HEATHROW

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

STN is actually doing very well on the cargo front
<<...>>
Does a B747-8F landing at LHR serve the UK economy better than the same aircraft operating via STN?

Actually Shed, STN only accounts for <9% of UK trade.

The B748F landing at STN may/may not serve "the UK economy better" but it doesn't help the emissions debate if, like IAG, you have to truck it down to LHR for processing before it goes out to distributors.

[chaps1954]

A lot of UK cargo is trucked to Holland as you will find that most cargo carriers only go to 1 maybe 2 places in Europe

Ian

[Fairdealfrank]

Actually Shed, STN only accounts for <9% of UK trade.

The B748F landing at STN may/may not serve "the UK economy better" but it doesn't help the emissions debate if, like IAG, you have to truck it down to LHR for processing before it goes out to distributors.

A lot of UK cargo is trucked to Holland as you will find that most cargo carriers only go to 1 maybe 2 places in Europe

Ian

Indeed, and trucking cargo all over Europe really helps in the fight against pollution.

[Fairdealfrank]

Shed's reply

Thanks for your answer Shed, no wonder there was a long wait for it. It was a simple question, was expecting a binary answer: a simple yes/no.



This may be of interest to you, a headline in the "Metro" a few days ago:

"New rail link would boost UK economy"

Now the bit you won't like, Shed, it refers to "Crossrail-2" a railway tunnel that will cross London and join up existing commuter routes on a similar basis to Crossrail and Thameslink.

The article states that a study by analysts KPMG that Crossrail-2 would be worth up to £102 billlion to the UK economy with the West Midlands benefiting by £1 billion, the north east by £200 million, and Scotland £170 million by the creation of new jobs. The idea is that many engineering, manufacturing and construction jobs will be created accross the UK.

Interestingly, it is a similar argument that you have dismissed in relation to Heathrow expansion.




A couple of other questions for you Shed.

(1) do you think that taxes raised in London should be spent in Manchester?

(2) do you think that taxes raised in the south should be spent in the south (e.g. house purchase stamp duty raised in London spent on surface transport infrastructure upgrades related to Heathrow expansion)?

(3) do you think that HS2 should be scrapped and the money spent on upgrading and duplicating existing track and sorting out bottlenecks?

(4) do you agree with me that high speed rail priority (if we have to have it) should be a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds route?

(5) do you think that a "do nothing" policy at Heathrow is the right one?

[Skipness One Echo]

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?

Stansted had a piddling sized main deck cargo operation in comparison to AMS. Flew out recently on a Sunday am AMS-LTN, past an Emirates B777F, Qatari B777F, two Atlas B744Fs, an Air China B777F and two Martinair B747Fs. The sheer volume of trade and commerce is impressive and is exactly what we need to encourage to live within our means and pay pur debts down. Now whereas both sides have their favourite stats to quote, the commision has spoken and we need to move forward. Since STN is not the answer to any strategic question beyond Ryanair (see LH, SK, AA, AB, 4U who have left and EZY who downsized), we need to move forward with putting capacity in where it's needed. We've had decades of constraining capacity in the SE and, for example, MAN has not exactly filled the gap, for reasons understood by most on here, including Bagso and Shed. You guys are fighting a fight simply on a North/South political view rather than any strategic view of aviation policy. No further thousand word tangent on aged rolling stock of the NW from Shed is likely to make any difference to the fact that screwing over LHR expansion won't help MAN.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Lots of Answers to Lots of Questions ...

WOW ... Looks like I've stirred the entire Heathrow Appreciation Society into action en masse! Could it be that the truth hurts?

All those questions ... the hour is late, but I'll have a go.

Actually Shed, STN only accounts for <9% of UK trade.

That is a very respectable total for one gateway alone. Especially one which is not centrally located within the UK. And it is growing too.

was expecting a binary answer: a simple yes/no.

