HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness One Echo - great posts.
Those supporting LGW on cost grounds are naively gullible. LGW have not costed any surface access improvements. Nada. The rail service is already appalling and the motorway incapable of adequately handling current traffic levels. They'll have to increase capacity of both - so who's going to pay for that? GIP or the taxpayer? At least LHR has included surface access improvements. TfL have added up all their desired improvements for the next 20 years and want LHR to pay - even though most traffic on the M25, M4, Crossrail and tube is NOT airport related!
So if the anti-LHR argument is because of costs, it's not so clear cut.
If the argument is based on benefits then LHR is the clear winner - whatever measure you use (GVA, GDP, jobs, apprenticeships, frequency & spread of long-haul routes).
The Davis Commission did a very admiral job of being the honest broker and took out the parochial noise.
Well, in my opinion.
Those supporting LGW on cost grounds are naively gullible. LGW have not costed any surface access improvements. Nada. The rail service is already appalling and the motorway incapable of adequately handling current traffic levels. They'll have to increase capacity of both - so who's going to pay for that? GIP or the taxpayer? At least LHR has included surface access improvements. TfL have added up all their desired improvements for the next 20 years and want LHR to pay - even though most traffic on the M25, M4, Crossrail and tube is NOT airport related!
So if the anti-LHR argument is because of costs, it's not so clear cut.
If the argument is based on benefits then LHR is the clear winner - whatever measure you use (GVA, GDP, jobs, apprenticeships, frequency & spread of long-haul routes).
The Davis Commission did a very admiral job of being the honest broker and took out the parochial noise.
Well, in my opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which puts UK PLC at a fundamental competitve disadvantage with our competitors, see AMS, CDG, FRA, ZRH also DXB, DOH,AUH etc. No one in the industry thinks that this should be the "prime concern".
Said the flyer when the first AA055 departed MAN-ORD in 1986. Seen Dubai lately?
It's invalid to compare LHR with FRA? Good point, Germany still has ambition.....
As head of IAG, he needs to do what's right for the IAG share price and artificially keep more competition out of LHR.
It's a piece of national infrastructure that's going to be costly but needs to be done.
By elsewhere, be honest, youn mean MAN, and your "fair share".
As to your point of directing traffic elsewhere, they tried that with Gatwick, it failed once the regulatory environment changed
Yet again you willfully conflate London's capacity growth with hub capacity at our one national hub, a mistake other countries continue to find laughable.
Also, please stay away from Subway for your own sanity.
Your "solution" of allowing LHR to stagnate does not address hub issues and it's folly to claim it's a mere "nice to have".
One cannot take that claim remotely seriously in such a ferociously competitive commercial environment.
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.
That's dumb surely?
That's dumb surely?
You realise 7Bn Euro will buy a lot more in Turkey?
Again, politically charged stats if you see who is the messenger.
it looks like LHR will get the nod on a free vote of MPs. Not before time.
Right. Time for my conflated breakfast / dinner / tea. Where the heck's my nearest Subway? Conflated eh ... see how I worked your favourite word in again, Skip! ;-)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
A LHR mega-airport would be wonderful to have if it could be provided affordably. The problem is it can't be.
Both have ambition. But their geographical locations differ. In the context of travel planning that matters quite alot.
In fact, the free market will decide even if LHR is available as a choice.
Spending GBP18.5Bn directly plus GBP12-18Bn in publicly-funded support works to increase LHR throughput by just 50% is the laughable notion in this debate.
Your "solution" of spending a combined sum of upto 36 Billion Pounds to increase LHR capability by just 50% is the true folly here.
You think that replacing obsolete time-expired terminal buildings with a new stat-of-the-art replacement is dumb? I respectfully disagree. Future measures to accommodate growth based upon a sound business case will of course be welcome as well.
Conflated eh ... see how I worked your favourite word in again, Skip! ;-)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm loving this!
Can I toss in my tuppence worth from 500 miles away?
1. Part of IAG's assets are the value of its Heathrow slots. Lossmaking airlines have been bought purely for them. Building a third runway will reduce the value of their slots. No wonder they aren't keen.
2. It is extraordinarily difficult to find some way of getting those who benefit from infrastructure investment to pay for it. Even with Crossrail, where there have been developer contributions, there are thousands of individuals and organisations who will benefit without any contribution.
