HEATHROW
Yes, but think I would be a hypocrite if I didn't sympathise with them on this. Hiding to nothing comes to mind.
By the way, an opponent of growth would take your hub argument and turn it around. How does the leverage effect benefit the wider economy, beyond the carriers and perhaps allowing the well heeled enjoy esoteric holidays beyond the mass package model? More demand drives to bigger aircraft and more flights....If the hub wasn't there, would the carriers develop along lower cost based model lines, albeit with higher fares to the public?
No intention to resurrect the debate from elsewhere but mypuzzlement about the significance of the hub model came because I couldnt understand its significance. Thanks to all the efforts to point me at the facts, which were very interesting and new to me, I understand that but the wider economy?
By the way, an opponent of growth would take your hub argument and turn it around. How does the leverage effect benefit the wider economy, beyond the carriers and perhaps allowing the well heeled enjoy esoteric holidays beyond the mass package model? More demand drives to bigger aircraft and more flights....If the hub wasn't there, would the carriers develop along lower cost based model lines, albeit with higher fares to the public?
No intention to resurrect the debate from elsewhere but mypuzzlement about the significance of the hub model came because I couldnt understand its significance. Thanks to all the efforts to point me at the facts, which were very interesting and new to me, I understand that but the wider economy?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just look at the value of UK trade that goes through LHR - more than the main sea ports (Felixstowe & Southampton). Surprised me when I saw the numbers. Would've thought EMA was a bigger player.
So can a similar argument be made for freight as for pax re hub ? But again, how does the benefit leak out into the wider economy, beyond the benefit to the industry itself? If there is a good case, haven't seen it articulated in the press or elsewhere which needs to happen if the argument to spread things around, or minimise number of voters inconvenienced, is to be countered.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some of the posters here exercised by those having the temerity to criticise LHR expansion should look at the detailed argument we put forward which is fundamentally about cost!
We are going round because the eye watering cost is simply not being addressed with a sufficient response
There seems to be a build "at any cost" mentality so I ask again, what is the price point where it becomes untenable?
We are going round because the eye watering cost is simply not being addressed with a sufficient response
There seems to be a build "at any cost" mentality so I ask again, what is the price point where it becomes untenable?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say it's the point at which the private investors decide they can make more money investing their £15bn elsewhere.
That's why commercial organisations spend so much time developing the business case.
That's why commercial organisations spend so much time developing the business case.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso do you have a view on why AMS and FRA have huge line ups of main deck freight operators supporting thousands of jobs whereas a constrained LHR has a mere handful? Just wondering what your view is as to why they don't use STN or MAN in the same volumes since LHR is full.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STN is actually doing very well on the cargo front and is constructing more stands to increase this side of the business. The UK also has a very successful freight specialist in the form of EMA. At LHR and MAN most of the flown freight business is bellyhold cargo sharing space on passenger flights ... a very important element in the viability of certain long-haul scheduled services. As with everything else, if the cost of expanding LHR's cargo capability makes sense from a business perspective then it can happen. If not, then alternatives such as STN will fill the gap. Does a B747-8F landing at LHR serve the UK economy better than the same aircraft operating via STN?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Skippy that is "precisely" the point that once again you as a supporter of LHR illustrate perfectly.
There are numerous valid and absolutely reasoned arguments that support extra capacity....they are undeniable.
BUT if the underlying cost of the proposition is "off the scale" there has to be a debate as to its viability.
There are numerous valid and absolutely reasoned arguments that support extra capacity....they are undeniable.
BUT if the underlying cost of the proposition is "off the scale" there has to be a debate as to its viability.
We're going round in circles here.
Another common argument put forward is that the sum representing the direct cost of LHR R3 will be privately funded by Ferrovial - foreign private money - so why not just let them do it? Well, a couple of points here. If you notice that your friend down the road is about to burn his house down, should you try to stop him? It is not your money, is it? And think of the boost to the local economy that the rebuild would bring! Seriously, there is an important point here. If these phenomenal costings make no sense, the project should not proceed anyway. Whoever is funding it. Because if all those corporate bonds go belly-up, you may find that it is your pension fund and your community that was invested in them. And even if it is someone else who ends up getting hurt - like the Greeks or the Cypriots did - do we really want to see that? Gross misallocation of capital will eventually bite someone. The corporate bond market is monstrously overheated, and it is going to maul alot of unsuspecting people over coming years.
I suppose I can take the blame for this! My conclusion after the helpful information given was that I don't know enough to validate having an opinion one way or the other. I do regard infrastructure spending as an inherently good thing though, investment for the future. There are too many vested interests to trust clever arguments without far more research than I am able or willing to do.