Another runway at Heathrow
The problem is that our slots to Heathrow were taken away by the airline concerned. So, we used to be able to travel easily via Heathrow & now we can't.
This discriminates against us, & others elsewhere.
The solution is a MUCH larger London gateway. Gatwick simply won't suffice on two counts a) It won't be big enough & b) It will never have the services Heathrow has.
This discriminates against us, & others elsewhere.
The solution is a MUCH larger London gateway. Gatwick simply won't suffice on two counts a) It won't be big enough & b) It will never have the services Heathrow has.
So to answer again some of the posts here
Of course people want a non-stop flight from their own regional to their place of destination, that goes without saying. There will never be a flight direct from Durham Tees Valley to Salt Lake City though, the UK is too small to have all these direct flights going P2P and no matter what the passengers want the demand needs to be there for an airline to take on the route.
Feeder services flying into LHR onto the new shorter runway with a easy connections onto LH flights to numerous destinations from the two, (now free from SH) runways is the end goal. This will only be good for the whole of the UK and I really do not understand why people from all over the country are so set against it.
I never said that, quite the opposite in fact. People don't want to drive and park at MAN when they could just get a taxi to their nearest regional and a quick shuttle flight down to LHR.
The case for R3 is irrefutable when the topic being discussed is Heathrow Expansion. The Gatwick issue is a separate one. A new runway anywhere else would not have any effect on the need or business case for another runway at LHR. A new runway at LHR will mean expansion is no longer needed at any other south east airport for the foreseeable future. What else needs to be said?
By making LHR an easy gateway to the rest of the UK you enable foreign investment in the outlying regions. It is not just about enabling the people of Yorkshire to get easier access to the world but allowing the world easier access to Yorkshire, surely you see that?
Shed, firstly, where did you get £40bn from?? The cost is said to be less than £20bn. Only around £6bn will be needed from the taxpayer to invest in the infrastructure around the airport. Much of this work is required now anyway and has been for some time.
Secondly, what makes you think that the non UK owners of a private airport are interested in using money financed to expand their business in any other area? You seem to think Ferrovial & co will be saving the NHS if they are not expanding LHR. You do realise the airports are privately owned I take it.
The argument often used on here that LHR should not be upgraded as it doesn't work well now is like saying a new car park should not be built in the town centre as their is nowhere to park your car.
The Heathrow bashers love to knock the place and it was a victim of it's own success and suffered from 1960's short sighted design but it now has 2 new world class terminals and is going through a complete transformation.
I hate to break this to you, but I detect ZERO desire from Northern passengers to change planes at LHR. They sometimes tolerate this out of necessity, but they categorically don't desire it. Primarily they want a non-stop flight from their own region. In the absence of this, transfer via a relatively hassle-free hub (which LHR is not) is preferred
Feeder services flying into LHR onto the new shorter runway with a easy connections onto LH flights to numerous destinations from the two, (now free from SH) runways is the end goal. This will only be good for the whole of the UK and I really do not understand why people from all over the country are so set against it.
Shed, I'm delighted you took the trouble to reply to the felixflyer posting, especially his assertion that for Yorkshire folk, MAN is the only option at present, which it plainly is not, and with a hint of MAN being 'the airport of last resort'.
If I may say so felixflyer, you may think the case for R3 is irrefutable, but it is only an opinion, no more or less valid than those who are against or not convinced. Opinion should not be expressed as fact or assertion.
Excellent posts by Shed and MANFOD, I must confess I'm struggling to see how l 2 flights a day from LHR to Teesside, Humberside and say another 3 into Leeds is going to bring a tsunami of riches ?
Sceptics are dismissing the LHR hub argument on the grounds of cost, not operational desirability. Do you honestly suggest that upto £40Bn should be spent at LHR to spare a small minority of passengers an occasional one-hour transfer aboard a luxury coach? Have you stopped to consider just how much money forty thousand million pounds actually is and how it could be otherwise used for the benefit of the UK?
We object to the prohibitive cost. Are you CI residents offering to pay up for it? Thought not.
Shed, firstly, where did you get £40bn from?? The cost is said to be less than £20bn. Only around £6bn will be needed from the taxpayer to invest in the infrastructure around the airport. Much of this work is required now anyway and has been for some time.
Secondly, what makes you think that the non UK owners of a private airport are interested in using money financed to expand their business in any other area? You seem to think Ferrovial & co will be saving the NHS if they are not expanding LHR. You do realise the airports are privately owned I take it.
On a general LHR hub point, I personally would never, I repeat NEVER, book domestic UK to anywhere via LHR - and would not book on a BA flight from DUB either - because, quite simply, those rotations are the first to be ditched
The Heathrow bashers love to knock the place and it was a victim of it's own success and suffered from 1960's short sighted design but it now has 2 new world class terminals and is going through a complete transformation.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More For Felixflyer
Feeder services flying into LHR onto the new shorter runway
Both proposals relating to LHR under consideration by the Davies Commission concern a full-length intercontinental-capable runway.
I really do not understand why people from all over the country are so set against it.
This is because the publicly-funded portion of the associated works is put at between £8Bn and £20Bn according to which source you believe. London and the SE have enjoyed a conveyor belt of multi-billion pound mega-projects dedicated to upgrading its infrastructure over recent years. The regions still patiently await their first ONE billion pound publicly-funded infrastructure project. There are unfunded priority projects around the country which offer FAR greater value to UK PLC than spending another £8Bn+ of public money in London to boost LHR throughput by just 50%. That money cannot be allocated twice. The regions deserve their turn.
People don't want to drive and park at MAN when they could just get a taxi to their nearest regional and a quick shuttle flight down to LHR.
Seriously? Are you aware of the geographical distances between the main centres of population in the North? Have you seen typical taxi-fares? BTW, MAG has just built another 9,000 space car park rather close to my place. It is full. It seems that many people do want to drive and park at MAN. For those who don't, MAN offers excellent rail, tram, coach and bus links.
The case for R3 is irrefutable
Not when you see the proposed price-tag.
The Gatwick issue is a separate one
The provision of runway capacity to serve the needs of the SE is the issue. LGW is an integral part of this debate.
A new runway at LHR will mean expansion is no longer needed at any other south east airport for the foreseeable future. What else needs to be said?
What needs to be said is that this statement is absurd. Do you expect zero growth in London-originating demand for air travel over the next 20 years? Are you aware that LGW operates the single busiest air transport runway in the world right now?
