Heathrow expansion won't happen
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Paxboy sums things up rather well. Too much of the British hand-wringing (sorry, democracy at its best) affliction whilst the rest of Europe has just got on with it.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: Boris Island will be accessible from the entire UK (and further afield) via connecting flights - provided the capacity and economy is such that it is feasible to schedule such flights of sufficient frequency.
Local airlines doing feeder flights from the smaller regional airports are currently conspicuous by their absence from Heathrow (and increasingly from Gatwick as well) because of the relatively high airport charges for smaller aircraft.
Those at fantasy Island would a great deal higher, they would have to be if investors were ever to obtain a return. So, one has to ask, how on earth would local airlines doing feeder flights afford the eye-wateringly high airport charges at Fantasy Island?
Yet another reason why Fantasy Island, if ever built, would remain largely unused.
Quote: The facts are:
The UK needs a hub airport.
This needs to be in or very near to London.
It needs it asap
Any new airport project will take at least 20 years just to start on site.
Any new airport will cost the taxpayer billions.
LHR expansion will be paid for by Ferrovial/BAA.
LHR Expansion can be carried out by Ferrovial who are also one of the biggest civil engineering companies in the world (currently building the new T2)
Transport connections are already in place to LHR with more in progress (Crossrail, currently being built by Ferrovial coincidentally, who also donated a large chunk of money towards the project).
2 new world class terminals already on site. Baggage tunnels, fuel pipelines etc. already in place.
Hotels, cargo distribution centres, airline offices and staff all based around the airport.
There is only one 'no brainer' as far as I can see. The fact that they are going full steam ahead with large scale infrastructure projects at the airport and Crossrail is going there also seems to me like this was decided a long time ago and we are just seeing the political merry go round in practice.
A very concise summary of the situation as it exists in reality. It hits the nail right on the head.
Quote: I think the government here is just paper shuffling to appease the airlines, another white paper which we know will not see a reasonable chance of expansion. Scrap the Cranford agreement and start 24hr operations immediately, cargo and passenger ops and mixed mode arrivals/departures.
Quote: Actually, it was scrapped by the last government.
And nobody protested! Too near the airport?
Funny, isnt it, how all the vocal NIMBY anti-Heathrow expansion activity is miles away from Heathrow: in Richmond (Zac Goldsmith), in Putney (Greening), in Notting Hill/City Hall (Boris), in Clapham (HACAN).
They do not explain why people pay a premium to live under the flight path, house prices are among the highest in the country. Would they do so if it was so intolerable?
Quote: Simple solution. Take a Northern airport such as Doncaster, create a non stop high speed rail link (along the present line) with full checkin/bag drop facilities in central London. This has been done in Hong Kong.
No, Hong Kong has a 20 mi. rail link, not a 200 mi. one. The journey takes about 25 minutes, and there are 5 trains/hour.
City check in Hong Kong is very convenient, we had it London in the 1960s: it was called the West London Air Terminal and located in Kensington.
Quote: The runway was planned to be much shorter than the other two and take the the narrow body traffic, the advantage of this is that only the village of Sipson would have to be flattened and to be quite honest apart fron the 17th century pub it won't be much of a loss ( I advocate giving the residents at least six times the current value of their property to move, that way the people affected by the airport get a good deal and the money grabbing professional protest lawyers who always parasite on big projects will get very little).
Could very easily be done: very few owner occupiers remain in Sipson. BAA bought up most of the properties years ago, and the remaining population is now largely transient, based on six-month lets. The area has been blighted for years.
Quote: What's wrong with Gatwick?
Connectivity, connectivity, connectivity!
Specifically, the lack of sufficient connectivity.
Quote: So - I think there is a very fundamental question to be asked. Is Heathrow the only game in town? If so, all the other arguments and all the other options become superfluous.
Answers: Yes; and, exactly.
Quote: First of all, a disclaimer, I haven't read every post on here so I may be retreading similar arguments but here goes: it's fecking Gatwick! Good links. Plenty of undeveloped real estate. An established business model. Yes, I know there's a moratorium on new runways until 2019 but given this administration's never-never attitude to making meaningful decisions, that doesn't seem so far off. Build a second (and third?) runway at Gatwick and conduct a progressive transfer of hub status. Build the fast rail-link between the two to create the virtual hub.
