HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my mate who lives in Maidenhead (and is pro R3) reckons the local opinion is pretty clear and has often been taken up with Mrs M - she has always agreed with them that it would be a BAD THING....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear Bagso, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel in your anti-Heathrow dogma.
Quoting an ill-informed journo who's starting point is a an even less informed, self-interested financier? Seriously?
The article regurgitates old & widely discredited ideas. Raising the ideas again now doesn't make them any more viable.
So in short, doubt it.
Quoting an ill-informed journo who's starting point is a an even less informed, self-interested financier? Seriously?
The article regurgitates old & widely discredited ideas. Raising the ideas again now doesn't make them any more viable.
So in short, doubt it.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is he an ill-informed jorno? Think you might find that what he says about L & G's opinion might be close to the mark. And they will carry a lot of weight behind the scenes. I think this and the other 2 big projects are in trouble, this government seems to be heading off in a different direction. Hopefully they will see through the establishment view that it must be all things Heathrow and give the runway to Lgw. Then we might see some real competition on fares on long haul rather ran what we have now from monopoly Lhr.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What monopoly are you talking about? There's no bar on opening new routes from LGW, certain routes just work better out of LHR.
See also LPL/MAN, MME/NCL, PIK/GLA.
As for building more council houses instead? Well that's conflating two distinct and unconnected issues due to a political narritive.
See also LPL/MAN, MME/NCL, PIK/GLA.
As for building more council houses instead? Well that's conflating two distinct and unconnected issues due to a political narritive.
I expect the government will make the wrong decision but from a practical business point of view it has to be expand LHR. London needs a global class hub airport. Thats always been Heathrow ,
Giving LGW a second runway just creates two substandard hubs - you cannot provide the interchange needed to support a wide diversity fo destinations by splitting the traffic into two airports . expanding LGW is just throwing money away as it wont grow much and LHR will start to shrink as it cannot compete with AMS CDG and FRA .
Giving LGW a second runway just creates two substandard hubs - you cannot provide the interchange needed to support a wide diversity fo destinations by splitting the traffic into two airports . expanding LGW is just throwing money away as it wont grow much and LHR will start to shrink as it cannot compete with AMS CDG and FRA .
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither should the taxpayer be throwing money into a pit the size of the Isle Of White for the road rail interchange which would be needed to make Heathrow work without proper and forensic scrutiny.
We have quite a few gobby characters in the TUC and a few MPs plus others who are happy to read the banner headline but could not understand an income expenditure account of the local parish church if it hit them in the face !
Just before the issue is debated Heathrow are now also going to put forward what "appear" to be fag packet proposals to amend all there plans with no tunnels, a missing rail station and some other bits.
This a complete joke. At least IF you are going to do it do it properly without recourse to knee jerk reaction
How on earth can you put forward a plan 5 years in the making and then rewrite it a week before the decision.
It's completely devoid of common sense!
One other issue which has raised its head are guarantees re shareholder value.
Suppose it gets the go ahead ?
Current shareholders see their very short term investment triple BUT can then simply sell on within months of the decision taking all the gain of a YES but not the pain of 15 years wrangling that will follow.
Must confess I never saw that one coming and couldn't understand why regardless of capacity constraints you would want to dilute down what is currently a high value monopoly / premium product.
We have quite a few gobby characters in the TUC and a few MPs plus others who are happy to read the banner headline but could not understand an income expenditure account of the local parish church if it hit them in the face !
Just before the issue is debated Heathrow are now also going to put forward what "appear" to be fag packet proposals to amend all there plans with no tunnels, a missing rail station and some other bits.
This a complete joke. At least IF you are going to do it do it properly without recourse to knee jerk reaction
How on earth can you put forward a plan 5 years in the making and then rewrite it a week before the decision.
It's completely devoid of common sense!
One other issue which has raised its head are guarantees re shareholder value.
Suppose it gets the go ahead ?
