HEATHROW
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Evening, Frank ...
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?
Again, just asking the qestion, which was about taxation not profits.
Is that yes or no?
Exactly, but this is required as well as LHR expansion (and other infrastructure requirements), not instead of. Simple as that.
I am in agreement with much of your remaining commentary. Thankyou for the feedback as always.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Una Due Tfc
I've noticed from the argument that it seems to be the pro MAN folks who are opposed.
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
As you know, my own posting location is Manchester. However, that does not mean that my postings are slaved to the best interests of my closest airport. The record shows that I argued the case for LGW expansion prior to publication of the Davies Report. This was because IMO LGW offered the SE a reservoir of additional runway slots at a significantly less prohibitive price than does LHR R3. An operational trade-off in return for much less financial exposure, with particular emphasis on the projected requirement to draw from scarce public funds. If you are interested in my detailed reasoning on all this, my archived postings on the topic remain easily accessible.
Out of interest, some of the LHR advocates challenged me on my support for LGW arguing that expansion there would be detrimental to MAN itself as well as to MAG's stablemate at STN. I actually disagreed with many of those suggestions anyway, but the point is that I do support cost-effective provision of airport infrastructure in the SE regardless of any anticipated negative implications for MAN.
Moving on to the 'LHR R3 or DUB hub' question. Quite understandably (on an aviation forum), the question is posed purely within the context of this industry. And on this level, MAN must be ready to compete with all its competitors for business regardless of which of these is in the ascendancy. However, whilst I do of course wish to see Manchester Airport prosper, my answer on this issue must address bigger considerations.
For me, the fundamental problem with the LHR R3 proposal is cost, specifically the publicly funded portion thereof. Davies puts this at £5Bn, Sir Peter Hendy (very well placed to judge) at £10Bn and TfL at £20Bn. I accept that TfL's number may be too high - perhaps politically motivated as some here suggest. But Davies' number does seem too low as well, and Sir Peter Hendy's number pitched at just half the highest projection makes a lot of sense. Now, please keep in mind that £10Bn is more than ten times the largest sum of public money which has ever been allocated to a standalone transport infrastructure project outside the SE. Over the last three decades, London and the SE has enjoyed a conveyor belt of multi-billion pound projects supported by public funds. Endorsements now for further multiple billions in favour of LHR R3 and Crossrail 2 will assure that the regional famine in public infrastructure investment will be locked in for many more years to come. The infrastructure funding budget is finite. If London monopolises it again, the regions will pay a terrible price. Their transport infrastructure is already a generation behind that enjoyed in the SE.
This for me is the key issue, and as you will appreciate it goes way beyond aviation considerations alone. That there might (or might not) be a slightly better outcome for Manchester Airport specifically dependent on the LHR R3 decision cannot be allowed to take precedence over the more important consideration. The time is right for public funding of transport infrastructure initiatives to be more equitably distributed around the UK as a whole. It is not an airport v airport issue. It is yet more public infrastructure investment concentrated in the SE only v the elusive concept of a fair share of public infrastructure investment everywhere else.
Are there any figures available for LHR's contibution the UK Exchequer currently? Because let's be honest within ten years a new runway at Heathrow would be full, so increase the currently available figures by say a third (just to be conservative) and use that as a ballpark figure for how long R3 will take to payoff. Obviously that won't include airport personnel taxes, increased business activity but that's extremely difficult to quantify and open to manipulation by both sides.
Thinking about NW passengers (and me) travelling to the USA - why would I take a short flight to DUB, change gauge for the second sector when I can use my local airport MAN and fly a single sector to get where I want. Pre-clearance discounted as it may feature at both airports and, likewise, over and beyond domestically as it amounts to the same.
Price I can hear you shouting but it's still an extra sector ........
Price I can hear you shouting but it's still an extra sector ........
Thinking about NW passengers (and me) travelling to the USA - why would I take a short flight to DUB, change gauge for the second sector when I can use my local airport MAN and fly a single sector to get where I want. Pre-clearance discounted as it may feature at both airports and, likewise, over and beyond domestically as it amounts to the same.
Price I can hear you shouting but it's still an extra sector ........
Price I can hear you shouting but it's still an extra sector ........
DUB is just an example. Not every service that would commence in a 3 runway Heathrow will switch to another UK airport instead. In fact I'd argue most won't. But again, it all depends on figures, cost/benefit. And I doubt either side will be totally honest with those in the public domain.
Last edited by Una Due Tfc; 6th Oct 2015 at 08:06.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm very near to MAN thus not so concerned with those airports.
To try and sum up a bit, the arguments for expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick come down to whether the hub requirement will be met or not. You will not turn Gatwick into a hub that could rival the plans for LHR without spending significantly more money than is being proposed at the moment. The LGW option is to add a new runway that will help Gatwick but do nothing for congestion at LHR. The debate on expansion there will still go on.
