MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Dont think anyone is claiming there are no slots available at LHR . There are, just outwith the peak zones that airlines want"
True, but there is also a 480,000 ATM cap at LHR, and the airport is currently running at 98% of that level. So the potential for growth through more flights is extremely limited. Until (unless) a new runway is provided Heathrow's growth is dependent on increases in seat factor or aircraft size.
True, but there is also a 480,000 ATM cap at LHR, and the airport is currently running at 98% of that level. So the potential for growth through more flights is extremely limited. Until (unless) a new runway is provided Heathrow's growth is dependent on increases in seat factor or aircraft size.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN-LGW is a dead duck, just like STN-NCL. There's not enough p2p to make it work and there's just no alliance or network operation in place at LGW. EZY don't do connections and BA's business model is now p2p loco leisure on short haul, not something people connect for when they can fly MAN direct. The clue in this market is that not one single operator picked it up when BA walked away.
Time to move on. Btw LGW at peak time had world class enormous queues in summer.
Time to move on. Btw LGW at peak time had world class enormous queues in summer.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always nice to have important folk visit the region.
Speaker of the US House of Representatives declares Northern Powerhouse 'vital' to America - Manchester Evening News
Speaker of the US House of Representatives declares Northern Powerhouse 'vital' to America - Manchester Evening News
I did wonder what this was doing here.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Swynnerton
Age: 33
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates
According to Flightradar, our EK17 declared emergency ehilst on approach? Does anyone know what the emergency was or if Flightradar was playing up? It seems to be doing it a lot lately
SWISS
A few years ago LX were very popular with good connections to China & Hong Kong with very competitive prices. I'm one that used them for that. I guess the same applies to other Asian destinatioins.
It very much looks like the ME3 have eaten into that market - throw in the direct CX and it becomes unsurprising in the reduction of services.
It very much looks like the ME3 have eaten into that market - throw in the direct CX and it becomes unsurprising in the reduction of services.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree about LX. ZRH used to be such a good place to connect until LX cut the frequency down to 2 a day. Now you often find that the connections only work in one direction.
I think that MAG should give at least as much attention to beefing up frequency on existing routes as it does to getting new destinations. There often seems to be a "flags on the map" attitude to route development at MAN, whereas connectivity is just as much about schedule depth.
I think that MAG should give at least as much attention to beefing up frequency on existing routes as it does to getting new destinations. There often seems to be a "flags on the map" attitude to route development at MAN, whereas connectivity is just as much about schedule depth.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also with LAXLHR on the Atlanta issue.
I'm bewildered that this can be stated as a loss. Virgin are taking over from Delta and putting a bigger aircraft on - how can that be counted as a loss? More of a gain I would say.... in pax seats available.
However as someone who uses the MAN-ATL around once a month, I would rather have kept DL as their C cabin, and definitely their service, is better than the average VS 744 up at the pointy end in the nose.
Not been on their A333 yet - so keeping my fingers crossed for my next trip in 3 weeks time.
The Delta CC I was talking to were miffed about the situation as they seemed to make the most of the stopovers and get themselves about up to the Lakes, the Dales, York, Chester etc. One of the CC was a complete Anglophile and said he always asked for a MAN or LHR on the roster. I'd seen him 2 or 3 times over a year's flights.
I'm bewildered that this can be stated as a loss. Virgin are taking over from Delta and putting a bigger aircraft on - how can that be counted as a loss? More of a gain I would say.... in pax seats available.
However as someone who uses the MAN-ATL around once a month, I would rather have kept DL as their C cabin, and definitely their service, is better than the average VS 744 up at the pointy end in the nose.
Not been on their A333 yet - so keeping my fingers crossed for my next trip in 3 weeks time.
