Heathrow Plans (Merged)

[AUTOGLIDE]

Your point on connections works for Manchester but the forced train opton will make connecting passengers use KLM / Lufthansa / Air France and consequently see fewer jobs at Heathrow as the feed bleeds off abroad. It's much quicker to connect over KLM ex MAN / AMS than get the train to Heathrow and connect to BA or another British carrier.

Passengers prefer to use KLM/AFA etc. It is less hassle, and usually also cheaper. I'm not talking about getting the train to LHR, that would be totally stupid when the superior European options are available. I don't think the number of jobs at LHR are much of an issue in the North West considering the number 'lost' at MAN, and previously LPL by a certain LHR based carrier. Some at LHR may be totally obsessed by the place, but it means nothing to us here, so don't make out this runway is for the benefit of the whole UK - we don't need it, our needs are catered for already.

[skyman771]

AUTOGLIDE Totally agree with your sentiment even if you do take a somewhat parochial attitude!
An ongoing issue on this thread is who is this expansion to cater for?
Is it purely to attract and cater for transit pax, many of whom are non UK originating, or is it to cater for UK originating demand from the S.E. or elsewhere?
Taking this a step further then is the cost of the projected expansion expected to be funded from revenue generated by greater volumes of transiting pax, the majority of whom originate from overseas? Because if it is then is there not a more effective way of investing the £billions it will take to construct a third runway. All this LHR being unable to keep up with AMS, MAD, CDG or wherever. Then does it really matter, future UK needs would be well catered for by the existing facilities (Subject to demolition & rebuild of T1/T2) Capacity being made available by transiting pax going elsewhere, who really cares ? lost revenue will be more than covered by investing the development money elsewhere & all the LHR job moaners can themselves relocate to new opportunities created in investing the money elsewhere and see how they like it!

[LHR27C]

At the risk of repeating myself ... none of those things will happen, because the owners will over sell slots on it - just as they have on the current pair of strips

No they won't. The government have capped the 3rd runway at half its allowed capacity. This means the max capacity LHR will be legally allowed is 83% - so it will massively reduce holding times both airborne and on the ground.

Passengers prefer to use KLM/AFA etc. It is less hassle, and usually also cheaper.

How on earth you can say connecting at CDG is less hassle than LHR T5, I have no idea.

Taking this a step further then is the cost of the projected expansion expected to be funded from revenue generated by greater volumes of transiting pax, the majority of whom originate from overseas? Because if it is then is there not a more effective way of investing the £billions it will take to construct a third runway. All this LHR being unable to keep up with AMS, MAD, CDG or wherever. Then does it really matter, future UK needs would be well catered for by the existing facilities (Subject to demolition & rebuild of T1/T2) Capacity being made available by transiting pax going elsewhere, who really cares ?

Take a look at all major cities in the world and note that they all have a hub airport and hub airline with a significant proportion of connecting passengers. There's a good reason for that. If you reduce LHR's status to an O&D airport, vast numbers of direct served destinations will be lost because they cannot be supported as O&D - and that will directly affect London as a city and place to do business. If people can't get to it easily, they'll go elsewhere.

The argument that "a 3rd runway will only benefit transfer passengers" is fallacious anyway. There are masses of destinations BA would love to serve from LHR if only they had the slots to. It will also as said above decrease enormously operational delays, nice new terminals are good for the passenger experience but ground delays are still a huge problem with runways operating at 99.8% capacity.

[skyman771]

LHR27CIt's quite obvious where your loyalties lie without you even writing a word.

There are masses of destinations BA would love to serve from LHR if only they had the slots to.

