HEATHROW
Interesting words in the UK government budget speech :
BBC News - Budget 2012: London's dangerous cycle junctions get £15m
Firstly it is notable that it is the Chancellor rather than the Transport Secretary making this statement.
Secondly the reference to the "fastest growing cities in the world" is obviously a reference to points in India, China, and other intercontinental destinations, only served from Heathrow, nothing to do with Easyjet destinations from Gatwick or Ryanair from Stansted, nor with some fictional airport in the Thames, two hours travel or more from where so many of Heathrow's customers and employees live, and which might be ready by about 2050.
Lastly, it does seem to point to Prime Minister Davd Cameron finally getting fed up with the performance of The Girlie from Putney, who has consistently placed the desires of her fellow millionare neighbours living in Wandsworth West Hill, to stymie any Heathrow development, over the national remit for transport that she draws her substantial ministerial salary to manage.
Third runway back on ?
The chancellor said the government's review of airport capacity in London and the south-east of England would also be published this summer.
The country, he said "must confront the lack of airport capacity in the south-east of England - we cannot cut ourselves off from the fastest growing cities in the world".
The country, he said "must confront the lack of airport capacity in the south-east of England - we cannot cut ourselves off from the fastest growing cities in the world".
Firstly it is notable that it is the Chancellor rather than the Transport Secretary making this statement.
Secondly the reference to the "fastest growing cities in the world" is obviously a reference to points in India, China, and other intercontinental destinations, only served from Heathrow, nothing to do with Easyjet destinations from Gatwick or Ryanair from Stansted, nor with some fictional airport in the Thames, two hours travel or more from where so many of Heathrow's customers and employees live, and which might be ready by about 2050.
Lastly, it does seem to point to Prime Minister Davd Cameron finally getting fed up with the performance of The Girlie from Putney, who has consistently placed the desires of her fellow millionare neighbours living in Wandsworth West Hill, to stymie any Heathrow development, over the national remit for transport that she draws her substantial ministerial salary to manage.
Third runway back on ?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Third runway back on ?
And, it brings the added benefit of a significant shot-in-the-arm for the construction industry, something Cameron and Osbourne will be happy to see.
Paxing All Over The World
Looks like it's time for the cat to get among the pigeons ... The Independent have a long story and they even mention the Northolt option: Heathrow: Tories
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About time, they've wasted two years, the third runway could have been built by now!
There is no need to worry about coalition splits. Clegg can huff and puff as much as he likes, the Libdems are going nowhere. Even if they did, "Call-Me-Dave" could easily run a minority government.
Labour has no money and will not bring the government down and risk an early election it could lose, nor will the increasingly unpopular Libdems, who would be "slaughtered". Justine could "fall on her sword" or be moved out of the way if neccessary.
There is no realistic alternative to LHR expansion, Osborne is, of course, correct on this one.
The idea of re-opening NHT to civil aviation has merits in its own right. It could become a LCY- or SEN-type operation, potentially opening up a large wealthy catchment area to the west of London to no-frills carriers and smaller carriers operating thin domestic routes. These are currently excluded from LHR mainly for financial reasons (high airport charges for small aircraft, slot costs, etc.), and because of congestion.
Thin domestic routes providing connectivity between regional airports and London and the Thames Valley are desperately needed to boost the economy and the export drive, (region to region is generally well served). LHR can no longer provide these unless it is expanded.
An airport station on the Chiltern line at NHT could provide a convenient 17-minute link to London and a 6 mi. high speed link between LHR and NHT (as has been suggested) could provide transfer potential to/from overseas flights at LHR.
Unprofitable commuter-only or feeder-only flights thus become viable as combined commuter/feeder flights, possibly on code-share with BA-BD and/or VS. Of course this depends on whether carriers (BE, U2, etc.?) can see business potential, a serious rethink on APD is also desperately
needed!
Clearly, the development of NHT is not a substitute for LHR expansion, NHT would be a small scale operation with only domestic and "near abroad" traffic. New flights to Asia and South America cannot go from there. The two projects are complementary, both could be completed relatively quickly, and both play a part in addressing lack of capacity in the south east.
A joint military-civil airport at NHT could also bring in revenue for the military, take general aviation and VIP/Royal travel away from LHR, and keep a defence capability close to London, a far better alternative to the possible closure of NHT.
It's win-win all round so let's get on with it!
There is no need to worry about coalition splits. Clegg can huff and puff as much as he likes, the Libdems are going nowhere. Even if they did, "Call-Me-Dave" could easily run a minority government.
Labour has no money and will not bring the government down and risk an early election it could lose, nor will the increasingly unpopular Libdems, who would be "slaughtered". Justine could "fall on her sword" or be moved out of the way if neccessary.
