Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Heathrow-2

Old 27th Jan 2018, 14:57
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 401
Consultation with whom?
The opposition say no to moving roads,extra noise over wider area,lack of housing for staff, etc etc.
Pro group sponsored by HAL say yes all good go ahead.
At this time HAL are sitting down with the Govt pre planning process. Q Can we see those plans? Err no. They are building a runway with no plan how it can be used.
They cannot decide what size runway they want now, so do we press a button to select.
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2018, 21:41
  #242 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,037
Yes, it's a consultation in the sense that there are questions that you are asked to respond to.

And, like most consultations, it doesn't say anywhere that the answers of respondents, whether or not they form a consensus, will carry any weight or influence any decisions.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 09:09
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 453
There was a super article in The Times yesterday by Andrew Osborne, economic editor , regarding Heathrow suggesting it's a "crock" calling out the three schemes and how to move the busiest motorway in Europe without bringing the S EAST to complete gridlock.

He also mentioned the somewhat thorny issue of the 12bn (min figure) or 18bn (max figure) for the work involved and who who pays.
Navpi is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 09:12
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
If you paged up to Saturday a/m.............

Heathrow-2
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 09:13
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
"like most consultations, it doesn't say anywhere that the answers of respondents, whether or not they form a consensus, will carry any weight or influence any decisions"

they're only done to avoid a Judicial Review TBH
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 10:46
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 72
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Were Heathrow to expand, I'd be very surprised if either EZY or RYR had any real interest in operating from there.

Could you expand on your thinking on that? EZY have been prepared to have a go modestly at AMS, CDG etc. LHR is obviously underserved to the European sun destinations. I'd have thought it is credible that they could enter with a mixed network of cities and sun. I suppose it depends on the size of their cost advantage vis a vis BA and how deep their pockets are just in case there is a fight.


RYR--- totally agree. They will be interested in whatever gets freed up elsewhere.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 12:12
  #247 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,037
Exactly. There is no way EZY would want to take on BA/IAG head-to-head.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 13:07
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Under the flight path
Posts: 2,089
Dave,

Didn't EZY take on BA at Gatwick?
LGS6753 is online now  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 15:39
  #249 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,037
Not really.

I'm struggling to think of many, if any, routes from LGW that they actually compete on.

But if EZY started to operate from LHR, even if they carefully chose markets that BA don't currently serve, such is the latter's market dominance that they could undoubtedly squash EZY's ambitions were they minded to (which they no doubt would be).
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 16:26
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Come on Dave, easyJet forced BA out of market after market at LGW. Look at what % of their LGW operation used to be flown by BA. The concept that EZY are in some way afraid to compete with the “mighty” IAG doesn’t ring true. easyJet are quite frankly just as good on shorthaul p2p as anything IAG offer IMHO.
If EZY get into LHR and margins on BA short haul are hit, with IAG now in a monpoly on LHR-DUB/MAD they’re back to their old habits of gouging on price. It’s like the 1970s closed shop all over again in some markets. A decent EZY offering would make major inroads IMHO.
He also mentioned the somewhat thorny issue of the 12bn (min figure) or 18bn (max figure) for the work involved and who who pays.
Surely he meant a million billion kajillion. At some point, people actually make stats up to make whatever point they’re after. I see it every day at work.....Take in a worst case and conflate in other BAU maintenance costs then reduce the time period, then after a dramatic sigh, point and shreik “Look how terrible, it must never be allowed to happen.” Much like never building on greenbelt to keep asset inflation going.

Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 28th Jan 2018 at 16:38.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 16:44
  #251 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,037
Well time will tell.

Or, in all probability. it won't.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 08:25
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Under the flight path
Posts: 2,089
Surely he meant a million billion kajillion
No, it was a Carillion.
LGS6753 is online now  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 09:54
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Brilliant
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 10:53
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 453
TfL sounds alarm over public transport crowding from Heathrow expansion | City A.M.
Navpi is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 11:02
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
But if EZY started to operate from LHR, even if they carefully chose markets that BA don't currently serve, such is the latter's market dominance that they could undoubtedly squash EZY's ambitions were they minded to (which they no doubt would be).
If EZY were (or are likely to be) one of the main beneficiaries of an expanded LHR, it would call into question the "connectivity" argument, which as far as I'm aware is the only metric where LHR projects to be a better scheme than LGW. On the other arguments:

Economic case, LGW now projects to offer more net benefit in the long run.

Environmental case, LGW has always proved a stronger case than LHR (chiefly due to its location).

Cost to public purse, LHR has always been the more expensive option (by far), predominantly due to transport infrastructure cost.

Cost of scheme, LHR has always been the more expensive scheme (by far), predominantly due to its location and the need to bulldoze large communities. This is relevant because the airport is not a charity and will seek to recoup the cost from upping the charge to passengers. This may require a government undertaking not to permit a new runway in the south east for [X] number of years so as to not undermine the ability to charge monopolistic prices (bad for the consumer).

