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

Heathrow-2

Old 17th May 2018, 18:59
  #561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Originally Posted by Prophead
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 17th May 2018, 19:51
  #562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
would inevitably continue to grow.
How would LHR continue to grow without expansion?

Ultimately, if the sole criteria is financial, the best case and the only rational decision is LGW.
There is nothing rational about building a brand new multi £bn world class rail network, connecting it to an airport that the majority of people want to fly to and then choosing to expand another, less popular one.
Prophead is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 05:08
  #563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The majority of people DON’T 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 it’s been any good for them you might find they are less than enamoured by the system !
In later years it’s 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 it’s 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 don’t 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 isn’t it .
Not those long haul and regional feeders likened by politicians and HAL marketing !
Rutan16 is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 06:04
  #564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 07:15
  #566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The majority of people DON’T want to fly to or from Heathrow that is pure rhetoric!
I work with people from all over Europe and they all prefer to fly from LHR. When the new links are in place then it will be even more so.

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.
A bit rich coming from someone who thinks LHR is an inconvenience for Crossrail. The short answer is you move it.

It is no good just coming up with obstacle after obstacle against LHR and pretending Gatwick expansion is the better option. Gatwick serves the package holiday industry and low cost flights. It caters for those in the far south & south east well. For scheduled airlines however it has always been the second option and will continue to be once the better connections go to LHR.

​​​​​​​ If my memory serves me right, the airport commission seriously underestimated the number of passengers using Gatwick now and in the future.
The Gatwick figures are in part driven by overspill from Heathrow that has been moved there due to capacity.

I really do think we need to expand both airports. The only hub option however is LHR.
Prophead is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 07:51
  #567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 10:03
  #568 (permalink)  
c52
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,259
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely, if Gatwick (or Stansted or Greenham Common or anywhere else) had four runways and everything else then people would "want" to use that airport. People will go where the facilities are (except for Montreal, I believe).
c52 is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 10:54
  #569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Spreads them out over more space ................... and it would take 30 years to fill up the areas between Stansted and London with housing and warehouses
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 11:37
  #570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely, if Gatwick (or Stansted or Greenham Common or anywhere else) had four runways and everything else then people would "want" to use that airport.
It's not just the airport but the ease of getting to it or getting out to home/work. To expand Gatwick/ Stansted and especially somewhere like Greenham Common would mean spending £bn's on improved transport and then the argument against LHR goes away.

Thameslink has improved Gatwick to some extent but it will never compete with the future connectivity to LHR.
Prophead is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 11:56
  #571 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,126
Received 58 Likes on 48 Posts
Originally Posted by Dobbo_Dobbo
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.

That depends, as always, on how you frame the questions! This discussion has oft quoted, Yes, Minister/Prime Minister {UK TV series} and one of the best is when the Minister decides to set up an inquiry and the first question from his senior civil servant: "What conclusion do you want the inquiry to give?"

I am have always supported R3 but have long concluded that it will never be built as the timing has been missed. The Euro and ME3 hubs have taken the job and the expansion pendulum is swinging steadily East. Not to mention the next big financial crash that is due for the West and the UK will feature strongly in that.
PAXboy is online now  
Old 18th May 2018, 18:25
  #572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Isnt Windsor noisy ?

Watching the pre Royal wedding reporting outside the castle on TV today. Reporters were having to pause each time a jet went overhead. Wonder if there will be a pause in traffic at the crucial part of the service ??
MAN777 is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 20:23
  #573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MAN777
Watching the pre Royal wedding reporting outside the castle on TV today. Reporters were having to pause each time a jet went overhead. Wonder if there will be a pause in traffic at the crucial part of the service ??
Allegedly true, probably not....

