HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tears of the Moon you do remind me of Shed on a pole in a way
Thanks for asking, Andy_S, because that was no throwaway remark. And perhaps you are right to request clarification because a few people appear to require a refresher on this.
You don't hail from the north west by any chance do you?
The high cost of large scale projects is the same whether it is the south east or the north. We are not talking about land prices here. All these projects are built the same way and that is not going to change. The longer we wait and kick it down the line the higher the cost will be.
If you want to see eye watering costs then also look at the amounts being spent on and because the various anti heathrow campaigns and continuous challenges. It is the same for HS2 and will be the same for all future large infrastructure schemes.
So what then? Do we not build anything any more? Do we settle for second best as that's all we should pay for?
Looking at the headline figure does not give the full picture. Much of this money will come straight back in various taxes. A huge part will be scattered around the country via all the suppliers and workers involved in the construction. If this money is coming in from outside investment then it can be a very good thing.
To say LHR expansion only benefits the south east is just wrong. The new runway is as much about giving the regions access to the airport as it is about being an international hub. his is why one of the conditions is the added regional connections. London will already have good access via Crossrail etc.
The Gatwick expansion is a different matter. There may be growth in the holiday sector but that has no bearing on whether the UK should build a hub or whether the regions should be given easier access to the UK's number 1 airport.
I do wonder though why, when we are constantly told that opposition to LHR, is because too much money is spent in the SE rather than the North. Those same people seem to be so behind Gatwick expansion.
New (very seasonal) route began today to Sion aimed (presumably) at taking Brits to the ski slopes. About 40 pax on board a Embraer 190 with (I think) 112 seats.
Maybe the outbound next Saturday might do better with half term, but a load factor below 40 % for a route like this is a little disappointing
Kudos to Swiss and the Valais tourist board for being brave and deciding to try something out though
Maybe the outbound next Saturday might do better with half term, but a load factor below 40 % for a route like this is a little disappointing
Kudos to Swiss and the Valais tourist board for being brave and deciding to try something out though
The decision on Heathrow expansion isn't going to be conditional on the provison of additional regional connectivity. How could it be? Neither the Government, nor the Airports Commission, nor Heathrow is in a position to guarantee that will happen. Whether it does or not is going to be up to the airlines.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tears of the Moon - are you really Shed on a Pole? You lack the same ability to make a point in under a million words.....
Thanks for that, we've all been completely wrong. Given all the routes that explicitly use LHR over LGW for connections, I thought LHR was some form of hub and spoke. Silly me.
Are you for real? What colour's the sky on your planet? I love debate but please make some effort to visit Planet Earth at least once.
HAL is not a hub
Are you for real? What colour's the sky on your planet? I love debate but please make some effort to visit Planet Earth at least once.
To say LHR expansion only benefits the south east is just wrong. The new runway is as much about giving the regions access to the airport as it is about being an international hub. This is why one of the conditions is the added regional connections.
What will an expanded LHR give the regions that AMS/DXB (to name but two) doesn't give already? As others have mentioned, there are never any comments from airlines when this point is pushed.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with others that TOTM is remarkably like SOAP.
It seems the regional airports know more about this than you do. LBA, for example, are highly supportive of R3 despite having other options.
It seems the regional airports know more about this than you do. LBA, for example, are highly supportive of R3 despite having other options.
Of course they are - why wouldn't they be? But that is a different point.
The point I was laughing at was that additional regional connectivity is a major driver for Heathrow expansion, and that it will benefit the regions as much as it will the south east. Can you explain how?
The point I was laughing at was that additional regional connectivity is a major driver for Heathrow expansion, and that it will benefit the regions as much as it will the south east. Can you explain how?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New name, same old soapbox for Shed on a Pole. Brevity aids getting a point over btw.
I was Skipness One Foxtrot (clearly) by necessity for a brief period. It was fairly obvious.
Given the SE has such a huge bulk of the population and a world city at it's centre, can we all please stop pretending to be shocked the region will benefit more from R3 than say Caithness and Sutherland? However the option to ENSURE more UK regional access to our one hub airport is now on the table and should be grasped. Unless you're more interested in seeinf more big planes at your local airport, say "Manchester" and you'll argue black is white in a million words to say so.
I was Skipness One Foxtrot (clearly) by necessity for a brief period. It was fairly obvious.
Given the SE has such a huge bulk of the population and a world city at it's centre, can we all please stop pretending to be shocked the region will benefit more from R3 than say Caithness and Sutherland? However the option to ENSURE more UK regional access to our one hub airport is now on the table and should be grasped. Unless you're more interested in seeinf more big planes at your local airport, say "Manchester" and you'll argue black is white in a million words to say so.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could but not as eloquently as the Airport Commission's report so I suggest you start with that.
However the option to ENSURE more UK regional access to our one hub airport is now on the table and should be grasped.
The smaller regional airports like LBA are happy for LHR to expand as it is a customer not a competitor, and they know there isn't a cat in hells chance of any of the money coming their way if it isn't spent on Heathrow.
Whether they stand to gain anything is a different question.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Shed!
You seem to be under the impression that the government is footing the bill for this project. Investment is in place based on the sound business case of LHR expansion. I am sure you and a few others know better as you obviously have better business acumen and access to information than those more than wiling to put up the £bns to fund it.
Bastiat's fallacy does not come into play here as this money is coming from outside investment. You will also notice, Shed that the surface access works are set to be priced accordingly now.
So we have £bn's in outside investment coming into the country and the nations tax coffers in return for a public spend on infrastructure that is in need of upgrading anyway. That investment is then spread around the whole of the UK and we end with a world class hub airport.