Here you go again promoting the same self fueling argument. I'll turn it around, to make any sense to pax number increase then what you are implying is that these pax that are suddenly going to check in for this new flight to 'backofbeyondsville' or where ever would not have flown at all prior to it's introduction. Err no ! they would transit as they have always done. As an example the CDG LF's would be higher for those transiting to Central Africa via CDG. SAME NO. PAX "!. May be LHR and the SE punters that it serves should stop being so arrogant that they need every destination conceivable on offer as non stop direct. As for London Airways looking for more slots to fill new marginal & in some cases potentially obscure new routes, well they aren't even able to record a profit with a virtual monopoly, so what is their justification to greater competition on offer with a third runway? The trouble with LHR is that too many people are standing on the perimeter looking inwards when maybe they should turn around and realize there will always be choice & even IF a third runway is created it comes with no guarantees.
And finally:-

The government have capped the 3rd runway at half its allowed capacity. This means the max capacity LHR will be legally allowed is 83% - so it will massively reduce holding times both airborne and on the ground

You really believe this?, desperate times ahead will lead to desperate measures. It will simply not be enforceable in 20 years time!

[Skipness One Echo]

I flew BA LHR-CDG today. Heathrow Terminal 5 was a dream in comparison with T2 at CDG. The major issue was time wasted in the Biggin hold. Done properly LHR is a bloody good experience.

Sadly BA hacked off a lot of people up North after refusing to continue losing shed loads of cash at MAN and BHX. It's personal alas.

Runway 3 is gonna be a challenge but the Tories are arrogantly taking the next election for granted. We shall see.....

I will also remind some people that no one really filled the gap of a full service airline on the routes out of MAN and BHX. Suggest a lot does that.....

[PAXboy]

LHR27C

This means the max capacity LHR will be legally allowed is 83% - so it will massively reduce holding times both airborne and on the ground.

I take your statement in the good faith in which it was posted but if that happens, I would be surprised.

BA want lots of slots at LHR to increase destinations ... so as to empty out from LGW altogether and operate one megabase and save loadsy money. That is a fair objective for a company to have.

At the risk of repeating myself, the idea that we can still compete against the main contenders in Western Europe is laughable If R3 opened today - we would still not be able to compete. That is because the tipping point of customer understanding, acceptance, tolerance etc. was passed about ten years (arbitrary figure it was somewhere in the last 20 years.)

If R3 is ever opened it will never have the benefits being claimed for it.

[MUFC_fan]

LHR is currently the gateway to the world with more people passing through it's terminals to destinations outside of these isles than any other airport on the planet.

The airport handles pretty much all the worlds major airlines with little exception now that the open skies policy is in force. LHR wants more destinations and airlines and airlines want more slots and thats a fact.

Look at LH. The have bought BMI, not because they think it is a good addition to have to their business but because they have the second highest number of slots at the gateway which makes it an extremely lucrative airline to have under your belt. The stupid prices paid by airlines such as CO to gain just one landing slot per day also demonstrates this.

If LHR is to get it's third runway which lucks increasingly likely now, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if that runway isn't full within months of operations. Its like a sale at Ikea, airlines simply cannot resist the temptations of huge profits that LHR brings to their books.

The new runway will be shorter and so will most likely be used for mainly European flights and medium haul flights with I'm guessing the 767 as the biggest use, may 747s/777s/A330s to Cairo, Larnaca etc. which will mean the runway will be very busy anyway, its the main two runways which will probably have room for more flights which will probably mean these slots will be in higher demand with over 12000 feet of runway at the world's premium hub available to airlines from as far away as New Zealand which will make interesting reading when the allocations are published for who gets what. I'm guessing BAA will be working with BA to make sure it gets the most slots available.

On the BA/LGW/LHR matter I believe it makes excellent business sense for BA to move to a single 'superhub.' EK have shown how effective this can be (but they will become a multihub soon I believe then the new airport opens?) Other airlines have also proved this success. Britain is a country that is very price sensitive, even when we are enjoying years of prosperity and we are not the best with brand loyalty like the French are with Air France and Germans with Lufthansa etc. so operating two or three large bases, whether near or afar within the UK isn't feasable as we probably have the biggest price wars between airlines than any other nation I that I can think of! Streamlining their business will only make the stronger, reduce costs and help them compete better with other airlines that seem to be catching up.

