Britain’s airport crisis will cost £100bn in the next 20 years
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Live at LGW & Work in LHR .... Doh!
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Britain’s airport crisis will cost £100bn in the next 20 years
Chinese passenger jet manufacturer COMAC decided to locate its European base in Paris, not London, because of superior links at Charles de Gaulle airport.
BAA raises the ante in a damning report out today on the lack of goverment direction....
Story here...... Britain’s airport crisis will cost £100bn in the next 20 years
BAA raises the ante in a damning report out today on the lack of goverment direction....
Story here...... Britain’s airport crisis will cost £100bn in the next 20 years
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned on another thread, we have an anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-export and anti-aviaition government, and it's not just the usual suspects (i.e. the libdems).
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 21st May 2012 at 20:24.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again wrong words are used in the media to describe this airport crisis. It will not be a cost. Britain are saving money by not investing in better airports. But Britain doesn't get any extra revenue either.
However, if Britain had invested more money in airports and other transport infrastructure, the country may have ended up with £100bn extra revenue the next 20 years. The question now would be: How much must be invested to get these £100bn in revenue? £10bn? £50bn? £100bn? On thing is for certain, you don't get anything for free.
However, if Britain had invested more money in airports and other transport infrastructure, the country may have ended up with £100bn extra revenue the next 20 years. The question now would be: How much must be invested to get these £100bn in revenue? £10bn? £50bn? £100bn? On thing is for certain, you don't get anything for free.
Last edited by LN-KGL; 21st May 2012 at 20:55.
Chinese passenger jet manufacturer COMAC decided to locate its European base in Paris, not London, because of superior links at Charles de Gaulle airport.
Boeing's European HQ is in Brussels. Embraer's is in Paris. Bombardier's in Berlin. How many UK based airlines are likely to buy the C919 ?
BAA really need to get a new PR agency if this is the best their current one can come up with.
However, if Britain had invested more money in airports and other transport infrastructure, the country may have ended up with £100bn extra revenue the next 20 years.
Idea there is spare £100 billion hanging around based on investing in Infrastructure is laughable in the extreme.
Reality is that who ever locates will pay payroll taxes and some Vat but bugger all else.......product will be sourced and made in China and bought using the most tax effiient method available to minimise any taxes.
To raise £100 billion in tax revenue means you would need sales of about £10 trillion................i.e. no chance.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, without trying to go over ground we've already got on other threads:
Phooey!
We already have routes to GIG, GRU, PEK & PVG and also to HKG. I don't see why any of these should be under threat.
Credibility already gone on this one!
This is like the French complaining that Chirac stopped Paris from holding the Olympics because of his comments about Finnish food.
Who are we in London or the French in Paris to assume we have any kind of automatic right to host a particular event or organisation? They will go to wherever best suits their needs, based on a range of factors, transport being one of several.
We DO have the capacity, and plenty of it, just not in the place where airlines would prefer it to be. So some business people flying in from Vietnam have to accept LGW as their arrival point instead of LHR.
I know the lounges and whatever else is better at LHR, but let's keep perspective - let's say they now have to travel an extra 15 miles to get to their destination - after a 6000 mile journey. That's 1/4% of the flight distance!
Ideal? No. Stuffed? Get real!
Actually, our industry is equally good at taking sterling out of the UK economy for spending elsewhere. There is no guarantee that we'd get anything like this level of revenue back from building new airports or runways.
Now of course, as we're so good at building aircraft-free carriers, we could build a whole arsenal of such ships, station them in the Thames Estuary and let twotters buzz around all over the place from them
It comes amid growing alarm that London could become “cut off” from countries such as China and Brazil.
We already have routes to GIG, GRU, PEK & PVG and also to HKG. I don't see why any of these should be under threat.
Credibility already gone on this one!
The Standard has learned Chinese passenger jet manufacturer COMAC decided to locate its European base in Paris, not London, because of superior links at Charles de Gaulle airport.
Who are we in London or the French in Paris to assume we have any kind of automatic right to host a particular event or organisation? They will go to wherever best suits their needs, based on a range of factors, transport being one of several.
And a senior economist warned: “if you don’t have the capacity, you’re stuffed.”
