Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

HEATHROW

Old 7th May 2016, 19:45
  #4121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
giving LGW a new runway doesn't change Heathrow's expansion plans
Of course it does.

There is no scenario on the horizon that sees LHR and LGW each building a new runway.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 7th May 2016, 20:23
  #4122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
I was waiting for shed to chime in with his north/south chip on his shoulder
Oh dear. Is that really the best you can do? And by the way, I refer to the UK regions in general (not just my own). The imbalance of state-funded infrastructure spending between the SE and all other regions of the UK is a matter of public record however much you may wish to dismiss that fact from consideration with derogatory remarks.

the reality is an expanded LHR benefits all the UK as much as it already does the south.
Repeating this mantra ad infinitum doesn't make it true. You have form for ignoring inconvenient data throughout this debate.

This 18bn figure is the very top estimate and it is more likely to be much much less than that.
If you adjudge this 'likely' presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where TfL's calculations are in error.

to Amsterdam and onto long haul flights as it is far easier that driving or taking the train plus luggage to Manchester or London.
AMS is a competitive option, hence the widespread offering of regional connections by KLM and others. However, Manchester Airport Rail Station is located at the heart of the terminals complex and is well connected across the North of England and lowland Scotland. It is also a very convenient option for many travellers.

hence the risk being almost completely taken on by the owners of LHR
Except for the small matter of 18Bn which isn't. And the rest may yet be underwritten by the taxpayer too.

another reason it is such a good deal for the UK.
You are becoming an increasingly desperate voice in your quest to solicit general acceptance for this absurd notion.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 7th May 2016, 20:36
  #4123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 72
Posts: 231
One of the considerations of any LHR expansion is the large number of extra stands that would be needed At the moment BA have their a/c scattered all over the place. Low cost carriers whose a/c traditionally don't night stop have got round the problem by opening overseas bases. To have all your eggs (a/c) in one place usually leads to chaos when an a/p suffers delays due to w/x or strikes etc, BA always canx a large proportion of their S/H flts in these situations so I question whether an even a larger hub would really make their operation run any more smoothly.
Walnut is offline  
Old 7th May 2016, 20:55
  #4124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Rutankrd, please do not be so insulting towards me!

I did not even mention Liverpool in my post, nor did I contemplate avlink between Liverpool and Heathrow.

However, now that you mention it. Liverpool is a different city now than it was in the days when British Midland operated between Liverpool and Heathrow. And, the problem with BMA in those days is that the code-share phenomenon was in its infancy and the airline interlined with only a handful of airlines at Heathrow.

So, no sour grapes hear I am quite happy to use the train to get to London and Heathrow, or use Aer Lingus via Dublin when the need arises.

Incidentally, I would not agree that the Manchester Airport railway station is well positioned if you are using Terminal 3.
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 7th May 2016, 20:56
  #4125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 249
So Shed, as you adjudge the Airport Commission's 5bn estimate as unlikely, presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where the AC's calculations are in error?

That's if you can post anything in the LHR forum without hyperbole or conjecture.
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 7th May 2016, 21:06
  #4126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Trash 'n' Navs View Post
So Shed, as you adjudge the Airport Commission's 5bn estimate as unlikely, presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where the AC's calculations are in error?

That's if you can post anything in the LHR forum without hyperbole or conjecture.

I don't think Shed needs to do that - public bodies are doing just that - all you need to do is Google them...
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 7th May 2016, 23:13
  #4127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 249
Other than TfL, which public bodies are you referring to?
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 7th May 2016, 23:54
  #4128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where the AC's calculations are in error?
I am very happy to do so, T&N - thanks for asking. But rather than type up archived material again I refer you to my posting of 8th April on this thread (Number 4040). This should spare the anguish of readers who note that this debate tends to go round in circles. If you're interested, direct yourself also to a series of postings I made on this topic in September 2015. They're all archived on PPRuNe.

That's if you can post anything in the LHR forum without hyperbole or conjecture.
A degree of conjecture is unavoidable from all parties in a debate such as this one because of the imprecise nature of the data made available. However, I studiously avoid hyperbole preferring to stick to the facts as known.

