Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

Another runway at Heathrow

Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Another runway at Heathrow

Old 18th Jun 2015, 00:25
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.. 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.
Those sites were all for a potential "THIRD London airport", not a replacement for Heathrow and/or Gatwick, as was the case with Boris Fantasy Island. At the time, the best site for a "third London airport" was not even considered: on open land that was, and still is, available north of Heathrow.

Eventually the role of "third London airport" went to Stansted, a site that was already an airport, although most would have considered that Luton was the the "third London airport" at that time (early 1970s).

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.
Turned out to be the worst decision, but they never learned, and still haven't learned.


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.
Always welcome and desperately needed: not all non-London UK airports have the variety and choice of services available at Ringway.

Investment from the government for transport infrastructure is also always welcome and also desperately needed, so why is it an issue in relation to Heathrow, but not, say, in relation to Ringway?



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.
Indeed it does, its equivelant of "open land available north of Heathrow" is Botany Bay, i.e. more reclamation. Knocking down Mascot is not an option.

Apparently a site for another airport has been ear-marked way out in the western suburbs........
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2015, 08:06
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Andy H52

Yes tunnelling is very very expensive, especially if critical facilities are on top of it!!

The LGW plans require no public access tunnels just a few minor under tax way tunnels for ramp traffic, little more than a culvert with a top on. The A23 which currently goes under the airport to the west of the rail link will be moved in an arc back towards the M23 with all long stay car parks served from it and a new airport link to the M23 at the current site of J9.

Lets see what the Davis commission has to say, it will be either LGW or LHR not a regional airport for sure
LNIDA is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2015, 09:57
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 76
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just for the record, the four short-listed sites by the Roskill Commission were : Cublington (same as Wing) ; Thurleigh (near Bedford) ; Nuthampsted (not far from Stansted) and Foulness.

The subsequent history was not an encouraging precedent!
anothertyke is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2015, 10:12
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks anothertyke, I'd forgotten that Cublington and Wing were of course one and the same. Likewise the "Roskill Commission" name had also slipped my mind. Although I'm sure Shoeburyness was also banded around - alas, the mists of time!
seafire6b is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2015, 15:41
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reply to AndyH52

AndyH52 writes:

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.

So let's be completely clear here. NOBODY has put forward the argument you claim. Which was the point of my earlier reply to you. But you would rather cling to your notion of what you would have preferred us to have said rather than what we actually did say. I follow the Manchester threads very closely, and I cannot recall anybody making the argument you allege on there either. I'm afraid the only elephant in evidence here is the giant one in your own imagination.

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

If you find my concerns regarding cost "hollow", that is a problem related to your own interpretation of the facts. It is perfectly valid to object to the costing proposals attached to LHR R3, and I do. I realise that it would make life far simpler for you if I were to adopt the ridiculous argument which you'd like me to make (that MAN can be a solution for SE-originating growth in pax demand), but I can't entertain you with such nonsense. If you want to debate me, you must do so at the level of the arguments I present, not on silly notions which you would love me to argue but which I never will.

By the way, there are no grounds for confusion concerning my stance on the costs issue. My earlier postings make it abundantly clear to any reader that I object to the publicly-funded proportion of the overall proposed cost attached to LHR R3.


as a passenger from the north who is quite prepared to travel via Heathrow

It is a free market. Each to their own. Good luck to you. I hope your domestic connection doesn't get cancelled. Enjoy the tedious double security-screening experience. And the stressful terminal transfer if your onward flight doesn't happen to operate from T5.

you seem quite in favour of public subsidy for infrastructure projects provided it's in the north (well Manchester, anyway)

Yet another example of what you would like me to have argued for rather than what I ever actually have. I have very clearly argued for a levelling-out of public-funding for infrastructure initiatives across all regions. London and the SE have enjoyed a conveyor belt of multi-billion pound infrastructure investments over recent years; the regions still patiently await their first 1Bn+ initiative. I have no objection to the concept of public investment in infrastructure - actually, quite the contrary - but the time has come for the regions to play catch-up for a while before the SE gets yet another sequential turn tapping national resources. By the way, any reader here is free to check back that I've argued for regional investment generally. I have NEVER argued on behalf of Manchester in isolation. I realise that it would suit your personal agenda very nicely if I had actually done that, but this is yet one more example of you wanting to debate me on what you would like me to have argued for rather than for what I ever have argued for.

