Another runway at Heathrow

[kcockayne]

HH & Bagso

Seems like it's not just me who thinks that a EGLL to 'JJ service would be viable. EZY have just announced that they would operate it if a 3rd. Runway is built !
Good news, but maybe only "flying a kite" in the anticipation that the R/W will never be built.
It might just be possible that your apparent views on the profitability of such a service are wrong !

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by daz211

I don't understand why the government can't just say give LHR. LGW and STN a new runway.

There wouldn't have been any point in Davies recommending that, which is why he didn't (or one of the reasons, at least).

None of the aforementioned airports would take the commercial risk of building a new runway if the possibility existed that their competitor(s) could too. Both Heathrow and Gatwick made that clear in their evidence to the Commission. Granted, they would argue that even it it wasn't true. But it is.

[Walnut]

The one condition that can never be met is the total curfew between 2330 and 0600
At the moment there are shed loads of arrivals after 0430 until 0600.
These flights all originate in the Far East or OZ mainly and leave curfew restricted a/p at the end of their days operations, so there is no give there.
So where are they to go LGW maybe? I don't think LGW has any restrictions.?
Bizarre really

[felixflyer]

The answer is not to expand Heathrow, it's to expand West Midlands or Birmingham and run more trains to/from London.

Everywhere else it's ' Not in my back yard'. Here on PPRuNe it's 'Please build an airport in my back yard'.

Lets just leave the nations main airport exactly where it is shall we.

[crewmeal]

If this was DXB they would have planned built and operated a new airport in the South East away from Central London in the time it's taken to put this report together. The Chinese would have built a mono type railway to serve it as they have done in Shanghai. How many millions have been spent on this report and the time wasted putting it together? And still the sceptics will fight the recommendation.

So 2029 is the start up date and no doubt cost billions more than estimated. All this has played into AMS CDG FRA hubs and LHR will soon slide down the league table of busiest airports.

LGW should get its second runway regardless of what LHR is doing.

[Heathrow Harry]

DXB was a total desert until 1975.................. and even there they are building a new airport away from the city centre

anyway Dave has kicked the decision of for another 6 months - and this is 5 hours after the announcement -

odds on he'll require "more studies" in Decemeber?????

[Barling Magna]

Don't they teach them how to make decisions at Eton......?

[rutankrd]

Code:

The one condition that can never be met is the total curfew between 2330 and 0600 At the moment there are shed loads of arrivals after 0430 until 0600.

18 available but only 14 used on any typical day - Hardly shed loads and NIL departures.

Today 4 are for Hong Kong ( not curfewed) through would mean a departure of around 1 am local - Some flight to Europe already leave around this including those to Manchester and Milan.

3 from Singapore including the daily BA Sydney flight - This would need to revert to a lunch time UK departure and mid afternoon arrival ala QF9/10 again doable.

Within the timeframe there is one US arrival either Boston or Chicago depending on season - This can easily be rescheduled.

Kuala lumpur has two arrivals at the moment - These again could be moved to day flights and who knows how long the MAS flight has left anyway.

The remaining are a West African and Middle East service easily moved.

Really the other end curfews are something of a red herring.

[crewmeal]

Have the Govt made a decision about HS2 yet or are they still dithering about that or are we waiting for another 3 year 3000 page report?

[AndyH52]

Originally Posted by crewmeal

Have the Govt made a decision about HS2 yet or are they still dithering about that or are we waiting for another 3 year 3000 page report?

Hybrid Bill has passed the Second Reading stage in the House of Commons and is currently in the Petition stage...

[AndyH52]

Originally Posted by Bagso

And sunk before the day is even out....

David Cameron 'will not break promise' on opposing new Heathrow runway, sources claim - Telegraph

"Sources here....Sources there, my God, there is sauce everywhere !

'Stop the presses!' Government briefs media on impending news item shock! I'm not quite sure why you were so indignant about the BBC reporting the very same rumours that appeared in a number of papers at the weekend.

In terms of this being sunk, the very same Daily Torygraph has been reporting that Ministers, including the Sec of State for Transport, appear to have been laying the groundwork for a U turn by DC. Let's not forget that this is a PM who can take politically difficult decisions as he isn't seeking re-election in 5 yrs...

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Walnut

The one condition that can never be met is the total curfew between 2330 and 0600

That's just a recommendation of the Commission, they don't have any power to impose conditions.

Originally Posted by rutankrd

18 available but only 14 used on any typical day

Not quite. That's true during the summer, but after the clocks go back daily quota usage goes up to around 18, making use of spare quota carried over from the summer season.

[Heathrow Harry]

Zak thingy was on radio 4 at lunchtime and he confirmed he'll trigger a by-election if they go ahead with LHR R3

[HOODED]

How exactly is Zak thingy going to trigger a by election? Will he actually resign his seat....that's why LHR doesn't already have a 3rd runway. Most politicians don't want to risk their jobs just to do the right thing for the country. Good for him if he feels that strongly about keeping UK PLC restrained. 12 majority and all, let's hope Dave has the courage to do the right thing on this occasion. Sadly I doubt it.

[GW76]

interesting that GIP owned EDI announce they are 'disappointed' that its LHR over LGW !

[Bagso]

EDI
..that is odd as they were 100% behind LHR at the Manchester hearing. Lord knows why they have an interest with shuttles every hour.

My God how many do we actually need ?

[HOODED]

They needn't worry LGW will probably get the nod from the government anyway. Politically much less hassle. That's if a runway does actually get built at all....

[pax britanica]

What a joke of a country we are-we have the mayor of the capital saying he is totally against the expansion of the capitals biggest transport asset (in international terms) but then Boris and his friends probably just use EGLF and avoid the hoi poloi.

