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 7th Jul 2015, 14:56
  #401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,043
Still, all hail the ME3 eh?
I see you are at it again Skip, introducing something that Bagso never mentioned. Neither did he refer to MAN for that matter. It seemed to me he was raising a perfectly reasonable question as to the implications for BA if R3 goes ahead and Easyjet get a strong foothold at LHR.

And before you accuse me of all sorts of things, personally I hope links between MAN and LHR are maintained, be it by BA or whichever, as it gives passengers another choice. (I'm as sceptical of the threats to withdraw existing connections from UK regionals as part of the LHR propaganda if R3 doesn't go ahead as I am of some of the government promises about infrastructure investment in the North to re-balance the UK economy.

For going East long haul, I wouldn't consider LHR, but my wife and I did fly BA to the west coast of America a couple of years ago using the shuttle.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2015, 20:36
  #402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
bagso hang on I thought sir H's job was to choose a location for a runway, not hint hint nudge nudge the politicians towards particular financing paths.
probably got his impending rbs job on his mind...
portmanteau is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2015, 22:19
  #403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 249
Classic PPRuNe! It's amusing and frustrating in equal measure.

So an independent review has sifted through the evidence, weighed up the complex issues and considered the greater good to recommend a course of action that generates more jobs and nation-wide economic benefits yet the debate on PPRuNe has debased to a mono-dimensional view of the aviation business. Ahhhh, the luxury of idealistic, imaginary worlds...

...Build it where I want it. I've no evidence on which to base the business case but don't worry, just build it and they'll come...

I haven't yet read all the supporting technical documents, but I get an overwhelming sense this is a solid review and the authors should be applauded.

I accept their advice that in the absence of additional capacity at LHR, other European hubs will benefit rather than other UK airports. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise when you see inter-continental airlines only wanting to operate from the UK hub (as Vietnam Airlines recently decided) and UK trade is highly dependent on connectivity of LHR. I can appreciate these are inconvenient truths for those "up north" so perhaps one of you could present a viable business case that will generate >£200bn in trade and over 70k jobs by using capacity "up there".

As a non-Brit, I'm amazed at the obsession with fairness and balance at the expense of common-sense. I see substantial evidence in favour of LHR expansion, little in favour of LGW & none in favour of anywhere else.

I come back to an earlier comment I made - Leadership requires courage - and add that national interest should always outweigh parochialism.

Sorry. Rant over.
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2015, 01:55
  #404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,915
Exactly, fdf for Mayor - let there be some common sense!
Thank you for the kind comment, indie cent!

Somewhat ironically, as Frank so aptly illustrated, the third runway allows for respite. Coupled with steep(-er) approaches and the next gen 787, 350 320neo and 777X the low noise contours would be worth the enormous economic benefit - Trying to explain this to the local political groups is another matter though!
Not as much respite as 4 rwys, of course.

The NIMBYs donít want to hear it, it undermines their already very weak case. They would rather have fuel wasted and pollution/extra noise unnecessarily created by aircraft queuing up to take off and stacking up to land.



EZY have identified what I "think" was 50 routes they would potentially start out of LHR. There were listed at the runwaysUK debate Monday.

That would impact on LGW dramatically, LTN, etc would it not, why would you duplicate , would they really operate from all bases ?

Would it also impact where they would cherry pick juicy routes jeopardising the much vaunted BA connections, does that not then undermine the whole ethos of connectivity ex LHR ?
In its evidence to the Commission in support of LHR rwy expansion, U2 mentioned basing 30 aircraft at LHR.

Why would it do this? Probably to grab some of the business from the very rich catchment area west of London - probably the same reason that BE floated the idea of a base at NHT.

Yes, some U2 routes would overlap existing BA routes, so what? Price wars may be welcomed by pax, who can say?

Donít understand how or why U2 at LHR undermines connectivity at LHR, please explain.

U2 will either enter into through ticketing agreements with some longhaul carriers/alliance or leave pax to self-connect.

Just because U2 isnít doing it now doesnít mean it could not happen in future.



fdf

NHT ? Are you smoking the same substance as the politicians
Only asking? Hey man, is it good weed?

Unless airlines want to fly from somewhere, there's no point expanding the facilities. Think Mirabel, Stansted and the empty airports in Spain. It's not simply a need for a runway, it needs to be supported by a commercially effective group of operators using the facilities, any serious legacy long haul operator chooses LHR and ignores Gatwick, alliance members tend to pick additional services into alliance hubs, Garuda being the exception as they fly (recycled) fresh air between LGW-AMS-CGK, except on weekends....
AMS provides sufficient numbers of premium/business pax and adequate onward connections for GA, so it can live with an LGW add-on.