The Delta CC I was talking to were miffed about the situation as they seemed to make the most of the stopovers and get themselves about up to the Lakes, the Dales, York, Chester etc. One of the CC was a complete Anglophile and said he always asked for a MAN or LHR on the roster. I'd seen him 2 or 3 times over a year's flights.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I have read it is the post was listing all of the dropped routes from MAN in 2015, regardless of whether other carriers were going to step in on/continue said routes. So the post is correct in stating that MAN will lose its daily Delta ATL flight. Of course the Virgin flight that is replacing it has separately been counted as a new route, so overall there is no significant loss or gain (aside from a difference the number of seats) for the route.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of the growth for 2015 and this winters growth being higher than the summer forecast, maybe MAN is working on reducing the 'seasonality gap' between Summer and Winter.
Typically in the past, due to the charter nature of the airport, the summer has been much, much busier than winter. For example, Jet2 parks up the majority of its fleet in the winter, and Ryanair has done similar.
This February saw a fair few increases, namely from the MEB3, Icelandair, Aegean and Flybe. Next winter we already know Vueling have added a winter programme, increases from easyjet and possibility of Hainan and Austrian, and thats before we getinto the 'announcement rush' that usually occurs June-August. So, the focus of growth may now be in winter, where the infrastructure is better placed to cope with the growth, and, people are increasingly starting to travel more frequently all year.
Ryanair are already starting change their policy on parking up aircraft over the winter periods, Jet2 may follow suit, and lets face it, its easier to add frequencies when airlines have spare capacity rather than the peak season when the aircraft are run ragged.
So, lets not get down on the fact 'growth isn't as much as expected' this summer, just be thankfull there is growth anyway, but, I do now think the winter seasons are where the more noticable growth will occur.
Typically in the past, due to the charter nature of the airport, the summer has been much, much busier than winter. For example, Jet2 parks up the majority of its fleet in the winter, and Ryanair has done similar.
This February saw a fair few increases, namely from the MEB3, Icelandair, Aegean and Flybe. Next winter we already know Vueling have added a winter programme, increases from easyjet and possibility of Hainan and Austrian, and thats before we getinto the 'announcement rush' that usually occurs June-August. So, the focus of growth may now be in winter, where the infrastructure is better placed to cope with the growth, and, people are increasingly starting to travel more frequently all year.
Ryanair are already starting change their policy on parking up aircraft over the winter periods, Jet2 may follow suit, and lets face it, its easier to add frequencies when airlines have spare capacity rather than the peak season when the aircraft are run ragged.
So, lets not get down on the fact 'growth isn't as much as expected' this summer, just be thankfull there is growth anyway, but, I do now think the winter seasons are where the more noticable growth will occur.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the subject of using LX to the Far East, by coincidence I am using them next weekend to fly to and from Shanghai and the connections are pretty good.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Situations Vacant ; Local Parish Church, (congregation 12, occasionally 13 if Mrs brown who is bad on her legs turns up), minimal skills required.
Note - Former Airport Capacity Commissioners need not apply !
Once again i'm indebted to Shed for raising an excellent point , this time the subject matter being the endangered species of slots to London !
Seemingly yet another interesting aspect of "trends" re airport capacity that Sir Howard Davies and his razor sharp team of civil servants have thus far completely omitted to mention. They really should have stuck to something less taxing (see above).
BMI MAN- LHR Gone
Little Red MAN- LHR Gone
BA MAN -LGW Gone
BA MAN- LHR Reduction
If the trend is for a reduction in frequency/seats and a significant one at that, how on earth will Manchester and indeed the rest of the UK benefit from this "tsunami of connectivity/wealth" promised by "BackHeathrow" ?
Did BMI and indeed Little Red not also serve Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen etc ?
Blaming lack of access especially in the case of Little Red, really is utter tosh. Connecting via London from the regions is in terminal decline. BA can make and will make,more money using those slots to benefit other routes, HAD they made money in the first place they would still be operating, simple !
As an aside discarded routes to other UK airports to LHR would also still exist IF THEY MADE MONEY !
There are simply not enough regional passengers flying to LHR any more !
Those that choose to do so have more than adequate frequency eg average 8 a day from MAN, GLA etc AND the planes that do operate are presumably carrying more passengers !
