6 runways can be operated on the same time). The only conclusion I can see for London and its airports from a safety perspective is to give three airports carte blanche to build as many runways as they need/want to invest in, and the three airports for me are clearly LHR, LGW and STN.
If STN or LGW build a second runway, it won't be used to capacity IMO, whereas if LHR gets #3, it'll fill up rather quickly. The stats LN-KL has kindly provided just show how good London ATC are at getting good runway utilisation, especially considering the antiquity of some of the software/hardware at Swanwick (because of their levels of traffic, they simply can't update as often as the rest of us).
I appreciate some of contributors here have their own stakes, IE living in the noise corridor, or working at another airport, or just loving LGW, MAN etc, and I also appreciate as a non U.K. Resident, my taxes won't be being used to pay the bills, but the only way the U.K. can continue having a world class airport is by building a third parallel runway at LHR.
If this does not happen, AMS and DXB will quickly relegate LHR to the second tier in terms of global airports. The benefits of having a genuine global hub cannot be overstated. The exchequer gets massive money from direct taxation of transfer pax. More shop workers/pilots/cabin crew/controllers/cleaners/mechanics/engineers/electricians/plumbers/paramedics/fire crew and all the other support staff are employed as a result, and they pay tax. Combining these transfer pax with point to point pax results in new routes that couldn't survive as purely point to point. These new routes allow direct links to businesses, meaning, for example, companies in places like Lima, Brasilia, various other South American and Chinese cities amongst others without current direct links can establish partnerships or European offices of their own in the U.K., employing more people, who pay more tax.
A split hub system really will not work. Let's say you are a businessman based near a relatively minor airport anywhere in Europe. Are you really going to fly into LHR/LGW and get the bus to the other because each caters mainly for different parts of the globe, or are you going to jump on the likely direct EK/Q R/Unmentionable airline service east or UA/DL/AA service west and connect through their respective hubs? The same goes for companies sending or receiving air freight.
The U.K. lost it's aircraft manufacturing industry because of the "That'll do" attitude. Putting 3 hairdryers on the Trident and allowing the 727 a free run is an example of this. Your automotive industry, barring tiny companies like Caterham or Ariel is all foreign owned because of a similar attitude for years, Jaguar and Land Rover are Indian, Lotus is Malaysian, Vauxhal is a GM owned company selling rebadged Opels, Bentley and Rolls are German. Don't let your once world class airport die because of the same thing.
I appreciate some of contributors here have their own stakes, IE living in the noise corridor, or working at another airport, or just loving LGW, MAN etc, and I also appreciate as a non U.K. Resident, my taxes won't be being used to pay the bills, but the only way the U.K. can continue having a world class airport is by building a third parallel runway at LHR.
If this does not happen, AMS and DXB will quickly relegate LHR to the second tier in terms of global airports. The benefits of having a genuine global hub cannot be overstated. The exchequer gets massive money from direct taxation of transfer pax. More shop workers/pilots/cabin crew/controllers/cleaners/mechanics/engineers/electricians/plumbers/paramedics/fire crew and all the other support staff are employed as a result, and they pay tax. Combining these transfer pax with point to point pax results in new routes that couldn't survive as purely point to point. These new routes allow direct links to businesses, meaning, for example, companies in places like Lima, Brasilia, various other South American and Chinese cities amongst others without current direct links can establish partnerships or European offices of their own in the U.K., employing more people, who pay more tax.
A split hub system really will not work. Let's say you are a businessman based near a relatively minor airport anywhere in Europe. Are you really going to fly into LHR/LGW and get the bus to the other because each caters mainly for different parts of the globe, or are you going to jump on the likely direct EK/Q R/Unmentionable airline service east or UA/DL/AA service west and connect through their respective hubs? The same goes for companies sending or receiving air freight.
The U.K. lost it's aircraft manufacturing industry because of the "That'll do" attitude. Putting 3 hairdryers on the Trident and allowing the 727 a free run is an example of this. Your automotive industry, barring tiny companies like Caterham or Ariel is all foreign owned because of a similar attitude for years, Jaguar and Land Rover are Indian, Lotus is Malaysian, Vauxhal is a GM owned company selling rebadged Opels, Bentley and Rolls are German. Don't let your once world class airport die because of the same thing.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Una Due Tfc, I will turn it around a bit - the main reason for British Airways being one of the European airlines with the poorest on time performance is LHR. KLM had the best on time record in 2014 and their home airport is AMS. The airlines need the best tools, and the 2015 edition of LHR is definitely not the best tool - it's overloaded big time.
For me the big fright is an incident over London city centre that don't manage to crawl over the perimetre fence as flight 38. With such a high utilization as today the margins are cut to the bare minimums, and balancing on such a tightrope can be fatal. Not the best for what will be seen as a premium airport and a world class hub.
For me the big fright is an incident over London city centre that don't manage to crawl over the perimetre fence as flight 38. With such a high utilization as today the margins are cut to the bare minimums, and balancing on such a tightrope can be fatal. Not the best for what will be seen as a premium airport and a world class hub.
Or are you suggesting that Heathrow should have a third runway that isn't aligned east-west, so that incoming flights don't route over the capital ?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But there is a grave danger we are putting sentiment over the "Business Case" here.
