Another runway at Heathrow
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk about widening the M25 for Heathrow, but how does everyone think people will get to Gatwick?!
The section of the M23 from Gatwick-M25 is already heavily congested, then all the vehicles from the West, and North will have to.....go round the M25/ M4 and go past Heathrow, or round the east and the heavily congested Thames crossings.
The M25 round junction 9 is also a nightmare and one of the most difficult to get built in the first place.
The section of the M23 from Gatwick-M25 is already heavily congested, then all the vehicles from the West, and North will have to.....go round the M25/ M4 and go past Heathrow, or round the east and the heavily congested Thames crossings.
The M25 round junction 9 is also a nightmare and one of the most difficult to get built in the first place.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an interesting twist from today's E'nin Stannit.
Nicola Sturgeon: Decision over third Heathrow runway will be decided by SNP vote
Quote:
Nicola Sturgeon today blew the battle between Heathrow and Gatwick wide open by saying her 56 MPs at Westminster will vote for the airport that gives a better deal for Scots.
In an exclusive interview with the Standard, SNP transport spokesman Drew Hendry declared the party was “neutral” between a third runway at Heathrow and a second at Gatwick.
The SNP would decide which airport to back after hearing how each would answer Scottish demands for cheaper ticket prices and guaranteed connections with international flights.
Article continues at
Nicola Sturgeon: Decision over third Heathrow runway will be decided by SNP vote - London - News - London Evening Standard
All good spectator sport!
Nicola Sturgeon: Decision over third Heathrow runway will be decided by SNP vote
Quote:
Nicola Sturgeon today blew the battle between Heathrow and Gatwick wide open by saying her 56 MPs at Westminster will vote for the airport that gives a better deal for Scots.
In an exclusive interview with the Standard, SNP transport spokesman Drew Hendry declared the party was “neutral” between a third runway at Heathrow and a second at Gatwick.
The SNP would decide which airport to back after hearing how each would answer Scottish demands for cheaper ticket prices and guaranteed connections with international flights.
Article continues at
Nicola Sturgeon: Decision over third Heathrow runway will be decided by SNP vote - London - News - London Evening Standard
All good spectator sport!
The SNP would be voting on this issue even under their own old rules (only voting on matters affecting Scotland).
LHR expansion is a UK issue and effects all four constituent counties.
Apparently 9 out of 10 MPs would vote in favour. If this is in fact the case and all the SNP were against it becomes a little over 8 of of 10.
Time will tell. Could be wrong, but have a feeling that most SNP back LHR expansion.
All this talk about widening the M25 for Heathrow, but how does everyone think people will get to Gatwick?!
The section of the M23 from Gatwick-M25 is already heavily congested, then all the vehicles from the West, and North will have to.....go round the M25/ M4 and go past Heathrow, or round the east and the heavily congested Thames crossings.
The M25 round junction 9 is also a nightmare and one of the most difficult to get built in the first place.
The section of the M23 from Gatwick-M25 is already heavily congested, then all the vehicles from the West, and North will have to.....go round the M25/ M4 and go past Heathrow, or round the east and the heavily congested Thames crossings.
The M25 round junction 9 is also a nightmare and one of the most difficult to get built in the first place.
It's also bad news for road travellers between LGW and Croydon/London as the M23 is a waste of space.
Forget London, the M23 doesn't even reach Croydon (stops 10 mi. short)!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: here
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Businesses are pushing for Cameron to pull his finger out and make the decision to approve Heathrow expansion.
Business leaders call for a swift decision on Heathrow Airport expansion - Business News - Business - The Independent
Business leaders call for a swift decision on Heathrow Airport expansion - Business News - Business - The Independent
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody else on the AA&R forum spotted the thread entitled: La Guardia to be completely rebuilt?
La Guardia is located in NEW YORK, like London a global mega-city. High real-estate prices, first-world wage structures and aspirations. Complex legal system.
And the projected price-tag for a total rebuild of La Guardia? That would be £2.56Bn based upon 2021 completion.
Do you realise one could build 250 Metres of runway at LHR for that sort of money???
La Guardia is located in NEW YORK, like London a global mega-city. High real-estate prices, first-world wage structures and aspirations. Complex legal system.
And the projected price-tag for a total rebuild of La Guardia? That would be £2.56Bn based upon 2021 completion.
Do you realise one could build 250 Metres of runway at LHR for that sort of money???
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I share Shed's general view about the cost of the LHR R3 project being excessive, let's not pretend that HAL is just building a runway.
