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

HEATHROW

Old 20th Sep 2016, 09:46
  #4521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
BA Shuttle numbers have declined because BA does not carry so much point-to-point traffic on the Heathrow domestic services anymore, particularly from Manchester and Newcastle.

BA, through the takover of BMI, have re-introduced services from Heathrow to Belfast City, Inverness and Leeds-Bradford.

In addition a lot of the point-to-point traffic from Scotland now goes via London City. BA also operate 767's on selected services from Heathrow to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

I would say that BA's domestic traffic to all London airports has actually increased and freed up space for passengers connecting onto other BA services from Heathrow.
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 10:58
  #4522 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,305
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
Considering the runway would not even be operational within that time they may well be right
The Airport Commission's forecast was for 2030. Heathrow is planning for R3 to be operational in late 2025. What makes you think there would be a 5-year delay ?

And be that as it may, the AC also forecasts the same number of domestic destinations (4) in 2040 and 2050.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 11:52
  #4523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
The current setup requires upgrading now as anyone who has to negotiate that part of the M25 in rush hour knows. That won't come cheap.
If something requires upgrading there is a presumption in the SE that funding will be waved through. Are you aware that this doesn't automatically happen re requires upgrading projects elsewhere in the UK?

I presume TFL have lumped in all sorts of works and contingency costs into this figure
We cannot progress funding of this magnitude based upon presumption. The level of drain required from public funds must be verified. TFL is well-qualified to make cost assessments on transport infrastructure projects, so their estimates must be taken seriously and examined.

One thing people need to understand is that a large amount of that figure will come straight back into the public purse from all the various taxes imposed
One could equally argue this for the LGW scheme and for alternative schemes of merit around the UK which represent far better value to the taxpayer. The vast costs associated with LHR R3 cannot be approved based on a flimsy excuse of this sort.

The project will likely be carried out by companies and workers from all over the UK who will take that money home and spend in in the local economy.
Ah, the infamous trickledown argument. Based upon this, the streets of Burnley, Bridgend, and Stanley should already be paved with gold trickled down from recent SE construction projects such as Crossrail, the Olympic Park, Thameslink remodelling and so many more. Curiously, that never quite seems to work out!

Materials will be made in factories all over the UK.
Also true in much larger volume if public funds are instead deployed on projects of merit located all around the UK where each pound spent buys so much more.

Taking private finance and putting it into a large infrastructure project is a great way to put other peoples money into the economy.
But if this is attempted on a scale so large that the host company risks default or failure to raise the capital required, default to the taxpayer becomes a huge concern. Will the taxpayer be underwriting the privately-funded element of LHR R3?

The same goes for projects like Hinckley
I thought the bulk of the money from Hinckley was destined for France and China. Where will the LHR R3 billions be off to?

and is why it is possible to build out of a recession.
A much more effective way to build out of recession would be to invest public funds directly into attractively-priced projects of merit located directly within depressed and neglected areas across the UK.

It also provides a countrywide benefit despite the final project being based in the SE.
Large-scale projects of merit around regional UK can also provide this. Unfortunately, I can't quote a real-world example, as during the last 50 years all multi-billion pound projects have been allocated to the SE exclusively. Time for some rebalancing?

The money does not just disappear.
Well the money from Crossrail, the Olympic Park and all the rest didn't find its way to my part of the world. Where did it go?

An expanded LHR that allows people to fly from their regional airport to destinations all over the world does benefit the whole of the UK.
Like a crumb from a large loaf benefits a mouse? The scale of funding required versus the underwhelming payback is beyond pitiful. Invest directly into those regions instead.

It is wrong to think of it as another SE project that will only benefit London.
But it will absolutely, overwhelmingly benefit London with only crumbs and empty promises trickling down to the rest of the UK.

The nation really should get behind this and it's a shame the MAN supporters feel so threatened.
The whole nation should feel threatened by another GBP12-18Bn of public funding glibly allocated to a project of very low merit within the charmed SE bubble. BTW, that cheap MAN Supporter jibe undermines your credibility as a serious contributor.

it will also allow more destinations that no airport, even LHR in it's current form could support. This in turn brings in people from further afield than the UK and that is worth a lot of money to our economy.
Have you seen some of the surprising destinations which carriers such as Ryanair and Wizz have introduced to the London airports portfolio? LHR has no monopoly on attracting new destinations. Even the Davies Report acknowledged that wasn't one of its strengths. A new runway at LGW can bring such people into the UK too.

Hopefully the right decision will be made as for the majority of people an expanded LHR is a win win situation.
Since it will cost many multiples the value it represents to make happen, LHR R3 is a win for selected lawyers, surveyors, engineers and very few others. Certainly not for the public. Absolutely not for the public. The right decision is LGW, subject to rigid cost oversight and the promised private funding being forthcoming.

