HEATHROW

[Prophead]

The figure of 12-18Bn for the access works is a huge amount and needs breaking down and putting into context. We are talking about a major intersection of two of the busiest motorways and access into the UK's busiest airport all within a square mile. The current setup requires upgrading now as anyone who has to negotiate that part of the M25 in rush hour knows. That won't come cheap.

I presume TFL have lumped in all sorts of works and contingency costs into this figure along with a huge amount of risk. I cannot believe the access works will be in that region. Without the project being allowed to move into the next design and tendering phase however we won't get further clarification.

One thing people need to understand is that a large amount of that figure will come straight back into the public purse from all the various taxes imposed on the project and the staff/companies involved. The project will likely be carried out by companies and workers from all over the UK who will take that money home and spend in in the local economy. Materials will be made in factories all over the UK. This goes for the privately financed amount as well as the portion from the taxpayer.

The same goes for projects like Hinckley and HS2 and is why it is possible to build out of a recession. Taking private finance and putting it into a large infrastructure project is a great way to put other peoples money into the economy. It also provides a countrywide benefit despite the final project being based in the SE. The money does not just disappear.

Which brings me to another point. An expanded LHR that allows people to fly from their regional airport to destinations all over the world does benefit the whole of the UK. It is wrong to think of it as another SE project that will only benefit London. The nation really should get behind this and it's a shame the MAN supporters feel so threatened.

If MAN or any other airport can support a direct flight then good for them. If MAN can only support it because people are having to travel all over the north to get there though then it is not really working and a LHR hub would be a better option as it will also allow more destinations that no airport, even LHR in it's current form could support. This in turn brings in people from further afield than the UK and that is worth a lot of money to our economy.

Hopefully the right decision will be made as for the majority of people an expanded LHR is a win win situation.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Prophead

Which brings me to another point. An expanded LHR that allows people to fly from their regional airport to destinations all over the world does benefit the whole of the UK. It is wrong to think of it as another SE project that will only benefit London. The nation really should get behind this and it's a shame the MAN supporters feel so threatened.

There is no guarantee that expansion at Heathrow will improve its connectivity to UK regions, The Airports Commission forecasts the opposite - that the number of UK destinations served from LHR will shrink from the current 7 to 4 within the next 15 years, even with R3.

[Ametyst1]

The failure of Virgin Little Red's connection is not a reflection on the attraction of Heathrow it is more to do with the size of Virgin/Delta's offering from Heathrow.

Heathrow is operating on record passenger levels and is still the busiest airport in Europe so it must be doing something right.

I regularly travel through Heathrow and I find it delight to do so. I also like Amsterdam but not Paris CdG or Frankfurt.

[ZOOKER]

Heathrow = "Delight" = Shurely Shome Mishtake?

[Ametyst1]

No mistake Zooker.

Skytrax gives Heathrow a mere 4/10 but most of the complaints are about Border Control which the airport has no control over.

[ZOOKER]

Just read some of the 'Skytrax' reviews.....A hoot.

[Ametyst1]

Well, it is a lot better than other lower rated airports such as Gatwick, Stansted, Manchester, Bournemouth and East Midlands

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Ametyst1

The failure of Virgin Little Red's connection is not a reflection on the attraction of Heathrow it is more to do with the size of Virgin/Delta's offering from Heathrow

The BA shuttle numbers from across the UK have declined consistently for a number of years. Does this means BA's offering from Heathrow too small?

[AndrewH52]

Originally Posted by ZOOKER

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

A constraint is a constraint, whether it be financial, legal or physical...

[Ametyst1]

BA Shuttle numbers have declined because BA does not carry so much point-to-point traffic on the Heathrow domestic services anymore, particularly from Manchester and Newcastle.

BA, through the takover of BMI, have re-introduced services from Heathrow to Belfast City, Inverness and Leeds-Bradford.

In addition a lot of the point-to-point traffic from Scotland now goes via London City. BA also operate 767's on selected services from Heathrow to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

I would say that BA's domestic traffic to all London airports has actually increased and freed up space for passengers connecting onto other BA services from Heathrow.

[Prophead]

There is no guarantee that expansion at Heathrow will improve its connectivity to UK regions, The Airports Commission forecasts the opposite - that the number of UK destinations served from LHR will shrink from the current 7 to 4 within the next 15 years, even with R3

Considering the runway, would not even be operational within that time they may well be right. I hardly think the likes of Flybe and Easyjet would not want to fly into an expanded LHR though carrying all that connecting traffic from the UK and Europe.