R3 seems to be the equivalent of 'match.com' as BA and BAA will start a new romance is creating one hell of an airport with one hell of an airline and to be honest, if the IB/AA deal goes through there will be little LH or anybody else can do at LHR as that base will definately be covered!

(This is all only thearetical but if it were to happen I doubt BA would do badly out of it)

[Skipness One Echo]

If R3 opened today - we would still not be able to compete. That is because the tipping point of customer understanding, acceptance, tolerance etc. was passed about ten years (arbitrary figure it was somewhere in the last 20 years.)

A very good point sir, really. However T5 still blows me away, and that word IS spreading. It will take time, but a Hell of a lot of good work has been done since the shameful BALLS UP on day one.

My concern is that we try and give our UK companies the best access to the world, and bring more jobs in difficult times.

It's actually very important that Runway 3 is a managed growth as BAA are keen to get this one right after so many past mistakes. I reiterate that the ability of BA or BMI to re-introduce flights to connect the UK to LHR are very important. A deal to reconnect the likes of Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Inverness and some smaller airports would be a boon!

[LHR27C]

skyman771

I'll turn it around, to make any sense to pax number increase then what you are implying is that these pax that are suddenly going to check in for this new flight to 'backofbeyondsville' or where ever would not have flown at all prior to it's introduction. Err no ! they would transit as they have always done. As an example the CDG LF's would be higher for those transiting to Central Africa via CDG. SAME NO. PAX "

So what? I'm not saying the number of pax to these destinations is going to increase (although they would slightly, since people are more likely to travel if they can get a direct flight), just that they would be re-distributed through London as opposed to other hubs. This has benefits of:
- Opens up new nonstop destinations to London > new business
- Helps growth of UK airlines > more jobs, economic advantages

As for London Airways looking for more slots to fill new marginal & in some cases potentially obscure new routes

Marginal/obscure? More like routes well established with most of BA's main rivals, KIX, ICN, KUL, more Latin America destinations, etc.

well they aren't even able to record a profit with a virtual monopoly

BA recorded possibly their largest operating profit on record last year and for a few years prior to that were consistently the most profitable airline in Europe. The fact they are making a loss at the moment shouldn't come as a huge surprise given they a UK based airline with large exposure to the weakened premium market, a heavy reliance on the financial services industry, and the weak pound.

As for a "virtual monopoly" - utter rubbish. BA have more competition than any of their European competitors in the form of VS for longhaul and BD for shorthaul out of their home base, plus all the LCCs which are especially cut-throat in the UK. BA are responsible for roughly 43% of flights at LHR compared to well above 50% for AF, KL, and LH at their respective hubs. The competition for most of BA's transatlantic routes is also huge and there are very few major longhaul routes which they do not have at least two other airlines competing on. They have nothing like a monopoly.

PAXboy

I take your statement in the good faith in which it was posted but if that happens, I would be surprised.

I do not believe any government could immediately turn around and allow full capacity on runway 3 when one of its key "appeasing" features when approved was that it would be initially 50% capped. Just look at the level of opposition from local communities already. Some years down the line of course the situation would have to change but there is a very big feeling within the aviation industry as well as out that LHR should be given some 'breathing room' and not allow max runway use again to avoid the delays it is so well known for at present. Even the additional 125,000 movements p/a would be a very substantial increase.

That is because the tipping point of customer understanding, acceptance, tolerance etc. was passed about ten years (arbitrary figure it was somewhere in the last 20 years.)

Well, you may say that, but why are BA still handling close to 10 million connecting pax through LHR a year if customers refuse to go near it? I firmly believe the average customer who needs to connect somewhere in Western Europe looks first for the lowest price. And T5 is, slowly but surely, changing the LHR perception. It's definitely a much nicer place to connect than CDG or FRA, and its punctuality/baggage statistics are better than both too.

