HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So "ME3" will soon be "ME4". Yet another reason to get on with it at Heathrow!
But ME3 is ready NOW,
ME4 2018
...and wait for it LHR ready in 20..? who knows
AND that, apart from cost of course is the very essence of the problem.
I really think the World will have moved on by then......
I genuinely theink we are visualising a World that exists today and making assumptions based on TODAY 20 years down the line.
LHR RW3 is 20+ years behind the curve, it should have been decided in year 2000 and even that was a tad late !
PS well in my Frank Wood Accounting Book 2 (The Bible) thats what PPP stood for so we will beg to differ !
But ME3 is ready NOW,
ME4 2018
...and wait for it LHR ready in 20..? who knows
AND that, apart from cost of course is the very essence of the problem.
I really think the World will have moved on by then......
I genuinely theink we are visualising a World that exists today and making assumptions based on TODAY 20 years down the line.
LHR RW3 is 20+ years behind the curve, it should have been decided in year 2000 and even that was a tad late !
PS well in my Frank Wood Accounting Book 2 (The Bible) thats what PPP stood for so we will beg to differ !
Last edited by Bagso; 11th Mar 2015 at 23:03.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But ME3 is ready NOW,
ME4 2018
...and wait for it LHR ready in 20..? who knows
ME4 2018
...and wait for it LHR ready in 20..? who knows
AND that, apart from cost of course is the very essence of the problem.
I genuinely theink we are visualising a World that exists today and making assumptions based on TODAY 20 years down the line.
LHR RW3 is 20+ years behind the curve, it should have been decided in year 2000 and even that was a tad late !
LHR RW3 is 20+ years behind the curve, it should have been decided in year 2000 and even that was a tad late !
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icelandair will lease two B767-300 for its twice daily flights to LHR
Icelandair to Acquire two Boeing 767?s For Heathrow Route :: Routesonline
Icelandair to Acquire two Boeing 767?s For Heathrow Route :: Routesonline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American 787
It was a very nice surprise to see an American Airlines Boeing 787-8 at stand 365 at Terminal 3 on Wednesday evening at around 21.45 as I arrived on BA503 from Lisbon.
I believe it was part of a training flight from DFW.
I believe it was part of a training flight from DFW.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Access to new Heathrow would cost £20bn, Transport for London warns (From Richmond and Twickenham Times)
TFL Transport For London have today published something of an exocet with some revised figures re cost of surrounding infrastructure LHR RW3.
Rather than £6B, TFL are quoting....wait for it ..... £20B !!!
That doubles the cost of the project to North of £40 Billion ! yes that's wait for it £40 Billion !
A telling comment from the item suggests.....
TfL believes to provide an optimal level of service, the figure would be nearer to £20bn, raising questions about who would pay the additional costs.
...My God, they are not the only ones !
Another line
"the commission has woefully underestimated the associated surface access cost by more than £10bn."
"it is extraordinary that the commission never bothered to ask for its assessment (tfl)"
And from Zac Goldsmith an MP who at least comments on local issues (something we would dearly love to see in Manchester)
This raises serious questions about the thoroughness and reliability of the commission’s work. If TfL is right, the taxpayer may end up having to cough up an additional £15bn to help Heathrow secure its monopoly
A few of us cannot wait for the final report.... more holes than a colender ![/B]
TFL Transport For London have today published something of an exocet with some revised figures re cost of surrounding infrastructure LHR RW3.
Rather than £6B, TFL are quoting....wait for it ..... £20B !!!
That doubles the cost of the project to North of £40 Billion ! yes that's wait for it £40 Billion !
A telling comment from the item suggests.....
TfL believes to provide an optimal level of service, the figure would be nearer to £20bn, raising questions about who would pay the additional costs.
...My God, they are not the only ones !
Another line
"the commission has woefully underestimated the associated surface access cost by more than £10bn."
"it is extraordinary that the commission never bothered to ask for its assessment (tfl)"
And from Zac Goldsmith an MP who at least comments on local issues (something we would dearly love to see in Manchester)
This raises serious questions about the thoroughness and reliability of the commission’s work. If TfL is right, the taxpayer may end up having to cough up an additional £15bn to help Heathrow secure its monopoly
A few of us cannot wait for the final report.... more holes than a colender ![/B]
Last edited by Bagso; 1st Apr 2015 at 14:49.
That's ludicrous. That's more than the whole of Crossrail right across London has cost.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some more information for scholars of the costs "seemingly" missed by Sir Howard Davies and his buffooons....
TFL response to APPG on surface access | All Party Parliamentary Group on Heathrow and the Wider Economy
These are not increases btw they were not included in SHDs figures in the first place !
TFL response to APPG on surface access | All Party Parliamentary Group on Heathrow and the Wider Economy
These are not increases btw they were not included in SHDs figures in the first place !
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Leeds
Age: 63
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BBC are reporting that Heathrow plan to reduce their charges for domestic passengers by £10 from next year.
