Another runway at Heathrow
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fdfrank: as mentioned in my earlier posts its lgw for me. its a london airport now and there is no reason why it should not become as well used as lhr particularly since that airport has long since reached saturation. the idea that lhr must be the only airport to serve london is nonsense. I think a chinese businessman who wants to come to london will not be bothered by which airport he goes through, he has more important matters on his mind.
Your posts encapsulate the whole approach to this debate – too much uninformed opinion from commentators who know little about the nature of the industry. Much as you are fully entitled to your opinion you would do well to research the aviation market before attempting to contribute to the debate.
You are absolutely right about one thing – the Thames estuary would have been the best site for a London hub airport but 60 or 70 years ago. The fact that the Heathrow location was chosen has defined the economic geography of the UK over 6 or 7 decades and it is now too late to undo that. Had a Thames estuary site been chosen then the economic geography of the UK would look very different today, but it wasn’t and now it’s way too late.
Have a look at a wealth distribution heat map of the UK, next have a look at a passenger origin and destination heat map for the UK – notice something they have in common – that Heathrow sits at the epi-centre of both with Gatwick and Luton (more so) on the fringes and Stansted literally out in the cold (hence the reason why Stansted needs lower fare offerings to attract volume). Incidentally the same data shows that something approaching half the passengers that currently use Gatwick would find it equally or more convenient to use Heathrow, were the capacity and the right type of services available there (at the right prices).
The issue is not where the inbound Chinese Business man gets deposited but where the core of regular travellers on which the UK aviation market and the UK economy depend are domiciled and employed. The core of Heathrow traffic is not 70 million or so individuals making occasional journeys but a much smaller number of very regular travellers (I have heard insiders at BA quote their core business as numbering in the hundreds of thousands although that was some years ago). It is this core that has chosen to locate where access to the air services that it needs is relatively convenient (West London and the M40, M4, M3, A3 corridors).
To add capacity anywhere but Heathrow would be a move to change the economic geography of the UK, a change that, by nature, takes place over many decades not over just a few years. In the long term this may indeed be beneficial but in the short and medium term it could only be detrimental to the UK economy.
Last edited by Itchin McCrevis; 6th Jun 2015 at 09:13.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lhr v lgw
itchin, I am sure some of your arguments have some limited validity and are naturally espoused by those in favour of lhr out of self interest. they are no reasons though to be totally blinkered to the idea
that expansion can only work at lhr. an arrogant view. it seems you would continue to cram a quart into a pint pot just to accomodate a " few hundred thousand" BA customers. by your reasoning france should not have built CDG but added more capacity to orly and le bourget.
PS ditch the silly monniker. it doesnt do your credibility any good.
that expansion can only work at lhr. an arrogant view. it seems you would continue to cram a quart into a pint pot just to accomodate a " few hundred thousand" BA customers. by your reasoning france should not have built CDG but added more capacity to orly and le bourget.
PS ditch the silly monniker. it doesnt do your credibility any good.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can asure you that my "self" interest would be far better served by no new runways anywhere in the UK, as for the interests of my children and grand-children however that may be a different story, as yet largely unwritten. On this topic I am prepared to subjugate my self interest for that of the Country I hold in highest regard.
Regarding your closing remark I am sure my parents will be mortified but fortunately they don't take themselves too seriously either.
Regarding your closing remark I am sure my parents will be mortified but fortunately they don't take themselves too seriously either.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS ditch the silly monniker. it doesnt do your credibility any good.
(2) What do you think it does for your credibility?
So many people are either completely missing the point or are just thinking about their own self interests.
Contrary to what many people would have you believe, Heathrow is not the bane of peoples lives in West London. There may be a number of people that are more concerned with house prices than being close to an airport (Notice how there seems to be more of a problem with noise to the east than there is to the west??) but don't forget that LHR is responsible for approx. 25,000 jobs. A large proportion of these people can be assumed to live within close proximity and would probably not want to be relocated to Gatwick, Boris Island or anywhere else. Heathrow is next to the motorway, has a fast rail link to the capital city it serves and people actually want to fly into there, (Unlike Gatwick). To me that is not an airport in the wrong place, it is an airport that has been let down by the government in providing better transport links.
People keep talking about gridlock on the M4 and HS2 not connecting to LHR. The idea is to turn LHR into a larger hub airport with a new shorter runway that could receive flights from the likes of Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and allow quick transfer onto long haul flights. The fact that HS2 may or may not have a direct link is therefore irrelevant as the whole idea is to enable extra passengers to arrive on domestic airlines. There would not be a larger influx coming in by rail or car. The case for HS2 is to take people into central London. Crossrail will by then have a link into the airport so anyone that currently relies on car or rail to get there would be better off than they are now.
