Heathrow-2
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting from C stand to T5 via a long walk and then a train, then escalators
And you got to use the eGates but I suspect the EU area queue to be admitted by a human at that time of the morning was probably quite short had you chosen that option. You don't say how many eGates were open which used to be a common gripe but generally I find the wait time to use one is not unreasonably long. I can't recall never beating my baggage to the baggage belt. All very different from the immigration queues at most other airports I pitch up at.
I find LHR at that time of the morning works well and I can be in Central London in under an hour after doors open even taking into account waiting for bags to arrive.
The only point you make which seems out of the norm is the absence of baggage trolleys. That is unusual. Perhaps you should lodge a complaint with HAL?
I find the T2B gates, especially around stands 240ish particularly tiresome with no train link. I don’t usually take hold luggage, but it takes someone who walks as briskly as me around 20-25 mins to get through arrivals. Now on a delayed Fri evening with inevitable holds, that can really disrupt local surface connections.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow should just go ahead and force the Government’s hand by submitting a full application for the third runway and associated works to the Planning Inspectorate. That should be dealt with fairly and independently with a recommendation being submitted to the Secretary of State. Remaining issues of land etc needn’t be sorted because you can submit an application on land you do not own.
Now, the SoS can go against the recommendation and there is no right to appeal. But if a refusal is unreasonable, ie because May, Johnson and a few other Tories *might* lose their seat, costs can be reclaimed. An awarding of costs along with the Inspectorate’s recommendation to approve would make an ongoing blockage of expansion untenable.
Now, the SoS can go against the recommendation and there is no right to appeal. But if a refusal is unreasonable, ie because May, Johnson and a few other Tories *might* lose their seat, costs can be reclaimed. An awarding of costs along with the Inspectorate’s recommendation to approve would make an ongoing blockage of expansion untenable.
Zac is the exception because he created an unneccessary byelection specifically on the issue of airport expansion and nothing else - and lost.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 - labour and the greens either did not put forward a candidate or ran very low key campaigns. The reason for this was to avoid splitting the "anti-Tory" vote.
3 - the main issue in the campaign (as I recall it) was Goldsmith's allegedly islamaphobic campaign to be mayor of London which he ran against Sadiq Khan.
4 - although Goldsmith lost the by-election, he got his seat back a few months later in the general election.
Thread Starter
Which reminds me, I was gobsmacked last month at LHR when the chip in my passport worked for the first time in the 8 years that I've had it ...
Paxing All Over The World
Agreed DRUK. Mine worked at T2 in March for the first time in two years! On each occaision that I went to the back up desk - they always said that they could read the chip and there was no problem. It failed to work at LTN, LGW (N+S), LHR (T2+3).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 - I'm pretty sure the Lib Dem candidate who won also campaigned against LHR expansion, so the issue of LHR expansion was off the table.
The point is that Zac made a stupid rash promise previously (to fight a by-election as an independent if the government went ahead with Heathrow expansion) and foolishly felt obliged to stick to it.
The by-election's entire raison d'etre was Heathrow expansion. If the issue had not arisen, there would have been no by-election.
I keep the passport in a plastic wallet when it's not being inspected so I suspect it might have picked up the grunge inside one of the AMS e-gates before I got on the flight.
There are also some people who just don't seem to be able to work the gates, in terms of standing in the right place, keeping their head still, looking at the screen as instructed, and assisting the face recognition software by removing hats, glasses etc.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously the Libdem was against, Libdems are against any airport expansion anywhere, but that's not the point.
The point is that Zac made a stupid rash promise previously (to fight a by-election as an independent if the government went ahead with Heathrow expansion) and foolishly felt obliged to stick to it.
The by-election's entire raison d'etre was Heathrow expansion. If the issue had not arisen, there would have been no by-election.
The point is that Zac made a stupid rash promise previously (to fight a by-election as an independent if the government went ahead with Heathrow expansion) and foolishly felt obliged to stick to it.
The by-election's entire raison d'etre was Heathrow expansion. If the issue had not arisen, there would have been no by-election.
