Heathrow-2

[Prophead]

It forms the basis of the smaller third runway hub plan.

There is already provision built into the current infrastructure for link tunnels to allow quick transfer of baggage. Why wouldn't these connections appear?

Getting people transferring and spending in the shopping centre/terminal is what it's all about for HAL.

[LAX_LHR]

As a ‘MAN supporter’ is fully endorse the 3rd runway at Heathrow. It’s clear Heathrow needs more capacity and it needs to be addressed. Get the thing built and let the airlines decide on what they want to do with the extra slots (although Terminal capacity then surely creates an issue). I actually think LGW has the most to loose in all of this as there are a few long haulers that could move with open slots, and it’s been widely reported Easyjet are very interested in access to LHR, but, Manchester has supported long haul for many years while LHR had capacity, so no reason why that can’t continue the way it always has. Yes it may experience a little leakage, but, it could be able to weather any ‘storm’ that R3 could produce.

but, bloody hell, propheads arguments contains more holes than the finest of Swiss cheeses! But credit where it’s due, he goes on undeterred and must surely hold the title of the longest discussion with the most inconsistencies going! Kudos.

[Ringwayman]

It seems the 1 braincelled person cannot and does not want to understand that NONE of the Northern boost is a result of LHR and its services to China. Its a direct result of that sole route MAN has. MAN may well the focal point for the route but its the whole region that benefits; the same will apply when all 3 Indian routes start as well the Ethiopian service and the 3 or 4 other expected Asian routes happen. Whereas for LHR its going to be the usual trickledown effect and when someone sneezes lets cancel all the shuttle services DESPITE the apparent need for the likes of LPL (and its history of failing to keep hub carriers) and MME (whose owners serm to loathe aircraft) to have the LHR link to boost their economy. Boost the east-west trainline instead of these vanity projects of HS2 and R3 and then even more tangible benefits would accrue.

[Prophead]

It seems the 1 braincelled person

Grow up, your posts are seeming more and more to be from a member of the junior Manchester Airport spotters society.

NONE of the Northern boost is a result of LHR

Really? That's quite a bold statement. Can you back that up with facts? No, because your making it up.

Its a direct result of that sole route MAN has

So nobody from the north used the LHR to China services before the MAN flight then? That is what your basically saying. And it is me that is accused of having holes in my argument.

​​​​​​​MAN may well the focal point for the route but its the whole region that benefits;

So a flight into LHR benefits nobody but the SE yet a flight into MAN benefits all of the north?

​​​​​​​Boost the east-west trainline instead of these vanity projects of HS2 and R3 and then even more tangible benefits would accrue.

So build the countries infrastructure around Manchester rather than the capital. OK then, we are beginning to see your reasoning.

You have outlined how improved access from MAN to China has boosted the local economy yet refuse to believe that would be the case for other areas. You expect the whole of the north to travel to MAN for LH flights, something that would take longer and be more inconvenient that a shuttle into an expanded LHR.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever so why don't you at least have the guts to outline the real reasons you are so against it and that it is nothing but a desire to see growth at your local airport unaffected to the detriment of those elsewhere in the UK.

[Rutan16]

Prophead again the downer on Manchester in particular please explain, rationally and reasonably !

Again it is the only UK airport outside of the South East of any size and potential to help meet the local needs for both business and leisure - a position the operator has battled for for fourty years leading the way for modernised and truly competitive bilateral air treaties.

And as I previously stated I believe its a significant driver for the Northern Economy indeed it’s pivotal in the regional growth especially when combined with group Cargo Hub that is East Midlands - got a pallet or two this airport combined with national road network will get it to and from almost the entire UK manufacturing base in under two hours for leaving the gate.

As for Leeds Bradford it’s got a place in the national debate and in truly expanding the access for those over the Pennines .
It hasn’t been too successful in retention of the very few long haul routes particularly to Pakistan and like a few others the gradually weakening Canada links (these includes those at Manchester btw)

Your issues with Manchester Airport an airport handling 28 million mostly point to point seem almost myopic. Indeed you seem to have a beef with the MAG Group in general why?

