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

HEATHROW

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 29th Sep 2016, 18:18
  #4641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Solihull
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Heathrow have announced that they will announce proposals to bring forward the benefits on a new runway by 4 years - through these extra 25,000 movements - I imagine we'll hear more about how exactly they plan on creating those extra slots in the coming week as these proposals are published.
coathanger16 is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2016, 20:36
  #4642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, you're the one saying that. They haven't mentioned any specifics
OK, to be more precise - Heathrow are saying they want a new runway and they'd like to increase the overall movement rate in the mean time by having 25,000 more arrivals / departures a year, ahead of the third runway becoming available. It amounts to the same thing - I can't see the locals being overjoyed.
EastMids is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2016, 21:19
  #4643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It may not require the use of both runways for the same operation though, that's what I'm saying.

All that we know is that the movement rate would have to increase, and/or or ops would begin earlier and continue later.

One of those is probably less likely to happen than the other.
Gonzo is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2016, 21:25
  #4644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,821
Received 206 Likes on 94 Posts
Originally Posted by EastMids
It amounts to the same thing - I can't see the locals being overjoyed.
That's putting it mildly.

I can't really see a proposal to overturn the T5 480,000 ATM planning constraint four years before R3 surviving a challenge in the courts, which could suggest that it's a throwaway negotiating ploy.

The related proposal to "ring-fence" 60% of the additional ATMs (21 daily rotations) for domestic routes, even if it doesn't turn out to be academic (see above), seems unlikely to have airlines rushing to (re)start services to the likes of Norwich, Liverpool, Teesside, IoM, etc.

But when the big prize is getting approval for R3, ancillary promises cost nothing.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2016, 21:25
  #4645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is not the increase of ATMs a measure to increase revenue. If they can't get it from IAG would this be the solution?

Do we know yet how much the Government is stumping up. It seems odd that 6 months ago the Government were screaming austerity and there was enough pennies for a cake of the tea trolley at PMQS. Now it's spend spend spend!
Navpi is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2016, 22:48
  #4646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just reported on Sky.

Apparently there is a train of thought that Heathrow has really shot itself in the foot big style re 3rd runway with the "no compromise from shareholders re Heathrow Hub".

Has gone down like a proverbial lead balloon !
Maybe it's because the Heathrow Hub option requires "mixed mode" operations at all time with no "segregated mode" and no alternation, otherwise the number of movements cannot be increased sufficiently to have a return on investment, in which case there's no point.

If this scheme was implemented, there would be "a train of thought that Heathrow has really shot itself in the foot big style" re. the residents who live under the flightpaths.

Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 5th Oct 2016 at 01:12.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2016, 22:55
  #4647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,821
Received 206 Likes on 94 Posts
Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank
Maybe it's because the Heathrow Hub option requires "mixed mode" operations at all time with no "segregated mode" and no alternation, otherwise the number of movements cannot be increased sufficiently to have a return on investment, otherwise there's no point.
Like wot I posted 6 hours ago, you mean ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2016, 22:03
  #4648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a supporter of Heathrow I don't see how you can simply tear up agreements re times of operation, mixed mode etc on a whim !

We will be heading for real public disorder here if we are not careful!

Meanwhile those pesky Northerners are getting peeved off as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...P=share_btn_tw
Navpi is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2016, 07:03
  #4649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Manchester airport is the third-biggest in the UK and the only hub, other than Heathrow, with two runways. Twenty five million passengers travel through Manchester airport every year but it has the capacity to carry 55 million
So plenty of spare capacity already - not like LHR handling 75m!!

Navpi - you need to read the press release again. The added flights are an option and would be introduced after planning approval following extensive consultation. The Government doesn't have to agree to it.
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2016, 09:23
  #4650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Solihull
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seeming as Heathrow will be applying to increase the flight cap anyway to 720,000 to make use of the third runway, why would "asking" for 25,000 extra flights to be allowed from 2021 be a problem?