An overheard conversation between two old, American, lady tourists in McDonalds in Windsor included the immortal

" But why did they build the castle so close to the airport "
Hussar 54 is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 20:57
  #574 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,784
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by MAN777
Watching the pre Royal wedding reporting outside the castle on TV today. Reporters were having to pause each time a jet went overhead. Wonder if there will be a pause in traffic at the crucial part of the service ??
Current surface wind forecast for midday tomorrow is 5 kts northeasterly. While winds aloft won't necessarily be that light, they may well still permit westerly operations, in which case aircraft over Windsor won't be an issue.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 22nd May 2018, 21:23
  #575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Royal Brunei to switch to direct flights to LHR from Oct 28th, dropping the Dubai stopover. Separate 4 weekly flights to Dubai to start at the same time.
jdcg is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2018, 13:47
  #576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reports in the Sunday Times suggest movement on RW3 in next two weeks but with a suggestion Heathrow based airlines would come together as a JV and monitor costs etc.

This raises a number of questions.

Is it feasible.
Would HAL allow this ?
And would IAG get involved given they have little to gain

There is also a suggestion the taxpayer would safeguard the whole project in order to provide a degree of confidence for shareholders, although presumably these would now be the airlines ?

It appears incredibly complex. Is it something Grayling has contrived?

In addition given Grayling is thee worst Transport Secretary in living memory and the fact he has made such a complete hash of the railways, is it likely to impact the project outcome given HE will be announcing the decision.
Navpi is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 12:29
  #577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cabinet approves plan for third runway

Finally, sense seems to be winning the day, and the third runway is becoming a reality, after 20 years of utter hot air from buffoons. I think what sums it up best is the quote that this decision is being made in the “national interest”. Onwards and upwards.
Rivet Joint is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 12:38
  #578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think we need to see the detail. Still nervous about who is paying for what. Needs robust checks and balances so that if it goes belly up the taxpayer isn't left holding the baby. HAL are already debt laden.

Last edited by Navpi; 5th Jun 2018 at 21:09.
Navpi is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 13:18
  #579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 166
Received 28 Likes on 16 Posts
Sorry RJ, I fail to see the national benefit in this.

All I see is peoples homes being demolished, additional traffic on the M25 car park and access roads to LHR, even longer queues at check-in and subsequent security, more (over) crowding in the terminals, longer waits for baggage collection, more flights over London etc etc etc.

It might suit you southern softies folks, but people from north of the M25 would have been better suited by expansion of regional airports to allow some of the holiday type traffic to leave LHR, freeing it up for the so-called business traveller. For our business travel, LHR ADDS 2 hours or more and all I see are the commuter type flights leaving regional and heading to LHR

It's about time people realised the UK is more, much more, than London and the SE
golfbananajam is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 13:32
  #580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bristol
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by golfbananajam
Sorry RJ, I fail to see the national benefit in this.

All I see is peoples homes being demolished, additional traffic on the M25 car park and access roads to LHR, even longer queues at check-in and subsequent security, more (over) crowding in the terminals, longer waits for baggage collection, more flights over London etc etc etc.

It might suit you southern softies folks, but people from north of the M25 would have been better suited by expansion of regional airports to allow some of the holiday type traffic to leave LHR, freeing it up for the so-called business traveller. For our business travel, LHR ADDS 2 hours or more and all I see are the commuter type flights leaving regional and heading to LHR

It's about time people realised the UK is more, much more, than London and the SE
Out of interest, how many other UK airports that serve major cities are running at 99% of capacity? (BHX, BRS, MAN, NCL, LBA LPL, EDI, GLA, CWL, BFS?) What would be the point in expanding regional airports? What kind of infrastructure improvements would you propose? For example a big runway extension at BRS may allow it to operate a couple of vanity routes to the ME (EWR with CO has come and gone at BRS and BFS) but I don't see that terminal or many others bursting at the seams with no prospect of further expansion being permitted.
I will concede some of these airports have very poor surface access (BRS and LBA being 2 examples) which could certainly be improved, but this isn't exactly going to turn them into major alternatives to LHR.
santito is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.