As for the M25, anyone that does this regularly knows that the issues are usually caused by the A3/M3 junctions and not by the airport. The M25 needs widening, is being widened and people are complaining about the work. This is the main problem. Our transport infrastructure needs upgrading across the board, everything. We need more runways, new high speed rail lines and wider motorways. The longer we put off these decisions the costlier it is. We don't need one or the other we need them all. Yes it costs money but that is mainly because we have waited too long.
I shudder to think where we would be had Brunel had to contend with the nimbys and spineless politicians we have now. We would probably still be travelling by horse and cart.
Contrary to what many people would have you believe, Heathrow is not the bane of peoples lives in West London. There may be a number of people that are more concerned with house prices than being close to an airport (Notice how there seems to be more of a problem with noise to the east than there is to the west??) but don't forget that LHR is responsible for approx. 25,000 jobs. A large proportion of these people can be assumed to live within close proximity and would probably not want to be relocated to Gatwick, Boris Island or anywhere else. Heathrow is next to the motorway, has a fast rail link to the capital city it serves and people actually want to fly into there, (Unlike Gatwick). To me that is not an airport in the wrong place, it is an airport that has been let down by the government in providing better transport links.
People keep talking about gridlock on the M4 and HS2 not connecting to LHR. The idea is to turn LHR into a larger hub airport with a new shorter runway that could receive flights from the likes of Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and allow quick transfer onto long haul flights. The fact that HS2 may or may not have a direct link is therefore irrelevant as the whole idea is to enable extra passengers to arrive on domestic airlines. There would not be a larger influx coming in by rail or car. The case for HS2 is to take people into central London. Crossrail will by then have a link into the airport so anyone that currently relies on car or rail to get there would be better off than they are now.
As for the M25, anyone that does this regularly knows that the issues are usually caused by the A3/M3 junctions and not by the airport. The M25 needs widening, is being widened and people are complaining about the work. This is the main problem. Our transport infrastructure needs upgrading across the board, everything. We need more runways, new high speed rail lines and wider motorways. The longer we put off these decisions the costlier it is. We don't need one or the other we need them all. Yes it costs money but that is mainly because we have waited too long.
I shudder to think where we would be had Brunel had to contend with the nimbys and spineless politicians we have now. We would probably still be travelling by horse and cart.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure any jobs will actually be lost or be relocated ?
LHR will continue to be a premium product even if it decision goes to LGW which now incidentally appears to be the bookies favourite (they are usually correct).
Cabinet split over Heathrow ?makes airport's expansion undeliverable? - Politics - News - London Evening Standard
If LGW gets RW2 it will simply be in a better position to handle the traffic it already has, cannot see it attracting any airlines from LHR whatsoever.
LHR will continue to be a premium product even if it decision goes to LGW which now incidentally appears to be the bookies favourite (they are usually correct).
Cabinet split over Heathrow ?makes airport's expansion undeliverable? - Politics - News - London Evening Standard
If LGW gets RW2 it will simply be in a better position to handle the traffic it already has, cannot see it attracting any airlines from LHR whatsoever.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the whole point of this exercise is/was to create a UK hub airport with short haul connections bringing pax in and connecting easily onto long haul flights. That was the reasoning behind Heathrow expansion in the beginning and Boris Island etc. (Creating Boris Island would have meant closing LHR)
The Gatwick expansion argument does seem to forget this principle and seems to be aimed at expanding Gatwick with just one runway and leaving Heathrow as it is. I have not seen any recommendation to expand Gatwick with more than one runway and then closing LHR. (I am sure it is there but it doesn't seem to be being pushed)
A transfer from Gatwick to LHR is not viable and either the original plan for a UK main hub is either shelved or one airport is expanded in a major way while another is scaled back.
At least that was the plan.
The Gatwick expansion argument does seem to forget this principle and seems to be aimed at expanding Gatwick with just one runway and leaving Heathrow as it is. I have not seen any recommendation to expand Gatwick with more than one runway and then closing LHR. (I am sure it is there but it doesn't seem to be being pushed)
A transfer from Gatwick to LHR is not viable and either the original plan for a UK main hub is either shelved or one airport is expanded in a major way while another is scaled back.
At least that was the plan.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the argument is a bit different. There are two issues--more hub capacity and more capacity for all traffic in London and SE region.
If LHR NW at the price and with the consequences is acceptable in political terms, all well and good, both boxes ticked.
If not, then to the chagrin of some frequent posters here, we will have to give up on the expanded hub capacity but that still leaves the question of total capacity and there LGW R2 very much comes into the picture. If the economy performs as hoped/expected, we are going to be desperately short of point to point capacity in London and SE by the middle of the next decade. OK £10bn is still hugely expensive but to say 'it's Heathrow or bust' is misguided.
If LHR NW at the price and with the consequences is acceptable in political terms, all well and good, both boxes ticked.
