HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 153 Likes
on
96 Posts
Skip
You are correct in some degree in that Bagso and others are concerned about their local airport and infrastructure which has been run down or not pushed forward enough over the last number of years to its detriment. If you are not careful you will end up with a greater North South divide then we currently have which is worrying enough now.
Regards
Mr Mac
You are correct in some degree in that Bagso and others are concerned about their local airport and infrastructure which has been run down or not pushed forward enough over the last number of years to its detriment. If you are not careful you will end up with a greater North South divide then we currently have which is worrying enough now.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which just translates as putting a brake on hub capacity will allow some growth at my local airport (MAN) whilst ignoring the larger loss of traffic overseas to competing actual hub airports. Localism writ large Bagso.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness -
In order to demonstrate total consistency of argument, allow me to make a firm commitment to you from a "localist" MAN perspective. It is widely anticipated that MAN will at some time this year announce plans for a wholescale redevelopment of its terminals complex, likely at considerable cost. So here is my promise to you. If MAG announces that the cost of their terminal redevelopment plans exceed the inflation-adjusted price-tag of constructing the Channel Tunnel almost three times over, I do solemnly swear that I will vigorously oppose the project on the grounds of its business case making zero financial sense. Exactly like the proposed third strip of concrete at LHR.
On the other hand, if MAG's price-tag is in proportion to the measurable benefits of the project ...
Bagso: Outstanding post there. Right on the money.
By the way, is anybody else concerned that the privately-funded portion of the extraordinary price-tag for LHR's plans is likely to be wholly underwritten by the UK taxpayer? The numbers touted exceed the GDP of several small countries. What are the odds of a corporate default once the thing has been constructed?
In order to demonstrate total consistency of argument, allow me to make a firm commitment to you from a "localist" MAN perspective. It is widely anticipated that MAN will at some time this year announce plans for a wholescale redevelopment of its terminals complex, likely at considerable cost. So here is my promise to you. If MAG announces that the cost of their terminal redevelopment plans exceed the inflation-adjusted price-tag of constructing the Channel Tunnel almost three times over, I do solemnly swear that I will vigorously oppose the project on the grounds of its business case making zero financial sense. Exactly like the proposed third strip of concrete at LHR.
On the other hand, if MAG's price-tag is in proportion to the measurable benefits of the project ...
Bagso: Outstanding post there. Right on the money.
By the way, is anybody else concerned that the privately-funded portion of the extraordinary price-tag for LHR's plans is likely to be wholly underwritten by the UK taxpayer? The numbers touted exceed the GDP of several small countries. What are the odds of a corporate default once the thing has been constructed?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness,
How about Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? Calgary to a lesser extent
How about Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? Calgary to a lesser extent
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
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
The lop-sided open skies arrangement between the UK and the UAE is a double-edged sword.
The point is that EK’s long established dominance on eastbound longhaul at MAN (soon to be 3 A380s/day?) is probably a disincentive to other carriers thinking of doing non-stop from there to their respective hubs.
It’s difficult to take on a carrier that is so well entrenched at an airport that does not have as much available premium traffic as the likes of LHR, AMS, CDG, FRA, etc.. On a shorthaul level, it’s the same with FR at STN and many smaller UK airports.
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: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Good question! Hard question!
Think you’re correct about BE. For the thin domestic routes it would be ideal as it has the experience and the right aircraft. Perhaps it’s desire for a base at NHT is with an eye on future LHR operations(?).
As for the high airport charges, these will be known about and be accounted for, not suddenly introduced once the operation is already up and running as at LGW.
On the no-frills front, U2 has made it clear in its evidence to Davis that it would create a network of about 30 routes (UK and European) at an expanded LHR, which makes sense now that it is chasing business pax. It also supports a new rwy there rather than at LGW.
The critical difference between LGW and LHR is the availability of connecting traffic. BE’s LGW operation was point to point and the steep increase in charges made this untenable. LHR routes would be point to point and feeder (perhaps with an arrangement feeding BA/one world longhaul?), hence the potential viability despite high airport charges.
As for U2, it is more likely to be on the trunk routes, taking on BA and others. With the availability of free slots at an expanded LHR, could also see BD regional back at LHR (perhaps feeding star alliance longhaul) because of its previous LHR experience, but would not expect to see FR there.
The problems with LHR go away with expansion: delays and congestion, queues to take off, stacking before landing, etc., and new slots are free, no secondary slot market.
As for 20 years down the road, overcrowding and congestion and the prohibitively high cost of road and rail travel will make domestic air travel increasingly popular. The concept of taking a domestic flights is, at present, not even contemplated by most. That will change.