Yes, all very well, but how exactly does one conduct a progressive transfer of hub status, whatever that means?
All the evidence on the ground shows that airlines that move tend to go the other way!
Local airlines doing feeder flights from the smaller regional airports are currently conspicuous by their absence from Heathrow (and increasingly from Gatwick as well) because of the relatively high airport charges for smaller aircraft.
Those at fantasy Island would a great deal higher, they would have to be if investors were ever to obtain a return. So, one has to ask, how on earth would local airlines doing feeder flights afford the eye-wateringly high airport charges at Fantasy Island?
Yet another reason why Fantasy Island, if ever built, would remain largely unused.
Quote: The facts are:
The UK needs a hub airport.
This needs to be in or very near to London.
It needs it asap
Any new airport project will take at least 20 years just to start on site.
Any new airport will cost the taxpayer billions.
LHR expansion will be paid for by Ferrovial/BAA.
LHR Expansion can be carried out by Ferrovial who are also one of the biggest civil engineering companies in the world (currently building the new T2)
Transport connections are already in place to LHR with more in progress (Crossrail, currently being built by Ferrovial coincidentally, who also donated a large chunk of money towards the project).
2 new world class terminals already on site. Baggage tunnels, fuel pipelines etc. already in place.
Hotels, cargo distribution centres, airline offices and staff all based around the airport.
There is only one 'no brainer' as far as I can see. The fact that they are going full steam ahead with large scale infrastructure projects at the airport and Crossrail is going there also seems to me like this was decided a long time ago and we are just seeing the political merry go round in practice.
A very concise summary of the situation as it exists in reality. It hits the nail right on the head.
Quote: I think the government here is just paper shuffling to appease the airlines, another white paper which we know will not see a reasonable chance of expansion. Scrap the Cranford agreement and start 24hr operations immediately, cargo and passenger ops and mixed mode arrivals/departures.
Quote: Actually, it was scrapped by the last government.
And nobody protested! Too near the airport?
Funny, isnt it, how all the vocal NIMBY anti-Heathrow expansion activity is miles away from Heathrow: in Richmond (Zac Goldsmith), in Putney (Greening), in Notting Hill/City Hall (Boris), in Clapham (HACAN).
They do not explain why people pay a premium to live under the flight path, house prices are among the highest in the country. Would they do so if it was so intolerable?
Quote: Simple solution. Take a Northern airport such as Doncaster, create a non stop high speed rail link (along the present line) with full checkin/bag drop facilities in central London. This has been done in Hong Kong.
No, Hong Kong has a 20 mi. rail link, not a 200 mi. one. The journey takes about 25 minutes, and there are 5 trains/hour.
City check in Hong Kong is very convenient, we had it London in the 1960s: it was called the West London Air Terminal and located in Kensington.
Quote: The runway was planned to be much shorter than the other two and take the the narrow body traffic, the advantage of this is that only the village of Sipson would have to be flattened and to be quite honest apart fron the 17th century pub it won't be much of a loss ( I advocate giving the residents at least six times the current value of their property to move, that way the people affected by the airport get a good deal and the money grabbing professional protest lawyers who always parasite on big projects will get very little).
Could very easily be done: very few owner occupiers remain in Sipson. BAA bought up most of the properties years ago, and the remaining population is now largely transient, based on six-month lets. The area has been blighted for years.
Quote: What's wrong with Gatwick?
Connectivity, connectivity, connectivity!
Specifically, the lack of sufficient connectivity.
Quote: So - I think there is a very fundamental question to be asked. Is Heathrow the only game in town? If so, all the other arguments and all the other options become superfluous.
Answers: Yes; and, exactly.
Quote: First of all, a disclaimer, I haven't read every post on here so I may be retreading similar arguments but here goes: it's fecking Gatwick! Good links. Plenty of undeveloped real estate. An established business model. Yes, I know there's a moratorium on new runways until 2019 but given this administration's never-never attitude to making meaningful decisions, that doesn't seem so far off. Build a second (and third?) runway at Gatwick and conduct a progressive transfer of hub status. Build the fast rail-link between the two to create the virtual hub.
Yes, all very well, but how exactly does one conduct a progressive transfer of hub status, whatever that means?
All the evidence on the ground shows that airlines that move tend to go the other way!
