Heathrow-2

[c52]

You could almost promise it by building the new runway just big enough for a Dash 8.

[SWBKCB]

I am sure however that a new runway open for SH ops with an easy connection on LH destinations would create a market that would be quickly filled. Not only from the UK regions but also Europe. We would also likely see new routes to destinations that were not previously viable even for Heathrow.

Or easyJet move in and fly people on holiday to the same destinations...

Are the environmental issues really spurious - more flights means more noise, and it ain't cheap.

Talking about the differences in the level of regional infrastructure expenditure isn't just a "fan club" issue.

[Prophead]

Are the environmental issues really spurious - more flights means more noise, and it ain't cheap.

When you are talking about a project that is likely to not be operational until the 2030's at least then using todays air quality measurements isn't accurate. Especially when you look at the move towards electric vehicles and more more eco friendly aircraft engines. Then there is the argument about less aircraft in the hold.

Talking about the differences in the level of regional infrastructure expenditure isn't just a "fan club" issue.

The Manchester lot are behind Gatwick expansion so it's not about north/south. They see a hub at LHR as a threat to their spotting books.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Prophead

We would also likely see new routes to destinations that were not previously viable even for Heathrow.

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.

[Heathrow Harry]

People hope the new runway will reduce the operating costs significantly...................... ho, ho ho

[Mr Mac]

Prophead
Your location says Berkshire not LBA or Yorkshire hence my belief you live in the SE, unless you commute like I used to do. As for the use of a 3rd runway stopping the MAN bus service, dream on. It is BA who run the service and I have no doubt 3rd runway or not I would be on a bus if I returned to using BA and LHR. I would be back on that bus again within 6 months with the optional delv of my bags outbound, or inbound. Its funny I started to leave LHR and BA in around 2007 apart from the odd flight. Now despite numerous flights , gales , storms, volcanoes, Fog EK /SQ/LH have got me home, or outbound with my luggage at the same time, to the same place, a point that BA and LHR failed to do on numerous occasions hence my move. As for spending money at LHR I have to ask why. The place functions badly now so here is a radicle thought, cut the number of services but get it right for those that remain, and this applies to both BA and LHR and then rebuild your airline and airport rather than this dash for growth which is proving so trouble some.

Regards
Mr Mac

[Prophead]

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.

Because the airport is now serving the UK rather than the south east.

As for the use of a 3rd runway stopping the MAN bus service, dream on.

Your still talking about LHR today rather than with the proposed third runway. The domestic flights are cancelled due to capacity issues.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Prophead

The Manchester lot are behind Gatwick expansion so it's not about north/south. They see a hub at LHR as a threat to their spotting books.

The central rationale behind Propheahad's (obviously unresearched, unsupported and unsustainable) arguments is revealed...

[Prophead]

The central rationale behind Propheahad's (obviously unresearched, unsupported and unsustainable) arguments is revealed...

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.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Prophead

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.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Prophead

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.

[Prophead]

Lots of people in central London say the same thing.

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.

I've not seen any stats or forecasts that demonstrate either of those conclusively.

If it was necessary to provide Joe Public with conclusive evidence of future usage then we would not build anything.

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.

[Skipness One Echo]

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.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Prophead

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]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

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]

Originally Posted by Prophead

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).

[chaps1954]

Isn`t AMS almost full now?

Ian

[Heathrow Harry]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo

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

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by chaps1954

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.

[Prophead]

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

The railways are already being built or are planned to be. When any third runway is fully operational we will have Crossrail connecting it to central London, an interchange with HS2 at Old Oak Common allowing HS rail travel up north and a western connection linking into the GWR.

The roads around Heathrow are chaos at the moment. We can pretend nothing needs doing here unless the airport is expanded but it is in dire need of redevelopment. The problem is until the expansion plans are approved nobody is going to put money into it. If they are approved then as much as possible is being lumped into this project. If it doesn't go ahead then there will likely be major improvements built around the M4/A4 that will cost a huge amount. Anyone that thinks this will not be done before 2035 has never had to commute around this area.

The rest is airport infrastructure that will be financed by LHR.

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).

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.

And the main industry customer (IAG) would see their advantage eroded - again = more foot dragging

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.