Current shareholders see their very short term investment triple BUT can then simply sell on within months of the decision taking all the gain of a YES but not the pain of 15 years wrangling that will follow.
Must confess I never saw that one coming and couldn't understand why regardless of capacity constraints you would want to dilute down what is currently a high value monopoly / premium product.
Last edited by Navpi; 14th Sep 2016 at 06:09.
Just before the issue is debated Heathrow are now also going to put forward what "appear" to be fag packet proposals to amend all there plans with no tunnels, a missing rail station and some other bits.
This a complete joke. At least IF you are going to do it do it properly without recourse to knee jerk reaction
How on earth can you put forward a plan 5 years in the making and then rewrite it a week before the decision.
It's completely devoid of common sense!
This a complete joke. At least IF you are going to do it do it properly without recourse to knee jerk reaction
How on earth can you put forward a plan 5 years in the making and then rewrite it a week before the decision.
It's completely devoid of common sense!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all to do with ground levels really. You can take the runway over the M25 if there is sufficient difference in runway level and road level. I don't know what the levels are in that area but I am guessing it will be the road level that is graded down but rather than a wide cut and cover tunnel they will just put the actual runway width over on supports.
It's all to do with ground levels really. You can take the runway over the M25 if there is sufficient difference in runway level and road level. I don't know what the levels are in that area but I am guessing it will be the road level that is graded down but rather than a wide cut and cover tunnel they will just put the actual runway width over on supports.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaving Boris out of the airport sub vomit tee has back fired spectacularly.
Boris Johnson says Heathrow should be 'consigned to the dustbin' ahead of decision on airport expansion
Front page of the Telegraph.
I'm still aghast that nobody has suggested the taxpayer is stumping up for a runway where 25% of the passengers fly in then out with the sum contribution to the UK kitty being the opportunity to snatch a quarter pounder.
Some are not even paying any APD !
Boris Johnson says Heathrow should be 'consigned to the dustbin' ahead of decision on airport expansion
Front page of the Telegraph.
I'm still aghast that nobody has suggested the taxpayer is stumping up for a runway where 25% of the passengers fly in then out with the sum contribution to the UK kitty being the opportunity to snatch a quarter pounder.
Some are not even paying any APD !
Heathrow Expansion: A Risk Assessment
Link to last week's Heathrow APPG report, which attempts to identify the risk factors associated with each of the Airports Commission's three options:
http://www.heathrowappg.com/wp-conte...Assessment.pdf
http://www.heathrowappg.com/wp-conte...Assessment.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still aghast that nobody has suggested the taxpayer is stumping up for a runway where 25% of the passengers fly in then out with the sum contribution to the UK kitty being the opportunity to snatch a quarter pounder.
Bet you support Emirates flying three daily A380s to MAN and pretend you're unaware they do exactly the same thing to Dubai. But that's different 'cos that's big planes at your local airport?
LHR is not just another airport. It's a fundamental part of UK PLCs infrastructure which due to our own short sighted-ness in terms of greed and lack of transport strategy is wholly owned by a private company! So to say that simply because LHR is private they need to pony up enough cash on their own for what is something crucial to the UK economy is naive in the extreme.
Do you think all those Boeings and Airbuses would have been built without the taxpayer digging deep? Hardly!
How many jobs do all those annoying transfer passengers support? How many routes would be lost without them?
Why is MAG so keen to repeat that self same business model at MAN?
People being super selective isn't helpful, the Commission took a holistic view and recommended a third runway at LHR. Boris Island was COMPREHENSIVELY rejected again, LGW has never been more than a bucket and spade leisure focussed airport, more so now than ever before, there are of course risks at LHR but LGW gives you more runway capacity with zero connectivity growth which as bagos claims is a BAD thing. So bad, it's the whole driving force behind the rebuild and redesign of a certain Manchester based airfield..... #notbarton
This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the
House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its
Committees. All-Party Groups are informal groups of members of
both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views
expressed in this report are those of the group.