The new runway is only 1% of the total scheme costs, or £182million according to https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...est-runway.pdf
As for LGA, my understanding is that the scheme doesn't add any capacity at all. It just makes the place a bit nicer for passengers, as well as improving the taxiway layout so as to reduce delays. Whereas the LHR R3 scheme adds capacity of 50 million annual passengers, albeit rather expensively...
The new runway is only 1% of the total scheme costs, or £182million according to https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...est-runway.pdf
As for LGA, my understanding is that the scheme doesn't add any capacity at all. It just makes the place a bit nicer for passengers, as well as improving the taxiway layout so as to reduce delays. Whereas the LHR R3 scheme adds capacity of 50 million annual passengers, albeit rather expensively...
Last edited by BasilBush; 30th Jul 2015 at 14:51.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(ShareCast News) - The chief executive of British Airways owner International Airlines Group on Friday said the group does not support the building of a new runway at London's Heathrow Airport due to the costs the airline would incur.
"We think the costs associated with the third runway are outrageous and certainly from an IAG point of view we will not be supporting it and we will not be paying for it," William Walsh said.
If the expansion is approved, airlines would have to foot the some of the costs of the runway, but Walsh opposed this idea.
"We're not going to support something that increases our costs," he said.
The comments came the same day IAG reported its profits for the second quarter, posting operating profit of $530m, beating forecasts of €494m and 39% higher than the €380m in the same period last year.
BA still seem to be unsure as to whether R3 is a threat or an opportunity. They are terrified of the impact on their inefficient short haul operation that would result from easyJet entering the LHR market, as has been proposed. Either way, BA's emphasis on the costs of R3 might give some hurry up to the CAA in ensuring that HAL isn't just given a blank cheque to build what it likes and then reclaim the costs from airlines/pax. It's about time the CAA (as regulator) paid some attention to the fact that its primary duty is to consumers as opposed to airlines or airport operators. That means both keeping costs down and ensuring greater competition by standing up to the likes of BA who just want to perpetuate their dominant position.
"We think the costs associated with the third runway are outrageous and certainly from an IAG point of view we will not be supporting it and we will not be paying for it," William Walsh said.
If the expansion is approved, airlines would have to foot the some of the costs of the runway, but Walsh opposed this idea.
"We're not going to support something that increases our costs," he said.
The comments came the same day IAG reported its profits for the second quarter, posting operating profit of $530m, beating forecasts of €494m and 39% higher than the €380m in the same period last year.
BA still seem to be unsure as to whether R3 is a threat or an opportunity. They are terrified of the impact on their inefficient short haul operation that would result from easyJet entering the LHR market, as has been proposed. Either way, BA's emphasis on the costs of R3 might give some hurry up to the CAA in ensuring that HAL isn't just given a blank cheque to build what it likes and then reclaim the costs from airlines/pax. It's about time the CAA (as regulator) paid some attention to the fact that its primary duty is to consumers as opposed to airlines or airport operators. That means both keeping costs down and ensuring greater competition by standing up to the likes of BA who just want to perpetuate their dominant position.
Last edited by BasilBush; 31st Jul 2015 at 12:53.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some fairly strong talk there from what is undoubtedly a powerful voice...
Indicating that International Airlines Group is prepared to go to the courts to prevent the expansion of Heathrow, Willie Walsh, its chief executive, said: “We will challenge it by any and every avenue open to us."
Not going to help LHR's case one bit. Think Willie is scared of easyJet
Indicating that International Airlines Group is prepared to go to the courts to prevent the expansion of Heathrow, Willie Walsh, its chief executive, said: “We will challenge it by any and every avenue open to us."
Not going to help LHR's case one bit. Think Willie is scared of easyJet
BA and IAG have been pretty much on the fence, at least publicly, throughout the whole Davies Commission debate. In an interview with the Guardian last year WW even went as far as saying that LHR R3 was "a lost cause". However in the same article he was also against a second runway for LGW, and had previously spoken out against Boris Island as well !!
This latest tough talk attributed to WW could be an aggressive negotiating strategy to get someone other than IAG and its customers to foot more of the bill for R3 - which could only mean either HAL itself or the taxpayer ?
Or maybe WW really does think he now has enough LHR slots up his sleeve to support maintaining the status quo at LHR, and pursue growth for IAG by other means such as more airline acquisitions and creation of alternative IAG hubs elsewhere, like he has almost achieved with EI and Dublin ?
This latest tough talk attributed to WW could be an aggressive negotiating strategy to get someone other than IAG and its customers to foot more of the bill for R3 - which could only mean either HAL itself or the taxpayer ?
