HEATHROW

[Trash 'n' Navs]

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.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

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".

Those who will be asked to foot the bill, such as Willie Walsh and many UK taxpayers, disagree with you. A LHR mega-airport would be wonderful to have if it could be provided affordably. The problem is it can't be.

Said the flyer when the first AA055 departed MAN-ORD in 1986. Seen Dubai lately?

New offerings are being added all the time (and I never mentioned MAN in this context, although it is true of that airport as well). You are right that AAL55 and DXB in some respects illustrate the point, however.

It's invalid to compare LHR with FRA? Good point, Germany still has ambition.....

Both have ambition. But their geographical locations differ. In the context of travel planning that matters quite alot. LHR also has a financial cost problem which FRA does not appear to share.

As head of IAG, he needs to do what's right for the IAG share price and artificially keep more competition out of LHR.

Well being asked to stump up towards the super-inflated cost of developing LHR on behalf of IAG's competitors isn't great for the IAG share price either. And BA's post-R3 inflated fares will erode their cost advantage going forward too. Higher operating costs, increased access for competition. What are you trying to do to British Airways?

It's a piece of national infrastructure that's going to be costly but needs to be done.

At the right price, ideally so. At many multiples of the right price, categorically not. There are more economically-viable solutions to provide for demand growth for air travel inherent to the SE.

By elsewhere, be honest, youn mean MAN, and your "fair share".

No, that's not what I mean and that's not what I have argued. Verify that by reading any and all of my archived PPRuNe postings on this topic. Note that I do acknowledge that I wish to see MAN prosper - why wouldn't I? - but I have never argued the SE capacity debate from that standpoint.

As to your point of directing traffic elsewhere, they tried that with Gatwick, it failed once the regulatory environment changed

I have never argued for air traffic distribution by government decree. As you say (and I agree) it doesn't work. The free market will decide optimal transit routings in the absence of a (cost-prohibitively provided) LHR option. In fact, the free market will decide even if LHR is available as a choice.

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.

You continue to conflate London's hub aspirations with the need to provide for the inherent growth of air travel demand within the SE region. Inherent SE demand must be provided for. Transfer traffic attracted at way beyond economic cost is a luxury which it doesn't make sense to pursue. 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.

Also, please stay away from Subway for your own sanity.

Your best quote of the day! My one and only Subway purchase was in Mexico about twelve years ago!

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".

Your "solution" of spending a combined sum of upto 36 Billion Pounds to increase LHR capability by just 50% is the true folly here.

One cannot take that claim remotely seriously in such a ferociously competitive commercial environment.

If it could all be delivered for five billion tops I'd agree with you.

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 would be so convenient for your case if I had argued on this basis, wouldn't it? My PPRuNe archived postings testify that I have never done so. Please feel free to quote them. I do, however, argue strongly in favour of an equitable distribution of public infrastructure spend across the whole of the UK, not just within the charmed SE bubble. The London & SE conveyor belt of multi-billion pound infrastructure enhancements spanning half a century are distinctly absent across the rest of the UK. I don't begrudge London these stunning showpieces, but I do call unapologetically for the rest of the nation to share fully in the largesse going forward. Starting right now.

It provides little change to airport capacity in its current form.
That's dumb surely?

You think that replacing obsolete time-expired terminal buildings with a new state-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.

You realise 7Bn Euro will buy a lot more in Turkey?

Yes, that's why I quoted high-cost New York La Guardia in the next sentence!

Again, politically charged stats if you see who is the messenger.

Can we at least agree that there is no shortage of politically-charged data in the media on both sides of this debate? It's reminiscent of the BREXIT campaign.

it looks like LHR will get the nod on a free vote of MPs. Not before time.

If so, I'll enthusiastically endorse taxpayer-funded refresher lessons in basic arithmetic for our 650 Westminster MP's. How many millions to each billion again, Minister?

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! ;-)

[Skipness One Echo]

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!

So you have no objection to the expansion of LHR except the objections you then list?

A LHR mega-airport would be wonderful to have if it could be provided affordably. The problem is it can't be.

It'll be expensive but we disagree on how much, I strongly believe it needs doing, you believe we should spend money in your local area of Manchester instead. One is a national infrastructure piece connecting the UK to the world, the other is <insert local project here>> However worthy option 2 is, option 1 still needs doing, and right now people are inflating and conflating handy statistics to prevent this happening.

Both have ambition. But their geographical locations differ. In the context of travel planning that matters quite alot.

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.....

In fact, the free market will decide even if LHR is available as a choice.

The free market would have built a third runway years ago if it were not for the stupidity of politicians and localist NIMBY-ism trumping the national interest.

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.

Except the figures you quote are scaremongering worst case scenario conflated numbers.

Your "solution" of spending a combined sum of upto 36 Billion Pounds to increase LHR capability by just 50% is the true folly here.

What % of that huge figure would be spent anyway Shed? Get real, I work as an analyst and spend days with people and their BS made up numbers. This is classic worst case scenario.

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.

Perhaps I am being thick, but MAN's rebuild has no growth budget for whatsoever? It'll be capacity neutral on completion even though it will be completed years from now when growth will have outstripped existing caapcity? That's how LHR and MAN got into such a mess in the first place.

Conflated eh ... see how I worked your favourite word in again, Skip! ;-)

Well if you make an effort to stop doing it, I can stop saying it

[inOban]

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.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

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.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

you believe we should spend money in your local area of Manchester instead

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.

option 1 still needs doing,

Every desirable project has a financial cut-off point at which it no longer makes economic sense. LHR R3 is many multiples beyond that threshold.