If not, then to the chagrin of some frequent posters here, we will have to give up on the expanded hub capacity but that still leaves the question of total capacity and there LGW R2 very much comes into the picture. If the economy performs as hoped/expected, we are going to be desperately short of point to point capacity in London and SE by the middle of the next decade. OK £10bn is still hugely expensive but to say 'it's Heathrow or bust' is misguided.
So we either deal with the issue and build what is needed or patch up the existing system and spend lots of money without really achieving anything.
Hopefully they will choose the correct option but it wouldn't surprise me if they went the other way.
Hopefully they will choose the correct option but it wouldn't surprise me if they went the other way.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst we within the industry like to dwell upon connectivity, hubbing and the allure of new exotic business destinations, the truth is that the majority of growth in demand from London can be expected on traditional favourite routes such as Dublin, Malaga and Tenerife. Expanded services to destinations such as these can be operated very successfully from LGW, provided that capacity to accommodate them is created there. STN and LTN can also extend their role in these leisure-heavy markets. Any suggestion that the LGW option should be discarded because it won't appeal to business pax or hub transfer pax misses the point. Leisure travel matters too, and (subject to a healthy economy) will generate growth which London's airports system must accommodate. Twenty years from now, which of these two numbers do you expect to be higher: a) pax flying London to Tenerife over and above the 2015 total; b) pax flying London to Chongqing?
Like it or not, point-to-point leisure travel originating in the SE will constitute a massive proportion of growth in demand. This is the 'bread and butter'. And the LGW option is perfectly capable of addressing this need in a market segment which it already dominates.
The factor which most contributors here carefully avoid addressing is the financial price-tags attached to all of these proposals. If the price of the LGW option can be described as exorbitant, what adjective must be attached to the LHR proposals? Outrageous, stratospheric, scandalous? None of these quite cut it. Here is the one I favour: PROHIBITIVE.
Based on the LHR price-tags, the real SE choice could just be LGW or nothing. And LGW R2 - whilst operationally less ideal than LHR - would never be a white elephant. Maybe the industry would be well-advised to back the option which can be practically delivered in the real world.
Like it or not, point-to-point leisure travel originating in the SE will constitute a massive proportion of growth in demand. This is the 'bread and butter'. And the LGW option is perfectly capable of addressing this need in a market segment which it already dominates.
The factor which most contributors here carefully avoid addressing is the financial price-tags attached to all of these proposals. If the price of the LGW option can be described as exorbitant, what adjective must be attached to the LHR proposals? Outrageous, stratospheric, scandalous? None of these quite cut it. Here is the one I favour: PROHIBITIVE.
Based on the LHR price-tags, the real SE choice could just be LGW or nothing. And LGW R2 - whilst operationally less ideal than LHR - would never be a white elephant. Maybe the industry would be well-advised to back the option which can be practically delivered in the real world.
Any suggestion that the LGW option should be discarded because it won't appeal to business pax or hub transfer pax misses the point
The factor which most contributors here carefully avoid addressing is the financial price-tags attached to all of these proposals. If the price of the LGW option can be described as exorbitant, what adjective must be attached to the LHR proposals? Outrageous, stratospheric, scandalous? None of these quite cut it. Here is the one I favour: PROHIBITIVE.
LHR and Gatwick are no longer owned by the same company and it is not a matter of choosing between the two. If Gatwick expaands then it will make no difference to LHR. There may be more holiday charters and low cost options but the core of the LHR business will remain in west London, as will the capacity problem and the need to bring in connecting pax from the regions.
If LHR expands then the BA SH and Virgin flights would probably go back to LHR and Gatwick will have the capacity it needs.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a continuing source of frustration that the imbeciles who will be voting on this, still don't seem to actually have a clue what they will be actually voting for.
Mr Shed is right to raise the various pros and cons none of which appear to have been debated thus far in any great detail.
Last week it was another bland comment by Andy Burnham simply following the herd !
Mr Shed is right to raise the various pros and cons none of which appear to have been debated thus far in any great detail.
Last week it was another bland comment by Andy Burnham simply following the herd !
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Letter in today's Yorkshire Post.
From:
Gerald Jennings, President, Leeds Chamber;
Roger Marsh, Chairman, Leeds LEP;
John Parkin, Chief Executive, Leeds Bradford International Airport;
Tom Riordan, Chief Executive, Leeds City Council;
Cllr James Lewis, Deputy Leader, Leeds City Council;
Rashik Parmar, IBM;
Mark Viner, Airedale Air-Conditioning;
Adam Beaumont, AQL;
Stuart Watson, Ernst & Young;
Nigel Foster, Fore Consulting;
Peter Hill, Chief Executive, Leeds Building Society;
Stephen Isaacs, MPH Enterprises & Personalised Luggage;
Richard Serra, Director, Quod;
Richard Lewis, TCS; Stephen Wright, Thorite;
Paul Hammer, WYG Plc
LEEDS Bradford Airport is a gateway to Yorkshire and Heathrow is our gateway to the world. Expansion at Heathrow will provide an additional 11,200 jobs and a potential £9bn to the Yorkshire economy alone. It will also offer up to 40 more global destinations to our exporters and strengthen our inward investment potential with improved global connectivity.
