HEATHROW

[Ametyst1]

They could but other destinations and frequencies will have to be dropped such as Manchester.

[AndrewH52]

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

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.



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 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.



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%?

Shed. You argue your case articulately as ever. Sadly you also undermine it by your dogged insistence on utilising figures for the public expenditure to support Heathrow's expansion that have little or no basis in fact. You have on many occasions cited TfL figures to justify the upper range of the cost envelope. These figures include every bit of TfL expenditure that it can possibly pin against Heathrow for 30 years worth of investment. To think that TfL won't be arguing the need for similar sums to support the capital's future transport needs if Heathrow doesn't get the green light is naive, and that's not a word I would associate with you.

You also seem to be focused on the cost of everything and the value of nothing. How much tax (in the form of APD) do Heathrow passengers contribute to the Treasury? How much additional revenue would a 50% increase in traffic generate over 15 or 20 years? How expensive is that public sector investment looking now?

Anyway, until the government of the day grows a paira nd actually makes a decision this debate is rather academic anyway, wouldn't you say?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

They could but other destinations and frequencies will have to be dropped such as Manchester.

A decade ago there were around 50 round-trips daily operating between four different London airports and MAN. Today there are just 8 serving LHR only and those are operated by A320-family aircraft rather than the larger B752/B763 types routinely used in the past. Such has been the decline in importance of airlinks to London, crushed by punitive taxation, WCML improvements and more competitive direct offerings by the airline industry itself. Rail and road have taken the P2P business; direct air services to end-destinations and routes via alternative hubs have claimed the rest. Yet despite this massive decline to London in particular, MAN is handling more business than ever before. So the threat of losing more frequencies to LHR is not the concern it once was. Unless British Airways wish to cut themselves off completely from the largest market in Northern England there is little left to cut. And that is a commercial decision for them to make. Life without BA is no longer unthinkable. The market has adapted.

your dogged insistence on utilising figures for the public expenditure to support Heathrow's expansion that have little or no basis in fact.

I use numbers produced by expert professionals published in the public domain. What other kind are available? Neither you nor I will know the final verified figures until many years from now.

You also seem to be focused on the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

As opposed to the value of everything and the cost of nothing as we see from so many other commentators? Both sides of the ledger must be carefully considered.

How much tax (in the form of APD) do Heathrow passengers contribute to the Treasury?

From hub transfer passengers - nothing. From London-originating passengers the same as if they were flying from LGW, STN, LTN or LCY.

How much additional revenue would a 50% increase in traffic generate over 15 or 20 years?

Not enough to justify upto 36 billion pounds in combined expenditure to make it a reality, when LGW can resolve the capacity shortfall for far, far less.

How expensive is that public sector investment looking now?

Honest answer? VERY!!!

Anyway, until the government of the day grows a paira nd actually makes a decision this debate is rather academic anyway, wouldn't you say?

Much of the media believes that a decision will come in October. If borne out, this debate won't be academic for much longer. The decision-makers need to appraise themselves of the facts now. Time may be short.

[Ametyst1]

Seriously Shed? Gatwick is not a serious option you seem focused on low cost services and ignore the huge intercontinental market that is going to other European airports.

Are your professional experts the same as those professional experts that predicted immediate armageddon after the Brexit vote?

If an extra runway is approved then it will not be Gatwick.

[AndrewH52]

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

A decade ago there were around 50 round-trips daily operating between four different London airports and MAN. Today there are just 8 serving LHR only and those are operated by A320-family aircraft rather than the larger B752/B763 types routinely used in the past. Such has been the decline in importance of airlinks to London, crushed by punitive taxation, WCML improvements and more competitive direct offerings by the airline industry itself. Rail and road have taken the P2P business; direct air services to end-destinations and routes via alternative hubs have claimed the rest. Yet despite this massive decline to London in particular, MAN is handling more business than ever before. So the threat of losing more frequencies to LHR is not the concern it once was. Unless British Airways wish to cut themselves off completely from the largest market in Northern England there is little left to cut. And that is a commercial decision for them to make. Life without BA is no longer unthinkable. The market has adapted.