Paxing All Over The World
Fairdealfrank
Also because (due to shortage of capacity) BA ran a highly successful policy of buying up the feeder airlines, then transplanting them to EGKK and BINGO, they had another 3 or 4 pairs of slots every day! Later, they quietly folded the feeder into their operation, or simply sold it off, dumped it, franchised it, depending on the what was in fashion that year.
One of their finest achievements was to buy up the old Manx operation (Viscounts) and appropriate the slots. Then dump them. A new Manx carrier then sprang up, got slots and made a great succes of the IOM feeder route (146s) and then [wait for it] BA bought THEM up and scored ANOTHER set of slots, whilst tipping the route into EGKK and then selling them off again.
Naturally, no one stopped them because there was no policy. Irrespective of any lobbying power ...
Thanks, Cows getting bigger, it doesn't make me happy to be the doom monger but I've seen more than enough of British non-mgmt and govt. The game is over. Anything now is just idle chat. Nothing can save EGLL from relegation.
Local airlines doing feeder flights from the smaller regional airports are currently conspicuous by their absence from Heathrow (and increasingly from Gatwick as well) because of the relatively high airport charges for smaller aircraft.
One of their finest achievements was to buy up the old Manx operation (Viscounts) and appropriate the slots. Then dump them. A new Manx carrier then sprang up, got slots and made a great succes of the IOM feeder route (146s) and then [wait for it] BA bought THEM up and scored ANOTHER set of slots, whilst tipping the route into EGKK and then selling them off again.
Naturally, no one stopped them because there was no policy. Irrespective of any lobbying power ...
Thanks, Cows getting bigger, it doesn't make me happy to be the doom monger but I've seen more than enough of British non-mgmt and govt. The game is over. Anything now is just idle chat. Nothing can save EGLL from relegation.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only sound, logistical idea is to expand Heathrow, it is an absolute no brainer. There will always be local opposition, that came with Manchester's new runway and it'll come with HS2 and it'll come with any project. As far as a cost effective, logistical and timely solution goes the only solution is a new LHR runway. The only thing stopping the government from going ahead with it is public opinion.
The Thames estuary airport is an engineering nightmare and will cost the taxpayer probably 100 times more than a new runway. Expansion of a current airport really does not solve any problems because the vast majority of people use LHR as their way into the UK as it has everything they need. The only possible solution to any capacity issue is LHR expansion, it is simply the only solution which meets all cost,transport links etc criteria.
The Thames estuary airport is an engineering nightmare and will cost the taxpayer probably 100 times more than a new runway. Expansion of a current airport really does not solve any problems because the vast majority of people use LHR as their way into the UK as it has everything they need. The only possible solution to any capacity issue is LHR expansion, it is simply the only solution which meets all cost,transport links etc criteria.
Last edited by blue_ashy; 18th Sep 2012 at 12:21.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those at fantasy Island would a great deal higher, they would have to be if investors were ever to obtain a return. So, one has to ask, how on earth would local airlines doing feeder flights afford the eye-wateringly high airport charges at Fantasy Island?
I would also believe a designed from scratch airport would be far more efficient than one originally built in 1929 so operational costs should be lower.
As far as the cost/benefit of building the estuary airport bear in mind that there is an opportunity cost involved with the area suggested for R3 at Heathrow. If this area is planned for development and BAA already holds a stake in this area then surely enormous profit can be made through commercial development. Profit which would offset part of the cost of the island.
There is so much contrasting opinion amongst experts, decision makers, politicians etc, its going to be impossible to ascertain a common consensus in the medium term.
Heck, is there even a consensus on PPRuNe? Airport capacity is the $64,000 question.
Heck, is there even a consensus on PPRuNe? Airport capacity is the $64,000 question.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Well maybe the same way a loco can sell tickets for ten quid and still be profitable, i.e. look at marginal cost/revenue rather than average cost/revenue. Perhaps landing fees could vary depending on the passenger composition of the particular flight thus attracting feeder flights? Perhaps a pax with a 6 hour stopover who is likely to burn time and spending money at the shopping mall/food hall/ice rink/casino/aquatics center/Estuary Eye & Madam Tussauds experience is charged differently to the the one with a quick stopover. Perhaps single class flights (i.e. locos) can be charged differently then multi class flights?
I would also believe a designed from scratch airport would be far more efficient than one originally built in 1929 so operational costs should be lower."
