HEATHROW

[Fairdealfrank]

Going off The Delhi route shop, there are 54000 O+D passengers on the route. The Manchester Evening News quotes airport bosses thus:

"They estimate that of the four million people from within it who fly from London, 100,000 go to Hong Kong, as well as 60,000 to Beijing, 113,000 to Bangkok, 50,000 to Delhi and 70,000 to Mumbai.".

Got that wrong then!

Frank, just to back up Ringwayman's point, at a presentation I attended about 2 years ago, Mumbai and Delhi were 6th and 7th in a list of underserved or unserved long haul destinations from MAN. In fact, they were a few positions above Jeddah which now has a 4 x weekly service. I'd be surprised if that situation has changed dramatically since then.

Hong Kong - on course for that
Beijing - to be announced Friday per hints in the FT
Bangkok - would probably need a low-cost long-haul operator as Thai isn't really in a fit position with appropriate aircraft to launch such a route

But combined 120,000 for Mumbai-Delhi? 328 passengers per day. Seems a very good starting point for a service knowing that launching a route normally stimulates more demand.

Two questions have to be asked:
(1) of the 50,000 to Delhi and 70,000 to Bombay how much of this is NOT low yield VFR traffic?
(2) can this traffic be tempted away from EK, EY, QR, TK, etc.?

If there's serious money to be made on the route(s), do you not think that at least one carrier would be doing non-stop/direct flights by now, especially where bi-lateral restrictions have been liberalised or scrapped? Ringway certainly does not have a rwy capacity problem!

It's the reticence of airlines to even THINK of not having to serve London to meet the UK market that hinders regional UK growth. It appears that having a non-stop CX service at MAN has not held back any operator offering connecting service there from either MAN or LHR.

The trouble with rwy capacity restrictions at Heathrow is that routes are lost to the entire UK. If unable to access LHR carriers use AMS, CDG, FRA instead in order to access comparable levels of high yield traffic. Maybe an inconvenient truth, but it is the reality.

Looking at the footprint of the land needed for R3 will IAG now move their headquarters from Waterside to a site in Spain, Madrid?

Or Dublin?

That's a novel concept.

It's nonsense, of course - the T3 footprint will be replaced by the final bunch of T2 satellites to complete the "toast-rack" configuration.

Unless you're suggesting that all Heathrow's operators are going to switch to A380s, terminal capacity south of the Bath Road will be more than enough to handle all the traffic that a 2-runway airport would generate.

Not nonsense. As you state, "the T3 footprint will be replaced by the final bunch of T2 satellites to complete the "toast-rack" configuration." So the current occupants have to go somewhere, and that is the sixth terminal which will have an airside section accross the A4, and doubtless other infrastructure will be needed over there. Not tomorrow, but within a reasonable timescale. Without a third rwy, some of LHR's movements will involve some increasingly larger aircraft over time, obviously.

This thread seems to be more about Manchester than Heathrow lately.

Indeed it does!

I understand what your saying prophead - to a point, but what we are looking at is solution to LHR overcrowding. MAN can provide a part solution to this, as can Birmingham too, as in the case of the above mentioned now cancelled AI. That could have easily flown from MAN, freeing up that pair of slots at LHR, and MAN handling the hundreds of pax per day that would use it, and also giving people of the north a chance to use a northern airport rather than treck to LHR / AMS / FRA or CDG. Same could be said of other routes, each one that flew from MAN/BHX would ease LHR just a little. LHR is full, MAN/BHX are not, there is demand from north of Watford, but we add to the weight placed on LHR by forcing folk through it. It just makes no sense, to me anyway.

Two points:
(1) this would only relieve LHR up to a point, it could also generate entirely new journeys just as the no frills have done with their new routes;
(2) flights to/from BHX/MAN need sufficient premium business pax to make a profit, low yield VFR doesn't cut the mustard and the "ME4" already have that business stitched up despite being the long way round in most cases;
(3) BHX/MAN are not hubs for longhaul, they are at the end of spokes, so they need to have carriers linking them to their respective hubs. That's what BA does at LHR (though not to/from BHX).