There is no realistic alternative to LHR expansion, Osborne is, of course, correct on this one.
The idea of re-opening NHT to civil aviation has merits in its own right. It could become a LCY- or SEN-type operation, potentially opening up a large wealthy catchment area to the west of London to no-frills carriers and smaller carriers operating thin domestic routes. These are currently excluded from LHR mainly for financial reasons (high airport charges for small aircraft, slot costs, etc.), and because of congestion.
Thin domestic routes providing connectivity between regional airports and London and the Thames Valley are desperately needed to boost the economy and the export drive, (region to region is generally well served). LHR can no longer provide these unless it is expanded.
An airport station on the Chiltern line at NHT could provide a convenient 17-minute link to London and a 6 mi. high speed link between LHR and NHT (as has been suggested) could provide transfer potential to/from overseas flights at LHR.
Unprofitable commuter-only or feeder-only flights thus become viable as combined commuter/feeder flights, possibly on code-share with BA-BD and/or VS. Of course this depends on whether carriers (BE, U2, etc.?) can see business potential, a serious rethink on APD is also desperately
needed!
Clearly, the development of NHT is not a substitute for LHR expansion, NHT would be a small scale operation with only domestic and "near abroad" traffic. New flights to Asia and South America cannot go from there. The two projects are complementary, both could be completed relatively quickly, and both play a part in addressing lack of capacity in the south east.
A joint military-civil airport at NHT could also bring in revenue for the military, take general aviation and VIP/Royal travel away from LHR, and keep a defence capability close to London, a far better alternative to the possible closure of NHT.
It's win-win all round so let's get on with it!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 25th Mar 2012 at 23:47.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NHT would be a small scale operation with only domestic and "near abroad" traffic.
As Fdf says, just what are we waiting for?
Paxing All Over The World
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "I don't see why this should be the case, with a circa 1700m strip, all non uk based (for maintenance purposes) shorthaul could use NHT more or less without restriction. As has been pointed out, a high speed underground link for the 5 miles to LHR, would effectively make this part of LHR, not separate from it. The high speed link could be an airside one, making NHT just another pier at, say, T1/2 at LHR.
As Fdf says, just what are we waiting for?"
That would be even better Hobo. Much, though not all, of the high speed link north of Hayes station could be on the surface, parallel to the A312/B455, so that would save some tunnelling costs.
International-international transfers over LHR/NHT won't be possible. Because of the need to go through border control, customs, check in and security, etc., pax won't put up with it, hence my emphasis on the ressurection of commuter/feeder flights on thin domestic routes, no-frills carrier traffic and charter/holiday business.
So don't see it as an alternative to LHR expansion, that has to go ahead, and soon, but not using NHT to its full potential is a waste of a good little facility.
Politics PAXboy, Boris has an election to win, he'll have to tow the Cameron/Osborne line after that.
As Fdf says, just what are we waiting for?"
That would be even better Hobo. Much, though not all, of the high speed link north of Hayes station could be on the surface, parallel to the A312/B455, so that would save some tunnelling costs.
International-international transfers over LHR/NHT won't be possible. Because of the need to go through border control, customs, check in and security, etc., pax won't put up with it, hence my emphasis on the ressurection of commuter/feeder flights on thin domestic routes, no-frills carrier traffic and charter/holiday business.
So don't see it as an alternative to LHR expansion, that has to go ahead, and soon, but not using NHT to its full potential is a waste of a good little facility.
Politics PAXboy, Boris has an election to win, he'll have to tow the Cameron/Osborne line after that.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 26th Mar 2012 at 19:01.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its only a mute point but if you are a tourist coming from Australia you will soon be spending the best part of £100 (APD) simply to fly home.... in that time you will have no doubt bought the odd meal, travelled around the UK , stayed in hotels etc etc
In short you will have made a contribution to the UK economy !
Contrast this to19M transit passengers or as I describe them freeloaders, who fly in ,then fly off into Europe, who do not pay any APD, infact we are lucky if they buy so much as a burger as they dash to their connection !
.....and if that wasnt bad enough we are now going to buy them another bloody runway! jeez !
In short you will have made a contribution to the UK economy !
Contrast this to19M transit passengers or as I describe them freeloaders, who fly in ,then fly off into Europe, who do not pay any APD, infact we are lucky if they buy so much as a burger as they dash to their connection !
.....and if that wasnt bad enough we are now going to buy them another bloody runway! jeez !
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contrast this to19M transit passengers or as I describe them freeloaders, who fly in ,then fly off into Europe, who do not pay any APD, infact we are lucky if they buy so much as a burger as they dash to their connection !