If HAL want a new runway and can convince their shareholders of the business case, no problem BUT please RW3 is a runway for London NOT the UK !
Interestingly MANFOD did I also read that the average passenger load into LHR was 214 whilst into Manchester it was 173 ?
Now I appreciate airlines that use LHR do not wish to use Manchester, ( i'll slip that one in now before you do Skip) but do I really read that right ?
The mix of much higher capacity aircraft must dwarf Manchester by a factor of 30 to 1 and yet this does not on the face of it seem to be reflected in the loads carried ?
Heathrow handles 3 times the passengers that use Manchester but given the wave after wave of A380, B777, B787 , B767, A321 every 90 seconds ,16 hours a day I would have thought that average would...... and indeed should be monstrously higher, the airport is FULL is it not ! ?
Before the shareholders of LHR very generously invest £20billion to support the "national good" should they not question the operational aspects of there own ability in employing a formula that maximises utilization ?
...oh dear , we are not doing well are we , yet again a very significant point that The Reverend Davies and his bunch of Tea Ladies might have considered !
(no offence to Tea Ladies intended)
Note - Former Airport Capacity Commissioners need not apply !
Once again i'm indebted to Shed for raising an excellent point , this time the subject matter being the endangered species of slots to London !
Seemingly yet another interesting aspect of "trends" re airport capacity that Sir Howard Davies and his razor sharp team of civil servants have thus far completely omitted to mention. They really should have stuck to something less taxing (see above).
BMI MAN- LHR Gone
Little Red MAN- LHR Gone
BA MAN -LGW Gone
BA MAN- LHR Reduction
If the trend is for a reduction in frequency/seats and a significant one at that, how on earth will Manchester and indeed the rest of the UK benefit from this "tsunami of connectivity/wealth" promised by "BackHeathrow" ?
Did BMI and indeed Little Red not also serve Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen etc ?
Blaming lack of access especially in the case of Little Red, really is utter tosh. Connecting via London from the regions is in terminal decline. BA can make and will make,more money using those slots to benefit other routes, HAD they made money in the first place they would still be operating, simple !
As an aside discarded routes to other UK airports to LHR would also still exist IF THEY MADE MONEY !
There are simply not enough regional passengers flying to LHR any more !
Those that choose to do so have more than adequate frequency eg average 8 a day from MAN, GLA etc AND the planes that do operate are presumably carrying more passengers !
If HAL want a new runway and can convince their shareholders of the business case, no problem BUT please RW3 is a runway for London NOT the UK !
Interestingly MANFOD did I also read that the average passenger load into LHR was 214 whilst into Manchester it was 173 ?
Now I appreciate airlines that use LHR do not wish to use Manchester, ( i'll slip that one in now before you do Skip) but do I really read that right ?
The mix of much higher capacity aircraft must dwarf Manchester by a factor of 30 to 1 and yet this does not on the face of it seem to be reflected in the loads carried ?
Heathrow handles 3 times the passengers that use Manchester but given the wave after wave of A380, B777, B787 , B767, A321 every 90 seconds ,16 hours a day I would have thought that average would...... and indeed should be monstrously higher, the airport is FULL is it not ! ?
Before the shareholders of LHR very generously invest £20billion to support the "national good" should they not question the operational aspects of there own ability in employing a formula that maximises utilization ?
...oh dear , we are not doing well are we , yet again a very significant point that The Reverend Davies and his bunch of Tea Ladies might have considered !
(no offence to Tea Ladies intended)
Last edited by Bagso; 29th Mar 2015 at 08:34.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso a million words when it's simpler.
If I fly CX MAN-HKG but the one single daily flight doesn't suit me, I can avail myself of one of the five daily LHR flights and connect on the way back or vice versa. The same should be true of SIN but non BA regional connections to LHR see the revenue flow to the long haul STAR partner and almost zero to the short haul one (BMI). Result being, service axed. I am off to LAX in the summer with American, going LHR-ORD-LAX-LHR, hence one of my flights is indirect. It's not uncommon and so your religious zeal that expanding the one hub we have can't benefit GLA, EDI, ABZ, LBA, BHD and MAN is to my eyes, palpably false.
