LHR given permission to build 3rd runway?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently she bottled it.
Decision next year after more consultation. Spineless moron :-(
Airports expansion decision 'next year' - BBC News
Decision next year after more consultation. Spineless moron :-(
Airports expansion decision 'next year' - BBC News
Look at her opposition: the Labour party is doing back-to-the-future with impersonations of Michael Foot/militant and making itself deeply unpopular with voters; leaderless UKIP are fighting like ferrets in a sack (Nigel will be back); the Libdems are still, unsurprisingly, not trusted.
A pity that she has not learned the mistakes of Gordon Brown and Sunny Jim Callaghan and that is to go the country before the **** hits the fan.
There'll never be a better time from her point of view.
Oh dear... this news isn't really unexpected unless you don't understand national infrastructure planning approvals.
Embarrassing news. Just embarrassing.
Just build a third (and a fourth) and get it over and done with!
Just build a third (and a fourth) and get it over and done with!
The UK is the most densely populated country in Europe. France has the same population in twice the land area.
Countries by Population Density 2015 - StatisticsTimes.com
Enclaves such as Monaco, Gibralter and the Vatican are even more densly populated.
According to the 'pedia the Govt of the day started the HS2 process in January 2009 & the Sec.of State gave a decision to proceed in January '12, so it can be done. Certainly HS2 has a significant environmental impact & substantial costs - or am I missing something?
Yes we used to do things like the Chinese when we built railways and canals and yes we could do it again: as follows:
1. Abolish all judicial review processes and any rights to question all and any Government decisions.
2. Abolish any duties on the government to "consult" various groups.
2. Abolish all right to compensation. Look how wartime legislation gave HMG a head start to 'create' Heathrow as it became by edict rather than actually have to "pay" landowners to buy the land plot by plot.
3. Abolish all H&Safety, Human Rights Acts and employment protection legislation.
4. Remove the right to vote from women - they are the main activists and complainers about usually everything.
1. Abolish all judicial review processes and any rights to question all and any Government decisions.
2. Abolish any duties on the government to "consult" various groups.
2. Abolish all right to compensation. Look how wartime legislation gave HMG a head start to 'create' Heathrow as it became by edict rather than actually have to "pay" landowners to buy the land plot by plot.
3. Abolish all H&Safety, Human Rights Acts and employment protection legislation.
4. Remove the right to vote from women - they are the main activists and complainers about usually everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edi_local
We shall see. With the way things are going from this government so far, combined with their new found anti-foreigner, anti-expert, anti big business rhetoric then I remain to be convinced that LHR will be anything like as busy as it is now in 10 years time as focus moves away from London and towards other EU cities. If we ditch the EU open skies agreements, which this Govt may well do just for a laugh, because let's face it they dont' give a toss about aviation anyway, then we will really be in for a rough ride and LHR will become a shadow of current itself. That is possibly their reason for delaying it, because they know it won't be needed in the future.
Suspect that you are right...
Originally Posted by edi_local
We shall see. With the way things are going from this government so far, combined with their new found anti-foreigner, anti-expert, anti big business rhetoric then I remain to be convinced that LHR will be anything like as busy as it is now in 10 years time as focus moves away from London and towards other EU cities. If we ditch the EU open skies agreements, which this Govt may well do just for a laugh, because let's face it they dont' give a toss about aviation anyway, then we will really be in for a rough ride and LHR will become a shadow of current itself. That is possibly their reason for delaying it, because they know it won't be needed in the future.
Suspect that you are right...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The boss of Heathrow has just done his cause no favours in an interview on the BBC some minutes ago. He was happy to boast about making £1.4Billion profit last year but refused to answer the question re tax paid, alleged by the interviewer to be £54Million, or less than 4%. So, the average tax payer, paying 20% or more, is supposed to be pleased to pay for Heathrow's expansion?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controversial - The best place for runway expansion is India/Beijing and Djakarta - THOSE are the points almost ALL global forecasts indicate are where the vast majority of aviation growth will occur over the next 25 years.
Forecasts for European growth are very much lower and concentrated within the leisure sectors .Its not in long haul and certainly not in short haul business sectors.
The more UK regional traffic bi-passes London the better and its a commercial decision for BA(IAG) to decide whether to target or leave that that market to others_ They have is it 4500 weekly slots at Heathrow and prefer to fly with their colleagues in AA multiple times a day to multiple US cities yet can't seem to make (what is said to be the primary reason for the extra runway) a secondary Chinese city work.
As for the argument that UK regional would regain some access with the increase in slots i simply don't believe it - They went away because they were largely unprofitable - That's the fact.
Remember bmi couldn't even make GLA-LHR shuttle work carrying too many other carrier passengers at pennies on the pound bled claret.
Others would have the same result.
Forecasts for European growth are very much lower and concentrated within the leisure sectors .Its not in long haul and certainly not in short haul business sectors.
