HEATHROW

[Barling Magna]

Hell's bells, can't these old Etonians ever make a decision on this.......? What's the point of having an elite establishment if they can't tell us what to do?

[Itchin McCrevis]

It's quite evident the political will to make this decision does not exist.

[c52]

I imagine they think a decision now would be open to judicial review so getting more evidence that they've done everything properly might be a time-saver.

I wonder if there would be a majority in the Commons for the runway.

[PAXboy]

True Blue

Who knows what 5 years will bring in terms of growth etc never mind projecting 30 years out in the multiple billions.

But if the go ahead was given when it was first asked for, we would not have this problem. When was it first asked for? Oh a mere 40 years ago.

Barling Magna

Hell's bells, can't these old Etonians ever make a decision on this.......?

Oh but they DID make a decision. They decided to never have LHR 3. It's just that the short term need for the Conservatives to get their favoured candidate established as the next london Mayor is far, far, far more important than any silly business decision that affects the UK. If they get their boy into the job, they can THEN announce not to have it or any other excuse they have had Sir Humphrey think up.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Heathrow want to expand their airport in order to create a hub.

Somehow along the lines this was turned into a need for an extra runway being needed somewhere in the south east.

That is because traffic growth originating in the SE itself is the business which London's airports system must continue to accommodate, and there are multiple options for dealing with this. Hub transfer business is just icing on the cake, and many argue that London shouldn't even be pursuing this, especially at the prices quoted for making it possible. Even LHR's principal hub airline, British Airways, opposes R3 on the grounds of cost.

Gatwick will never be allowed to grow into the hub that LHR wants to be

See previous answer. Forget the hub paradigm. LGW's second runway would be deployed in satisfying soaring indigenous SE demand to all those unglamorous short-haul leisure destinations which many here want to conveniently ignore. The SE's runways will need to accommodate far more additional movements to Lanzarote and Alicante than to Chongqing and Suzhou. Short-haul leisure travel will continue to make up the largest proportion of SE growth going forward.

in the north I would say that once people realise that they will be able to go from their local airport to pretty much anywhere in the world with just a short flight and easy connection at LHR they change their mind from being totally disinterested in the third runway to being all in favour.

As a resident of said North, I truly struggle to take this comment seriously! Firstly, those located in the North have an impressive and growing list of non-stop long-haul flights to choose from already, straight from their own region. However, for destinations where a connection is required, the choice is quite simple. For example, a one hour flight to LHR followed by a fifteen hour connecting flight to final destination. Or a seven hour flight to a state-of-the-art MEB3 hub with a nine hour onward sector. It is much better to break one's journey close to the half-way point than right at the start. And as for the "easy connection at LHR" ... that would be the one with the aggressive second full security search complete with lengthy queues, followed by a nightmare terminal transfer to reach around 50% of the connecting flights. We'll pass on that, thanks!

I really do not understand why you are so against any of the taxpayers money being used to finance at least the transport works.

To be against government investment just because it is in the south is just sour grapes.

Deary me. Rather than repeat my full reasoning in depth yet again, may I invite you to re-read earlier detailed answers posted by myself on this topic. Because it is in the South? Sour grapes? It is easy - but very lazy - to dismiss opposing arguments with a sly dig like that. I remind you that the works which you refer to require between £5Bn and £20Bn in public funding (dependent on source). I run with Sir Peter Hendy's estimate of £10Bn which is less than half the difference between the two extremes (very generous of me) but this is still an OUTRAGEOUS SUM. The problem is that such funds cannot be allocated twice. Public investment on that scale concentrated in the SE yet again results in an investment nuclear winter for the rest of the UK. We know ... we've had thirty years of it already. For comparison purposes, the North has just been granted its first £1Bn (one billion) public infrastructure investment ever. And that goes on creating 'smart motorways' ... not the new roads we really need. The SE has enjoyed a veritable conveyor-belt of multi-billion pound projects with more bids on the way. World-class infrastructure for London; great, good luck with it. But it is now time to pause for some rebalancing of investment priorities across the rest of the country.

The hub and spoke arrangement will also mean less numbers of aircraft flying long haul out of the UK

So let me get this right. We want LHR R3 so that there will be fewer long-haul flights out of the UK? Though presumably not at the expense of LHR. Is this what you would have us aspire to? Wonderful prospect for any UK business not located in the immediate hinterland of LHR! One suspects that your reasoning here is not altogether impartial!!!