By making LHR an easy gateway to the rest of the UK you enable foreign investment in the outlying regions
LHR is the antithesis of an easy gateway and a third runway will make it more complicated still. The best way to encourage foreign investment into the regions is to upgrade their own transport infrastructure. That £8Bn+ of public money earmarked for supporting the LHR project would be a great start. And we'd like some of the Crossrail 2 money as well, please.
It is not just about enabling the people of Yorkshire to get easier access to the world but allowing the world easier access to Yorkshire, surely you see that?
This is actually best achieved by building upon the portfolio of existing long-haul services offered by UAE, QTR, ETD, PIA, SIA, CPA, MSR, VIR, TCX, TOM, AAL, DAL, UAL, ACA, TSC, SVA & IAW from Manchester, plus UAE & UAL from NCL. The excellent portfolio of short-haul services available from LBA itself as well as from surrounding airports really help too. Surely you see that?
Shed, firstly, where did you get £40bn from?
This is the figure quoted by 'Transport for London'.
The cost is said to be less than £20bn
Some early quotes suggested this. Almost nobody is suggesting sub-20Bn for a LHR option now. It all depends upon which source you believe, from £18.5Bn at the low end to £40Bn at the upper end. Maybe we should think in terms of the average of the forecasts?
Only around £6bn will be needed from the taxpayer
TfL says £20Bn. Whilst their forecast is the highest out there, £6Bn no longer appears credible.
what makes you think that the non UK owners of a private airport are interested in using money financed to expand their business in any other area?
I have never suggested this nor given you any reason to suppose anything of the sort ...
You seem to think Ferrovial & co will be saving the NHS if they are not expanding LHR
Very amusing, Mr Felixflyer. Now, can we stick to debating the points which have actually been made rather than your flights of fancy?
You do realise the airports are privately owned I take it.
Throughout this discussion I have afforded you dignity and respect in my answers to you. Please reciprocate accordingly, or you show yourself up.
The argument often used on here that LHR should not be upgraded as it doesn't work well now is like saying a new car park should not be built in the town centre as their is nowhere to park your car.
Is the new town centre car park forecast to cost somewhere between £20Bn and £40Bn?
The Heathrow bashers love to knock the place
There is a world of difference between calling out an absurd proposed price-tag for providing a one-third capacity upgrade and being a "Heathrow basher".
Both proposals relating to LHR under consideration by the Davies Commission concern a full-length intercontinental-capable runway.
I really do not understand why people from all over the country are so set against it.
This is because the publicly-funded portion of the associated works is put at between £8Bn and £20Bn according to which source you believe. London and the SE have enjoyed a conveyor belt of multi-billion pound mega-projects dedicated to upgrading its infrastructure over recent years. The regions still patiently await their first ONE billion pound publicly-funded infrastructure project. There are unfunded priority projects around the country which offer FAR greater value to UK PLC than spending another £8Bn+ of public money in London to boost LHR throughput by just 50%. That money cannot be allocated twice. The regions deserve their turn.
People don't want to drive and park at MAN when they could just get a taxi to their nearest regional and a quick shuttle flight down to LHR.
Seriously? Are you aware of the geographical distances between the main centres of population in the North? Have you seen typical taxi-fares? BTW, MAG has just built another 9,000 space car park rather close to my place. It is full. It seems that many people do want to drive and park at MAN. For those who don't, MAN offers excellent rail, tram, coach and bus links.
The case for R3 is irrefutable
Not when you see the proposed price-tag.
The Gatwick issue is a separate one
The provision of runway capacity to serve the needs of the SE is the issue. LGW is an integral part of this debate.
A new runway at LHR will mean expansion is no longer needed at any other south east airport for the foreseeable future. What else needs to be said?
What needs to be said is that this statement is absurd. Do you expect zero growth in London-originating demand for air travel over the next 20 years? Are you aware that LGW operates the single busiest air transport runway in the world right now?
By making LHR an easy gateway to the rest of the UK you enable foreign investment in the outlying regions
LHR is the antithesis of an easy gateway and a third runway will make it more complicated still. The best way to encourage foreign investment into the regions is to upgrade their own transport infrastructure. That £8Bn+ of public money earmarked for supporting the LHR project would be a great start. And we'd like some of the Crossrail 2 money as well, please.
It is not just about enabling the people of Yorkshire to get easier access to the world but allowing the world easier access to Yorkshire, surely you see that?
This is actually best achieved by building upon the portfolio of existing long-haul services offered by UAE, QTR, ETD, PIA, SIA, CPA, MSR, VIR, TCX, TOM, AAL, DAL, UAL, ACA, TSC, SVA & IAW from Manchester, plus UAE & UAL from NCL. The excellent portfolio of short-haul services available from LBA itself as well as from surrounding airports really help too. Surely you see that?
Shed, firstly, where did you get £40bn from?
This is the figure quoted by 'Transport for London'.
The cost is said to be less than £20bn
Some early quotes suggested this. Almost nobody is suggesting sub-20Bn for a LHR option now. It all depends upon which source you believe, from £18.5Bn at the low end to £40Bn at the upper end. Maybe we should think in terms of the average of the forecasts?
Only around £6bn will be needed from the taxpayer
TfL says £20Bn. Whilst their forecast is the highest out there, £6Bn no longer appears credible.
what makes you think that the non UK owners of a private airport are interested in using money financed to expand their business in any other area?
I have never suggested this nor given you any reason to suppose anything of the sort ...
You seem to think Ferrovial & co will be saving the NHS if they are not expanding LHR
Very amusing, Mr Felixflyer. Now, can we stick to debating the points which have actually been made rather than your flights of fancy?
You do realise the airports are privately owned I take it.
Throughout this discussion I have afforded you dignity and respect in my answers to you. Please reciprocate accordingly, or you show yourself up.
The argument often used on here that LHR should not be upgraded as it doesn't work well now is like saying a new car park should not be built in the town centre as their is nowhere to park your car.
Is the new town centre car park forecast to cost somewhere between £20Bn and £40Bn?
The Heathrow bashers love to knock the place
There is a world of difference between calling out an absurd proposed price-tag for providing a one-third capacity upgrade and being a "Heathrow basher".
Ok, we are just going round in circles here.
Being a Yorkshireman I have no issues with the funding of projects in the north. I am also not blind to the fact that London is our capital city and money spent there has a knock on effect throughout the country. I know how unpopular that mindset is to my friends up north but it is the truth.