The more UK regional traffic bi-passes London the better and its a commercial decision for BA(IAG) to decide whether to target or leave that that market to others_ They have is it 4500 weekly slots at Heathrow and prefer to fly with their colleagues in AA multiple times a day to multiple US cities yet can't seem to make (what is said to be the primary reason for the extra runway) a secondary Chinese city work.
As for the argument that UK regional would regain some access with the increase in slots i simply don't believe it - They went away because they were largely unprofitable - That's the fact.
Remember bmi couldn't even make GLA-LHR shuttle work carrying too many other carrier passengers at pennies on the pound bled claret.
Others would have the same result.
Last edited by rutankrd; 20th Oct 2016 at 09:52. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll admit to being a Heathrow-sceptic, but I have a genuine question to which I would appreciate comment from anyone well-informed on the matter.
Can we really expect Lo-Cos to take up slots at an expanded Heathrow? The charge per passenger is already around £40 and is widely expected to go up to fund the development of R3. How on earth does that fit with a Lo-Co business model? Surely they would have to put up fares to recover costs and would then cease to be a Lo-Co.
Can we really expect Lo-Cos to take up slots at an expanded Heathrow? The charge per passenger is already around £40 and is widely expected to go up to fund the development of R3. How on earth does that fit with a Lo-Co business model? Surely they would have to put up fares to recover costs and would then cease to be a Lo-Co.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
Can we really expect Lo-Cos to take up slots at an expanded Heathrow? The charge per passenger is already around £40 and is widely expected to go up to fund the development of R3. How on earth does that fit with a Lo-Co business model? Surely they would have to put up fares to recover costs and would then cease to be a Lo-Co
Fares from an expanded Heathrow would take account of the operating conditions and for instance you could see them introducing a business product and frequent flyer programme. Both would up yield and cash flow.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pedant alert "Djakarta" has been "Jakarta" since 1972 .... it is pronounced with the "d" tho'
And you are right - CGK opened with two runways in 1985 and they are already looking at expansion - but the locals are up in arms and they are looking at a new airport elsewhere ...sound familiar???
And you are right - CGK opened with two runways in 1985 and they are already looking at expansion - but the locals are up in arms and they are looking at a new airport elsewhere ...sound familiar???
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I absolutely agree that easy could make operations from Heathrow work profitably but this would probably mean a (temporary?) reduction at other London airports or at least little growth. I would not see the likes of Ryanair or Wizz both of which are truly low cost operating from LHR but I have no doubt that IAG would use Vueling to hold as many of the new slots created as possible at as little cost as possible until IAG's legacy operations could grow into them.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
probably mean a (temporary?) reduction at other London airports or at least little growth
Centralisation at work.
That fact is where mega hubs have developed elsewhere particularly evident in the US and to a lesser extent in Japan regional operations are blighted rather than expanded.
US carriers seem particularly disloyal to medium sized markets and aren't adverse to the prospects of de-hubbing.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of those are genuine Low Cost businesses imho
All are subsidiaries of major EU legacies using their slots and booking engines.
You might get a lower frilled service but certainly not true unbundled lower fares of the true flexible fare operators.
All are subsidiaries of major EU legacies using their slots and booking engines.
You might get a lower frilled service but certainly not true unbundled lower fares of the true flexible fare operators.
Does appear that Theresa May is developing a reputation as a bottler. She already bottled an October general election to give her a mandate which she needs because there are storms clouds on the horizon, such as grammar schools, Heathrow, fracking, NHS/junior docs, and brexit.
Look at her opposition: the Labour party is doing back-to-the-future with impersonations of Michael Foot/militant and making itself deeply unpopular with voters; leaderless UKIP are fighting like ferrets in a sack (Nigel will be back); the Libdems are still, unsurprisingly, not trusted.
A pity that she has not learned the mistakes of Gordon Brown and Sunny Jim Callaghan and that is to go the country before the **** hits the fan.
There'll never be a better time from her point of view.
Look at her opposition: the Labour party is doing back-to-the-future with impersonations of Michael Foot/militant and making itself deeply unpopular with voters; leaderless UKIP are fighting like ferrets in a sack (Nigel will be back); the Libdems are still, unsurprisingly, not trusted.
A pity that she has not learned the mistakes of Gordon Brown and Sunny Jim Callaghan and that is to go the country before the **** hits the fan.
There'll never be a better time from her point of view.
Firstly, while the political environment may be in her favour, her party only has a very small majority and a firm decision in favour of a 3rd runway is expected to result in a number of MP’s resigning their seats, some of those being marginals. It’s a heck of a risk to take, and I don’t think Mrs May is a risk taker.
Secondly, she’s bound by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Unless she loses a vote of no confidence she has to continue to 2020.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll admit to being a Heathrow-sceptic, but I have a genuine question to which I would appreciate comment from anyone well-informed on the matter.