[Dannyboy39]

There is only 1 reason why British Airways is opposed to RWY3 and that's because of 1 stakeholder - British Airways.


BA already get somewhat preferential treatment over other airlines; heck they get their own exclusive airport terminal and a high proportion of the slots. Should the additional capacity (eventually) get the go-ahead, it would open it up to all-comers, such as the LCCs.


Every decision is fuelled by their own self interest. The Davies Commission came up with the wrong answer for the government, so it became a whitewash and waste of money!

[dc9-32]

This delay just keeps a bunch of old gits in work for a bit longer whilst the UK tax payer covers their no doubt huge salary.

[kcockayne]

Dc9

A very cynical comment; but so VERY true !

[Prophead]

bagso

"
PS where does this contribution of "billions of pounds to the economy come from"?

A) No corporation tax was paid last year !

B) Heathrow has foriegn owners, It is not a UK company!

I was of course talking about the boost to the whole of the UK with better access to the rest of the world not that billions of pound would be paid in tax by BAA.

Just because you may not be able to/want to see how this will be generated that doesn't mean it is not true.

I am well aware that BAA is owned by a variety of foreign investment companies.

"Once my friends in The North realised they could fly practically anywhere from MANCHESTER they became totally disinterested in Heathrow " see above

As a resident of said North, I truly struggle to take this comment seriously! Firstly, those located in the North have an impressive and growing list of non-stop long-haul flights to choose from already, straight from their own region.

Well I thought that would ruffle the feathers of the Manchester airport enthusiasts.

The north is a large place, Manchester may be convenient to you but if you lived in Humberside, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Lincolnshire etc. then Manchester isn't that convenient at all. I could pay less than a tenner for a taxi to LBA from my house up there and be in LHR 45 minutes later. For a large part of the north that will always be a preferred option to 2 train journeys often in the early hours of the morning, maybe on a sunday when trains are not running frequently.

Shuttle flights from Humberside, Durham, LBA , Doncaster etc. down to LHR will open up more routes for less hassle. Thats just the way it is I am afraid.

If you think Manchester was the best option then how do you explain the numbers travelling from these airports to Amsterdam for better long haul options?

That is because traffic growth originating in the SE itself is the business which London's airports system must continue to accommodate, and there are multiple options for dealing with this. Hub transfer business is just icing on the cake, and many argue that London shouldn't even be pursuing this, especially at the prices quoted for making it possible. Even LHR's principal hub airline, British Airways, opposes R3 on the grounds of cost.

The hub is not the icing on the cake it was the reason LHR wanted a new runway in the first place. My point was because this decision seems so hard to make it needs to be broken down and the hub vs no hub argument decided first. If the hub idea is a non starter then the LHR case is not as strong. If it is decided that a hub an spoke operation would bebeneficial to the UK then LHR expansion is the only real answer. This idea that you can just build a new runway at any airport in the south east and fix the problem shows a lack of understanding by the government or more likely the need to create an easy political fix.

Deary me. Rather than repeat my full reasoning in depth yet again, may I invite you to re-read earlier detailed answers posted by myself on this topic. Because it is in the South? Sour grapes? It is easy - but very lazy - to dismiss opposing arguments with a sly dig like that. I remind you that the works which you refer to require between £5Bn and £20Bn in public funding (dependent on source). I run with Sir Peter Hendy's estimate of £10Bn which is less than half the difference between the two extremes (very generous of me) but this is still an OUTRAGEOUS SUM. The problem is that such funds cannot be allocated twice. Public investment on that scale concentrated in the SE yet again results in an investment nuclear winter for the rest of the UK. We know ... we've had thirty years of it already. For comparison purposes, the North has just been granted its first £1Bn (one billion) public infrastructure investment ever. And that goes on creating 'smart motorways' ... not the new roads we really need. The SE has enjoyed a veritable conveyor-belt of multi-billion pound projects with more bids on the way. World-class infrastructure for London; great, good luck with it. But it is now time to pause for some rebalancing of investment priorities across the rest of the country.

You really don't get what people have been trying to tell you for pages and pages now. The road system around that area needs upgrading and will be upgraded anyway so you will be paying for that whether LHR expansion goes ahead or not. You do not seem to want to acknowledge this.

As with Bagso you seem either unable or unwilling to see how this will benefit the whole of the UK. A hub at LHR would be a national asset bring growth and income to the whole country and should not be seen as a south east only project.