Indeed, all this could happen, but, realisticly, would it?
To repeat the point, obviously, investors have to see a return on their investment. There would need to be a hell of a lot of investment, so there can be no question that airport charges would be eye-wateringly high.
It is not a case of just covering costs, so it is not a question of whether Fantasy Island would be more efficient, and therefore cheaper for the airlines, than LHR or LGW.
However, before any of this could happen, there is one tiny detail that is always overlooked by supporters of the Fantasy Island idea: airlines would have to be persuaded to move, and that could prove difficult.
This is one of the many reasons why this is not a good business investment.....or are they expecting the government to pay?
I would also believe a designed from scratch airport would be far more efficient than one originally built in 1929 so operational costs should be lower."
Indeed, all this could happen, but, realisticly, would it?
To repeat the point, obviously, investors have to see a return on their investment. There would need to be a hell of a lot of investment, so there can be no question that airport charges would be eye-wateringly high.
It is not a case of just covering costs, so it is not a question of whether Fantasy Island would be more efficient, and therefore cheaper for the airlines, than LHR or LGW.
However, before any of this could happen, there is one tiny detail that is always overlooked by supporters of the Fantasy Island idea: airlines would have to be persuaded to move, and that could prove difficult.
This is one of the many reasons why this is not a good business investment.....or are they expecting the government to pay?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 18th Sep 2012 at 17:04.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality Check
Even if a third runway gets the political nod in 2015 and UK plc manages to build said runway in 7 years, after public consultations, environmental impact studies, NIMBY protests etc, etc, we are still a runway short of a proper airport for another 10 years i.e. 2022.
Alternative 1. Thames Estuary International. Build time after public consultations, environmental impact studies, blah, blah, blah. 2022, at the earliest.
Alternative 2. And here I defer to statistics from the CAA:
Emirates offered direct Manchester-Dubai services, along with indirect routes via Frankfurt and Zurich in the 1990s, before adding Birmingham, Glasgow and Newcastle to its network between 2001 and 2007. In 2011, between UK regional airports and Dubai, Emirates offered a frequency of two departures from Manchester, two from Birmingham, and one each from Glasgow and Newcastle every day. Qatar Airways started daily Manchester-Doha flights in 2003, and Etihad has been operating daily departure flights between Manchester and Abu Dhabi since 2007. The frequency of both routes increased to around 10 weekly departures in 2011.
The number of passengers between UK regional airports and the Middle East hubs has been growing every year since 1997. The Gulf carriers share of passengers at regional airports grew from 26% in 2001 to 40% in 2011. Connections to these non-UK hubs provide UK regional passengers travelling to the Eastern hemisphere with alternatives to European or domestic hub airports.
The third runway for London Heathrow (aka the whole of the UK) is alive and well and living in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Newcastle and all those supposed "regional" airports that have the 1st. World mentality to go out and grab an opportunity whilst Heathrow and it's third runway languish in a third world mentality.
Heathrow is no longer the only UK hub, it has competition from alternative UK Airport Authorities who have a 10 year head start to build on the "Dithering Southerners" to permanently demonstrate that theirs is a credible alternative.
Londoners, I suggest that you start to plan your future (well at least the next 10 years) business trips and even holidays hubbing via the "supposed" UK regional leaders. 'Cos, Heathrow is dead, thanks to political inactivity.
The evidence is clear to see.
Even if a third runway gets the political nod in 2015 and UK plc manages to build said runway in 7 years, after public consultations, environmental impact studies, NIMBY protests etc, etc, we are still a runway short of a proper airport for another 10 years i.e. 2022.
Alternative 1. Thames Estuary International. Build time after public consultations, environmental impact studies, blah, blah, blah. 2022, at the earliest.
Alternative 2. And here I defer to statistics from the CAA:
Emirates offered direct Manchester-Dubai services, along with indirect routes via Frankfurt and Zurich in the 1990s, before adding Birmingham, Glasgow and Newcastle to its network between 2001 and 2007. In 2011, between UK regional airports and Dubai, Emirates offered a frequency of two departures from Manchester, two from Birmingham, and one each from Glasgow and Newcastle every day. Qatar Airways started daily Manchester-Doha flights in 2003, and Etihad has been operating daily departure flights between Manchester and Abu Dhabi since 2007. The frequency of both routes increased to around 10 weekly departures in 2011.