I would say that BA's domestic traffic to all London airports has actually increased and freed up space for passengers connecting onto other BA services from Heathrow.
It is good to note real-world evidence that passengers are content to use London gateways other than LHR to meet their travel needs.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 13:41
  #4524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Shed we have argued these points before and I am not going go through it again.
You just did. My post was a response to you doing exactly that.

If foreign investment is not as forthcoming then that is hardly a reason to cancel projects in the SE.
I have no desire to see worthwhile value-for-money projects cancelled in the SE or anywhere else. The problem lies with permitting one specific project at which the cost of provision vastly outweighs the benefits which will ultimately be delivered. And one which misallocates an enormous swathe of public investment resources in the process.

there is also an element of public funding required at LHR
That element of public funding is actually 12 to 18 times the sum which has ever been invested in a single public transport infrastructure project in the UK regions.

My argument is for a hub. Yours is for an expanded LGW.
My argument is for a solution to the SE runway capacity shortfall which does not jeopardise the finances of UK plc. The hub aspiration only makes sense if the payback exceeds the cost of facilitating it by a worthwhile profit margin. Providing capacity for inherent SE demand-growth for air travel is the key issue here. LGW can deliver that.

If we do want to build a world class hub airport for a realistic amount then the only sensible option is LHR.
In what way does GBP18.5Bn private plus between GBP12-18Bn in public funding for enabling works constitute a realistic amount for expanding LHR capacity by just 50%?

The AC can say what it wants, it is the airlines who will decide
So can we deduce that you have little confidence in the AC report as a whole, or is it just the sections which don't support your agenda which should be overlooked?
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 13:41
  #4525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,305
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
Is that a joke? I wouldn't be surprised if there is an extra 5 year delay in a decision being made let alone all the extra planning approvals and further consultations.
Nor would I be surprised, if indeed LHR R3 goes ahead at all. But with no R3, the Commission forecasts an even steeper decline in the number of domestic routes.

The AC can say what it wants
Yes, that's the great thing about forecasts - anyone is free to agree or disagree with them, and only time will tell who got it right.

it is the airlines who will decide and an expanded LHR open to SH traffic will be very attractive to the regionals
Yes, it's the airlines and not the airport who decide what routes and destinations they will serve. But a route only makes sense if it's profitable and that's partly dependent on the airport's user charges, particularly on regional routes and those flown by LCCs. Heathrow getting an adequate ROI on a third runway isn't EasyJet's problem.

plus LHR will also want a large flow of people through its 'shopping experience'.
See above. Airlines don't start routes just to help the airport sell more duty-frees.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 15:10
  #4526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
LHR charge High fees? who could believe such a thing??

they'll screw the last drop of blood out of the regionals if it improves their bonus by 1
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 16:37
  #4527 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Ryanair and Wizz Air have indeed added some surprising destinations to the London portfolio but none of these are likely to be seen at an expanded Heathrow.

I can't see Ryanair or Wizz Air adding destinations such as Ankara, Nagoya, Osaka, Kolkata, Hangzhou, Dakar, Quito or Memphis.
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 17:06
  #4528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
There is nothing stopping BA from adding those routes NOW. They don't need a runway added to do that.
Ringwayman is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 17:13
  #4529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
They could but other destinations and frequencies will have to be dropped such as Manchester.
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 17:26
  #4530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole View Post



I have no desire to see worthwhile value-for-money projects cancelled in the SE or anywhere else. The problem lies with permitting one specific project at which the cost of provision vastly outweighs the benefits which will ultimately be delivered. And one which misallocates an enormous swathe of public investment resources in the process.



That element of public funding is actually 12 to 18 times the sum which has ever been invested in a single public transport infrastructure project in the UK regions.



My argument is for a solution to the SE runway capacity shortfall which does not jeopardise the finances of UK plc. The hub aspiration only makes sense if the payback exceeds the cost of facilitating it by a worthwhile profit margin. Providing capacity for inherent SE demand-growth for air travel is the key issue here. LGW can deliver that.



In what way does GBP18.5Bn private plus between GBP12-18Bn in public funding for enabling works constitute a realistic amount for expanding LHR capacity by just 50%?


Shed. You argue your case articulately as ever. Sadly you also undermine it by your dogged insistence on utilising figures for the public expenditure to support Heathrow's expansion that have little or no basis in fact. You have on many occasions cited TfL figures to justify the upper range of the cost envelope. These figures include every bit of TfL expenditure that it can possibly pin against Heathrow for 30 years worth of investment. To think that TfL won't be arguing the need for similar sums to support the capital's future transport needs if Heathrow doesn't get the green light is naive, and that's not a word I would associate with you.