Off topic but was through AMS yesterday, it's feeling incredibly old world and dated now.
If I fly CX MAN-HKG but the one single daily flight doesn't suit me, I can avail myself of one of the five daily LHR flights and connect on the way back or vice versa. The same should be true of SIN but non BA regional connections to LHR see the revenue flow to the long haul STAR partner and almost zero to the short haul one (BMI). Result being, service axed. I am off to LAX in the summer with American, going LHR-ORD-LAX-LHR, hence one of my flights is indirect. It's not uncommon and so your religious zeal that expanding the one hub we have can't benefit GLA, EDI, ABZ, LBA, BHD and MAN is to my eyes, palpably false.
Off topic but was through AMS yesterday, it's feeling incredibly old world and dated now.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, Bagso does raise a valid point about utilisation of Heathrow's limited slot capacity.
LHR still has a lot of A319-size movements, which do little to optimise overall throughput. You have to question whether this is sustainable as pressure on the runways continues to mount. Yes, I know about the need for frequency on short-haul, but I wonder whether some frequency reductions on thick routes offset by larger capacity aircraft might reap longer term benefits.
Of course this isn't under the control of HAL, other than through the pricing mechanism (eg HAL could impose a much higher minimum runway charge to incentivise the use of larger aircraft). Ultimately it is an airline decision, and especially a decision for BA.
Those of us with long memories might recall that prior to BA ordering large numbers of 319s their schedule planning for LHR was based on no aircraft under c200 seats. That was in response to a proposal to cap movements at 275,000 ATMs. If BA thought it was a viable approach then, why not now?
On the comparison of average seats note that this is based on aircraft capacity not loadings. The modest difference between MAN and LHR might at first seem surprising, but remember that the premium-heavy config of many wide-bodied aircraft at LHR reduces the overall number of seats. For example BA's 772s have only 224 seats in four-class config, less than (eg) Jet2's 757s. The detailed ACL reports have a lot of info on the distribution of ATMs by aircraft capacity, and you can see that LHR has a lot of smallish aircraft.
LHR still has a lot of A319-size movements, which do little to optimise overall throughput. You have to question whether this is sustainable as pressure on the runways continues to mount. Yes, I know about the need for frequency on short-haul, but I wonder whether some frequency reductions on thick routes offset by larger capacity aircraft might reap longer term benefits.
Of course this isn't under the control of HAL, other than through the pricing mechanism (eg HAL could impose a much higher minimum runway charge to incentivise the use of larger aircraft). Ultimately it is an airline decision, and especially a decision for BA.
Those of us with long memories might recall that prior to BA ordering large numbers of 319s their schedule planning for LHR was based on no aircraft under c200 seats. That was in response to a proposal to cap movements at 275,000 ATMs. If BA thought it was a viable approach then, why not now?
On the comparison of average seats note that this is based on aircraft capacity not loadings. The modest difference between MAN and LHR might at first seem surprising, but remember that the premium-heavy config of many wide-bodied aircraft at LHR reduces the overall number of seats. For example BA's 772s have only 224 seats in four-class config, less than (eg) Jet2's 757s. The detailed ACL reports have a lot of info on the distribution of ATMs by aircraft capacity, and you can see that LHR has a lot of smallish aircraft.
Last edited by BasilBush; 29th Mar 2015 at 10:28.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and so your religious zeal that expanding the one hub we have can't benefit GLA, EDI, ABZ, LBA, BHD and MAN is to my eyes, palpably false.
8 shuttles a day with a reasonable spread of timings provide ample opportunity of connectivity at LHR if pax so wish. If there were even more long haul destinations from LHR, it is true that passengers from the North West would have another choice of hub to fly through instead of by the Middle East, Hong Kong, Singapore or one of the European hubs, but why should they change?