Also why do people keep putting down LHR based on it's current transfer connections. The whole point of this plan is to build and improve the airport. Something is already well underway and it has the potential to become a world leading facility.

But of course we can't have that can we.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Prophead

Considering the runway would not even be operational within that time they may well be right

The Airport Commission's forecast was for 2030. Heathrow is planning for R3 to be operational in late 2025. What makes you think there would be a 5-year delay ?

And be that as it may, the AC also forecasts the same number of domestic destinations (4) in 2040 and 2050.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

The current setup requires upgrading now as anyone who has to negotiate that part of the M25 in rush hour knows. That won't come cheap.

If something requires upgrading there is a presumption in the SE that funding will be waved through. Are you aware that this doesn't automatically happen re requires upgrading projects elsewhere in the UK?

I presume TFL have lumped in all sorts of works and contingency costs into this figure

We cannot progress funding of this magnitude based upon presumption. The level of drain required from public funds must be verified. TFL is well-qualified to make cost assessments on transport infrastructure projects, so their estimates must be taken seriously and examined.

One thing people need to understand is that a large amount of that figure will come straight back into the public purse from all the various taxes imposed

One could equally argue this for the LGW scheme and for alternative schemes of merit around the UK which represent far better value to the taxpayer. The vast costs associated with LHR R3 cannot be approved based on a flimsy excuse of this sort.

The project will likely be carried out by companies and workers from all over the UK who will take that money home and spend in in the local economy.

Ah, the infamous trickledown argument. Based upon this, the streets of Burnley, Bridgend, and Stanley should already be paved with gold trickled down from recent SE construction projects such as Crossrail, the Olympic Park, Thameslink remodelling and so many more. Curiously, that never quite seems to work out!

Materials will be made in factories all over the UK.

Also true in much larger volume if public funds are instead deployed on projects of merit located all around the UK where each pound spent buys so much more.

Taking private finance and putting it into a large infrastructure project is a great way to put other peoples money into the economy.

But if this is attempted on a scale so large that the host company risks default or failure to raise the capital required, default to the taxpayer becomes a huge concern. Will the taxpayer be underwriting the privately-funded element of LHR R3?

The same goes for projects like Hinckley

I thought the bulk of the money from Hinckley was destined for France and China. Where will the LHR R3 billions be off to?

and is why it is possible to build out of a recession.

A much more effective way to build out of recession would be to invest public funds directly into attractively-priced projects of merit located directly within depressed and neglected areas across the UK.

It also provides a countrywide benefit despite the final project being based in the SE.

Large-scale projects of merit around regional UK can also provide this. Unfortunately, I can't quote a real-world example, as during the last 50 years all multi-billion pound projects have been allocated to the SE exclusively. Time for some rebalancing?

The money does not just disappear.

Well the money from Crossrail, the Olympic Park and all the rest didn't find its way to my part of the world. Where did it go?

An expanded LHR that allows people to fly from their regional airport to destinations all over the world does benefit the whole of the UK.

Like a crumb from a large loaf benefits a mouse? The scale of funding required versus the underwhelming payback is beyond pitiful. Invest directly into those regions instead.

It is wrong to think of it as another SE project that will only benefit London.

But it will absolutely, overwhelmingly benefit London with only crumbs and empty promises trickling down to the rest of the UK.

The nation really should get behind this and it's a shame the MAN supporters feel so threatened.

The whole nation should feel threatened by another GBP12-18Bn of public funding glibly allocated to a project of very low merit within the charmed SE bubble. BTW, that cheap MAN Supporter jibe undermines your credibility as a serious contributor.

it will also allow more destinations that no airport, even LHR in it's current form could support. This in turn brings in people from further afield than the UK and that is worth a lot of money to our economy.

Have you seen some of the surprising destinations which carriers such as Ryanair and Wizz have introduced to the London airports portfolio? LHR has no monopoly on attracting new destinations. Even the Davies Report acknowledged that wasn't one of its strengths. A new runway at LGW can bring such people into the UK too.

Hopefully the right decision will be made as for the majority of people an expanded LHR is a win win situation.

Since it will cost many multiples the value it represents to make happen, LHR R3 is a win for selected lawyers, surveyors, engineers and very few others. Certainly not for the public. Absolutely not for the public. The right decision is LGW, subject to rigid cost oversight and the promised private funding being forthcoming.

I would say that BA's domestic traffic to all London airports has actually increased and freed up space for passengers connecting onto other BA services from Heathrow.

It is good to note real-world evidence that passengers are content to use London gateways other than LHR to meet their travel needs.

[Prophead]

Shed we have argued these points before and I am not going go through it again. If there are projects in other parts of the UK that can secure private investment and provide the same kind of benefit then let them go ahead too.