Having a station in the airport is fine if you live near a station that is on the same line. Having to get a train to Leeds and change to then travel to Manchester and check in for a 6am flight is another matter. Your argument about parking makes no sense as at the moment people have no other choice.
Ask people in Leeds/Bradford/York and further north if they would rather drive to Manchester or get a 40 minute flight from LBA and I think most would go for the LBA option. I used to do the LBA to LHR flight weekly and there were many people going onto connecting flights. The conversations I overheard were almost always in favour of the service and the flights that having good access to LHR opened up.
Where capacity is there then that's fine but that will not be the case for many destinations. There is a lot to be said for less but larger aircraft serving the needs of a larger geographical area both in business and environmental terms.
Some of that traffic could be moved back to LHR thus relieving the situation at Gatwick. That is not the case in reverse. To be fair I am not concerned about the growth in Low cost or package holiday flights as this is a thread about Heathrow expansion.
The only cost that matters is the cost to the taxpayer. Tfl would say £20bn as the infrastructure in the area is in dire need of investment as it is, frankly that figure is absurd. The Northern link into and out of LHR is a joke and requires upgrading with or without a new runway. To do so as part of a major redevelopment of the area, largely funded by private investment would give much greater value for money and achieve a far better end result than patching up the A4. Especially if we then end up building the third runway sometime in the future and redesigning the whole thing.
My question was in response to you asking what else £40bn of mostly BAA's money could be spent on. A completely irrelevant question as you well know.
Yet you still try and use that very argument
If a mostly foreign owned company wants to use mostly foreign investment to upgrade the UK's premier airport and provide easier access to the whole of the UK for future business then to me that is a win win situation.
Being a Yorkshireman I have no issues with the funding of projects in the north. I am also not blind to the fact that London is our capital city and money spent there has a knock on effect throughout the country. I know how unpopular that mindset is to my friends up north but it is the truth.
Seriously? Are you aware of the geographical distances between the main centres of population in the North? Have you seen typical taxi-fares? BTW, MAG has just built another 9,000 space car park rather close to my place. It is full. It seems that many people do want to drive and park at MAN. For those who don't, MAN offers excellent rail, tram, coach and bus links.
Ask people in Leeds/Bradford/York and further north if they would rather drive to Manchester or get a 40 minute flight from LBA and I think most would go for the LBA option. I used to do the LBA to LHR flight weekly and there were many people going onto connecting flights. The conversations I overheard were almost always in favour of the service and the flights that having good access to LHR opened up.
This is actually best achieved by building upon the portfolio of existing long-haul services offered by UAE, QTR, ETD, PIA, SIA, CPA, MSR, VIR, TCX, TOM, AAL, DAL, UAL, ACA, TSC, SVA & IAW from Manchester, plus UAE & UAL from NCL. The excellent portfolio of short-haul services available from LBA itself as well as from surrounding airports really help too. Surely you see that?
What needs to be said is that this statement is absurd. Do you expect zero growth in London-originating demand for air travel over the next 20 years? Are you aware that LGW operates the single busiest air transport runway in the world right now?
The only cost that matters is the cost to the taxpayer. Tfl would say £20bn as the infrastructure in the area is in dire need of investment as it is, frankly that figure is absurd. The Northern link into and out of LHR is a joke and requires upgrading with or without a new runway. To do so as part of a major redevelopment of the area, largely funded by private investment would give much greater value for money and achieve a far better end result than patching up the A4. Especially if we then end up building the third runway sometime in the future and redesigning the whole thing.
Throughout this discussion I have afforded you dignity and respect in my answers to you. Please reciprocate accordingly, or you show yourself up.
Is the new town centre car park forecast to cost somewhere between £20Bn and £40Bn?
There is a world of difference between calling out an absurd proposed price-tag for providing a one-third capacity upgrade and being a "Heathrow basher
If a mostly foreign owned company wants to use mostly foreign investment to upgrade the UK's premier airport and provide easier access to the whole of the UK for future business then to me that is a win win situation.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The argument often used on here that LHR should not be upgraded as it doesn't work well now is like saying a new car park should not be built in the town centre as their is nowhere to park your car.
The Heathrow bashers love to knock the place and it was a victim of it's own success and suffered from 1960's short sighted design but it now has 2 new world class terminals and is going through a complete transformation.
I last used Heathrow in 2004, and while I accept a lot of work has happened since then, I've known too many pepole stranded for many hours by BA in particular because long haul is more important - must keep those imports figures of meal sales in the transit lounge up! - to attempt to use it again. It will be interesting to see, if the IAG purchase of Aer Lingus goes ahead whether EI will be "encouraged" to adopt the same policy. Going east, it's Amsterdam, Frankfurt or the Gulf - going west I'll connect at the US end.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Circles For Felixflyer ...
London is our capital city and money spent there has a knock on effect throughout the country
Money spent in the regions also has a knock on effect throughout the country. And we deliver better returns on investment than the SE as well [note the recent MAG proposals to rebuild terminals with capacity of 25mppa+ on a budget of £1Bn - and yes, that's privately funded BTW]. It is interesting that many resident in the SE appear to forget that we in the regions pay taxes to the very same exchequer at exactly the same rates you do. Enhanced prosperity in the regions driven by direct regional infrastructure upgrades benefits UK PLC too.
I know how unpopular that mindset is to my friends up north but it is the truth.
Ditto my reply to my friends in the SE.
Having a station in the airport is fine if you live near a station that is on the same line.
Manchester Airport Station is now one of the best connected airport railway stations in the country. Amongst the services offered are York via Leeds; Cleethorpes via Sheffield and Doncaster; Glasgow and Edinburgh; Windermere Lake District; Barrow-in-Furness; Liverpool; Southport; Crewe; Blackpool North. Services will be added along the Calder Valley line via Rochdale, Halifax and Bradford upon completion of the Ordsall Chord. A very large number of interim stations are directly connected to MAN without need for a change of train using the services listed above. Most routes are served hourly or two-hourly at the point of origin. Closer stations enjoy high-frequency service. Anyone who is not conveniently placed for one of these is unlikely to be well placed for the LBA-LHR Shuttle either.
Your argument about parking makes no sense as at the moment people have no other choice.
You mean apart from the trains, trams, coaches and buses which I specifically mentioned in my previous answer? [See posting timed at 14:19]. And taxis which I am adding now.
