HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree with your comments were we talking about the surface works in isolation and not as part of a larger project.
This is not a matter of deciding which projects to put taxpayers money into and the need to provide equal funding around the UK.
It is to do with a private company with a strong business case to upgrade its asset and provide the UK with billions of extra income. As part of this plan there is also the need to upgrade the transport infrastructure around the site.
To do this at the same time as the project will benefit those driving straight past LHR along the M25 or M4 as well as those going to/from the airport. It will be sensible to carry out this work as part of the larger expansion scheme than separately further down the line.
Yes, that money could also be spent elsewhere but without the same return the UK plc will get from R3.
No it doesn't but it does attract the foreign investment. Maybe we should tell them they need to put their money into alternative projects that have been waiting for funding for 30+ years and see how fast they run.
It is not about where we put our money unfortunately but about where the outside money wants to be and how we can benefit from that.
This is not a matter of deciding which projects to put taxpayers money into and the need to provide equal funding around the UK.
It is to do with a private company with a strong business case to upgrade its asset and provide the UK with billions of extra income. As part of this plan there is also the need to upgrade the transport infrastructure around the site.
To do this at the same time as the project will benefit those driving straight past LHR along the M25 or M4 as well as those going to/from the airport. It will be sensible to carry out this work as part of the larger expansion scheme than separately further down the line.
Yes, that money could also be spent elsewhere but without the same return the UK plc will get from R3.
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.
It is not about where we put our money unfortunately but about where the outside money wants to be and how we can benefit from that.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but without the same return the UK plc will get from R3
Maybe we should tell them they need to put their money into alternative projects that have been waiting for funding for 30+ years and see how fast they run.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice soundbite.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out Highways England for an announcement in 2014 about planned upgrades to the M25 & M4 near Heathrow.
They're working through scheme design now. So public funding will already be allocated. Don't see how Heathrow can be billed for work that's already planned for and required regardless of any additional runway.
They're working through scheme design now. So public funding will already be allocated. Don't see how Heathrow can be billed for work that's already planned for and required regardless of any additional runway.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please provide a link to anything published that shows a plan for T6 if R3 is not built.
Wrong Frank.
T3 airlines will move in to an expanded T2.
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.
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.
Don't gorget, 5D and 5E have to go somewhere as well. Speculation on my part but wait and see, things change, especially over such a long timespan. Would say more likely than not.
This is a rumour network, the clue's in the name.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour = a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth
Conjecture = an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information
Supposition = a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis
Conjecture = an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information
Supposition = a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice soundbite. Ferrovial will invest only in their own business. Nobody will be dictating to them what to do with internal company funds.
All this money is coming out of the same few pots. (Ming Vases).
Don't forget, 5D and 5E have to go somewhere as well.
Something I don't understand and seems to be ignored in the current plans - the future of T4. It's already a bit of an anomaly; on the south side of the airport, which causes operational issues and is mainly manned by those airlines that aren't part of an alliance club. The new train that will connect passengers from T6-T5-T2 seems to miss T4 altogether.
Last edited by Dannyboy39; 22nd Oct 2015 at 18:44.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow: Cameron 'preparing to drop opposition to third runway' - Telegraph
Good news for Heathrow RW3 this morning.
Good news for Heathrow RW3 this morning.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it probably is, especially as it's expecting the pro-Heathrow George Osborne to make the announcement. The article did include this however.
Not sure what McLoughlin's alleged assurance refers to or 'final decision' means. There is an impression perhaps from this and previous comments he remains to be convinced.
Sounds like it might be approved in principle subject to various qualifications that will drag the thing out.
Justine Greening, the Tory MP for Putney and International Development Secretary, has promised to continue fighting against expansion at Heathrow.
She has told her constituents that she has been assured by Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, that there will be a new public consultation on plans before a final decision is taken.
The high costs of expanding Heathrow and the impact on the environment, including noise and air pollution, remain the subjects of considerable argument.
She has told her constituents that she has been assured by Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, that there will be a new public consultation on plans before a final decision is taken.
The high costs of expanding Heathrow and the impact on the environment, including noise and air pollution, remain the subjects of considerable argument.
Sounds like it might be approved in principle subject to various qualifications that will drag the thing out.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something I don't understand and seems to be ignored in the current plans - the future of T4. It's already a bit of an anomaly; on the south side of the airport, which causes operational issues and is mainly manned by those airlines that aren't part of an alliance club. The new train that will connect passengers from T6-T5-T2 seems to miss T4 altogether.
easyJet and HAL agreed that the suitability of Heathrow for easyJet’s operations would be tested against Terminal 4. easyJet toured Terminal 4 and discussed operational issues around the terminal with HAL.
easyJet indicated that they would be interested in basing between 15 and 30 aircraft at Heathrow and carry between 5 and 9 million passengers annually on around 30-55,000 Air Traffic Movements per year. This was based on easyJet’s modelling of market demand and operational business case. easyJet clarified that the exact scale of the fleet and passenger numbers would be based on a number of factors, including the economic environment at the time, opportunities in other markets and the like.
