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

Heathrow-2

Old 16th Jun 2018, 16:27
  #641 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,496
Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank View Post
Who can say how things will be in 100 years?
I think we can safely assume that if the payback period for R3 is 100 years, it isn't going to happen.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 08:32
  #642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 249
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn View Post
So you can mind-read Willie Walsh? Impressive!

Don't leave us hanging. Itemise all those other errors you have found.
I suggest you re-read his public comments. He’s not opposed to R3 “unequivocally” as you assert. He is opposed to expansion “at any cost”, doesn’t want to pay for it upfront and wants the majority of slots to go to IAG. Far from “unequivocal” in my opinion.

You may want to read the more recent comments he’s made when the Arora Group suggested they could build it more cheaply.
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 10:15
  #643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 25
But cost is exactly the point. WW is absolutely correct to baulk at cost figures anything like those mentioned. IAG is far better served by the status quo. IAG can expand at Madrid, Barcelona, Dublin, Gatwick and more. Especially if they do eventually take over Norwegian.

I also disagree with your suggestion that the cost of expanding Heathrow should only be compared with other airport upgrade projects. The fact that entire new twin-runway airports can be built in various other countries (including those with high real estate prices) for a fraction the cost of upgrading Heathrow by one third is utterly damning. That's the point and it is valid.

If the cost of the R3 proposals was £4Bn - like Badgerys Creek - then I wouldn't object to it either. But its all-in cost including access upgrades is in the ballpark of £30Bn. That is what WW sees. So he is right. If that is the price (and we're told it is) then expanding Gatwick / Stansted instead is a far superior option for London.

Last edited by OzzyOzBorn; 17th Jun 2018 at 10:23. Reason: Paragraph added.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 11:39
  #644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 458
Careful what you wish for !

Whilst it’s all very well welcoming EZY with open arms this will erode IAGs connectivity, precisely the premise on which R3 is being sold to the public.

Do you honestly believe that EZY (who will no doubt be in their own terminal) will offer the same supposed seamless connectivity as IAG !

Not a cat in hells chance.


You “may” get lower fares , but that’s all and even this is not a given based on the debt/gearing and the need for HAL to recover those funds.

On a second point, UK MPs are being promised the earth by the Heathrow propaganda machine, if its not a direct flight its a juicy new logistic hub.
They are visiting EVERY Chamber Of Commerce in the country with the same promise and same presentation,

It really is Emperor’s new clothes stuff !

Finally what is the ACTUAL PRICE POINT where even the Heathrow evangelists would say the cost is too high.

Can you please let us know as you appear totally blind to these costs ?

PLEASE - WHAT IS THE FIGURE ?

Last edited by Navpi; 17th Jun 2018 at 12:49.
Navpi is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 12:25
  #645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 472
First of all, for the sake of argument I support a third runway at LHR, as well as a second usable runway at LGW. No airport should be prevented from expanding and thus becoming inefficient and problematic for passengers.

I do balk at one argument made by the LHR side over routes though - over routes, both domestically and internationally. There could be up to another 240,000 annual movements, or around 650 movements per day. In the initial phase, I'd expect only about half these to be taken up, before the runway fills up again. For every 10 slots assigned, at least 2 needs to be assigned to a domestic route and 1 assigned to a route not already operated by someone else.

1) Only two airlines in the UK have the capability in their current form to operate routes to additional domestic airports - these routes need to be operated by smaller E-jet, ATR or C-series equipment. Only BA Cityflier and FlyBE have the fleet, unless there is a new entry, to operate these routes profitably and efficiently.
2) If these routes were profitable, wouldn't BA (or another airline) be operating them already?
3) Because of point 2) there would need to be government / airport guarantees (can't say I'm a fan of this approach) for certain % of slots being used for certain routes, otherwise the usual suspects will just be doubling down on typical dense routes. Heathrow have stated that Dundee, Prestwick, Carlisle, Norwich, Durham/Tees, Humberside, Doncaster/Sheffield, Liverpool, Derry, Isle of Man, Newquay, Jersey, Guernsey could be operated in addition to those domestic routes currently operated.
4) Internationally, many routes that LHR have highlighted as potential new markets surely are limited and would prove extremely costly to operate:

