Heathrow-2
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What your one dimensional "analysis" ignores is the impact of the regulated asset base on the charging structure, which incentivises LHR into proposing gold plated solutions to basic problems.
Your retail based silver bullet is also no answer to the environmental or competition based impediments to the scheme.
It also does not account for financing the various surface access schemes, or the fact that LGW offers the best long term financial return for UKplc.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So on the one hand we have an airport that people prefer to fly into that will be connected to Central London by a brand new Crossrail link, the west with a new rail connection and connected to the midlands and north by a 'just built' state of the art high speed rail link.
And then we have Gatwick with its recently voted, worst rail station in the UK.
Personally I think we should expand them both but only one will be a hub with easy road & rail access to large parts of the country.
And then we have Gatwick with its recently voted, worst rail station in the UK.
Personally I think we should expand them both but only one will be a hub with easy road & rail access to large parts of the country.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" easy road & rail access to large parts of the country "
You clearly don't drive along the M4 very often - it's solid from 07:00 to 10:00 and 15:00 - 1930 every working day - and often at weekends as well..................... and we're going to put MORE pax into it.... madness
EDIT
I see you live in Berkshire so you MUST know what the M4 is like.......................
You clearly don't drive along the M4 very often - it's solid from 07:00 to 10:00 and 15:00 - 1930 every working day - and often at weekends as well..................... and we're going to put MORE pax into it.... madness
EDIT
I see you live in Berkshire so you MUST know what the M4 is like.......................
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 13th May 2018 at 17:37.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon my ignorance, but if Gatwick say they can produce another runway with zero-cost to the UK Taxpayers, why not just let them go ahead with it whether Heathrow expansion eventually happens or doesn't happen ?
It's not as though UK Taxpayers will be out of pocket if the Gatwick expansion turns out to be a white elephant.
It's not as though UK Taxpayers will be out of pocket if the Gatwick expansion turns out to be a white elephant.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You clearly don't drive along the M4 very often
However you look at it there are some very large and modern rail projects currently being built and we can either build up the airport that is connected to these or one miles away.
Coming to a motorway near Heathrow, the M4 is to be re modelled as a smart motorway starting shortly, from outside Maidenhead to the two lane carriageway at the elevated section, ie four lanes of volume into two. The work will take 54 months which is quicker media speak than 4.5 years. Traffic will be diverted onto the A4 which will also be moved for construction of R3 at the same time as as the M25 alteration. Please bring extra fuel,food and boredom in the resulting traffic chaos.��
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon my ignorance, but if Gatwick say they can produce another runway with zero-cost to the UK Taxpayers, why not just let them go ahead with it whether Heathrow expansion eventually happens or doesn't happen ?
It's not as though UK Taxpayers will be out of pocket if the Gatwick expansion turns out to be a white elephant.
It's not as though UK Taxpayers will be out of pocket if the Gatwick expansion turns out to be a white elephant.
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?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Prop ploppy sorry typo
THE TAXPAYER is Lender of FIRST resort.
herewith is an example of ANOTHER botched Government scheme. I commend Crossrail to the audience.
"Please Sir can we have a £500,000,000m bail out, pretty please as we have run out of money.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4f685580-560a-11e8-a94b-41e5a20c31cf
THE TAXPAYER is Lender of FIRST resort.
herewith is an example of ANOTHER botched Government scheme. I commend Crossrail to the audience.
"Please Sir can we have a £500,000,000m bail out, pretty please as we have run out of money.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4f685580-560a-11e8-a94b-41e5a20c31cf
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were still closing stretches of it at night until earlier this year Dave - after 20:00, sometimes but generally after 22:00 - I think th elast peices wre the bits around Farnboro/ 'Bush - it's now pretty much finished after years of work. I don't think they ever closed the bit of the M4 near Bristol tho' - but that was very short
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Prop ploppy sorry typo
obviously an intelligent comment coming here then.
Please Sir can we have a £500,000,000m bail out, pretty please as we have run out of money
Considering the pitfalls of tunnelling under the capital and weaving around multiple running underground lines, that sum is quite small compared to the finish project which is a monumental achievement.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People seem to be under the impression that expanding Gatwick will not cause any increase in traffic on the M25/M23. Also the rail station was recently crowned the worst in the UK. Do you really not believe there will be significant works required after this has been completed?
Just because it is not being included in the project itself as LHR has to be, doesn't mean the infrastructure around there won't need it in the future as the airport grows.
The transport works already planned or being built to LHR will be adequate for years.
Just because it is not being included in the project itself as LHR has to be, doesn't mean the infrastructure around there won't need it in the future as the airport grows.
The transport works already planned or being built to LHR will be adequate for years.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Prop ploppy sorry typo
The sad reality is that government is hopeless at controlling costs partly because they can’t make up their mind half the time and partly because the private sector is better at dealing. The NHS is full of such scandalous costs, however it remains the cost of doing business and no one is suggesting we close the NHS. The carriers are another example, we lack real leadership in this country alas.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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....
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.