R3 will allow people from LBA etc. to take the shuttle down to LHR and fly to pretty much anywhere. There will inevitably be a loss of future new routes at Manchester that would not be viable without the pax from the other regions making the long drive instead of taking the shuttle down to LHR.
I would however say that those people deserve to make their own decisions and would rather take a cheaper taxi from home to the local airport and a 45 minute shuttle to an airport which will open up the world to them, also the chance to fly in large economical comfortable aircraft. (Before making the obvious comments about transfer times at LHR we are talking about building a new facility so that argument is invalid).
Now we have the cost of the project. The majority of this is coming from private investment and will boost our economy. The project will create jobs and opportunities throughout the whole of the UK as well as increased access to the rest of the world thereafter so this therefore is a win win situation.
The publicly funded part is the main cause for concern for some. This has been estimated at between 5 and 20 billion pounds. I cannot believe that figure has not been narrowed down and an actual budget been drawn up but lets just go with £10bn.
We now need to know the figure that would be required to maintain or upgrade the existing infrastructure had the expansion not taken place. The M25 and M4/A4 are in dire need of widening at this location anyway and this would not be cheap. I strongly suspect a large part of this cost is being shifted into the LHR budget but if R3 doesn't go ahead it will still need to be spent. We need to know this figure and minus it from the LHR budget.
This figure will now be significantly lower and I find it hard to believe that these sums have not already been done by somebody with the facts.
Now we will have the publicly funded part of the direct costs of R3. A large chunk of this cost will come back in taxes on wages and VAT so is not really being spent at all. There are not many civil engineering contractors based in Central London so this work would probably be carried out by companies from around the UK.
A figure can also be obtained of the proposed benefits to the country as a whole and this put side by side with the above. I do not have access to the facts to calculate the above and doubt anyone on here has but the calculation can and should be done.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
travelling to the USA - why would I take a short flight to DUB, change gauge for the second sector when I can use my local airport MAN and fly a single sector to get where I want.
You think INV is not looking to get a connection to LHR? They know the inward investment that's going to bring on a one stop single ticket (oneworld, STAR or Skyteam) to the Highlands from a huge number of world cities, a market easyJet quite rightly, don't do.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 6th Oct 2015 at 13:04.
Forgive me saying so, but that argument is a fairly desperate way of justifying public expenditure of any sort.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just trying to show that this money is not going straight out of the public coffers never to be seen again as some people seem to think when looking at these large sums. A large part of the money can be recycled into other projects.
It's the same for HS2, Crossrail etc. etc.
It's the same for HS2, Crossrail etc. etc.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My last posting did not seem to raise any issues re funding but I will remind readers that HAL paid zero, that's zero corporation tax in last accounts , post 3720 refers therefore can we assume they made no money ?
If they cannot make on money on the Golden Goose how will they raise funding for RW3 ?
If as some on here would have us believe they ARE of course making billions, it raises another question...
Why are WE not seeing the benefit ?
If they cannot make on money on the Golden Goose how will they raise funding for RW3 ?
If as some on here would have us believe they ARE of course making billions, it raises another question...
Why are WE not seeing the benefit ?
Last edited by Bagso; 6th Oct 2015 at 16:58.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It means they made no 'profit'. They certainly made money.
They also opened a world class terminal so potential profit may have been offset a little recently.
As for not seeing any are you serious? LHR is responsible for over 25,000 jobs. These people pay income tax etc.
They also opened a world class terminal so potential profit may have been offset a little recently.
As for not seeing any are you serious? LHR is responsible for over 25,000 jobs. These people pay income tax etc.
But they aren't dependent on R3, of course. Heathrow isn't going to disappear, and even the owners seem to have given up lately on the disingenuous argument that "expand or die" are the only possible scenarios.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...mmission/about
Which is par for the course, a commission is usually set up either to advise the Government on a decision or to kick any decision-making into the long grass (delete as applicable).
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without wishing to get too political, the Infrastructure Commission seems to have been set up for two main reasons. Firstly, to give George Osborne an excuse to poach Andrew Adonis from the Labour Party; secondly, to create one body which will drive through major national instrastructure projects.
If a decision is to be made on R3 (a big if), I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron and Osborne announce that they will devolve responsbility for the decision to the Infrastructure Commission and back the result, as a means of limiting their political involvement with it and ducking the 2009/10 pledges. My understanding is that nearly everyone at the top of government (who hasn't a London seat) now sees that Heathrow expansion is in the national interest; the Commission may provide the excuse to back it again.
If a decision is to be made on R3 (a big if), I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron and Osborne announce that they will devolve responsbility for the decision to the Infrastructure Commission and back the result, as a means of limiting their political involvement with it and ducking the 2009/10 pledges. My understanding is that nearly everyone at the top of government (who hasn't a London seat) now sees that Heathrow expansion is in the national interest; the Commission may provide the excuse to back it again.