HEATHROW

[T250]

Trickle down does not work.

It will not work for people of the north east or even the country as a whole.

In no other sector does it work, like I said earlier, in charities the money goes to management and corporate bull****. Overall, these massive corporate entities hide their profits into secretive offshore accounts and keep it there, paying no or minimal corporation tax!

You really think that every company involved in anything to do with the future of LHR expansion will care about communities. It is all about bottom line profit for airlines and airport operators. Everything else comes next very low down the list such as paying fair share of tax (not avoiding it like recently shown by GAL at LGW who haven't paid any tax since acquiring the airport in 2009!), environment and noise.

More money, siphoned off to tax havens at the expense to society in the UK as a whole.

Sources for GAL reference:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gatwick-air...flights-482876
http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Gatwic...ail/story.html

[Prophead]

What on earth are you talking about now?

Trickledown is not about the owners of LHR giving handouts to the poor people of the north east. It is about businesses in the NE being able to get a flight from Newcastle or Durham to China via an easy connecting flight through LHR. It is about foreign companies having an option to open offices and factories outside of the SE of the UK and therefore creating badly needed jobs and bringing wealth to the regions.

The construction alone will bring jobs and money to construction and manufacturing companies all over the UK.

[T250]

Trickledown is not about the owners of LHR giving handouts to the poor people of the north east.

I never stated that and that is not the definition of trickle down. (two words not one).

You totally ignore my point about what real benefit this has to society in the UK, all your arguments are based upon raw figures and profit

It is about businesses in the NE being able to get a flight from Newcastle or Durham to China via an easy connecting flight through LHR. It is about foreign companies having an option to open offices and factories outside of the SE of the UK and therefore creating badly needed jobs and bringing wealth to the regions.

So why not get these routes to operate from MAN? Then the environmental impact and noise is far reduced than business people using 2 flights to achieve the same goal. Everything doesn't have to centre on LHR. Surely the business wanting to invest in NE England/China will do so regardless of LHR, if they can get to MAN. If the business is there, then they are the demand, they should be dictating the routes... Not the other way round.

The construction alone will bring jobs and money to construction and manufacturing companies all over the UK.

This I do agree with you!

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Prophead

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.

If it is a case of LHR paying its way then that's fine, have at it. But that is not the point.

The argument is that access to LHR should be paid for by the taxpayer, pretty much with a blank cheque. That is an argument that is quite clearly unsustainable.

If heathrow cannot finance it's ambitions, then the market (ie the passengers) will decide what happens next.

[Bagso]

The money we are talking about is not coming from Heathrow Plc , we are talking the "taxpayer " element..

But hang on anyway.

The £18bn of taxpayer spent on roads rail tunneling stations around Heathrow is an investment.

BUT If we divide that up and invest say £1bn in our top 18 cities its contrued as, wait for it

....."a handout to the poor people of the NE"

My God I could be at Eton !

[Prophead]

So it is about Manchester then.

People will not invest in the north east because they can fly to Manchester and get taxis from there. LHR expansion is about opening up every regional to long haul flights for both incoming and outgoing passengers.

People want to be able to buy a ticket from LBA to LA using a 45 minute shuttle down to LHR and then transfer onto their long haul flight. If there is a problem with the domestic flight the airline knows about it and can make arrangements. They do not leave the airport environment and the transfer will be as seemless as possible.

This is a much preferable option to using the train or M62 where anything can happen and luggage has to be hauled around. The fact the MAN supporters are so worried about losing flights just goes to show that you know people would prefer the LHR option.

I know you Manchester airport lovers can't accept this, I know you want everyone in the north to use your local airport and all future investment to be centred around there but the north is not just about Manchester. Please do not hide behind a north south investment divide, you want all northern investment to the north west which is what this is about.

Getting from York, north of Leeds and south Yorkshire is a pain. I did it many times as the only other option was the M1 or even worse the train and a slog through London. Once I started using the LBA to LHR flight there was no going back.

We also have the fact that more direct flights from the UK will be possible as one airport will cover the whole of the UK. However important you think Manchester is there are many destinations that will never be served as the traffic just isn't there. This will mean a connection down route. Bringing people from many regional's to one main hub will allow destinations to be served that otherwise will not.

[Skipness One Echo]

So why not get these routes to operate from MAN? Then the environmental impact and noise is far reduced than business people using 2 flights to achieve the same goal. Everything doesn't have to centre on LHR.

What are you on about? How? Have the Government tell Example Airways offer MAN-XYZ rather than LHR-XYZ? You understand that Emirates, Qatar and Etihad succeed at MAN by making flights affordable for people to fly MAN-hub-XYZ. Economies of scale allow A380s and other wide bodies to allow locals to avoid LHR.
Two flights rather than one, unless you really are headed to DOH,AUH or DXB, a minority of traffic on these routes.
You are against MAN being in this market I assume?

Sorry, but W T F ?

[Prophead]

You insist on using the £18bn figure and completely refuse to acknowledge the fact that this investment is needed anyway.

The country gets a world class hub airport which WILL benefit the whole of the UK and all the taxpayer has to do is pay for the access. It is a good deal and should have been given the go ahead long ago.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Prophead, Skipness

I for one don't doubt that there are advantages of expanding Heathrow. My objection is to the cost to the taxpayer when it is essentially state aid to one enterprise LHR over another (in reality this is LGW).

[Prophead]

But the benefits far outweigh the cost. LGW is not going to become a hub, building a new runway at LGW will not change anything regards to a LHR hub. Expansion at Heathrow however may solve Gatwick's problem.