The current capacity constraints at Heathrow are limiting the number and timing of slots to and from Leeds Bradford – with more slots at better times, Yorkshire’s access to the world will be dramatically improved.
A recent meeting with Heathrow’s chief executive John Holland-Kaye demonstrates their commitment to the city and the region and the recent proposal to cut domestic charges is welcome.
We urge Sir Howard Davies and the Airports Commission to recommend growth at Heathrow and the new Government to take urgent and decisive action.
Gerald Jennings, President, Leeds Chamber;
Roger Marsh, Chairman, Leeds LEP;
John Parkin, Chief Executive, Leeds Bradford International Airport;
Tom Riordan, Chief Executive, Leeds City Council;
Cllr James Lewis, Deputy Leader, Leeds City Council;
Rashik Parmar, IBM;
Mark Viner, Airedale Air-Conditioning;
Adam Beaumont, AQL;
Stuart Watson, Ernst & Young;
Nigel Foster, Fore Consulting;
Peter Hill, Chief Executive, Leeds Building Society;
Stephen Isaacs, MPH Enterprises & Personalised Luggage;
Richard Serra, Director, Quod;
Richard Lewis, TCS; Stephen Wright, Thorite;
Paul Hammer, WYG Plc
LEEDS Bradford Airport is a gateway to Yorkshire and Heathrow is our gateway to the world. Expansion at Heathrow will provide an additional 11,200 jobs and a potential £9bn to the Yorkshire economy alone. It will also offer up to 40 more global destinations to our exporters and strengthen our inward investment potential with improved global connectivity.
The current capacity constraints at Heathrow are limiting the number and timing of slots to and from Leeds Bradford – with more slots at better times, Yorkshire’s access to the world will be dramatically improved.
A recent meeting with Heathrow’s chief executive John Holland-Kaye demonstrates their commitment to the city and the region and the recent proposal to cut domestic charges is welcome.
We urge Sir Howard Davies and the Airports Commission to recommend growth at Heathrow and the new Government to take urgent and decisive action.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like it or not, point-to-point leisure travel originating in the SE will constitute a massive proportion of growth in demand. This is the 'bread and butter'. And the LGW option is perfectly capable of addressing this need in a market segment which it already dominates.
*Gatwick also serves as a long haul leisure point to point airport
If we can have just one new runway then the most critical and imediate task for that runway is long-haul / hub capacity - which means Heathrow.
Putting it at Gatwick will just result in a re-distribution of traffic from Stansted, Luton (and Southend) as all these basically serve the same market segment. I did hear a funny story about Gatwick Senior Mgt touring the other London airports to drum up support but using a presentation that indicated said runway would actualy take traffic from those airports!
OK once we get beyond that, in say 20 years, to the second new runway (waits for laughter to die down) then at that point it will be a much closer call between Gatwick and Heathrow because by that stage there will likely be a need for more short/medium haul point to point capacity.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, Itchin. If LGW got a new runway it would just result in a large scale redistribution from Stansted. Easyjet have shown that yields at LGW are materially higher than those at STN or LTN, and any new slots at LGW would just be gobbled up by a massive exodus from other airports.
That's why MAG are most afraid of LGW R2 getting the go-ahead. Apart from the impact on STN it would also set back MAN's attempts to grow its LCC traffic, as airlines would have to grab new LGW slots by transferring aircraft from existing bases.
But this is all theoretical. In reality, LGW R2 is a financial non-starter. Although it is cheaper than LHR R3 it would still require a very large increase in user charges that LGW's airlines are highly unlikely to stomach. And with easyJet and Virgin opposing LGW R2 it is difficult to see how GAL could raise the finance. GAL R2 is much more likely to require public subsidy than LHR R3, and also to be a another white elephant like BAA's original development of Stansted (which only succeeded due to massive financial support from Heathrow, no longer an option following the breakup of BAA). And there's also the small matter that GAL have said they would need long term protection from new runways being given the go ahead elsewhere in the South East, which I understand would fall foul of 'restraint of trade' legislation.
That's why MAG are most afraid of LGW R2 getting the go-ahead. Apart from the impact on STN it would also set back MAN's attempts to grow its LCC traffic, as airlines would have to grab new LGW slots by transferring aircraft from existing bases.
But this is all theoretical. In reality, LGW R2 is a financial non-starter. Although it is cheaper than LHR R3 it would still require a very large increase in user charges that LGW's airlines are highly unlikely to stomach. And with easyJet and Virgin opposing LGW R2 it is difficult to see how GAL could raise the finance. GAL R2 is much more likely to require public subsidy than LHR R3, and also to be a another white elephant like BAA's original development of Stansted (which only succeeded due to massive financial support from Heathrow, no longer an option following the breakup of BAA). And there's also the small matter that GAL have said they would need long term protection from new runways being given the go ahead elsewhere in the South East, which I understand would fall foul of 'restraint of trade' legislation.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contrary to what many people would have you believe, Heathrow is not the bane of peoples lives in West London.