Ask people in Leeds/Bradford/York and further north if they would rather drive to Manchester or get a 40 minute flight from LBA and I think most would go for the LBA option
The people you reference already have this choice (BA serves LBA-LHR right now). Yet many choose MAN over this option. No doubt the reasons include the need to face a second full security check on transfer at LHR; a stressful change of terminals for many, and a double-dose of airport queues. And driving to MAN is just one of the choices available to reach that airport. They can avail themselves of the other modes of transport outlined above.
There is a lot to be said for less but larger aircraft serving the needs of a larger geographical area both in business and environmental terms.
Eco-extremists and vested interests argue this. The public demonstrates a preference for non-stop flights from their own regions, thanks. Or perhaps you'd like to promote a Soviet-style central planning model? So much better than letting the free market decide ...
To be fair I am not concerned about the growth in Low cost or package holiday flights as this is a thread about Heathrow expansion.
You may not be, but the Davies Commission is because the leisure sector is likely to be the largest source of growth for air travel demand in the SE. And how exactly do we debate LHR expansion if mention of alternative solutions is verboten? Of course, maybe that is a debate which you don't want to acknowledge.
Tfl would say £20bn as the infrastructure in the area is in dire need of investment as it is, frankly that figure is absurd
This upper figure quoted in the debate probably is too high, but likewise the lowest appears way too low. The truth will lie somewhere between the two numbers, and even £8Bn from the public purse for LHR is quite excessive.
My question was in response to you asking what else £40bn of mostly BAA's money could be spent on. A completely irrelevant question as you well know.
Do you wish to engage in serious discussion or do you prefer this slapstick pantomime nonsense? I have outlined the public-private funding split in detail in previous answers to you. Cut out the schoolyard slurs.
Yet you still try and use that very argument
Yes, because the cost of the LHR proposals forms the basis of my objection to them. Is that not clear to you?
If a mostly foreign owned company wants to use mostly foreign investment to upgrade the UK's premier airport and provide easier access to the whole of the UK for future business then to me that is a win win situation.
But if somewhere between £8Bn and £20Bn is required from public funds then it isn't. That is the problem here.
Money spent in the regions also has a knock on effect throughout the country. And we deliver better returns on investment than the SE as well [note the recent MAG proposals to rebuild terminals with capacity of 25mppa+ on a budget of £1Bn - and yes, that's privately funded BTW]. It is interesting that many resident in the SE appear to forget that we in the regions pay taxes to the very same exchequer at exactly the same rates you do. Enhanced prosperity in the regions driven by direct regional infrastructure upgrades benefits UK PLC too.
I know how unpopular that mindset is to my friends up north but it is the truth.
Ditto my reply to my friends in the SE.
Having a station in the airport is fine if you live near a station that is on the same line.
Manchester Airport Station is now one of the best connected airport railway stations in the country. Amongst the services offered are York via Leeds; Cleethorpes via Sheffield and Doncaster; Glasgow and Edinburgh; Windermere Lake District; Barrow-in-Furness; Liverpool; Southport; Crewe; Blackpool North. Services will be added along the Calder Valley line via Rochdale, Halifax and Bradford upon completion of the Ordsall Chord. A very large number of interim stations are directly connected to MAN without need for a change of train using the services listed above. Most routes are served hourly or two-hourly at the point of origin. Closer stations enjoy high-frequency service. Anyone who is not conveniently placed for one of these is unlikely to be well placed for the LBA-LHR Shuttle either.
Your argument about parking makes no sense as at the moment people have no other choice.
You mean apart from the trains, trams, coaches and buses which I specifically mentioned in my previous answer? [See posting timed at 14:19]. And taxis which I am adding now.
Ask people in Leeds/Bradford/York and further north if they would rather drive to Manchester or get a 40 minute flight from LBA and I think most would go for the LBA option
The people you reference already have this choice (BA serves LBA-LHR right now). Yet many choose MAN over this option. No doubt the reasons include the need to face a second full security check on transfer at LHR; a stressful change of terminals for many, and a double-dose of airport queues. And driving to MAN is just one of the choices available to reach that airport. They can avail themselves of the other modes of transport outlined above.
There is a lot to be said for less but larger aircraft serving the needs of a larger geographical area both in business and environmental terms.
Eco-extremists and vested interests argue this. The public demonstrates a preference for non-stop flights from their own regions, thanks. Or perhaps you'd like to promote a Soviet-style central planning model? So much better than letting the free market decide ...
To be fair I am not concerned about the growth in Low cost or package holiday flights as this is a thread about Heathrow expansion.
You may not be, but the Davies Commission is because the leisure sector is likely to be the largest source of growth for air travel demand in the SE. And how exactly do we debate LHR expansion if mention of alternative solutions is verboten? Of course, maybe that is a debate which you don't want to acknowledge.
Tfl would say £20bn as the infrastructure in the area is in dire need of investment as it is, frankly that figure is absurd
This upper figure quoted in the debate probably is too high, but likewise the lowest appears way too low. The truth will lie somewhere between the two numbers, and even £8Bn from the public purse for LHR is quite excessive.
My question was in response to you asking what else £40bn of mostly BAA's money could be spent on. A completely irrelevant question as you well know.
Do you wish to engage in serious discussion or do you prefer this slapstick pantomime nonsense? I have outlined the public-private funding split in detail in previous answers to you. Cut out the schoolyard slurs.
Yet you still try and use that very argument
Yes, because the cost of the LHR proposals forms the basis of my objection to them. Is that not clear to you?
If a mostly foreign owned company wants to use mostly foreign investment to upgrade the UK's premier airport and provide easier access to the whole of the UK for future business then to me that is a win win situation.
But if somewhere between £8Bn and £20Bn is required from public funds then it isn't. That is the problem here.
Do you wish to engage in serious discussion or do you prefer this slapstick pantomime nonsense? I have outlined the public-private funding split in detail in previous answers to you. Cut out the schoolyard slurs
Do you honestly suggest that upto £40Bn should be spent at LHR to spare a small minority of passengers an occasional one-hour transfer aboard a luxury coach? Have you stopped to consider just how much money forty thousand million pounds actually is and how it could be otherwise used for the benefit of the UK?
Now you are talking about the £8-20bn from the taxpayer so we are getting somewhere. I still think the figure will be nearer the bottom end and cannot possibly be near £20bn unless TfL are taking the opportunity to lump in other needed projects too. We do however as taxpayers need to know there will be value for money and a benefit to the whole of the UK.