Which ever way I look at it paying only for the access improvements THAT NEED UPGRADING ANYWAY is a bargain for the taxpayer.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Well, that's the point, but it is not a straightforward question. Do the benefits to society as a whole (I.e. The taxpayer) outweigh the costs.

In the case of TFL the point is that it is needed to cope with the extra traffic. The present solution is okay, and clearly there are desireables to improve what's there but those turn into necessaries with expansion.

Clearly for heathrow the answer is yes it is worth it because they are getting £[x]bn of benefit at the expense of the taxpayer. From the taxpayers perspective there is a genuine question.

I agree about LGW, if it is going to be anything in the South east, it should be Heathrow.

[Prophead]

The cost of the transport element financed by the taxpayer is small compared to the cost of the project itself. LHR is not getting something for nothing. The company is taking on massive risk financing a large scale project that will benefit the UK and bring in extra money for years to come.

Who will finance the alternative? Who will finance the access to Boris Island?

Lets be clear about the timescales here. If the project was given the go ahead tomorrow it would likely be 2030 before it became operational. The M25/M4 around Heathrow will see significant investment in that time.

Also lets remember that a huge chunk of that taxpayer funded portion and indeed the LHR financed element comes straight back to the taxpayer in the form of VAT and other taxes on the construction cost alone.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

You insist on using the £18bn figure and completely refuse to acknowledge the fact that this investment is needed anyway.

There are lots of far better-value essential projects spread around regional UK which also desperately need investment anyway. But they aren't seeing state-funding any time soon. Neither should this project until others have had a long-overdue opportunity to play catch-up. Do you ever stop to consider just how much money £18 Billion actually is? We've never had a £2 Billion state-funded infrastructure project in the North. Not even close. The SE must be well into double figures of such projects already delivered. Even the 'upgrade' of the Northern Line is costing £10Bn, never mind new-build projects. And that's the only 'Northern' project that has seen big league funding so far!

The country gets a world class hub airport which WILL benefit the whole of the UK

But those (underwhelming) benefits won't come remotely close to justifying the cost of providing it. Particularly for those regional communities urged to rely on mythical 'trickledown'.

all the taxpayer has to do is pay for the access

Just a snip at £18,000,000,000. Bargain!

It is a good deal and should have been given the go ahead long ago.

Wow, your posting has taken 36 days to appear on here. You did write it on April 1st, didn't you?

LGW is not going to become a hub, building a new runway at LGW will not change anything regards to a LHR hub

But London doesn't need additional hub capacity. It needs capacity to serve growth driven by the indigenous SE travel market, and that is primarily leisure-driven. That can be addressed perfectly well by expanding runway capacity at LGW. The bulk of air passenger growth in the SE is accounted for by the surge in demand for the LCC no-frills short haul leisure product. That is a fact. Niche business routes to the likes of Brazil and China are a vastly smaller market, and these few services (where economically justified) can easily be accommodated at LHR by swapping out afew pairs of short-haul slots (as so frequently happens in reality).

Which ever way I look at it paying only for the access improvements THAT NEED UPGRADING ANYWAY is a bargain for the taxpayer.

But how much more of a bargain for the taxpayer to fund all those long-neglected regional infrastructure priorities THAT ALSO NEED UPGRADING ANYWAY. And have been waiting half-a-century or more for their turn with state funding. And most of which will likely be kept waiting at least as long again. It's not OK for the South-East to gorge all of the cake all of the time. The presumptuous sense of entitlement we observe from some down there is nauseating.

[pabely]

Gatwick expansion

So with Sadiq Khan elected as London Major, against 3rd runway and supporting LGW second runway, how does that leave the debate?

[ETOPS]

against 3rd runway and supporting LGW second runway, how does that leave the debate?

Doesn't change a thing - not his decision.

Now London City expansion - there's something he can influence.

[HOODED]

Maybe it makes the decision easier for the Tory government having a Labour London Mayor who supports Gatwick but is opposed to Heathrow expansion. Their candidate was also against Heathrow R3 too but as he didn't get in maybe it's easier for them to go with the best answer for the country for a change. Sadly I doubt it.

[c52]

What will an expansion of Heathrow give the north-east that AMS doesn't already give it? (Apart from an alternative to the train and car for people with London as their origin/destination).

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

The argument that £18bn of taxpayer investment for Heathrow = £18bn (or anything close that) of trickle down or wider benefit to society is a complete non-starter.

[T250]

And an unsubstantiated myth/lie/fantasy

[pwalhx]

Maybe it is pertinent to explain to our friends in the South why we in the North are so cynical about the so called trickle down.

We have been sold so many times on how projects in the South benefit the whole country.

We were told that the Olympics would have a legacy for the whole country, I still am waiting 4 years later to see it.

However the Commonwealth games in Manchester was without doubt a fantastic boost to the economy of Greater Manchester, less so outside.

The Tour de France was also a massive boost for Yorkshire and has since spawned the Tour de Yorkshire.

The above two events are world events but where never 'sold' as being beneficial to the whole country to justify them

Lets also evidence the channel tunnel, which we were told in the North would be a wonderful opportunity to get on a train in Manchester through to Paris or Leeds to Brussels. What happened you may ask, after assuring us the benefit was national, as soon as it was built the northern links were cancelled because it was claimed there was no economic benefit.

That my friends is why we are cynical about the massive amounts being spent.