Pure speculation, of course. Feel free to pull it apart.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
There is no point having another rwy at STN, it operates way below capacity, and if LHR has 1 or 2 more rwys, an extra one will not be needed at LGW for the foreseeable, so it may not bring the airport company a sufficient return.
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 ?
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.
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 ?
Forgive me Skip, but isn't that a not very subtle way of avoiding the perfectly reasonable issues that Bagso raises? Are you saying LHR should get its third runway whatever cost may end up coming out of the public purse?
It’s for the greater good. As mentioned above, 50 years of indecision, dithering and delays comes with a cost.
In order to demonstrate total consistency of argument, allow me to make a firm commitment to you from a "localist" MAN perspective. It is widely anticipated that MAN will at some time this year announce plans for a wholescale redevelopment of its terminals complex, likely at considerable cost. So here is my promise to you. If MAG announces that the cost of their terminal redevelopment plans exceed the inflation-adjusted price-tag of constructing the Channel Tunnel almost three times over, I do solemnly swear that I will vigorously oppose the project on the grounds of its business case making zero financial sense. Exactly like the proposed third strip of concrete at LHR.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we meet again, Mr Bagso
As always you raise some very pertinent points. My only angle on this is to try to bring some facts to the debate. I certainly don’t want to be seen as a cheerleader for LHR R3 – my basic view is that airport capacity should be provided ONLY where there is a proven demand AND where users are prepared to pay for it. I don’t pay much heed to wider economic arguments, which I tend to regard as voodoo cooked up by dubious consultants. This applies not only in the London area but also in my own hometown of Manchester.
I certainly agree with many others that the estimated costs of LHR R3 are excessive, but I am afraid this is partly a consequence of (a) risk allowances being added by Davies to the basic costs, thereby ensuring that the ‘mark up’ is spent, and (b) the crazy ‘cost-plus’ nature of airport economic regulation in the UK.
Even so, I do believe that users of Heathrow would be prepared to pay the modestly higher airport charges that would result from the mega-scheme that is currently proposed, simply because of the attractiveness of the market and the hub model. I do not believe the same can be said of Gatwick, where its main users (easyJet) are highly unlikely to stomach the required increase in airport charges. As an aside, Shed has raised the spectre of taxpayer guarantees for private sector borrowing. I really think that is extremely unlikely (and I for one would be strongly against it) but if it were to happen then the risk of the guarantee being called would be vastly higher for GAL R2 than for HAL R3 - GAL R2 is simply not a bankable project in the face of airline resistance, pure and simple.
I also strongly believe that where a private scheme such as LHR R3 requires investment in (eg) surface access projects, then the cost of these should fall to the private investor not the taxpayer. As I’ve said before, the precedent is that HAL has had to stomach such costs in recent years and I see no reason why this principle wouldn’t be the same for LHR R3. But I think you are right to remain vigilant on this point.
In relation to your other points:
APD on connecting pax
You are right that connecting pax are currently exempt from APD. I’m not defending this, in fact I can see arguments as to why APD (assuming it exists at all) should apply to all pax, especially as it has in the past been justified as a quasi-environmental tax. There is no prima facie reason why it shouldn’t be levied on all pax, even if it affects Heathrow’s competitive position against other hubs, if it is regarded as compensating for the high environmental costs of developing Heathrow. I’ve also crossed swords with Fairdealfrank about my suggestion of concentrating APD on Heathrow and removing it from most other airports, by reclassifying it as a congestion charges/environmental tax. There is an economic justification for this, as a way of dealing with the market failure that results from the current imbalance of demand and supply at Heathrow. The only beneficiaries of this market failure are airlines, through the stratospheric slot values that are evident at Heathrow. I’m surprised that the clever chaps at Treasury haven’t latched onto this already.
HAL Corporation Tax
Your argument is that HAL’s reliance on debt financing will erode its taxable profits and hence reduce the UK's tax proceeds. That is true, but for every £ of tax deduction on interest paid by the borrower there is a £ of tax due on interest received by the lender. Yes, if the lender is overseas then there may be a net loss to the UK taxpayer, but there are probably swings and roundabouts here (for example, British lenders lending to foreign companies and paying UK tax on interest received). I’m not aware of any systematic imbalance, so your argument doesn’t really hold water.
Decline in HAL profitability
I’m not sure who attributed the decline in after-tax profits in 2014 to the lack of capacity, but that is pure spin. The underlying profits (ie at EBITDA level) actually increased by 10.3%. The decline at after-tax level is due to a combination of higher depreciation and various technical factors to do with the need to restate the value of various financial instruments as a result of interest rate changes etc.
I certainly don’t want to imply that all is rosy in the R3 garden, but I do think some of the scaremongering is a little unwarranted.