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank

Not nonsense. As you state, "the T3 footprint will be replaced by the final bunch of T2 satellites to complete the "toast-rack" configuration." So the current occupants have to go somewhere, and that is the sixth terminal which will have an airside section across the A4, and doubtless other infrastructure will be needed over there. Not tomorrow, but within a reasonable timescale. Without a third rwy, some of LHR's movements will involve some increasingly larger aircraft over time, obviously.

Sorry, but simply repeating your assertion, still without any evidence, doesn't make it any more true.

T6 would clearly be necessary to support the ~700,000 ATMs that a third runway would allow. Please provide some evidential basis for your argument that traffic with two runways, even allowing for a gradual increase in average aircraft size, would necessitate additional terminal capacity over and above that of the proposed East/West toast-rack configuration.

[Porky Speedpig]

New BA routes from LHR Summer 2016

reported to be Biarritz, Mahon, Palermo. Seems like the ghost of DanAir lives on?

[Skipness One Echo]

It's the reticence of airlines to even THINK of not having to serve London to meet the UK market that hinders regional UK growth. It appears that having a non-stop CX service at MAN has not held back any operator offering connecting service there from either MAN or LHR.

Very good point, however it's maybe worth considering the terms of what you're saying. If you want to serve the UK market via long haul, LHR has both historically and currently performed better than anywhere else. No one would seek to serve "the UK market" from MAN *only*, whereas loads serve the UK market from LHR only.
Compare LHR:MAN like for like in terms of frequency of those carriers offering service from both airports.(if someone wants to do capacity feel free)
It's skewed way beyond population density I think?

Eastbound
CX 5:1
SQ 4:1 (split with MUC)
EK 5:3
EY 2:3
QR 6:2

Westbound
UA 17:2
AA 17:3
DL 12:1
DL / VS 29:4 ** amended for Westbound only
AC 12: 1 (MAN = Rouge and seasonal)
FI 2:1
BA well......maybe not.

[Fairdealfrank]

Sorry, but simply repeating your assertion, still without any evidence, doesn't make it any more true.

T6 would clearly be necessary to support the ~700,000 ATMs that a third runway would allow. Please provide some evidential basis for your argument that traffic with two runways, even allowing for a gradual increase in average aircraft size, would necessitate additional terminal capacity over and above that of the proposed East/West toast-rack configuration.

Apology accepted. BTW, it's 740,000 movements in total with a third rwy.

LHR-3 will eventually be demolished to make way for extra "toastracks" for completed LHR-1/2 and for LHR-5. The existing occupants of LHR-3 (mostly Oneworld carriers) have to go somewhere and this will LHR-6, which will be located adjacant to LHR-5 (BA and IB and maybe EI by then(?)) thus locating all of One world near eachother.

Unfortunately, the airside of LHR-6 cannot be to the west because of the M25 and the Poyle trading estate, so it would probably go north as per the plans with a third rwy.

Sooner or later, probably later, this will be needed. Speculation at this time, and will be until December, when the government runs away from a decison in favour of a third rwy.

It was always said that there would be no LHR-4, then later, no LHR-5, but both terminals were built without rwy expansion, and after the government had declared LHR "full" (1977).

Very good point, however it's maybe worth considering the terms of what you're saying. If you want to serve the UK market via long haul, LHR has both historically and currently performed better than anywhere else. No one would seek to serve "the UK market" from MAN *only*, whereas loads serve the UK market from LHR only.
Compare LHR:MAN like for like in terms of frequency of those carriers offering service from both airports.(if someone wants to do capacity feel free)
It's skewed way beyond population density I think?

Eastbound
CX 5:1
SQ 4:1 (split with MUC)
EK 5:3
EY 2:3
QR 6:2

Westbound
UA 17:2
AA 17:3
DL 12:1
DL / VS 35:4
AC 12: 1 (MAN = Rouge and seasonal)
FI 2:1
BA well......maybe not.

Also check out the aircraft size in each case and number of seats on offer.......