I know the lounges and whatever else is better at LHR, but let's keep perspective - let's say they now have to travel an extra 15 miles to get to their destination - after a 6000 mile journey. That's 1/4% of the flight distance!
Ideal? No. Stuffed? Get real!
It would also mean the Government losing out on about £38 billion of tax revenues, enough for some 150 general hospitals or a dozen aircraft carriers.
Now of course, as we're so good at building aircraft-free carriers, we could build a whole arsenal of such ships, station them in the Thames Estuary and let twotters buzz around all over the place from them
BAA really need to get a new PR agency if this is the best their current one can come up with.
Apparently, according to today's Evening Standard, Heathrow needs to expand so that BAA's CEO doesn't get teased every time he meets his counterpart from Schiphol.
And the fact that Amsterdam serves more UK destinations than LHR does is somehow significant, well perhaps it is to those who don't remember how airlines tried and failed to make money on routes from Heathrow to Birmingham, Norwich, Exeter, EMA, etc.
Incidentally Heathrow serves more destinations in the Netherlands than AMS does, which proves nothing either except that both countries have discovered railways.
Hopefully BAA will manage to put together their own evidence for the forthcoming government consultation. As the old saying about war goes, aviation policy is too important to be left to the PR industry.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We already have routes to GIG, GRU, PEK & PVG and also to HKG. I don't see why any of these should be under threat
The core point is that LHR (Oneworld) fights CDG / AMS (Skyteam) and FRA (STAR) on a level that no other London airport comes close to. As Europe turns to look East, there is no growth for the UK economy to add in profitable connections. As a betting man, there will be no Hong Kong, Korean, Air China presence at LGW after three years. Wait and see, it's LHR or nothing in this market, even today.
And the fact that Amsterdam serves more UK destinations than LHR does is somehow significant, well perhaps it is to those who don't remember how airlines tried and failed to make money on routes from Heathrow to Birmingham, Norwich, Exeter, EMA, etc.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 24th May 2012 at 23:28.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: england
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have you seen places like burberry shops in london ,they are full of chinese people spending millions so if they can't get direct to heathrow they find another way go first to paris or amsterdam then get on another plane to come to london , you walk around london sightseeing places its always them, although the official stats say germans are the biggest tourists to england.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank wrote
"we have an anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-export and anti-aviation government,"
maybe they listened to all those voters in W London and Berkshire who loath the idea of expansion at LHR = democracy
"we have an anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-export and anti-aviation government,"
maybe they listened to all those voters in W London and Berkshire who loath the idea of expansion at LHR = democracy
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Frank wrote
"we have an anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-export and anti-aviation government,"
maybe they listened to all those voters in W London and Berkshire who loath the idea of expansion at LHR = democracy "
Forgive me, but that's a rather naive comment. It's nothing to do with democracy. Perhaps "anti-growth" should have been added to that list.
The truth is much simpler: the Conservative party jumped on the wrong bandwagon in opposition (anyone remember the slogan "vote blue go green"?), perhaps in an effort to show that they are no longer the "nasty party". Desparate to get off it, they are having trouble finding a way, and the Libdem presence in the government does not help.
Not everyone is against LHR expansion, there are many in and around LHR who earn a good living, either directly or indirectly, because of its presence. They will not want this to be put at risk.
Those under the flightpath also realise that if a third runway continues to be prohibited, then their daily halfday of peace will disappear, as mixed mode operations becomes the only way to increase movements.
Don't be fooled by a vocal well organised minority, many of whom live miles from LHR. According to a very recent "YOUGOV" poll, over half think the government should review its opposition to a third runway at LHR. Only 27% want to rule it out permanently, and a third of those against say that the government should be "open-minded" about it.
"we have an anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-export and anti-aviation government,"
maybe they listened to all those voters in W London and Berkshire who loath the idea of expansion at LHR = democracy "
Forgive me, but that's a rather naive comment. It's nothing to do with democracy. Perhaps "anti-growth" should have been added to that list.
The truth is much simpler: the Conservative party jumped on the wrong bandwagon in opposition (anyone remember the slogan "vote blue go green"?), perhaps in an effort to show that they are no longer the "nasty party". Desparate to get off it, they are having trouble finding a way, and the Libdem presence in the government does not help.
Not everyone is against LHR expansion, there are many in and around LHR who earn a good living, either directly or indirectly, because of its presence. They will not want this to be put at risk.