There is obviously a need to narrow down that figure and find out what is being spent where. Research suggests that the benefits to the UK from LHR expansion would more than pay for the cost paid by the taxpayer. If this is true then the case is strong. The problem is getting someone to do detailed projections without the whole scheme being used as a political football.
Your obviously a Manchester airport enthusiast so you will never want any expansion in the south that would threaten MAN but the very fact it would threaten it, and that the likes of LBA are all for it pretty much shows that the reasoning behind it is valid and that it could be a success. I have no affinity to any airport and nor do I have any bias against northern or southern spending as long as there is a sound business case.
You may not be, but the Davies Commission is because the leisure sector is likely to be the largest source of growth for air travel demand in the SE. And how exactly do we debate LHR expansion if mention of alternative solutions is verboten? Of course, maybe that is a debate which you don't want to acknowledge
Putting more med flights on from Gatwick, Lydd or Luton is for another thread. The only way it is tied to LHR expansion is that the need may be less should the new runway go ahead.
I think I have made my point clear now feel I have repeated myself too much so will sit back and read others comments now.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Felixflyer ...
Well, Mr Felixflyer, I gave you all the rope I could, but it seems that you are determined to hang yourself. So be it.
Now you are talking about the £8-20bn from the taxpayer so we are getting somewhere
Scroll back to post No.178 in this thread. It is my second posting in our recent exchange. The one dated 10.06.2015 at 01:46. Note that it has not been interfered with since. Now, about a quarter of the way in you will find a paragraph which begins: "The cost is ABSOLUTELY the issue". Re-read it very carefully. And lo and behold, three lines in (by my display) there they are: the exact numbers you accuse me of having belatedly introduced. Set amidst a more detailed summary of the cost parameters. It is true that I didn't repeat those numbers in every subsequent posting. Constant repetition irks other readers. But aside from that, I afforded you the courtesy of assuming that you had a memory-span exceeding that of a goldfish. Was that an error of judgment on my part?
I still think the figure will be nearer the bottom end
I still think the figure will be nearer the top end. We'll have to disagree on this.
We do however as taxpayers need to know there will be value for money and a benefit to the whole of the UK.
For once I agree with you. That is the basis of my issue with the proposed LHR costings. There is a huge 'opportunity cost' associated with allocating substantial public funds to LHR instead of compelling infrastructure priorities in the regions.
Research suggests that the benefits to the UK from LHR expansion would more than pay for the cost paid by the taxpayer.
This depends upon whose research you believe. And note the 'opportunity cost' factor highlighted above.
Your obviously a Manchester airport enthusiast so you will never want any expansion in the south
So that must explain why I have been promoting the merits of the LGW option, stating that the greater good must apply when challenged on MAG's concerns for STN, and outlining RYR & EZY fleet-strengths to illustrate why MAN should not feel threatened. By the way, if you follow the PPRuNe Manchester thread you will find that I am frequently accused of being too negative about the place. You see, I address the facts as they actually are, as opposed to how I would like them to be.
I have no affinity to any airport
Damn! I just spat Vimto all over my keyboard ...
It is not 'verboten just irrelevant. The charter stuff is not what LHR is looking for
EasyJet, by far LGW's biggest user, doesn't do charter stuff. BA, Virgin, Norwegian, Monarch ... all scheduled too. Not that there is anything wrong with charter, of course. If a flight needs to land on a runway in the SE then it is relevant. Whatever label we attach to it. Davies must consider the 'big picture overview', not just the cherry-picked morcels which support your personal agenda.
This idea that the SE just needs a new runway built somewhere is not a response to the business case BAA have for expanding LHR into a hub.
LGW has compiled a compelling business case as well. It is entirely appropriate that the Davies Commission should carefully examine all options.
Putting more med flights on from Gatwick, Lydd or Luton is for another thread
According to you. But who put you in charge of the agenda? The airports you cite are about far more than just Med flights anyway ... not that there is anything wrong with Med flights, by the way. The case for LHR cannot be meaningfully considered if we ban examination of the alternative options.
I think I have made my point clear now feel I have repeated myself too much so will sit back and read others comments now.
Fine. Well if you do return to the fray, be sure to discuss the issues and the data as I have done. No more of the pantomime stuff.
Now you are talking about the £8-20bn from the taxpayer so we are getting somewhere
Scroll back to post No.178 in this thread. It is my second posting in our recent exchange. The one dated 10.06.2015 at 01:46. Note that it has not been interfered with since. Now, about a quarter of the way in you will find a paragraph which begins: "The cost is ABSOLUTELY the issue". Re-read it very carefully. And lo and behold, three lines in (by my display) there they are: the exact numbers you accuse me of having belatedly introduced. Set amidst a more detailed summary of the cost parameters. It is true that I didn't repeat those numbers in every subsequent posting. Constant repetition irks other readers. But aside from that, I afforded you the courtesy of assuming that you had a memory-span exceeding that of a goldfish. Was that an error of judgment on my part?
I still think the figure will be nearer the bottom end
I still think the figure will be nearer the top end. We'll have to disagree on this.
We do however as taxpayers need to know there will be value for money and a benefit to the whole of the UK.
For once I agree with you. That is the basis of my issue with the proposed LHR costings. There is a huge 'opportunity cost' associated with allocating substantial public funds to LHR instead of compelling infrastructure priorities in the regions.
Research suggests that the benefits to the UK from LHR expansion would more than pay for the cost paid by the taxpayer.
This depends upon whose research you believe. And note the 'opportunity cost' factor highlighted above.
Your obviously a Manchester airport enthusiast so you will never want any expansion in the south
So that must explain why I have been promoting the merits of the LGW option, stating that the greater good must apply when challenged on MAG's concerns for STN, and outlining RYR & EZY fleet-strengths to illustrate why MAN should not feel threatened. By the way, if you follow the PPRuNe Manchester thread you will find that I am frequently accused of being too negative about the place. You see, I address the facts as they actually are, as opposed to how I would like them to be.
I have no affinity to any airport
Damn! I just spat Vimto all over my keyboard ...
It is not 'verboten just irrelevant. The charter stuff is not what LHR is looking for
EasyJet, by far LGW's biggest user, doesn't do charter stuff. BA, Virgin, Norwegian, Monarch ... all scheduled too. Not that there is anything wrong with charter, of course. If a flight needs to land on a runway in the SE then it is relevant. Whatever label we attach to it. Davies must consider the 'big picture overview', not just the cherry-picked morcels which support your personal agenda.