Or maybe WW really does think he now has enough LHR slots up his sleeve to support maintaining the status quo at LHR, and pursue growth for IAG by other means such as more airline acquisitions and creation of alternative IAG hubs elsewhere, like he has almost achieved with EI and Dublin ?
Last edited by Logohu; 2nd Aug 2015 at 05:05. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Willy W is really saying, as it appears the only way the R3 project is going to be financed is by a hefty chunk from the airlines, then as BA has 50% of the LHR movements then ego 50% of the airline cash is required from BA. He has said repeatedly he will not be putting money into the project. So it will have to be government money, have they any?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It won't be Government (ie our) money. If BA aren't prepared to pay then I'm sure other airlines will, given the yields available at LHR. It's all a bit of a bluff by BA, who (as has been noted) are terrified of easyJet.
But I do agree with BA's argument that the project is unnecessarily expensive. It's a rerun of T5, with the regulator (CAA) failing to get a grip before the costs get out of hand.
But I do agree with BA's argument that the project is unnecessarily expensive. It's a rerun of T5, with the regulator (CAA) failing to get a grip before the costs get out of hand.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
Easyjet are a problem however I think there would be much bigger operators who would cause serious damage to BA.
A very significant percentage of BA traffic is actually inter Europe point to point and the current disruptive forces of flexible fares operators including Eayjet pose more threat to BA than even the ME3 and competing alliances via their own hub and spoke systems in the London markets.
Easy jet are no mino to be ignored -
In fact IAG know threat very well and Vueling are the tool to attack and destabilize this market.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting development because it's the first time WW has said 'We don't think this should happen' as opposed to 'We don't believe this will happen'.
HAL doesn't really have any money itself. There are only two sources of funding--- taxpayers or travellers. Unless the vast majority is traveller funded the project won't happen. It is up to the CAA and the Government to confirm Davies's conclusion that the project is specified correctly and that it's worth £10 extra per traveller to HAL for ever.
There is going to be ferocious lobbying on that question, among others, over the next few months.
HAL doesn't really have any money itself. There are only two sources of funding--- taxpayers or travellers. Unless the vast majority is traveller funded the project won't happen. It is up to the CAA and the Government to confirm Davies's conclusion that the project is specified correctly and that it's worth £10 extra per traveller to HAL for ever.
There is going to be ferocious lobbying on that question, among others, over the next few months.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further that point to point full paying clientele are absolutely essential to maintaining the effectiveness of the European network and those lesser paying feed traffic onto the mainly North Atlantic long haul.
The full fare European travel disappears the route break and feed on the long haul goes away.
That's the real threat.
Not the ME3 picking up regional traffic over the sandpits.
The full fare European travel disappears the route break and feed on the long haul goes away.
That's the real threat.
Not the ME3 picking up regional traffic over the sandpits.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the CAA's approach is that is essentially reactive, rather than proactive. By waiting until HAL has put forward its (expensive) scheme it makes it very difficult to achieve any meaningful savings. What the CAA really needs to do is to say to HAL that its maximum charges can be no more than £x, based on realistic benchmarks, and then challenge HAL to come up with a scheme that is consistent with that price.
Otherwise it's just a cost-plus approach, which inevitably leads to gold plating.
Otherwise it's just a cost-plus approach, which inevitably leads to gold plating.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
HAL doesn't really have any money itself. There are only two sources of funding--- taxpayers or travellers. Unless the vast majority is traveller funded the project won't happen. It is up to the CAA and the Government to confirm Davies's conclusion that the project is specified correctly and that it's worth £10 extra per traveller to HAL for ever.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. HAL can finance the billions provided the market believes the ultimate customers will fund HAL at the assured regulated rate.
It would be really interesting to hear from other airlines--- Lufthansa, United, Emirates, Virgin/Delta etc. Do they want the scheme?
It would be really interesting to hear from other airlines--- Lufthansa, United, Emirates, Virgin/Delta etc. Do they want the scheme?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy jet are no mino to be ignored -
In fact IAG know threat very well and Vueling are the tool to attack and destabilize this market.
In fact IAG know threat very well and Vueling are the tool to attack and destabilize this market.
A very significant percentage of BA traffic is actually inter Europe point to point and the current disruptive forces of flexible fares operators including Eayjet pose more threat to BA than even the ME3 and competing alliances via their own hub and spoke systems in the London markets.
The biggest problem is if easyjet were to interline with other carriers which is only a matter of time so certain when lhr runway opens if it goes ahead.