And as for the "easy connection at LHR" ... that would be the one with the aggressive second full security search complete with lengthy queues, followed by a nightmare terminal transfer to reach around 50% of the connecting flights. We'll pass on that, thanks!

You keep doing this, please tell me how you know what the connection will be like at a terminal that has not even been designed yet never mind the fact that it wont be operational until maybe 2030?

One suspects that your reasoning here is not altogether impartial!!

Well thats rich, why don't you come clean and tell us all the real reason for being against the hub idea. You see it as a threat to any new direct routes from Manchester which happens to be your local airport.

[j636]

BA threatens to move abroad if Heathrow runway goes ahead - ITV News

Lot of Hot Air I expext!

[Peter47]

Dublin & Madrid are not much good for me as I live a few miles north of Heathrow. More relevently is not much good for two thirds of BA's Heathrow traffic.

BA had just over 40% of LHR slots prior to the merger with BMI now its 50%. They could stop flying their own metal to DUB & still be guaranteed feed. They don't need more slots at the moment.

EU legislation would, I understand, give 50% of the slots created to new entrants. More competition for BA (& IAG). Go figure!

Its interesting that if an airline decides to expand capacity it doesn't raise fares for existing passengers - or at least the EU3 & TK aren't - its financed by borrowing which is (hopefully) repaid by future revenues. Should this apply to LHR? Okay, we live in the real world.

[WHBM]

We need some aviation/business heavyweight to call for David Cameron to resign over this. It was explicitly stated that a decision would be announced before the end of 2015.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Well I thought that would ruffle the feathers of the Manchester airport enthusiasts.

This is not a school playground, Prophead. Lines like this reflect on you, not those who engage in respectful debate with you on the core issues.

2 train journeys often in the early hours of the morning, maybe on a sunday when trains are not running frequently.

Good news for you on Sunday trains. The newly-awarded Northern and Transpennine franchises come with substantial upgrades to Sunday services.

Shuttle flights from Humberside, Durham, LBA , Doncaster etc. down to LHR will open up more routes for less hassle.

I welcome a broad range of travel choices for the public, subject to them being made available at a cost which makes sense. Your claim that travel via LHR represents "less hassle" is sadly very far removed from the truth unless the user-experience there is radically improved.

If you think Manchester was the best option then how do you explain the numbers travelling from these airports to Amsterdam for better long haul options

I do not make any broad claim of this sort. 'The best option' varies from one individual traveller to the next. Indeed, it actually varies from one journey to the next. AMS is one good choice amongst many and I have never argued to the contrary.

The hub is not the icing on the cake it was the reason LHR wanted a new runway in the first place.

The hub is indeed the icing on the cake. Dealing with air travel growth indigenous to the SE market should be the primary focus of this decision. LGW is well-suited to fulfilment of this need.

This idea that you can just build a new runway at any airport in the south east and fix the problem shows a lack of understanding

On the contrary, a new runway at LGW demonstrates understanding that the bulk of additional growth affecting the SE airports system will derive from short-haul leisure travel, not long thin hub-dependent routes.

You really don't get what people have been trying to tell you for pages and pages now.

I get your argument perfectly well. I just profoundly disagree with it.

The road system around that area needs upgrading and will be upgraded anyway so you will be paying for that whether LHR expansion goes ahead or not.

So will a new M25 road-tunnel be required beneath a runway which isn't there? Some upgrades may be required regardless but not the whole package associated with major expansion of LHR. Remember, the sums quoted for this support work are not trifling amounts. They alone constitute between 5x and 20x the cost of the largest single public infrastructure project ever sanctioned in the North. We are not talking a rounding error here. Besides, essential infrastructure upgrades outside the SE have been made to await their turn for years. This London work should take its due place in the queue, not expect to be catapulted to the front as some divine right. There really is an air of entitlement surrounding this whole issue of SE infrastructure upgrades.

A hub at LHR would be a national asset bring growth and income to the whole country and should not be seen as a south east only project.

Ah, back to the old 'trickledown' argument. As Sir Richard Leese so aptly put it: "In my experience, trickledown really does mean a trickle." Just think through - honestly - how much benefit communities like Workington, Burnley, Barnsley, Dudley, Grimsby and Middlesbrough will truly benefit from throwing ten billion pounds of public money at LHR support works. Then consider how they could be transformed beyond recognition with a small fraction of that invested directly on infrastructure in their own immediate area. We need to be honest here. An expanded LHR will overwhelmingly benefit the SE alone and will further broaden the North-South divide. Besides, remember your own earlier assertion that one of the 'benefits' of an expanded LHR will be fewer long-haul flights from other UK airports. The regions would really benefit from that, wouldn't they?

please tell me how you know what the connection will be like at a terminal that has not even been designed yet never mind the fact that it wont be operational until maybe 2030?