Those under the flightpath also realise that if a third runway continues to be prohibited, then their daily halfday of peace will disappear, as mixed mode operations becomes the only way to increase movements.
Don't be fooled by a vocal well organised minority, many of whom live miles from LHR. According to a very recent "YOUGOV" poll, over half think the government should review its opposition to a third runway at LHR. Only 27% want to rule it out permanently, and a third of those against say that the government should be "open-minded" about it.
as mixed mode operations becomes the only way to increase movements
Two other measures, both about to be trialled as part of Phase II of the Operational Freedoms, could also potentially form part of a longer-term capacity-improvement strategy alongside mixed mode.
One is partial relaxation of the night quota. Initially only a few flights are likely to be added, but the precedent will have been created for the future.
The other is an increase in departure capacity (and therefore, given mixed mode, in overall movements capacity) by using early vectoring off the SID to allow the interval between consecutive departures on the same outbound route to be reduced from 2 minutes to 1 minute.
Obviously, for the trial, mixed mode and early vectoring will only be deployed when the appropriate triggers have been activated, but in principle all three measures could be used on a continuous basis to enhance capacity.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Two other measures, both about to be trialled as part of Phase II of the Operational Freedoms, could also potentially form part of a longer-term capacity-improvement strategy alongside mixed mode.
One is partial relaxation of the night quota. Initially only a few flights are likely to be added, but the precedent will have been created for the future.
The other is an increase in departure capacity (and therefore, given mixed mode, in overall movements capacity) by using early vectoring off the SID to allow the interval between consecutive departures on the same outbound route to be reduced from 2 minutes to 1 minute.
Obviously, for the trial, mixed mode and early vectoring will only be deployed when the appropriate triggers have been activated, but in principle all three measures could be used on a continuous basis to enhance capacity."
Good points! The extra hours of landings/take offs and the shorter night curfews will go down like a lead balloon. More capacity has to be squeezed out of LHR somehow, and without a third rwy they have to adopt the above-mentioned changes.
Ironic isn't it that HACAN's activities (in getting the third runway scrapped) may lead to those under the existing flightpaths losing their daily half day of quiet (as alternation is abandoned) and end up with even more noise than hitherto.
One is partial relaxation of the night quota. Initially only a few flights are likely to be added, but the precedent will have been created for the future.
The other is an increase in departure capacity (and therefore, given mixed mode, in overall movements capacity) by using early vectoring off the SID to allow the interval between consecutive departures on the same outbound route to be reduced from 2 minutes to 1 minute.
Obviously, for the trial, mixed mode and early vectoring will only be deployed when the appropriate triggers have been activated, but in principle all three measures could be used on a continuous basis to enhance capacity."
Good points! The extra hours of landings/take offs and the shorter night curfews will go down like a lead balloon. More capacity has to be squeezed out of LHR somehow, and without a third rwy they have to adopt the above-mentioned changes.
Ironic isn't it that HACAN's activities (in getting the third runway scrapped) may lead to those under the existing flightpaths losing their daily half day of quiet (as alternation is abandoned) and end up with even more noise than hitherto.
Here are a few thoughts:
It is assumed that London can only support one hub. Boris Island will therefore only work if LHR is closed. I wonder how much time would be saved in quicker ground access if Thames Estuary Int'l operates alongside LHR but using existing capacity on HS1 at a cost of £10bn not £50bn. Airline economics won't work? Quite possibly not the existing business model, but Newark seems to operate happily alongside JFK.
The argument for Boris Island / TEI (if true) seems to undermine the argument that any new capacity must be at LHR. Yes a hub will generate useful transfer traffic. This is good for the airline industry but lack of it not a catastrophe for UK plc. As traffic grows the need for feeder traffic reduces.
If a third runway were to open at LHR under existing rules priority would be given to new operators. Fares would reduce. It would benefit me as a passenger and disbenefit me as an IAG shareholder.
London City effectively grew by stealth. The original plans excluded jets. Later the runway was extended and the number of movements increased. The political fallout from demolishing hundreds of homes would be considerable - I wouldn't want to do it as a politician. Could Northolt be expanded by stealth? A new runway parrallel to those at LHR. At first only domestic movements. Then Ireland and so on. With a tunnel to LHR you would soon get a 2.5 runway airport.