Both Manchester and Birmingham airports have recently been putting out claims about how expansion in the SE (particularly at Heathrow) would harm their business. Birmingham seriously seems to fear losing flights to Heathrow if they get the third runway. If the only way these airports can secure flights is by constraining other airports, is there really a demand for them at those airports?
coathanger16 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2016, 09:38
  #4651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 542
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It is over a year since the planning inspector finished public comments on the use of the northern runway for departure's. No doubt the decision is parked until the "announcement". If given the go ahead will this allow part of the 25,000 extra ATMs to be available?
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2016, 10:26
  #4652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,821
Received 206 Likes on 94 Posts
Originally Posted by Trinity 09L
It is over a year since the planning inspector finished public comments on the use of the northern runway for departures. No doubt the decision is parked until the "announcement". If given the go ahead will this allow part of the 25,000 extra ATMs to be available?
No, making alternation on easterlies possible doesn't make any difference to runway capacity (otherwise we'd see big delays building up every day the wind was from the east).
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2016, 16:18
  #4653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
trying to keep the Tory Conference quiet??

Heathrow runway decision to be made 'shortly' - BBC News

A decision over where to site a new runway in the south east of England will be taken "shortly", Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has said.


Mr Grayling said he has spent the summer looking at the plans.
"They're all very well crafted proposals, they're all very interesting, they've all got great potential. We need to decide which is best for Britain," Mr Grayling told the BBC.
"You will get an announcement shortly. We haven't taken the decision yet," he said.
The transport secretary also refused to rule out granting a free vote to Conservative MPs on the issue of airport expansion, saying "decisions about parliamentary handling… have not yet been taken".
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2016, 17:52
  #4654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just out of curiosity as Heathrow is owned by shareholders is there anything to stop them selling up as soon as they get a Yes decision?

The railways at least have lock in for multiple years so how will this work with airport policy?

The airport could in effect have numerous different owners between now and opening date.

How will the Government protect any of there own investment in supporting infrastructure if the ownership keeps changing ?
Navpi is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2016, 07:04
  #4655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well finally they have realised that a project which will become operational around 2030 needs to use vehicle pollution data based, not on today's levels but those predicted to be around at that time.

We may be getting somewhere.
Prophead is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2016, 07:09
  #4656 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just out of curiosity as Heathrow is owned by shareholders is there anything to stop them selling up as soon as they get a Yes decision?

The railways at least have lock in for multiple years so how will this work with airport policy?

The airport could in effect have numerous different owners between now and opening date.

How will the Government protect any of there own investment in supporting infrastructure if the ownership keeps changing ?
The airport is owned by BAA. That is unlikely to change. BAA may have various shareholders but that doesn't affect the plans or responsibilities regarding BAA.
Prophead is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2016, 08:25
  #4657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,821
Received 206 Likes on 94 Posts
Did we miss it?

This time last week we were being told by Heathrow:

The benefits of Heathrow expansion could be delivered four years early, giving the British economy a £1.5bn ‘Brexit boost’ whilst a third runway is built, according to new proposals to be launched on the first day of the upcoming Conservative Party Conference
Heathrow - Heathrow?s Brexit Boost to help make Britain stronger and fairer - faster

Did anyone witness this launch? Did we learn anything new?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2016, 09:24
  #4658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Heathrow is owned by who. ..��

My goodness I could be exchanging comments with an MP.

Who on earth are the BAA?

And as for C02 emissions!

Well to be honest it's hardly worth having a meaningful discussion if you have no clue about ownership ......

but basing emissions on what "might" happen in 30 years rather than now is really just bunkum.

Not sure even the most ardent supporter of Heathrow (me included) would believe the Your Heathrow propaganda machine. They have been done 4 times by the ASA this year. That is some going and I hate to say it all a bit desperate.
Navpi is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2016, 09:43
  #4659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,821
Received 206 Likes on 94 Posts
Originally Posted by Navpi
Who on earth are the BAA?
www.baa.com

LHR AIRPORTS LIMITED (UK Company No 01970855)

formerly BAA AIRPORTS LIMITED
formerly BAA LIMITED
formerly BAA PLC
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2016, 09:52
  #4660 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well to be honest it's hardly worth having a meaningful discussion if you have no clue about ownership ......

but basing emissions on what "might" happen in 30 years rather than now is really just bunkum.
To anyone that has worked for them they will always be BAA no matter what they change their name to. I would hardly call that 'having no clue about ownership'. Same company with a new name.

So you believe that 15 years will not see further increases in electric vehicle technology and even lower emissions?

And you say I am not worth having a meaningful discussion with?
Prophead is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.