LHR given permission to build 3rd runway?
Haven't a clue
And after BA, KLM UK moved the LHR -GCI route to Stansted
In the case of Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (and probably some others) the routes were moved by BA to LGW to free up slots for bigger planes going to places I've never heard of.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Thankyou. I attend SASIG and they are all pro 3rd runway, many members saying it will increase their local firms freight exports - alas all will travel by road from the Northern powerhouse. ?
...and assuming they can get past the hell that is the m6 in Birmingham they will come to a grinding halt for 6 years on the M25 20 odd mile fr Heathrow unless proper thought is given as to how to minimise disruption and how to pay for it.
That said maybe "someone " anyone should provide some robust analysis on construction first.
SOMETHING I for one assumed was in the AC report but is again left wanting.
Trash
Playing the wounded party is tosh.
The implication of providing a list like that is providing an assumption in the readers mind that all those airports need some kind of linkage to Heathrow. Plain nonsense.
You post a wildly innacurate list and then have the audacity to cry wolf and deny it's implications?
That approach doesn't support Heathrow it ridicules it.
...and assuming they can get past the hell that is the m6 in Birmingham they will come to a grinding halt for 6 years on the M25 20 odd mile fr Heathrow unless proper thought is given as to how to minimise disruption and how to pay for it.
That said maybe "someone " anyone should provide some robust analysis on construction first.
SOMETHING I for one assumed was in the AC report but is again left wanting.
Trash
Playing the wounded party is tosh.
The implication of providing a list like that is providing an assumption in the readers mind that all those airports need some kind of linkage to Heathrow. Plain nonsense.
You post a wildly innacurate list and then have the audacity to cry wolf and deny it's implications?
That approach doesn't support Heathrow it ridicules it.
First of the post-announcement public meetings
I see that John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor and MP for Hayes & Harlington, in whose constituency most of R3 would be located, is convening a public meeting tonight "to discuss the Government's announcement".
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Support doesn't equal a need for an air-link.
How's it inaccurate?
About what?
Spillover Effects of the Development Constraints in London Heathrow Airport
Interesting paper from a couple of years ago that I hadn't come across before:
Abstract:
"In this article we assess the growth impact of London Heathrow’s development constraints on other airports in the UK. To test the relationship we use a two-stage methodology yielding an estimate of a congestion spillover effect. Our data are passenger traffic from 1990 to 2012 containing both intercontinental and European air traffic. For intercontinental air traffic, our results show high congestion spillover effect between Heathrow and Gatwick airports, and significant but lesser effect to Stansted airport. We also find significant congestion spillover effects from Heathrow to the spatially more distant Manchester and Birmingham airports, showing the extensive spatial impact of Heathrow’s development constraints. For European air traffic, controlling for low-cost air carrier growth, only two airports show significant congestion spillover effects: Gatwick and London City Airports. Illustrating that low-cost carriers do not operate from Heathrow, so its limitations cannot affect the predominant low-cost air traffic in other airports. The novel methodology we present in this paper can be applied to congestion research in general to assess regional and modal spills within networks."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2380226
Abstract:
"In this article we assess the growth impact of London Heathrow’s development constraints on other airports in the UK. To test the relationship we use a two-stage methodology yielding an estimate of a congestion spillover effect. Our data are passenger traffic from 1990 to 2012 containing both intercontinental and European air traffic. For intercontinental air traffic, our results show high congestion spillover effect between Heathrow and Gatwick airports, and significant but lesser effect to Stansted airport. We also find significant congestion spillover effects from Heathrow to the spatially more distant Manchester and Birmingham airports, showing the extensive spatial impact of Heathrow’s development constraints. For European air traffic, controlling for low-cost air carrier growth, only two airports show significant congestion spillover effects: Gatwick and London City Airports. Illustrating that low-cost carriers do not operate from Heathrow, so its limitations cannot affect the predominant low-cost air traffic in other airports. The novel methodology we present in this paper can be applied to congestion research in general to assess regional and modal spills within networks."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2380226
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate that BA are a commercial operation and will chase the fastest best return......