The number of passengers between UK regional airports and the Middle East hubs has been growing every year since 1997. The Gulf carriers share of passengers at regional airports grew from 26% in 2001 to 40% in 2011. Connections to these non-UK hubs provide UK regional passengers travelling to the Eastern hemisphere with alternatives to European or domestic hub airports.
The third runway for London Heathrow (aka the whole of the UK) is alive and well and living in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Newcastle and all those supposed "regional" airports that have the 1st. World mentality to go out and grab an opportunity whilst Heathrow and it's third runway languish in a third world mentality.
Heathrow is no longer the only UK hub, it has competition from alternative UK Airport Authorities who have a 10 year head start to build on the "Dithering Southerners" to permanently demonstrate that theirs is a credible alternative.
Londoners, I suggest that you start to plan your future (well at least the next 10 years) business trips and even holidays hubbing via the "supposed" UK regional leaders. 'Cos, Heathrow is dead, thanks to political inactivity.
The evidence is clear to see.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow is dead, thanks to political inactivity
I have to admit I@m getting rather fed up with politicians coming up with pointless statements on this - who is the great genius of Cable to dictate airport policy, he is neither a Tory nor transport minister, nor an MP in the area affected.
Have any of this lot cared to ask what the airlines think.
Here's what I expect they'd hear:
BA & Beardie Air - (actually in agreement for once) - we want R3 NOW!
Easyjet - Gatters?
Ryanair - MOL wants runways at STN, LHR and LGW, but only on his terms (esp STN).
Jet2 - keep on bickering?
Thomson - Gatters?
Monarch - make best use of Luton first?
Thomas Cook - will we still be here by the time a new runway opens?
Emirates, Etihad, Turkish, Lufty, AF-KLM - keep bickering!
Flybe (bizarelly) - backing Boris Island (not Brum, one of their largest bases).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Reality Check
Even if a third runway gets the political nod in 2015 and UK plc manages to build said runway in 7 years, after public consultations, environmental impact studies, NIMBY protests etc, etc, we are still a runway short of a proper airport for another 10 years i.e. 2022."
UK PLC are not building the third rwy, BAA will be doing so. No public funding needed, so no taxpayers' money required.
No, once the go-ahead is received (and not revoked) the rwy will be built quite quickly.
Quote: "Alternative 1. Thames Estuary International. Build time after public consultations, environmental impact studies, blah, blah, blah. 2022, at the earliest."
Not a chance!
Quote: "Alternative 2. And here I defer to statistics from the CAA:
Emirates offered direct Manchester-Dubai services, along with indirect routes via Frankfurt and Zurich in the 1990s, before adding Birmingham, Glasgow and Newcastle to its network between 2001 and 2007. In 2011, between UK regional airports and Dubai, Emirates offered a frequency of two departures from Manchester, two from Birmingham, and one each from Glasgow and Newcastle every day. Qatar Airways started daily Manchester-Doha flights in 2003, and Etihad has been operating daily departure flights between Manchester and Abu Dhabi since 2007. The frequency of both routes increased to around 10 weekly departures in 2011.
The number of passengers between UK regional airports and the Middle East hubs has been growing every year since 1997. The Gulf carriers share of passengers at regional airports grew from 26% in 2001 to 40% in 2011. Connections to these non-UK hubs provide UK regional passengers travelling to the Eastern hemisphere with alternatives to European or domestic hub airports.
The third runway for London Heathrow (aka the whole of the UK) is alive and well and living in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Newcastle and all those supposed "regional" airports that have the 1st. World mentality to go out and grab an opportunity whilst Heathrow and it's third runway languish in a third world mentality.
Heathrow is no longer the only UK hub, it has competition from alternative UK Airport Authorities who have a 10 year head start to build on the "Dithering Southerners" to permanently demonstrate that theirs is a credible alternative.
Londoners, I suggest that you start to plan your future (well at least the next 10 years) business trips and even holidays hubbing via the "supposed" UK regional leaders. 'Cos, Heathrow is dead, thanks to political inactivity.
The evidence is clear to see."
Hardly the "third rwys", these are important international airports in their own right, although obviously not in the same intercontinental league as LHR.