The report was compiled with input by Daniel Moylan, until recently
Deputy Chairman of Transport for London and Mayoral Adviser on
Aviation. Cllr Moylan is currently undertaking a consultancy assignment
for Global Infrastructure Partners, lead investors in Gatwick Airport
House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its
Committees. All-Party Groups are informal groups of members of
both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views
expressed in this report are those of the group.
The report was compiled with input by Daniel Moylan, until recently
Deputy Chairman of Transport for London and Mayoral Adviser on
Aviation. Cllr Moylan is currently undertaking a consultancy assignment
for Global Infrastructure Partners, lead investors in Gatwick Airport
Mr Moylan has been an anti LHR campaigner for many years, hence why he's suggesting it'll end up like Berlin Brandenburg.......yet another "adviser on aviation" with ZERO industry experience.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...nt-a-new-runw/
Pro Gatwick peeps coming out guns blazing today! Theresa Villiers MP claims the Commission Report says :
A new runway at Gatwick would deliver broadly equivalent economic benefits, but at a fraction of the environmental, social and financial costs of expanding Heathrow
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 16th Sep 2016 at 13:11.
You intentionally miss the point that a whole load of long haul routes are successful only because of the feed?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome back to the fray, Skipness. As you may expect, I must take issue with a number of your contentions.
Firstly, I must remind occasional readers here that whenever a contributor domiciled in the NW makes a post, you immediately introduce Manchester Airport into the discussion. You then run with a narrative which suggests that we oppose LHR R3 on the grounds of some notional Heathrow Airport versus Manchester Airport competition. Let's be crystal clear here. I for one have never done so, and it would be incongruous for me to support LGW expansion as I do (subject to rigid cost oversight) were that the case. MAN is a solution for the North, and can play a role in soaking up regional demand which in years past was obliged to route via LHR. But in this particular context MAN is not a core issue.
Let's examine this quote. Let us acknowledge that connecting traffic is a net positive at most airports. However, whilst it is nice to have, it is not essential. At a highly congested airport such as LHR, there is an argument that connecting traffic may be better directed elsewhere. The key point which you fail to draw attention to is the financial cost of facilitating that connecting traffic. There comes a point at which it does not make economic sense to do so. I would argue that the eyewatering numbers quoted in the case of LHR R3 place it very substantially beyond that threshold. The benefits of this particular LHR feed to UK plc is outweighed by the cost of provision many times over.
The issue isn't the principle of providing a public finance contribution to LHR R3. It is the question of how much. It is suggested by TfL that the public contribution required for LHR support works alone falls between GBP12-18Bn. To put that into perspective, a recent report indicated that proposals for an 18-mile long Trans-Pennine road tunnel (one of the longest land road-tunnel projects yet considered in Europe) could be delivered for approximately GBP6Bn. The LHR publicly-funded support works alone would cost between two and three times this sum. And that is before the underlying cost of the core project itself - GBP18Bn-plus - which could yet default to the taxpayer if private funding initiatives fail. Quite extraordinary. Frightening, actually. Think about this: you could build FIVE 18-mile Transpennine road tunnels for the inclusive cost of increasing Heathrow's capacity by just one-third. Staggering, isn't it?
Let me remind you also of international comparisons which we have previously discussed. Istanbul Arnavutkoy: a new-build airport with three parallel runways, two terminals and capacity for 90m pax per annum (more than LHR) at a projected cost of EUR7Bn. New York La Guardia - in a high-cost city - to be "essentially torn down and rebuilt" for USD4Bn. Our own Channel Tunnel - around GBP13Bn at today's prices - could be built almost three times over for price of LHR R3 plus associated support works. And let's recall that this stellar LHR budget delivers just a 50% increase in the existing airport's capability, not a new-build mega-airport.