Can we really expect Lo-Cos to take up slots at an expanded Heathrow? The charge per passenger is already around £40 and is widely expected to go up to fund the development of R3. How on earth does that fit with a Lo-Co business model? Surely they would have to put up fares to recover costs and would then cease to be a Lo-Co.
Can we really expect Lo-Cos to take up slots at an expanded Heathrow? The charge per passenger is already around £40 and is widely expected to go up to fund the development of R3. How on earth does that fit with a Lo-Co business model? Surely they would have to put up fares to recover costs and would then cease to be a Lo-Co.
U2 has already stated that it would have a large base at Heathrow-4. Other UK carriers would doubtless be there, both legacy and no-frills and those in between.
I think TM has a couple of problems.
Firstly, while the political environment may be in her favour, her party only has a very small majority and a firm decision in favour of a 3rd runway is expected to result in a number of MP’s resigning their seats, some of those being marginals. It’s a heck of a risk to take, and I don’t think Mrs May is a risk taker.
Secondly, she’s bound by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Unless she loses a vote of no confidence she has to continue to 2020.
Firstly, while the political environment may be in her favour, her party only has a very small majority and a firm decision in favour of a 3rd runway is expected to result in a number of MP’s resigning their seats, some of those being marginals. It’s a heck of a risk to take, and I don’t think Mrs May is a risk taker.
Secondly, she’s bound by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Unless she loses a vote of no confidence she has to continue to 2020.
No one will resign their seats as Heathrow expansion is NOT an election issue. The sole exception to this is Zac Goldsmith who has threatened to resign. In that case, either a Conservative candidate or Goldsmith (as an independent) will win. It's not a big deal.
An election now is hardly a risk, and Theresa May needs her own mandate considering the changes being made form Call-MeDave's agenda. To do it later could be risky as there are storm clouds on the horizon.
Not easy for her to lose a vote of confidence, unless it is "contrived", a necessary device of the ludicrous Libdem Fixed Term Act .
Then when returned with a greater majority, and she would be, repeal the Fixed Term Act (an unwelcome American import). Stick it in the manifesto, then if the House of Lords plays up, use the Parliament Act 1949.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the R3 decision was differed as public finances are deteriorating at an alarming rate. Plus her majority is not secure look what happened at Witney a by election in a Cons seat with a smaller majority could easily change hands
I wrote my dissertation on this subject in 1972 when Prof Buchanan had been tasked with identifying the best site for ‘an airport for London’!!
His proposals were largely ignored [he came up with the wrong answers].
Since then Stansted has developed….on one runway; still one runway at Gatwick [to all intents and purposes]; several runways closed at Heathrow [although I appreciate that these were crossing runways] and docklands has opened! Moreover development of the rest of the infrastructure has rendered the development of existing airports more complex, more costly and more chaotic during any such construction.
May be, just may be Boris Island is not as daft as it sounds and incidentally not a million miles from Foulness suggested by Prof Buchanan in 1972!
Some are likening the airport issue to the HS2 project…….something will be needed to cope with the extra rail passengers as the railways approach the same situation as south east airports!
Perhaps the real problem is that although we can shout about what should be done, we all suffer from the ‘not in my backyard/constituency’ state of mind. It matters not whether it is an airport, a railway, a by-pass or whatever. We all [or most of us] advocate building in the back yard of others. Now the person who can solve that conundrum will be a genius but probably not a politician!
H49
His proposals were largely ignored [he came up with the wrong answers].
Since then Stansted has developed….on one runway; still one runway at Gatwick [to all intents and purposes]; several runways closed at Heathrow [although I appreciate that these were crossing runways] and docklands has opened! Moreover development of the rest of the infrastructure has rendered the development of existing airports more complex, more costly and more chaotic during any such construction.
May be, just may be Boris Island is not as daft as it sounds and incidentally not a million miles from Foulness suggested by Prof Buchanan in 1972!
Some are likening the airport issue to the HS2 project…….something will be needed to cope with the extra rail passengers as the railways approach the same situation as south east airports!
Perhaps the real problem is that although we can shout about what should be done, we all suffer from the ‘not in my backyard/constituency’ state of mind. It matters not whether it is an airport, a railway, a by-pass or whatever. We all [or most of us] advocate building in the back yard of others. Now the person who can solve that conundrum will be a genius but probably not a politician!
H49
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting debate re EasyJet. I don't see by any means the whole of their market at LHR coming from abstraction from their operations at Gatwick, Bristol etc. If that were the case, why would they do it? I think the business case depends on them building a network at LHR of European city routes competing head on with BA, AF, EI, LH etc for p to p traffic and serving a bunch of sun destinations which are currently poorly served out of LHR. Is there a profitable space for them to jump into? They seem to think there is.