There may be a number of people that are more concerned with house prices than being close to an airport (Notice how there seems to be more of a problem with noise to the east than there is to the west??)
The presence of the airport is not a problem for house sellers; for buyers, probably.
but don't forget that LHR is responsible for approx. 25,000 jobs.
Zac Goldsmith to run for London mayor - BBC News
Zac Goldsmith has said on several occasions that he would resign and cause a by-election if Heathrow rwy expansion was approved.
This will also happen if he gets the go ahead to run for mayor after balloting his constituents (and being selected as Conservative candidate).
Coincidence? or does he know something that the rest of us don't?
Letter in today's Yorkshire Post.
Picking up Sheds point there are four airports serving as short-medium haul point to point "reliever" airports in the London sytem which can provide enough additional capacity for the next 10-20 years with further increments of development (but no new runways) - Gatwick* itself can probably do another 5-10m, Stansted 15-25m, Luton 15m and Southend can chip in a bit - so together that's circa 50mppa additional.
If we can have just one new runway then the most critical and imediate task for that runway is long-haul / hub capacity - which means Heathrow.
Shuffling shorthaul leisure and no frills flights from Luton/Stansted to Gatwick (the result of Gatwick rwy expansion) doesn't cut it.
That's why MAG are most afraid of LGW R2 getting the go-ahead. Apart from the impact on STN it would also set back MAN's attempts to grow its LCC traffic, as airlines would have to grab new LGW slots by transferring aircraft from existing bases.
But this is all theoretical. In reality, LGW R2 is a financial non-starter. Although it is cheaper than LHR R3 it would still require a very large increase in user charges that LGW's airlines are highly unlikely to stomach. And with easyJet and Virgin opposing LGW R2 it is difficult to see how GAL could raise the finance. GAL R2 is much more likely to require public subsidy than LHR R3, and also to be a another white elephant like BAA's original development of Stansted (which only succeeded due to massive financial support from Heathrow, no longer an option following the breakup of BAA). And there's also the small matter that GAL have said they would need long term protection from new runways being given the go ahead elsewhere in the South East, which I understand would fall foul of 'restraint of trade' legislation.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 10th Jun 2015 at 00:43.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Addressing Points Raised ...
This is a thread about Heathrow expansion
Which cannot be meaningfully discussed without reference to the alternatives which include LGW R2
the need for Gatwick to build a new runway to cater for the bucket and spade brigade is irrelevant
Given that the debate relates to the provision of sufficient runway capacity to serve the SE in particular, growth in arguably the highest volume sector of the market - leisure travel - is highly relevant. Attaching a derogatory label to leisure travellers does not remove these passengers from the equation. Leisure travellers include some very wealthy people, by the way. And they tend to linger around the terminal longer than business travellers, spending their money as they do. Airport operators like that. These customers aren't a nuisance to be brushed aside to a second-rate facility.
Heathrow expansion will be financed by the airport operator BAA and whatever investment it can obtain from outside sources. The company has also been an investor in related infrastructure projects such as Crossrail. The cost is not the issue.
The cost is ABSOLUTELY the issue! Numbers quoted for LHR range from £18Bn (that's BILLION!!!) at the low end to £40Bn at the upper end dependent on which source you believe. And the lower figure appears less credible by the day. All this to up LHR's capacity by a measly one-third. Whilst the direct cost may be financed directly by the BAA, the necessary infrastructure upgrades in the areas immediately surrounding the airport will not be. The airport operator will be expected to contribute, but throwing in an additional £8Bn - £20Bn (dependent on which source you believe) is simply not going to happen. LHR expansion will likely mandate £8Bn+ in support from taxpayer funds. That is a vast sum even at the lower end of forecasts, and the funds so deployed cannot then be used for arguably more deserving and better value public projects elsewhere in the UK. Remember that the regions have not yet enjoyed a single publicly-funded infrastructure project exceeding even ONE billion pounds. Time for some redress.
the need to bring in connecting pax from the regions
There isn't a *need* to bring in connecting pax from the regions. There is a *desire* to do so, but that is a different thing entirely. If that desire cannot be satisfied at a reasonable financial cost, then better that it does not happen at all. The regions offer substantial and growing long-haul capability from airports such as MAN, BHX, GLA, EDI, NCL. And most prominent destinations worldwide can be reliably accessed with just one change at a hub. Whether that be LHR or AMS/FRA/DXB/IST/ORD etc is largely irrelevant to regional travellers. Journey times and tariffs are similar. And besides, BA's penchant for cancelling flights from the UK regions at the first sniff of problems at LHR means that rival hub offerings are seen as more reliable from the point-of-view of regional travellers.