An excellent question, Skipness. Enough to justify upto GBP18Bn in public funding for support works? Funding which could be deployed elsewhere in the UK to far greater effect? I suggest not. Absolutely not.
Since you insist on drawing MAN into the debate again, I'll answer you. MAN's investment programme - the TP (Transformation Programme) - is actually a modernisation initiative. It provides little change to airport capacity in its current form. And it is wholly privately-financed ... no begging bowl to HM Treasury. The price-tag is GBP850M in direct costs with a GBP150M contingency for a total budget of GBP1Bn. That is between 1/12 and 1/18 of the projected public contribution alone to LHR R3, and around 1/36 of the projected LHR R3 combined private/public cost. And for perspective, MAN handles 1/3 the passenger volume of LHR so it is no minnow itself. On that basis, perhaps MAN should be looking to spend GBP6Bn privately-funded and demand GBP4-6Bn in public support funding to match those LHR ratios? It is after all crucial to the UK economy in its own right! But realism applies outside the South-East bubble, does it not?
And the reason MAN would like to attract connecting traffic (since you asked)? Because it is nice to have. It is helpful for the reasons you outlined, a bit of icing on the cake. But it is not essential. Connecting traffic will only play a modest but welcome supporting role at an airport such as this. And of course, MAN has spare capacity. It doesn't need to spend 12 to 18 billion in public funds to support its hub aspirations. MAN will never pay GBP1Bn for GBP100M of new business. The sums have to add up.
Yes indeed. But consider this (because nobody seems to want to). The bulk of London's airport demand growth will come from the leisure sector. From Tenerife, Palma, Faro, Malaga, Ibiza, Barbados, Prague, Krakow. Not from niche long-haul business cities currently unserved by non-stop flights. Growth from these will be a modest proportion of the whole, despite the impression the decision-makers are urged to believe.
We are told that UK plc is "losing GBP100M per day" because certain niche business destinations are not served non-stop from LHR. Seriously??? Has anybody stopped to consider that if a GBP100M contract is up for grabs in Bhopal, UK executives will get there to submit their bids even if that means changing flights in DXB? That is the way commerce works in the real world. It isn't hard to do and it isn't rocket science. Regional business travellers change flights at en route hubs on a routine basis. They still win valuable new export contracts for UK plc. They aren't saying: "Nah ... we'd have to change flights in Beijing. Let's just stay at home!" If we are to believe that GBP100M per day LHR publicity stat, we'd have to believe that SE-based executives are saying exactly that. Are they?
It is the growth in leisure traffic which is bulking-out the SE airports system. That is why LGW is an eminently suitable solution to the problem (subject to private-funding of development and carefully-scrutinised costs).
Actually, it isn't. The TP replaces obsolete time-expired terminal infrastructure with new-build state-of-the-art terminal infrastructure. It doesn't currently provide for growth in passenger throughput. Hopefully that will follow, because as you rightly insinuate, growth is a good thing at the right cost.
Since you highlight this claim, can I take it that you similarly condemn the CEBR report, commissioned by Heathrow, which was splashed across the media a couple of weeks ago? Telegraph readers (amongst others) were advised that R3 will benefit every family in Britain to the tune of GBP24500 per family. How nice, bring it on! Only later are we advised that this alleged sum ... supposedly GBP24480 per family ... will accrue over 60 years! And the margin for error re this suggestion? Is this mentioned? Well, there will be few of us around to call them out on this nonsense 60 years from now. Oh, and apparently there will be GBP56Bn in GDP benefits to the regions too. How encouraging. Not credibly independent is it?
But there will be a whole lot more than GBP56Bn GDP benefit over 60 years in the regions if public infrastructure spending is at last distributed equitably nationwide instead of being concentrated exclusively in the SE. Maybe I should come up with some CERB-style projections in support of my own arguments? I'm pretty sure I'll be dead in sixty years from now, so how embarrassing can it be?