Presumably you think Emirates punters ex MAN are freeloading over Dubai?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates A380 services
Emirates A380 Johannesburg/London Heathrow Operation Changes in May 2012 | Airline Route
Another delay to the 4th daily A380 - EK29/30 now 1st June.
At least EK5/6 has started now with the A380.
I assume the wing inspections are taking longer than expected.
Pete
Another delay to the 4th daily A380 - EK29/30 now 1st June.
At least EK5/6 has started now with the A380.
I assume the wing inspections are taking longer than expected.
Pete
Yeah, are you pretending that you don't know that having so many connections is the only way to maintain route frequency and hence competitiveness. Bagso, you're smarter than that. If they all fly via another hub, London loses a fair amount of frequency and so the guys paying silly money up the frony who allow me to fly for less go elsewhere. Think it through.....
What competitiveness is achieved by spend £x Billion on a new runway, how many real jobs occur......
Spending the £3 billion on R&D and development of real long term opportunities aids UK more than subsidising a transit stop.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spending the £3 billion on R&D and development of real long term opportunities aids UK more than subsidising a transit stop
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contrast this to19M transit passengers or as I describe them freeloaders, who fly in ,then fly off into Europe, who do not pay any APD, infact we are lucky if they buy so much as a burger as they dash to their connection !
What DO you mean? You're usually quite switched on, tell me more. That's very plausible until one stops to actually read it and at the moment it's entirely generic, harmless and a little meaningless. One might almost think political?
Politicians are more concerned with getting elected and getting remembered for grandiose projects than doing stuff that will help people...............HS2 is a classical point.
The actual cost of the Heathrow project is a guesstimate with £1-2 billion minimum.
Rather than spending billions on a grandiose scheme with a precieved claim of improving competitiveness a better use of the limited resources is investing in real education and real R&D to rebuild competitiveness.
Sadly none of this will be done and billions will be spent for the now 30% of passengers travelling through LHR which give nothing to the economy.
So what if LHR loses 20 flights a day to CDG of transit passengers, run LHR so it adds real value rather than spending money so you can claim ego by being biggest in Europe. Time for reality rather than Willy waving.
Although those 19M transit passengers have mostly paid their fares to British airlines, thus pumping money into the British economy and corporation taxes to the British government. Saying that transit passengers don't contribute to the British economy is like saying the City of London doesn't contribute because two foreign parties may choose to do business with each other there through a British intermediary.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "More like anti political
Politicians are more concerned with getting elected and getting remembered for grandiose projects than doing stuff that will help people...............HS2 is a classical point.
The actual cost of the Heathrow project is a guesstimate with £1-2 billion minimum.
Rather than spending billions on a grandiose scheme with a precieved claim of improving competitiveness a better use of the limited resources is investing in real education and real R&D to rebuild competitiveness.
Sadly none of this will be done and billions will be spent for the now 30% of passengers travelling through LHR which give nothing to the economy."
The point is, racedo and it's important, is that LHR expansion is private sector money. Unlike the HS2, the Olympics, etc., and other government projects/follies this will cost taxpayers nothing.
Can we put this "transfer pax"-knocking to bed please, we've been over it ad nauseum. They make some routes viable when otherwise they would not be, and that gives more choice to OD traffic. It benefits UK carriers who hub at LHR i.e. BA, BD, VS.
Quote: "So what if LHR loses 20 flights a day to CDG of transit passengers, run LHR so it adds real value rather than spending money so you can claim ego by being biggest in Europe. Time for reality rather than Willy waving."
It has nothing to do with "Willy waving", it affects the real economy. There are 70,000 jobs on the airport and over 100,000 directly related. Over and above that many companies are based in the Thames Valley because of the convenience of LHR on the doorstep, and the range of destination it offers.
If LHR is to be run "so it adds real value" it needs to be enlarged so that it is not running at 98-99% capacity (compared to 70-75% in the cases of AMS, CDG and FRA). The congestion needs to be reduced and this can only be done two ways: expansion, or a mass reduction in slot availability which easier said than done (who decides who loses slots, decisions open to legal challenges, etc.).
Two more runways are needed now: 2 for landings, 2 for takeoffs; existing for large aircraft, the new ones for any (they would be shorter).
Let's get them built as soon as.
Politicians are more concerned with getting elected and getting remembered for grandiose projects than doing stuff that will help people...............HS2 is a classical point.
The actual cost of the Heathrow project is a guesstimate with £1-2 billion minimum.
Rather than spending billions on a grandiose scheme with a precieved claim of improving competitiveness a better use of the limited resources is investing in real education and real R&D to rebuild competitiveness.
Sadly none of this will be done and billions will be spent for the now 30% of passengers travelling through LHR which give nothing to the economy."