OOPS! You should have said! ;-)

worth up to £102 billlion to the UK economy with the West Midlands benefiting by £1 billion, the north east by £200 million, and Scotland £170 million by the creation of new jobs

Dear, oh dear! Are these numbers supposed to enthuse the regions and justify yet more massively imbalanced investment in the SE alone? Just do the maths here. Even if that £102Bn number is in any way credible, the W Mids windfall is just under 1%, the NE share is shy of 0.2%, Scotland scores around the 0.15% mark. It appears that these numbers demonstrate my point, not yours. Talk about crumbs from the rich man's table!

do you think that taxes raised in London should be spent in Manchester?

Many corporate entities which derive profits nationwide and globally declare profits from a London HQ address. Should these taxes 'raised in London' be spent on Londoners alone? Besides, to attribute taxes raised by district would be a futile and pointless endeavour.

do you think that taxes raised in the south should be spent in the south

See the answer above.

do you think that HS2 should be scrapped and the money spent on upgrading and duplicating existing track and sorting out bottlenecks?

HS2 is an extremely complex topic. I follow the debate with great interest on the rail forum of the skyscrapercity website. Best not open this can of worms on the PPRuNe LHR thread!

do you agree with me that high speed rail priority (if we have to have it) should be a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds route?

Another debate for skyscraper really. But the main issue on this route is capacity rather than line-speed. The best outcome would be to double up the route to four tracks (two fast, two slow) all the way to the junction with the ECML. (Much) longer trains are essential too. Travel distances between the various major centres of population clustered along this route are too short to enable a conventional high-speed model to work.

do you think that a "do nothing" policy at Heathrow is the right one?

Ideally not, but whatever we do must make good sense from a financial perspective. This is where the R3 proposals fall down. They are wildly over-priced. I support measures which can enhance the functionality of LHR on a cost-effective basis.

AMS ... The sheer volume of trade and commerce is impressive and is exactly what we need to encourage to live within our means and pay pur debts down.

This stuff about the phenomenal success of AMS as a freight hub merits further examination. Do you believe that if LHR was unconstrained those freighters would be choosing London instead? Is London well placed for distributing arriving / departing air freight not only across Benelux, but rapidly into Rhine / Ruhr and the heart of Europe beyond? AMS offers this; London is located on an island. Slot scarcity on London's runways is not the reason for Amsterdam's success in handling air freight.

the commision has spoken and we need to move forward.

If the sums add up. Some very well-informed experts are warning us that they don't. Including the CEO of LHR's largest airline customer.

we need to move forward with putting capacity in where it's needed.

Within the confines of fiscal responsibility. But not regardless of cost.

You guys are fighting a fight simply on a North/South political view

We are fighting on the grounds of cost. Particularly those multiple billions which will be required from public funds which can be allocated one-time only.

screwing over LHR expansion won't help MAN.

Skipness, really. We know that you are an intelligent, well-informed professional. Lashing out in tantrum-mode does you no credit. You are better than that.

Firstly, as you know, I have never argued against LHR expansion on the misapprehension that MAN would benefit from displaced SE demand. All my archived postings on the topic bear witness to this. I have argued clearly and consistently that MAN is a solution for air travel in the North, not a viable conduit for SE-originating business. And you know that I have always argued this. The only reason I mention MAN at all in this debate is in direct response to your insistence on inserting innuendo-heavy references to that particular airport at every opportunity.

And I do not argue for "screwing over" anybody. In fact, over the last three decades it is very much the regions which have been "screwed over" whilst the SE has soaked up an obscene proportion of public infrastructure funding at the expense of everywhere else. Rebalancing of this anomaly is long overdue.

My objection to LHR R3 is clearly outlined in my earlier post, No. 3662 on this thread. The wildly excessive cost is the issue, not an inherent desire to inhibit LHR. The price-tag for any expansion project, no matter how desirable, has to make sense financially.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Nice one S1E.

I'm told the UK has the 2nd largest airfreight market in EU. It has the largest import airfreight market.