I can tell you that the transfers from T5 to new T2 and relatively-new T4 are already dire. I am aware of no plans to demolish these? As for additional new-build terminals, the jury is out.

why don't you come clean and tell us all the real reason for being against the hub idea.

I have done so repeatedly, but will happily remind you once more. The sum of between five and twenty billion pounds of public money (probably around ten billion in the final reckoning) will reinforce the nuclear winter in public infrastructure investment suffered by the rest of the UK for years to come. Public funding is tight, and it only gets allocated once. Financing LHR support works to this extent will be another disaster for proposed infrastructure investment beyond the SE region.

You see it as a threat to any new direct routes from Manchester which happens to be your local airport.

I do wish Manchester Airport a successful future. But if you see this as my motive, can you explain to us all why I have been arguing for a new runway at LGW and maximisation of capacity at STN and LTN? Surely, airports in the regions would benefit to a greater extent if airport capacity in the SE were to be strangled? You can't just argue that all opponents of this very controversial LHR R3 proposal are motivated by planespotting opportunities at [insert name of regional airport]. That is childish stuff. Stick to arguing the issues.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

We need some aviation/business heavyweight to call for David Cameron to resign over this.

But equally he could face calls to resign if he backtracks on his "no ifs, no buts" pledge.

[BHX5DME]

Make more use of airports outside of SE

Paul Kehoe, CEO of Birmingham Airport, has today urged the Government to put forward a strategy for making best use of existing airport capacity, in the wake of the Government’s delay on a new South East runway.

The Government has spent the past five months reviewing the conclusions of the Airports Commission, after the Commission itself spent three years looking into the future of UK aviation. The Government has now announced that it will not be making a final decision until summer 2016, rather than late 2015 as originally planned. On 1 July, the Airports Commission, led by Sir Howard Davies, recommended that the Heathrow northwest third runway scheme be taken forward.

Birmingham Airport has argued for a strategic network of long-haul airports throughout the UK, each supporting the comparative economic advantage of that region, rather than all focus being on a hub airport.

Paul Kehoe, CEO of Birmingham Airport said in reaction:

“The UK needs a proper aviation strategy if we are going to succeed in plugging every region into global business opportunities. We have said throughout the Airports Commission process that the review was failing to consider the whole UK economy, the changes that HS2 will bring, or any policies for making best use of existing capacity in the 10 to 15 years it will take to build a new South East runway.

“This fresh delay is making a new South East runway look more distant than ever. It is therefore vital that the Government comes forward with plans to support the UK’s network of long-haul airports now, to relieve pressure on the congested South East.

“The Midlands is a powerful engine of growth at the heart of our country and needs direct aviation to succeed. With our £300 million investment in the Airport, including our runway extension allowing for this summer’s extended series of direct flights to Beijing, we look forward to continuing to expand our long-haul offering in support of the region’s economy”.

Over the course of the past three and half years, Birmingham Airport has presented the Airports Commission and Government with evidence of the role that new road and rail investment, HS2 and changes to taxation can play in making best use of existing UK runway capacity, as an alternative to Heathrow expansion.

Independent research published in October 2015 found that cutting Air Passenger Duty by 100% at Birmingham Airport would attract 2.9 million additional passengers, delivering £521 million more per year and 12,000 new jobs across the UK. The reform would also enable Birmingham Airport to clawback demand that is currently putting pressure on South East airports.

The report also found that HS2 can help attract 750,000 additional passengers to Birmingham Airport per year by enlarging its catchment area to London and the north. This will enable the Airport to deliver £52 million more per year and 1,300 new jobs across the UK.

[Prophead]

I welcome a broad range of travel choices for the public, subject to them being made available at a cost which makes sense. Your claim that travel via LHR represents "less hassle" is sadly very far removed from the truth unless the user-experience there is radically improved.

Yes, such as a new runway and terminal perhaps.

The hub is indeed the icing on the cake. Dealing with air travel growth indigenous to the SE market should be the primary focus of this decision. LGW is well-suited to fulfilment of this need.