If foreign investment is not as forthcoming then that is hardly a reason to cancel projects in the SE. Yes there is also an element of public funding required at LHR but the result benefits non LHR users on the M25 and M4 also.

My argument is for a hub. Yours is for an expanded LGW. These are 2 different outcomes. We need to first decide whether we want a major UK hub or not and take into account the benefits this will bring. If we decide the hub arrangement isn't important and to concentrate on direct flights from wherever we can support them then that is a different matter. If it is just a case of putting an extra runway anywhere in the SE then you wouldn't choose LHR. If we do want to build a world class hub airport for a realistic amount then the only sensible option is LHR.

The Airport Commission's forecast was for 2030. Heathrow is planning for R3 to be operational in late 2025. What makes you think there would be a 5-year delay?

Is that a joke? I wouldn't be surprised if there is an extra 5 year delay in a decision being made let alone all the extra planning approvals and further consultations. Seriously though I think we are talking past 2030 now.

And be that as it may, the AC also forecasts the same number of domestic destinations (4) in 2040 and 2050.

The AC can say what it wants, it is the airlines who will decide and an expanded LHR open to SH traffic will be very attractive to the regionals plus LHR will also want a large flow of people through its 'shopping experience'.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Shed we have argued these points before and I am not going go through it again.

You just did. My post was a response to you doing exactly that.

If foreign investment is not as forthcoming then that is hardly a reason to cancel projects in the SE.

I have no desire to see worthwhile value-for-money projects cancelled in the SE or anywhere else. The problem lies with permitting one specific project at which the cost of provision vastly outweighs the benefits which will ultimately be delivered. And one which misallocates an enormous swathe of public investment resources in the process.

there is also an element of public funding required at LHR

That element of public funding is actually 12 to 18 times the sum which has ever been invested in a single public transport infrastructure project in the UK regions.

My argument is for a hub. Yours is for an expanded LGW.

My argument is for a solution to the SE runway capacity shortfall which does not jeopardise the finances of UK plc. The hub aspiration only makes sense if the payback exceeds the cost of facilitating it by a worthwhile profit margin. Providing capacity for inherent SE demand-growth for air travel is the key issue here. LGW can deliver that.

If we do want to build a world class hub airport for a realistic amount then the only sensible option is LHR.

In what way does GBP18.5Bn private plus between GBP12-18Bn in public funding for enabling works constitute a realistic amount for expanding LHR capacity by just 50%?

The AC can say what it wants, it is the airlines who will decide

So can we deduce that you have little confidence in the AC report as a whole, or is it just the sections which don't support your agenda which should be overlooked?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Prophead

Is that a joke? I wouldn't be surprised if there is an extra 5 year delay in a decision being made let alone all the extra planning approvals and further consultations.

Nor would I be surprised, if indeed LHR R3 goes ahead at all. But with no R3, the Commission forecasts an even steeper decline in the number of domestic routes.

The AC can say what it wants

Yes, that's the great thing about forecasts - anyone is free to agree or disagree with them, and only time will tell who got it right.

it is the airlines who will decide and an expanded LHR open to SH traffic will be very attractive to the regionals

Yes, it's the airlines and not the airport who decide what routes and destinations they will serve. But a route only makes sense if it's profitable and that's partly dependent on the airport's user charges, particularly on regional routes and those flown by LCCs. Heathrow getting an adequate ROI on a third runway isn't EasyJet's problem.

plus LHR will also want a large flow of people through its 'shopping experience'.

See above. Airlines don't start routes just to help the airport sell more duty-frees.

[Prophead]

Heathrow getting an adequate ROI on a third runway isn't EasyJet's problem.

Airlines don't start routes just to help the airport sell more duty-frees.

LHR will want that foot traffic through its terminals and won't, I imagine risk losing that traffic by charging high fees to the regionals.

When I worked there I was staggered to hear the income generated from the shopping and it is having that captive audience of bored people with nothing to do but shop that will offer the ROI.

[Heathrow Harry]

LHR charge High fees? who could believe such a thing??

they'll screw the last drop of blood out of the regionals if it improves their bonus by £1

[Ametyst1]

Ryanair and Wizz Air have indeed added some surprising destinations to the London portfolio but none of these are likely to be seen at an expanded Heathrow.

I can't see Ryanair or Wizz Air adding destinations such as Ankara, Nagoya, Osaka, Kolkata, Hangzhou, Dakar, Quito or Memphis.

[Ringwayman]

There is nothing stopping BA from adding those routes NOW. They don't need a runway added to do that.