Slot constraints at LHR have helped push freighters to STN & AMS. This has added to the number of HGV to/from LHR.

[Skipness One Echo]

Lashing out in tantrum-mode does you no credit.

Condescending again?

WOW ... Looks like I've stirred the entire Heathrow Appreciation Society into action en masse! Could it be that the truth hurts?

My key objection is that attempting to stop growth which has the biggest potential benefit to UK PLC is putting locality before the national interest.

I support measures which can enhance the functionality of LHR on a cost-effective basis.

You mean "fiddle while Rome continues to burn". We're long past tinkering around the edges, this is major strategic infrastructure investment time. The Channel Tunnel was the same, wildly over budget and felt like a bad idea at the time but in the medium term, we're glad we did. Terminal 4 was the same, as was Terminal 5, as will runway 3. The sky will not fall in, the books will be balanced over time.
Incidentally, now you're being childish, there is no "appreciation society", just a pragmatic realsim in my view. I am not a fan of LHR, it's in the wrong place if we were to start with a clean sheet. However we are where we are, the Commission has spoken, Gatwick is throwing toys from the pram at a huge rate and most of the regional airports would quite like increaesed LHR access.

Within the confines of fiscal responsibility. But not regardless of cost.

Agreed, the cost will be high, but you're inflating to suit your argument. A way will be found, the sky will not fall in.

If the sums add up. Some very well-informed experts are warning us that they don't. Including the CEO of LHR's largest airline customer.

You mean Willie Walsh, the man tasked with an ROI for shareholders of IAG? The business owning BA which has tried to kill Virgin Atlantic and destroy every competitor that ever challenged it then went and got jiggy with an American one? This guy is against allowing more consumer choice at his home base? He supports an artificial constraint that keeps fares high and benefits his US dominance? By golly, what a surprise (!) We should really listen to Willie, he has my interests as a customer at heart. Is this the same BA that was recently fined millions for price fixing in air cargo btw?
Or would these be the same independent experts on the payroll of GIP (Gatwick, your London airport)?

[PAXboy]

As thread drift contines... one reason AMS is big could be that Rotterdam is the largest Container port in Europe. Felixstowe is at #7.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by PAXboy

As thread drift contines... one reason AMS is big could be that Rotterdam is the largest Container port in Europe.

Notwithstanding the array of freighters to be seen at Schiphol, AMS doesn't handle appreciably more cargo than LHR, the difference being that the latter gets only a minuscule number of main-deck cargo flights.

[pwalhx]

Why does freight landing at Stansted have to go to Heathrow for processing?

It will be cleared and delivered from Stansted.

As has been said a lot of cargo is trucked from many UK airports directly to hubs in mainland Europe for onward shipment.

Freight unlike passengers doesn't care where it is being flown from.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Originally Posted by pwalhx

Why does freight landing at Stansted have to go to Heathrow for processing?
.

It doesn't but that's how the industry does it. Just look at IAG/BA.

[Una Due Tfc]

As has been said, WW is against LHR expansion for purely selfish reasons. If R3 goes ahead then BA will take a major hit in profits. Buying up BMI and now EI was as much to prevent a competitor getting their hands on slots as to allow expansion. He's banking on making DUB a North American release valve for LHR. If R3 goes ahead all of a sudden his buyout of EI will look expensive, if it doesn't it'll be a bargain.

[pwalhx]

It doesn't but that's how the industry does it. Just look at IAG/BA.

Really, that is exactly the industry I work in and it is not the way we do it

[ETOPS]

Latest images of Heathrow expansion - see the news item and gallery..

News: West London news updates from across the region - Get West London

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Reply to Skipness One Echo

Good Afternoon, Skipness.

Condescending again?

No. To truly master that dark art I would have to study your persistent trolling of postings made by PPRuNe regular LAX_LHR.

My key objection is that attempting to stop growth which has the biggest potential benefit to UK PLC is putting locality before the national interest.

