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 28th Jun 2015, 14:39
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree entirely but I've been observing UK politicians for too long and it will be KK.
Out of interest, are you saying you think it will be what Davies recommends, or that it is what the government will decide irrespective of the Commission's findings?
MANFOD is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2015, 15:33
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
lhr or lgw

decision on wednesday. meanwhile another day another long hold-up on m25 near lhr on friday afternoon. 90 minutes to do 20 miles between juncs 9 and 15 caused by one broken-down truck. thats 13.33 mph.
must consider myself lucky its not a daily run for me. pls Sir H let it be lgw.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2015, 18:22
  #263 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 9,969
Received 28 Likes on 24 Posts
MANFOD I think Davies will say KK. I don't think the politicians will go against it. I hope I'm wrong on both counts.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2015, 21:18
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: england
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
portmanteau

So if KK gets the go ahead are you inferring that the traffic on the M25 will improve? How about all those new passengers that will not be departing from LL and having to still use the Orbital motorway to get to KK? Or will the new demand miraculously come from south of the M25?
yotty is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2015, 23:00
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yotty. things will get a hell of a sight worse on m25 if lhr gets it. you cannot rip up m25 ( up to 6 lanes each side in places) over a 2 to 3 mile stretch, realign it, widen it, tunnel it, lower it by 9 feet and build a runway/ taxiway/roads over it without massive disruption to the already overloaded motorway which will still have to find its way through/past the works for years during the reconstruction. and remember this is ripping up motorway only recently reconstructed prior to opening of T5.

london needs to develop a second major airport not just another runway to cope with the future and
lgw while not perfect is the best option. in a few years we will be saying why ever didnt we do this much earlier.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2015, 23:28
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's nothing to do with "developing a major airport" if there's no hub capacity. Why are no major legacies at Gatwick today when it had great facilities and surface access? Why was Norman Fosters new airport, "London's Third Airport" built at great expense to LHR airlines by BAA eventually gifted to Ryanair for next to nothing?

Build a big airport all you like, if it's in the wrong place it's Mirabel.
Anyone who advocates Gatwick as the solution fails to see how the 21st century aviation MARKET actually behaves.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 02:07
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 21st century aviation market is comprised of distinct segments, Skipness, and those segments behave according to their own specific patterns. Hub transfer traffic is just one of these segments. LGW's core markets are leisure and short-haul business travel, primarily serving those resident in Southern England and overseas customers visiting London. In serving these markets, LGW has already proved itself by evolving to become the busiest single-runway commercial airport in the world. That stat alone tells you that LGW is no Mirabel! And over coming decades, London and the South will require further capacity to satisfy these two growing market segments for which LGW has amply demonstrated its suitability.

The desire of some LHR advocates to focus solely on hub transfer business is akin to demanding butter but denying the need to provide bread. The market segments which represent LGW's core business are growing, and demand for them must be met somewhere. LGW is the obvious choice for that job, and barring an economic depression (entirely possible, but would impact all sectors) the airport can fill a second runway given the timeframes we are discussing in this process. Leisure travel growth may be less glamorous than hub transfer traffic, but London's airports system must accommodate it just the same.

Of course, the LGW expansion price-tag still needs to make economic sense too. That is not a given, and any (strictly limited) public funding requirement must be comprehensively scrutinised to ensure taxpayer value for money before being approved. No blank cheque must be proferred by the treasury. Any LGW redevelopment must be delivered overwhelmingly by private funding (as promised by GIP).

But to deny that there is a need to provide for growing demand from the less-glamorous O&D leisure / short-haul business sectors in which LGW specialises implies shielding one's gaze from an inconvenient truth.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 03:37
  #268 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 9,969
Received 28 Likes on 24 Posts
You are correct shed But across the last 40 years all politicians have led us to the 'one or other' choice.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 04:57
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not denying anything of the sort Shed, I am pointing out LGW are claiming they are the answer to the problem here when the key problem is hub connectivity. If you want to talk point to point growth then max out LGW and STN first where both, especially "London's third airport" have loads.