But Pula, Mykynos, Murcia, etc etc from Heathrow using slots handed by Virgin that were previously domestic feed. !
BA seem to be doing the exact opposite of what HAL want them to do.
Where on earth are our routes to emerging markets ?
They seem to be almost goading Heathrow !
But Pula, Mykynos, Murcia, etc etc from Heathrow using slots handed by Virgin that were previously domestic feed. !
BA seem to be doing the exact opposite of what HAL want them to do.
Where on earth are our routes to emerging markets ?
They seem to be almost goading Heathrow !
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
Well I suppose somebody has to state the obvious - these are all SATURDAY ONLY services using surplus SHORT HAUL aircraft on the one day in seven when high frequency services on key business routes are not required but leisure demand is high. What Heathrow want most is maximum passenger volume through their shops, this helps deliver it.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wales
Age: 44
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ps watch your word count there Frank , interesting observations but others have been shot for much less!
fairdeal frank, an illuminating address if I may say so. You can see what's coming: " In the light of new information concerning the crossing of M25, the up-to-date pollution and noise issues and the new economic figures, it has been decided to bring back Sir Howard Davies and his team to examine again and report back. We must get this right."
Whatever happened to sound decision-making? Take the Lakeside Incinerator for instance.
Built between 2005 and 2008 so around 2002 someone must have asked is it ok to put it here, slap opposite the airport? No problem said the government of the day, there is absolutely no chance that land will be needed, ever, so go ahead but dont forget to put some obstruction lights on it...
It cost £160million to privately build according to its website. I'm fairly certain that Davies said the cost of demolition, land cost old and new and rebuilding would be circa 1 billion but now cannot find any reference to these costs in his Final Report so I could be out by a few hundred mill.. All this for a plant only 8 years into a 25 year life. Same could be said of digging up M25 only a few years since its last upgrade. Its enough to make the accountants weep.
Built between 2005 and 2008 so around 2002 someone must have asked is it ok to put it here, slap opposite the airport? No problem said the government of the day, there is absolutely no chance that land will be needed, ever, so go ahead but dont forget to put some obstruction lights on it...
It cost £160million to privately build according to its website. I'm fairly certain that Davies said the cost of demolition, land cost old and new and rebuilding would be circa 1 billion but now cannot find any reference to these costs in his Final Report so I could be out by a few hundred mill.. All this for a plant only 8 years into a 25 year life. Same could be said of digging up M25 only a few years since its last upgrade. Its enough to make the accountants weep.
Similarly, Hounslow council had a scheme for a railway between Feltham and Heathrow (based on a 1966 proposal, (really!)). This is a great idea and a way to resolve lack of rail access from the south. Guess what? There's construction going on along the proposed route. Again, the left hand doing one thing and the right hand......
Says it all doesn't it!
What the anti-Heathrow lobby and the handful of MPs who trot out the meaningless soundbite "better not bigger" fail to explain is how to resolve the capacity problem of
Heathrow without another rwy.
They also fail to explain why the congestion, delays and the resultant additional pollution that is a consequence of operating at 100%+ capacity (i.e. the status quo) is acceptable.
Why is this?
Dep for Transport fact sheet.
Heathrow will become even better connected with more daily long and short-haul destinations, more seats on domestic routes, and greatly improved road and rail services.
Connectivity
Increased runway capacity at Heathrow will enable an additional 260,000 flights a year at Heathrow, with an extra 16 million long haul seats for passengers travelling from UK airports in 2040.
Following expansion, Heathrow says it could add 6 more domestic UK routes by 2030. This could also mean a wider choice of airlines and cheaper fares if more airlines can fly to more regional airports such as Liverpool, Newquay and Durham Tees Valley.
Transport Links
An expanded Heathrow will be served by High Speed 2 (by 2026) via an interchange at Old Oak Common and Crossrail (by 2018), linking Heathrow to the north and more points in the heart of London: the City, Canary Wharf and East London.
