HEATHROW

[coathanger16]

Having observed this debate for several years, there certainly seems to be a feeling that all infrastructure (airports, rail, roads) can be invested either ONLY in the north or ONLY in the south - why can't say both airports in the SE AND the North expand? If regional airports are only growing because of capacity constraints in the SE, that would suggest there is little demand from the regions and that the only demand for aviation comes from the SE - an unlikely scenario.

In terms of the LHR vs LGW argument, I believe the appropriate course of action does indeed depend on business models.

If the hub model is valid for our aviation needs, then an efficient hub is whats needed - either at Heathrow requiring expansion, or at a new hub airport. A "split" or "virtual" hub between LHR and LGW wouldn't work - no matter how fast the train between the two airports were it would still be less attractive than transferring within the same airport in Paris say.

If however the hub model is dismissed in favor of a P2P model then really no new runways are needed, at least not immediately. Assuming LGW could accomodate 50mppa with a single runway, the same should be true for Stansted and Luton (after sufficient terminal and taxiway works were complete). The amount of capacity that would provide would be roughly equal to LHR's current throughput.

Whichever option is chosen though, the government needs to just make the decision and soon - the sooner a decision, the sooner any benefits will materialize.

[Ametyst1]

Zooker

Learn to read and understand please, I said at PEAK TIMES! I am aware Manchester has slot availability but not necessarily when the airlines want it.

[Bagso]

Unfortunately a severe work schedule means a brief reposte.

But again skip you add 2+2 and make 5.

For the hard of understanding. ....

MANCHESTER WILL NEVER BE A HEATHROW NEVER EVER. ..OK

Now where were we? Ah yes a "reasonable price point" re LHR.

Still waiting. 5bn 15bn 30bn 50bn 75bn 100bn. ?

All paid for by HAL.?

Pin the tail on the Donkey!

And while we are at it can we tear up ANY guilt edge assurance of a taxpayer bailout year 5 "IF HAL is somehow unable to raise the shareholder funds?

[dave59]

dave59, I don't see that Heathrow artificially constrains the reasons anymore than Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris do.

Where and how has Heathrow stifled growth in the regions?

Over-capacity and frequency undermine the sustainability of existing or potential new routes from other UK airports. Previously government bi-laterals favouring BA/LHR over passenger convenience.

[Ametyst1]

You do talk some rubbish dave59. Nothing now stops airlines expanding in the regions.

Heathrow serves one of 5 global cities. I work in the airline industry that airlines fly empty planes to New York, Barcelona, Madrid, Istanbul, Dubai etc is a myth which people wish to believe.

British Airways is one of the most profitable airlines in the world and they don't do that by flying half empty aircraft out of Heathrow.

You are relying on history to shore up your argument. If American Airlines or any other airline want to fly profitable services out of Manchester, Cardiff, Humberside or Birmingham there is nothing stopping them.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

It's the central core of your argument Shed, you're the only one who can't see it, honestly. Continue to artificially constrain LHR to allow MAN and the regions to prosper.

I've called you out on this before, Skip, and now I do so again. All my PPRuNe postings on this topic are archived and available for any and all to reference. I invite you to re-read them and quote any passage you can find in which I argue against LHR R3 from the perspective of protectionism towards MAN. Time to 'put up or shut up' on this nonsense. The problem with the LHR R3 proposal is the extraordinary costings associated with it, particularly those which will be drawn from scarce public funds. I have consistently argued the case on that basis. Finally, please explain my support for the LGW option (subject to strict cost oversight) if my agenda is to ensure that MAN alone can prosper.

Cost calculations at this level are not arithmetic

In this case I chose my wording carefully. A primary school class could quickly assess the chasmic value-for-money deficit presented by the crazy numbers associated with the LHR R3 proposals. "And by the way, kids, we plan to help pay for this with a large slice of your inheritance!" Let's hope that we have a sufficient number of MP's who can recognise the fiscal folly represented by this "investment opportunity". Then explain the concept of opportunity cost and examine the investments which could instead be made with those same GBP12-18Bn in public funds.

Finally, Skip, you've been quite withering in your various ripostes towards Bagso. But many times now he has posed his 'reasonable price point' question to you. A perfectly valid challenge. And you constantly evade providing an answer. How about facing up to the task this time? I'm sure many readers here await your response with interest.