The point is, racedo and it's important, is that LHR expansion is private sector money. Unlike the HS2, the Olympics, etc., and other government projects/follies this will cost taxpayers nothing.
Can we put this "transfer pax"-knocking to bed please, we've been over it ad nauseum. They make some routes viable when otherwise they would not be, and that gives more choice to OD traffic. It benefits UK carriers who hub at LHR i.e. BA, BD, VS.
Quote: "So what if LHR loses 20 flights a day to CDG of transit passengers, run LHR so it adds real value rather than spending money so you can claim ego by being biggest in Europe. Time for reality rather than Willy waving."
It has nothing to do with "Willy waving", it affects the real economy. There are 70,000 jobs on the airport and over 100,000 directly related. Over and above that many companies are based in the Thames Valley because of the convenience of LHR on the doorstep, and the range of destination it offers.
If LHR is to be run "so it adds real value" it needs to be enlarged so that it is not running at 98-99% capacity (compared to 70-75% in the cases of AMS, CDG and FRA). The congestion needs to be reduced and this can only be done two ways: expansion, or a mass reduction in slot availability which easier said than done (who decides who loses slots, decisions open to legal challenges, etc.).
Two more runways are needed now: 2 for landings, 2 for takeoffs; existing for large aircraft, the new ones for any (they would be shorter).
Let's get them built as soon as.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what if LHR loses 20 flights a day to CDG of transit passengers
The only reason I can fly to New York for such a competitve price over say Edinburgh is because London has the frequency which depends on feed from major European capitals.
For the same reason Air France still fly LHR-CDG even with Eurostar is that AF need to feed CDG long haul. You know this fine well of course.
Reality is setting in at Coalition HQ, there are no easy options and if the bills are ever to be paid in we need to remain competitve today and that is not going to be some Fantasy Island hatched by the blonde shagger currently plotting in City Hall to become PM.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your smarter than that praise indeed Skippy !
The Ex Manchester pax you mentioned that interline via Dubai, Doha, Singapore and Abu Dhabi have all paid APD directly to the UK Governement !
......the 24M who transit LHR have not !
Infact you will be lucky if they grab much more ran a burger running from T1 to T5, that does not add value to the public purse !
OK yes it does add frequency but do we actually need flights every 30mins to JFK ! Would 90 mins not do ?
Just one other "minor" point !
LHR handled 70M pax in 2011, if it grows at say 5% per annum, by the time the runway is completed it will be running at 100M pax per year.......!
Whichever way you cut it a 3rd r/w will make bugger all difference !
And whilst we are talking about all the extra runway capacity where is all the extra airspace coming from ? Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Stansted Luton....not to mention Notholt, Farnborough, Bigging Hill all support significant traffic movements. Each has its own owners , operators and indeed vested interests. The airspace in the South East is already rammed, even if you can get runways the conflicts are in the air.....not on the ground !
Finally wasnt Stansted supposed to be the answer....nobody moved, nobody was interested, it got lucky as it concided with a boom in Loco... so even a new airport is not the answer.
To be honest its a fragmented mess !!!!
The Ex Manchester pax you mentioned that interline via Dubai, Doha, Singapore and Abu Dhabi have all paid APD directly to the UK Governement !
......the 24M who transit LHR have not !
Infact you will be lucky if they grab much more ran a burger running from T1 to T5, that does not add value to the public purse !
OK yes it does add frequency but do we actually need flights every 30mins to JFK ! Would 90 mins not do ?
Just one other "minor" point !
LHR handled 70M pax in 2011, if it grows at say 5% per annum, by the time the runway is completed it will be running at 100M pax per year.......!
Whichever way you cut it a 3rd r/w will make bugger all difference !
And whilst we are talking about all the extra runway capacity where is all the extra airspace coming from ? Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Stansted Luton....not to mention Notholt, Farnborough, Bigging Hill all support significant traffic movements. Each has its own owners , operators and indeed vested interests. The airspace in the South East is already rammed, even if you can get runways the conflicts are in the air.....not on the ground !
Finally wasnt Stansted supposed to be the answer....nobody moved, nobody was interested, it got lucky as it concided with a boom in Loco... so even a new airport is not the answer.
To be honest its a fragmented mess !!!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Infact you will be lucky if they grab much more ran a burger running from T1 to T5, that does not add value to the public purse !
Besides which, APD is a smokescreen, all these connecting passengers create lots of jobs in baggage handling, cabin crew, cargo, back office as well as flight deck. Jobs in the real economy, not parasitic pretendy public sector jobs that serve no purpose beyond getting the underskilled into overpaid positions.
A new runway at LHR would help the economy more than building a second runway at say, MAN believe me.