Can I toss in my tuppence worth from 500 miles away?
1. Part of IAG's assets are the value of its Heathrow slots. Lossmaking airlines have been bought purely for them. Building a third runway will reduce the value of their slots. No wonder they aren't keen.
2. It is extraordinarily difficult to find some way of getting those who benefit from infrastructure investment to pay for it. Even with Crossrail, where there have been developer contributions, there are thousands of individuals and organisations who will benefit without any contribution.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VAA must be more worried after using their slot value as collateral...
For those who confuse LHR being at capacity and not being able to grow so divert transfer pax and cargo to other airports, the constraint is on aircraft movements not passenger numbers.
Bigger aircraft can operate the existing slots to grow passenger numbers. But with yields starting to fall, I expect airlines to start turning on transfers to grow volume. Easier & quicker than shaking loose the local market.
That only works if you have a hub. Even 30% transfers makes thin routes viable. Get rid of that & the local market will have less destinations to choose from & pay higher fares.
For those who confuse LHR being at capacity and not being able to grow so divert transfer pax and cargo to other airports, the constraint is on aircraft movements not passenger numbers.
Bigger aircraft can operate the existing slots to grow passenger numbers. But with yields starting to fall, I expect airlines to start turning on transfers to grow volume. Easier & quicker than shaking loose the local market.
That only works if you have a hub. Even 30% transfers makes thin routes viable. Get rid of that & the local market will have less destinations to choose from & pay higher fares.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you believe we should spend money in your local area of Manchester instead
option 1 still needs doing,
So we agree Heathrow is not in Germany, but Frankfurt being in Germany makes something different somehow. This is not the clearest point you have ever made.....
Except the figures you quote are scaremongering worst case scenario conflated numbers.
What % of that huge figure would be spent anyway Shed?
Perhaps I am being thick, but MAN's rebuild has no growth budget for whatsoever?
Well if you make an effort to stop doing it, I can stop saying it
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on, Skip. I'd like to believe you're better than that. Cheap shot. Debate me on the arguments I have presented. Trying to plant words in my mouth diminishes your credibility.
LHR R3 is many multiples beyond that threshold.
Some experts argue that costs are under-stated and will rise still further.
According to some very well-informed professionals, the full 100%. With the door left open for more on top before final delivery some 10-15 years hence. See Channel Tunnel for an example of how this can happen.
It is suggested by TfL that the public contribution required for LHR support works alone falls between GBP12-18Bn.
You think TFL honestly budget this at EIGHTEEN BILLION pounds.
Is that per month? My daily experience of TFL suggests it just might be. Again, they just need managing to prevent (further) stupidity
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can it be out of control in terms of cost when the project has not been approved?
I agree strong project management and cost controls need to be strictly maintained.
I do not believe it will cost £18Bn to put some concrete down between my office and LHR over what is overwhelmingly fields ready owned by HAL. Sipson will go but that's the painful price of progress IMHO. The M4 and M25 need fixing and updating anyway, ask anyone who has to use them. Attaching those substantial costs to LHR expansion is, and I do apologise to Shed, "conflation".
But good answers all and in good spirits of debate
I agree strong project management and cost controls need to be strictly maintained.
I do not believe it will cost £18Bn to put some concrete down between my office and LHR over what is overwhelmingly fields ready owned by HAL. Sipson will go but that's the painful price of progress IMHO. The M4 and M25 need fixing and updating anyway, ask anyone who has to use them. Attaching those substantial costs to LHR expansion is, and I do apologise to Shed, "conflation".
But good answers all and in good spirits of debate
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your core argument, presented time after time, is LHR R3 is overpriced and taking too much taxpayer subsidy,
consequently that taxpayer money should be spread more evenly out of the congested SE and there are many deserving causes in your own region
You also support the ME3 at your local airport
whilst saying minimising the need for en effective hub in the UK.
At core, IMHO that's localism vs national interest and being selective your rationale for what's good for one airfield versus another.
In your worst case scenario view, this was not the view of the independent commission employed to make a difficult yet fair decision.
Perhaps we should close the Chunnel and build a new one from Manchester to Calais, in interests of "fairness"?
