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

Heathrow-2

Old 16th May 2018, 19:18
  #521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Can't see upgrading rail station at LGW costing abillion quid. Expanding Reding with all sorts of flyovers etc was less than 750mm and came in under budget and ahead of rime
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 19:53
  #522 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,643
Originally Posted by LGS6753 View Post
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.
Wrong.

CAA stats show 61% of LHR pax don't use public transport. The proportion of those who do is rising, but only slowly - from 33% to 39% over the last 25 years. At that rate, it will be another 40 years before the public transport modal share reaches 50%.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 20:06
  #523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 1,746
VS LHR BOS LAS and Barbados changes.
Interesting when BA also reshuffled LAS
CabinCrewe is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 21:48
  #524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 461
Crosrail has morphed into Heathrow connectivity which to be fair is bizarre. It was always designed to support Londoners in the West getting to the East. It has now somehow become an artery of Heathrow which in some resoects is good for Heathrow passengers but a total disaster for London commuters.

There link to the East will be swamped by holidaymakers with masses of luggage.
Navpi is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 23:17
  #525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
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?
One reason is because scarce taxpayer resources are not being used to fund and/or underwrite an artificially inflated project. This is particularly stark where taxpayer resources from a relatively poorer part of the UK (e.g. Leeds) is used to fund projects in a relatively wealthier part of the UK (Heathrow).

Another reason is that in Leeds you have the option of KLM from LBA, which as far as I'm aware is not subsidised. This delivers pretty much all the connectivity you get at LHR, albeit via AMS. In short, there is no real
advantage to the Leeds city region from LHR runway 3.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 23:20
  #526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
It isn't, I used to do this drive every day. Most of the traffic on the M4 is going into London and most of the traffic on the M25 is going straight past the airport. If it was all going to/from LHR then the link roads would never be able to cope.
"Most of the traffic on the M4 is going into London".

You say you used to drive this every day.

1 - how did you measure these asserted traffic flows?
2 - over what period did you measure?
3 - how many cars ended up at LHR, where did the other cars continue on to?

Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 23:23
  #527 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by LGS6753 View Post
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.
Im not saying the south east isn't affluent. So I don't see what this point speaks to?

The point is that LHR causes much of the traffic on the M25/4. I don't see anything from you that denies or opposes that view.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 04:36
  #528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 40
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Dobbo_Dobbo View Post


"Most of the traffic on the M4 is going into London".

You say you used to drive this every day.

1 - how did you measure these asserted traffic flows?
2 - over what period did you measure?
3 - how many cars ended up at LHR, where did the other cars continue on to?

Iíve worked at LHR for 20yrs, and I agree with Prophead. The majority of cars on the M25/M4 do not go to/from LHR.
Gonzo is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 07:02
  #529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Gonzo View Post
Iíve worked at LHR for 20yrs, and I agree with Prophead. The majority of cars on the M25/M4 do not go to/from LHR.
The original point was whether LHR was the primary cause of traffic in and around the M4/M25 interchange. That's not the same thing as journeys to/from LHR, which is what I understand you and Prophead assert. Journeys to/from LHR are likely to be a major part of the wider picture, but there will also be journeys in and around LHR caused by businesses, families and individuals who have located in the area because of its proximity to LHR.

The fundamental point remains that additional journeys on this busy section of the road/motorway network, caused by an expanded LHR, results in a requirement for expensive construction of additional road capacity.

Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 08:26
  #530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Crosrail has morphed into Heathrow connectivity which to be fair is bizarre. It was always designed to support Londoners in the West getting to the East. It has now somehow become an artery of Heathrow which in some resoects is good for Heathrow passengers but a total disaster for London commuters.
The fact that Crossrail is connected to Heathrow is a good indicator that planning was intended to serve people getting too and from the airport. It will also have an impact on LCY as it will suddenly make the City, the Wharf and Heathrow a lot easier to travel between. The Shenfield to Reading market by comparison, is tiny. It won't be a "total disaster" for anyone if people traveling to Heathrow use the new public transport option, it really, really won't
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 09:21
  #531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
Do you know how many people live in the Thames valley and work in West London? Also the amount of traffic that goes between the M1/M40 and M3/M4? Much of this has nothing to do with the airport
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the area is home to major operations of financial institutions, tech, telecoms, and life sciences businesses. Nothing to do with LHR at all!

