HEATHROW

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

And of course, Manchester's opposition to R3 at Heathrow is not a vested intereste

Of course businesses lobby in their own best interests. I have never argued otherwise here or elsewhere. The point is that you presented Peel's stance as some kind of astonishing game-changer. I would fully expect those managing all UK airport businesses to lobby in accordance with the interests of their own bottom line. It is part of their duty as a management team.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Yet you seem to know exactly how the transfer will work once the LHR expansion is completed sometime after 2030.

You really are clutching at straws now. I have commented only about the LHR transfer experience as it exists at the present time. I have made no reference whatsoever to how it would work in 2030 or beyond.

If I were drawn to speculate about LHR transfers post-2030 I'd say they should be bloomin' fantastic in light of how much facilitating them is forecast to cost!

And of course, Manchester's opposition to R3 at Heathrow is not a vested intereste
Of course not, the fact there are so many on this thread arguing against expansion at LHR that hail from the north west is just coincidence.

Erm ... I think you'll find that I expressed the opinion that all airport operators, including MAG, lobby in accordance with their own best interests. By the way, did you note that some of the voices actively supporting LHR R3 hail from the NW too [Ametyst, AndyH52 etc.]. But maybe highlighting that doesn't flatter your agenda?

The rest of the north should be happy with National Express travel to MAN for their flights and stop all this snobbery about luggage free connecting flights from over the hills.

What??? Is this bizarre comment supposed to add value to the LHR R3 debate? You have become desperate.

[Homo Simpson]

To suggest that Manchester airport is not easy to access is nonsense. In the same way getting to Heathrow can be very easy but for many also involves a bit of a trek. They have pluses and minuses in that regard.
I don't think people have an issue with Heathrow getting another runway but they do when it comes to potentially billions of public money being spent around it.
Heathrow is an asset but let's not kid ourselves that it's the be all and end all. It isn't.
Airports like Manchester offer an alternative for millions of passengers and rightly so. That will only grow year after year and the owners of Heathrow know it. They are a business and they want to keep their market share so anything they can do to secure that is understandable.
However it should not be given any preference over any other airport just because it's Heathrow and in London.

[Ametyst1]

I don't think it matters where I am from.

I travel regularly and happen to like flying through Heathrow. So, why should I not wish for it to be expanded just because I am from the North West of England.

If Manchester was the alternative to Heathrow, which as we know is operating at full capacity, then the Airlines would already be at Manchester or any other UK Regional Airport.

United could easily have added UK capacity by adding Flights from Manchester to Chicago, Houston and San Francisco but they have not. After all, they no longer have a UK feed to their Heathrow routes. A deal with Flybe at Manchester would be perfect.

Delta/Virgin could have added Manchester to Detroit, Minneapolis St Paul or Los Angeles and American could have added Manchester to Charlotte, Dallas or Miami, but neither have!

[Homo Simpson]

Manchester airport isn't trying to beat Heathrow but it offers a credible alternative. The Heathrow bubble has been burst and there is no turning back. It's a gateway to the world but the nonsense that it's that or nothing is just guff. Passengers will go where they want and Heathrow isn't the choice for millions any more.
I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.

[Prophead]

Manchester airport isn't trying to beat Heathrow but it offers a credible alternative. The Heathrow bubble has been burst and there is no turning back. It's a gateway to the world but the nonsense that it's that or nothing is just guff. Passengers will go where they want and Heathrow isn't the choice for millions any more.
I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.

Nobody is saying any of that. What are you talking about a bubble being burst?

Yes, passengers will go where they want and for parts of the country that is Amsterdam.

Manchester does not offer an alternative to LHR and never will. It is used by people flying to/from the north who find it more convenient than Heathrow and pay a penalty for that. Even with this in it's favour it will never be able to attract the destinations that Heathrow can and people are then forced to travel there via train and a transfer through London with luggage or fly from a northern airport and transfer elsewhere out of the UK.

An expanded LHR will mean more transfers with the UK and more money coming back to the taxpayer.

London airports already contribute around £1bn a year just in APD. A not insignificant figure which would likely pay for the access works before the expanded portion even became operational.

[Fairdealfrank]

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.

Why are you so obsessed with TFL? It's involvement with LHR surface infrastructure enhancements are minimal. Motorway/trunk road tunnels and/or diversions and junction improvements plus the new railways are part of the remit of the Dept. of Transport, and that's where most of the spending will go.

Also, these infrastructure and connectivity improvements will be beneficial to others apart from airport staff and passengers so government involvement is justified.