IF the expansion of Heathrow costs the estimated 16.9 billion, and IF it requires 2.9 billion of public investment

Going for the low-balled estimates to strengthen your case, I see. I could just as easily go for the highest (from TfL). But as I said to Felixflyer, the true cost will likely fall somewhere between the extremes. However, that 2.9Bn public investment figure is a new one. Estimates ranging from 8Bn to 20Bn are the numbers on the table.

new rolling stock for the train services to MAN

Are you referring to the ageing cascaded former-Thameslinks Class 319's? A big improvement on the Pacers they replace, but not new. And minimal interior refurbishment, too.

any investment in our infrastructure is much needed and much welcomed

Well I agree with that sentence at least. However, have you noticed that all regional infrastructure initiatives start with that pesky letter 'M'? Nobody is arguing that the regions are getting no public investment whatsoever, simply that they are falling woefully short of their rightful share. As for the 'Northern Hub' initiative, rail professionals point out that this is a series of loosely-connected essential upgrades required to stop the Northern rail network from grinding to a halt, dressed-up as a single major innovation for PR value. It encompasses the entire North of England and still comes in at sub-1Bn.

i think part of the challenge in this debate is understanding just how much complex infrastructure projects cost these days

And that is why it is not "hollow" for me to object to LHR R3 on the grounds of cost. Specifically the publicly-funded portion thereof. Long overdue alternative investments in regional infrastructure priorities offer much better ROI to the taxpayer than yet more initiatives in the SE in the medium-term. Let the SE digest its latest super-innovations (Crossrail, re-invented Thameslink, East End (Olympics-related) renovation, HS1, Underground mega-upgrades etc) for a while and give the regions their long-overdue turn with the public largesse.

If you do return to the discussion AndyH52, please debate us on the arguments which have been made. Not those "how it came across to me" imaginings, or ridiculous claims which you like to attribute to us but which nobody has actually argued. And an apology for your original accusation against what you call "Manchester supporters" would still be much appreciated.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2015, 16:08
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And a brief response to Fairdealfrank

Investment from the government for transport infrastructure is also always welcome and also desperately needed, so why is it an issue in relation to Heathrow, but not, say, in relation to Ringway?

The issue here is two-fold. Firstly, the scale of the projected public-funding requirement relating to LHR R3 in absolute terms. And secondly, the fact that ALL recent large-scale [1Bn+] public-investment in infrastructure initiatives has gone exclusively to projects located in London and the SE. There are a number of compelling infrastructure priorities in the regions which deserve their own bite of public funding before the SE feasts yet again on national resources.

Incidentally, the type of projects I'm referring to are the recently-proposed HS3, a transpennine motorway linking Sheffield with cities west of the Pennines, and a complete replacement for Liverpool Lime Street Station with its massively-congested Victorian bottleneck approaches. Other regions put forward similar compelling projects, though I'll let people more familiar with those regions outline their own priorities. BTW, I'm not aware of any move from MAN to request large-scale public-funding from the exchequer at this time. The proposals for the terminals redevelopment project call for private-sector financing.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2015, 20:09
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 74
Posts: 1,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MidlandDeltic

NO, because Paris & the other continental hubs have never been of any importance to C.I. travellers. Mostly, we do not have a service to any of them & Paris, the only one which has had a service over the years, has never had more than 2 SH360s (for a short while - the rest of the time it was a DH8 once a day).
kcockayne is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2015, 15:51
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yeah - the CI isn't really a "global financial hub" - it's the place where people from the City could live/work and stay to close to home without paying their share of the taxes........................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2015, 19:12
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 74
Posts: 1,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HH

Nice line in humour, but the local population is not entirely made up of city bankers !
kcockayne is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2015, 20:23
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 53
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you want to debate me, you must do so at the level of the arguments I present, not on silly notions which you would love me to argue but which I never will
I'll make you a deal Shed. You stop being so patronising and I'll happily have a debate with you - after all decisions of such national significance don't happen too often. What I won't do is apologise for trying to understand and interpret the underlying rationale behind some of the arguments made by you and others over the expansion of Heathrow. Trying to 'read between the lines' is part of my day job, but if it keeps you happy I'll try to refrain from doing so and stick to the literal text.

Having said that, my feelings on the matter (which you are so dismissive of) are formed in part by observing some of the 'outrage' expressed when the Airports Commission decided that Manchester wasn't the answer to the problem it had decided it was looking to solve (which I grant you isn't necessarily the problem they were originally asked to look in to), and the subsequent assertions that public funds shouldn't be spent facilitating south east airport expansion but be spent in the North (which does in the current wider narrative increasingly mean Greater Manchester). It may be a case of adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 but it's a reasonable assumption to make.

By the way, there are no grounds for confusion concerning my stance on the costs issue. My earlier postings make it abundantly clear to any reader that I object to the publicly-funded proportion of the overall proposed cost attached to LHR R3.
For the avoidance of doubt, can you clarify what figure you understand the confirmed level of public funding in the project to be - and your source? Also, do you have a view on what would be a 'fair' price to pay to expand Heathrow?