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.....

So you didn't get the bit about Britain being geographically located on the western periphery of Europe whilst Germany lies rather more central?

Except the figures you quote are scaremongering worst case scenario conflated numbers.

According to you. Some experts argue that costs are under-stated and will rise still further.

What % of that huge figure would be spent anyway Shed?

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.

Perhaps I am being thick, but MAN's rebuild has no growth budget for whatsoever?

The TP as currently permitted is a project to replace old with new. That is what it does. Naturally, one hopes that MAG will be making plans to accommodate growth down the line, but that will need to be addressed by future proposals not yet disclosed to the public. I suspect that the prime vacant site left behind by the demolition of T1 will not be left undeveloped for long. And expansion of T3 is desperately needed.

Well if you make an effort to stop doing it, I can stop saying it

Holy conflating, Batman! This is too much! :-)

[Skipness One Echo]

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.

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.

LHR R3 is many multiples beyond that threshold.

In your worst case scenario view, this was not the view of the independent commission employed to make a difficult yet fair decision.

Some experts argue that costs are under-stated and will rise still further.

Mr Moylan being one See up.

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.

Good analogy, you clearly think it should never have been built to be consistent? Perhaps we should close the Chunnel and build a new one from Manchester to Calais, in interests of "fairness"? Also, let's be honest, lack of fairness is your core arguement, and I have sympathy. It isn't fair, business isn't fair.

It is suggested by TfL that the public contribution required for LHR support works alone falls between GBP12-18Bn.

These experts? They pay blue collar peeps £50K to open and close train doors on trains that don't need drivers.
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

[True Blue]

Skipness

At what point cost wise would you say R3 is not worth it because cost is out of control?

I think it is long past that point.

[Skipness One Echo]

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

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Your core argument, presented time after time, is LHR R3 is overpriced and taking too much taxpayer subsidy,

You're doing very well so far ...

consequently that taxpayer money should be spread more evenly out of the congested SE and there are many deserving causes in your own region

and in the UK regions as a whole, not the NW alone ...

You also support the ME3 at your local airport

I wish success upon all carriers serving both my local airport and others which link the UK public with the wider world safely and cost-effectively ...

whilst saying minimising the need for en effective hub in the UK.

An effective hub in the UK is a commendable aspiration. LHR already is a highly-effective hub primarily linking markets on either side of the North Atlantic. That's where we are now. The caveat I place upon developing hub potential from this point forward is that the cost of attracting additional connecting traffic must not outweigh the value of business so attracted. Especially not by order of multiple times the value of that new business. Refer also to my earlier comments regarding the reduced need for hub connections as other airports increase direct offerings of their own.

At core, IMHO that's localism vs national interest and being selective your rationale for what's good for one airfield versus another.

And this is where we differ. I don't accept the logic of financing any infrastructure project at a price-point which grossly outweighs the value of the benefits delivered following completion. And I apply this principle across the board. If you trawl back through the Manchester thread, you will find me opposing calls to build a full-length parallel taxiway alongside 23L/05R for exactly this reason. If funds are available for a project which adds little value to the business they should be redeployed to more compelling projects instead. [For clarification, this was a hypothetical discussion ... MAG has not to my knowledge proposed funding a white-elephant taxiway at MAN]. So it's not a selective rationale of what's good for one airfield versus another. It's a simple matter of robust economics versus fantasy economics. Whatever the location.

In your worst case scenario view, this was not the view of the independent commission employed to make a difficult yet fair decision.

But it is the view of highly-qualified academics who criticised the methodology deployed by PWC in producing the financial data which underpins the recommendation. According to them, the more widely accepted WebTAG methodology produces a far less-flattering business case. I don't question the good faith of Davies and his commission partners, but I do doubt the credibility of certain data points which were put before them as evidence during the course of compiling the report.

Perhaps we should close the Chunnel and build a new one from Manchester to Calais, in interests of "fairness"?

No, but in the interests of fairness our politicians should ensure the roll-out of cross-channel rail services linking the continent directly with major cities across the UK, as was promised by government right at the outset. The Channel Tunnel is a huge investment, we were told, but it will be worth it because services operating through it will serve major trunk routes across the UK. It's not just for the South-East. We're still waiting ...

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.

You apparently hold TFL in low-regard. As the previous paragraph shows, I hold certain other public bodies in low regard based upon their track-record to date. Only with the benefit of hindsight will we know which organisations were deserving of our trust.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

How can it be out of control in terms of cost when the project has not been approved?

I think the point is that the project should show that costs can be controlled before approval. Implicit within this is that the costs are reasonable to begin with.

In any sensible analysis, the LHR plans fail the test.

[Skipness One Echo]

Disagree wholeheartedly when it is clear some costs are vastly inflated for political means.

[Ametyst1]

Hinckley Point fails the test as does Crossrail, HS2 and the Northern Powerhouse. Basically, all political vanity projects!

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Ametyst1

Hinckley Point fails the test as does Crossrail, HS2 and the Northern Powerhouse. Basically, all political vanity projects!

Completely untrue. You could buy two Crossrails and have £6 billion left over for the expected price of LHR runway 2.

[Bagso]

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 ?

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

Disagree wholeheartedly when it is clear some costs are vastly inflated for political means.

That's fine if it were only your money on the table.

[Walnut]

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.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Walnut

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.

Like state aid.

[Skipness One Echo]

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!

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

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!

ME = not in Europe and not subject to state sid rules.

Another attempt to bring MAN into the argument. Nice try.