GIP's campaign of "Gatwick Obviously" that they can do what LHR cannot in the face of a business that can't make LGW work is wholly disingenuous. Please don't put words in my mouth, I know there are segments in the market, it's my day job.....

You should be aware most hub transfer traffic is leisure so quite how I am ignoring this market is not clear. You mean P2P leisure, and even that prefers LHR over LGW with good reason.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 08:13
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
skip1E: I think you and others are too focussed on the market aspect when in reality this decision is more about residents rights to a quiet life, the cost , the environment, the timescale, the destruction of homes and infrastructure and general disruption for years ahead to name just a few angles. we are not france where they have plenty of room to expand. putting another runway at CDG for instance would probably not encounter any of the above problems but to shoehorn one in and outside of lhr is just not sensible on so many levels.
give the industry another runway at lgw and the market will rapidly adjust and make the most of it. airlines and their marketing depts are remarkably good at it. meanwhile lhr can complete its extensive and long overdue overhaul which is already producing 21st century facilities.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 09:35
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anyone who advocates Gatwick as the solution fails to see how the 21st century aviation MARKET actually behaves.
I have no wish to upset you, Skipness, but if you write the line quoted above you cannot then claim:

Please don't put words in my mouth, I know there are segments in the market, it's my day job
LGW is a perfectly reasonable solution for providing much needed new capacity in the SE, and to criticise those who advocate LGW as 'failing to see how the C21st aviation market actually behaves' is really quite naughty. If you understand market segmentation as you claim - and I'm absolutely sure that you do - then you comprehend the case for LGW quite well.

LGW are claiming they are the answer to the problem here when the key problem is hub connectivity
I respectfully disagree, Skipness. The problem here is to provide a solution for London's future market growth in its entirety, not just the cherry-picked hub-transfer element. London-Tenerife punters must be accommodated by the system too. LGW can make a second runway succeed on that basis. It deserves to be considered because it can viably address the SE's capacity bottleneck by growing its own natural market segment(s), not because it can morph into a global hub interchange.

Hub transfer traffic (whether business or leisure derived) should not be the 'Holy Grail' in this process. Meeting the capacity needs of the indigenous SE market must be the priority, not providing for international passing-trade which has many alternative options.

Hub transfer traffic is a bonus, a luxury which should only be pursued if the cost of doing so makes economic sense. The cost basis for expanding LHR to this end is absolutely prohibitive (for reasons amply discussed earlier in this thread). The capacity which is truly essential is that serving indigenous demand from Southern England itself, and LGW can address that need at a far lower cost than LHR in terms of both finance and disruption.

Finally, thanks for the tips on blue quote-boxes, AndyH52. 'Preview Post' suggests it is going to work this time.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 10:56
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We need a new runway at both LHR & LGW, by the time LHR R3 is open LGW will be full!!

They address different markets with some overlap, the physical ground and layout constraints will always mean that tarmac time will be higher at LHR than LGW, less of a problem on a 9-12 hour flight than a 2-3 hour flight.

I don't think that the Government will sit on this for two long, they know they need to get all the difficult stuff cleared within a 2 year span, most people forget about what happened 3 years ago or who was to blame, Boris & Zac are problems for sure.

Politically LGW would be easier for the Government and require less public money but would not address the hub issue. The wealth in the South is biased to the South of the Thames so forget STN

There is no easy answer to the M25 and certainly no cheap one, the expansion to 5/6 lanes means there are now 5/6 lanes of stationery traffic at some time most days, it would be easier to build the runway 3m higher than sink the M25 by 3m.
LNIDA is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 12:07
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,257
Received 89 Likes on 47 Posts
Hub transfer traffic is a bonus, a luxury which should only be pursued if the cost of doing so makes economic sense.
Only partly true.

Transfer traffic at a hub might be a bonus where it improves the profitability of some routes, but it makes other routes viable that wouldn't otherwise operate at all.

Besides, as I've said before, it's quite difficult to stop people getting off one flight and onto another at a hub if it makes their journey possible/easier, short of frog-marching all arriving passengers onto the Tube or Hex.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 12:13
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 76
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We won't get both at least not simultaneously. There is no way LGW2 is fundable on the same timescale if LHR3 proceeds. The most we might get is one per decade.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 12:24
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The desire of some LHR advocates to focus solely on hub transfer business is akin to demanding butter but denying the need to provide bread. The market segments which represent LGW's core business are growing, and demand for them must be met somewhere.