[ZOOKER]

Ametyst1,
At peak times, EGCC has shedloads of capacity available. The constraints it often has to operate under are purely environmental.

[Ametyst1]

Manchester does not have shedful of slots at peak times at all particularly in the summer months. Have you ever been to Manchester between 7am and 9am?

It doesn't matter what the reason is, Manchester still has very few slots if any available at peak times. That is why both easyJet and Ryanair have not based anymore aircraft there.

Amsterdam has 6 runways but cannot operate to full capacity due to environmental issues.

[Mr A Tis]

Having got the Manchester thread locked, the "usual suspects" have now migrated to the Heathrow thread.Don't you guys get it ?
We are not interested in repetitive arguments intertwinned with snide and / or trolling posts. Pprune is the wrong place for this.
I expect the next padlock is heading this way...

[ZOOKER]

Ametyst1
Yes I have, and I've seen the queue of 8 or 9 at the 23L holding point.

[sparkysam]

Man thread

Well said Mr Atis
Cheers Sam

[coathanger16]

I've seen many people many times pedal this argument about how airport X is full at peak times and that it should therefore be allowed to expand as airlines won't fly - or will to only non desirable destinations - at off peak times.

Might I remind those of you who follow that line of reasoning that LHR is full throughout the day - whilst demand drops off a little at off peak times it certainly isn't that noticeable. If a slot becomes available at LHR the airline will take it regardless of when it is, often paying huge sums of money for them (United once bought 4 slots for £40m each). This demonstrates just how much demand there is to fly from LHR.

If an airline can only make a route work out of Manchester say by flying it at peak times, then whilst there is clearly demand for it, it is not deemed essential - otherwise the airline would take an off peak slot.

[LAX_LHR]

It doesn't matter what the reason is, Manchester still has very few slots if any available at peak times. That is why both easyJet and Ryanair have not based anymore aircraft there.

I have no fight in the MAN vs LHR debate, but that statement is completely wrong.

Easyjet based 2 more aircraft there this year, Ryanair 1 (plus a 2nd extra based in the August peak).

Easyjet are to base at least 1 more aircraft next summer, and Ryanir only have not based extra in line with their 'no extra based aircraft in the U.K.' mantra that has befallen all of their UK airports.

And that's not even touching the 2 extra based Jet2 this summer, 2 more next summer including 1 A330, 2 extra based Virgin Atlantic A330, 2 extra Thomas Cook A330, the 2 A320 Vueling base that has been officially applied for next summer and one extra Monarch confirmed.

But then, why let the inconvenient truth get in the way of your argument.

[Skipness One Echo]

To get to a "reasonable" price point you'd need to avoid conflating what would need to happen anyway versus what's new. The main problem I have it that people are throwing the M4, M25 works BAU and changes due R3 together and mixing in T2/2 with R3 and T6. TFL have thrown a whole load of BAU costs under new work as well!

Let me have a proper look at some numbers and I'll try and do a laymans guide and come back.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I have no fight in the MAN vs LHR debate

You are quite right to correct the factual error concerning the statement about strength of based-fleets, L_L.

But, addressing all contributors on here: can we be clear that there is no MAN vs LHR debate. One regular contributor in particular has pursued a tactical strategy of drawing MAN into the discussion at every opportunity. His objective is to 'prove' that all those who oppose LHR R3 do so out of 'loyalty' to another airport rather than based upon the glaring deficiencies inherent within the case presented for LHR R3. And I don't apologise for stressing this once more: the case against LHR R3 is rooted within the insupportable costs associated with making it happen and the risks to the exchequer in terms of the public funding required. Both directly in terms of the GBP12Bn-18Bn for support works, and indirectly by underwriting (how much of?) the remainder. For a grand total approaching 36 Billion Pounds. Monstrous numbers. There are nation-states with less debt burden than this. And the taxpayers threatened by this gross misallocation of capital are distributed across the whole of the UK, so it is appropriate that the debate not be limited only to residents of the SE.

If there is a case for an airport vs airport angle to the SE capacity debate on here, then it has to be the LHR proposals versus the competing LGW proposal. With honourable mention to STN, LTN and LCY which affect the balance of the London air travel market. MAN has no place whatsoever being discussed within this context. Can we leave it out please.