Then there is the legal position. LHR seem to be moving the goalposts on a number of issues. For example they are now thinking about phasing construction (sensible, but not part of the initial plan), there are now apparently a number of runway and terminal options (sensible but not part of the initial plan). The main issue caused by this is that there is no properly considered airspace plan - they are apparently waiting for the revamp of U.K. airspace in general. Should the government make a "decision" without this firmed up, I don't see how this would get past the courts when the inevitable challenge arrives.

If the connectivity argument is undermined in some way, I don't see how any government could continue to support the scheme.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 12:07
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 401
HAL response to TfL

Our proposal to expand Heathrow will be entirely privately funded with no public funds required to deliver the airport infrastructure. Our plans to significantly improve rail, bus and coach connections will enable tens of millions of additional journeys by passengers and colleagues to be by public transport when travelling to the airport.

HAL are not paying for rail improvements, ie new tracks.
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 12:08
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Has a single airline called for expansion at Gatwick rather than Heathrow?

It's funny watching so many selective stats being thrown around, it's just like my day job... Stats will advise and model possible outcomes, the forecasts will most likely be wildly out, mystic meg types of what something will like like in 5 years often are. It's a government's job to decide and lead, and fight the battle in the courts as required, some hope with May alas. The stats purporting to show LGW having a better ROI than LHR work if you don't want to expand LHR and inflate every cost you can while minimising the risks at LGW.
So yes, what airline wants LGW over LHR? Any?
If we had a 50% larger LGW tomorrow with a whole new runway, exactly who would be queuing to use it that wasn't already there today?

For the record I would have no issue with a new runway at both, so not anti LGW per se.
Is the concept of the taxpayer paying for new road and rail infrastructure so the taxpayer can get a flight on time so alien?
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 12:13
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,133
EasyJet's whole development has been based on taking on the established carriers in city-to-city routes. Serving oddball points, Ryanair style, has not been part of their model.

Likely initial offerings for them from Heathrow would be Glasgow, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris, Nice, Athens, and such like, a small selection of good business yield routes where they have established strength at the other end as well, which they could move on to serving multiple times daily, at less than BA fares.
WHBM is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 13:48
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 72
Posts: 241
Skipness One Echo

Rather a lot of questions there. But just on one of them, it is not really about tomorrow, it is about 2030. If the total London market is a quarter larger than today -- admittedly a big if-- then there will be quite a lot of decanting from LHR by then and quite a bit of growth which has to happen at LGW if R3 goes up the swanee.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 14:02
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
Has a single airline called for expansion at Gatwick rather than Heathrow?
This is not a decision that should be dictated by airlines. However, I'd guess far more airlines, or airline groups, have called for LHR to control its costs than anything else in this debate. Obviously that comes as no surprise.

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
It's funny watching so many selective stats being thrown around, it's just like my day job... Stats will advise and model possible outcomes, the forecasts will most likely be wildly out, mystic meg types of what something will like like in 5 years often are. It's a government's job to decide and lead, and fight the battle in the courts as required, some hope with May alas. The stats purporting to show LGW having a better ROI than LHR work if you don't want to expand LHR and inflate every cost you can while minimising the risks at LGW.
The problem LHR have is that, when the same model supported their position (i.e. LHR offers the strongest economic case) they trumpeted the finding. As they have now been found (using the same economic model) to offer a less advantageous outcome than LGW, they cannot criticise the model without looking opportunistic.

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
So yes, what airline wants LGW over LHR? Any?
This is not a decision taken by airlines.

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
If we had a 50% larger LGW tomorrow with a whole new runway, exactly who would be queuing to use it that wasn't already there today?
If we had a larger LHR who exactly would be there who aren't using it today?

Easyjet? Jet2? Ryanair? Flybe? You might get the odd full service carrier thrown in there as a new carrier (China Airlines springs to mind). If that's the case why spend the extra money on LHR when you can spend far less at LGW or STN and achieve pretty much the same outcome?

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
For the record I would have no issue with a new runway at both, so not anti LGW per se.
I think the problem is that,in the short term the market cannot support a new runway at both.

I agree that both should be allowed to get on with it and we'll see which scheme gets investors backing. I suspect LHR but they'd have to come up with a realistic scheme that doesn't rip off consumers by taking advantage of a monopolistic charging structure.

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
Is the concept of the taxpayer paying for new road and rail infrastructure so the taxpayer can get a flight on time so alien?
It is when it supports the investments made by sovereign wealth funds! I don't expect LHR or the government to fund 100% of this, but I'd expect LHR to contribute the vast majority of this (and not pass the cost on to the consumer).
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.