From west to east:
United States - Portland, San Antonio potentially limited J traffic and easy connections through existing hubs? Certainly think Orlando and Memphis could work; the former already operated from LGW.
Central America - Guatemala City, San Jose, Panama City - think these are definite growth areas by a time a runway is built, but I think limited to a 787 (or going via MAD).
South America - Quito, Lima - certainly think these would work. Caracas, Belo Hortizonte, Porto Alegre - sceptical about these; the latter two could work if done on the same trip.
Africa - Think Dakar, Entebbe, Dar es Salaam, Durban and Khartoum could work. BA have tried Monrovia previously and pulled out - no suggestion that this is a growth area. Mombasa did have a huge charter presence which seems to have tailed off due political instability. Extremely sceptical about Port Harcourt, Lilongwe and Harare. These routes are bread and butter though against the ME3 who will easily beat everyone on price.
Middle East - Baghdad not exactly going to be a big business/tourist destination anytime soon. Damman high J potentially.
South Asia - Peshawar is one of the most dangerous places in the world, so that's a no from me. Think Goa, Kochi, Thiruvanathapuram, Kathmandu, Kolkata could all work, albeit with lower yields. Think India will become a huge aviation powerhouse by 2030. Having worked over there for 2 months last year it was staggering the increase in human development and just the shear scale. The airlines over there are putting in huge aircraft orders. Again though, bread and butter for the ME3.
China - Wuhan, Chongqing, Nanjing, Fuzhou - probably just scratching the surface for that country.
South East Asia - Penang, Denpasar - I'd say Indonesian aviation is about 10 years behind India, but the likes of Lion are making huge strides in that region.
Far East - Surprised Osaka isn't being operated already.
Oceania - Brisbane is the obvious one, but will depend on "Project Sunrise" - the economics don't really work on Perth...
Dannyboy39 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 14:16
  #646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,915
I think we can safely assume that if the payback period for R3 is 100 years, it isn't going to happen.
Not payback period, OPENING DATE!!! It was an optimistic estimate for an approximate ending of the dithering, indecison and procrastination on the part of the government.


You may want to read the more recent comments he’s made when the Arora Group suggested they could build it more cheaply.
Is it correct that the Arora Group proposal is for a shorter rwy that doesn't cross the M25 motorway or demolish its hotels? If so, it will be cheaper as it avoids years of disruption on the motorway and can open earlier, so it may become a viable option, time will tell.

But cost is exactly the point. WW is absolutely correct to baulk at cost figures anything like those mentioned. IAG is far better served by the status quo. IAG can expand at Madrid, Barcelona, Dublin, Gatwick and more. Especially if they do eventually take over Norwegian.
Possibly, but the most profitable is Heathrow. Why do you think that carriers are so determined to acquire Heathrow slots at any cost?

I also disagree with your suggestion that the cost of expanding Heathrow should only be compared with other airport upgrade projects. The fact that entire new twin-runway airports can be built in various other countries (including those with high real estate prices) for a fraction the cost of upgrading Heathrow by one third is utterly damning. That's the point and it is valid.
The clue is in the words "various other countries".

First of all, for the sake of argument I support a third runway at LHR, as well as a second usable runway at LGW. No airport should be prevented from expanding and thus becoming inefficient and problematic for passengers.
Of course Gatwick should have a second rwy, but not instead of a third at Heathrow. In other words, if there is to be only one new rwy, it should be at Heathrow (obviously). If there ares to be two new rwys, then one each at Heathrow and Gatwick. If there are to be three, then two at Heathrow and one at Gatwick. The latter option would bring the rwy capacity of London's two main airports to the same as Paris's: 4 at LHR/CDG and 2 at LGW/ORY. this completely unlikely, but not unreasonable, as London's aviation market is much larger than that of Paris. However, even if governments were not the main obstacle to expansion, the profitability aspect would play a large part in determining commercial viability of such expansion as UK airports are privately owned,

Apologies if the NIMBYs are having a collective heart attack at the thought of three new rwys in the south east.