Mr A Tis. I understand your frustration, but according to the media a decision on a new runway for the SE could be less than a month away now. This is a crucial national debate. It is the most significant discussion topic directly concerning LHR in a generation. If this is unsuitable discussion material for PPRuNe regulars on the LHR thread then what is the purpose of the forum continuing to exist at all?

[inOban]

The further N you are, the less likely long haul passengers are to use LHR to interchange, and therefore the less enthusiasm they will have for any public money being invested in either LHR or LGW. They use AMS or one of the ME hubs

[Ametyst1]

I had already taken the extra services and increases into account.

[Skipness One Echo]

Shed you're not getting that one. Any LHR R3 impacts direct non stop long haul out of MAN, it's not something that can be viewed in isolation. As MAN already has an existing long haul portfolio where growth going west may well be slowed due to existing LHR/MAN operators getting to grips with a changed trading environment, where the market share position on LHR-US would be impacted almost overnight with a 50% capacity change at LHR. That would likely concentrate minds on London for a while until things panned out. You can bet DY would have a go at LHR, another reason LGW/GIP are desperate to stop R3 lest EZY take the chance.

Oddly enough LBA wants R3 as it would make their connections to London and beyond likely safer, the government also has the option to ring fence further new slots to be used only for British Isles airports currently unserved.

If LPL got a LHR link again that would further impact MAN as would further growth on LBA-LHR as both are in MAN's catchment area. Your argument this is simply a matter of another runway in the SE is not borne out when you take a look at the wider picture.

InOban, um not really. Backtracking all the way to AMS is often not as attractive as a T5-T5 transfer, especially on the way back. AMS remains a good option but BA still has a huge amount of connecting traffic out of GLA/EDI/BHD/ABZ.

[inOban]

Skipness

I am always amazed by the number of people I know who backtrack to AMS if heading for LA or SF. The fact that Virgin abandoned their attempt at a feeder service into their LHR long haul confirms the reluctance of many, not all, to use LHR.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Any LHR R3 impacts direct non stop long haul out of MAN, it's not something that can be viewed in isolation.

When one makes a fundamental change to a node in a network, there is some effect on all the other nodes. This principle applies in the example you cite as well as in many others. Of course, it also applies if the node which changes is LGW, which as you know I endorse for expansion subject to prudent cost-oversight. However, you have accused me of arguing against LHR R3 motivated by the scenario which you outline here. I have never done so, and you have not responded to my challenge to quote any passage from my archived postings which support your persistent assertions to this effect. I argue against LHR R3 on the grounds of cost, especially that vast sum drawn against public funds. And there is certainly ample justification for opposing LHR R3 on that score. Also, my opposition to LHR R3 has never been framed from a Manchester perspective at all except in direct response to specific provocative questions from yourself. I do realise that your task would be much simpler if you could successfully convey the impression that all opponents of LHR R3 are motivated by misguided pro-MAN protectionism rather than by the national interest. Sorry to disappoint you.

Oddly enough LBA wants R3

If LPL got a LHR link again

Of course other airports want new or increased scheduled services to LHR. The question is whether the payback on this is worth anything like GBP18.5Bn private (taxpayer underwritten?) plus GBP12-18Bn in direct public funding. Very clearly, it is not. Now if you were to spend that GBP12-18Bn directly on infrastructure investment in the neglected Leeds-Bradford and Liverpool city regions, you could really see some dramatic effects on prosperity there! NPR (the re-branded HS3) would be a great start.

Your argument this is simply a matter of another runway in the SE is not borne out when you take a look at the wider picture.

I have never asserted that the SE's new runway should be dumped just anywhere. When you examine the largest source of air travel demand-growth in the SE - no-frills and leisure short-haul - it is evident that LGW constitutes an excellent solution to the most pressing problem. It's not just a matter of another runway in the SE. Its a matter of which sector of the airline industry most urgently requires it and where their business model can thrive.

Now, can we move along from your discredited Manchester protectionism narrative and discuss the issues actually being raised? Any answer from you yet on the 'reasonable price point' question? Or is there actually no ceiling on the sum which you consider worthwhile paying out to provide just a 50% increase in capacity at LHR?