This idea that the SE just needs a new runway built somewhere is not a response to the business case BAA have for expanding LHR into a hub.
LGW has compiled a compelling business case as well. It is entirely appropriate that the Davies Commission should carefully examine all options.
Putting more med flights on from Gatwick, Lydd or Luton is for another thread
According to you. But who put you in charge of the agenda? The airports you cite are about far more than just Med flights anyway ... not that there is anything wrong with Med flights, by the way. The case for LHR cannot be meaningfully considered if we ban examination of the alternative options.
I think I have made my point clear now feel I have repeated myself too much so will sit back and read others comments now.
Fine. Well if you do return to the fray, be sure to discuss the issues and the data as I have done. No more of the pantomime stuff.
I still think the figure will be nearer the bottom end
I still think the figure will be nearer the top end. We'll have to disagree on this.
We do however as taxpayers need to know there will be value for money and a benefit to the whole of the UK.
For once I agree with you. That is the basis of my issue with the proposed LHR costings. There is a huge 'opportunity cost' associated with allocating substantial public funds to LHR instead of compelling infrastructure priorities in the regions.
Research suggests that the benefits to the UK from LHR expansion would more than pay for the cost paid by the taxpayer.
This depends upon whose research you believe. And note the 'opportunity cost' factor highlighted above.
I still think the figure will be nearer the top end. We'll have to disagree on this.
We do however as taxpayers need to know there will be value for money and a benefit to the whole of the UK.
For once I agree with you. That is the basis of my issue with the proposed LHR costings. There is a huge 'opportunity cost' associated with allocating substantial public funds to LHR instead of compelling infrastructure priorities in the regions.
Research suggests that the benefits to the UK from LHR expansion would more than pay for the cost paid by the taxpayer.
This depends upon whose research you believe. And note the 'opportunity cost' factor highlighted above.
Are you not willing/able to use the Quote function?
It's very hard to follow your posts which don't differentiate between what you are saying and what you are responding to.
Just a suggestion.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you not willing/able to use the Quote function?
It's very hard to follow your posts which don't differentiate between what you are saying and what you are responding to.
Just a suggestion.
It's very hard to follow your posts which don't differentiate between what you are saying and what you are responding to.
Just a suggestion.
EDIT: Sorry - Those neat blue quote boxes didn't appear again. My computer doesn't like 'em!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile:
And what about us poor sods in Scotland? When flying (connecting) from LHR, trains take too long, and then dump you in the middle of London. I don't want a LoCo to LGW, STN or LTN, again due to intra-London area travelling hassle AND they'll crucify me with baggage charges!
If our "main" flight is from LHR, then practically speaking, BA is our only option. Thus in fact it's not an "option" as such, there's no real choice. Most of my trips are within Europe or USA-bound, so EK doesn't come in to it. Even to Europe, KLM from GLA often includes an overnight at AMS before connecting!
A third runway at LHR is already years (decades?) late!
.
Last edited by seafire6b; 12th Jun 2015 at 10:36. Reason: detail
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off-Topic
Yes - apologies for the blue quote box thing. If any Apple users here have got these to work since the upgrade to OSX 10.10.2 Yosemite, please PM me a step-by-step guide of what you did. 'Blue Quote Boxes For Dummies'-style! Thanks.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No offence guys but it isn't about Manchester, or Scotland or any of the other UK regions (lovely though many of them are) - it's about the needs of the massive Business/Leisure/Connecting air travel market that is driven by the South East economic powerhouse and the world mega-city that is London.
Honestly good luck with the job of developing more of your own direct or "alternative hub" links - but that is a sideshow by comparison.
Honestly good luck with the job of developing more of your own direct or "alternative hub" links - but that is a sideshow by comparison.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No offence Itchin, but I spent literally decades based at LHR and living in the surrounding areas. Accordingly, I'm more than familiar with the local woes, geography and all the historical decision-making delays, finally leading us to where we are today.
Good inter-flight connectivity, and combined with excellent surface links, are obviously major factors towards the success of any airport.
My example of GLA could equally apply to a host of other UK feeder points. Indeed, you said, "...Business/Leisure/Connecting air travel...".
Yes, that's right, you said connecting - or are you now retracting that bit?
Hence my previous remark,
.
Good inter-flight connectivity, and combined with excellent surface links, are obviously major factors towards the success of any airport.
My example of GLA could equally apply to a host of other UK feeder points. Indeed, you said, "...Business/Leisure/Connecting air travel...".
Yes, that's right, you said connecting - or are you now retracting that bit?
Hence my previous remark,
A third runway at LHR is already years (decades?) late!
Last edited by seafire6b; 12th Jun 2015 at 18:46.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seafire
I absolutely agree with you, the debate currently should be about a fifth runway at Heathrow not a third, that is how far things have slipped relative to the competing European hubs.
I knew using the word connectivity could produce that reaction - what I mean is that connectivity over Heathrow has, and will, remain strong despite increasing direct services from the regions (which I fully support). This is because the growth in travel demand is "many to many" so at any point in time there will always be many marginal "route-pairings" which are not strong enough to support direct services other than from a single hub. That single hub will be the place with the highest locally originating demand - which will inevitably (ok nearly always) be London because it is far and away the biggest local market.
Re your connection issues ex GLA my perception (comparing say to Edinburgh) is that Glasgow is predominantly a leisure based market which may explain the shortage of decent alternative hub connections.
I absolutely agree with you, the debate currently should be about a fifth runway at Heathrow not a third, that is how far things have slipped relative to the competing European hubs.
I knew using the word connectivity could produce that reaction - what I mean is that connectivity over Heathrow has, and will, remain strong despite increasing direct services from the regions (which I fully support). This is because the growth in travel demand is "many to many" so at any point in time there will always be many marginal "route-pairings" which are not strong enough to support direct services other than from a single hub. That single hub will be the place with the highest locally originating demand - which will inevitably (ok nearly always) be London because it is far and away the biggest local market.
Re your connection issues ex GLA my perception (comparing say to Edinburgh) is that Glasgow is predominantly a leisure based market which may explain the shortage of decent alternative hub connections.
Last edited by Itchin McCrevis; 12th Jun 2015 at 22:00.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Itchin
Absolutely and totally agreed ...