Meanwhile, the Moylan report which you dismiss does raise a number of entirely valid concerns. Who actually is paying for the relocation of the energy-from-waste plant and the BT Data Centre? This little detail alone will equal in cost the price of MAN's privately-funded TP with which you are keen to have us compare LHR R3. And what about the much-criticised financial-methodology pointed out by Prof Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce? Any answers on that?
As decision-day (apparently) approaches, it is disappointing to note that public discussion in the media has again shifted back to a purely operational perspective. Which is better ... LHR or LGW development ... as if they were both cost-free. They aren't cost free. They are both extraordinarily expensive, in LHR's case to a stratospheric extent, and they stand to draw monstrously on the public purse.
Prohibitive cost. GBP18.5Bn+ in private funding (publicly underwritten?) plus between GBP12-18Bn in public funding for associated support works. All concentrated in the South East bubble (again). Never mind operational niceties. This alone is the reason why LHR R3 should be summarily dismissed in the public interest. It doesn't make sense to pay two thousand pounds for a two pound sandwich, however tasty that sandwich may be. Especially with scarce public funds required for more compelling investments distributed across the whole of the UK.
NOTE: This reply was based upon Skipness One Echo's pre-edited post, before new text about LGW was added.
Firstly, I must remind occasional readers here that whenever a contributor domiciled in the NW makes a post, you immediately introduce Manchester Airport into the discussion. You then run with a narrative which suggests that we oppose LHR R3 on the grounds of some notional Heathrow Airport versus Manchester Airport competition. Let's be crystal clear here. I for one have never done so, and it would be incongruous for me to support LGW expansion as I do (subject to rigid cost oversight) were that the case. MAN is a solution for the North, and can play a role in soaking up regional demand which in years past was obliged to route via LHR. But in this particular context MAN is not a core issue.
Bet you support Emirates flying three daily A380s to MAN and pretend you're unaware they do exactly the same thing to Dubai. But that's different 'cos that's big planes at your local airport?
So to say that simply because LHR is private they need to pony up enough cash on their own for what is something crucial to the UK economy is naive in the extreme.
Let me remind you also of international comparisons which we have previously discussed. Istanbul Arnavutkoy: a new-build airport with three parallel runways, two terminals and capacity for 90m pax per annum (more than LHR) at a projected cost of EUR7Bn. New York La Guardia - in a high-cost city - to be "essentially torn down and rebuilt" for USD4Bn. Our own Channel Tunnel - around GBP13Bn at today's prices - could be built almost three times over for price of LHR R3 plus associated support works. And let's recall that this stellar LHR budget delivers just a 50% increase in the existing airport's capability, not a new-build mega-airport.
How many jobs do all those annoying transfer passengers support? How many routes would be lost without them?
Why is MAG so keen to repeat that self same business model at MAN?
And the reason MAN would like to attract connecting traffic (since you asked)? Because it is nice to have. It is helpful for the reasons you outlined, a bit of icing on the cake. But it is not essential. Connecting traffic will only play a modest but welcome supporting role at an airport such as this. And of course, MAN has spare capacity. It doesn't need to spend 12 to 18 billion in public funds to support its hub aspirations. MAN will never pay GBP1Bn for GBP100M of new business. The sums have to add up.
LGW has never been more than a bucket and spade leisure focussed airport
We are told that UK plc is "losing GBP100M per day" because certain niche business destinations are not served non-stop from LHR. Seriously??? Has anybody stopped to consider that if a GBP100M contract is up for grabs in Bhopal, UK executives will get there to submit their bids even if that means changing flights in DXB? That is the way commerce works in the real world. It isn't hard to do and it isn't rocket science. Regional business travellers change flights at en route hubs on a routine basis. They still win valuable new export contracts for UK plc. They aren't saying: "Nah ... we'd have to change flights in Beijing. Let's just stay at home!" If we are to believe that GBP100M per day LHR publicity stat, we'd have to believe that SE-based executives are saying exactly that. Are they?