Transport for London also plans to increase capacity and upgrade trains on the Piccadilly line.
Heathrow has pledged that there will be no increase in airport-related road traffic created by expansion. It will deliver better bus, coach and rail services, so that at least 50% of passengers will use public transport to get to and from Heathrow by 2030.
Heathrow has also agreed to pay for the full cost of improvements to the M25, A4 and A3044 required to deliver an expanded airport.
Western rail access and southern rail access could also provide 4 trains an hour to Reading and Slough and improved rail connections with Staines and the south-west of London. The government expects Heathrow to contribute towards these new links.
The government is looking at M4 capacity as part of normal roads investment planning. London’s population is growing and congestion on the M4 is not just an airport issue - if improvements benefit airport users then the airport is expected to pay a share of the cost in line with existing policy on the funding of surface access schemes.
The Airports Commission estimated costs between £15.3 billion and £17.6 billion in the construction of the runway and terminal facilities. The government expects the industry to work together to drive down costs for the benefits of passengers, a process which will be overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
All costs presented in this factsheet are estimates of undiscounted scheme capital expenditure.
Connectivity
Increased runway capacity at Heathrow will enable an additional 260,000 flights a year at Heathrow, with an extra 16 million long haul seats for passengers travelling from UK airports in 2040.
Following expansion, Heathrow says it could add 6 more domestic UK routes by 2030. This could also mean a wider choice of airlines and cheaper fares if more airlines can fly to more regional airports such as Liverpool, Newquay and Durham Tees Valley.
Transport Links
An expanded Heathrow will be served by High Speed 2 (by 2026) via an interchange at Old Oak Common and Crossrail (by 2018), linking Heathrow to the north and more points in the heart of London: the City, Canary Wharf and East London.
Transport for London also plans to increase capacity and upgrade trains on the Piccadilly line.
Heathrow has pledged that there will be no increase in airport-related road traffic created by expansion. It will deliver better bus, coach and rail services, so that at least 50% of passengers will use public transport to get to and from Heathrow by 2030.
Heathrow has also agreed to pay for the full cost of improvements to the M25, A4 and A3044 required to deliver an expanded airport.
Western rail access and southern rail access could also provide 4 trains an hour to Reading and Slough and improved rail connections with Staines and the south-west of London. The government expects Heathrow to contribute towards these new links.
The government is looking at M4 capacity as part of normal roads investment planning. London’s population is growing and congestion on the M4 is not just an airport issue - if improvements benefit airport users then the airport is expected to pay a share of the cost in line with existing policy on the funding of surface access schemes.
The Airports Commission estimated costs between £15.3 billion and £17.6 billion in the construction of the runway and terminal facilities. The government expects the industry to work together to drive down costs for the benefits of passengers, a process which will be overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
All costs presented in this factsheet are estimates of undiscounted scheme capital expenditure.
It's worth noting that the DfT's announcement about last week's decision included the statement that:
"An extra runway at Heathrow will deliver lower fares relative to no expansion"
implying that either user charges will not increase as a consequence of the expansion or airlines will choose (or be compelled) not to pass on any such increases to passengers.
"An extra runway at Heathrow will deliver lower fares relative to no expansion"
implying that either user charges will not increase as a consequence of the expansion or airlines will choose (or be compelled) not to pass on any such increases to passengers.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DaveReid
My interpretation of that is as follows. If we do nothing and if air travel markets increase by say 2.5% per annum which I think was the AC central assumption, then capacity constraints at Heathrow really begin to bite by 2030. In that situation scarcity pricing kicks in and airlines enjoy significant economic rents. Why? Because there is monopoly power at the hub especially for London origin/destination traffic and LGW,BHX and MAN are not good enough substitutes.
If we build the third runway then aero charges at LHR increase by let us say £13 per single journey (that in itself needs assumptions about the non aero revenue streams and the way the scheme is remunerated). I think that assuming that is fully passed through, most work suggests that is less, probably considerably less than the price hike which would otherwise occur through scarcity pricing.