.. albeit whilst recollecting lengthy political discussions in the late 1960's, regarding a brand new "DFW-size & style" London Airport, with proposed siting at Wing (yes, true - near Leighton Buzzard). Or Cublington - or Shoeburyness - or Foulness. Those places were all listed as possible locations during the debates at the time.
However, being politicians, it was of course eventually decided that the best decision was no decision...
Yet meanwhile, at DFW, CDG, DXB ... and so on, and so forth. Across the globe - except London.
Regarding EDI & GLA (tho' now off-thread), the M8 connects those cities, a distance of aprx. 50 miles. So a new airport, just 25 miles from each ...? No, that'll never happen! (In fact, I believe such was actually proposed about 60 or more years ago, but in what was the foggiest part of Scotland!)
With respect to expanding regional hubs, I'd say that's down to the regions, but some investment funding from HMG would be required.
Although more domestic connectivity to/from LHR would always be welcome.
.
That single hub .... will inevitably be London because it is far and away the biggest local market.
..... albeit whilst recollecting lengthy political discussions in the late 1960's, regarding a brand new "DFW-size & style" London Airport, with proposed siting at Wing (yes, true - near Leighton Buzzard). Or Cublington - or Shoeburyness - or Foulness. Those places were all listed as possible locations during the debates at the time.
However, being politicians, it was of course eventually decided that the best decision was no decision...
Yet meanwhile, at DFW, CDG, DXB ... and so on, and so forth. Across the globe - except London.
Regarding EDI & GLA (tho' now off-thread), the M8 connects those cities, a distance of aprx. 50 miles. So a new airport, just 25 miles from each ...? No, that'll never happen! (In fact, I believe such was actually proposed about 60 or more years ago, but in what was the foggiest part of Scotland!)
With respect to expanding regional hubs, I'd say that's down to the regions, but some investment funding from HMG would be required.
Although more domestic connectivity to/from LHR would always be welcome..
Last edited by seafire6b; 13th Jun 2015 at 07:53.
Paxing All Over The World
Slight thread drift...
On Friday evening, I was delivering a colleague to T3 on his way home to MEL and we talked about the LHR problem and he said:
SYD has exactly the same problem. The city grew up around the airport and no politician wants to be the one to say which houses must go or which green field site must be chosen for a desperately needed new airport.
Same old, same old.
On Friday evening, I was delivering a colleague to T3 on his way home to MEL and we talked about the LHR problem and he said:
SYD has exactly the same problem. The city grew up around the airport and no politician wants to be the one to say which houses must go or which green field site must be chosen for a desperately needed new airport.
Same old, same old.
Last edited by PAXboy; 13th Jun 2015 at 12:24.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironic isn't it. Supporters of MAN saying an additional runway isn't needed in the south east as there are airports with capacity elsewhere in the country...the very same argument they dismissed as unworkable at the inquiry into R2.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANDYH52 -
Your posting has me intrigued. I can't recall anybody, "supporter of MAN" or otherwise, who has argued the point of view suggested in your posting. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I decided to check back through the thread since its inception to see who you might be referring to. The thread is only around 11 pages in length so the exercise didn't take too long. Aside from myself, I found five other contributors who appear to post from the Manchester area.
EX CARGO CLOWN (Manchester) has contributed a one line posting which addresses an issue wholly unrelated to the argument you raise.
SUZEMAN (MCT) has contributed a posting concerning the display of messages on the thread.
MANFOD (Cheshire) has participated in the discussions. Having re-read his posts, I cannot find any suggestion from him which resonates with your allegation.
BASILBUSH (Manchester) - I invite Basil to correct me if I am misrepresenting him, but reading his posts gives the impression that he is very much in the pro-LHR expansion camp. His postings clearly don't match your description.
BAGSO (UK) - As you see, BAGSO lists his location as 'UK'. However, I'm going to make an educated guess that he is posting from a location in the NW, as his input suggests an affiliation with Manchester. But again, having carefully re-read all his contributions on this thread, I cannot find any message from him which argues the point of view which you suggest. Like myself, he clearly objects to the cost of the LHR proposals (or more specifically, the taxpayer involvement in funding associated works). However, in one posting he actually states that he doesn't oppose LHR expansion on operational grounds. Nowhere has he written that regional airports should operate as the solution for SE-originating passenger demand.
Which just leaves myself:
SHED-ON-A-POLE (Manchester) - Having posted quite prolifically over recent days, I suggest that my views are probably quite clear to most regular readers. However, let me summarise. I oppose LHR R3 on the grounds of COST (but without any operational objection). I specifically object to a forecast taxpayer contribution of £8Bn - £20Bn (dependent on source), money which I argue could be much better deployed directly in the regions which lag the SE by an enormous margin in public infrastructure financing.
Early in the debate I was challenged by another poster (Skipness, IIRC) who suggested that I saw MAN as an alternative to expanding LHR. You may find it enlightening to read post No.56 on this thread which dates from 24.04.2015. That is my reply, in which I make clear that whilst MAN can play an enhanced role in functioning as an intercontinental gateway for those located in or visiting the North, it can in no way serve as an alternative to SE-originating demand. More recently 'Felixflyer' challenged me specifically about journey options for travellers originating in Yorkshire. Again, I made the case that MAN is a decent option for these people, but also highlighted alternatives including the LBA-LHR Shuttle and KLM from LBA, HUY and MME to AMS.
At no stage have I argued that additional capacity isn't required in the SE. On the contrary, I have supported the case for LGW with the proviso that it is privately funded and does not drain the public purse. Further, if you read my postings to Felixflyer, you will find that I've argued that the SE does need to plan for accommodating further growth, especially from the leisure sector which LGW is well placed to address.
So, in summary ANDYH52, I cannot find ANY "Supporter of MAN" (whatever that actually means?) making the argument you allege. It is true that regional airports do have spare capacity, and it is true that they can mobilise this to better serve their own catchment areas. But can you point us to where anybody has argued that no new runway is needed in the SE specifically because regional airports can instead cater for demand originating in the SE?
I look forward to you substantiating your claim for us. Otherwise, you should consider posting an apology. Thanks.
EX CARGO CLOWN (Manchester) has contributed a one line posting which addresses an issue wholly unrelated to the argument you raise.
SUZEMAN (MCT) has contributed a posting concerning the display of messages on the thread.
MANFOD (Cheshire) has participated in the discussions. Having re-read his posts, I cannot find any suggestion from him which resonates with your allegation.