The real problem was that a loss making operator at LHR will small aircraft and low load factors was using too many slots. Things are about to change.
I would imagine the capacity of LHR increasing to c90m pa once the east terminal is open and an average of 200 pax / movement which could happen if 319s are replaced with 321s & 772s with 773s, etc. If the proportion of transfer reduced to 25% this equates to a 50% increase in O&D traffic, about 20 years growth at 2% compound. I reckon that a lot of historical growth has come through increased load factors which can't go on for ever and this may the likely level of long term growth.
(Apart from increased taxes the Gvnt is taking a tough line on immigration which may have unforseen not just on total population but also growth and location of international businesses indeed the role of London as international city par excellence but lets not go down this road now - the policy may be reversed in the future.)
Anyway, I reckon that we can get by (which is all we ever do) for the next 20 years after which we need Northolt (which would need another revolution in reducing aircraft noise) or Boris Island. Are we plan 20 years ahead?
It is assumed that London can only support one hub. Boris Island will therefore only work if LHR is closed. I wonder how much time would be saved in quicker ground access if Thames Estuary Int'l operates alongside LHR but using existing capacity on HS1 at a cost of £10bn not £50bn. Airline economics won't work? Quite possibly not the existing business model, but Newark seems to operate happily alongside JFK.
The argument for Boris Island / TEI (if true) seems to undermine the argument that any new capacity must be at LHR. Yes a hub will generate useful transfer traffic. This is good for the airline industry but lack of it not a catastrophe for UK plc. As traffic grows the need for feeder traffic reduces.
If a third runway were to open at LHR under existing rules priority would be given to new operators. Fares would reduce. It would benefit me as a passenger and disbenefit me as an IAG shareholder.
London City effectively grew by stealth. The original plans excluded jets. Later the runway was extended and the number of movements increased. The political fallout from demolishing hundreds of homes would be considerable - I wouldn't want to do it as a politician. Could Northolt be expanded by stealth? A new runway parrallel to those at LHR. At first only domestic movements. Then Ireland and so on. With a tunnel to LHR you would soon get a 2.5 runway airport.
The real problem was that a loss making operator at LHR will small aircraft and low load factors was using too many slots. Things are about to change.
I would imagine the capacity of LHR increasing to c90m pa once the east terminal is open and an average of 200 pax / movement which could happen if 319s are replaced with 321s & 772s with 773s, etc. If the proportion of transfer reduced to 25% this equates to a 50% increase in O&D traffic, about 20 years growth at 2% compound. I reckon that a lot of historical growth has come through increased load factors which can't go on for ever and this may the likely level of long term growth.
(Apart from increased taxes the Gvnt is taking a tough line on immigration which may have unforseen not just on total population but also growth and location of international businesses indeed the role of London as international city par excellence but lets not go down this road now - the policy may be reversed in the future.)
Anyway, I reckon that we can get by (which is all we ever do) for the next 20 years after which we need Northolt (which would need another revolution in reducing aircraft noise) or Boris Island. Are we plan 20 years ahead?
Last edited by Peter47; 26th May 2012 at 19:08. Reason: Never could type!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by barling Magna
Crikey, do you think the posh boys listen to anyone outside their own circle....?
Labour deals final blow to hopes of third runway for Heathrow
There is growing support for a 3rd runway.
In January, the Free Enterprise Group of more than 30 Conservative MPs also called on the government to rethink its decision to rule out a third runway, saying the UK was falling behind other European cities in terms of transport links.
In his Budget speech, Chancellor George Osborne said the country must "confront the lack of airport capacity in the south east of England".
SOURCE BBC News - Tory peers urge ministers to back Heathrow third runway
Last edited by Ernest Lanc's; 26th May 2012 at 20:58.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Here are a few thoughts:
It is assumed that London can only support one hub. Boris Island will therefore only work if LHR is closed."
It’s a proven fact. A dual hub strategy was tried before with LHR and LGW, by government diktat in the 1960s,1970s and early 1980s. This was known as the “second force policy” and was a chronic failure as the LGW-based carriers failed in succession. VS survived because it was able to move its hub to LHR. It's hard to imagine that could work in an era of privately owned airlines and airports, deregulation and open skies, whether with LHR and LGW again or with LHR and the Thames estuary airport.