LEEDS Bradford Airport is a gateway to Yorkshire and Heathrow is our gateway to the world
Sorry guys. I realise that civic pride makes for powerful emotions, but MAN is Yorkshire's primary gateway to the world. Unpalatable for some, maybe, but true nonetheless. And MAN's growing long-haul connectivity is actually great news for Yorkshire commerce.
Expansion at Heathrow will provide an additional 11,200 jobs and a potential £9bn to the Yorkshire economy alone
If you esteemed gentlemen genuinely believe that a modest increase in frequency on the EXISTING (!!!) LBA-LHR route will produce these numbers then you need to look hard in the mirror and reconsider your suitability to be entrusted with high office.
We urge Sir Howard Davies and the Airports Commission to recommend growth at Heathrow and the new Government to take urgent and decisive action
You should urge the government to invest afew billion directly into Yorkshire infrastructure instead. Now that would be really helpful.
If we can have just one new runway then the most critical and imediate task for that runway is long-haul / hub capacity - which means Heathrow.
This is a desirable objective, not a necessity. If it can be provided at reasonable cost then it is worth pursuing. Price projections suggest that it cannot, and therefore this vanity scheme should not progress.
Putting it at Gatwick will just result in a re-distribution of traffic from Stansted, Luton (and Southend) as all these basically serve the same market segment
We are talking about a new runway which is likely to come on stream some 15-20 years hence. None of us can know the future for sure, but it is reasonable to consider very different throughput at London's airports by then. LGW R2 needs to be carefully considered in this context.
If LGW got a new runway it would just result in a large scale redistribution from Stansted
The logical conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that you expect Ryanair to relocate the bulk of their phenomenally successful STN operation to LGW. None of us know the future, but my guess is that they won't.
That's why MAG are most afraid of LGW R2 getting the go-ahead
MAG's alleged concerns for STN will not and should not be allowed to dictate airport capacity needs in the SE. The greater good must prevail.
Apart from the impact on STN it would also set back MAN's attempts to grow its LCC traffic
EasyJet currently operates approximately 238 aircraft (including EasyJet Switzerland); a further 119 are on order. Ryanair operates around 319 aircraft and has a further 266 on order + 100 options. These two carriers base 9 and 8 aircraft respectively at MAN as of Summer 2015. Even allowing for growth, this is a drop in the ocean compared to overall fleet strength. Quite why one would suppose that profitable MAN ops would be specifically victimised to feed LGW expansion is wholly unclear. Beyond these two carriers, there is no reason to suppose that the likes of Jet2 would abandon its Northern heartlands for LGW. Incremental expansion there, perhaps.
airlines would have to grab new LGW slots by transferring aircraft from existing bases.
EasyJet's expansion at LGW has been punctuated by episodes of sudden growth based on opportunist slot-grabs when slots unexpectedly became available at short notice. Construction of R2 at LGW would be anything but short notice. Operators would have years to plan for this eventuality and would have no excuse to offer shareholders if their fleets were not fully primed to seize the opportunity at the appropriate time. Knee-jerk fleet redistribution to "grab" slots should not be an issue.
In reality, LGW R2 is a financial non-starter
It is difficult to dismiss your persuasive arguments against LGW R2 as a contender on financial grounds. It is undeniably outrageously expensive. However, if we accept that assertion then the best solution for the SE has to be NO NEW RUNWAY AT ALL. Because any selected project must make complete sense financially, however desirable at an operational level. The LHR options imply a price-tag which cannot come close to being justified by the marginal benefits on offer ... a one-third increase over and above existing capacity. So if LGW R2 is deemed a financial non-starter (as well) then London and the SE will have to cope with the runway capacity as it exists today. And that wouldn't be a tragedy.
London *wants* to grow as a hub but doesn't actually *need* to. And it shouldn't if the cost is too high. Provincial airports have sufficient capacity to accommodate the needs of their specific regions for decades to come. And if afew London pax have to change planes in DXB (as many Northerners do already) is that really so bad? For a cost saving of upto £40Bn on a project with marginal returns measured by incremental runway slots, maybe 'DO NOTHING' is actually the correct answer.
EDIT: Sorry - Those neat blue quote boxes didn't appear again. My computer doesn't like 'em!
Which cannot be meaningfully discussed without reference to the alternatives which include LGW R2
the need for Gatwick to build a new runway to cater for the bucket and spade brigade is irrelevant
Given that the debate relates to the provision of sufficient runway capacity to serve the SE in particular, growth in arguably the highest volume sector of the market - leisure travel - is highly relevant. Attaching a derogatory label to leisure travellers does not remove these passengers from the equation. Leisure travellers include some very wealthy people, by the way. And they tend to linger around the terminal longer than business travellers, spending their money as they do. Airport operators like that. These customers aren't a nuisance to be brushed aside to a second-rate facility.
