HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What?? State aid?! Tosh.
Have a look here for what state aid actually is State Aid in the EC
Heathrow's scheme is privately financed.
Have a look here for what state aid actually is State Aid in the EC
Heathrow's scheme is privately financed.
Last edited by Trash 'n' Navs; 17th Sep 2016 at 17:35. Reason: fixed the link
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What?? State aid?! Tosh.
Have a look here for what state aid actually is State Aid in the EC
Heathrow's scheme is privately financed.
Have a look here for what state aid actually is State Aid in the EC
Heathrow's scheme is privately financed.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am also not going to mention the ME3 of which MAN is so dependent. Whoops!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P328
Fig 16.33 refers "nature and scale of financing ".
Airport Commission Final Report.
Incidentally if there is no public contribution can you confirm exactly what the chief of the treasury select committee is actually querying?
We would all love to know.
He has written to Chris Grayling 5 times asking for answers?
Fig 16.33 refers "nature and scale of financing ".
Airport Commission Final Report.
Incidentally if there is no public contribution can you confirm exactly what the chief of the treasury select committee is actually querying?
We would all love to know.
He has written to Chris Grayling 5 times asking for answers?
Last edited by Bagso; 17th Sep 2016 at 19:31.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
Then tell me which page of the AC Report says the Heathrow expansion is being funded by the state. I missed it.
Removals of utilities and roads on the public purse
Modifications to the surrounding roads and rail on the public purse.
Imported materials and expenses underwritten by the state.
This is several billions of PUBLIC money.
As others have said the R3 case does not pass the value for money test imo.
Ands i couldn't care less that people in the regions are changing to route through other hubs on the continent, in the desert or even actually using the increasing number of point to point options, because the disruptive forces at play with flexible fares and yes those ME3 +1 one options are changing the playing field with or without R3.
This is simple completion at work and if one rather well known LHR operator chooses to continue to offer little (nothing) from much of the regions combined with additional stops! on many global routes its their commercial decision isn't it ?
BTW the predicted and expected growth in aviation the next 40 years is within Asia and continued short haul not those lovely long hauls from London or others.
The developing economies aren't proving that reliable in generating global growth - They by definition aren't stable
I struggle to believe that a single UK airport runway space or not would reach 140 million .
Further i read many times that somewhere like Heathrow requires the Hub and Spoke model to support the thinner routes.
Well if a route is so precarious chop it imo - they do in the regions !
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I do hope they reopen the Manchester thread for you guys.
Page 328 doesn't say State Aid is being provided. On the contrary it says the airport should pay a significant part "if not all" of the surface access costs directly associated with expansion.
Check the link I provided because State Aid doesn't apply here.
Oh, compulsory purchase is funded by the developer.
Page 328 doesn't say State Aid is being provided. On the contrary it says the airport should pay a significant part "if not all" of the surface access costs directly associated with expansion.
Check the link I provided because State Aid doesn't apply here.
Oh, compulsory purchase is funded by the developer.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trash you do know i live less than 8 miles north of Heathrow
Compulsory purchase orders are indeed born by the State with defined compensation rates they are not funded by the developer.
The developer then acquires the land from the authority at what ever rates can be agreed.
So the public purse has the hit up front.
I have no doubt that there will be contracts placed to recover as much of the public costs of off HAL over time, however like it or not huge oceans of PUBLIC tax payers monies spent WILL accrue on this project and the bill will without doubt take thirty + years to recover.
The current voluntary system being offered is very generous through at 25% above commercial rates and any one in the effected area would be idiotic not to take advantage now but thats rather a different debate.
As for those projected employment gains again somewhat sceptical on several grounds not the least as where to house them if they ever materialise.
It further adds to local pressures on public services and continues the migration South .
Personally would rather see fewer jobs created however focused in the regions where levels of unemployment remain high wouldn't you ?
Compulsory purchase orders are indeed born by the State with defined compensation rates they are not funded by the developer.
The developer then acquires the land from the authority at what ever rates can be agreed.
So the public purse has the hit up front.
I have no doubt that there will be contracts placed to recover as much of the public costs of off HAL over time, however like it or not huge oceans of PUBLIC tax payers monies spent WILL accrue on this project and the bill will without doubt take thirty + years to recover.