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank

Unfortunately, the airside of LHR-6 cannot be to the west because of the M25 and the Poyle trading estate, so it would probably go north as per the plans with a third rwy.

Again, an assertion accompanied by absolutely no evidence.

Please provide a link to anything published that shows a plan for T6 if R3 is not built.

[roverman]

Skipness,

If what is currently on the MAN thread is to be believed, and that seems to have some basis, then a long-haul carrier will indeed serve the UK from MAN only.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Skipness - You missed a key Westbound scheduled TA operator: MAN's largest.

TCX 0:5 [Summer 2016]. Also TSC 0:1.5 - if we're counting ACA then TSC qualifies too. Eastbound MAN also offers SVA, PIA, IAW and (coming soon) Shaheen Air plus the hotly tipped Hainan services. Thomson long-haul is also 0:2.

Of course, we all know that LHR offers a far larger long-haul programme than MAN ... is that really the point you're trying to make? Why? But if you are going to engage in this exercise, then you must play fair and not exclude those carriers whose operations favour MAN's side of the calculation.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank

The existing occupants of LHR-3 (mostly Oneworld carriers) have to go somewhere and this will LHR-6, which will be located adjacant to LHR-5 (BA and IB and maybe EI by then(?)) thus locating all of One world near each other.

Wrong Frank.

T3 airlines will move in to an expanded T2.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

if you are going to engage in this exercise, then you must play fair and not exclude those carriers whose operations favour MAN's side of the calculation.

Equally Shed, if you're going to introduce airlines that only operate from MAN, then you have to include those only operating from LHR.

But as Skip said:

Compare LHR:MAN like for like in terms of frequency of those carriers offering service from both airports

It was comparing LHR:MAN like for like in terms of frequency of those carriers offering service from both airports.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Equally Shed, if you're going to introduce airlines that only operate from MAN, then you have to include those only operating from LHR.

T&N: This may surprise you, but for once I completely agree with you. If you're going to conduct a statistical exercise, then you must include all the data affecting both subject airports to yield meaningful results.

Skipness may do better to stick with the raw passenger stats per route or such like. Or even compare total long-haul pax per airport. But again, this only proves that LHR has a far stronger long-haul market than MAN which nobody here is disputing. What is the point of even arguing over this?

[Skipness One Echo]

If what is currently on the MAN thread is to be believed, and that seems to have some basis, then a long-haul carrier will indeed serve the UK from MAN only.

Hainan of course and well done to MAN. However this is old school bilateral routing rather than commercially driven open market profit seeking.
The schedule is, not the best in terms of timings, let's hope it does better than their sister company's LGW-HKG.

[FFHKG]

In the past, used to fly regularly from out of PEK, PVG & HKG and was always surprised at the number of passengers connecting onto to MAN (and the regions) on these flights. With CX getting a LF of 90%+ out of MAN, it does suggest that there is indeed a market and that HN's MAN/PEK route will not suffer the same fate as their sister company did with its HKG/LGW flights. If they get their price structure right, they might even make an impact on the ME3's connecting traffic from the N of E to East Asia!

[DaveReidUK]

Wrong Frank.

T3 airlines will move in to an expanded T2.

Correct, the long-term plan is for several phases of expansion, to provide the following total ballpark capacities:

Current T2A/T2B: 20 mppa
+T2E: 30 mppa
+T2D: 40 mppa
+T2C: 50 mppa

Whether and when those all happen is obviously dependent on R3 going ahead. With no R3, the suggestion that T6 needs to be built to accommodate displaced carriers while T3 disappears under the toast-rack is, frankly, ludicrous.

[Prophead]

There is no need for T6 without R3. The current construction work at LHR is all about aligning everything with the East/West runways rather than around the old star shaped system.

Can't we forget any Manchester talk now and keep this thread about turning the UK's premium airport into a major hub? The customers are already waiting, we don't need to worry about that. The money is waiting to be invested we have no issues there.

It really should be a no brainer and I am only glad the nimby's never had as much power in the days of the railway boom or the construction of the motorway network or we would be well and truly scuppered.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

keep this thread about turning the UK's premium airport into a major hub?