As always you raise some very pertinent points. My only angle on this is to try to bring some facts to the debate. I certainly don’t want to be seen as a cheerleader for LHR R3 – my basic view is that airport capacity should be provided ONLY where there is a proven demand AND where users are prepared to pay for it. I don’t pay much heed to wider economic arguments, which I tend to regard as voodoo cooked up by dubious consultants. This applies not only in the London area but also in my own hometown of Manchester.
I certainly agree with many others that the estimated costs of LHR R3 are excessive, but I am afraid this is partly a consequence of (a) risk allowances being added by Davies to the basic costs, thereby ensuring that the ‘mark up’ is spent, and (b) the crazy ‘cost-plus’ nature of airport economic regulation in the UK.
Even so, I do believe that users of Heathrow would be prepared to pay the modestly higher airport charges that would result from the mega-scheme that is currently proposed, simply because of the attractiveness of the market and the hub model. I do not believe the same can be said of Gatwick, where its main users (easyJet) are highly unlikely to stomach the required increase in airport charges. As an aside, Shed has raised the spectre of taxpayer guarantees for private sector borrowing. I really think that is extremely unlikely (and I for one would be strongly against it) but if it were to happen then the risk of the guarantee being called would be vastly higher for GAL R2 than for HAL R3 - GAL R2 is simply not a bankable project in the face of airline resistance, pure and simple.
I also strongly believe that where a private scheme such as LHR R3 requires investment in (eg) surface access projects, then the cost of these should fall to the private investor not the taxpayer. As I’ve said before, the precedent is that HAL has had to stomach such costs in recent years and I see no reason why this principle wouldn’t be the same for LHR R3. But I think you are right to remain vigilant on this point.
In relation to your other points:
APD on connecting pax
You are right that connecting pax are currently exempt from APD. I’m not defending this, in fact I can see arguments as to why APD (assuming it exists at all) should apply to all pax, especially as it has in the past been justified as a quasi-environmental tax. There is no prima facie reason why it shouldn’t be levied on all pax, even if it affects Heathrow’s competitive position against other hubs, if it is regarded as compensating for the high environmental costs of developing Heathrow. I’ve also crossed swords with Fairdealfrank about my suggestion of concentrating APD on Heathrow and removing it from most other airports, by reclassifying it as a congestion charges/environmental tax. There is an economic justification for this, as a way of dealing with the market failure that results from the current imbalance of demand and supply at Heathrow. The only beneficiaries of this market failure are airlines, through the stratospheric slot values that are evident at Heathrow. I’m surprised that the clever chaps at Treasury haven’t latched onto this already.
HAL Corporation Tax
Your argument is that HAL’s reliance on debt financing will erode its taxable profits and hence reduce the UK's tax proceeds. That is true, but for every £ of tax deduction on interest paid by the borrower there is a £ of tax due on interest received by the lender. Yes, if the lender is overseas then there may be a net loss to the UK taxpayer, but there are probably swings and roundabouts here (for example, British lenders lending to foreign companies and paying UK tax on interest received). I’m not aware of any systematic imbalance, so your argument doesn’t really hold water.
Decline in HAL profitability
I’m not sure who attributed the decline in after-tax profits in 2014 to the lack of capacity, but that is pure spin. The underlying profits (ie at EBITDA level) actually increased by 10.3%. The decline at after-tax level is due to a combination of higher depreciation and various technical factors to do with the need to restate the value of various financial instruments as a result of interest rate changes etc.
I certainly don’t want to imply that all is rosy in the R3 garden, but I do think some of the scaremongering is a little unwarranted.
Last edited by BasilBush; 26th Feb 2015 at 15:57.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As always you raise some very pertinent points. My only angle on this is to try to bring some facts to the debate. I certainly don’t want to be seen as a cheerleader for LHR R3 – my basic view is that airport capacity should be provided ONLY where there is a proven demand AND where users are prepared to pay for it.
At LGW, quite a different story.
Even so, I do believe that users of Heathrow would be prepared to pay the modestly higher airport charges that would result from the mega-scheme that is currently proposed, simply because of the attractiveness of the market and the hub model.
I do not believe the same can be said of Gatwick, where its main users (easyJet) are highly unlikely to stomach the required increase in airport charges.
Apparently charges will rise at both airports if they get another rwy, but those at LGW would be very much more significant.
I don't think Heathrow have actually said that, although of course they have been actively promoting the proposition that the only future options are expand or decline.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but HAL is regulated so it is prevented from pushing up prices. As a result, the economic rent (ie excess profits) that results from the imbalance between supply and demand flows through to the LHR airlines. This largely explains the whopping slot values we see at Heathrow, not to mention BA's high profits (despite it not being a particularly efficient airline).