You've said that Zac Goldsmith would be the only MP to loose his seat over this. He did for a short time, but I think the point is twofold:
1 - at a local level, anti-expansion will be pretty much par for the course.
2 - at the national level (i.e. in constituencies not local to LHR) there will be MPs who oppose expansion for other reasons.
There will of course be MPs who support expansion, but it feels finely balanced. I agree it's not so serious an issue that an MP should worry too much about loosing their seat over it, but is the government going to use its (currently very) finite political capital to drive through a project of questionable merit and deliverability when it has so many other competing priorities?
When you have key members of the cabinet and opposition as known ardent "antis", I'm not so sure it's a battle they will pick a fight over...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 - at a local level, anti-expansion will be pretty much par for the course.
It’s far from being a black and white issue.
Dobbo Dobbo as a Leeds resident, if no runway 3, LBA-LHR, poor as it is, will likely go. What’s your view on that from the perspective of the wider economy. You support connecting LBA via KLM or simply use MAN?
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Skippy - I'll try and take these questions in turn, hopefully the formatting works!
I'm not sure I agree with this. If you reviewed (and I have no intention of doing so) the local constituencies I suspect you'd see a very strong correlation that both MP's and Opposition candidates stand as being "anti" LHR expansion.
By way of example only, I suspect John McDonnell, whose constituents are especially local to LHR, would say he represents people with close working class ties to LHR. Despite this, he is very much "anti" expansion.
I don't think it's a party political issue, or a socioeconomic issue. Loads of MPs from different backgrounds, geographies and representing different people are "pro" and "anti" LHR expansion for a pretty wide number of reasons.
To take the penultimate point first, I don't see any intrinsic benefit to BA over LHR, as opposed to KLM via AMS, EI via DUB, AF via CDG or LH via FRA or MUC. The same can be said for EK via DXB for that matter...
In terms of LBA-LHR, one of the key points to emerge from the committee sessions was commercial reality. It's all very well LHR asserting that a certain number of regional routes could be served, but the airlines have made the (IMO obvious) point that unless a given route is commercially viable, it won't be served.
The current LBA route is largely a glorified slot sitter (as are some of the rotations to MAN). One of the daily LBA rotations has already been shelved and I think you are correct to say that the current one will likely go as well - sooner rather than later. However, if a third runway emerges (at great cost and with high charges) the glut of slots means the need to "slot sit" has vanished. This might make it as likely that the route goes in a third runway scenario as otherwise.
There is always BE, but they have been as vocal as any in explaining the problems they face with the current charges. Unless something new emerges (e.g. Subsidy) I think we can count them out.
That's a false assumption, Zac is Richmond MP, upper middle class white London types with few employment ties to LHR. Many of the other boroughs have a different view as the local economy depends on the airport. Same goes for Justine in Putney, much more white and posh and way less dependent on LHR jobs. I found LHR to be more of a noise issue for me in my E14 days than West London as they put the power on turning off base leg to finals. Clapham is another noise sensitive area but hardly local. Hounslow by contrast got used to it and relies on the airport.
It’s far from being a black and white issue.
It’s far from being a black and white issue.
By way of example only, I suspect John McDonnell, whose constituents are especially local to LHR, would say he represents people with close working class ties to LHR. Despite this, he is very much "anti" expansion.
I don't think it's a party political issue, or a socioeconomic issue. Loads of MPs from different backgrounds, geographies and representing different people are "pro" and "anti" LHR expansion for a pretty wide number of reasons.
In terms of LBA-LHR, one of the key points to emerge from the committee sessions was commercial reality. It's all very well LHR asserting that a certain number of regional routes could be served, but the airlines have made the (IMO obvious) point that unless a given route is commercially viable, it won't be served.
The current LBA route is largely a glorified slot sitter (as are some of the rotations to MAN). One of the daily LBA rotations has already been shelved and I think you are correct to say that the current one will likely go as well - sooner rather than later. However, if a third runway emerges (at great cost and with high charges) the glut of slots means the need to "slot sit" has vanished. This might make it as likely that the route goes in a third runway scenario as otherwise.