Supporting arguably the largest infrastructure capital misallocation ever proposed on UK soil is not in the local or the national interest.

You mean "fiddle while Rome continues to burn".

The devastating May 7th fire at FCO has been extinguished. The terminal reopened fully around late July. A major refurbishment is planned for the affected terminal. Never cared much for the fiddle. The trombone is much better.

We're long past tinkering around the edges, this is major strategic infrastructure investment time.

Only if the cost of providing the resulting facilities makes sense from a financial perspective.

The Channel Tunnel was the same, wildly over budget and felt like a bad idea at the time but in the medium term, we're glad we did.

No doubt Londoners are glad we did. 21 years on from opening, those of us in the regions are still patiently awaiting the first of those daily trains to Paris and Brussels which we were promised "because the tunnel is a project for the whole nation." And which we were then promised again when the contract for construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) was awarded in 1996. Judging by the recent disgraceful decision to axe the proposed short spur from HS2 to HS1 saving just 2% of the overall projected cost, attitudes towards incorporating regional interests have not yet changed in Whitehall.

The sky will not fall in, the books will be balanced over time.

A way will be found, the sky will not fall in.

HOPIUM ... The most abundant element in the Periodic Table.

just a pragmatic realsim in my view.

I take it you mean "realism" ... it is not pragmatic to avert one's gaze from a calamitous funding package. "Wishful thinking" seems more apt in this case.

I am not a fan of LHR,

Perish the thought, Skip!!!! ;-)

most of the regional airports would quite like increaesed LHR access.

But the regions in which they are located would very much prefer long overdue direct investment in their own infrastructure priorities, abandoned on the shelf for the last three decades. 'Trickledown' isn't cutting it.

Agreed, the cost will be high, but you're inflating to suit your argument.

The acknowledged base-case cost is already staggering enough. And those inflated numbers come not from myself but from experts who are very well qualified to judge the situation.

You mean Willie Walsh, the man tasked with an ROI for shareholders of IAG?

Of course it is Willie Walsh's job to fight for the best interests of IAG. But that does not mean that his stated objections to LHR R3 have no basis in fact. His objections are 100% justified by any rational measure. It just makes his task more straightforward that shareholders interests are aligned with his in taking a robust stance against massive misallocation of capital resources as proposed at LHR.

(Gatwick, your London airport)?

I'm pleased that you now recall me arguing the case for LGW. It seems only hours ago that I stood accused by you of opposing LHR R3 in support of misplaced North v South political antagonism and an irrational belief that MAN could serve as an alternative to LHR.

[Mr Optimistic]

What's going on here ? Building another runway at LHR would hardly be the end of the world. Put one at Gatwick too and the world would go on.

[Fairdealfrank]

No further thousand word tangent on aged rolling stock of the NW from Shed is likely to make any difference to the fact that screwing over LHR expansion won't help MAN.

But it will continue to help AMS, CDG, FRA, MAD.

OOPS! You should have said! ;-)

They were simple enough questions, Shed, was merely seeking clarification.

Dear, oh dear! Are these numbers supposed to enthuse the regions and justify yet more massively imbalanced investment in the SE alone? Just do the maths here. Even if that £102Bn number is in any way credible, the W Mids windfall is just under 1%, the NE share is shy of 0.2%, Scotland scores around the 0.15% mark. It appears that these numbers demonstrate my point, not yours. Talk about crumbs from the rich man's table!

Don't shoot the messenger, was not agreeing or disagreeing. Apparently it is an accepted view, right or wrong, and not just applicable to LHR expansion.

Could it be that a Manchester crossrail between Liverpool and Leeds, a similar distance as Thameslink (between Bedford and Brighton), for example, would offer similar benefits around the country as well?

Many corporate entities which derive profits nationwide and globally declare profits from a London HQ address.

Again, just asking the qestion, which was about taxation not profits.