It is the growth in leisure traffic which is bulking-out the SE airports system. That is why LGW is an eminently suitable solution to the problem (subject to private-funding of development and carefully-scrutinised costs).
it's the whole driving force behind the rebuild and redesign of a certain Manchester based airfield
Moylan is a millionaire Tory Boris wannabe clone who is anti Heathrow as one of his many homes is under the existing flightpath. Very close to Boris and working for GIP? Not credibly independent is it?
But there will be a whole lot more than GBP56Bn GDP benefit over 60 years in the regions if public infrastructure spending is at last distributed equitably nationwide instead of being concentrated exclusively in the SE. Maybe I should come up with some CERB-style projections in support of my own arguments? I'm pretty sure I'll be dead in sixty years from now, so how embarrassing can it be?
Meanwhile, the Moylan report which you dismiss does raise a number of entirely valid concerns. Who actually is paying for the relocation of the energy-from-waste plant and the BT Data Centre? This little detail alone will equal in cost the price of MAN's privately-funded TP with which you are keen to have us compare LHR R3. And what about the much-criticised financial-methodology pointed out by Prof Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce? Any answers on that?
As decision-day (apparently) approaches, it is disappointing to note that public discussion in the media has again shifted back to a purely operational perspective. Which is better ... LHR or LGW development ... as if they were both cost-free. They aren't cost free. They are both extraordinarily expensive, in LHR's case to a stratospheric extent, and they stand to draw monstrously on the public purse.
Prohibitive cost. GBP18.5Bn+ in private funding (publicly underwritten?) plus between GBP12-18Bn in public funding for associated support works. All concentrated in the South East bubble (again). Never mind operational niceties. This alone is the reason why LHR R3 should be summarily dismissed in the public interest. It doesn't make sense to pay two thousand pounds for a two pound sandwich, however tasty that sandwich may be. Especially with scarce public funds required for more compelling investments distributed across the whole of the UK.
NOTE: This reply was based upon Skipness One Echo's pre-edited post, before new text about LGW was added.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the greatest economic developers and supporters you can have is an international aviation hub. Dubai became not only an airport with people connecting but also the main economic centre of The Gulf, despite having hardly any oil. If it wasn't for connecting passengers Dubai would still be back with a few buildings around The Creek and a scatter of flights. Frankfurt managed to develop as the German financial centre and international business location, despite having by no means the largest population or economic base. It was a pretty small place 30 years ago.
The prime concern now must be to develop a London Airports system designed to serve demand inherent to the SE, both business and leisure derived. An incremental hub role is a luxury aspiration which London should not pursue in the light of the extraordinary costs quoted to make it happen. The cost is not justified by the potential reward. Even the CEO of British Airways - LHR's largest hub operator by far - argues against the project on the grounds of cost.
Contrasting LHR with DXB / FRA as a hub choice is not a valid comparison. Apples and oranges. And before Skipness points it out, let me be quite clear. Neither is Manchester or any other UK airport! MAN can serve as a hub at the margins - in a niche-role linking FlyBe-type destinations with the wider world, for example - but not as an all-points-of-the-compass mega-hub. Dubai it isn't. Dubai it can never be. Neither MAN nor LHR. Geography mitigates against the UK in this. That's a fact of life.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I must remind occasional readers here that whenever a contributor domiciled in the NW makes a post, you immediately introduce Manchester Airport into the discussion
Let us acknowledge that connecting traffic is a net positive at most airports. However, whilst it is nice to have, it is not essential. At a highly congested airport such as LHR, there is an argument that connecting traffic may be better directed elsewhere. The key point which you fail to draw attention to is the financial cost of facilitating that connecting traffic. There comes a point at which it does not make economic sense to do so. I would argue that the eyewatering numbers quoted in the case of LHR R3 place it very substantially beyond that threshold. The benefits of this particular LHR feed to UK plc is outweighed by the cost of provision many times over.