As people are now transiting through LHR instead of AMS etc. we have further future income into the UK which you seem pleased to give away.
The above can also be said about any other project anywhere in the UK. There seems to be enough investment available from China and the Middle East. I would suggest investment opportunities come with a better business case when based in the SE and that is why funding is more forthcoming. These projects should not be cancelled out of sour grapes when the construction alone would be of so much benefit to the regions.
As this can be built now and easily linked in with Crossrail and HS2 it really is a once in a lifetime chance to get it right.
Are you familiar with Bastiat's broken window fallacy?. Spending money on projects which make no financial sense is never a good idea however you spin it. Consider also the concept of opportunity cost. Whilst you waste funds on a project of low merit, those funds cannot be simultaneously be put to productive use elsewhere.
Bastiat's fallacy does not come into play here as this money is coming from outside investment. You will also notice, Shed that the surface access works are set to be priced accordingly now.
So we have £bn's in outside investment coming into the country and the nations tax coffers in return for a public spend on infrastructure that is in need of upgrading anyway. That investment is then spread around the whole of the UK and we end with a world class hub airport.
As people are now transiting through LHR instead of AMS etc. we have further future income into the UK which you seem pleased to give away.
The above can also be said about any other project anywhere in the UK. There seems to be enough investment available from China and the Middle East. I would suggest investment opportunities come with a better business case when based in the SE and that is why funding is more forthcoming. These projects should not be cancelled out of sour grapes when the construction alone would be of so much benefit to the regions.
As this can be built now and easily linked in with Crossrail and HS2 it really is a once in a lifetime chance to get it right.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'That investment is then spread around the whole of the UK and we end with a world class hub airport. '
That is the national equivalent of trickle-down economics - the argument used by the wealthy to justify low taxes for them. This is generally recognised as garbage. If you give money to the less well off, they spend it, and the money goes round and round in their community. If you give money to the already rich, it disappears, since they cannot possibly spend it.
So the only way to increase the prosperity of the areas outwith London, is to invest there.
As for transit passengers using a hub airport, their value is mainly, I would have thought, is that they sustain routes which would not be viable on their own. This is vital for places like Iceland - how many routes could it sustain on its own? But I'm not sure how important it is to London. What proportion of LHR PAX are transit?
The trouble is that other countries see enormous airport facilities as sexy. How many third world countries have built fancy terminals rather than looking after their citizens? The idea that airport facilities should be paid for by the users strikes them as bizarre. But it seems quite reasonable to the rest of us.
That is the national equivalent of trickle-down economics - the argument used by the wealthy to justify low taxes for them. This is generally recognised as garbage. If you give money to the less well off, they spend it, and the money goes round and round in their community. If you give money to the already rich, it disappears, since they cannot possibly spend it.
So the only way to increase the prosperity of the areas outwith London, is to invest there.
As for transit passengers using a hub airport, their value is mainly, I would have thought, is that they sustain routes which would not be viable on their own. This is vital for places like Iceland - how many routes could it sustain on its own? But I'm not sure how important it is to London. What proportion of LHR PAX are transit?
The trouble is that other countries see enormous airport facilities as sexy. How many third world countries have built fancy terminals rather than looking after their citizens? The idea that airport facilities should be paid for by the users strikes them as bizarre. But it seems quite reasonable to the rest of us.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the national equivalent of trickle-down economics - the argument used by the wealthy to justify low taxes for them. This is generally recognised as garbage.
Go to any large construction site in London and you will hear regional accents from all over the UK. Have a look at the addresses on the sides of the lorries bringing in the supplies and machinery and you will see that hardly any of it comes from inside the M25.
Anyone that has travelled up the M1 on a Friday evening knows how many tradespeople there are going home, with a large pay packet in their pocket, to regions all over the country. This money is then spent in the local economies and benefits others not working one the project itself.
To think the money spent on Heathrow expansion or any other London based project is only staying within the M25 is ludicrous.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course some of the money spent in London trickles out, if only because it is impossible for any wage-earner (as opposed to a salary and bonuses person) to live anywhere inside the M25, and indeed some way outside it. However much of their pay will go on day to day living costs in London, and if these people were still living at home then all their wages would remain in their community. I don't know if there are any economists on this thread, but I'm sure they could elaborate on this.
Furthermore, one of the reasons these London projects are so expensive is the fat pay packets needed to bring these workers from all over the UK and beyond.
Furthermore, one of the reasons these London projects are so expensive is the fat pay packets needed to bring these workers from all over the UK and beyond.
'As for transit passengers using a hub airport, their value is mainly, I would have thought, is that they sustain routes which would not be viable on their own. This is vital for places like Iceland - how many routes could it sustain on its own?
But I'm not sure how important it is to London. What proportion of LHR PAX are transit?
But I'm not sure how important it is to London. What proportion of LHR PAX are transit?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
Quote: Originally Posted by inOban View Post 'As for transit passengers using a hub airport, their value is mainly, I would have thought, is that they sustain routes which would not be viable on their own. This is vital for places like Iceland - how many routes could it sustain on its own? But I'm not sure how important it is to London. What proportion of LHR PAX are transit? Roughly a third.
AND the airlines like this trajectory as it increases yield potential on the Point to point/foreign hub.
Heathrow produces some pretty strong returns in the middle cabins from/to London not replicated by feeders from anywhere else.
Those feeders are alleged to bleed rather dark claret in many/most cases.
This also belies the oft quoted Long Haul needs feed to support xyz marginal routes - No one ever gives an example because at thirty % and declining there are rather few routes where the feed makes the difference between operating or not a particular route to/from Heathrow.
Last edited by rutankrd; 5th Feb 2017 at 15:57.