1) Only two airlines in the UK have the capability in their current form to operate routes to additional domestic airports - these routes need to be operated by smaller E-jet, ATR or C-series equipment. Only BA Cityflier and FlyBE have the fleet, unless there is a new entry, to operate these routes profitably and efficiently.
There may well be new entrants, smaller carriers cannot entertain LHR operations at present, mainly because of slot acquisition costs. This changes dramatically with a new rwy. Of the additional (free) slots 50% would go to new entrants.

2) If these routes were profitable, wouldn't BA (or another airline) be operating them already?
Even if thin domestic routes are profitable, the shortage of slots, makes other routes MORE profitable. Even if some routes are not profitable AT PRESENT, with a new rwy, everything changes, not least the abundance of available of slots and, consequently, the ending of the secondary slot market. This allows an increase in new, perhaps thinner, international routes, many of which will need feeder flights from other UK airports to be viable.

3) Because of point 2) there would need to be government / airport guarantees (can't say I'm a fan of this approach) for certain % of slots being used for certain routes, otherwise the usual suspects will just be doubling down on typical dense routes. Heathrow have stated that Dundee, Prestwick, Carlisle, Norwich, Durham/Tees, Humberside, Doncaster/Sheffield, Liverpool, Derry, Isle of Man, Newquay, Jersey, Guernsey could be operated in addition to those domestic routes currently operated.
It makes sense to ringfence a certain amount of slots for domestic operations, it also makes sense for PSO London flights to use LHR as it increases the potential for flight connections not on offer at other London airports. It is also important for as many domestic routes as possible to be linked to Heathrow in order to boost connectivity and rebalance the economy.

4) Internationally, many routes that LHR have highlighted as potential new markets surely are limited and would prove extremely costly to operate:

From west to east:
United States - Portland, San Antonio potentially limited J traffic and easy connections through existing hubs? Certainly think Orlando and Memphis could work; the former already operated from LGW.
Central America - Guatemala City, San Jose, Panama City - think these are definite growth areas by a time a runway is built, but I think limited to a 787 (or going via MAD).
South America - Quito, Lima - certainly think these would work. Caracas, Belo Hortizonte, Porto Alegre - sceptical about these; the latter two could work if done on the same trip.
Africa - Think Dakar, Entebbe, Dar es Salaam, Durban and Khartoum could work. BA have tried Monrovia previously and pulled out - no suggestion that this is a growth area. Mombasa did have a huge charter presence which seems to have tailed off due political instability. Extremely sceptical about Port Harcourt, Lilongwe and Harare. These routes are bread and butter though against the ME3 who will easily beat everyone on price.
Middle East - Baghdad not exactly going to be a big business/tourist destination anytime soon. Damman high J potentially.
South Asia - Peshawar is one of the most dangerous places in the world, so that's a no from me. Think Goa, Kochi, Thiruvanathapuram, Kathmandu, Kolkata could all work, albeit with lower yields. Think India will become a huge aviation powerhouse by 2030. Having worked over there for 2 months last year it was staggering the increase in human development and just the shear scale. The airlines over there are putting in huge aircraft orders. Again though, bread and butter for the ME3.
China - Wuhan, Chongqing, Nanjing, Fuzhou - probably just scratching the surface for that country.
South East Asia - Penang, Denpasar - I'd say Indonesian aviation is about 10 years behind India, but the likes of Lion are making huge strides in that region.
Far East - Surprised Osaka isn't being operated already.
Oceania - Brisbane is the obvious one, but will depend on "Project Sunrise" - the economics don't really work on Perth...
BTW, Auckland is missing from the list, as are several West Indies destinations currently at LGW (the latter has already started: VS now does LHR-BGI).