If access to LHR-4 became available, would expect GA to be in there like a "ferret down a drainpipe", just like VN recently, and that would probably mean the viability of non-stop flights.


This golden nugget does not appear in the final report, at least I could not find it, but does appear in the

Business case and sustainability assessment: Heathrow Airport north west runway

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...n-final-report

This forms an appendix to the Final Report.

I wonder how many Labour and SNP MPs have read this ?

4.37
From the Commissionís market soundings, based on the range of sensitivities presented at consultation, the scheme is considered to be financeable in a situation where all of the surface access costs are borne by the scheme promoter,

Splendid News, water tight, ringfenced and certainly allays a concern that I and few others had misgivings over re surface costs!

but wait what's this

......however the Government may decide, for instance in a situation where the risks noted above increase, to contribute funding to some or all of the surface access requirements, and a commitment to do so may provide investors with a level of assurance and so reduce the price they place on the risks discussed.

Does this mean that in effect if things start going "belly up" the taxpayer picks up the tab in order to protect HALS investment or have I read that the wrong way ?
Donít get too hung up on surface access costs. Much of this infrastructure investment will be necessary sooner or later, whether thereís a third rwy or not.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2015, 08:47
  #405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
Originally Posted by indie cent View Post
Somewhat ironically, as Frank so aptly illustrated, the third runway allows for respite. Coupled with steep(-er) approaches and the next gen 787, 350 320neo and 777X the low noise contours would be worth the enormous economic benefit - Trying to explain this to the local political groups is another matter though!
I'm not sure where the irony part comes from, but the basis for the opposition from local and campaign groups is that alternation respite with R3 is halved compared to currently, from 50% of the time to 25%. It's not rocket science.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2015, 10:07
  #406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Having read the report in full I have to say it is a solid piece of work and the commission should be congratulated on it.

There is no doubt that building an extra runway at LHR would result in a number of current services moving from LGW to LHR, having said that I still think that building an extra runway at LGW would be prudent if it can find the funding to do so, the report points out that extra capacity at LHR will only create a temporary ease in LGW demand.

easyJet will not depart en mass from LGW & Norwegian would not be able to move its long haul operation to LHR because even an expanded LHR would not be able to handle its LGW to Europe flights many of which offer long haul connections.

The choices open to the Government are fairly limited to 1) do nothing....2) go against the recommendations and approve LGW 3) approve LHR R3. The politics favour option 2, I think all now recognise that doing nothing is not an option and hasn't been for the past decade.

Labour have already said they will support the Government on LHR R3, they would love to see Boris, Zac & Greening resign, but these are all safe Conservative seats, Zac will have to stand down anyway if he wins the London Mayoral roll, Greening is getting very used to jetting around the world anyway and Boris will damage his own standing should he spit his dummy out on this one.

George Osbourne and the business secretary are very pro R3, there maybe some hints in todays budget
Facelookbovvered is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 00:28
  #407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,915
Having read the report in full I have to say it is a solid piece of work and the commission should be congratulated on it.

There is no doubt that building an extra runway at LHR would result in a number of current services moving from LGW to LHR, having said that I still think that building an extra runway at LGW would be prudent if it can find the funding to do so, the report points out that extra capacity at LHR will only create a temporary ease in LGW demand.
Yes, there will be relief at LGW for a while and building another rwy there will become neccessary at some point. It is likely, however, that LGW management would not take on the expense of a second rwy till long after a third LHR rwy is up and running.


easyJet will not depart en mass from LGW & Norwegian would not be able to move its long haul operation to LHR because even an expanded LHR would not be able to handle its LGW to Europe flights many of which offer long haul connections.
No it won't, LGW is U2's biggest base. However its expansion plans would include LHR as a base (for 30 aircraft) if it has three rwys and the conditions for LHR operations therefore change.


The choices open to the Government are fairly limited to 1) do nothing....2) go against the recommendations and approve LGW 3) approve LHR R3. The politics favour option 2, I think all now recognise that doing nothing is not an option and hasn't been for the past decade.
Diagree, it is already looking like (1) will prevail.

They've already kicked Davis into the long grass: a decision by the end of the year when it should be made very early in the Parliament (as all "difficult" decisions should be).

Labour have already said they will support the Government on LHR R3, they would love to see Boris, Zac & Greening resign, but these are all safe Conservative seats, Zac will have to stand down anyway if he wins the London Mayoral roll, Greening is getting very used to jetting around the world anyway and Boris will damage his own standing should he spit his dummy out on this one.
Boris won't resign his seat, he's just got it!

Zac might, but will he stand again as a Conservative on the single issue like David Davis did a few years ago.

Or he may resign and stand again as a Independent anti-Heathrow expansion candidate (but that means no prospect of the mayoralty).

Or he may resign if adopted as Tory candidate for mayor and time it accordingly.