BHX, GLA (PIK before GLA was built), and MAN used to be secondary hubs for BA and its predecessors, and would be contenders if an airline decided to establish a UK hub outside LHR (or any other of the "London" airports).
It is therefore wrong to imply that LHR was always the UK's only hub.
From your comments and the piece from the CAA, how do you conclude that LHR is dead?
70,000,000 pax say otherwise, and as they say: "70,000,000 pax can't be wrong"!
Let's face it, it's not as if the 70,000,000 pax don't have other choices!
Quote: "Heathrow is far from dead, especially for flights heading west - although APD and lack of pre-clearance not a good help when competing against DUB."
APD is a killer for flights going in all directions from all UK airports.
US pre-clearance at DUB could become a good selling point, a potential advantage for EI perhaps?
Quote: "I have to admit I@m getting rather fed up with politicians coming up with pointless statements on this - who is the great genius of Cable to dictate airport policy, he is neither a Tory nor transport minister, nor an MP in the area affected."
Indeed, Cable's constituency, Twickenham, is slightly nearer to LHR than Goldsmith's, and equally unaffected by a 3rd rwy.
He's toe-ing the Libdem line: "no new rwys in the south-east - ever".
Quote: "Have any of this lot cared to ask what the airlines think.
Here's what I expect they'd hear:
BA & Beardie Air - (actually in agreement for once) - we want R3 NOW!
Easyjet - Gatters?
Ryanair - MOL wants runways at STN, LHR and LGW, but only on his terms (esp STN).
Jet2 - keep on bickering?
Thomson - Gatters?
Monarch - make best use of Luton first?
Thomas Cook - will we still be here by the time a new runway opens?
Emirates, Etihad, Turkish, Lufty, AF-KLM - keep bickering!
Flybe (bizarelly) - backing Boris Island (not Brum, one of their largest bases)."
Suspect that U2 and BE would also be happy with a third (and fourth) rwy at LHR as it would free up LGW slots for them as all the longhaul, all the LGW-based BA and all the LGW-based VS migrated to LHR. It also would make some LHR slots affordable/free for them in the unlikely event that they ever wanted to start up there.
FR probably doesn't care as there is more than enough capacity for them at STN, although O'Leary is on record of supporting (demanding?) extra rwys at LHR, LGW and STN.
LS aren't in the south-east so probably not bothered.
BE backing Fantasy Island is indeed bizarre: they may get some free slots, but they'd never afford the eye-wateringly high airport charges that will inevitably have to be levied there (to enable investors to obtain some sort of return).
Even if a third runway gets the political nod in 2015 and UK plc manages to build said runway in 7 years, after public consultations, environmental impact studies, NIMBY protests etc, etc, we are still a runway short of a proper airport for another 10 years i.e. 2022."
UK PLC are not building the third rwy, BAA will be doing so. No public funding needed, so no taxpayers' money required.
No, once the go-ahead is received (and not revoked) the rwy will be built quite quickly.
Quote: "Alternative 1. Thames Estuary International. Build time after public consultations, environmental impact studies, blah, blah, blah. 2022, at the earliest."
Not a chance!
Quote: "Alternative 2. And here I defer to statistics from the CAA:
Emirates offered direct Manchester-Dubai services, along with indirect routes via Frankfurt and Zurich in the 1990s, before adding Birmingham, Glasgow and Newcastle to its network between 2001 and 2007. In 2011, between UK regional airports and Dubai, Emirates offered a frequency of two departures from Manchester, two from Birmingham, and one each from Glasgow and Newcastle every day. Qatar Airways started daily Manchester-Doha flights in 2003, and Etihad has been operating daily departure flights between Manchester and Abu Dhabi since 2007. The frequency of both routes increased to around 10 weekly departures in 2011.
The number of passengers between UK regional airports and the Middle East hubs has been growing every year since 1997. The Gulf carriers share of passengers at regional airports grew from 26% in 2001 to 40% in 2011. Connections to these non-UK hubs provide UK regional passengers travelling to the Eastern hemisphere with alternatives to European or domestic hub airports.
The third runway for London Heathrow (aka the whole of the UK) is alive and well and living in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Newcastle and all those supposed "regional" airports that have the 1st. World mentality to go out and grab an opportunity whilst Heathrow and it's third runway languish in a third world mentality.