On the contrary, a new runway at LGW demonstrates understanding that the bulk of additional growth affecting the SE airports system will derive from short-haul leisure travel, not long thin hub-dependent routes.

This is precisely why the decision needs to be made first on whether the hub idea will be moved forward. Environmentally and financially it makes sense. If the UK does go down that route then its LHR, if not then the decision becomes one of just freeing up capacity.

Ah, back to the old 'trickledown' argument. As Sir Richard Leese so aptly put it: "In my experience, trickledown really does mean a trickle." Just think through - honestly - how much benefit communities like Workington, Burnley, Barnsley, Dudley, Grimsby and Middlesbrough will truly benefit from throwing ten billion pounds of public money at LHR support works. Then consider how they could be transformed beyond recognition with a small fraction of that invested directly on infrastructure in their own immediate area. We need to be honest here

transformed how? What these areas need is jobs and industry. You will attract that from abroad if the access is there. Being able to get to these places easily form China, India and the USA will bring the investment. There will likely never be a direct flight from Humberside to china and I cannot see potential investors getting on the transpennine express and changing at Leeds or slogging over the M62.

This is why the whole Northern Powerhouse idea is being based on upgrading the transport links. Build that and investment will come.

Besides, remember your own earlier assertion that one of the 'benefits' of an expanded LHR will be fewer long-haul flights from other UK airports. The regions would really benefit from that, wouldn't they?

Because they would have access to many more flights from LHR? more than any airport in the north will ever have including Manchester.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Yes, such as a new runway and terminal perhaps.

Absolutely. Subject to provision of these at a cost which makes sense. As I said. Unfortunately, in the case of LHR R3 the proposed cost does not make sense. Just ask Willie Walsh.

What these areas need is jobs and industry. You will attract that from abroad if the access is there. Being able to get to these places easily form China, India and the USA will bring the investment.

That is exactly what these areas need. And direct investment there is the answer. No Chinese or Indian business investor is going to say: "Yes! Now I can reach Middlesbrough changing planes at Heathrow instead of Amsterdam! Time to establish a new factory in NE England!!!" We need to keep the alleged benefits of LHR expansion in perspective here. But make fundamental infrastructure improvements to Middlesbrough directly and the place will have a fighting-chance to compete.

or slogging over the M62.

Good point. The inadequacy of our Transpennine motorways is a major cause for concern. There isn't one to Sheffield at all. 40 years overdue and counting. These are exactly the sort of new road initiatives which should be publicly-funded ahead of £5Bn to £20Bn of surface access upgrades in the area immediately surrounding Heathrow. That is how you really bring new jobs and industry to the North. And benefit the whole of UKplc in the process.

This is why the whole Northern Powerhouse idea is being based on upgrading the transport links. Build that and investment will come.

Agreed, but it is all just a concept at the moment. No large-scale (£1Bn+) infrastructure innovations have been funded so far aside from the 'Smart Motorways' initiative which is more a mechanism for avoiding much-needed road building expenditure. However, Mr Osborne does appear generally committed to the NP initiative, so we will see what follows in due course.

Because they would have access to many more flights from LHR? more than any airport in the north will ever have including Manchester.

Of course LHR offers more flights than MAN. No change there. LHR offers more flights than most other airports in Europe. But that does not render the contribution of regional airports irrelevant. Long-haul flights from airports such as MAN, BHX, NCL, GLA and EDI are of immense significance to their respective catchment areas. The benefits of these should not be dismissed lightly. Long-haul services direct from the regions should be encouraged and nurtured.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

No Chinese or Indian business investor is going to say: "Yes! Now I can reach Middlesbrough changing planes at Heathrow instead of Amsterdam! Time to establish a new factory in NE England!!!"

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

you do like to trivialise important issues don't you.

Hmm, it seems you do.

[Prophead]

Long-haul services direct from the regions should be encouraged and nurtured.

Thats all very well within an aviation based forum, we would probably all on here like to see that but there is serious opposition to increased air traffic due to environmental issues. Filtering people onto larger aircraft rather than having numerous smaller aircraft flying direct from the regionals is one answer to this.

You also have the chicken and egg situation whereby businesses may not want to invest in areas that do not have easy access. The flights are not there due to no demand. What begins with a connecting service via an expanded LHR may indeed grow to a direct service if the demand grows.

This is another reason why I think a hub/no hub decision needs to be made primarily.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Great post Prophead.