Maybe business traffic being the least price elastic is what faces the biggest hikes, the increases will not be uniform within the planes or LH vs SH.
The statement does not carry the implication you give it. It is a comparison between two alternative future states of the world not between the present and the future.
Expect forensic examination of this by whatever Select Cttees will be trawling all over this in the runup to the vote. Is the market modelling right? BA and others will have something to say about that.
My interpretation of that is as follows. If we do nothing and if air travel markets increase by say 2.5% per annum which I think was the AC central assumption, then capacity constraints at Heathrow really begin to bite by 2030. In that situation scarcity pricing kicks in and airlines enjoy significant economic rents. Why? Because there is monopoly power at the hub especially for London origin/destination traffic and LGW,BHX and MAN are not good enough substitutes.
If we build the third runway then aero charges at LHR increase by let us say £13 per single journey (that in itself needs assumptions about the non aero revenue streams and the way the scheme is remunerated). I think that assuming that is fully passed through, most work suggests that is less, probably considerably less than the price hike which would otherwise occur through scarcity pricing.
Maybe business traffic being the least price elastic is what faces the biggest hikes, the increases will not be uniform within the planes or LH vs SH.
The statement does not carry the implication you give it. It is a comparison between two alternative future states of the world not between the present and the future.
Expect forensic examination of this by whatever Select Cttees will be trawling all over this in the runup to the vote. Is the market modelling right? BA and others will have something to say about that.
If that's the case, it would have been better to remove the ambiguity by saying something like
"Fares will go up in future by less if we build a new runway than if we don't"
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes agreed. Of course in another part of the forest there is all the stuff about long run productivity growth, bigger planes, fuel efficiency trends etc. They may not have wanted Fares Will Rise headlines when there are lots of cost drivers out there some up some down. Not least the carbon price regime!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening standard stirring the pot......
Government's own study reveals Heathrow third runway would be less beneficial to UK residents than Gatwick | London Evening Standard
Government's own study reveals Heathrow third runway would be less beneficial to UK residents than Gatwick | London Evening Standard
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My attention was drawn to this from last Monday's daily Mail letters page:
PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News
Go towards the bottom of the first column and the top of the second (letter sent by Philip Lewis of Bognor Regis Sussex.
Deliberate error?
PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News
Go towards the bottom of the first column and the top of the second (letter sent by Philip Lewis of Bognor Regis Sussex.
Deliberate error?
My attention was drawn to this from last Monday's daily Mail letters page:
PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News
Go towards the bottom of the first column and the top of the second (letter sent by Philip Lewis of Bognor Regis Sussex.
Deliberate error?
PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News
Go towards the bottom of the first column and the top of the second (letter sent by Philip Lewis of Bognor Regis Sussex.
Deliberate error?
It looks like pretty standard fare for the Mail - someone trying to be witty but ending up just sounding daft.
Or am I missing something ?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank
My attention was drawn to this from last Monday's daily Mail letters page:
PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News
Go towards the bottom of the first column and the top of the second (letter sent by Philip Lewis of Bognor Regis Sussex.
Deliberate error?
How do you mean ?
It looks like pretty standard fare for the Mail - someone trying to be witty but ending up just sounding daft.
Or am I missing something ?
Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank
My attention was drawn to this from last Monday's daily Mail letters page:
PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News
Go towards the bottom of the first column and the top of the second (letter sent by Philip Lewis of Bognor Regis Sussex.
Deliberate error?
How do you mean ?
It looks like pretty standard fare for the Mail - someone trying to be witty but ending up just sounding daft.
Or am I missing something ?
Well maybe he's under the impression they only have one at the moment?
I'm struggling to think of a reason why anyone would be disingenuous enough to pretend they didn't know it had 2 runways already if they did actually know that.
Like I said - someone trying to be witty but ending up just sounding daft.
Deliberate error?
Like I said - someone trying to be witty but ending up just sounding daft.