By the time the third rwy is up and running there may well be another generation of aircraft available with much improved economics: cleaner, more fuel efficient and even quieter than the current crop. What looks uneconomic now may not be then. Of course many routes currently operated to/from LGW will shift to LHR, that is something that won't change.

Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 17th Jun 2018 at 16:09.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 17:06
  #647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 472
That isn't my own list - that is the list on Heathrow's own website. I am extremely sceptical on many of those destinations, but that said most would likely only be operated by home carriers.

Re Auckland (not already operated by ANZ?) - EK can barely make it profitable from DXB with all their advantages, let alone on a 1-stop from LHR. You're burning more fuel just carrying it. On that subject, I note that the inaugural PER-LHR leg was done with 94T on the 787 with another hours flying time available; not as high as I was expecting.

For me, the following will be operated from LHR pretty quickly:
UK & Ireland: Jersey, Guernsey, Cardiff, Isle of Man, Liverpool, Newquay, Derry, Knock
Europe: Alicante, Naples, Porto, Valencia, Bordeaux, Heraklion, Seville, Dubrovnik (a lot served by an EZY hub)
North America: Orlando, Cancun, Memphis, Bermuda, St Lucia, Punta Cana, San Jose de Costa Rica, Port-of-Spain
South America: Quito, Lima
Africa: Dakar, Entebbe, Dar es Salaam, Khartoum
Middle East: Baghdad, Damascus (eventually), Erbil
South Asia: Goa, Kolkata
China: Chengdu, Shenzhen, Chongqing, Nanjing, Xiamen, Tianjin
Far East: Osaka
Oceania: Brisbane

Potential new entrants (airlines):
Air Transat, easyJet, Iraqi Airways, Montenegro Airlines, Nouvelair, Tianjin Airlines, Xiamen Airlines, Wizz Air
Dannyboy39 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 17:35
  #648 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,496
Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank View Post
This allows an increase in new, perhaps thinner, international routes, many of which will need feeder flights from other UK airports to be viable.
So introduce more marginally viable international routes which only make sense if you assume additional feed from new, unprofitable UK domestics ?

I think I might be missing something here ...
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 18th Jun 2018, 10:21
  #649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 25
Prophead - I accept only that TfL can do their sums. But if you're suggesting that I think spending that amount on access works is OK then you are mistaken. Meanwhile, £17Bn + £20Bn = £37Bn. I used £30Bn. Looks like I chose a lower number for my "highly biased" argument. On your second point about getting better value away from areas with the highest real estate prices I agree. Hence why I suggest Stansted as a great alternative choice, especially since it specialises in the highest growth no-frills sector.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2018, 16:42
  #650 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
Just because you and others choose not to believe that the regional flights will be forthcoming does not make that so
To be fair, the Airports Commission made it clear that they didn't believe it either.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 18th Jun 2018, 19:42
  #651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 249
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn View Post
But cost is exactly the point. WW is absolutely correct to baulk at cost figures anything like those mentioned. IAG is far better served by the status quo.

I also disagree with your suggestion that the cost of expanding Heathrow should only be compared with other airport upgrade projects. The fact that entire new twin-runway airports can be built in various other countries (including those with high real estate prices) for a fraction the cost of upgrading Heathrow by one third is utterly damning. That's the point and it is valid.
Strange. Your OP said
IAG, Heathrow's largest airline operator by far (incorporating British Airways) opposes the R3 proposal unequivocally.
Now you’re equivocating. Could you confirm they’re opposed ‘unequivocally’ or only on cost grounds?
Trash 'n' Navs is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2018, 20:48
  #652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 25
Willie Walsh opposes unequivocally because the stated all-in cost, even in the best case scenario, is an astronomical £25Bn. And far more likely to be £30Bn+. Senior airline executives tend to have a good grasp of crazy numbers like that. Those figures are all the reason he needs to be 'unequivocal'. And anyone else with an ounce of sense too.

Prophead - you're back to your default position of justifying R3 on operational convenience without regard to cost. IT IS ALL ABOUT COST. Circa £30Bn all-in is too much many times over. Despite wishful thinking, afew extra regional domestic flights don't come close to offsetting that inconvenient reality.