BASILBUSH (Manchester) - I invite Basil to correct me if I am misrepresenting him, but reading his posts gives the impression that he is very much in the pro-LHR expansion camp. His postings clearly don't match your description.
BAGSO (UK) - As you see, BAGSO lists his location as 'UK'. However, I'm going to make an educated guess that he is posting from a location in the NW, as his input suggests an affiliation with Manchester. But again, having carefully re-read all his contributions on this thread, I cannot find any message from him which argues the point of view which you suggest. Like myself, he clearly objects to the cost of the LHR proposals (or more specifically, the taxpayer involvement in funding associated works). However, in one posting he actually states that he doesn't oppose LHR expansion on operational grounds. Nowhere has he written that regional airports should operate as the solution for SE-originating passenger demand.
Which just leaves myself:
SHED-ON-A-POLE (Manchester) - Having posted quite prolifically over recent days, I suggest that my views are probably quite clear to most regular readers. However, let me summarise. I oppose LHR R3 on the grounds of COST (but without any operational objection). I specifically object to a forecast taxpayer contribution of £8Bn - £20Bn (dependent on source), money which I argue could be much better deployed directly in the regions which lag the SE by an enormous margin in public infrastructure financing.
Early in the debate I was challenged by another poster (Skipness, IIRC) who suggested that I saw MAN as an alternative to expanding LHR. You may find it enlightening to read post No.56 on this thread which dates from 24.04.2015. That is my reply, in which I make clear that whilst MAN can play an enhanced role in functioning as an intercontinental gateway for those located in or visiting the North, it can in no way serve as an alternative to SE-originating demand. More recently 'Felixflyer' challenged me specifically about journey options for travellers originating in Yorkshire. Again, I made the case that MAN is a decent option for these people, but also highlighted alternatives including the LBA-LHR Shuttle and KLM from LBA, HUY and MME to AMS.
At no stage have I argued that additional capacity isn't required in the SE. On the contrary, I have supported the case for LGW with the proviso that it is privately funded and does not drain the public purse. Further, if you read my postings to Felixflyer, you will find that I've argued that the SE does need to plan for accommodating further growth, especially from the leisure sector which LGW is well placed to address.
So, in summary ANDYH52, I cannot find ANY "Supporter of MAN" (whatever that actually means?) making the argument you allege. It is true that regional airports do have spare capacity, and it is true that they can mobilise this to better serve their own catchment areas. But can you point us to where anybody has argued that no new runway is needed in the SE specifically because regional airports can instead cater for demand originating in the SE?
I look forward to you substantiating your claim for us. Otherwise, you should consider posting an apology. Thanks.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed
I take my hat off to you that you have the time on your hand to go back and review the multitude of posts on this thread. Your're quite right, no one has explicitly said this is about using capacity in the regions instead of Heathrow, but I'm sorry that is how it comes across to me (here and the debate on the Manchester thread that preceded creation of this one). Call it the elephant in the room.
The assertion that your objection to Heathrow expansion is purely down to cost just seems a bit hollow. One minute it's the cost. The next it's the potential need for public subsidy. Then there is apparently "zero desire" for northern passengers to route via Heathrow anyway. Have you canvassed them all? Please don't deign to speak on my behalf, as a passenger from the north who is quite prepared to travel via Heathrow to get to my final destination and who would be delighted to have the opportunity to start that journey from my local airport.
Then in various posts you seem quite in favour of public subsidy for infrastructure projects provided it's in the north (well Manchester, anyway). IF the expansion of Heathrow costs the estimated £16.9 billion, and IF it requires £2.9 billion of public investment, that equates to around £5.80 of private investment for every £1 of public. Compare that to Manchester's much awaited £1 billion expansion which is being underpinned by £0.5 billion of publicly funded roadworks (the A556 and A6 improvement schemes), £160m or so towards the Metrolink extension, new rolling stock for the train services to MAN and who knows how much a HS2 station might cost. That's getting on for £1 billion which equates to £1 for £1 leverage. Not exactly earth shattering stuff, although any investment in our infrastructure is much needed and much welcomed.
i think part of the challenge in this debate is understanding just how much complex infrastructure projects cost these days. I was reading a report in work this last week that put the benchmark cost of constructing 1 (one) kilometre of single bore tunnel for HS2 at £31,000,000. Whilst not on the scale of an HS2 tunnel you can't overlook the fact that the Heathrow proposals involve miles of tunnelling to link the new terminal and satellites into the central area. And on top of that you have TFL levying £35 a square metre Community Infrastructure Levy charge. The costs soon add up.
I take my hat off to you that you have the time on your hand to go back and review the multitude of posts on this thread. Your're quite right, no one has explicitly said this is about using capacity in the regions instead of Heathrow, but I'm sorry that is how it comes across to me (here and the debate on the Manchester thread that preceded creation of this one). Call it the elephant in the room.
The assertion that your objection to Heathrow expansion is purely down to cost just seems a bit hollow. One minute it's the cost. The next it's the potential need for public subsidy. Then there is apparently "zero desire" for northern passengers to route via Heathrow anyway. Have you canvassed them all? Please don't deign to speak on my behalf, as a passenger from the north who is quite prepared to travel via Heathrow to get to my final destination and who would be delighted to have the opportunity to start that journey from my local airport.
Then in various posts you seem quite in favour of public subsidy for infrastructure projects provided it's in the north (well Manchester, anyway). IF the expansion of Heathrow costs the estimated £16.9 billion, and IF it requires £2.9 billion of public investment, that equates to around £5.80 of private investment for every £1 of public. Compare that to Manchester's much awaited £1 billion expansion which is being underpinned by £0.5 billion of publicly funded roadworks (the A556 and A6 improvement schemes), £160m or so towards the Metrolink extension, new rolling stock for the train services to MAN and who knows how much a HS2 station might cost. That's getting on for £1 billion which equates to £1 for £1 leverage. Not exactly earth shattering stuff, although any investment in our infrastructure is much needed and much welcomed.
i think part of the challenge in this debate is understanding just how much complex infrastructure projects cost these days. I was reading a report in work this last week that put the benchmark cost of constructing 1 (one) kilometre of single bore tunnel for HS2 at £31,000,000. Whilst not on the scale of an HS2 tunnel you can't overlook the fact that the Heathrow proposals involve miles of tunnelling to link the new terminal and satellites into the central area. And on top of that you have TFL levying £35 a square metre Community Infrastructure Levy charge. The costs soon add up.