MUFC_fan

If LHR is to get it's third runway which lucks increasingly likely now, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if that runway isn't full within months of operations

As I've said above, one of the conditions attached to the 3rd runway is that it will be initially capped at 50% of movement capacity. Whether that will last remains to be seen, but given the amount of strong feeling about the expansion I find it very hard to see any government going against that in the short term.

I'm guessing BAA will be working with BA to make sure it gets the most slots available

It is not up to BAA what happens to the slots, it's decided by EU regulations. One thing that has to be considered is letting new carriers have access.

[SR71]

When are they announcing the fourth?

We need some investment in the place.

Surely some of those recently unemployed wank....I mean bankers could be put to use by BAA?

[6chimes]

I'm glad the protesters weren't around when Isambard Kingdom Brunel was alive. Just think of it. Why on earth do we need all these train lines tearing up the countryside when the good old horse and cart is available. Anyone who wants to get from Manchester to London in under three days is just being selfish, but what would you expect from these greedy businessmen? And bridges who the hell needs a bridge? A good 6 hour detour won't harm anyone Think about it, this country's success was built on this country expanding by those with the foresight to build for it.

LHR does need a third runway, the green case is ridiculous because other countries will pick up the slack therefore the emissions will be elsewhere but they will still affect the UK and the rest of the world. At least there are stringent targets surrounding this proposal that other countries desperate for the business will not bother about.

Yes there will be utter turmoil for those whose homes will be affected and so will there be anywhere else in Europe that expands airports. And I will be one who is affected but I consider my prosperity more than the house I live in. I can live somewhere else yet I might not get another job that pays as well as the one I have at LHR.

If you want to be successful you have to be where the heart of the business is, so we need to keep London a center of business for the benefit of the UK as a whole.

6

[skyman771]

6chimes

I'm glad the protesters weren't around when Isambard Kingdom Brunel was alive. Just think of it. Why on earth do we need all these train lines tearing up the countryside when the good old horse and cart is available. Anyone who wants to get from Manchester to London in under three days is just being selfish, but what would you expect from these greedy businessmen? And bridges who the hell needs a bridge? A good 6 hour detour won't harm anyone Think about it, this country's success was built on this country expanding by those with the foresight to build for it.

No, No ! as ever you have it completely wrong ! IF you are going to use some ridiculous analogy then at least get it right ! What you actually need to say to get the analogy correct is that, in having all these train lines tearing up the country side, then who needs to build another set of lines to the same destinations believing that in another 50 years the traffic on the two separate lines would support the extra investment. But then you attempt to deliver the message that suits your purpose

I can live somewhere else yet I might not get another job that pays as well as the one I have at LHR.

At least your motive albeit somewhat selfish is clear !

[Skipness One Echo]

skyman it's not that difficult.

The men and women who pay the massive amounts of tax that susidise the Soviet style public sector in the North of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales pretty much live and work in the London area. MASSIVE amounts of tax from the likes of RBS alone went straight into Gordon Browns coffers to subsidise the massive growth in the public sector in the UK economy.

Now politicians of ALL parties were happy to watch the cash roll in during the good days. Now however, the City of London is suffering as are a lot of the businesses in the South East. This area was and remains the primary drivers of the UK economy.

Connectivity to the world through Heathrow has played a MASSIVE part in seeing so many foreign companies come to the UK. They are of course free to take their business elsewhere....Globalisation and the transfer of jobs and capital abroad is only now being seen in action.

As for Gatwick, this has never come close to doing the same job that Heathrow can, nor will Stansted. When Heathrow was opened up, the long haul growth at Manchester plateau-ed out. Today we have BA in a new Terminal that whilst not world leading is certainly remarkably impressive and beats CDG hands down. Heathrow East promises to be similar. So we now have BA in new facilities and STAR ALLIANCE promised the new East complex. Terminal 4 will complete a refurbishment this year which will see a much better experience for SkyTeam and others. Done properly, Heathrow has turned a major corner, and contrary to the doom merchants is starting to deliver big time.