There is much emotion which I fully understand;
"Britain needs a hub"
"We are falling behind"
"UK needs to keep pace"
BUT those who for want of a better term are "egging" things on from the back, STILL do not appear to be fully evaluating the two main areas of concern or indeed addressing them.
1) Cost
2) Timescales
I could understand the groundswell of opinion IF the costs were say comparable to the Manchester runway cost with a weighting of say 10 times and delivery of the project could be gauranteed within a timescale relevent to where we are today.
The problem is the costs even now are eye watering.
Whilst that is not relevent to me personally if they continue to escalate (Sorry Basil)I have this nagging nay legitimate fear that despite Basils assurance, HAL will infact execute a handbrake turn and be tugging vigourously at the coat tail of Westminster for some funds to redesign the periphery M25/Railways/Tunnels/ Flood Defences et al. This could amount 25% to 30% of what is already an extraordinary amount of money.
The timescales are also a major issue. If this project could be delivered in 5 to 10 years the economic case of today on which the development is based would be highly relevent, the problem is that we could be a generation away from delivery !
If we had a project which could be delivered on time in a reasonable timescale at a not unreasonable cost with a gaurantee of no penalty points to the taxpayer I would join the crusade but what we have on the table is an excrutiatingly high amount of cost coupled to timescales which are flaky to say the least !
Just a caveat re tax
I may be wrong but inbound transfer passengers , a substantial part of Heathrow passenger flows travelling from say the US and onto Europe pay no tax to the UK. Yes they contribute to airline costs, provide employment etc etc etc but I think I am correct in saying there is no benefit to the Exchequer. Again can we call on our resident number cruncher from Basil Associates to clarify the position ?
The service is free i'm afraid, you could not enforce a levy becuase you would then be at a passenger ticket disadavantage to other hubs, it is a frailty of the system that there is an inability to charge a "transfer fee" for using the service provided.
In addition although it is only small beer saddling LHR with a mountain of debt re 3rd RW is unlikely to mean there will be Corpration tax take for the next 30 years so whilst the country again might benefit in other areas Corporation tax is unlikely to be one of them.
Just out of interest if I was a shareholder at HAL would I seriously want to take on this national crusade or simply sit on my hands and take some juicy profits notwitstanding the 2014 results/loss ?
Interestingly the loss was blamed on an inability to provide capacity?
Can anybody explain how you can have such a premium product but seeming an inabilty to make money ?
I assumed the loss was down to terminal redevelopment costs but again maybe Basil could clarify ?
There is much emotion which I fully understand;
"Britain needs a hub"
"We are falling behind"
"UK needs to keep pace"
BUT those who for want of a better term are "egging" things on from the back, STILL do not appear to be fully evaluating the two main areas of concern or indeed addressing them.
1) Cost
2) Timescales
I could understand the groundswell of opinion IF the costs were say comparable to the Manchester runway cost with a weighting of say 10 times and delivery of the project could be gauranteed within a timescale relevent to where we are today.
The problem is the costs even now are eye watering.
Whilst that is not relevent to me personally if they continue to escalate (Sorry Basil)I have this nagging nay legitimate fear that despite Basils assurance, HAL will infact execute a handbrake turn and be tugging vigourously at the coat tail of Westminster for some funds to redesign the periphery M25/Railways/Tunnels/ Flood Defences et al. This could amount 25% to 30% of what is already an extraordinary amount of money.
The timescales are also a major issue. If this project could be delivered in 5 to 10 years the economic case of today on which the development is based would be highly relevent, the problem is that we could be a generation away from delivery !
If we had a project which could be delivered on time in a reasonable timescale at a not unreasonable cost with a gaurantee of no penalty points to the taxpayer I would join the crusade but what we have on the table is an excrutiatingly high amount of cost coupled to timescales which are flaky to say the least !
Just a caveat re tax
I may be wrong but inbound transfer passengers , a substantial part of Heathrow passenger flows travelling from say the US and onto Europe pay no tax to the UK. Yes they contribute to airline costs, provide employment etc etc etc but I think I am correct in saying there is no benefit to the Exchequer. Again can we call on our resident number cruncher from Basil Associates to clarify the position ?
The service is free i'm afraid, you could not enforce a levy becuase you would then be at a passenger ticket disadavantage to other hubs, it is a frailty of the system that there is an inability to charge a "transfer fee" for using the service provided.
In addition although it is only small beer saddling LHR with a mountain of debt re 3rd RW is unlikely to mean there will be Corpration tax take for the next 30 years so whilst the country again might benefit in other areas Corporation tax is unlikely to be one of them.
Just out of interest if I was a shareholder at HAL would I seriously want to take on this national crusade or simply sit on my hands and take some juicy profits notwitstanding the 2014 results/loss ?
Interestingly the loss was blamed on an inability to provide capacity?
Can anybody explain how you can have such a premium product but seeming an inabilty to make money ?
I assumed the loss was down to terminal redevelopment costs but again maybe Basil could clarify ?
Last edited by Bagso; 26th Feb 2015 at 09:55.
I did Shannon-Heathrow-Hong Kong a couple of years back with BA. They very helpfully put a little note on my booking explaining how much tax I was paying and where it was going, IIRC a significant amount went to Westminster, maybe I'm talking nonsense or things have changed though.