The potential to depart all easyJet home based aircraft from between 6am and 8am was assessed. HAL noted based on initial analysis that this was feasible. easyJet believed this aligned well with predominantly foreign based carriers that arrive early morning in Terminal 4 (leaving stands available after easyJet’s early morning departures) and depart in the evening (thereby freeing up stands for easyJet to park overnight).
Stands
The number of stands available at Terminal 4 and any potential fit for an easyJet operation was assessed. HAL confirmed that Terminal 4 has 35 stands today. easyJet believes this is sufficient for its scale of future operation. Heathrow noted that it would provide stands for as many aircraft as possible based on all airlines’ requirements and not on preference alone as consistent with the stand allocation process today. Heathrow also noted that its aim is for stands to be utilised in the most efficient manner possible.
HAL also noted that the stands in Terminal 4 are, or could be converted to, MARS stands that can accommodate easyJet’s narrow body fleet (Code C) as well as the wide body fleet of foreign based carriers that could also operate out of Terminal 4.
Walk-in-walk-out
easyJet assessed the extent to which Terminal 4 is suitable for walk-in-walk-out operations. HAL believed that easyJet could physically use Terminal 4’s existing facility for walk-in-walk-out operations, allowing boarding of aircraft using both front and back doors.
easyJet indicated that they would be interested in basing between 15 and 30 aircraft at Heathrow and carry between 5 and 9 million passengers annually on around 30-55,000 Air Traffic Movements per year. This was based on easyJet’s modelling of market demand and operational business case. easyJet clarified that the exact scale of the fleet and passenger numbers would be based on a number of factors, including the economic environment at the time, opportunities in other markets and the like.
The potential to depart all easyJet home based aircraft from between 6am and 8am was assessed. HAL noted based on initial analysis that this was feasible. easyJet believed this aligned well with predominantly foreign based carriers that arrive early morning in Terminal 4 (leaving stands available after easyJet’s early morning departures) and depart in the evening (thereby freeing up stands for easyJet to park overnight).
Stands
The number of stands available at Terminal 4 and any potential fit for an easyJet operation was assessed. HAL confirmed that Terminal 4 has 35 stands today. easyJet believes this is sufficient for its scale of future operation. Heathrow noted that it would provide stands for as many aircraft as possible based on all airlines’ requirements and not on preference alone as consistent with the stand allocation process today. Heathrow also noted that its aim is for stands to be utilised in the most efficient manner possible.
HAL also noted that the stands in Terminal 4 are, or could be converted to, MARS stands that can accommodate easyJet’s narrow body fleet (Code C) as well as the wide body fleet of foreign based carriers that could also operate out of Terminal 4.
Walk-in-walk-out
easyJet assessed the extent to which Terminal 4 is suitable for walk-in-walk-out operations. HAL believed that easyJet could physically use Terminal 4’s existing facility for walk-in-walk-out operations, allowing boarding of aircraft using both front and back doors.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will be interesting to see if EZY get a foot in the the door
It will certainly have a massive impact on BA ops and Heathrows hub status.
Must confess I thought that was the whole point of maintaining the hub in the first place ?
It's has always confused me that many supporters of RW3 have suggested their support is because they want a hub and yet at the same time they seem somewhat oblivious to the fact that an airline like EZY could impact a number of routes and make them commercially vulnerable thus undermining the whole hub philosophy!
It will also be curtains for many LGW routes.
It will certainly have a massive impact on BA ops and Heathrows hub status.
Must confess I thought that was the whole point of maintaining the hub in the first place ?
It's has always confused me that many supporters of RW3 have suggested their support is because they want a hub and yet at the same time they seem somewhat oblivious to the fact that an airline like EZY could impact a number of routes and make them commercially vulnerable thus undermining the whole hub philosophy!
It will also be curtains for many LGW routes.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although a very interesting and detailed account of Easyjet and their preference for a third runway at Heathrow the article does date from January 2015 and not recently commissioned, although I assume nothing has changed since then except for a few potential destinations they have listed.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet again Bagso, you're mistaken. All the major operators at LHR are keen to grab as many interlining passengers as possible, it's not just BA who use LHR as a connection opportunity. This is why all the STAR airlines (come on Air India!!) are under one roof and most of Skyteam as well. It's not just a hub for one airline, it's a major spoke and connecting on point for loads more.
It is now contrary to IAG's commercial interests for LHR to be opened up again as they've just dragged BA short haul into profit and EZY would impact that profit centre massively.
However the consumer would likely win as BA would be forced to drop point to point fares in Europe at the same time as opening up new long haul. The down side is you bet everyone will be driving staff costs even further down to pay for it all.
It is now contrary to IAG's commercial interests for LHR to be opened up again as they've just dragged BA short haul into profit and EZY would impact that profit centre massively.
However the consumer would likely win as BA would be forced to drop point to point fares in Europe at the same time as opening up new long haul. The down side is you bet everyone will be driving staff costs even further down to pay for it all.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that's what WW will claim with a heavy dose of veracity...
However propping up a commercial organisation to the detriment of the entire economy isn't the best idea I've heard lately.
However propping up a commercial organisation to the detriment of the entire economy isn't the best idea I've heard lately.