Heathrow expansion will be financed by the airport operator BAA and whatever investment it can obtain from outside sources. The company has also been an investor in related infrastructure projects such as Crossrail. The cost is not the issue.
The cost is ABSOLUTELY the issue! Numbers quoted for LHR range from £18Bn (that's BILLION!!!) at the low end to £40Bn at the upper end dependent on which source you believe. And the lower figure appears less credible by the day. All this to up LHR's capacity by a measly one-third. Whilst the direct cost may be financed directly by the BAA, the necessary infrastructure upgrades in the areas immediately surrounding the airport will not be. The airport operator will be expected to contribute, but throwing in an additional £8Bn - £20Bn (dependent on which source you believe) is simply not going to happen. LHR expansion will likely mandate £8Bn+ in support from taxpayer funds. That is a vast sum even at the lower end of forecasts, and the funds so deployed cannot then be used for arguably more deserving and better value public projects elsewhere in the UK. Remember that the regions have not yet enjoyed a single publicly-funded infrastructure project exceeding even ONE billion pounds. Time for some redress.
the need to bring in connecting pax from the regions
There isn't a *need* to bring in connecting pax from the regions. There is a *desire* to do so, but that is a different thing entirely. If that desire cannot be satisfied at a reasonable financial cost, then better that it does not happen at all. The regions offer substantial and growing long-haul capability from airports such as MAN, BHX, GLA, EDI, NCL. And most prominent destinations worldwide can be reliably accessed with just one change at a hub. Whether that be LHR or AMS/FRA/DXB/IST/ORD etc is largely irrelevant to regional travellers. Journey times and tariffs are similar. And besides, BA's penchant for cancelling flights from the UK regions at the first sniff of problems at LHR means that rival hub offerings are seen as more reliable from the point-of-view of regional travellers.
LEEDS Bradford Airport is a gateway to Yorkshire and Heathrow is our gateway to the world
Sorry guys. I realise that civic pride makes for powerful emotions, but MAN is Yorkshire's primary gateway to the world. Unpalatable for some, maybe, but true nonetheless. And MAN's growing long-haul connectivity is actually great news for Yorkshire commerce.
Expansion at Heathrow will provide an additional 11,200 jobs and a potential £9bn to the Yorkshire economy alone
If you esteemed gentlemen genuinely believe that a modest increase in frequency on the EXISTING (!!!) LBA-LHR route will produce these numbers then you need to look hard in the mirror and reconsider your suitability to be entrusted with high office.
We urge Sir Howard Davies and the Airports Commission to recommend growth at Heathrow and the new Government to take urgent and decisive action
You should urge the government to invest afew billion directly into Yorkshire infrastructure instead. Now that would be really helpful.
If we can have just one new runway then the most critical and imediate task for that runway is long-haul / hub capacity - which means Heathrow.
This is a desirable objective, not a necessity. If it can be provided at reasonable cost then it is worth pursuing. Price projections suggest that it cannot, and therefore this vanity scheme should not progress.
Putting it at Gatwick will just result in a re-distribution of traffic from Stansted, Luton (and Southend) as all these basically serve the same market segment
We are talking about a new runway which is likely to come on stream some 15-20 years hence. None of us can know the future for sure, but it is reasonable to consider very different throughput at London's airports by then. LGW R2 needs to be carefully considered in this context.
If LGW got a new runway it would just result in a large scale redistribution from Stansted
The logical conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that you expect Ryanair to relocate the bulk of their phenomenally successful STN operation to LGW. None of us know the future, but my guess is that they won't.
That's why MAG are most afraid of LGW R2 getting the go-ahead
MAG's alleged concerns for STN will not and should not be allowed to dictate airport capacity needs in the SE. The greater good must prevail.
Apart from the impact on STN it would also set back MAN's attempts to grow its LCC traffic
EasyJet currently operates approximately 238 aircraft (including EasyJet Switzerland); a further 119 are on order. Ryanair operates around 319 aircraft and has a further 266 on order + 100 options. These two carriers base 9 and 8 aircraft respectively at MAN as of Summer 2015. Even allowing for growth, this is a drop in the ocean compared to overall fleet strength. Quite why one would suppose that profitable MAN ops would be specifically victimised to feed LGW expansion is wholly unclear. Beyond these two carriers, there is no reason to suppose that the likes of Jet2 would abandon its Northern heartlands for LGW. Incremental expansion there, perhaps.
airlines would have to grab new LGW slots by transferring aircraft from existing bases.
EasyJet's expansion at LGW has been punctuated by episodes of sudden growth based on opportunist slot-grabs when slots unexpectedly became available at short notice. Construction of R2 at LGW would be anything but short notice. Operators would have years to plan for this eventuality and would have no excuse to offer shareholders if their fleets were not fully primed to seize the opportunity at the appropriate time. Knee-jerk fleet redistribution to "grab" slots should not be an issue.
