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

Heathrow-2

Old 14th May 2018, 15:25
  #501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by anothertyke View Post
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?


OK....Didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.

But on reflection, it's hardly a strong business case if you say ' We'll do X providing the Government prevent our competotors from doing the same thing '

So presumably the Nigerian is saying that he's only waiting for a definitive answer from the Government before investing himself ?

Heard that one before - many times...About number #4 on the list of ' How to make things difficult in Africa for your competitors '

Maybe the UK Governent should adopt a ' Show us the money, first ' policy - you know, just to be on the safe side....
Hussar 54 is offline  
Old 14th May 2018, 15:29
  #502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Hussar 54 View Post
OK....Didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.

But on reflection, it's hardly a strong business case if you say ' We'll do X providing the Government prevent our competotors from doing the same thing '.
LHR rely on precisely the same thing - we can do it proclvided there is no competition from LGW (so we can continue our monopolistic charging structure).
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 14th May 2018, 16:06
  #503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Dobbo_Dobbo View Post


LHR rely on precisely the same thing - we can do it proclvided there is no competition from LGW (so we can continue our monopolistic charging structure).
Isn't that a contradiction ?

No expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow means that Heathrow can continue to charge, well, basically what they want, no ?

So why bother at all, as far as Heathrow is concerned ?

And why not start tomorrow, as far as Gatwick is concerned, providing they have the money, of course, and everything would be finished and in service while the myriad of pro and anti Heathrow expansion groups are still squabbling.

Excuse me for being confused.
Hussar 54 is offline  
Old 14th May 2018, 16:51
  #504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Hussar 54 View Post
Isn't that a contradiction ?

No expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow means that Heathrow can continue to charge, well, basically what they want, no ?

So why bother at all, as far as Heathrow is concerned ?

And why not start tomorrow, as far as Gatwick is concerned, providing they have the money, of course, and everything would be finished and in service while the myriad of pro and anti Heathrow expansion groups are still squabbling.

Excuse me for being confused.
No need to apologise - it is a confusing debate, and is not helped by my typos!

I don't think it is a contradiction because both LHR and LGW understood that the airport's commission was to reccomend one new runway only (i.e. LHR or LGW - not both).

Therefore, it was right for each airport to put forward its business case on the basis that the other would not proceed for a significant (I think 20 year?) period.

Does that clarify the point?
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 14th May 2018, 17:48
  #505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Dobbo_Dobbo View Post


No need to apologise - it is a confusing debate, and is not helped by my typos!

I don't think it is a contradiction because both LHR and LGW understood that the airport's commission was to reccomend one new runway only (i.e. LHR or LGW - not both).

Therefore, it was right for each airport to put forward its business case on the basis that the other would not proceed for a significant (I think 20 year?) period.

Does that clarify the point?

OK.....Thanks.
Hussar 54 is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 11:43
  #506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lewes, UK
Posts: 44
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.
As a part-time Egham resident, I know this is not true. There were several weekend closures.
pennineuk is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 16:35
  #507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: KissingTarmac
Posts: 64
DaveReidUK - you are kidding, right.

The M3 (top-end) was closed most nights for three and a half years - M3 yoyo.
nohold is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 17:10
  #508 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,642
Fair enough, I stand corrected.

My experience has been of a reasonably regular weekday commute between J3 and J2, from which I was never diverted during all the time it was being smartened. I must just have been lucky.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 19:38
  #509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 407
Improvements and major road projects | M4 junctions 3-12: smart motorway

Included is the estimate £586m to £862m, scheduled 2016/2017 to 2021/2022, now to start summer 2018 so end 2023?
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 06:48
  #510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 461
Unless every passenger arrives on a bike or even better a tandem , it is fancifil to think what they have now will cope let alone what will occur when they get RW3.

The convergangance of 3 motorways means they will need to double the number of lanes within a 20 odd mile radius.just to keep up with current demand let alone Rw3.

The whole area is frequently gridlocked.

We are trying to squeeze in capacity into an area for which it simply wasnt designed.

Last edited by Navpi; 16th May 2018 at 07:07.
Navpi is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 09:42
  #511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 72
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Hussar 54 View Post
OK....Didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.

But on reflection, it's hardly a strong business case if you say ' We'll do X providing the Government prevent our competotors from doing the same thing '

So presumably the Nigerian is saying that he's only waiting for a definitive answer from the Government before investing himself ?