I meant it doesn't alter the fact that there is still a business case to expand LHR as a hub airport
The cost of making it happen negates the business case for this.

a whole load of works that will need doing anyway by 2030 even without expansion.
I remind you once more that there are numerous essential works already required on public infrastructure across regional UK. There is no justification for those in the vicinity of LHR to jump the queue for scarce public funds.

Please, it is used as the only other option is an expensive taxi ride on busy motorways.
Incorrect. Besides mainline rail, Manchester Airport is accessible by light rail (Metrolink), National Express coaches, independent coach operators, regional and local bus services, and (of course) by private cars and taxis. The bulk of MAN's catchment area is well-served by at least one of the public transport alternatives listed here. Such are the facts (since you raise the topic). However, note that I only reference Manchester Airport in this context in answer to you raising the subject. I have never argued the LHR R3 debate from a Manchester Airport perspective, although I'm sure you would like to portray that notion as some kind of ulterior motive on my part.

A short taxi ride, bags checked and gone then be sat with a coffee in T5 in 45 minutes is much more convenient believe me.
The LHR transfer option exists because it is considered useful by a proportion of the market. However, many customers prefer alternatives for a multitude of reasons. Each individual customer makes a travel choice appropriate to their own circumstances, location and budget. BTW, congratulations on reaching the T5 seating inside 45 minutes. You obviously caught the duplicated full security check at a very quiet time and didn't require an airside transfer to one of the other LHR terminals (so tedious).

I don't think Shed needs to do that - public bodies are doing just that - all you need to do is Google them...
Thanks for the support, Dobbo, but I think it would be a very useful exercise for T&N to refresh his memory concerning the flawed methodology reported as having been used by the AC. The postings I referenced at the beginning of this answer address the issue.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 8th May 2016, 09:35
  #4129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
"If BA were able to have a single London hub operation (moving Gatwick ops to Heathrow) and develop new routes to new destinations in USA, South America, India and China then Heathrow would become a more attractive proposition to hub through. Add to this more UK domestic destinations and frequencies."

believe it or not there are other airlines and a lot of people prefer them to BA - why should the taxpayer pay for a benifits for a multi-national company just beacuse they stick a flag on their tail???

And anyone who thinks BA will up internal UK flights is away with the birdies - it'll be juts more flights to NY
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 8th May 2016, 13:43
  #4130 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 8,995
rutankrd
... however the report should have been devoid of potential favouritism imo.
If we could have avoided the favouritism of the last 30 years, we would have a better airport and better competition amongst the carriers. Wider choice of ALL destinations which is what the politicians say they want.

Oh yes, and because HAL was limited in how it could make money it came up with the wheeze of a single handling fee, irrespective of whether it was an RJ or a 747. That really helped the domestic routes.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 9th May 2016, 12:26
  #4131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Until an accurate figure can be agreed upon for the taxpayer funded portion and this can be compared to projected income I really don't see how that can be correct.
But we already know the range of projected estimates and can make preliminary judgments accordingly.

There will also be significant income to the taxpayer and the economy from the main airport construction works in the form of VAT and other taxes
This argument applies equally to all other backlogged infrastructure projects which could share 18Bn of scarce public funding. Many of these offer far better value to the taxpayer than LHR R3.

After construction a larger Heathrow means more employment therefore more taxed income.
This also applies to alternative infrastructure proposals of merit all around the UK which await their turn for public funds but which offer far greater value to the taxpayer.

National express?? Are you serious?
Totally serious. Do you have a genuine problem with National Express or are you exhibiting snobbery?

For too long people in the north have been only given Manchester as their long haul option (And paid a premium for it)
Outside London, regular long-haul flights are on sale from BFS, GLA, EDI, NCL, MAN, BHX, EMA and BRS. Other airports offer connections via European hubs. All are free to compete for long-haul business within their physical capabilities. Fares from regionals are often higher than corresponding offers from London but must be set against the cost of travel to London and incidental costs such as an overnight hotel stay. In the North specifically, passenger airports available are NCL, MME, LBA, HUY, LPL, MAN and DSA. NCL and MAN both offer regular long-hauls. DSA offers occasional long-haul charters to MCO etc. LPL has offered JFK and YYZ flights in the past but the market didn't sustain these. LBA has runway length limitations. MME and HUY are small niche operations. What other alternatives do you envisage?

