HEATHROW
You're not really comparing apples with apples here.
Heathrow was never designed with a view to simultaneous operations from intersecting runways. The star layout was intended to allow operation from any pair of parallel cross runways when the wind did not permit safe operation from the east-west runways (bearing in mind that aircraft crosswind limits were much lower in those days).
It's true, of course, that before 23 closed it was used from time to time for landings at the same time as takeoffs from the main runway(s) but, as Gonzo points out, no amount of "spectacular capacity management" could achieve the movement rate obtainable from the two main runways.
Chicago, on the other hand, with its (now) 9 runways spread over an area more than double the size of Heathrow has evolved its runway layout over years on the assumption that intersecting runway operations will be the norm.
Heathrow, incidentally, achieves almost two-and-a-half times as many movements per year per runway as O'Hare does ...
Heathrow was never designed with a view to simultaneous operations from intersecting runways. The star layout was intended to allow operation from any pair of parallel cross runways when the wind did not permit safe operation from the east-west runways (bearing in mind that aircraft crosswind limits were much lower in those days).
It's true, of course, that before 23 closed it was used from time to time for landings at the same time as takeoffs from the main runway(s) but, as Gonzo points out, no amount of "spectacular capacity management" could achieve the movement rate obtainable from the two main runways.
Chicago, on the other hand, with its (now) 9 runways spread over an area more than double the size of Heathrow has evolved its runway layout over years on the assumption that intersecting runway operations will be the norm.
Heathrow, incidentally, achieves almost two-and-a-half times as many movements per year per runway as O'Hare does ...
Paxing All Over The World
Heathrow third runway: Select committee urges action - BBC News
That last line sums up the obfuscation and dithering of the last quarter of a century.
The government must stop putting off the "difficult" decision to expand Heathrow Airport rather than Gatwick, a Commons select committee has said.
The arguments over increasing aviation capacity in South East England have "changed little in a quarter of a century", said the Transport Committee. It urged ministers to end "years of political dithering" and to set out a clear timetable.
The government said it was important to get the decision right.
The arguments over increasing aviation capacity in South East England have "changed little in a quarter of a century", said the Transport Committee. It urged ministers to end "years of political dithering" and to set out a clear timetable.
The government said it was important to get the decision right.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Dave is going, wouldn't mind giving Bojo a kick after the Brexit vote fails and Zac loses London. Not the best of reasons to give the go-ahead but any port in a storm.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After the Mayoral elections if, as predicted, Saddiq Khan Labour wins the government will immediately speed the process up.
Business as usual will ensue, nothing will happen
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK's North East Chamber Of Commerce (NECC) responded to the House of Commons Transport Committee report, which urges a government decision on expansion in the South East. NECC head of policy and campaigns Jonathan Walker said: "We wholeheartedly agree with the Transport Committee’s view that the uncertainty over whether or not Heathrow will be expanded cannot continue. The lack of clarity on this vital issue is undermining investment decisions by businesses who cannot plan ahead while such a key decision is outstanding. As part of our aim to build a global North East we are committed to championing Heathrow expansion to sustain further economic growth. This is the best option for the North East, allowing us to build on our existing connections and reach a wider range of destinations. We urge the Government to agree to the recommendations of the Airports Commission and permit Heathrow expansion as soon as possible".
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody agrees there has to be a solution the problem is who is paying for it.
Everybody is asking the wrong question!
If you said to that same spokesperson do you want a 3rd runway at Heathrow with the possibility of a trickle down OR £1billion direct investment in infastructure what would he say then ?
I suspect the latter.
Everybody is asking the wrong question!
If you said to that same spokesperson do you want a 3rd runway at Heathrow with the possibility of a trickle down OR £1billion direct investment in infastructure what would he say then ?
I suspect the latter.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NECC could have said what you suggest. They've had ample opportunity to ask for that direct investment instead of calling for Heathrow expansion.
They haven't & didn't.
So I suspect not.
They haven't & didn't.
So I suspect not.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cause we all know just how fantastically well 'trickle down' investment works whether it be tax, charity funding or otherwise.... That's right, it doesn't work!
More fool the people/businesses of the north east
More fool the people/businesses of the north east
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More fool the people/businesses of the north east
So long as Heathrow remains a private company requiring £18 billion in taxpayers handouts to expand, nothing will happen.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness
I don't think we should nationalise heathrow, but I don't think we should subsidise it to the level it seems to require to expand.
The £18 billion is from TFL, and covers surface access schemes likely to be needed to alleviate increased demand to the airport.
As Bagso says, the argument is about who should pay for it, not whether it should happen. Whatever sum it is (and I don't want to get into an argument about a billion here or there) it is a huge sum of money.
I don't think we should nationalise heathrow, but I don't think we should subsidise it to the level it seems to require to expand.
The £18 billion is from TFL, and covers surface access schemes likely to be needed to alleviate increased demand to the airport.
As Bagso says, the argument is about who should pay for it, not whether it should happen. Whatever sum it is (and I don't want to get into an argument about a billion here or there) it is a huge sum of money.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's your view on the delight expressed by many businesses and indeed the airport in Inverness that LHR-INV has been restored? Your point is there is no financial gain on such an airfield having a LHR link?