Quote: "I wonder how much time would be saved in quicker ground access if Thames Estuary Int'l operates alongside LHR but using existing capacity on HS1 at a cost of £10bn not £50bn. Airline economics won't work? Quite possibly not the existing business model, but Newark seems to operate happily alongside JFK."
The situation is quite different in New York. A wealth of domestic connections in a very large country with a slow and limited passenger rail service allows a dual hub to work there.
Quote: "The argument for Boris Island / TEI (if true) seems to undermine the argument that any new capacity must be at LHR. Yes a hub will generate useful transfer traffic. This is good for the airline industry but lack of it not a catastrophe for UK plc. As traffic grows the need for feeder traffic reduces."
The argument for "Silver (Boris) Island" assumes (1) the closure of LHR and that the airlines will flock to it, (2) the private sector will finance what is essentially a weak business proposition, (3) the government will fund the required infrastructure (e.g. transport links) and that these will be ready by the time the airport opens. All very unlikely in fact.
Quote: "If a third runway were to open at LHR under existing rules priority would be given to new operators. Fares would reduce. It would benefit me as a passenger and disbenefit me as an IAG shareholder."
Not necessarily, BA will get its hands on some of the new slots and they will be a great deal cheaper! Smaller UK carriers could be able to access LHR enabling feeder agreements with long haul BA routes on thin routes (mutual benefits), and codeshares are possible. It’s win-win, fares could go down, and IAG shareholders can benefit.
Quote: "London City effectively grew by stealth. The original plans excluded jets. Later the runway was extended and the number of movements increased. The political fallout from demolishing hundreds of homes would be considerable - I wouldn't want to do it as a politician. Could Northolt be expanded by stealth? A new runway parrallel to those at LHR. At first only domestic movements. Then Ireland and so on. With a tunnel to LHR you would soon get a 2.5 runway airport."
Indeed LCY grew by stealth, maybe NHT could as well, but it might be harder. Aligning the runway to 09/27 would be problematic. Although desirable in an ideal world, would a new airport operator just starting out be able to afford to construct what would be in effect a new, but not additional, rwy? Could NHT operate during this reconstruction? Who pays for the tunnel to LHR?
Quote: "The real problem was that a loss making operator at LHR will small aircraft and low load factors was using too many slots. Things are about to change."
Are you referring to BD? Had LHR been expanded when it was needed in the 1970s, it is entirely possible that BD would not have got into such a bad predicament. Slots for shorthaul would not have been an issue. Clearly some bad management decisions played a role in its demise, not least LH’s folly in making an agreement for 10 years in the future in a notoriously volatile industry (the “put” option).
Quote: "I would imagine the capacity of LHR increasing to c90m pa once the east terminal is open and an average of 200 pax / movement which could happen if 319s are replaced with 321s & 772s with 773s, etc. If the proportion of transfer reduced to 25% this equates to a 50% increase in O&D traffic, about 20 years growth at 2% compound. I reckon that a lot of historical growth has come through increased load factors which can't go on for ever and this may the likely level of long term growth."
It is not possible for all LHR movements to consist entirely of 200+ seater aircraft. Shorthaul operations in particular require frequency to attract yield-producing business pax, so need several smaller aircraft/day rather than just one “jumbo” type.
Quote: "(Apart from increased taxes the Gvnt is taking a tough line on immigration which may have unforseen not just on total population but also growth and location of international businesses indeed the role of London as international city par excellence but lets not go down this road now - the policy may be reversed in the future.)
Anyway, I reckon that we can get by (which is all we ever do) for the next 20 years after which we need Northolt (which would need another revolution in reducing aircraft noise) or Boris Island. Are we plan 20 years ahead?"
LHR is long overdue for a third rwy should have had a fourth by now! We certainly do not have twenty years! NHT as a civil airport has considerable merits in its own right to help address capacity issues. It will always have to be a relatively small operation like LCY and SEN, and can in no way be a substitute for LHR expansion.
It is assumed that London can only support one hub. Boris Island will therefore only work if LHR is closed."