In the end the consumer pays for the decades of indecision on LHR expansion.
In the end the consumer pays for the decades of indecision on LHR expansion.
Last edited by BasilBush; 1st Mar 2015 at 10:36.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite suprised this has not sparked some debate ?
HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister
BBC News - HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister
HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister
BBC News - HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A report by anna.aero received today prompted me to read up on 'Istanbul New Airport Megahub'. Phase one is planned to open in 2018, featuring three runways, a 90 million capacity terminal (plus a smaller one), 4 million square metres of apron space, and all the customary major airport fixtures and fittings. Impressively quick timescale for delivery too. The cost for this project is quoted as EUR10.2 Billion, which today converts to a grand total of £7.2 Billion.
Do you realise that you could build just over one third of a runway at Heathrow with that kind of money? Top value for UK plc!
Bagso ... very interesting find there. If confirmed, that HS2 news should help to dampen concerns about further passenger footfall being sucked from the regions to LHR.
Do you realise that you could build just over one third of a runway at Heathrow with that kind of money? Top value for UK plc!
Bagso ... very interesting find there. If confirmed, that HS2 news should help to dampen concerns about further passenger footfall being sucked from the regions to LHR.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A report by anna.aero received today prompted me to read up on 'Istanbul New Airport Megahub'. Phase one is planned to open in 2018, featuring three runways, a 90 million capacity terminal (plus a smaller one), 4 million square metres of apron space, and all the customary major airport fixtures and fittings. Impressively quick timescale for delivery too. The cost for this project is quoted as EUR10.2 Billion, which today converts to a grand total of £7.2 Billion.
Do you realise that you could build just over one third of a runway at Heathrow with that kind of money? Top value for UK plc!
Do you realise that you could build just over one third of a runway at Heathrow with that kind of money? Top value for UK plc!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthWest
You need to eliminate any fx issues and adjust for PPP to make a truer comparison.
Truly astonishing train of thought !
Those currency and public private partnership issues would "of course" amount to a swing of a further £20+ Billion, damn not sure how we missed that !
That said those "Shrewd Turks" are not just getting a mile of tarmac with some add-ons but a fully integrated, brand new airport, built from ground zero, 3 runways plus 2 new terminal with an accumulated capacity of 90M for a third of the cost of LHR RW3.
Must dig out my 20 year old CIMA notes.
Fx, ppp... can decipher CIMA Mr Northwest
You need to eliminate any fx issues and adjust for PPP to make a truer comparison.
Truly astonishing train of thought !
Those currency and public private partnership issues would "of course" amount to a swing of a further £20+ Billion, damn not sure how we missed that !
That said those "Shrewd Turks" are not just getting a mile of tarmac with some add-ons but a fully integrated, brand new airport, built from ground zero, 3 runways plus 2 new terminal with an accumulated capacity of 90M for a third of the cost of LHR RW3.
Must dig out my 20 year old CIMA notes.
Fx, ppp... can decipher CIMA Mr Northwest
Last edited by Bagso; 11th Mar 2015 at 22:55.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite suprised this has not sparked some debate ?
HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister
BBC News - HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister
HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister
BBC News - HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister
HS2 is taking quite a bit of stick in that part of Middlesex, there are demands for it to be tunnelled across the county. If this was conceded, with existing planned tunnels, the entire HS2 route between London and north west of the Chilterns would be underground!
Not really practical, and very, very expensive and 100% publicly funded (unlike Heathrow expansion incidentally). Still think the whole thing will be scrapped eventually.
The best way from Ringway and Yeadon to Heathrow (and the Thames Valley in general) is by air, and will remain so.
Bagso ... very interesting find there. If confirmed, that HS2 news should help to dampen concerns about further passenger footfall being sucked from the regions to LHR.
That said they are not just getting a new runway and single terminal but a brand new airport, from ground zero, 3 runways plus new terminal capable of 90M !
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 11th Mar 2015 at 22:19.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to eliminate any fx issues and adjust for PPP to make a truer comparison.
Astonishing train of thought !
Those currency and public private partnership issues would of course amount to a swing of a further £20+ Billion !
Oh and those "Shrewd Turks" are not just getting a mile of tarmac with some add-ons but a fully integrated, brand new airport, built from ground zero, 3 runways plus new terminal capable of 90M !
Astonishing train of thought !
Those currency and public private partnership issues would of course amount to a swing of a further £20+ Billion !
Oh and those "Shrewd Turks" are not just getting a mile of tarmac with some add-ons but a fully integrated, brand new airport, built from ground zero, 3 runways plus new terminal capable of 90M !
Nothing at all to do with Public Private Partnerships.