BTW did some research HAL has NOT provided ANY direct funding of any significance to the Elizabeth Line at all, its ALL from the DFT and TFL .

Indeed HAL have been taken to court and substantially rebuked over their proposed Line charges for use of the spur !

I think a Third of the population and an area of significant density justifiably requires substantive infrastructure spending , would it be that its Manchester being the focal point at the heart of the NP that’s your problem rather than being Leeds ?

You understand its a spine from Liverpool to Newcastle, and no it’s not meant to replace the south east corner but rather ensure the North meets its potential and includes developing the two docks and container ports to get goods into the world markets more effectively.
Right now however for another forum do you know how many of the containers that arrive in Southampton and Felixstowe end up in the North on countless trains every day. It’s phenomenal and accommodating these along the WCML is a major reason for HS2 still I digress!

[Rutan16]

Originally Posted by Prophead

So 20%+ tax income on a privately funded project is not a benefit to the uk?



Pet Project? Heathrow was based mainly on business travellers. Gatwick was holiday charters and Stansted Loco. That is how they separated them up Heathrow is also well connected to central London and when Crossrail came along, ideally placed for a connection improving access even more. Why would they choose any other to upgrade to a major hub?



Thank you, you have just explained why Heathrow expansion is such a good idea, Create easier connections to the regions and, as you say, growth follows. The fact MAN can support a Beijing link is good news and will hopefully lead to more investment. Other cities however are not viable from MAN. Other regional's cannot support a Beijing connection. This is why an easier transfer through LHR will be so important.

It seems to me that those around MAN want all this access and growth for themselves.

Chinese operations need to be understood very carefully they more to do with Xi Jinping global power projections than simply profit.
As for other cities Edinburgh has service about to start and Birmingham is fighting hard.
Other Chinese cities including Guangzhou and Shanghai are in negotiation .
Whilst the likes of Tianjin and Quidao and Xi’an and Changsha already have those lucrative services into “Full” Heathrow though they are stuffed with low yielding loss making tourists you know the type that Heathrow doesn’t apparently need or want !

[Prophead]

Rutan,

I have no beef with Manchester at all. If a LH service can be viable from there then that's good.

I did however spend most of my life in Yorkshire and if I wanted to fly then it meant driving or getting the train to Manchester and paying a premium on the flight. Things have improved with the likes of Jet2 and others and the med & Greek Islands are just a short taxi ride to a smaller regional airport. This has led to more travel and the growth of LBA as a result. Other friends further afield in York and North Yorkshire find Manchester even more inconvenient.

I do feel that a more regular shuttle service that goes into a dedicated part of LHR with a service won't be cancelled at the drop of a hat will both further improve the range of flights on offer from the regional's and help grow these airports as a result. A win win for the people who live close to Leeds Bradford, Humberside, Durham, Doncaster and others.

My problem is not with Manchester Airport or it's owners. It is with the airports supporters who live nearby, expecting others to travel long distances to use the airport so that they can enjoy more direct flights.It is with these people trying to deny the regional's a good shuttle to the UK's leading airport and all the destinations it offers. There is no doubt that a large number of the detractors on this thread are both based in the MAN area and frequent posters on the MAN thread.

An area like MAN will easily be able to support a direct flight to Orlando, Dubai, New York and a host of other major cities. It will not however be able to fill a flight to other smaller cities that are viable from LHR.

Regarding Crossrail, BAA as they were then agreed to pay £230m towards Crossrail. This was when the third runway original plan had been given the go ahead. Once the government backtracked and started talking about Gatwick instead the funding was withdrawn as BAA's figures were all based on the expanded airport. Hardly surprising when you look at the millions BAA/HAL must have spent on this ongoing saga.

would it be that its Manchester at the heart of the NPH that’s your problem rather than Leeds ?

Not at all, I am all for it. I do not however see it as a solution for getting most of the north into Manchester Airport. It is more about connecting the major city centres.

Add HS2, NPH Corssrail and a Heathrow Hub together however and you get great connectivity and world class infrastructure through some of the most productive areas of the UK to/from a large part of the globe.

[LAX_LHR]

My problem is not with Manchester Airport or it's owners. It is with the airports supporters who live nearby, expecting others to travel long distances to use the airport so that they can enjoy more direct flights.