It’s a proven fact. A dual hub strategy was tried before with LHR and LGW, by government diktat in the 1960s,1970s and early 1980s. This was known as the “second force policy” and was a chronic failure as the LGW-based carriers failed in succession. VS survived because it was able to move its hub to LHR. It's hard to imagine that could work in an era of privately owned airlines and airports, deregulation and open skies, whether with LHR and LGW again or with LHR and the Thames estuary airport.
Quote: "I wonder how much time would be saved in quicker ground access if Thames Estuary Int'l operates alongside LHR but using existing capacity on HS1 at a cost of £10bn not £50bn. Airline economics won't work? Quite possibly not the existing business model, but Newark seems to operate happily alongside JFK."
The situation is quite different in New York. A wealth of domestic connections in a very large country with a slow and limited passenger rail service allows a dual hub to work there.
Quote: "The argument for Boris Island / TEI (if true) seems to undermine the argument that any new capacity must be at LHR. Yes a hub will generate useful transfer traffic. This is good for the airline industry but lack of it not a catastrophe for UK plc. As traffic grows the need for feeder traffic reduces."
The argument for "Silver (Boris) Island" assumes (1) the closure of LHR and that the airlines will flock to it, (2) the private sector will finance what is essentially a weak business proposition, (3) the government will fund the required infrastructure (e.g. transport links) and that these will be ready by the time the airport opens. All very unlikely in fact.
Quote: "If a third runway were to open at LHR under existing rules priority would be given to new operators. Fares would reduce. It would benefit me as a passenger and disbenefit me as an IAG shareholder."
Not necessarily, BA will get its hands on some of the new slots and they will be a great deal cheaper! Smaller UK carriers could be able to access LHR enabling feeder agreements with long haul BA routes on thin routes (mutual benefits), and codeshares are possible. It’s win-win, fares could go down, and IAG shareholders can benefit.
Quote: "London City effectively grew by stealth. The original plans excluded jets. Later the runway was extended and the number of movements increased. The political fallout from demolishing hundreds of homes would be considerable - I wouldn't want to do it as a politician. Could Northolt be expanded by stealth? A new runway parrallel to those at LHR. At first only domestic movements. Then Ireland and so on. With a tunnel to LHR you would soon get a 2.5 runway airport."
Indeed LCY grew by stealth, maybe NHT could as well, but it might be harder. Aligning the runway to 09/27 would be problematic. Although desirable in an ideal world, would a new airport operator just starting out be able to afford to construct what would be in effect a new, but not additional, rwy? Could NHT operate during this reconstruction? Who pays for the tunnel to LHR?
Quote: "The real problem was that a loss making operator at LHR will small aircraft and low load factors was using too many slots. Things are about to change."
Are you referring to BD? Had LHR been expanded when it was needed in the 1970s, it is entirely possible that BD would not have got into such a bad predicament. Slots for shorthaul would not have been an issue. Clearly some bad management decisions played a role in its demise, not least LH’s folly in making an agreement for 10 years in the future in a notoriously volatile industry (the “put” option).
Quote: "I would imagine the capacity of LHR increasing to c90m pa once the east terminal is open and an average of 200 pax / movement which could happen if 319s are replaced with 321s & 772s with 773s, etc. If the proportion of transfer reduced to 25% this equates to a 50% increase in O&D traffic, about 20 years growth at 2% compound. I reckon that a lot of historical growth has come through increased load factors which can't go on for ever and this may the likely level of long term growth."
It is not possible for all LHR movements to consist entirely of 200+ seater aircraft. Shorthaul operations in particular require frequency to attract yield-producing business pax, so need several smaller aircraft/day rather than just one “jumbo” type.
Quote: "(Apart from increased taxes the Gvnt is taking a tough line on immigration which may have unforseen not just on total population but also growth and location of international businesses indeed the role of London as international city par excellence but lets not go down this road now - the policy may be reversed in the future.)
Anyway, I reckon that we can get by (which is all we ever do) for the next 20 years after which we need Northolt (which would need another revolution in reducing aircraft noise) or Boris Island. Are we plan 20 years ahead?"
LHR is long overdue for a third rwy should have had a fourth by now! We certainly do not have twenty years! NHT as a civil airport has considerable merits in its own right to help address capacity issues. It will always have to be a relatively small operation like LCY and SEN, and can in no way be a substitute for LHR expansion.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 26th May 2012 at 23:33.