It is a free market. Each to their own. Good luck to you. I hope your domestic connection doesn't get cancelled. Enjoy the tedious double security-screening experience. And the stressful terminal transfer if your onward flight doesn't happen to operate from T5
Presumably, at some point in the past, you've had a poor experience at LHR? You may be reassured to know that the 2013 CAA passenger survey recorded an 87% satisfaction rate with LHR, and Heathrow was voted 3rd best airport in Europe and 8th in the world in the 2014 Skytrax awards. So thankfully most passengers don't seem to suffer the experience you did.

Long overdue alternative investments in regional infrastructure priorities offer much better ROI to the taxpayer than yet more initiatives in the SE in the medium-term
Sadly Shed this isn't the case and never will be until DfT is persuaded to change the way it measures Benefit Cost Ratio (their version of ROI). It's basically why other areas of the country always fall to the back of the queue - the appraisal system is stacked against them.

By the way, in terms of your issue around quotes, if you insert "quote" at the start of the text you want to quote and "/quote" at the end (but swap the "" for [ ]) it should show up with the blue box (I had to use " " as using [ ] makes the quote function work!)

Last edited by AndyH52; 19th Jun 2015 at 20:31. Reason: Trying to be helpful over quotes...
AndyH52 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2015, 00:21
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The LGW plans require no public access tunnels just a few minor under tax way tunnels for ramp traffic, little more than a culvert with a top on.
.....which will be privately financed by the airport.


The A23 which currently goes under the airport to the west of the rail link will be moved in an arc back towards the M23 with all long stay car parks served from it and a new airport link to the M23 at the current site of J9.
This will be publicly funded won't it, just like the M25 at Heathrow.



The issue here is two-fold. Firstly, the scale of the projected public-funding requirement relating to LHR R3 in absolute terms. And secondly, the fact that ALL recent large-scale [1Bn+] public-investment in infrastructure initiatives has gone exclusively to projects located in London and the SE. There are a number of compelling infrastructure priorities in the regions which deserve their own bite of public funding before the SE feasts yet again on national resources.
Obviously public funding would be involved in surface access infrastructure improvements and many are happening/have happened before any decisions on the rwy have been made.

And clearly the scale of the investment is larger now than it would have been had the rwy(s) been built in the 1970s (for example, back then there was no M25).

As you should know, dithering and indecision comes with a price, not just infrastructure costs but also the endless reviews, studies and commissions over the intervening 40 years.



Incidentally, the type of projects I'm referring to are the recently-proposed HS3, a transpennine motorway linking Sheffield with cities west of the Pennines, and a complete replacement for Liverpool Lime Street Station with its massively-congested Victorian bottleneck approaches. Other regions put forward similar compelling projects, though I'll let people more familiar with those regions outline their own priorities. BTW, I'm not aware of any move from MAN to request large-scale public-funding from the exchequer at this time. The proposals for the terminals redevelopment project call for private-sector financing.
All the above are also needed and needed ASAP.

It's not either/or.

Actually it looks like its "neither/nor" to the above AND to more rwys at Heathrow.



Presumably, at some point in the past, you've had a poor experience at LHR? You may be reassured to know that the 2013 CAA passenger survey recorded an 87% satisfaction rate with LHR, and Heathrow was voted 3rd best airport in Europe and 8th in the world in the 2014 Skytrax awards. So thankfully most passengers don't seem to suffer the experience you did.
LHR-5 has also been getting "best terminal" awards year after year.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2015, 07:20
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If an MP says the cost is X you can triple it and
add 10% !

One other thing is troubling me.

There seems to be a lot of jostling from the back.

Who exactly is going to operate this tsunami of domestic connectivity ?

Heathrow plc clearly want it - the airport operator.

A number of domestic points - airport's again !

But which airline are we talking about ?
ie those who will actually be providing the service ?

Presumably we want BA to invest in a speculative fleet of short haul aircraft for Teesside, Humberside Etc ? Where incidently they can go head to head with a F70 3 times a day to Schipol

Or maybe a dozen new A320s just to increase frequency to MAN EDI GLA Etc to every 30 mins ?

Maybe somebody will follow the Virgin Red formula which inexplicably failed based on "lack of frequency "......

Or what about Flybe who were costed out of LGW as at today's prices....not 10 years hence!

Answers on a postcard !
Bagso is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2015, 19:34
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If an MP says the cost is X you can triple it and
add 10% !
Depends on the time scale, but basicly sound comment even if it's a slight exageration (to make the point?).


One other thing is troubling me.

There seems to be a lot of jostling from the back.

Who exactly is going to operate this tsunami of domestic connectivity ?

Heathrow plc clearly want it - the airport operator.


A number of domestic points - airport's again !
The airport's management want it, carriers want it, pax want it. It would not be an issue otherwise.