Those with easy access have enjoyed having these flights at the expense of the people in the other northern regions that are expected to use the methods you outline above to get there
So your complaint is that people who live close to an international airport are better placed for air travel than those who live more distantly from the airport? Is that not equally true everywhere?

Since you express dissatisfaction with the surface travel options available to those wishing to access MAN, you no doubt by implication recognise the importance of funding and constructing Northern Powerhouse Rail (formerly known as HS3) and a transpennine motorway linking Sheffield and South Yorkshire with the road network to the West. Both of these proposals deserve funding as a higher priority than LHR R3 and both will benefit UKplc as a whole and not just the immediate region. Plus, it is high time that a major new infrastructure project actually got funded outside the South-East.

Nobody wants to use the coach or light rail when they have bags to cart around.
Coaches are actually particularly well-suited for luggage handling. Light rail less so, but tram journeys tend to be of short duration.

So once again you are talking about a future development that will not be operational until after 2030 from first hand experience
No, I was talking about LHR transfer arrangements in place at the present time from first-hand experience. Neither of us could know what to expect in 2030.

Getting on the BA shuttle at LBA you can go straight down the fast lane to security avoiding the queue and walk directly onto the aircraft
Well that option wasn't offered to me using the Shuttle from MAN. Were you on a special ticket? Anyway, what about the people who do have to join the queue? Do we just ignore their implied transit times? They're passengers too. All part of the equation.

EDIT: I've just realised that you're referring to flight boarding arrangements at Leeds-Bradford Airport. All my comments relate to the arrivals experience for domestic to international flights at LHR itself.

Nowhere near as tedious as waiting for a train on a cold platform with all your bags, especially after a long haul night flight.
Last time I looked, LHR, LGW, STN and LTN all had well-used rail platforms associated with their operation. Plane-to-train is a consideration at many airport locations. At MAN specifically the rail station is well-sheltered and has a decent waiting room with abundant seating. Magazines, newspapers, hot drinks and snacks are on sale there for if you need to wait.

Than again, who cares about the majority of the north as long as the people of the Lancashire and Cheshire can have local direct flights.
OK, you've got me with this one. What on Earth are you on about here? Certainly nothing I've ever alluded to.

Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 9th May 2016 at 13:54. Reason: Clarification of LHR Transfer Comments
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 9th May 2016, 15:12
  #4132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 412
Hub?

Mining into the figures of passenger traffic at HAL.
1 in 3 are transfer pax, are these business or leisure travellers, HAL does not declare. How is a business traveller defined? I have travelled on business numerous times of behalf of the UK Govt on economy fares, so it cannot be just on the declared business fare class. I have had to use the Dubai hub to visit the far east, and an Asian carrier to NYC, both offering cheaper fares to save HMG money, both as a business traveller.
On a recent leisure trip to Barcelona for a cruise I was offered BA outbound and Vuelling in bound (both IAG group) from LHR, cheaper than gong to Gatwick (with car parking costs). Speaking to other travellers - one from Inverness, booked a cheaper fare to Gatwick, and used the agent to book the holiday from there to BCN, one took a coach from Glasgow to Manchester but discovered the flight was via AMS, the Belfast pax drove to Dublin as it was cheaper (IAG partner).
A large volume of leisure travellers throughout the UK have a wide choice of journey routes, and only the travel agents know which is the cheaper fare/route.
Middle East wealth funds have holdings in HAL, IAG and their own airline(s), the airlines part own NATS - conflict?
I recently had the opportunity of challenging HAL on why they only quote export figures of over 110bn in their promotion, how much is the import value? There reluctant reply was nearly half that value were imports.
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 9th May 2016, 16:55
  #4133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Really? Then why do we have 3 different figures put forward for the access works.
Pause to consider what the term range of projected estimates actually means.