Heathrow to cut domestic charges by a third - BBC News
Heathrow to cut domestic charges by a third - BBC News
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that any planning consent (should it ever happen) would be dependent on improving surface access (beyond HS2)...I suspect that burden would be placed as a condition on the development and therefore the developer would pay towards it.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) | PAS
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) | PAS
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that's right Good Egg. That was the approach that resulted from the T5 public inquiry, with planning permission being granted subject to a whole host of conditions including those relating to surface access. BAA/HAL therefore had to stump up before it could go ahead with the project.
For R3 the difficulty will be in distinguishing between those surface access projects that are driven by Heathrow's expansion and the (longer) list of projects that are put forward by bodies such as TFL which have an ulterior motive.
TFL's intervention, and Boris's refusal of the LCY expansion, point to the inevitability that Davies will not have the last word. Politics will continue to drive things, and may well result in a repeat of the various historic Govt decisions to expand other airports instead. History tells us that Govt was wrong on Stansted (whose development was made possible by Heathrow's profits), and it could well end up being wrong again by eventually deciding that Gatwick is the least bad solution from a political perspective, even if it makes no sense from an industry perspective.
For R3 the difficulty will be in distinguishing between those surface access projects that are driven by Heathrow's expansion and the (longer) list of projects that are put forward by bodies such as TFL which have an ulterior motive.
TFL's intervention, and Boris's refusal of the LCY expansion, point to the inevitability that Davies will not have the last word. Politics will continue to drive things, and may well result in a repeat of the various historic Govt decisions to expand other airports instead. History tells us that Govt was wrong on Stansted (whose development was made possible by Heathrow's profits), and it could well end up being wrong again by eventually deciding that Gatwick is the least bad solution from a political perspective, even if it makes no sense from an industry perspective.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am aware there is no love lost between messrs Davies and Johnson and the tfl report is no doubt a late shot across the bows, but there are still some facts in there which cannot be denied is there not ?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirportWatch | Heathrow to reduce charges on domestic flights from £29.59 to £19.59 from Ist Jan 2016
How on earth can the airport operator indicate there WILL be new flights to new destinations, it may be an aspiration but you need an airline to make it happen.
It also seems odd that they admit that some domestic routrs are not full NOW, let alone new services in 20 years !
How on earth can the airport operator indicate there WILL be new flights to new destinations, it may be an aspiration but you need an airline to make it happen.
It also seems odd that they admit that some domestic routrs are not full NOW, let alone new services in 20 years !
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dft has appointed Rothschilds to report back to them on the financing of both projects should they ever come to fruition.
As two private companies I don't see what the financing has to do with the Dft?
OR is this to do with this improbable but possible public expenditure exposure ?
Bankers drafted in to assess new runway costs | News | Travel Trade Gazette
Is this standard procedure Basil ?
As two private companies I don't see what the financing has to do with the Dft?
OR is this to do with this improbable but possible public expenditure exposure ?
Bankers drafted in to assess new runway costs | News | Travel Trade Gazette
Is this standard procedure Basil ?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rothschilds' appointment seems sensible. The various Davies reports on financing the new runway capacity have highlighted the fact that the balance sheets of both HAL and GAL would be transformed as a result of investment in a new runway. There would be a serious amount of egg on face if a Govt decision in favour of either airport was followed by a problem with financing.
The Rothschilds input will also be important in the CAA's consideration of how the new runway will affect economic regulation. One of the CAA's duties is to take into account the airports' ability to finance new investment, and they will need to carefully consider whatever Rothschilds say before making any final pronouncements.
Probably the most interesting aspect will be Rothschilds' view on Gatwick. In particular, GAL are proposing a doubling of airport charges in the face of no airline support, a generally-held view (including by CAA) that GAL's current charges are close to market clearing levels, and a gradual deregulation by CAA of GAL's airport charges. Quite how GAL could raise new debt to fund R2 in these circumstances is beyond me, and it is entirely possible that Rothschilds will conclude that the Gatwick R2 project is simply not fundable without public sector support. That would be interesting.
The Rothschilds input will also be important in the CAA's consideration of how the new runway will affect economic regulation. One of the CAA's duties is to take into account the airports' ability to finance new investment, and they will need to carefully consider whatever Rothschilds say before making any final pronouncements.
Probably the most interesting aspect will be Rothschilds' view on Gatwick. In particular, GAL are proposing a doubling of airport charges in the face of no airline support, a generally-held view (including by CAA) that GAL's current charges are close to market clearing levels, and a gradual deregulation by CAA of GAL's airport charges. Quite how GAL could raise new debt to fund R2 in these circumstances is beyond me, and it is entirely possible that Rothschilds will conclude that the Gatwick R2 project is simply not fundable without public sector support. That would be interesting.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its certainly been nice to find a few posts on the LHR thread about airlines and routes.
Thought for a while it was a party political thread...not that the 3rd runway decision is not a very important one.
Nigel
Thought for a while it was a party political thread...not that the 3rd runway decision is not a very important one.
Nigel