TFL may operate some new bus routes perhaps and that would help, but no new tube extensions are planned, so its role would be marginal. TFL was doing its master's bidding by inflating figures and getting involved with issues beyond its remit at the time when Mayor Boris was banging on about "fantasy island".

Boris MP now has bigger fish to fry, plus many constituents who either work on the airport, or for organisations closely linked to it and dependent on its continued success.

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.

This should really not come as a surprise, it's common sense!

I don't think it matters where I am from.

I travel regularly and happen to like flying through Heathrow. So, why should I not wish for it to be expanded just because I am from the North West of England.


If Manchester was the alternative to Heathrow, which as we know is operating at full capacity, then the Airlines would already be at Manchester or any other UK Regional Airport.

United could easily have added UK capacity by adding Flights from Manchester to Chicago, Houston and San Francisco but they have not. After all, they no longer have a UK feed to their Heathrow routes. A deal with Flybe at Manchester would be perfect.

Delta/Virgin could have added Manchester to Detroit, Minneapolis St Paul or Los Angeles and American could have added Manchester to Charlotte, Dallas or Miami, but neither have!

Exactly.

Manchester airport isn't trying to beat Heathrow but it offers a credible alternative. The Heathrow bubble has been burst and there is no turning back. It's a gateway to the world but the nonsense that it's that or nothing is just guff. Passengers will go where they want and Heathrow isn't the choice for millions any more.
I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.

Think there's a lot of missing the point here. It is really quite simple.

Where the market can support just one route between the UK and another country that route will be (with a handful of exceptions) to/from LHR (e.g. Vietnam, Indonesia, Kenya, Colombia, Brazil, etc.). This has always been the case, and in recent years, it has sometimes had to be via the LGW waiting room.

Where the market can support two routes between the UK and another country those routes will usually be to/from LHR and MAN (e.g. Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Egypt, etc.).

Where the market can support multiple routes between the UK and another country the other UK airports get a look in, (e.g. Ireland, USA, Canada, UAE, most of Europe, etc.).

Therefore LHR will always be the main UK airport and there is a pecking order for the rest. Pax, especially premium pax, want to use LHR, so carriers want to be there. The evidence is the willingness of carriers to pay millions for LHR slots!

The more connectivity the better, and more routes to/from more airports is clearly desirable and necessary, but in some cases there will always be a need to change planes at LHR (or AMS, DUB, etc.), and the presence of transfer pax at LHR makes more routes viable, especially thinner ones.

So win-win all round, and the alleged "potentially massive hand out" could turn out to be excellent value for money.

[Homo Simpson]

Prophead

Manchester is already an alternative to Heathrow for millions of passengers and not just from ooop North.
But we are being told that Heathrow is the saviour of the UK and if we don't expand it then we will all be using Ansterdam/Frankfurt etc.
We already do and Manchester too. That's passenger choice and it should not be dictated by the government or the owners of Heathrow or indeed Manchester airport group.
I have no issue with it having ten runways but not potentially billions of tax money spent on it because it's Heathrow.

[Prophead]

Because this whole argument about the spending is just a smokescreen. Nowhere has Shed and co argued against the figure put forward by Tfl and questioned what it consist of. If that was the real issue then we would all be arguing about and dissecting that. They are all gladly using the highest figure put out in order to push their own agenda which is keeping their local airport as 'Gateway to the North'.

The north is a large place and people are sick and tired of having to travel to Manchester. Shed himself has said repeatedly that he would prefer to fly from Man and change down route onto a connecting flight rather than travel to LHR. (The National Express goes directly to T5 you know) As would I if I lived in Cheshire.

He doesn't however believe those in other northern regions should have the same choice and connect at LHR.

[Prophead]

But we are being told that Heathrow is the saviour of the UK and if we don't expand it then we will all be using Ansterdam/Frankfurt etc.
We already do and Manchester too. That's passenger choice and should not be dictated by the government or the owners of Heathrow.

Heathrow isn't trying to be the saviour of anything. It is merely doing what businesses do and trying to capture the extra income from thos who as you say are transferring via Amsterdam and elsewhere The benefit to the UK is the extra income generated as well as extra routes that then become viable.

If there are enough passengers coming down from Newcastle for a flight to Salt Lake City then an Airline will fly direct. That is supply and demand. Nobody is dictating anything.