You also seem to be focused on the cost of everything and the value of nothing. How much tax (in the form of APD) do Heathrow passengers contribute to the Treasury? How much additional revenue would a 50% increase in traffic generate over 15 or 20 years? How expensive is that public sector investment looking now?

Anyway, until the government of the day grows a paira nd actually makes a decision this debate is rather academic anyway, wouldn't you say?
AndrewH52 is online now  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 19:00
  #4531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
They could but other destinations and frequencies will have to be dropped such as Manchester.
A decade ago there were around 50 round-trips daily operating between four different London airports and MAN. Today there are just 8 serving LHR only and those are operated by A320-family aircraft rather than the larger B752/B763 types routinely used in the past. Such has been the decline in importance of airlinks to London, crushed by punitive taxation, WCML improvements and more competitive direct offerings by the airline industry itself. Rail and road have taken the P2P business; direct air services to end-destinations and routes via alternative hubs have claimed the rest. Yet despite this massive decline to London in particular, MAN is handling more business than ever before. So the threat of losing more frequencies to LHR is not the concern it once was. Unless British Airways wish to cut themselves off completely from the largest market in Northern England there is little left to cut. And that is a commercial decision for them to make. Life without BA is no longer unthinkable. The market has adapted.

your dogged insistence on utilising figures for the public expenditure to support Heathrow's expansion that have little or no basis in fact.
I use numbers produced by expert professionals published in the public domain. What other kind are available? Neither you nor I will know the final verified figures until many years from now.

You also seem to be focused on the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
As opposed to the value of everything and the cost of nothing as we see from so many other commentators? Both sides of the ledger must be carefully considered.

How much tax (in the form of APD) do Heathrow passengers contribute to the Treasury?
From hub transfer passengers - nothing. From London-originating passengers the same as if they were flying from LGW, STN, LTN or LCY.

How much additional revenue would a 50% increase in traffic generate over 15 or 20 years?
Not enough to justify upto 36 billion pounds in combined expenditure to make it a reality, when LGW can resolve the capacity shortfall for far, far less.

How expensive is that public sector investment looking now?
Honest answer? VERY!!!

Anyway, until the government of the day grows a paira nd actually makes a decision this debate is rather academic anyway, wouldn't you say?
Much of the media believes that a decision will come in October. If borne out, this debate won't be academic for much longer. The decision-makers need to appraise themselves of the facts now. Time may be short.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 19:43
  #4532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Seriously Shed? Gatwick is not a serious option you seem focused on low cost services and ignore the huge intercontinental market that is going to other European airports.

Are your professional experts the same as those professional experts that predicted immediate armageddon after the Brexit vote?

If an extra runway is approved then it will not be Gatwick.

Last edited by Ametyst1; 20th Sep 2016 at 20:31.
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 20:31
  #4533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole View Post
A decade ago there were around 50 round-trips daily operating between four different London airports and MAN. Today there are just 8 serving LHR only and those are operated by A320-family aircraft rather than the larger B752/B763 types routinely used in the past. Such has been the decline in importance of airlinks to London, crushed by punitive taxation, WCML improvements and more competitive direct offerings by the airline industry itself. Rail and road have taken the P2P business; direct air services to end-destinations and routes via alternative hubs have claimed the rest. Yet despite this massive decline to London in particular, MAN is handling more business than ever before. So the threat of losing more frequencies to LHR is not the concern it once was. Unless British Airways wish to cut themselves off completely from the largest market in Northern England there is little left to cut. And that is a commercial decision for them to make. Life without BA is no longer unthinkable. The market has adapted.



I use numbers produced by expert professionals published in the public domain. What other kind are available? Neither you nor I will know the final verified figures until many years from now.



As opposed to the value of everything and the cost of nothing as we see from so many other commentators? Both sides of the ledger must be carefully considered.



From hub transfer passengers - nothing. From London-originating passengers the same as if they were flying from LGW, STN, LTN or LCY.



Not enough to justify upto 36 billion pounds in combined expenditure to make it a reality, when LGW can resolve the capacity shortfall for far, far less.



Honest answer? VERY!!!



Much of the media believes that a decision will come in October. If borne out, this debate won't be academic for much longer. The decision-makers need to appraise themselves of the facts now. Time may be short.
Shed. Sorry, wrong on a number of levels.There is a significantly higher level of premium traffic ex LHR compared to the other London airports so APD receipts will not be the same. Not all London airports are equal.

A figure quoted by BoJo's 'transport guru' in TfL's submission to the Commission Inquiry doesn't rate as 'expert professionals' to me. No break down, no analysis, no transparency to his evidence.