I use numbers produced by expert professionals published in the public domain. What other kind are available? Neither you nor I will know the final verified figures until many years from now.



As opposed to the value of everything and the cost of nothing as we see from so many other commentators? Both sides of the ledger must be carefully considered.



From hub transfer passengers - nothing. From London-originating passengers the same as if they were flying from LGW, STN, LTN or LCY.



Not enough to justify upto 36 billion pounds in combined expenditure to make it a reality, when LGW can resolve the capacity shortfall for far, far less.



Honest answer? VERY!!!



Much of the media believes that a decision will come in October. If borne out, this debate won't be academic for much longer. The decision-makers need to appraise themselves of the facts now. Time may be short.

Shed. Sorry, wrong on a number of levels.There is a significantly higher level of premium traffic ex LHR compared to the other London airports so APD receipts will not be the same. Not all London airports are equal.

A figure quoted by BoJo's 'transport guru' in TfL's submission to the Commission Inquiry doesn't rate as 'expert professionals' to me. No break down, no analysis, no transparency to his evidence.

It's also laughable to think that expansion at Gatwick won't require significant public funds to support it. It's just that it generally falls outside of the coverage of TfL.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Seriously Shed? Gatwick is not a serious option you seem focused on low cost services and ignore the huge intercontinental market that is going to other European airports.

The largest growth sector affecting demand for air travel from the SE catchment is leisure and no-frills. That's a fact, however off-message that may be. New long-haul requires a fraction of the slots needed to accommodate this. So LGW is perfectly suited to soak up that incremental business, and at a fraction of the cost cited for the LHR R3 proposals. London already copes just fine with its existing huge intercontinental market, but that sector is not where the serious growth in demand is coming from.

Are your professional experts the same as those professional experts that predicted immediate armageddon after Brexit?

We could make cynical comments such as this about all experts contributing to both sides of the debate. We will only know who got it right with the benefit of hindsight.

If an extra runway is approved then it will not be Gatwick.

So you're a prophet? Can you share next week's winning lottery numbers with us whilst you're on a roll? :-)

[Ametyst1]

Shed, I am a professional expert! My expert opinion is a good as anyone else's after all that is just what they are, opinions.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Shed. Sorry, wrong on a number of levels.

Nice soundbite. Please state your evidence!

There is a significantly higher level of premium traffic ex LHR compared to the other London airports so APD receipts will not be the same

You're talking about traffic volume based on current distribution of services. I was referencing actual APD charges per passenger which follow a set-scale according to route length and class of travel regardless of departure airport. Thus a passenger flying from LHR or LGW to Prague in economy can expect to pay the same amount in APD. Likewise a passenger in business flying from LHR or LGW to HKG.

Note for clarification that Scotland plans to move away from this system and that there is a special exemption for BFS-EWR (I believe). The APD system is under review and may change at some point in the future anyway.

Not all London airports are equal.

But the scale of APD charges levied per passenger at each of them is.

A figure quoted by BoJo's 'transport guru' in TfL's submission to the Commission Inquiry doesn't rate as 'expert professionals' to me.

You disagree with this specific commentator. I disagree with certain others. With so many different views being expressed these matters are subjective. We must make our own judgments.

It's also laughable to think that expansion at Gatwick won't require significant public funds to support it.

Hence my call for strict cost oversight to be applied with respect to their proposals.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Shed, I am a professional expert!

Good for you.

[AndrewH52]

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

Nice soundbite. Please state your evidence!



You're talking about traffic volume based on current distribution of services. I was referencing actual APD charges per passenger which follow a set-scale according to route length and class of travel regardless of departure airport. Thus a passenger flying from LHR or LGW to Prague in economy can expect to pay the same amount in APD. Likewise a passenger in business flying from LHR or LGW to HKG.

Note for clarification that Scotland plans to move away from this system and that there is a special exemption for BFS-EWR (I believe). The APD system is under review and may change at some point in the future anyway.