'Delight' as you put it does not equal trickle down on this new Inverness route. At best some INV locals can access LHR easier than ever, and vice versa. The route already exists between LGW and has done for years.
And it would also seem that the 'investment' of this new LHR-INV is totally reliant upon the locals in INV themselves, rather than LHR as is clearly stated in this article:
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...lose-says-ceo/
Or maybe his comments are also directed to the wider community to use this route or lose it, the people who will lose out most are obviously those in Inverness not at LHR, why would they care.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The £18 billion is from TFL, and covers surface access schemes likely to be needed to alleviate increased demand to the airport.
At best some INV locals can access LHR easier than ever, and vice versa. The route already exists between LGW and has done for years.
Leeds and Inverness seem rather pleased to have a Heathrow connection again, maybe they should just shoosh and be thankful for what they have with easyJet and London. Say to the wider world, "Scotland's not for you"?
Sheesh!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a tiny fraction of the long haul connectivity avaialble over LGW compared to that over LHR. It allows a one stop connection for business to the world, easyJet to LGW is a different market entirely. So "at best" a fair bit of money will be inbound to the Highlands from overseas, even at one flight per day. Inbound tourism is a big money earner in pasts of Scotland, so in terms of getting US or Japanese tourists to that part of the world, LHR gives options LGW can only dream about. You might turn your nose up at one flight a day but GLA sings the praises of one B757 per day, from EWR. As does BFS, because they know the sort of importance they have to the economy.
Leeds and Inverness seem rather pleased to have a Heathrow connection again, maybe they should just shoosh and be thankful for what they have with easyJet and London. Say to the wider world, "Scotland's not for you"?
Leeds and Inverness seem rather pleased to have a Heathrow connection again, maybe they should just shoosh and be thankful for what they have with easyJet and London. Say to the wider world, "Scotland's not for you"?
However, Inverness is not a major city in the likes of Glasgow or Belfast, as a simple Google search indicates an Inverness population of almost 47,000. I think it is slightly overstating the supposed 'importance' of LHR having regional routes again as well as overstating what a triumph this is for just 47,000 people. Do we really think even 10-20% of these people or those from surrounding areas will actually utilise this route. Obviously there is some doubt, hence the 'Use it or lose it' article!
If there is so much business to be tapped into in INV then it begs the question why all airlines till now (apart from EZY) have been seasonal schedules only?
Time will tell obviously, however this is a case of BA simply testing the waters and seeing an opportunity for short term. When it inevitably doesn't work out to the profits they desire they will shunt the slot to something far more lucrative.
Paxing All Over The World
Unfortunately, INV is only one small spoke on the wheel. We need as many of the spokes as possible to have the option of going into LHR and/or LGW as the market sees fit. That's how it was before the politicians gave up.
As to the TFL costs. Irrespective of their current status, they are an organisation built on long standing government practice. Which means, that they will ask for MORE money than they think they will need. This allows the govt to cut back on the money (and show how tough they are) and yet leave enough dosh to get the job done.
As it happens, most commercial companies run their budget the same way, allowing the Director of Finance / MD / whoever to feel like they are in power because they knocked 15% off the budget plans. I learnt that lesson in The City of London 30 years ago.
As to the TFL costs. Irrespective of their current status, they are an organisation built on long standing government practice. Which means, that they will ask for MORE money than they think they will need. This allows the govt to cut back on the money (and show how tough they are) and yet leave enough dosh to get the job done.
As it happens, most commercial companies run their budget the same way, allowing the Director of Finance / MD / whoever to feel like they are in power because they knocked 15% off the budget plans. I learnt that lesson in The City of London 30 years ago.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inverness population is approximately 80000
The population of Inverness as quoted earlier 47000, couldn't be further from the truth, it may have been 47000 people in the 1980's.
Inverness - Police Scotland
Population now is approximately 80000 people.
For Info
Inverness - Police Scotland
Population now is approximately 80000 people.
For Info
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I haven't visited this thread in a while but I see the North West Anti LHR campaign is still going strong.
Trickledown certainly does exist and many regionals will see the benefit from LHR hub expansion.
As for the whole TFL £5-18bn input, most of that will be spent anyway.
As for this comment
If the demand is set to increase that much then it is a no brainer. We need it. The argument seems to be we shouldn't build it, yet there will be so much demand it will require major access works??? Is MAN more important than the needs of all these extra people that will use an expanded Heathrow?
A new national hub airport opening up long haul routes to many regional airports financed by a private company? All we need to do is upgrade the transport infrastructure to allow easier access? Yes please.
Trickledown certainly does exist and many regionals will see the benefit from LHR hub expansion.
As for the whole TFL £5-18bn input, most of that will be spent anyway.
As for this comment
The £18 billion is from TFL, and covers surface access schemes likely to be needed to alleviate increased demand to the airport.
A new national hub airport opening up long haul routes to many regional airports financed by a private company? All we need to do is upgrade the transport infrastructure to allow easier access? Yes please.