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

Heathrow-2

Old 12th May 2018, 18:33
  #481 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,507
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
Because the airport is now serving the UK rather than the south east.
Yes, it's the two assumptions implicit in that comment that I'm struggling with:

a) that a significant additional number of domestic destinations will be served by a 3-runway Heathrow, and

b) that the traffic on any new domestic routes will contain sufficient additional connecting passengers to make any international routes viable that aren't already being served.

I've not seen any stats or forecasts that demonstrate either of those conclusively.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th May 2018, 19:18
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
Whatever that means...

The previous thread on Heathrow had a large number of people, all from around MAN all saying it should be Gatwick not Heathrow that's expanded.
Lots of people in central London say the same thing.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 12th May 2018, 21:37
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
I'm struggling to see how a route that's not viable (i.e. not enough demand to operate at a profit) becomes viable simply by building an additional runway at one end or another end of the route.
What happens to the cost of getting slots if you open a 3rd runway? That would surely make a huge difference to the cost/benefit analysis.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 12th May 2018, 21:41
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
As I have already said, the first debate should be whether or not we want to build a hub that could compete with AMS etc. If the answer is yes then it won't be at Gatwick and the only viable option is Heathrow.
Heathrow already competes with AMS.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 12th May 2018, 21:44
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post

What happens to the cost of getting slots if you open a 3rd runway? That would surely make a huge difference to the cost/benefit analysis.
If a route isn't commercially viable that question is academic.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 12th May 2018, 21:49
  #486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
We do however know that people would be more than willing to use a shuttle service from their local airport to connect onto LH as they do it already through AMS.
AMS is substantially cheaper than LHR, which is a competitive advantage.

That position is unlikely to change because of: (i) the high cost of land in SE England; and (ii) LHR management coming up with a gold plated scheme (it is so expensive that LGW now offers a stronger financial case).
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 06:39
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 116
Isn`t AMS almost full now?

Ian
chaps1954 is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 07:41
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post

What happens to the cost of getting slots if you open a 3rd runway? That would surely make a huge difference to the cost/benefit analysis.
But it's not simply more runway space - it's airspace, terminals, roads, railways etc etc that also have to be increased - and the costs for all that is very significant - infact a major reason it'll never happen

And the main industry customer (IAG) would see their advantage eroded - again = more foot dragging
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 08:41
  #489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by chaps1954 View Post
Isn`t AMS almost full now?

Ian
Hi Ian

AMS has more runway capacity than LHR, but as a general rule uses smaller aircraft. On that basis, it can probably be described as "full" in the same way LHR was supposedly "full" 20 years ago.

Of course there are many alternative hub options to LHR/AMS in Europe and the Middle East.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 09:29
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
If you believe that HAL will borrow x amount to build this scheme and then not do everything they can to persuade people to use it and shop in the terminals then you really do not understand how this business is run.
LHR can do what they like to try and make the numbers work. The same applies to LGW if they got the go ahead.

What your one dimensional "analysis" ignores is the impact of the regulated asset base on the charging structure, which incentivises LHR into proposing gold plated solutions to basic problems.

Your retail based silver bullet is also no answer to the environmental or competition based impediments to the scheme.

It also does not account for financing the various surface access schemes, or the fact that LGW offers the best long term financial return for UKplc.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 09:33
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
BA know they will be able to give access to the whole of the UK onto their LH flights out of LHR. Whether this is via their own SH ops or with someone like Flybe, they will see more pax onto their LH routes and will likely bring flights back from Gatwick. The protest now as they don't want to be asked to contribute more towards the project. It is likely that once it is fully funded and given the go ahead they will be all for it.
This is pretty much the polar opposite of the evidence given by IAG, Virgin Atlantic and FlyBe in evidence to the select committee.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 16:41
  #492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
" easy road & rail access to large parts of the country "

You clearly don't drive along the M4 very often - it's solid from 07:00 to 10:00 and 15:00 - 1930 every working day - and often at weekends as well..................... and we're going to put MORE pax into it.... madness

EDIT

I see you live in Berkshire so you MUST know what the M4 is like.......................

Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 13th May 2018 at 17:37.
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 17:26
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Pardon my ignorance, but if Gatwick say they can produce another runway with zero-cost to the UK Taxpayers, why not just let them go ahead with it whether Heathrow expansion eventually happens or doesn't happen ?

It's not as though UK Taxpayers will be out of pocket if the Gatwick expansion turns out to be a white elephant.
Hussar 54 is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 19:13
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 405
Coming to a motorway near Heathrow, the M4 is to be re modelled as a smart motorway starting shortly, from outside Maidenhead to the two lane carriageway at the elevated section, ie four lanes of volume into two. The work will take 54 months which is quicker media speak than 4.5 years. Traffic will be diverted onto the A4 which will also be moved for construction of R3 at the same time as as the M25 alteration. Please bring extra fuel,food and boredom in the resulting traffic chaos.��
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 20:27
  #495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 72
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by Hussar 54 View Post
Pardon my ignorance, but if Gatwick say they can produce another runway with zero-cost to the UK Taxpayers, why not just let them go ahead with it whether Heathrow expansion eventually happens or doesn't happen ?

It's not as though UK Taxpayers will be out of pocket if the Gatwick expansion turns out to be a white elephant.
Because the LGW business case is contingent on LHR not happening.

One of the dimensions of both schemes is how to prevent the UK taxpayer being lender of last resort if something nasty happens to the scheme costs. These schemes are so huge in relation to the capitalisation of the companies, who bears the ultimate risk if the SPV goes under?
anothertyke is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 20:37
  #496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 458
Dear Prop ploppy sorry typo

THE TAXPAYER is Lender of FIRST resort.

herewith is an example of ANOTHER botched Government scheme. I commend Crossrail to the audience.

"Please Sir can we have a £500,000,000m bail out, pretty please as we have run out of money.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4f685580-560a-11e8-a94b-41e5a20c31cf
Navpi is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 20:39
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by anothertyke View Post
Because the LGW business case is contingent on LHR not happening.
I think it's important to point out that both business cases are contingent on the other not happening (largely because the government said it would only give approval for one or the other).
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 22:53
  #498 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,507
Originally Posted by Trinity 09L View Post
Traffic will be diverted onto the A4
As far as I recall, they managed to convert the M3 into a smart motorway without needing to close it at any stage.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 14th May 2018, 07:15
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
As far as I recall, they managed to convert the M3 into a smart motorway without needing to close it at any stage.
They were still closing stretches of it at night until earlier this year Dave - after 20:00, sometimes but generally after 22:00 - I think th elast peices wre the bits around Farnboro/ 'Bush - it's now pretty much finished after years of work. I don't think they ever closed the bit of the M4 near Bristol tho' - but that was very short
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 14th May 2018, 07:41
  #500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Dear Prop ploppy sorry typo
Grow up, youíre not 14, unless you are in which case, grow up.
The sad reality is that government is hopeless at controlling costs partly because they canít make up their mind half the time and partly because the private sector is better at dealing. The NHS is full of such scandalous costs, however it remains the cost of doing business and no one is suggesting we close the NHS. The carriers are another example, we lack real leadership in this country alas.
Skipness One Echo 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.