In reality, LGW R2 is a financial non-starter
It is difficult to dismiss your persuasive arguments against LGW R2 as a contender on financial grounds. It is undeniably outrageously expensive. However, if we accept that assertion then the best solution for the SE has to be NO NEW RUNWAY AT ALL. Because any selected project must make complete sense financially, however desirable at an operational level. The LHR options imply a price-tag which cannot come close to being justified by the marginal benefits on offer ... a one-third increase over and above existing capacity. So if LGW R2 is deemed a financial non-starter (as well) then London and the SE will have to cope with the runway capacity as it exists today. And that wouldn't be a tragedy.
London *wants* to grow as a hub but doesn't actually *need* to. And it shouldn't if the cost is too high. Provincial airports have sufficient capacity to accommodate the needs of their specific regions for decades to come. And if afew London pax have to change planes in DXB (as many Northerners do already) is that really so bad? For a cost saving of upto £40Bn on a project with marginal returns measured by incremental runway slots, maybe 'DO NOTHING' is actually the correct answer.
EDIT: Sorry - Those neat blue quote boxes didn't appear again. My computer doesn't like 'em!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fresh delay signalled for new airport runway
"Sinking Without A Trace"
From todays FT, the whole project may be not be sinking but its listing to starboard....badly !
See below
Ministers will not provide a formal response to the Davies commission on aviation until the end of the year in a move that will provoke fears of prevarication over Britain’s next new runway.
The independent group will issue its final report in late June and will recommend either Gatwick or Heathrow as the optimal site for a new runway in the southeast. The report will clear the way for a political decision on the long-delayed issue.
But one Whitehall official said there would be no immediate response beyond a cursory acceptance of the report by senior ministers. A more detailed reaction would not be issued until “before Christmas”, he said.
That will come as a blow to aviation executives who had expected a full government response in the late summer.
Business groups have repeatedly called on the government to make up its mind and authorise a runway somewhere close to London to deal with future capacity constraints.
The signal of a delay reinforces the reality that there is no political consensus on where to build another airport given the huge complications around the two main options. Many business groups would prefer the expansion of Heathrow over Gatwick because the former is an existing hub with links to most destinations around the world.
Yet approving a third runway at Heathrow would anger several cabinet ministers who have staked out positions against the project, including Justine Greening, Greg Hands and Philip Hammond.
There is also opposition from figures including Zac Goldsmith, MP for Richmond, who declared on Tuesday that he would run for London mayor next year. Mr Goldsmith is a vehement critic of the third runway and has threatened to resign as an MP if it goes ahead. Boris Johnson, the current mayor, has promised to lie down in front of the bulldozers if the project is approved.
The aviation commission is chaired by Sir Howard Davies, former head of the CBI, who is about to become the chair of RBS.
If ministers wait six months to respond to the Davies Commission it will prompt anxiety at the Department for Transport, where officials are keen for a speedier decision.
Civil servants say they need to start work on any proposed legislation and to prepare for legal challenges that are considered almost inevitable.
The transport department refused to comment.
"Sinking Without A Trace"
From todays FT, the whole project may be not be sinking but its listing to starboard....badly !
See below
Ministers will not provide a formal response to the Davies commission on aviation until the end of the year in a move that will provoke fears of prevarication over Britain’s next new runway.
The independent group will issue its final report in late June and will recommend either Gatwick or Heathrow as the optimal site for a new runway in the southeast. The report will clear the way for a political decision on the long-delayed issue.
But one Whitehall official said there would be no immediate response beyond a cursory acceptance of the report by senior ministers. A more detailed reaction would not be issued until “before Christmas”, he said.
That will come as a blow to aviation executives who had expected a full government response in the late summer.
Business groups have repeatedly called on the government to make up its mind and authorise a runway somewhere close to London to deal with future capacity constraints.
The signal of a delay reinforces the reality that there is no political consensus on where to build another airport given the huge complications around the two main options. Many business groups would prefer the expansion of Heathrow over Gatwick because the former is an existing hub with links to most destinations around the world.
Yet approving a third runway at Heathrow would anger several cabinet ministers who have staked out positions against the project, including Justine Greening, Greg Hands and Philip Hammond.
There is also opposition from figures including Zac Goldsmith, MP for Richmond, who declared on Tuesday that he would run for London mayor next year. Mr Goldsmith is a vehement critic of the third runway and has threatened to resign as an MP if it goes ahead. Boris Johnson, the current mayor, has promised to lie down in front of the bulldozers if the project is approved.
The aviation commission is chaired by Sir Howard Davies, former head of the CBI, who is about to become the chair of RBS.
If ministers wait six months to respond to the Davies Commission it will prompt anxiety at the Department for Transport, where officials are keen for a speedier decision.
Civil servants say they need to start work on any proposed legislation and to prepare for legal challenges that are considered almost inevitable.
The transport department refused to comment.