Heard that one before - many times...About number #4 on the list of ' How to make things difficult in Africa for your competitors '

Maybe the UK Governent should adopt a ' Show us the money, first ' policy - you know, just to be on the safe side....
The reality is, it's a national planning decision. There is no prospect of raising 10 bn of pension fund etc money to finance the LGW scheme in an unknown planning environment. I agree with the point above that the saga of the last n years (choose your value of n) shows how difficult it is to make such decisions. But if the Govt said ' We are supremely indifferent what happens, over to the private sector' we know that nothing would ever happen anywhere. The way things have panned out, the first decision is whether it is a green light for Heathrow. That is what the upcoming vote on the NPS is really about. If it ends up being a red light, that means that more hub capacity will have been essentially ruled out for the foreseeable future and the question will be where to put more p to p capacity, which is not the question the Airports Commission was asked. I could see a scenario in which LGW vs STN then comes into the picture especially if STN is really a great deal cheaper than LGW.

By the way, and I stand to be corrected, I think the LGW scheme envisaged a need for around £1 bn on the station and some of the upgrade costs on the railway on the approaches to Gatwick. Not sure about the M23.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 10:52
  #512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
What is true is that and expanded Heathrow would bring a hub and relieve the pressure on Gatwick. An expanded Gatwick would do nothing to help LHR's case.
You have just described one of the impediments to the LHR scheme.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 10:54
  #513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
And there you have hit the nail on the head. There is no way this road system will not be approved for major improvements at some point either before LHR expansion or in the following few decades.

This is why the argument against the third runway based on the cost to the taxpayer of the M4/M25 reconfiguration is such a red herring.

In actuality it is reasonable to suggest that doing both these projects in harmony would save costs significantly as well as only having 1 period of works and diversions etc in what must be one of the busiest intersections in the UK.
The cause of the traffic is LHR. The road network is not perfect, but it works.

LHR expansion would cause increased traffic, that would trigger the requirement to expand the roadway capacity.

It is therefore a cost to the UK taxpayer directly caused by LHR expansion.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 11:20
  #514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,133
While the M25 is extremely important to LHR a huge number of passengers come and go from central London and do not use the M25 at all and most of them use the two rail links available from London to the airport.

I am not saying further expansion will not put more rpessure on the roads but the issue id London needs a hub airport to continue to compete with Paris FRA AMS of those only Paris has two airports but there is little need to ever transit between them . LHR on the other hand has a huge amount to transit pax and needs them to support route development . And this si the problem , expanding LGW or STN does nothing at all to meet that need. Expanding Gatwick just allows more Easyjet and bucket and spade travel and does nothing for business. Stansted is Ryanair world , enough said.

So the Govt -oddly enough the Tories again- putting party before country -faff around forever about expanding LHR because of fear of loss of a few west London seats mostly in safe areas. pitiful.

as for cost overuns it never ceases to amaze me how this happens, for most of my career I ahve been involved wioth projects costing 500M to 1Bn USD so not gigantic but not small . Most have cost overruns but of the order of 5-15% , the kind of ones we have on Uk projects of x times the estimate are unthinkable and it is astonishing to me and many of my colleagues that any infrastructure project can suddenly end up costing three, four or five times the estimate and then the same contracting and implementation team goes on to get another major contract. Can't all be backhanders and freemasons surely
pax britanica is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 12:23
  #515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 72
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by pax britanica View Post
While the M25 is extremely important to LHR a huge number of passengers come and go from central London and do not use the M25 at all and most of them use the two rail links available from London to the airport.

I am not saying further expansion will not put more rpessure on the roads but the issue id London needs a hub airport to continue to compete with Paris FRA AMS of those only Paris has two airports but there is little need to ever transit between them . LHR on the other hand has a huge amount to transit pax and needs them to support route development . And this si the problem , expanding LGW or STN does nothing at all to meet that need. Expanding Gatwick just allows more Easyjet and bucket and spade travel and does nothing for business. Stansted is Ryanair world , enough said.

So the Govt -oddly enough the Tories again- putting party before country -faff around forever about expanding LHR because of fear of loss of a few west London seats mostly in safe areas. pitiful.

as for cost overuns it never ceases to amaze me how this happens, for most of my career I ahve been involved wioth projects costing 500M to 1Bn USD so not gigantic but not small . Most have cost overruns but of the order of 5-15% , the kind of ones we have on Uk projects of x times the estimate are unthinkable and it is astonishing to me and many of my colleagues that any infrastructure project can suddenly end up costing three, four or five times the estimate and then the same contracting and implementation team goes on to get another major contract. Can't all be backhanders and freemasons surely
One of the weaknesses in the LHR business case is the relatively small boost to the world route network and frequencies which R3 is predicted to offer. One of the big questions is what the capacity will actually get spent on in 2030, 2040, 2050.