But which airline are we talking about ?
ie those who will actually be providing the service ?
U2 have mentioned the possibility of operating domestic (and overseas) flights to/from LHR with a third rwy, both taking on BA on the trunk routes but also mentioned some thinner routes (incuding INV and LPL if memory serves).

BE (see below as well) also comes to mind, it has raised the possibility of operating some thin domestic routes to/from NHT in the absence of LHR access. A network of that nature would almost certainly work at LHR.

BD regional may return, and there could of course be others, who can say?

With a third rwy the eye-watering costs of acquiring slots goes away and new carriers would be allocated 50% of the new slots. Thus LHR potentially opens up to a plethora of smaller carriers.


Presumably we want BA to invest in a speculative fleet of short haul aircraft for Teesside, Humberside Etc ? Where incidently they can go head to head with a F70 3 times a day to Schipol
Would not expect to see BA on thin domestic routes (obviously) it doesn't have suitable aircraft.

Or maybe a dozen new A320s just to increase frequency to MAN EDI GLA Etc to every 30 mins ?
Now that's just silly!

Maybe somebody will follow the Virgin Red formula which inexplicably failed based on "lack of frequency "......
No, lessons would be learned, but bear in mind that with a third rwy, conditions would be very different.

Or what about Flybe who were costed out of LGW as at today's prices....not 10 years hence!
Big difference between LHR and LGW:
(1) at LHR there is an ability to feed longhaul flights (and plenty of them), for example, maybe BE could feed BA and other Oneworld, and BD regional doing the same for Star;
(2) access to many more pax including premium business pax;
(3) many many more potential connecting pax to make thin routes viable.

This is not really possible at LGW, or where it is, it will be on a much smaller scale.

Answers on a postcard !
Hope this helps and that you like the postcard of the third rwy.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 14:10
  #234 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,013
Received 44 Likes on 36 Posts
Fairdealfrank
With a third rwy the eye-watering costs of acquiring slots goes away and new carriers would be allocated 50% of the new slots. Thus LHR potentially opens up to a plethora of smaller carriers.
I don't think entirely so. There would doubtless be some political deal in the early years but you would see differential costs for the main runways and lower for the 4rd 9as it woul dbe for short haul.

But, having established a lucrative market - I can't see it going away altogether.
PAXboy is online now  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 17:28
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Answers on a postcard !
Keep beating the drum bagso, the only winners will be Paris and Frankfurt.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 21:39
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Keep beating the drum bagso, the only winners will be Paris and Frankfurt.
Too late Skippy, too late. They've won. A decision should have been made decades ago and it wasn't. And I don't hold out much hope that anything will happen this time round either; at least not for many years due to all sorts of legal challenges even if the politicians actually decide what they want to do this time round.
Suzeman is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2015, 02:03
  #237 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,013
Received 44 Likes on 36 Posts
Suzeman
Too late Skippy, too late. They've won.
That's the first time in a VERY long time that I've seen another posting agreeing with me. Thanks Suzeman, I've been saying it's too loate for ten years.

I predict that the Davies Commissison will have been <insert word of your choice> and they will choose LGW2. Even if they chose LHR3, it would only be of limited use for the reasons I have stated so many times.
PAXboy is online now  
Old 22nd Jun 2015, 11:52
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah Skip glad you are still with us.

My remarks seemed plausible as BA would simply see there market share diminished, so little enthusiasm in that area.

Flybe mentioned Northolt so they seem lukewarm as well do they not ?

As Suzeman etc have pointed totally academic .....

Last edited by Bagso; 23rd Jun 2015 at 13:18.
Bagso is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2015, 22:51
  #239 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,013
Received 44 Likes on 36 Posts
Tessa Jowell's support of Heathrow expansion means she can't win London Mayor contest, say opponents - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
PAXboy is online now  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 08:56
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes tunnelling is very very expensive, especially if critical facilities are on top of it!!

The LGW plans require no public access tunnels just a few minor under tax way tunnels for ramp traffic, little more than a culvert with a top on. The A23 which currently goes under the airport to the west of the rail link will be moved in an arc back towards the M23 with all long stay car parks served from it and a new airport link to the M23 at the current site of J9.
From the plans I have seen I very much doubt they will be talking about a bored tunnel using TBM's The ground around the north and west of the airport is actually pretty vacant despite what people would have you believe. The tunnelling works outside the airport would involve diverting a section of the A4 underground and then creating a covered section of the M25. Both of these would likely use the cut and cover method. within the airport there would probably be at least 6 bored tunnels using TBMs but these would be paid for privately.


Lets not also forget that Ferrovial is also one of the worlds leading tunnelling contractors and just built the tunnels for a major part of Crossrail amongst others.

Last edited by felixflyer; 24th Jun 2015 at 09:11.
felixflyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.