Heathrow is no longer the only UK hub, it has competition from alternative UK Airport Authorities who have a 10 year head start to build on the "Dithering Southerners" to permanently demonstrate that theirs is a credible alternative.
Londoners, I suggest that you start to plan your future (well at least the next 10 years) business trips and even holidays hubbing via the "supposed" UK regional leaders. 'Cos, Heathrow is dead, thanks to political inactivity.
The evidence is clear to see."
Hardly the "third rwys", these are important international airports in their own right, although obviously not in the same intercontinental league as LHR.
BHX, GLA (PIK before GLA was built), and MAN used to be secondary hubs for BA and its predecessors, and would be contenders if an airline decided to establish a UK hub outside LHR (or any other of the "London" airports).
It is therefore wrong to imply that LHR was always the UK's only hub.
From your comments and the piece from the CAA, how do you conclude that LHR is dead?
70,000,000 pax say otherwise, and as they say: "70,000,000 pax can't be wrong"!
Let's face it, it's not as if the 70,000,000 pax don't have other choices!
Quote: "Heathrow is far from dead, especially for flights heading west - although APD and lack of pre-clearance not a good help when competing against DUB."
APD is a killer for flights going in all directions from all UK airports.
US pre-clearance at DUB could become a good selling point, a potential advantage for EI perhaps?
Quote: "I have to admit I@m getting rather fed up with politicians coming up with pointless statements on this - who is the great genius of Cable to dictate airport policy, he is neither a Tory nor transport minister, nor an MP in the area affected."
Indeed, Cable's constituency, Twickenham, is slightly nearer to LHR than Goldsmith's, and equally unaffected by a 3rd rwy.
He's toe-ing the Libdem line: "no new rwys in the south-east - ever".
Quote: "Have any of this lot cared to ask what the airlines think.
Here's what I expect they'd hear:
BA & Beardie Air - (actually in agreement for once) - we want R3 NOW!
Easyjet - Gatters?
Ryanair - MOL wants runways at STN, LHR and LGW, but only on his terms (esp STN).
Jet2 - keep on bickering?
Thomson - Gatters?
Monarch - make best use of Luton first?
Thomas Cook - will we still be here by the time a new runway opens?
Emirates, Etihad, Turkish, Lufty, AF-KLM - keep bickering!
Flybe (bizarelly) - backing Boris Island (not Brum, one of their largest bases)."
Suspect that U2 and BE would also be happy with a third (and fourth) rwy at LHR as it would free up LGW slots for them as all the longhaul, all the LGW-based BA and all the LGW-based VS migrated to LHR. It also would make some LHR slots affordable/free for them in the unlikely event that they ever wanted to start up there.
FR probably doesn't care as there is more than enough capacity for them at STN, although O'Leary is on record of supporting (demanding?) extra rwys at LHR, LGW and STN.
LS aren't in the south-east so probably not bothered.
BE backing Fantasy Island is indeed bizarre: they may get some free slots, but they'd never afford the eye-wateringly high airport charges that will inevitably have to be levied there (to enable investors to obtain some sort of return).
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 18th Sep 2012 at 21:17.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, all this could happen, but, realisticly, would it?
To repeat the point, obviously, investors have to see a return on their investment. There would need to be a hell of a lot of investment, so there can be no question that airport charges would be eye-wateringly high.
Finally - when this investment project goes forward, would any global airline dare not to fly to the most modern and innovative airport in Europe? That would be commercial suicide.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One point missing here is that Boris Island could probably be paid for by selling off all of that nice valuable west london land currently occupied by LHR for redevelopment.
Property developers would happily pay a substantial up front deposit as soon as the island is started for the promise of getting their hands on the ex-LHR land the day after the new airport opens.
Property developers would happily pay a substantial up front deposit as soon as the island is started for the promise of getting their hands on the ex-LHR land the day after the new airport opens.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Finally - when this investment project goes forward, would any global airline dare not to fly to the most modern and innovative airport in Europe? That would be commercial suicide."
(1) BA and IB for one. IAG have stated categorically that they are not leaving LHR. Other carriers will follow suit to prevent BA and IB from having a competitive advantage.
(2) Probably the same carriers that refused to use Montreal's white elephant, Mirabel (YMQ).
Quote: "One point missing here is that Boris Island could probably be paid for by selling off all of that nice valuable west london land currently occupied by LHR for redevelopment.