Note: I'm not criticising LHR for generating economic activity - in my view that is clearly a good thing. However you can't have it both ways and claim credit for the economic boost on the one hand but disassociate the costs of it (e.g. increased road capacity, environmental damage) on the other. It is a completely unrealistic stance to take.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 10:07
  #532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
Dobbo, I'm not sure whether you are arguing for or against expansion at LHR but you provide another good reason for it.

Heathrow has, as you say created much growth and employment in a large area.

All those businesses you mention above pay tax. The jobs created attract income tax, the companies pay corporation tax and the services attract VAT.

So why is it so unthinkable that some of this tax goes towards expansion that would lead to more of that income in the future?
All things being equal, Heathrow likely offers more benefits, but that is not limitless. However, all things are not equal and the costs associated with the current scheme are such that LGW now offers the best financial return for the UK.

If LHR were to come up with a credible, deliverable scheme and were willing to take on 100% of the financial risks and costs, they should be allowed to get in with it ASAP.

That HHL have come up with a gold plated scheme, tried to pawn as much risk as possible onto the UK taxpayer, and are prepared to ride roughshod over their environmental and legal obligations leads me to the conclude that the current management team have no intention of ever doing so.

Untill they do present a credible scheme, the strongest financial case for expansion, and the lowest risk to the UK taxpayer, is at LGW, and they should be allowed to proceed ASAP.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 10:39
  #533 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,643
More book-cooking by Heathrow

Heathrow yesterday published the latest quarterly instalment of its Booker Fiction Prize submission aka the "Fly Quiet and Green" results: Fly Quiet & Green League Table Q1 2018

If anything, this quarter's FQ&G results are even murkier than usual.

While the basic proposition isn't rocket science - identify LHR's 50 busiest airlines (by number of movements) during the quarter in question, compare their performance on seven environmental metrics and combine their scores in a league table - Heathrow manages to fail at each stage of the process.

For a start, Vueling (daily LCG plus 1-2 daily BCN in Q1) is conspicuously absent from the results but Korean (one daily ICN plus the odd 777F) gets included. Likewise JAL (2 daily HND) is omitted, but PIA and Kuwait (both 10 pw) are in the league table. Go figure.

When it comes to calculating the league table rankings, Heathrow has already acknowledged that it massages the results to favour whichever airline is flavour of the month, so it should come as no surprise that SAS, this time around, gets propelled from its rightful Number 3 slot to the top of the table. Other airlines that have been awarded unjustified hikes up the table include Lufthansa and and Austrian (both 10 places higher than their performance merits), while heading in the other direction China Southern has clearly offended Heathrow and gets an unjustified 11-place demotion.

Aer Lingus, which actually comes out top based on its performance, get unfairly relegated to third place which oddly it shares with Etihad, whose performance only merits 7th position.

On average, every airline gets awarded an extra 235 points (nearly 25% of the available 1000-point maximum) over and above the score that its environmental performance actually qualifies for. That's one way of making your operators look greener, I suppose.

In a final twist, for each metric Heathrow awards airlines a Red, Amber or Green "RAG" classification based on the performance bands set for that indicator. So, for example, BA Longhaul gets a Red for being 38th out of the 50 airlines for violations of the late-night movements quota. Virgin Atlantic, Qantas, El Al and EgyptAir, are all lower-placed (worse) than BA for the night flights metric, but inexplicably only get an Amber for it.

You couldn't make this stuff up, though somebody clearly has.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 11:13
  #534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Let Stansted & LGW pay for a new runway at each and sell LHR for building land - all those affordable houses......
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 11:23
  #535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Behind a desk, dreaming of the sky
Posts: 507
All those businesses you mention above pay tax. The jobs created attract income tax, the companies pay corporation tax and the services attract VAT.
So why is it so unthinkable that some of this tax goes towards expansion that would lead to more of that income in the future?
Fair point, but the big question is how much? and on which parts of the project?