Should these taxes 'raised in London' be spent on Londoners alone? Besides, to attribute taxes raised by district would be a futile and pointless endeavour.

Is that yes or no?

Agree with your second sentence, although that is the logical end result of devolution.

HS2 is an extremely complex topic. I follow the debate with great interest on the rail forum of the skyscrapercity website. Best not open this can of worms on the PPRuNe LHR thread!

It isn't. The way it's been planned is a "pig in a poke". It will suck more economic activity to the south and undermine any idea of a "Northern powerhouse".

Another debate for skyscraper really. But the main issue on this route is capacity rather than line-speed. The best outcome would be to double up the route to four tracks (two fast, two slow) all the way to the junction with the ECML. (Much) longer trains are essential too. Travel distances between the various major centres of population clustered along this route are too short to enable a conventional high-speed model to work.

Exactly, but this is required as well as LHR expansion (and other infrastructure requirements), not instead of. Simple as that.

Or would these be the same independent experts on the payroll of GIP (Gatwick, your London airport)?

Obviously

No doubt Londoners are glad we did. 21 years on from opening, those of us in the regions are still patiently awaiting the first of those daily trains to Paris and Brussels which we were promised "because the tunnel is a project for the whole nation." And which we were then promised again when the contract for construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) was awarded in 1996. Judging by the recent disgraceful decision to axe the proposed short spur from HS2 to HS1 saving just 2% of the overall projected cost, attitudes towards incorporating regional interests have not yet changed in Whitehall.

Refer you to my comments about the bad planning of HS2, this is just one example: its London terminal should be at St Pancras to allow trains to/from the north to access Europe via the tunnel.

Of course it is Willie Walsh's job to fight for the best interests of IAG. But that does not mean that his stated objections to LHR R3 have no basis in fact. His objections are 100% justified by any rational measure. It just makes his task more straightforward that shareholders interests are aligned with his in taking a robust stance against massive misallocation of capital resources as proposed at LHR.

Clearly it's a double-edge sword for IAG, one one hand there's more competition and the likelihood of other UK carriers operating from LHR, on the other, there's plenty of free slots to be had which, of course, is a huge saving.

[Bagso]

John McDonnell MP condemns Heathrow Airport’s non-payment of Corporation Tax - John McDonnell
John McDonnell MP condemns Heathrow Airport?s non-payment of Corporation Tax - John McDonnell


Hmmmmm... maybe somebody needs to recalculate the benefits of the "tax take " ?

[Una Due Tfc]

Right first of all I'm not a UK tax payer or resident, so I'm genuinely not all that bothered either way, it's not my money and it's not my country. I can see both sides of the argument and both have very valid points.

The bigger the hub the more marginal routes it can sustain. 80% of pax on some routes might be international transfers, but they pay taxes to your government, support jobs in UK companies (airlines, shops, cleaners, customs etc), and crucially open up new business opportunities for UK companies, both in the cabin and the hold.

But the question of where to draw the line cost wise is a valid one and is hard to quantify. Ideally you could say "increased tax revenue from all this extra business will pay off the runway in x years" (anything less than 30 in my opinion would be worth it), but that's a tough thing to prove.

I've noticed from the argument that it seems to be the pro MAN folks who are opposed. Totally understandable as it's your tax money just as much as any Londoner. But I have a question for you: WW has more than doubled the number of EI pilots set to do the A320 to A330 conversion course this year for EI, as well as increasing the number of cadets being hired and changing the cadetship to a fully funded one. Many of you see DUB as your main rival now. WW has made no secret of the fact he wants to make DUB and EI the hub for North America for the UK regions if R3 doesn't get the go ahead in LHR. So the question is thus: LHR 3 or DUB hub? One costs you nothing up front, the other may cost much longer term.

Edit: more EI pilots, more EI long haul aircraft, more UK taxes lost to DUB. Would that change where the financial line is drawn? The 4 Little Red A320s have come home and are being pointed at UK regionals currently served by ATRs too.