If the train to London, tube transfer and hotel room was replaced by a 45 minute cheap shuttle flight though?
Shuttle services already exist from certain airports and are the solution of choice for a proportion of the market. Other customers consider alternative choices preferable. It is an individual decision based upon personal circumstance. However, forget the notion of a cheap Shuttle flight. The Shuttle isn't cheap now and certainly won't be when airlines are additionally loaded with the exorbitant costs of the proposed LHR R3 expansion.

The last thing people want is to have to get on a coach after a long flight and sit on the motorway
Let's be clear here. You evidently dislike coach travel. But you don't speak for the whole market. Many customers consider taking a coach to the airport to be an excellent solution. And when I've used coaches to and from airports I have rarely ended up having to "sit on the motorway".

You have already mentioned that people pay a premium to fly from Manchester. Add that to a coach/train ticket or expensive taxi fare and it is not even cheaper than the LHR option. Certainly a lot more hassle though.
You are over-generalising. Each journey is unique with its own combination of air fare and associated costs for ground travel to/from the airport at each end of the journey. Some journeys are cheaper from Airport A, others from Airport B. Hence the market fragments as customers identify the best option for their own needs. As for alternatives to using LHR being "certainly a lot more hassle", well, let's just say that is a very subjective statement. I and many others would profoundly disagree.

It is, which is why connecting regionals that could never hope to have LH flights with LHR is such a good thing.
We have established in previous exchanges that LHR expansion would bring certain operational advantages if it could be delivered cost-effectively. Our problem has always been that the cost of the proposed R3 project is many multiples higher than what could ever be considered a reasonable sum. The marginal increase in utility provided by additional shuttle frequencies is monstrously outweighed by the mammoth cost of the scheme.

The fact remains however that even Manchester doesn't have the demand for a large number of international locations that an expanded LHR connected to multiple regionals would.
And the solution to that is to change flights at an en route hub such as DXB, ATL or IST. That's not so difficult. Works a treat, actually. And it averts the need for irrational overspending in the course of expanding LHR. Indeed, even if LHR were extended at vast expense much of the market would still choose to do their flight transfers elsewhere.

This is more about routes that currently require a change elsewhere and bringing the connection in to the UK.
Why is this the Holy Grail? If such connections cannot be facilitated cost-effectively then UKplc is better off persevering with one-stop services to marginal niche destinations via overseas hubs. A 90 minute aircraft change in DXB really doesn't kill off the lure of profitable business travel. Remember too that a customer flying (for example) GLA-DXB-BKK is effectively gaining nothing by switching to GLA-LHR-BKK instead. What is the compelling USP of LHR in cases such as this?

The numbers of people flying to Amsterdam to connect show the market is there.
The numbers of people connecting through Amsterdam show that UK travellers are coping just fine without a LHR expanded at eyewatering cost.

There is a lot of money spent whilst waiting for a connecting flight.
You need to sell a helluva lot of sandwiches to offset 18Bn of public money. Remember too that we're talking only about the tax portion of products sold, not 100% of the price-tag.

Talking about the setup in place at the moment though is pointless.
On the contrary, it is highly relevant in establishing the relative attractiveness of competing passenger transfer options.

You could build LHR, HS2, HS3, the Sheffield to Manchester tunnel and a new runway at LGW for less than the amount given to bail out the banks.
Agreed, but we both know that the Treasury will not in reality fund all comers. Tough choices must be made. The nation must prioritise.

All of these would pay for themselves and more in the long run IMO.
Only if they are funded at a price-point which makes economic sense. Sadly, the LHR R3 proposals don't even come close.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 9th May 2016, 20:47
  #4134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by Trinity 09L View Post
How is a business traveller defined?
Strangely enough, by asking passengers.

Not everyone, obviously, but a representative sample by means of a regular survey. If you use Heathrow often enough, sooner or later you will be accosted by an eager person with a clipboard on behalf of either Heathrow Airport or the CAA. Among the questions they will ask is your reason for travel.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 9th May 2016, 21:59
  #4135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 49
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole View Post

This argument applies equally to all other backlogged infrastructure projects which could share 18Bn of scarce public funding. Many of these offer far better value to the taxpayer than LHR R3.