LHR is a huge global hub, LGW will never be. If LGW is expanded its just more and more Easy Jet and all the additional long haul growth much of which has a big transit element will just leach away to CDG AMS etc.
So we get left with two second rate airports and no way of interconnecting them to provide a single hub airport

People like Boris and Zak are absolute scum for trying to force their own narrow interests ahead of the national interest and are probably in the frame for some 'consultancy fees' from the Gatwick bid anyway.

Welcome to Uk-sorry no trains today its too hot, sorry about the 45 minutes in the Lambourne hold, sorry you have got to take a train to connect as your onward flight goes from Gatwick and the train fare is £100 in 2025 money but we really are the best place to do business , honest.

PB

[eggc]

I'd very much dispute it's in the national interest, unless "national" now means London.

Birmingham has just invested 200m and is under utilised.

There is capacity at Stansted.

Manchester has 40% spare capacity, has just invested £800m in Airport City and £1bn announced not so long ago on a major terminal development to increase capacity still further.

The in the "national interest" line does not wash with many, it's not, it's in London's and BA's interest....stuff the rest !

I'm not interested in a national willy waving competition "ohhh we have the biggest hub" blah blah blah, many could not careless AMS / CDG / FRA / DXB / IST are bigger, they care about the regions, having direct services from the regions without being forced a few hundered miles through London.

Without doubt, despite the nonsense LHR spout about the spread of benefits across the nation, an expanded LHR will damage development at regional airports and enhance the gap yet further between the SE and the rest of the country.


Not seen reaction yet from Manchester, but here is Birmingham Airport CEO Paul Kehoe's reaction:

“Over the past three years the Airports Commission has explored numerous options for resolving the South-East congestion, and we are incredibly grateful to all those in the region who have supported our case for a network of airports.
“Given the significant levels of growth we have seen at Birmingham Airport within this period, especially in long-haul routes, we urge the Government to move ahead with caution so as not to damage the ability of regional airports to grow.
“The Midlands is a powerful engine of growth at the heart of our country and needs direct aviation to succeed. With our £200 million investment in the Airport, including our runway extension allowing for this summer’s extended series of direct flights to Beijing, we are doing all we can to support the region’s businesses and leisure passengers.
“Whilst the Government continues to review all the evidence before it, Birmingham Airport looks forward to continuing the expansion of our long-haul offering in support of the region’s economy”.

Paul Faulkner, CEO of Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce, has also responded to the decision by the Commission:
“Businesses tell us they want to be able to fly directly to their markets and not have to go through West London. We know the Government needs to deal with congestion in the South East, but we urge Ministers to move ahead in a way that does not restrict Birmingham’s own room to grow".
Over the course of the past three years, Birmingham Airport has presented the Airports Commission with evidence of the role that Government marketing, road and rail investment and changes to taxation can play in making best use of existing UK runway capacity.
The Airports Commission has been provided with evidence of how an Air Passenger Duty ‘holiday’ for new long-haul routes would bring over 90,000 new passengers to Birmingham Airport each year.
In addition, working with Capital Economics and Steer Davies Gleave, Birmingham Airport has demonstrated that, with HS2, it will be the airport with the largest one-hour catchment area in the country, with over 15 million people a short journey away and thus able to offer an alternative to passengers in London.

[AndyH52]

I'd very much dispute it's in the national interest, unless "national" now means London

.

I'm not sure how you figure it's not in the national interest? Like it or not Heathrow is our biggest aviation asset and ensuring it can connect to new and emerging markets is essential for future trade and economic growth. Regional airports just can't support those sorts of routes yet.

Birmingham has just invested 200m and is under utilised.

True, but doesn't really help solve the problem of capacity in the South East?

There is capacity at Stansted.

True again, but business travellers don't want to fly from there. Long haul has been tried umpteen times and never succeeded...

Manchester has 40% spare capacity, has just invested £800m in Airport City and £1bn announced not so long ago on a major terminal development to increase capacity still further.

Manchester does not have 40% spare capacity. Not sure where you get that from. There is a chronic shortage of apron and terminal space at peak times, and overnight there are barely a dozen spare stands. Airport City is a business and logistics park, nothing to do with airport capacity (and to be clear whilst £800m may be the quoted price tag over the development period, nothing like that has been spent yet).

The terminal redevelopment is hugely welcomed but is mainly replacing existing capacity and will only provide an extra 5 million capacity or so when it is all done in 10 years time. If MAN continues to grow in the meantime quite a bit of 5m headroom may have been taken up.

The in the "national interest" line does not wash with many, it's not, it's in London's and BA's interest....stuff the rest !

Clearly it doesn't wash with you. Please don't speak for the rest of us.

I'm not interested in a national willy waving competition "ohhh we have the biggest hub" blah blah blah, many could not careless AMS / CDG / FRA / DXB / IST are bigger, they care about the regions, having direct services from the regions without being forced a few hundered miles through London.

What exactly is the difference between routing through a mainland Europe hub or ME3 hub and Heathrow? I for one would be very glad of the option to connect via Heathrow from my local airport.

Without doubt, despite the nonsense LHR spout about the spread of benefits across the nation, an expanded LHR will damage development at regional airports and enhance the gap yet further between the SE and the rest of the country.

Not quite sure how you figure this one out. What services do you think that an expanded Heathrow would attract or deflect away from regional airports? Restricting growth at Heathrow could quite possible help reduce the gap between the SE and the rest of the UK (though 90 years of regional policy have failed in this regard so far), but by making the SE poorer.