Yes indeed. But consider this (because nobody seems to want to). The bulk of London's airport demand growth will come from the leisure sector. From Tenerife, Palma, Faro, Malaga, Ibiza, Barbados, Prague, Krakow. Not from niche long-haul business cities currently unserved by non-stop flights. Growth from these will be a modest proportion of the whole, despite the impression the decision-makers are urged to believe.
It doesn't make sense to pay two thousand pounds for a two pound sandwich, however tasty that sandwich may be. Especially with scarce public funds required for more compelling investments distributed across the whole of the UK.
It is the growth in leisure traffic which is bulking-out the SE airports system. That is why LGW is an eminently suitable solution to the problem (subject to private-funding of development and carefully-scrutinised costs).
Your core issue is you don't want any benefits of this to come via London, it's all predicated on coming in via MAN and your local airport, at which you work(ed) I believe?
It provides little change to airport capacity in its current form.
two terminals and capacity for 90m pax per annum (more than LHR) at a projected cost of EUR7Bn.
It is suggested by TfL that the public contribution required for LHR support works alone falls between GBP12-18Bn.
The Commission report was a good effort to be an honest broker and recommended LHR acknowledging higher costs but much higher benefits in terms of inbound investment. I won't bet too much on this, but it looks like LHR will get the nod on a free vote of MPs. Not before time.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The prime concern now must be to develop a London Airports system designed to serve demand inherent to the SE, both business and leisure derived.
Passengers will prefer the growing selection of non-stop flights from their own local airports, or the simpler routings these new services may offer where a change is still required.
Contrasting LHR with DXB / FRA as a hub choice is not a valid comparison. Apples and oranges.
The cost is not justified by the potential reward. Even the CEO of British Airways - LHR's largest hub operator by far - argues against the project on the grounds of cost
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Heathrow are able and willing to pay for their expansion, I'm all for it.
If they are unable or unwilling to pay for it, there is better value at LGW - particularly if the LHR expansion would open the door for Easyjet (whose customers are clearly unlikely to pay for it).
If they are unable or unwilling to pay for it, there is better value at LGW - particularly if the LHR expansion would open the door for Easyjet (whose customers are clearly unlikely to pay for it).
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness
I have absolutely zero issue with expansion of Heathrow. I have indicated as much on countless occasions, I do however have a problem with the "price point" of government support propping up such a venture, especially when the taxiway is littered with real obstacles which nobody who supports this proposition is actually able to counter!
My frustration is with m'learned friends in cabinet who seem to be sleepwalking toward this without countering any of the objections happy to read the banner headline.
Heathrow is full
Solution new runway
The End
You seem happy to go off piste when appropriate to attack the messenger but not the message ?
I totally accept that Moylan may have a nice garden under 27R and quite possibly has an agenda......BUT the points raised are excellent in my view.
Why not itemise this analysis and rebuke the points made one by one ? that would give the "Mancunian Mafia" no room to manoeuvre if your points are well made.
Incidentally the points contained in that report have appeared here in one form or another so well done prune
I have absolutely zero issue with expansion of Heathrow. I have indicated as much on countless occasions, I do however have a problem with the "price point" of government support propping up such a venture, especially when the taxiway is littered with real obstacles which nobody who supports this proposition is actually able to counter!
My frustration is with m'learned friends in cabinet who seem to be sleepwalking toward this without countering any of the objections happy to read the banner headline.
Heathrow is full
Solution new runway
The End
You seem happy to go off piste when appropriate to attack the messenger but not the message ?
I totally accept that Moylan may have a nice garden under 27R and quite possibly has an agenda......BUT the points raised are excellent in my view.
Why not itemise this analysis and rebuke the points made one by one ? that would give the "Mancunian Mafia" no room to manoeuvre if your points are well made.
Incidentally the points contained in that report have appeared here in one form or another so well done prune