Or he may do nothing.

Greening won't resign for the reasons you mention and the fact that it would be the end of her time in politics, as her profile is much lower than the other two.

George Osbourne and the business secretary are very pro R3, there maybe some hints in todays budget
There was sort of:


"The RAF’s Group Fighter Command Centre in West London was the place where the Battle of Britain was directed from – and it badly needs repair.

I want to thank the new Member, my Honourable Friend for Uxbridge, for bringing to my attention the dilapidated state of his campaign bunker.

Let its renovation stand as a monument to the heroes of the Battle of Britain and the days when aeroplanes flew freely over the skies of west London."
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 07:28
  #408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,259
One of the biggest pro-R3 hints from the government was at exactly this moment, when chancellor Osborne said this and the cameras were by now on Boris (due to him having been mentioned two sentences earlier - and I bet Osborne had his eye on the cameraman to ensure he had swung to have him in shot), that there was a huge laugh and snicker from all his Conservative colleagues sat around, all at his expense.

Regarding prospects for The Girlie, Justine Greening, former anti-R3 Secretary for Transport for about five minutes once, if you recall, you may have noticed that there she was, best dress on, desperately squished up against her ministerial colleagues on the front bench to try and get into peripheral camera shot when it was on Osborne. No, she's not going to give up all that for any principle. And Putney, which she represents, is not under the R3 approach at all.
WHBM is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 10:18
  #409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
And Putney, which she represents, is not under the R3 approach at all.
Putney's issue with R3 NW is that it would result in 27L being used for landings 75% of the time.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 11:14
  #410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 72
Posts: 242
Don't despair yet FDF. There are several substantive issues which the Commission has correctly left for Government such as

How does Govt want to see the surface access costs financed?

How does Govt intend to meet its local air quality legal requirements?

How does Govt see the implications for the total carbon budget?

How do the airport and airlines see the closure to 0600 proposal? Is that going to be an acceptable part of the deal which Govt will broker?

Quite apart from the little local political difficulties these are not questions which can be answered overnight and a few months to determine them is reasonable. If the decision slips beyond end 2015, then it's in trouble.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 12:58
  #411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 76
Posts: 119
Heathrow - our national icon!

You should have seen it 50 years ago, Failed_Scopie, congestion, chaos, noise, poor surface links, blah, blah, blah, and that was with six runways, albeit smaller ones. The poor old UK is incapable of making strategic decisions about anything - there are just too many obstacles to overcome, or a precious earthworm or sparrow or two to protect. Yet everybody wants to fly. We must just accept that the Europeans generally do airports better, except CDG, of course!
Mr Oleo Strut is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 15:34
  #412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 40
Posts: 4,312
DRUK,

Putney's issue with R3 NW is that it would result in 27L being used for landings 75% of the time.
Only if one makes some basic assumptions. One could devise scenarios to ensure more equitable respite.
Gonzo is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 16:03
  #413 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 134
The outer marker for the new runway 09 would be on the roof of Eton College chapel. Can't see it hapening
Rivet gun is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 16:17
  #414 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
Only if one makes some basic assumptions. One could devise scenarios to ensure more equitable respite.
No assumptions made, well not by me.

The 75% derives from HAL's published 3-runway operating pattern, the stated aim of which is to provide "respite distributed on as equitable a basis as possible".

http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati...ptions_LHR.pdf (Page 19)

I'd be interested to see examples of the alternative alternation(!) schemas that you refer to.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 16:27
  #415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 105
Why isn't the decision being handled by the Greater London Authority? Does the U.K. government make the same type decisions for all the regional airports such as Manchester?
PastTense is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 17:01
  #416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
The outer marker for the new runway 09 would be on the roof of Eton College chapel.
A bit more up-market than the old 28L OM (in the days when they existed). That was in the corner of the Mogden sewage works.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 17:43
  #417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Reading around I think they'll nail LHR3 on the pollution argument -

The report really ducks the issue - but the Courts won't.....
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 18:35
  #418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 40
Posts: 4,312
The modes are pretty straightforward, it's the proportion of time on each mode that one could vary.
Gonzo is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 20:03
  #419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
it's the proportion of time on each mode that one could vary
Yes, but wouldn't that compromise the "equitable respite distribution" principle ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 21:13
  #420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 249
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
Reading around I think they'll nail LHR3 on the pollution argument -

The report really ducks the issue - but the Courts won't.....
I don't see how. The worst location for emissions is up on the M4 near J4 and there's more traffic going passed it to the businesses north of the M4 than down to LHR. It queues there back to J4B. Can't blame the airport for that.

Last edited by Trash 'n' Navs; 9th Jul 2015 at 21:16. Reason: Got the Junctions mixed up...
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.