Property developers would happily pay a substantial up front deposit as soon as the island is started for the promise of getting their hands on the ex-LHR land the day after the new airport opens."
You're making the assumption that BAA would be willing to sell, any evidence to support this assertion? Having put in a great deal of investment into LHR recently and continuing to do so does not give the impression of a company about to sell its most profitable asset!
Quote: "The Channel Tunnel was a huge investment but it was built."
One subtle difference: it is the first and only Channel tunnel, we already have a world hub airport handling 70,000,000 pax.
Quote: "So what's stopping us building a new airport?"
In this particular case? It's a bad business proposition.
(1) BA and IB for one. IAG have stated categorically that they are not leaving LHR. Other carriers will follow suit to prevent BA and IB from having a competitive advantage.
(2) Probably the same carriers that refused to use Montreal's white elephant, Mirabel (YMQ).
Quote: "One point missing here is that Boris Island could probably be paid for by selling off all of that nice valuable west london land currently occupied by LHR for redevelopment.
Property developers would happily pay a substantial up front deposit as soon as the island is started for the promise of getting their hands on the ex-LHR land the day after the new airport opens."
You're making the assumption that BAA would be willing to sell, any evidence to support this assertion? Having put in a great deal of investment into LHR recently and continuing to do so does not give the impression of a company about to sell its most profitable asset!
Quote: "The Channel Tunnel was a huge investment but it was built."
One subtle difference: it is the first and only Channel tunnel, we already have a world hub airport handling 70,000,000 pax.
Quote: "So what's stopping us building a new airport?"
In this particular case? It's a bad business proposition.
One subtle difference: it is the first and only Channel tunnel, we already have a world hub airport handling 70,000,000 pax.
IAG have stated categorically that they are not leaving LHR.
No carrier will voluntarily move its operations from an operational LHR to a Thames Estuary airport, given a choice. But that's not what this is about.
Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is proposing a scenario where both airports will continue to operate in parallel - so we're not talking about a Mirabel/Dorval situation.
You state, at every opportunity, your view that the Government will not be able to bring about the closure of Heathrow and its replacement by an estuary airport.
Others, myself included, take the view that, while BAA/Ferrovial will undoubtedly have to be dragged, screaming, through the courts, there are ways and means available to any government to make strategic changes like this happen.
Those are simply two different points of view, so why don't we just all agree to differ, and move on.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The parallel with the Chunnel is a good one. As has been stated, there were plenty of ferries and unlike LHR they weren't reaching capacity. The Chunnel was seen to be a political necessity and got built at a price way over budget. Original investors were practically wiped out but, today, no-one would suggest that it was not a good idea, that it is not a vital part of the transport infrastructure and will last a 100+ years. And, in this case, the ferries continue to run.
The estuary airport should be seen in the same light. It is something that will be required to last for 50 -100+ years and should be seen as a national project combining public and private funds appropriately. Can anybody seriously imagine what LHR would be like - even with a third runway - in 50 or even 20 years? Of course LHR would have to close to make it viable (i.e. the ferries stopped in this instance) and the compensation etc worked out but, one way or another Ferrovial could / would be involved in the development of the new airport and would reralise substantial sums from the redevelopment of LHR.
If, as has been stated, a new and much larger barrage has to be built across the Thames to prevent flooding then surely a reasonable portion of the new airport infrastructure costs can be shared with that project: if you are building a structure across the estuary anyway - it can't be that difficult to stick a railway line on top.
When the Vitctorian's built the UK's railways they were building for the distant future - we need to do the same now.
The estuary airport should be seen in the same light. It is something that will be required to last for 50 -100+ years and should be seen as a national project combining public and private funds appropriately. Can anybody seriously imagine what LHR would be like - even with a third runway - in 50 or even 20 years? Of course LHR would have to close to make it viable (i.e. the ferries stopped in this instance) and the compensation etc worked out but, one way or another Ferrovial could / would be involved in the development of the new airport and would reralise substantial sums from the redevelopment of LHR.
If, as has been stated, a new and much larger barrage has to be built across the Thames to prevent flooding then surely a reasonable portion of the new airport infrastructure costs can be shared with that project: if you are building a structure across the estuary anyway - it can't be that difficult to stick a railway line on top.
When the Vitctorian's built the UK's railways they were building for the distant future - we need to do the same now.