So, let me get this straight. A MAN supporter advocating people from the north travel ‘long distances’ and use the direct flights is a completely unreasonable argument.
Yet yourself, a LHR supporter, advocating the people of the North travel ‘even longer distances’ (so long you need a secondary flight to complete the journey) to Heathrow is a complete sound argument. Do you not see the irony in that at all?

​​​​​​​this is just one of the many holes in your argument that I was talking about, there are many many more.

[Prophead]

LAX_LHR, you have obviously never had to slog over the M62 in the early hours to catch a flight. It's not just about distance but convenience. I would much rather be sat on the Heathrow shuttle flight with a coffee than on the M62 in winter. Just ask the may people that choose to go via AMS currently.

But feel free to highlight any other 'holes' you keep alluding to yet not specifically describing. Please remember though, this isn't MY plan. It is a plan devised by the leading experts in airport design and approved, many times now by numerous business leaders and expert panels.

But please enlighten us all as to why they are all wrong.

[LAX_LHR]

Prophead.

you are either eluding the answer or missing the point.

why is to acceptable for LHR to draw in pax from across the North (and U.K. in the bigger picture) to bolster its numbers. but it is not acceptable for MAN to do the same thing? I’m not asking about pax choice (at this time), im asking why you are practicing double standards to try and support your argument.

Thats is the irony point. I will happily debate your other flaws if you can answer that basic point.

[Rutan16]

Can’t speak for Lax however I can speak for myself as when I lived and worked in Manchester until the mid 90s ! my work took me over the Pennines up as far as Gateshead almost every week come rain or shine.
Took the train at times and even flew on Gill Air flying box a few times.

I have been snowed in a few times and nice to know have actually cycled over the snake pass so I know the area pretty well and what to expect!

I am far from delusional oh and once it took me 4 hours to get from my last home in South Oxford to Leighton Buzzard in snow the likes I’ve never encountered up north !

Manchester Airport is and will form the pivotal point of the TPExpress rail services currently heavily delayed by cost overruns down south and Graylings incompetence did I say that before ?
When completed it will be unbelievably easy relatively quick and significantly cheaper to travel from the likes of Malton, York or Cleethorpes by modern clean fast trains than via the ECML , Crossrail and Heathrow Spur still what ever take your boat.

As for domestic flights haven’t you understood that government narrative of the last 15 years irrelevant of access they have used tax to actually discourage many/most of these types of journeys haven’t they ?

Again the domestic connectivity is questionable at best imho.

It doesn’t work financially now and never did and probably never will cepting Tax payer support

[MANFOD]

Good luck with that one LAX. When I argued the same point after he claimed MAN's catchment area was too large while LHR should have no limits, I was told it was a 'ridiculous' comment. And he accuses others of childishness.

I accept the M62 can be a pain at times but then by road to LHR is hardly a doddle. We're told we should think about it after all the road and rail link improvements to LHR are in place. It would be nice to think we could make the same argument for the North but alas that would require some serious infrastructure spend from a Transport Secretary who has cut back on proposed Manchester - Leeds electrification, and won't even approve 2 extra platforms at Piccadilly station to allow more train paths, including to the airport, for a minute proportion of the cost of some of the projects down south.

Incidentally, the current train services despite limitations are carrying an increasing number of passengers to MAN, apparently with a fair number from Leeds, Sheffield, York and the like.

[Prophead]

why is to acceptable for LHR to draw in pax from across the North (and U.K. in the bigger picture) to bolster its numbers. but it is not acceptable for MAN to do the same thing? I’m not asking about pax choice (at this time), im asking why you are practicing double standards to try and support your argument.

It is about adding choices. Nobody is suggesting those that are happy travelling to Manchester should not continue to do so. The fact is for many it is not convenient and a shuttle flight to another airport from their local regional is preferred. This is borne out by the fact that many people currently do just that via AMS & LHR using an existing service. The LHR shuttle will provide check in at the regional with a baggage transfer at LHR so will be much easier than lugging the cases on 2 or 3 trains. Contrary to what the MAN supporters would have you believe, it is very inconvenient for a lot of people in the North, That being said LHR expansion will service more than just the north of the UK. People from the South East, Scotland, Ireland and near Europe will have access to flights from the UK's number 1 airport also.