It's also laughable to think that expansion at Gatwick won't require significant public funds to support it. It's just that it generally falls outside of the coverage of TfL.
AndrewH52 is online now  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 20:40
  #4534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Seriously Shed? Gatwick is not a serious option you seem focused on low cost services and ignore the huge intercontinental market that is going to other European airports.
The largest growth sector affecting demand for air travel from the SE catchment is leisure and no-frills. That's a fact, however off-message that may be. New long-haul requires a fraction of the slots needed to accommodate this. So LGW is perfectly suited to soak up that incremental business, and at a fraction of the cost cited for the LHR R3 proposals. London already copes just fine with its existing huge intercontinental market, but that sector is not where the serious growth in demand is coming from.

Are your professional experts the same as those professional experts that predicted immediate armageddon after Brexit?
We could make cynical comments such as this about all experts contributing to both sides of the debate. We will only know who got it right with the benefit of hindsight.

If an extra runway is approved then it will not be Gatwick.
So you're a prophet? Can you share next week's winning lottery numbers with us whilst you're on a roll? :-)
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 20:57
  #4535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Shed, I am a professional expert! My expert opinion is a good as anyone else's after all that is just what they are, opinions.
Ametyst1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 20:57
  #4536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Shed. Sorry, wrong on a number of levels.
Nice soundbite. Please state your evidence!

There is a significantly higher level of premium traffic ex LHR compared to the other London airports so APD receipts will not be the same
You're talking about traffic volume based on current distribution of services. I was referencing actual APD charges per passenger which follow a set-scale according to route length and class of travel regardless of departure airport. Thus a passenger flying from LHR or LGW to Prague in economy can expect to pay the same amount in APD. Likewise a passenger in business flying from LHR or LGW to HKG.

Note for clarification that Scotland plans to move away from this system and that there is a special exemption for BFS-EWR (I believe). The APD system is under review and may change at some point in the future anyway.

Not all London airports are equal.
But the scale of APD charges levied per passenger at each of them is.

A figure quoted by BoJo's 'transport guru' in TfL's submission to the Commission Inquiry doesn't rate as 'expert professionals' to me.
You disagree with this specific commentator. I disagree with certain others. With so many different views being expressed these matters are subjective. We must make our own judgments.

It's also laughable to think that expansion at Gatwick won't require significant public funds to support it.
Hence my call for strict cost oversight to be applied with respect to their proposals.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 20:59
  #4537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Shed, I am a professional expert!
Good for you.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2016, 22:36
  #4538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole View Post
Nice soundbite. Please state your evidence!



You're talking about traffic volume based on current distribution of services. I was referencing actual APD charges per passenger which follow a set-scale according to route length and class of travel regardless of departure airport. Thus a passenger flying from LHR or LGW to Prague in economy can expect to pay the same amount in APD. Likewise a passenger in business flying from LHR or LGW to HKG.

Note for clarification that Scotland plans to move away from this system and that there is a special exemption for BFS-EWR (I believe). The APD system is under review and may change at some point in the future anyway.



But the scale of APD charges levied per passenger at each of them is.



You disagree with this specific commentator. I disagree with certain others. With so many different views being expressed these matters are subjective. We must make our own judgments.



Hence my call for strict cost oversight to be applied with respect to their proposals.

Ahh. So your expert is now just a 'commentator'. That perhaps puts his 'expert opinion' into a more realistic context.

It's funny that you seem happy to take the figures provided in respect of Gatwick (9.3billion, let's not forget) at face value but the c.12bn figure provided by Heathrow with utter contempt. Gatwick expansion is almost 75% of the cost of the Heathrow proposals (discounting TfL's extortionate shopping list). One can be progressed with 'appropriate financial oversight' yet the other risks financial oblivion, it seems.

Scotland's plans for APD are irrelevant here. As really are suggestions that businesses and first class pax pay the same level of APD ex Gatwick and Heathrow. As has been demonstrated over a prolonged period of time, Gatwick has an absolute inability to support premium traffic compared to Heathrow. No contest.

Still, if the City of London loses passporting rights post Brexit we are probably all screwed anyway.
AndrewH52 is online now  
Old 21st Sep 2016, 12:06
  #4539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 323
Expand both, Runway 3 for LHR, Runway 2 for LGW.

Both are commercial enterprises, privately run and all future projects and construction should be privately funded. Government choosing one private company over another, involving public money is disgraceful. Approve both and allow them to fight it out!

Best man wins/loses.

Or, far more likely, neither get approved.

Still, if the City of London loses passporting rights post Brexit we are probably all screwed anyway.
Well you can consider us screwed then, don't be holding out for that!
T250 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2016, 13:15
  #4540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,305
Originally Posted by T250 View Post
Or, far more likely, neither get approved.
Approving both would have the same outcome as approving neither.
DaveReidUK 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.