[Homo Simpson]

There is not a single airport that will cater perfectly for everyone. People have to travel to an airport and it will always involve a degree of hassle. Heathrow has connections to it and for some that's easy for others it isn't. Same for Manchester.
If Leeds went to 8 a day to Heathrow then good for them. Why not if it makes money but it doesn't mean that Manchester should then sit back and not offer flights around the world as well. For many in Yorkshire it's not really that hard to get to Manchester and it gives them an alternative to London.
The amount of tax payers money is unknown but it will be in the billions and when you have the majority of the country desperate for investment then it's not difficult to see why people are pissed about Heathrow getting money because we are told that there are no alternatives when in fact there are.

[Homo Simpson]

We are being fed the line that Heathrow is it and that's that.
You contradict yourself constantly by saying that Heathrow is just being a business in doing or wanting what it does but yet Manchester doing the same is just a hassle for people.
Manchester offering routes brings money into the exchequer too.

[Prophead]

Homo,

I have never stated that Manchester should not offer whatever flights it wants to. It is however down to airlines to choose where to fly from/to not airports.

All I have said is that those in the north who live nowhere near Manchester, (which included myself for most of my life) should not be forced to have to use Man or AMS. LHR should also be encouraged to try and take the non UK connection traffic that will bring money into the UK.

If the income generated by an expanded LHR can pay back the taxpayer funded portion and then go on to return a healthy profit then it has a business case.

Manchester can do whatever it likes.

[Homo Simpson]

Forced to use Manchester or Ansterdam?
That will be the same logic you use to force people to use Heathrow then.
Heathrow is not the be all and end all anymore.
In fact Manchester is easier to get to with more domestic connections than Heathrow. It's a moot point but it blows your notion that it's a trek to get to out the water.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I don't think it matters where I am from.

I am in full agreement with you on this, Ametyst. Prophead was suggesting that posters located in the NW were ganging up against LHR R3. I was reminding him that there is diversity of opinion. It doesn't matter where you are posting from and it doesn't matter where I am posting from either. Our respective opinions are held irrespective of geographical location.

I travel regularly and happen to like flying through Heathrow

And that's fine. We are all free to make the journey choice which best suits our personal needs. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' right answer.

So, why should I not wish for it to be expanded just because I am from the North West of England.

Your geographical location should not be an issue at all. However, the extraordinary proposed cost to the taxpayer of developing LHR R3 should make you think twice. Merseyside is amongst those metropolitan areas which has been starved of large-scale transport infrastructure investment because the vast majority of state funding is being monopolised by projects located exclusively in the South-East.

If Manchester was the alternative to Heathrow

MAN is not the alternative to LHR. It has no role to play in serving passengers travelling internationally from the SE. But it is the most popular solution for fulfilling the international travel needs of people located in or visiting the North.

United could easily have added UK capacity by adding Flights from Manchester to Chicago, Houston and San Francisco but they have not. After all, they no longer have a UK feed to their Heathrow routes. A deal with Flybe at Manchester would be perfect.

Delta/Virgin could have added Manchester to Detroit, Minneapolis St Paul or Los Angeles and American could have added Manchester to Charlotte, Dallas or Miami, but neither have!

MAN offers scheduled flights to thirteen US cities (including one announced but yet to launch). These are JFK, EWR, PHL, IAD, ATL, MCO, SFB, MIA, BOS, LAS, LAX, ORD and SFO. This is a very respectable portfolio of routes which compares well with offerings available from major airports in Continental Europe. It has given MAN the critical mass required to apply for US PDC which will bring added convenience to passengers. If the carriers mentioned above were to launch the routes you suggest they would find themselves entering an already very competitive environment, in many cases as the second carrier on the route. Airlines select MAN based upon the market dynamics there, not because of what they can / can't do at an unrelated airport.

I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.

Hallelujah! At last a poster who gets it!

It is used by people flying to/from the north who find it more convenient than Heathrow and pay a penalty for that

Some flights are more expensive from MAN, some are cheaper. Ground transportation costs vary according the the circumstances of each individual traveller. You cannot generalise in this way.

Even with this in it's favour it will never be able to attract the destinations that Heathrow can

As it happens, MAN offers a very large portfolio of destinations worldwide. And most major population centres not covered non-stop can be reached with one flight change over an existing major hub. For travellers within the catchment, MAN-LHR-XXX offers no discernible advantage over routing MAN-Overseas Hub-XXX. In fact, the latter is often a far more reliable option due to the unreliability of the Shuttle and stressful ground transfer arrangements at LHR.

London airports already contribute around £1bn a year just in APD

HM Treasury gets the money whichever UK gateway is used.