Rutan, as above, those that choose to put themselves through that will still be free to do so. There seems to be much paranoia in the MAN camp that an expanded LHR will mean reduction in pax from outside Manchester. If that is the case then it will only be because that is a better option. If MAN remains a better route then people will still use it. So my question to you is, if you are so sure that passengers would rather lug their suitcases around the north on trains than sit on a flight, baggage already checked and forgotten about, why are you all so against it?

Thats is the irony point. I will happily debate your other flaws if you can answer that basic point.

What an arrogant comment, why not just outline your own arguments against the proposal which was not decided by myself but a whole range of experts. Why not just tell us all why you know better?

MANFOD, give the north/south rubbish a rest will you. We will hopefully one day have HS2, HS3, HS4 Crossrail 1 & 2 plus an expanded LHR and the country will be all the better for it.

[LAX_LHR]

It is about adding choices. Nobody is suggesting those that are happy travelling to Manchester should not continue to do so.

so if that is your true argument, why are you going out of your way to disprove the MAN catchment? Saying such as ‘the MAN catchment has been too large’ etc. But, You are still not answering the question, which why are you stating that MAN should not continue to attract pax from the north to bolster its pax but LHR should?

The fact is for many it is not convenient and a shuttle flight to another airport from their local regional is preferred. This is borne out by the fact that many people currently do just that via AMS & LHR using an existing service. The LHR shuttle will provide check in at the regional with a baggage transfer at LHR so will be much easier than lugging the cases on 2 or 3 trains. Contrary to what the MAN supporters would have you believe, it is very inconvenient for a lot of people in the North,

So this is flaw number 2. You are stating that people prefer to travel from their local airport to Heathrow (and AMS). Let’s use a case study in your proffered point, LBA, shall we? Do pray tell why the LBA-LHR shuttle has been offered as viable option by BA, but is now reducing, quite drastically, in both pax and frequency, yet MAN pax numbers overall continue to rise, now reaching 28m pax. This is a case point that people are being offered the alternative you are so desperate to point out, but are choosing not to use it. Seems MAN isn’t quite as inconvenient as you would have people believe, is it? It’s quite a big flaw when one of your case arguments is working against you, isn’t it?

Is I’ve said, these are just the first in the flaws in your argument, and ones you cannot rebuff despite being asked twice now to elaborate. I don’t have to outline my own argument, I support both MAN and LHR expansion, it’s you making the ludicrous claims but then throw your toys when someone hits back.

What’s even more funny is that you force your opinions as fact and belittle others, but then call me arrogant, clearly not read back your own responses, have you?

[MANFOD]

"MANFOD, give the north/south rubbish a rest will you"

Easier to be arrogant than answer some folks' legitimate questions and concerns, isn't it?
May I politely suggest Prophead that just occasionally you make it clear it is your opinion you are expressing in many cases and not absolute concrete facts.

Nobody knows exactly what will happen if and when LHR gets its 3rd runway. Some passengers may suddenly be persuaded to use an airport as a hub they have been studiously avoiding previously for whatever reason, but it's conceivable they may be happy to continue to use direct services from another airport or via a ME hub for Australia for example.
You said:
That being said LHR expansion will service more than just the north of the UK. People from the South East, Scotland, Ireland and near Europe will have access to flights from the UK's number 1 airport also.

You make it sound as if this isn't the case at present. GLA, EDI, NCL and MAN all have plenty of flights to LHR at present and as far as I know are well used. I don't dispute that if DTV or HUY for example got new services, they would likely draw in extra pax. How successful LHR would be in winning and keeping new passengers would surely depend on the transfer experience for pax and luggage and confidence that flights wouldn't be cancelled.
Comments here and elsewhere suggests that LHR's reputation in that regard, while it may have improved with new terminals, isn't always great.

[Navpi]

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/have-government-ministers-misled-parliament-over-heathrow

Channel 4 asking if Westminster has been misled

Powerful stuff !