Let's consider the potential harmful effects on MAN. There may not be a deluge of transfer pax on flybe's MAN routes from Newquay, Exeter, Isle of Man, but if those places were to get their own flights to Heathrow how is that going to help MAN? It may be the trickle of transfer pax that justifies the frequency or even the route itself.
Secondly, airlines not having an infinite number of aircraft and given the opportunity of additional slots at LHR could well put some existing long haul routes into MAN, and indeed other UK airports, in jeopardy. Irrespective of the financial arguments by the airlines of doing this, such an outcome to MAN could hardly be said to be beneficial. To LHR, yes; to MAN no.
I am surprised in some ways that airports such as NCL and LBA are supportive of expansion at LHR. I would have thought both those airports would be keen to get more direct services to European cities by national carriers and I don't see how getting a few extra shuttles to LHR is going to help if that is the objective. Rather, it may have an adverse effect. And given the proximity and frequent trains from Leeds to MAN, perhaps some endorsement of expansion of long haul flights from here might have been appropriate as well as, not instead of, support for LHR if they really believe the latter is in Leeds interest.
Of course, it would be inconceivable for the city of Liverpool or its airport to be seen in support of expansion at MAN, but fortunately many of the residents of Merseyside seem content to use our airport. To be fair, I can understand the prospect of a few flights a day to Heathrow being an attractive proposition in view of the lack of services by legacy carriers to Europe from LPL.
In summary, expansion of LHR would in my view be of benefit to some UK airports and some regions, but by no means all. And in MAN's case, I believe it could be detrimental to its potential growth.
Why MAN appeared to leave it so late to promote itself as the Northern Gateway, and whether it could have done more to rally support from other regional cities and airports is a separate issue. Maybe MAN would argue it has.
Edit: Basil, good point you make about the A319s at LHR and their capacity compared to the B757s that used to be prevalent.
Last edited by MANFOD; 29th Mar 2015 at 15:23.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you do not feel it is important or have no interest in trains look away now !
More Welsh residents use Manchester than Heathrow !
This appears to be something of a blow considering the evidence quoted here,
The English airport, the Welsh business travellers, and the disappearing rail link - Wales Online
I assume its doubtful that anything can be done before the election ?
More Welsh residents use Manchester than Heathrow !
This appears to be something of a blow considering the evidence quoted here,
The English airport, the Welsh business travellers, and the disappearing rail link - Wales Online
I assume its doubtful that anything can be done before the election ?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its All About The Cost ...
Skipness - Further to all the excellent points on this topic made by other posters, I must remind you that spending ANOTHER £6,000,000,000 of public funds on a London infrastructure project offering very questionable levels of payback would be absolutely toxic for the regions. And with the LHR proposals the taxpayer gets to underwrite potentially three-times that sum on top as well. That money can only be spent once (as you well know). Commitment of large-scale public infrastructure investment into the regions is at least two decades overdue already. Another six billion plus thrown at LHR now (and how much for 'Crossrail 2'?) would push back regional investment priorities even longer. We can all think of vital neglected infrastructure needs which would hugely benefit this region (including Liverpool). Far more than 3x daily A319's flying LPL-LHR. Until they could be quietly dropped as 'uneconomic to run' after a decent period.
We don't back reckless public spending on "our one hub" because we DO instead back long overdue direct investment in OUR roads, railways, runways and ports. "Our one hub" dominated by a carrier which doesn't give a fig about the business needs of the regions. Competing with carriers which provide direct employment and connectivity from OUR hub solution here at MAN. We are not being unpatriotic by opposing economically doubtful public spending on LHR. We are actually being patriotic by promoting the far greater value for public money which the regions can deliver to 'UK plc' by finally addressing pressing infrastructure needs right here.