The current voluntary system being offered is very generous through at 25% above commercial rates and any one in the effected area would be idiotic not to take advantage now but thats rather a different debate.
As for those projected employment gains again somewhat sceptical on several grounds not the least as where to house them if they ever materialise.
It further adds to local pressures on public services and continues the migration South .
Personally would rather see fewer jobs created however focused in the regions where levels of unemployment remain high wouldn't you ?
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I do hope they reopen the Manchester thread for you guys.
Page 328 doesn't say State Aid is being provided. On the contrary it says the airport should pay a significant part "if not all" of the surface access costs directly associated with expansion.
Check the link I provided because State Aid doesn't apply here.
Oh, compulsory purchase is funded by the developer.
Page 328 doesn't say State Aid is being provided. On the contrary it says the airport should pay a significant part "if not all" of the surface access costs directly associated with expansion.
Check the link I provided because State Aid doesn't apply here.
Oh, compulsory purchase is funded by the developer.
Firstly, it's not Heathrow's document setting out Heathrow's proposal and secondly, why would Heathrow admit to this when they are clearly trying to present this as a fait accompli with the taxpayer picking up a significant (tens of billions) part of the bill.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is Gatwick's view that the commission has got it completely wrong with regard to pax numbers and new routes. The commission stated it would take Lgw another 10 years to reach 40m pax p.a. yet they are already past that figure. The commission also stated it would take Lgw until 2050 to get to 50 long haul routes, a number now exceeded. Is Lgw correct in its claims? If they are, how are we then take this report as being completely accurate with such serious errors and use it to decide future policy for the country?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compulsory purchase - Heathrow is offering 25% above market rate and has a large allocation set aside in its costings. Should a commercial agreement not be achieved then yes, the state can compulsorily acquire it but would pass the cost straight on to the developer. This is what page 328 says.
AC forecasts - if the AC's methodology is flawed and they didn't predict LGW's growth, then the same must be true of LHR's growth. In which case, it's worse than first thought. The government is artificially influencing the market by preventing LHR from expanding and driving growth to LGW as there's no alternative. That sounds like State Aid in favour of GIP.
AC forecasts - if the AC's methodology is flawed and they didn't predict LGW's growth, then the same must be true of LHR's growth. In which case, it's worse than first thought. The government is artificially influencing the market by preventing LHR from expanding and driving growth to LGW as there's no alternative. That sounds like State Aid in favour of GIP.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compulsory purchase - Heathrow is offering 25% above market rate and has a large allocation set aside in its costings. Should a commercial agreement not be achieved then yes, the state can compulsorily acquire it but would pass the cost straight on to the developer. This is what page 328 says.
AC forecasts - if the AC's methodology is flawed and they didn't predict LGW's growth, then the same must be true of LHR's growth. In which case, it's worse than first thought. The government is artificially influencing the market by preventing LHR from expanding and driving growth to LGW as there's no alternative. That sounds like State Aid in favour of GIP.
AC forecasts - if the AC's methodology is flawed and they didn't predict LGW's growth, then the same must be true of LHR's growth. In which case, it's worse than first thought. The government is artificially influencing the market by preventing LHR from expanding and driving growth to LGW as there's no alternative. That sounds like State Aid in favour of GIP.
If LHR are unable to expand (for example because they cannot afford to do so without significant support from public funds) then that is a commercial issue for LHR to address.
State aid is not a zero sum game. If LHR is allowed to grow, then that does not necessarily mean that it receives state aid. Likewise if LGW is allowed to grow. The issue is whether tens of billions of pounds of public money are being pumped into a private enterprise to give it an artificial competetive advantage over (in particular) AMS, FRA, CDG.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow is not a straightforward peice of private enterprise anymore than Hinckley Point is. There are obvious grey areas where HMG needs to support a business which is fudamental to national infrastructure and arguably should not have been sold off entirely in the way it was.
Gatwick are screaming "unfair" because the venture capitalists who bought it for a very good price need LHR to be constrained to flog it off for a much higher one so those at GIP can add to their yacht collection. By all means allow LGW to expand but not at the cost of the airport that airlines and customers would prefer and the one which supports the economy wayyyy more.