Because this whole argument about the spending is just a smokescreen

There are eighteen billion good reasons why it isn't.

Nowhere has Shed and co argued against the figure put forward by Tfl and questioned what it consist of.

GOTCHA!!! Remember those archived postings of mine which you can easily reference on this site? Well look again very closely. I routinely used Sir Peter Hendy's estimate of £10Bn public contribution requirement to allow for the possibility that TfL's then estimate of £20Bn was inflated for political reasons. I think that going with just half the highest quote available out there was extremely generous of me. This new £18Bn number has entered the fray much more recently.

If that was the real issue then we would all be arguing about and dissecting that

The contribution required from the taxpayer is exactly the issue I've been arguing about throughout this R3 debate. Many on here are absolutely fed up of me labouring this point. Few would claim I hadn't done so!

They are all gladly using the highest figure put out in order to push their own agenda which is keeping their local airport as 'Gateway to the North'.

Afraid not. I routinely used Sir Peter Hendy's £10Bn estimate when £20Bn was the highest quote out there. And you introduced MAN to the debate, not I. I simply corrected your spurious claims regarding public transport access there.

The north is a large place and people are sick and tired of having to travel to Manchester.

You may be, but this is a minority view in the extreme.

Shed himself has said repeatedly that he would prefer to fly from Man and change down route onto a connecting flight rather than travel to LHR

Correct. Frequent cancellations of the MAN Shuttle, the very slow duplicate security search on arrival at LHR and the stressful terminal transfer process make LHR an undesirable travel choice for me. However, I have consistently championed the right of each individual traveller to make their own journey choices, including in postings made on this thread over the last couple of days.

The National Express goes directly to T5 you know

You seem to harbour a burning hatred of National Express. I've actually used them from Heathrow Central to Bournemouth and Southampton, and from LHR T5 to Luton. They're absolutely fine. Just what is your issue with them?

He doesn't however believe those in other northern regions should have the same choice and connect at LHR.

Please quote where I've written anything remotely resembling this.

If there are enough passengers coming down from Newcastle for a flight to Salt Lake City then an Airline will fly direct. That is supply and demand. Nobody is dictating anything.

But if the cost of making that SLC link happen is a taxpayer contribution of £18Bn, they're better served by flying NCL-EWR-SLC instead. In fact, come to think of it ...

And finally, Prophead, can I remind you to debate me on what I actually have said rather than what you'd like me to have said. Please don't put words in my mouth. It is very poor form. Thanks.

[Prophead]

HM Treasury gets the money whichever UK gateway is used.

And they get a lot more when it is a London based airport. Obviously when the money is coming in the north/south divide is just fine.

I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.
Hallelujah! At last a poster who gets it!

Where has anyone said LHR is the saviour of anything??? It is a ridiculous notion.

It should be given funding because it has the potential to give back an even greater amount. You obviously cannot comprehend this due to that massive chip on your shoulder about spending in the Capital. Your posts on the Manchester thread show almost a willingness on your part for the government to cancel the northern part of HS2 just so you can keep banging on about the unfairness of it.

MAN offers scheduled flights to blah blah blah...

And long may it do so. People in the south east really don't care about what goes on at Manchester. If Heathrow expansion goes ahead then many people in the north won't either.

GOTCHA!!! Remember those archived postings of mine........

Shed, talking to you is like arguing with a child.

You have never once questioned the actual works quoted by Tfl and what they consist of. You have repeatedly refused to even acknowledge or do not know that the infrastructure concerned is in need of upgrading now never mind by 2030. You complain about unfair spending in and around London yet one of the outcomes of this project will be easy access to/from the regions for foreign investment. None of this matters though as once again that huge chip of yours gets in the way.

You seem to harbour a burning hatred of National Express.

Not if that forms the main part of your journey. As a way of just getting to an airport or home after a long flight though I do not think I am alone in dismissing that option.

Correct. Frequent cancellations of the MAN Shuttle, the very slow duplicate security search on arrival at LHR and the stressful terminal transfer process make LHR an undesirable travel choice for me.

Why do you keep insisting on using the current setup as a reason not to improve it. That's like saying the whole northern powerhouse idea should be scrapped because Bradford Interchange is a dump.

If there are enough passengers coming down from Newcastle for a flight to Salt Lake City then an Airline will fly direct. That is supply and demand. Nobody is dictating anything.
But if the cost of making that SLC link happen is a taxpayer contribution of £18Bn, they're better served by flying NCL-EWR-SLC instead. In fact, come to think of it

You missed my point completely.