My two pennies....
Land Purchase - Heathrow should pay
Site development - Again, Heathrow should pay
Transport links (Motorway/Rail), 50/50 between Heathrow and TfL/DfT
Everything else - Probably Heathrow as well, unless i miss something major

But then we're into the charging airlines more, which is also a contentious issue (for another time)...
Plane.Silly is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 18:59
  #536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496

Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
To choose Gatwick over LHR would likely go down as one of the biggest infrastructure planning blunders of the century.

There would likely come a time, when we have HS2, Crossrail & HS4 operational and huge numbers of people are having to travel to Gatwick via Heathrow. The rest will have to go via central London but probably choose to drive instead of that creating more traffic on the M25.

Of course if Gatwick is expanded a huge M4/M25 upgrade will likely go ahead at some point anyway at great expense to the taxpayer.
I don't agree with any of this.

Of the three busiest airport systems on earth (London, New York, Tokyo) London is the outlier in having one hub. The rest have two - JFK and EWR in New York, NRT and HND in Tokyo.

In a world where LHR is not expanded and LGW is, LHR would remain popular and would inevitably continue to grow. The land around it would continue to be valulable.

Ultimately, if the sole criteria is financial, the best case and the only rational decision is LGW.
Dobbo_Dobbo is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 05:08
  #537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 191
The majority of people DONíT want to fly to or from Heathrow that is pure rhetoric!

The majority of legacy and alliance airlines have a business model based on Hub and Spoke that actually allows a multitude of connections over FEWER flight stages , its effective particularly in the US where the large states and vast travel distances mean there are fewer ground travel opportunities competing.
However just go and ask some medium sized US airports if itís been any good for them you might find they are less than enamoured by the system !
In later years itís been applied to longer haul operations however even those in Europe particularly are being disrupted by Norwegian, the 787 effect and yes the ME3.
Look at the areas of projected growth in the industry over the next 15 to 20 years and itís not in longer haul to from or across Europe .
Its regional in Asia and domestic in China , India, Indonesia .
The primary growth projections in Europe are continued flexible fares point to point operations further disrupting Hub and Spoke and Gatwick , Manchester and others similar sized airports on the continent is where that development will come from.
We donít need a super hub imho as said above those US airports in this mode are based on domestic links in a huge country serving the purpose of railways and motorways here in Europe.
Its telling that the only carrier that has registered an interest in moving on a much expanded R3 operating Heathrow is a regional point to point disruptive force carrier isnít it .
Not those long haul and regional feeders likened by politicians and HAL marketing !
Rutan16 is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 06:04
  #538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 461
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e64afb92-9b65-4222-a582-378a75da4701

interesting debate on the repositioning (OR NOT) of the largest incinerator plant in Europe. This unit digests a phenomenal amount of waste handliing the vast majority of locals council's excess right across Southern England.

By way of example 40% of all NHS trusts together with over 500 GP surgeries send spoil to this location.

Numerous county council's in the South East also use it. My own in Norfolk is one example. We have few landfill sites which seems to be the solution offered up currently so does anybody have an answer.

As prophead manages to spout an extra-oadinairy amount of rubbish and copious amounts of CO2 I wondered if he could provide us with an expert view on how best to solve this problem.
Navpi is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 06:47
  #539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,139
If my memory serves me right, the airport commission seriously underestimated the number of passengers using Gatwick now and in the future. Didn't they forecast it would be another 10 years before Gatwick would get to the passenger levels it is now at. Their figures were wrong at the time the report was published, was it not?

Considering how important this is to the overall argument, why was the commission not asked to go away, correct their figures and rerun the report? Or would that not have delivered the right answer? Is it a case of expand Heathrow regardless, now make the facts to stick to support our decision.
True Blue is online now  
Old 18th May 2018, 07:51
  #540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,139
So your view is some of the passengers using Lgw rightfully belong to Lhr. So just deduct a few million from Lgw, add them to Lhr, case proved. Were you part of the team that got the right answer and then developed the questions to prove the answer?
True Blue is online now  

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.