Since you express dissatisfaction with the surface travel options available to those wishing to access MAN, you no doubt by implication recognise the importance of funding and constructing Northern Powerhouse Rail (formerly known as HS3) and a transpennine motorway linking Sheffield and South Yorkshire with the road network to the West. Both of these proposals deserve funding as a higher priority than LHR R3 and both will benefit UKplc as a whole and not just the immediate region.
Seeing as you are so keen to deal only in facts Shed, I suggest you wait until any kind of business case has been done into these projects before declaring how much value they offer to UK plc, no matter how good your instincts may be.

For all its faults R3 (I do wish they would come up with a better name for it that captures the sheer scale of this project) does at least have a business case that has been subject to some economic modelling.

You also seem to overlook that increasingly TfL will have to fund its own projects so the taxpayers and service users affected will be those living and working (and running businesses) in London, not the rest of the U.K. In that case it is only natural that it will try to lump as much of its future project costs on to the back of any major development that gets put forward. There is no magic 18bn pot of money sat in the Treasury to fund the wish list of those wanting to secure investment for the regions. As you rightly say there are limited resources at the present time so investment will flow to those projects that generate the most growth (principally in the form of GVA and tax revenue).

Airports rightly are expected under State Aid rules to meet the costs of infrastructure from which they directly benefit. So far TfL (I suspect partly driven by their former political master) have been stretching the definition of direct benefit beyond reason and have included any and every project that is linked to Heathrow that might require investment in the next couple of decades.
AndyH52 is offline  
Old 9th May 2016, 22:33
  #4136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 249
Andy- well said.

Shed - I've read the earlier post again and I'm still none the wiser about the public bodies you claim have demonstrated the AC methodology is flawed. Quoting an obscure website & 2 ex-members of the AC isn't solid evidence. I've quoted from mainstream media sources, various industry associations & the evidence based AC report. Even your neighbours in Liverpool favour LHR expansion over connecting through their closest international airport.

I'd also question your assertion that investing 18bn across the regions would generate the same ROI to UK plc. As Andy points out, the only published business cases relate to LHR & LGW so please provide reputable sources of the ROI for the schemes you have in mind.
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 9th May 2016, 22:58
  #4137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 412
"If you use Heathrow often enough, sooner or later you will be accosted by an eager person with a clipboard on behalf of either Heathrow Airport or the CAA. Among the questions they will ask is your reason for travel"

Most business travellers go straight to the lounges and ignore them. Not a very authorative way to assess business travellers. Personally I shimmy past them like chuggers in the High St.
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 9th May 2016, 23:22
  #4138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
I've answered your many repetitive questions ad infinitum, T&N, as readers here can testify. Likewise those of Prophead. Those earlier postings do address the relevant issues as other readers are free to check. The onus is now on you to back up your suppositions.

As for your point about Liverpool, bear in mind that I have argued this whole debate from a national (not Manchester) perspective. Prophead introduced the Manchester angle in the course of postings discussing his travel preferences.

Opinions in Liverpool are actually divided (although in some extreme cases driven by bitter historic rivalry). Liverpudlians are free to make whatever journey choices they like. However, urging another massive overspend on SE transport infrastructure at the expense of their own city's renaissance is a source of some bemusement. Are those R3 cheerleaders unable to cope with the maths, or does their hatred for all things Manchester override everything else? From my own perspective, I continue to lobby for a fair deal for Merseyside's own transport infrastucture along with that in other regional centres long deprived of transformational public funding.

By the way, whilst I'm flattered by your confidence in my extra-temporal abilities, producing documents (reputable or otherwise) which haven't been written yet is beyond my skill-set. Surprising, I know! If you have learned the secret of time travel I will be interested to read such future documents as you propose to retrieve.

Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 9th May 2016 at 23:53.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 10th May 2016, 01:50
  #4139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 249
Shed, thanks for confirming your posts are based on your opinion and not evidence-based as you often imply. Nothing wrong with posting an opinion on a rumour forum after all.
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 10th May 2016, 08:20
  #4140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Liverpool, along with its sister airports, Doncaster Sheffield and Durham Tees Valley, support the 3rd runway at Heathrow. All three airports are majority owned by Manchester-based Peel Holdings who also support the Heathrow expansion.
Ametyst1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.