London is a world city and needs a world class airport. Boris the Menace's fantasy island won't happen, the airlines don't want Stansted or Gatwick and Heathrow has been where it has been for long enough for anyone moving to the area to be aware of where they were moving to.

A strategic decision for the long term good of the economy has been taken. Like Sizewell B, the Newbury bypass or Runway 2 at Manchester. The Cassandra's predictions of the sky falling in on all of those projects have not come to pass.
I should also add that as I write this, global warming has seen the heaviest falling of snow in Central London in years. I'm not dismissing the truth of this, but the considered truth will only be known over centuries.
We are danger of allowing the lights to go out on civilisation due to a hysteria fuelled argument. There has been little considered debate on these matters, like recycling, it's is taken as fact and the public sector takes policy as gospel.

The best analogy is Crossrail, delayed due to a recession with disastrous results for transport in the London area. Let's NOT make the same mistake.

[SR71]

Global warming is a myth. Read http://www.climateaudit.org/ for some good science not political BS.

MOL ought to be in charge of the strategic development of all London's airports.

Link them all by an ultra-fast underground maglev (kind of like a monster CERN) with spokes to a central downtown underground terminus.

Then, re-allocate traffic based on its outbound track (N, S, E, W) to the respective airport.

The financing should be borne by the public sector workforce only; deduction at source...because I as a tax-payer, have to pay for their bloody pensions...

[Xeque]

Proposed new runway to be shorter

The proposed 3rd runway at LHR is, as has been mentioned in this thread, shorter in length than the other two.
Sat here in 'err .... Thailand' I don't recall reading what the proposed length of the runway will actually be.
Can anyone enlighten me please?

[silverstreak]

Great! When it snows, even MORE chaos and disruption with a 3rd runway...

The incompetent ops staff running LHR should all be lined up on one of the closed runways and pelted with snowballs, by the passengers and crew of the flights disrupted

This WAS forecast and NO lessons have been learned from previous debacles and total mismanagement. This continues to happen time and time again when snow falls.

Other airports around the world - who deal with snow REGULARLY, dont suffer like this. FORWARD PLANNING.

Its just another sad state of affairs at the UKs Premier airport (or not). What a joke Heathrow is and the bigger it gets, the bigger the joke. Its also giving the UK a bad name.

Heathrow cant cope on a normal day - Take your pick on the reasons, so heres an idea. Lets approve a third runway and new terminal!

Just a quick one, you cannot increase the size of the sky above... More runways, more flights and more delays...

''Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the UK...''

[Skipness One Echo]

Take a chill pill matey, you'll live longer. The lack of preparaton applies to the whole UK not just Heathrow. For the record London City is also closed and that's a top notch airfield usually.

[call100]

You have absolutely no knowledge of Snow ops then??? Probably best not to comment eh?......

[Flightman]

Tell us then,of great snow clearing God, what are you supposed to do when there is nowhere left to put the snow you've cleared, and have more to shift?

LHR had the entire snow team operational and on the airfield from 15:00 yesterday, and still couldn't clear it.

What would YOU have done?

[Re-Heat]

SR71: Global warming is not a myth; 30% CO2 rise in oceans in recent history couple with melting Arctic Ice is clear evidence of the effect of burning oil. Research to the contrary tends to be politically-motivated, misguided nonsense.

However, the case for a third runway can clearly be made on an environmental basis as well - the reduction in stacking and holding is high, and the amplification of network effects is a strong cause for Heathrow expansion.

There used to be more runways there, not only at Heathrow itself, but do you remember Heston Aerodrome? Look at the road names on the link...

Aerodrome Way, Hounslow, Greater London TW5, United Kingdom - Google Maps