There may indeed be storm clouds on the horizon, but there's also a boundary review before 2020 which will work in her favour. So waiting until 2020 has it's advantages.
Anyway, lets not get sidetracked into politics.
Helen
Nimby is not the context of R3. This is not a back yard issue. This "yard" has over 2m folk, thousands of acres and all will be affected (some unaware of the future footprint of noise and operations in their area, currently unaffected). A huge land grab will be taken from public areas (road diversions etc), housing, commercial & industrial properties etc moved) new railways proposed etc. Housing will be required elsewhere for the future jobs offered, unless poor substandard accommodation is available nearby to offset the cost of travel.
What part HAL will fund is unknown and then tax deductible.
Nimby is not the context of R3. This is not a back yard issue. This "yard" has over 2m folk, thousands of acres and all will be affected (some unaware of the future footprint of noise and operations in their area, currently unaffected). A huge land grab will be taken from public areas (road diversions etc), housing, commercial & industrial properties etc moved) new railways proposed etc. Housing will be required elsewhere for the future jobs offered, unless poor substandard accommodation is available nearby to offset the cost of travel.
What part HAL will fund is unknown and then tax deductible.
The simple answer to that is that HAL should fund any development 100%.
Heathrow and the rest of the BAA monopoly were sold off some years ago to various UK & foreign investors. As such we effectively declared to the rest of the world that these assets were surplus to requirements and therefore had no strategic value to the UK.
We may derive benefit from having them where they are, but they do not belong to the country. They are independent businesses and should thrive or fail as they are able to address the vagaries of the commercial environment they operate within. It's effectively like someone deciding to build a garage servicing cars. The local area will get benefit from its presence by being able to use its services, jobs will be created and other businesses and financial benefits may be drawn into the locality by virtue of its operation. BUT, does the taxpayer fund every local garage that starts up? NO. as a business you have to stand on your own two feet.
Simply put, Ferrovial of Spain, Qatar Holdings, The Quebec Investment Fund, The UK Universities' pension fund, & the investment companies of the Governments of Singapore and China should be footing the bill for the development of their asset.
If we pay for any development work, we should be getting the Title Deeds back for the airport.
We are far to quick to offer money for things that we used to own, but don't even get a fair whack of tax on operating profit for any more, and it needs to stop.
Otherwise we could end up in the farcical situation that Reichskancellor Frau Sturgeon has created with buying Prestwick.
Heathrow and the rest of the BAA monopoly were sold off some years ago to various UK & foreign investors. As such we effectively declared to the rest of the world that these assets were surplus to requirements and therefore had no strategic value to the UK.
We may derive benefit from having them where they are, but they do not belong to the country. They are independent businesses and should thrive or fail as they are able to address the vagaries of the commercial environment they operate within. It's effectively like someone deciding to build a garage servicing cars. The local area will get benefit from its presence by being able to use its services, jobs will be created and other businesses and financial benefits may be drawn into the locality by virtue of its operation. BUT, does the taxpayer fund every local garage that starts up? NO. as a business you have to stand on your own two feet.
Simply put, Ferrovial of Spain, Qatar Holdings, The Quebec Investment Fund, The UK Universities' pension fund, & the investment companies of the Governments of Singapore and China should be footing the bill for the development of their asset.
If we pay for any development work, we should be getting the Title Deeds back for the airport.
We are far to quick to offer money for things that we used to own, but don't even get a fair whack of tax on operating profit for any more, and it needs to stop.
Otherwise we could end up in the farcical situation that Reichskancellor Frau Sturgeon has created with buying Prestwick.
Trinity 09L
I was merely saying that this discussion has been going on for over 40 years and still no solution, meanwhile the task of finding an answer has become even more difficult. I am inclined to agree with your sentiment that R3 at Heathrow is far too disruptive to the rest of the community, however the disruption sentiment is shared by so many other back yard owners!!
Donkey 497
Agreed, the airport [which ever it may be] and not the taxpayer should be bearing the majority of the cost burden.
I was merely saying that this discussion has been going on for over 40 years and still no solution, meanwhile the task of finding an answer has become even more difficult. I am inclined to agree with your sentiment that R3 at Heathrow is far too disruptive to the rest of the community, however the disruption sentiment is shared by so many other back yard owners!!
Donkey 497
Agreed, the airport [which ever it may be] and not the taxpayer should be bearing the majority of the cost burden.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taxpayer involvement is less than desirable and in view should be avoided.
In last 2 years LHR has given £2 billion to shareholders whilst only £53m has ended up with the exchequer in the the form of tax. Apparently this equates to only 4%.
By going cap in hand HAL leave themselves open to opportunistic criticism.
In last 2 years LHR has given £2 billion to shareholders whilst only £53m has ended up with the exchequer in the the form of tax. Apparently this equates to only 4%.
By going cap in hand HAL leave themselves open to opportunistic criticism.