There is always BE, but they have been as vocal as any in explaining the problems they face with the current charges. Unless something new emerges (e.g. Subsidy) I think we can count them out.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of LBA-LHR, one of the key points to emerge from the committee sessions was commercial reality. It's all very well LHR asserting that a certain number of regional routes could be served, but the airlines have made the (IMO obvious) point that unless a given route is commercially viable, it won't be served.
The recently announced discount on airport charges for domestic routes will help, that leaves the second main obstacle, double APD.
Obviously commercial viability is the determining factor and it would be up to pax on these routes to use them or lose them. That is why LHR management states that regional routes COULD be served, not WILL be served.
The current LBA route is largely a glorified slot sitter (as are some of the rotations to MAN). One of the daily LBA rotations has already been shelved and I think you are correct to say that the current one will likely go as well - sooner rather than later. However, if a third runway emerges (at great cost and with high charges) the glut of slots means the need to "slot sit" has vanished. This might make it as likely that the route goes in a third runway scenario as otherwise.
There is always BE, but they have been as vocal as any in explaining the problems they face with the current charges. Unless something new emerges (e.g. Subsidy) I think we can count them out.
It's a shame that EU rules oblige BE (and VS before it) to duplicate what already exists on two routes and leave some remedy slots unused. Without this nonsense there may have been the opportunity to try out some unserved routes.
Thread Starter
What part of
With expansion, we will boost our domestic connections to 14 routes
Bringing Britain Closer - Heathrow's 9-Point Plan to Connect the UK
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think the point made by LHR management is that with expansion, the supply-demand situation with slots changes and the secondary slot market disappears. With slots freely available the biggest obstacle to smaller operators on thinner routes is removed.
The recently announced discount on airport charges for domestic routes will help, that leaves the second main obstacle, double APD.
Obviously commercial viability is the determining factor and it would be up to pax on these routes to use them or lose them. That is why LHR management states that regional routes COULD be served, not WILL be served. .
The recently announced discount on airport charges for domestic routes will help, that leaves the second main obstacle, double APD.
Obviously commercial viability is the determining factor and it would be up to pax on these routes to use them or lose them. That is why LHR management states that regional routes COULD be served, not WILL be served. .
The central message from the likes of BE is that there is no viable domestic market to LHR, in part because of competition from cheaper and/or better alternate options. For connecting passengers this is the European hubs, for O&D it is the other London area airport's or the railways.
Quite frankly, LHR is not (and under the presently proposed scheme will not be) set up for small regional routes. As you say, charges and slots are an issue, but whilst LHR remains (as proposed) more expensive than the likes of CDG, AMS, FRA, MUC, DUB then the likes of BE will continue to find it commercially more attractive to fly feeder services to alternative hubs.
The commercial reality is that the Government is now considering the use of PSO (Public Service Obligation) for regional links to LHR. This is a subsidy and, if it comes to pass, means the cost of connecting the regions to LHR is substantively borne by the UK taxpayer.
In other words, the regional connectivity argument is not going to carry much (if any) weight under the current scheme.
Dave Reid has addressed the point about LHR's misleading tactical approach to expansion.
This may be true, I understand of the viability of the present operation relies on the ability to sell the slot pairs after a given period of operation. If the secondary slot market disappears, so does the commercial viability.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The commercial reality is that the Government is now considering the use of PSO (Public Service Obligation) for regional links to LHR. This is a subsidy and, if it comes to pass, means the cost of connecting the regions to LHR is substantively borne by the UK taxpayer.
Public and private sector are interconnected more than we admit. There would be no railway without subsidy yet we see the benefit in getting us from A to B.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave yes I have referenced this before but The Guardian and indeed The Times keep regurgitating the story.
Having the chairman of a committee outed by the media for having a "possible" financial reward in respect of rw3 is spectacularly clumsy and undermines any impartiality in repect of Heathrow.
Having the chairman of a committee outed by the media for having a "possible" financial reward in respect of rw3 is spectacularly clumsy and undermines any impartiality in repect of Heathrow.