LGW does not have "50 long haul routes" without counting all those once a week TCX and TOM beach destinations. For purposes of business long haul they have :
HKG CX A359 not daily vs 5 B777s daily LHR
JFK BA B772 loss leader vs DY
DXB A388 high Y capacity with no F on many services
The rest is p2p leisure with almost no capacity for inbound investment.
The one recent change is DY and two based B787s but that's little acorns at the mo but is beginning to drive inbound US pax. No other major long hauler even uses LGW.
In the last decade, LGW has LOST : AA, DL, US, NW, CO, KE, CA, EY and QR !! No other airport comes close to losing so many major world airlines!
Gatwick are screaming "unfair" because the venture capitalists who bought it for a very good price need LHR to be constrained to flog it off for a much higher one so those at GIP can add to their yacht collection. By all means allow LGW to expand but not at the cost of the airport that airlines and customers would prefer and the one which supports the economy wayyyy more.
LGW does not have "50 long haul routes" without counting all those once a week TCX and TOM beach destinations. For purposes of business long haul they have :
HKG CX A359 not daily vs 5 B777s daily LHR
JFK BA B772 loss leader vs DY
DXB A388 high Y capacity with no F on many services
The rest is p2p leisure with almost no capacity for inbound investment.
The one recent change is DY and two based B787s but that's little acorns at the mo but is beginning to drive inbound US pax. No other major long hauler even uses LGW.
In the last decade, LGW has LOST : AA, DL, US, NW, CO, KE, CA, EY and QR !! No other airport comes close to losing so many major world airlines!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
Compulsory purchase - Heathrow is offering 25% above market rate
Only defined State agencies , regional development boards and utilities can apply for a CPO via an Act of Parliament or via an order under the terms of the Transport and Works Act 1992,
If and when a CPO is issued the compensation rates are set in law and it is criminal offence to receive monies such to make a profit.
All expenses require documentation and detailed explanation including relocation costs legal costs other professional fees etc....
As I said those thinking that they are sitting pretty at the moment Will/WOULD be sorely disappointed and very financially embarrassed !
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW does not have "50 long haul routes" without counting all those once a week TCX and TOM beach destinations. For purposes of business long haul they have :
By all means allow LGW to expand but not at the cost of the airport that airlines and customers would prefer and the one which supports the economy wayyyy more.
LGW can provide the capacity needed to accommodate inherent SE demand-growth for air travel with considerably reduced risk to the public purse.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow is not a straightforward peice of private enterprise anymore than Hinckley Point is. There are obvious grey areas where HMG needs to support a business which is fudamental to national infrastructure and arguably should not have been sold off entirely in the way it was.
However, we are where we are and in any case the idea that it should be Heathrow at any cost is plainly not a winner. Increasing supply whilst raising prices is not likely to end well without public support.
It's a shame the pent up demand is not common knowledge, that would make it much easier to assess.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
LGW is absolutely fine for absorbing new leisure and no-frills traffic which is by far the largest growth sector.
Well said.
The debate is indeed about concrete and not the support of a particular business model which sees millions travel through London (CDG FRA and AMS similarly) to elsewhere adding little benefit the local economies - Don't even pay APD !
As said earlier the expected growth in air travel is within Asia and short haul not significant long haul over the next 40 years.
Its interesting isn't it that the only significant airline to have vocalised interest in LHR third runway is none other than a short haul flexible fare carrier rather orange in colour rather than some exotic from Mongolia or Sub-Saharan Africa !
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The debate is being held here rather than where it should be, ie Parliament
With such spectacular growth at both airport's then both projects should go ahead.
I am concerned that the Lhr project is going to cause major infrastructure problems to the M4/M25 network and thus airport access whilst its construction goes ahead. Can the airport cope with years of this potential chaos.
With such spectacular growth at both airport's then both projects should go ahead.
I am concerned that the Lhr project is going to cause major infrastructure problems to the M4/M25 network and thus airport access whilst its construction goes ahead. Can the airport cope with years of this potential chaos.