[Navpi]

Credit The FT.

Hole at the heart of Heathrow’s third runway - Sunday headline.

After a decade-long debate, money remains an unsettled question

Can Heathrow afford its third runway? It might seem an odd question. Etc etc

The FT article appears behind a paywall and they ask readers not to distribute freely over the web. I have accepted their advice.

But would suggest Prophead and indeed Howard Davies gain access and have a read !

I am not against rw3. If HAL and The government want to provide a 1970s solution to a 21st Century problem by all means carry on.

[Prophead]

so if that is your true argument, why are you going out of your way to disprove the MAN catchment? Saying such as ‘the MAN catchment has been too large’ etc. But, You are still not answering the question, which why are you stating that MAN should not continue to attract pax from the north to bolster its pax but LHR should?

You are missing the point again. MAN has enjoyed a large catchment area for years. So has LHR which serves a wide area out to the South West. Giving people the option to travel from their local airport into a main hub is the solution for many who find these airport inconvenient. The reason MAN was mentioned is because throughout this thread there have been large numbers of the airports supporters against LHR expansion.

You then ask why it's OK for people to have to travel to LHR instead of MAN. If I was suggesting people get the train to Heathrow, the way they have to to get to MAN then you would have a point. The flight will start at the regional not LHR. The bags will be checked and the journey is begun. When transferring in any other airport you do not say I am travelling to New York first to get my flight to Phoenix? The flight begins at the point you get rid of your checked in luggage and board the first aircraft. With an upgraded LHR there is already infrastructure in place to transfer bags from a new terminal into the existing network. There would likely be a rapid transport system to the other terminals and it would be done with relative ease. You cannot compare that to carrying luggage on numerous trains or having a long drive.

Your second point i have already responded to many times. You cannot use the existing system as proof that a totally redesigned project will not be a success. LHR is at capacity and its the SH flights that get axed. This is one of the reasons we need the new runway. Also, without the infrastructure in place at LHR it is not the seemless transfer that it will be and there are not the airline services in place at the moment that there will be. The BA flight from LBA is great and when I used it weekly there were lots of people connecting at Heathrow. I can see however why it has grown less popular due to the current setup at LHR. With someone like Easy or Flybe going into a dedicated runway it would be different so please can we stop this 'It won't work because it doesn't work now' nonsense that has been throughout this thread. Saying we shouldn't expand LHR because someone had a bad experience there a few years ago is like saying cancel the Northern Power House project because Leeds station is a dump.

Easier to be arrogant than answer some folks' legitimate questions and concerns, isn't it?

MANFOD, the North/South rubbish gets tiring very quickly. We are talking about improving access to the nations leading airport from the regions. That is a benefit to the people of those regions. The project is largely privately funded except upgrades to the road system that need doing anyway. It is also possible that the tax intake from the privately funded portion will cover most of the publicly funded part. You can be cynical all you like and pretend that benefit won't exist but you will be wrong. Improved access to the flights from LHR, many of which will never be viable from MAN, is a good thing for the regions. and the UK as a whole.

I am not against rw3. If HAL and The government want to provide a 1970s solution to a 21st Century problem by all means carry on.

We are all waiting to hear your design proposal. If you know more than all the experts that have worked on this scheme for many years. I am actually still waiting for you to follow up on your comment that the Super Sewer is a waste of taxpayers money when it is privately financed and will provide a huge tax income.

[LAX_LHR]

Prophead.

how can I be missing the point ‘again’ when you are not providing the coherent point to understand In the first place?

you are still not answering the question but instead just rambling on. It’s clear you have no idea what you are actually talking about, and thus, it becomes a seriously laboured task trying to understand just what the nonsense is coming from you. And for that reason, I’m out from trying to get a straight and unbiased answer from you. It’s just a good job no one is taking you seriously so i can leave you to it.

Trying to argue against stupidity is like trying to swim through treacle. It will take you a long time and you’ll get no where, so, welcome to my ignore list. Have fun, someone, somewhere one day may just about fall for your nonsense.

[Prophead]

And that is what happens when you answer somebodies question multiple times but they cannot refute the answer.

Your last point about arguing with stupidity is very apt.