And yes, the core issue is limited runway capacity in the SE specifically. It is not a matter of national benefit, though wasting billions would be a matter of national concern. There is no 'win-win' option if thirty billion is wasted trying to make Heathrow work. But one new runway each for Gatwick and Stansted at a combined lower price just might be. And they're home to the no-frills behemoths - the sector driving the real growth in demand for runway access.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2018, 22:11
  #653 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 62
Posts: 8,839
Dannyboy39
2) If these routes were profitable, wouldn't BA (or another airline) be operating them already?
Sadly not. On the airline side, BA bought up the small carriers simply to obtain their LHR slots. The flights were then shoved off to LGW and, eventually sold on. Leaving BA with slots on the cheap.
On the BAA side, following privatisation, the for-profit company naturally went for profit and changed the way it charged airlines. It used to be that airlines were charged per seat on the aircraft. They changed it to per aircraft landing. Thus it cost similar amounts to land a 744 as a 146.

If R3 is ever built, the rules would have to change. But (as i always repeat) no one need worry about that as it won't get built.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2018, 10:33
  #654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
How do you get a tax take of 30%??

most of the payments will be corporate and those guys pay v little tax. PAYE will be only a small portion...
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2018, 11:24
  #655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,344
After completion we have the boost to the economy created by this greater connectivity to the regions. The British Chamber of Commerce has said it would double cargo capacity and connect British businesses to up to 40 new long-haul trading routes. They say the project will pump £187bn into the economy, create up to 180,000 new skilled jobs and double the number of apprenticeships at the airport to 10,000.
You still have not answered my question though Ozzy, How is scrapping a project that would be beneficial for the whole of the UK and building one only helping the SE a reasonable answer to the North/South funding imbalance?
some huge assumptions here. How do we know all these new routes to unserved destinations will appear? BA and co could be operating them now rather than multiple JFK's if there was money in it. What happens if BA decides that what is more profitable for them is more JFK's? or any new entrant decides the same? The national interest and those of private airlines might not always align...
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 19th Jun 2018, 15:16
  #656 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 405
Been away for few days, a shorter runway? So no M25 diversion?
Trinity 09L is online now  
Old 19th Jun 2018, 15:46
  #657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 1,814
Meanwhile the first phase of the new Istanbul airport is slated to open on the 29th Oct 2018 at an initial cost of 5.5 billion Euros. The eventual cost of completion estimated at a further 4.7 billion Euros making 10.3 billion Euros in total. This for a whole new airport and terminal.............Where do we get £30 billion for one runway and one terminal?
ETOPS is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2018, 16:08
  #658 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,496
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
Passengers for many of the LH flights will be fed from the SH operation on the shorter runway.
There is no plan for any "SH operation on the shorter runway".

While the latest announced plans include an option whereby R3 could be marginally shorter (by 300 metres) thaan originally planned, there is no suggestion that the three runways would not be rotated as originally envisaged. A slightly shorter runway would still meet the performance requirements set out in the revised draft NPS.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 19th Jun 2018, 16:19
  #659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 405
Prop head.
I have the paper version of the Scheme Development report all 380 pages. Section 3 is 25 pages containing details of Runway component. Variations of options ( so they cannot make up their mind) of 2295,2800,3200, and 3500 on page 39 their best summary lengths are between 2295 and and 3500.
Existing runways are 3902 and 3660, but both are used with displaced thresholds reducing these lengths.
Both R3 and the northern runway will have exits on one side only, as opposed the current southern runway for T4.
Trinity 09L is online now  
Old 19th Jun 2018, 16:43
  #660 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,496
I think the version I'm looking at is slightly more up-to-date. It discusses why the 2295m (Family B) and 2800m options have been discontinued, leaving the original 3500m proposal and an option shortened at one or both ends to 3200m.

Interestingly, one diagram does show exits on both sides of the current northern runway at the western end:

DaveReidUK 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.