Many on here are absolutely fed up of me labouring this point. Few would claim I hadn't done so!

Well on that we can agree

And I have been banging on about the better domestic connections too. Therefore I will stop arguing about MAN. I am sure you won't be able to not have the last word though so will leave that to you.

Hopefully this project will go ahead and we can actually see the benefits throughout the UK.

[HOODED]

Despite being from the North I would like to see R3 at LHR. Never flown from MAN but have from LBA LTN LGW LHR BHX STN. For longer flights like a lot from Yorkshire I prefer AMS or even CDG to trogging across to MAN. Whilst LBA now has BA to LHR I haven't used it due to flight timings. This is precisely what R3 could fix. There are 2 early flights ex LBA to AMS a Jet 2 and a KLM this is where most folks go for Long Haul connections and LBA isn't alone. LHR as a proper hub could easily mop up most of these pax if the connections from all the regions were available. Bring on R3 and let's fly the flag.

[Prophead]

You should try the BA connection when the times suit, it really is very easy and a lot of people were going down for connecting flights. I used it weekly to get to London as it was preferable to taking the train and also cheaper.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

HM Treasury gets the money whichever UK gateway is used.

And they get a lot more when it is a London based airport.

Aside from a waiver for transatlantic services from BFS, APD rates are uniformly levied across the country.

Obviously when the money is coming in the north/south divide is just fine.

What are you talking about?

You obviously cannot comprehend this due to that massive chip on your shoulder about spending in the Capital

I do object to the SE monopolising scarce funding for public transport infrastructure investment. Comprehension doesn't come into it.

Your posts on the Manchester thread show almost a willingness on your part for the government to cancel the northern part of HS2 just so you can keep banging on about the unfairness of it.

You're making it up as you go along again. Please quote any passage in which I have expressed a wish to see HS2 cancelled.

People in the south east really don't care about what goes on at Manchester.

No reason why they should. But based on your postings you clearly do. I consistently have to correct misleading claims made about MAN on this thread by yourself.

Shed, talking to you is like arguing with a child.

Well I'm not the one making wild claims, talking about a "giant chip on the shoulder", attributing all manner of spurious arguments which I've never made to me, and much more. I also don't criticise contributors based on their posting location.

You have repeatedly refused to even acknowledge or do not know that the infrastructure concerned is in need of upgrading now never mind by 2030

Again, you are wrong. I have merely pointed out that a substantial amount of infrastructure around the UK also requires upgrading, and that works required in the vicinity of LHR should take their place in the queue for public funding rather than exuding an air of automatic entitlement ahead of the rest.

You complain about unfair spending in and around London yet one of the outcomes of this project will be easy access to/from the regions for foreign investment.

Long overdue direct investment in regional infrastructure priorities will bring vastly greater benefits in this respect.

None of this matters though as once again that huge chip of yours gets in the way.

Remind me again ... which one of us is being childish?

Why do you keep insisting on using the current setup as a reason not to improve it

I'd be delighted to see them improve it provided that it doesn't require £18Bn in taxpayer funding to achieve.

You missed my point completely.

No, you just disliked me pointing out that NCL-EWR-[US onward city] is preferable to routing via LHR anyway!

Many on here are absolutely fed up of me labouring this point. Few would claim I hadn't done so!
Well on that we can agree

Excellent. So you finally acknowledge that I have argued against LHR R3 solely based upon the magnitude of proposed taxpayer funding.

I am sure you won't be able to not have the last word though so will leave that to you.

I didn't notice you shying away from one-for-one replies?

Hopefully this project will go ahead and we can actually see the benefits throughout the UK.

Hopefully taxpayer funding for infrastructure innovations can at last be spread fairly around regional UK rather than concentrated exclusively in the SE yet again, such that benefits can be directly shared by the whole country.

[1-11days]

Infrastructure in need of upgrading

"You have repeatedly refused to even acknowledge or do not know that the infrastructure concerned is in need of upgrading now never mind by 2030. "


A very valid point about infrastructure, one that many outside the favoured south east are made aware of through their daily experience of creaking transport networks which have had precious little investment over the years. The point is that if this public investment goes into the south east yet again the national economic imbalance continues and areas of potential growth elsewhere continue to be starved.


Heathrow should pay its fair share of infrastructure work which enables any extra runway - be it rail or road provision. At the moment it looks as though this is not going to be the case with the subsidy dressed up as for national economic benefit when in reality it will merely improve south east infrastructure primarily for the benefit of the south east.