But the scale of APD charges levied per passenger at each of them is.



You disagree with this specific commentator. I disagree with certain others. With so many different views being expressed these matters are subjective. We must make our own judgments.



Hence my call for strict cost oversight to be applied with respect to their proposals.

Ahh. So your expert is now just a 'commentator'. That perhaps puts his 'expert opinion' into a more realistic context.

It's funny that you seem happy to take the figures provided in respect of Gatwick (£9.3billion, let's not forget) at face value but the c.£12bn figure provided by Heathrow with utter contempt. Gatwick expansion is almost 75% of the cost of the Heathrow proposals (discounting TfL's extortionate shopping list). One can be progressed with 'appropriate financial oversight' yet the other risks financial oblivion, it seems.

Scotland's plans for APD are irrelevant here. As really are suggestions that businesses and first class pax pay the same level of APD ex Gatwick and Heathrow. As has been demonstrated over a prolonged period of time, Gatwick has an absolute inability to support premium traffic compared to Heathrow. No contest.

Still, if the City of London loses passporting rights post Brexit we are probably all screwed anyway.

[T250]

Expand both, Runway 3 for LHR, Runway 2 for LGW.

Both are commercial enterprises, privately run and all future projects and construction should be privately funded. Government choosing one private company over another, involving public money is disgraceful. Approve both and allow them to fight it out!

Best man wins/loses.

Or, far more likely, neither get approved.

Still, if the City of London loses passporting rights post Brexit we are probably all screwed anyway.

Well you can consider us screwed then, don't be holding out for that!

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by T250

Or, far more likely, neither get approved.

Approving both would have the same outcome as approving neither.

[Skipness One Echo]

Both are commercial enterprises, privately run and all future projects and construction should be privately funded. Government choosing one private company over another, involving public money is disgraceful. Approve both and allow them to fight it out

Except the UK is almost unique in having quite so many major parts of "public" infrastructure wholly in private hands. Private probation services, prisons, rail network and airports. Well Railtrack went bust and privatised rail is a monopoly licence to print money at taxpayers expense. The UKs only major hub airport, our main gateway to the world isn't just any other private enterprise and interacts with a whole load of public sector assets. It's quite clearly not something that you'd rationally expect to expand in that part of the world and be cost neutral to the taxpayer. Remember who built all those airports in the first place?

If they approve LHR R3, the ROI for LGW R2 collapses overnight alas.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Remember who built all those airports in the first place?"

The military............. which is why they're in such bloody useless places for the 21st Century.............

[Prophead]

If they approve LHR R3, the ROI for LGW R2 collapses overnight alas.

Exactly, that does not work the other way around.

Let's not forget that the initial LHR proposal was made when both airports were owned by the same company. They chose LHR.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Prophead

Exactly, that does not work the other way around.

We'll never know, because approval for two new runways is the one scenario that's not going to happen.

But it's clear from what Heathrow have said in the past that they would be unlikely to go ahead with R3 in the knowledge that Gatwick was also expanding.

Fortunately for both parties, that's not a decision they will be faced with, so speculation is pretty academic.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

PM's playing a straight bat repeating her Hinckley mantra "I'll look at the evidence and then make a decision". Not ruling out extra runway at both.


theresa-may-refuses-to-rule-out-new-runways-at-both-heathrow-and-gatwick-airports

[Navpi]

Refusing to rule out two runways shows how much our politicians know....

In this case zero.

It would be quite humerous actually.

Would Heathrow shareholders support and pay for expansion if LGW went ahead?

Would GATWICK do likewise if Heathrow were given the green light.

[Boeing737-8]

Instead of trying to build a new runway which will never happen. Why don't there try to get the airport to run 24/7. All other major airports don't have limits on time of landings and take offs

[canberra97]

Boeing737-8

Your suggestion of LHR operating 24/7 will never happen unlike other major airports as you state, the position of LHR and the opposition to it I can assure you that it would never get approved.