Nobody is denying that Gatwick is a busy airport and would benefit from another runway. The problem is this would do nothing to change the situation at LHR.


The desire to create a hub at LHR will not be affected by allowing more P2P flights form LGW. What would be the case however is that by building a new runway at LHR the likes of BA and Virgin would bring flights back over to LHR thus freeing up capacity ant LGW and providing a possible solution to both problems.


Those who would like to see expansion at LHR are not opposed to the LGW proposals in their own right, we just don't see it as having any bearing on what was supposed to be the original plan. To turn LHR into a major hub airport. Personally I would like to see both happen but know that the politician would never have the cojones to do it.


As for the works on the M25, the section around LHR needs widening now whether the airport is expanded or not. TFL and the taxpayer WILL be paying for this regardless of what happens adjacent to it. When comparing costs only the amount over and above that paid by the taxpayer should be taken into account.
felixflyer is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 14:02
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought the original plan was to look at what was needed for the whole South East - not just to help out BA at LHR
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 15:25
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The original plan was for BAA to expand Heathrow. This was planned at a time when they owned both LHR and LGW and had the option to expand the one that made the most sense. They chose LHR.

As a result BAA own land and property to the north of the airport that has been on hold ever since.

Only later when LGW was sold to somebody else did the issue suddenly become 'Lets build a runway somewhere in the south east'
felixflyer is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 17:55
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Durham
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Heathrow Harry wrote:
I thought the original plan was to look at what was needed for the whole South East - not just to help out BA at LHR
No!... The plan is what is needed for the whole UK. Without Heathrow expanding into a better, and larger Hub Airport, connecting the regions to World markets, we will lag further behind Europe's other Hubs. If Gatwick expands, Regional connections would cease, as BA would capitalise those slots for long haul. Rail connections (being argued) are not practical from Newcastle, Glasgow, Abereden or Edinburgh. - Gatwick do not have these regional connections, and have recently lost some recently, although operated by Flybe EZY etc... (so not even true connections for seamless onward travel!)
A lot is argued from the local MPs re. Residents inconvenienced by noise, congestion etc.. Well, surely common sense would tell you if you decide to live near the World's busiest airport, it is likely to grow. Offer compensation and their tune suddenly changes!
Heathrow expansion is only option to deliver nett benefits (approx. 200bn to the economy is being reported by business community) compared to very small advantage to the country with LGW expansion)
This decision is too important for the whole of the UK, to be left with NIMBY Politicians, whose views should be treated in context with their local interest.
Gatwick would only have worked if a second large UK carrier existed in competition to BA, with worldwide alliance partners providing connectivity eg. Star Alliance - but the chance of this has long gone since BA swallowed up the competition (BUA/B Cal, Dan Air, BMi), although they were never the size to dominate a second hub, as the likes of AA, Delta & UA do in the States.
Environmentally, the M25 creates its own problems without LHR: Dartford crossing, M1 junctions, M11, M3, etc....) M25 capacity improvements are another issue, which can also be planned to accommodate improved junctions, capacity & tunnelling for an extended Heathrow.

I guess by Wednesday the arguments may move on.... (or not...)

Last edited by VentureGo; 29th Jun 2015 at 17:58. Reason: Grammar
VentureGo is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 19:37
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Suggestions in the press at the weekend that Davies will suggest LHR but leave some wriggle space for Cameron (by dint of LHR's environmental impact) to make a political decision to go for LGW as he will face a revolt in his cabinet if he plumps for LHR with about 6 members opposed.

Also suggested that a decision may not be made until after the London Mayoral elections next year...

Politics - doncha just love it!

Heathrow emerges as favourite over Gatwick for expansion but Cabinet split over new runway - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Heathrow third runway to be blocked by Tories as Gatwick emerges as favourite | Daily Mail Online
Suzeman is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 19:42
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like another 5 year enquiry will be needed...
adfly 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.