But I thought you said you didn't want to talk about MAN! :-)

The money is waiting to be invested we have no issues there.

Errr ... Hang on a minute. You haven't really been paying attention, have you?

It really should be a no brainer

For folks who don't know how to work a calculator, maybe!

[Prophead]

Errr ... Hang on a minute. You haven't really been paying attention, have you?

I have been paying attention for years, I worked on R3 related infrastructure 8 years ago. The money from investors has never been a problem and I doubt it ever will be as the business case is so good.

For folks who don't know how to work a calculator, maybe!

Maybe you can enlighten me? Why don't the figures stack up? What is it that the people ready to invest megabucks have missed that you seem to know about?

Any legitimate issues need to be looked at but I get really annoyed when these things are just kicked further down the road for political reasons.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

The money from investors has never been a problem

And the money required from taxpayer funds?

I doubt it ever will be as the business case is so good.

Re-read from Post 3662 for alternative interpretations of this.

Maybe you can enlighten me? Why don't the figures stack up?

Where has the anguished facepalm emoticon gone? Seriously, in planning this answer I recalled a poster criticising this thread for going round in circles. I found that comment in Post No. 3664. Turns out it was posted by you!

Post 3662 addresses your question directly. Subsequent postings debate matters arising. You may have been "paying attention for years". But apparently you weren't paying attention when all this was discussed in depth a couple of weeks ago.

[Prophead]

And the money required from taxpayer funds?

£5bn? For upgraded M4, M25 (Which needs doing anyway) and a national hub airport benefiting the whole of the UK? Over £18bn total cost, mostly from foreign investment which will itself possibly generate tax equal to most of the initial £5bn?

Do it.

And what's more, should any project anywhere else provide the same benefit and have attracted the outside investment then build that too.

I am not against investment in the North the same way you're against further investment in the south but if I were paying for it and hoping for a good return then I know where I would be putting my money.

If the large scale infrastructure projects in the north can attract the investment and provide a similar business case to that of R3 then great. I would see no reason not to go ahead. Again, it's not me that has to be convinced. Hopefully the Chinese will go away from their visit with some good plans for further investment.

Re-read from Post 3662 for alternative interpretations of this

YOUR post by any chance? Sorry, but I will accept the findings of the government and those who are willing to put billions of £££ on the line over your own.

You have still not acknowledged the fact that much of the infrastructure included in the surface works needs investment anyway. Being where it is the M25/M4 in that area is a major asset that needs attention and investment should the runway go ahead or not.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

£5bn?

Or is it £10Bn (Sir Peter Hendy). Or £20Bn (TfL). Which everybody is saying they will not pay up for.

you're against further investment in the south

I've always been completely clear that I do not oppose investment in the south. But I do endorse fair and equitable distribution of public infrastructure funding nationwide. And that means that the SE is due for a pause after 30 years of monopolising the kitty to give other regions a chance to get their turn and play catch-up.

I know where I would be putting my money.

If you personally can provide the £5Bn - £20Bn required to eliminate the public funding requirement then feel free to put your money into LHR R3. However, if that funding is actually to be provided by the rest of us then deeper concerns must be addressed.

YOUR post by any chance? Sorry, but I will accept the findings of the government and those who are willing to put billions of £££ on the line over your own.

My post(s) which cited several expert sources and which were not a simple personal opinion piece. You can accept whatever findings you like, but don't then insist to the rest of us that the R3 proposals are a "no brainer" just because you contemptuously ignore alternative expert opinion which does not support your pre-conceived preferred outcome.

You have still not acknowledged the fact that much of the infrastructure included in the surface works needs investment anyway.

I acknowledge that there are priority infrastructure projects nationwide which require a combined public funding total far exceeding what is actually available. It is a matter of allocating scarce public resources. And those projects of merit around the regions which have been on hold for 30+ years deserve their turn with no further delay. And yes, they benefit UKplc as a whole too. London does not have a monopoly on the national interest.