I guess we can all agree that the current state of Government and Parliament is one of the worst scenarios imaginable for getting a controversial scheme through the hoops. But I don't think it's mainly about Putney and Richmond, I think it's more about the cost of the scheme, whether the customers collectively will be willing to pay the price to them, and whether the scheme is deliverable. If you read the Select Committee report you can see the nervousness about a number of features of the scheme. These include whether moving the facilities to the west of the M25 have been fully planned and costed and whether disruption on the motorway network during construction has been fully costed. It's not so much a matter of cost overruns, although years of legal cases are obviously a big source of planning risk. But at this point it's more a matter of whether we actually have a fully itemised cost estimate, particularly outside the fence, and who ultimately is going to pay what.

It's one of those schemes where it feels like it should be a no-brainer until you start looking at the numbers and whether they add up. Then you begin to wonder if the scheme is just too ambitious.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 13:05
  #516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by pax britanica View Post
London needs a hub airport to continue to compete with Paris FRA AMS of those only Paris has two airports but there is little need to ever transit between them . LHR on the other hand has a huge amount to transit pax and needs them to support route development . And this si the problem , expanding LGW or STN does nothing at all to meet that need. Expanding Gatwick just allows more Easyjet and bucket and spade travel and does nothing for business. Stansted is Ryanair world , enough said.
1 - London has a hub airport: LHR.

2 - one of the main beneficiaries of an expanded LHR is likely to be EasyJet, who intend to take over Terminal 4. As EZY are not a hub and spoke carrier, they offer no benefit over and above an expanded operation at LGW, STN. Of course, LHR is far more expensive that these, which is why LGW offers a better financial return for UK plc.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 13:10
  #517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
Sorry but that is just wrong. Traffic from the M1 round to the M23 including the M40 M4 & M3 is all likely to go round the M25 past Heathrow. Then you have the M4 & A4 into and out of London. LHR is just part of a very busy interchange.

And it doesn't work much of the time.
I agree that this is a busy part of road, but you are burying your head in the sand if you think LHR isn't the primary cause of traffic in and around the M4/M25 interchange.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 14:42
  #518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Dobbo Dobbo as you are Leeds based, why is an expanded LGW good for your region in terms of UK PLC as it doesn't even have a LBA or MAN connection to help you out?
Also Virgin have just announced that LGW-LAS is moving to LHR to better connect with partner airlines AF/KL and Delta, hub capacity 1.01 right there.

Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 16th May 2018 at 15:39.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 18:43
  #519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Under the flight path
Posts: 2,117
you are burying your head in the sand if you think LHR isn't the primary cause of traffic in and around the M4/M25 interchange.
Quite wrong, I'm afraid. LHR handles around 70m passengers per year - that's just under 200,000 per day. of those at least half use public transport to get in/out of the airport, so 100,000 per day. Let's assume the average group is 1.5 people (families, couples, business people travelling together), so that's 67,667 car journeys. Of those, perhaps a third will use other routes (into London on M4, north/south into suburbia, A30, etc), so 50,000 per day. Spread over perhaps 18 hours a day - 2,777 cars an hour.

Then add those who commute into the airport. 76,500 employees. Again, some will use public transport, they will come from all directions, and their shift times will cover at least 18 hours a day. In total, perhaps the same number as passengers. Sum total of cars using M4/M25 junction, something over 5,000 cars per hour. My generous estimates compare with a capacity of over 20,000 vehicles per hour on a 4-lane motorway.

If you look at a map Dobbo Dobbo you will see that both the M4 and M25 service some of the most densely-populated and affluent parts of the UK, so your assertion from Leeds is about as far from the truth.
LGS6753 is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 18:49
  #520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
If the reason for Heathrow expansion is to increase connectivity, then in theory it shouldn't matter whether the expansion is at Heathrow or, say, Aberdeen.

If the reason for Gatwick expansion is to increase connectivity, then it will need a whole bunch of airlines to redirect inbound and outbound services from Heathrow to Gatwick - which certainly hasn't happened in the past. Very few airlines, since PanAm, have shut down at Heathrow and moved to Gatwick and I can't think of any that prospered from a Heathrow > Gatwick move.

On the other hand, if the reason for expansion at either or both is to facilitate an increase in O&D traffic into the UK, then the obvious answer has to be something, somewhere, more central inside the UK and which would probably be 10x cheaper and easier to realise. Not too sure where and how, though, so expansion at Stansted to the north, perhaps Oxford to the west, and Southampton to the south would appear to offer the travelling public huge advantages at significantly less cost to the UK Government than pouring £billions of public money into either of Gatwick or Heathrow.

Well, that's how I see it.
Hussar 54 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.