We don't back reckless public spending on "our one hub" because we DO instead back long overdue direct investment in OUR roads, railways, runways and ports. "Our one hub" dominated by a carrier which doesn't give a fig about the business needs of the regions. Competing with carriers which provide direct employment and connectivity from OUR hub solution here at MAN. We are not being unpatriotic by opposing economically doubtful public spending on LHR. We are actually being patriotic by promoting the far greater value for public money which the regions can deliver to 'UK plc' by finally addressing pressing infrastructure needs right here.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you explain the sense in which the taxpayer will be underwriting the £18bn. HAL is a regulated utility, the £18bn will be recovered through aero charges, see the PWC report on the AC website which Basil Bush and others have referred to previously. Do you really think there's a risk the traffic won't stand it and HAL will go under?
The £6bn for the M25 tunnels and the station is an assumption. Govt has not said that's what will happen if R3 gets the green light. That is all to play for.
The £6bn for the M25 tunnels and the station is an assumption. Govt has not said that's what will happen if R3 gets the green light. That is all to play for.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso ... Your link to 'Wales Online' is another excellent find.
The fact that two rail routes, each offering compelling cases, should have to compete for access to Manchester Airport's global network is quite revealing.
With the conversation above concerning infrastructure investment in mind, it is apropos to point out that linking the Chester - Altrincham line to Manchester Airport Station would open up Chester and North Wales directly to MAN's worldwide flights, whilst continuing to afford those businesses and residents along the Calder Valley corridor the same advantage.
Yet another example, if it were needed, of how relatively modest infrastructure investment directly into this region (compared to costs for LHR R3 and Crossrail 2) could revitalise global access to the North Wales economy. All whilst still accommodating the same opportunity for Calder Valley (Bradford, Halifax, Rochdale).
EDIT: A poster on another site has just posted a link to an article published by the 'Hull Daily Mail'. This reports on a campaign by Hull City Council to require the new Transpennine rail franchisee to offer frequent through-trains between Hull and Manchester Airport. Economic arguments are cited. Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese has expressed his support for the stand taken by his counterparts in Hull.
The fact that two rail routes, each offering compelling cases, should have to compete for access to Manchester Airport's global network is quite revealing.
With the conversation above concerning infrastructure investment in mind, it is apropos to point out that linking the Chester - Altrincham line to Manchester Airport Station would open up Chester and North Wales directly to MAN's worldwide flights, whilst continuing to afford those businesses and residents along the Calder Valley corridor the same advantage.
Yet another example, if it were needed, of how relatively modest infrastructure investment directly into this region (compared to costs for LHR R3 and Crossrail 2) could revitalise global access to the North Wales economy. All whilst still accommodating the same opportunity for Calder Valley (Bradford, Halifax, Rochdale).
EDIT: A poster on another site has just posted a link to an article published by the 'Hull Daily Mail'. This reports on a campaign by Hull City Council to require the new Transpennine rail franchisee to offer frequent through-trains between Hull and Manchester Airport. Economic arguments are cited. Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese has expressed his support for the stand taken by his counterparts in Hull.
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 29th Mar 2015 at 20:26. Reason: Extra Info.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anothertyke ... I certainly don't expect Heathrow Airport itself to disappear as a going concern. However, any business carrying enormous financial debts runs the risk of insolvency in an era of higher prevailing interest rates down the line. If that were to happen, we could see those enormous debts default to the state whilst another corporate entity would inherit responsibility for the valuable asset which is LHR (minus all that pesky historic debt). The taxpayer would be left holding the bag, as usual.
If you study financial history, you will find many examples of major infrastructure innovations which ruined the investors / companies which originally constructed them, yet which continue functioning successfully under new ownership today.
By the way, I acknowledge that the £6 Billion public funding contribution is an assumption at this point. Experience shows us that we can expect the real bill to be far higher.
If you study financial history, you will find many examples of major infrastructure innovations which ruined the investors / companies which originally constructed them, yet which continue functioning successfully under new ownership today.
By the way, I acknowledge that the £6 Billion public funding contribution is an assumption at this point. Experience shows us that we can expect the real bill to be far higher.
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 29th Mar 2015 at 18:51.