If you're wondering why regional folks have such a cynical view of Westminster promises on transport infrastructure delivery, the Channel Tunnel debacle is exhibit number one. Indeed, the most disgraceful episode of the HS2 saga to date was the decision to axe the short spur which would have linked HS2 to HS1 enabling trains from Scotland, the North and the Midlands direct rail access to the continent. The saving represented by this cut was 2% of the overall project cost. If you need evidence of Whitehall contempt for regional connectivity, look no further. You think we distrust Westminster politicians on transport infrastructure decisions? Then you're right. In the light of their lamentable track record, show me a reason why we should trust them. George Osborne was a rare ray of hope ... and look where he's been shunted now. Londoncentric dogma and contempt for the regions is alive and thriving in Whitehall.
Now here's an interesting thought to ponder. I wonder whether your eccentric idea of building a Manchester to Calais tunnel would actually come in cheaper than the LHR R3 proposals. I think it just might! There's plenty of leeway to work with after all! ;-)
You think TFL honestly budget this at EIGHTEEN BILLION pounds.
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 16th Sep 2016 at 23:10.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any sensible analysis, the LHR plans fail the test.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NorthernPowerhouse PR machine from Whitehall appears to be doing its job admirably in some quarters by suggesting the government is pouring billions of pounds of investment into The North....DON'T FALL FOR THE SPIN !
It's NOT, its zero in terms of "special on off funding" .
There has been some "window dressing" but these are not much more than yearly maintenance budgets which have been tweeked by the Minister who "happens to be visiting the North this week" to tie in with the NP narrative, in most cases they amount to the basic minimum required to keep our crumbling road and rail infastructure moving ..........just!
Heathrow £12bn. .....possibly £18bn
HS2 £40bn, £50bn who knows, it goes up everyday
Hinckley see above
NorthernPowerhouse probably £1bn.
All the other impetus re grand schemes has come 100% from private money.
Eg
Liverpool Ports Gateway. Peel Holdings
Salford Port. Peel Holdings
Manchester. Purely foreign investment in the dozen plus 30storey+ scrapers.
Manchester Airport and Sheffield. Chinese investment.
NO we don't want the Heathrow money but a few crumbs thrown our way to confim we are one island and part of the UK and this "free and fair society " would be welcome.
As taxpayers we do want checks and balances. No different to the now FIVE yes that's FIVE requests from the Chair Of The Treasury Select Committee (Andrew Tyrie, Con) asking for answers on Heathrow financing.
So what would his agenda be ?
It's NOT, its zero in terms of "special on off funding" .
There has been some "window dressing" but these are not much more than yearly maintenance budgets which have been tweeked by the Minister who "happens to be visiting the North this week" to tie in with the NP narrative, in most cases they amount to the basic minimum required to keep our crumbling road and rail infastructure moving ..........just!
Heathrow £12bn. .....possibly £18bn
HS2 £40bn, £50bn who knows, it goes up everyday
Hinckley see above
NorthernPowerhouse probably £1bn.
All the other impetus re grand schemes has come 100% from private money.
Eg
Liverpool Ports Gateway. Peel Holdings
Salford Port. Peel Holdings
Manchester. Purely foreign investment in the dozen plus 30storey+ scrapers.
Manchester Airport and Sheffield. Chinese investment.
NO we don't want the Heathrow money but a few crumbs thrown our way to confim we are one island and part of the UK and this "free and fair society " would be welcome.
As taxpayers we do want checks and balances. No different to the now FIVE yes that's FIVE requests from the Chair Of The Treasury Select Committee (Andrew Tyrie, Con) asking for answers on Heathrow financing.
So what would his agenda be ?
Last edited by Bagso; 17th Sep 2016 at 10:13.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect either R3 or HS2 will get the go ahead soon, why? because like Hinkley Point it is a distraction from Brexit. It doesn't follow that will be the end of the matter as I believe a number of legal challenges are planned.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
State aid for LHR which is a massive piece of national infrastructure, central to the British Economy and much of which was built by taxpayers money. If state aid is such a bad thing, best tell the French how you object to that big factory in Toulouse. I am also not going to mention the ME3 of which MAN is so dependent. Whoops!
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
State aid for LHR which is a massive piece of national infrastructure, central to the British Economy and much of which was built by taxpayers money. If state aid is such a bad thing, best tell the French how you object to that big factory in Toulouse. I am also not going to mention the ME3 of which MAN is so dependent. Whoops!
Another attempt to bring MAN into the argument. Nice try.