Heathrow-2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, are those opposing the project suddenly only allowed to have a single reason ?
Many of the investors putting in huge sums of money to this project have no reason to support LHR other than as an investment product. They don't care about extra flights to LHR or the UK regions. All they care about is getting a return and if the case didn't add up they would not be investing. These investment houses spend big money hiring the best financial and business experts in the world to verify the case and you need to jump through many hoops to prove you have a robust case in order to get the £bn's required. The same goes for the planning process.
It therefore requires more than just individuals with a bias making up flawed financial predictions on the internet or in the media to condemn the whole business case for me i'm afraid. We are constantly told there needs to be more scrutiny over the plans and the figures need to be forensically analysed. As the delays to this project have cost so much and left us so far behind I think it is time for more scrutiny around the so called facts and figures used by the anti LHR brigade if we are to let it be delayed further.
They could start by answering the above and telling us about these 4,449 international flights that LBA will lose backed up with some kind of fact.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Airport Watch & the Yorkshire Post? No bias there then".
Prophead, if you'd bother to read other peoples' posts properly, you would realise that the information about potential losses of a/c movements at regional airports came from the Commons Transport Committee and was quoted by those sources.
Prophead, if you'd bother to read other peoples' posts properly, you would realise that the information about potential losses of a/c movements at regional airports came from the Commons Transport Committee and was quoted by those sources.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conflating as usual Prophead. I have no issue against Heathrow ONLY the exorbitant cost of the new runway in terms of an underwrite by the taxpayer AND the road rail infastructure which no doubt will be in place before NorthernRail is fixed .
I also have a major problem with Mps of all persuasions not knowing diddly squat about what they are voting for.
I also have a major problem with Mps of all persuasions not knowing diddly squat about what they are voting for.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prophead, if you'd bother to read other peoples' posts properly, you would realise that the information about potential losses of a/c movements at regional airports came from the Commons Transport Committee and was quoted by those sources.
If LBA was to lose so many then would the management of the airport be so pro LHR expansion? I think not, in fact he has already summed up that figure as just scaremongering.
Leeds Bradford Airport chief joins criticism of Heathrow scaremongering as he backs expansion plan Bradford
I would rather take his word for the future movements at LBA than 'Airport Watch'.
Strange that you should bring up the Channel Tunnel, Prophead. That project is the poster-child of broken promises to Regional UK and a large part of the reason that political promises on infrastructure are so comprehensively distrusted in the regions. Major cities across the UK were promised direct services through the tunnel ... until it opened! Then they decided that regional services "wouldn't be viable" ... without actually trying them first, of course! And the 'for London only' mindset persists. The proposed link-route from HS2 to HS1 (and the tunnel) was axed to save just 2% of the overall project cost. That shows what politicians really think about linking the Midlands, North and Scotland to markets on the Continent. Contempt.
Now, about those promises of all manner of goodies for the regions if R3 does get built. I'm sure we can all rely on Westminster to make good on them ... can't we?
No MP's or civil servants were subjected to public disgrace (made accountable) for their roles in the scandal outlined above.
Now, about those promises of all manner of goodies for the regions if R3 does get built. I'm sure we can all rely on Westminster to make good on them ... can't we?
No MP's or civil servants were subjected to public disgrace (made accountable) for their roles in the scandal outlined above.
Thread Starter
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/inde...5f?in=13:30:38
I can't find a Transport Committee meeting on 5th June.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conflating as usual Prophead. I have no issue against Heathrow ONLY the exorbitant cost of the new runway in terms of an underwrite by the taxpayer AND the road rail infastructure which no doubt will be in place before NorthernRail is fixed .
Strange that you should bring up the Channel Tunnel, Prophead. That project is the poster-child of broken promises to Regional UK and a large part of the reason that political promises on infrastructure are so comprehensively distrusted in the regions.
On the one hand people argue about cost and then complain that more wasn't spent. HS2 is up against much opposition on costs. I also doubt the Channel Tunnel could support all the extra traffic of direct trains from here there and everywhere. The St Pancras exchange makes more sense but I do agree that HS1 should have gone to Kings Cross and been connected to HS1/Tunnel. We may also find the final design of LHR is similarly compromised after all these constraints and funding complaints.
Prop
It is likely that Heathrow will use all the space granted, then build a shorter runway not crossing the M25 after the costs overrun, and use it for short haul flights only. Then build on in the future when viable.
They cannot be trusted as per the Cranford runway alteration, planning permission granted then ignore it. I also believe the night noise quota will be for just one runway not the whole system. capacity is not relevant at 4.45am only later in the day, and not at 9pm plus.
It is likely that Heathrow will use all the space granted, then build a shorter runway not crossing the M25 after the costs overrun, and use it for short haul flights only. Then build on in the future when viable.
They cannot be trusted as per the Cranford runway alteration, planning permission granted then ignore it. I also believe the night noise quota will be for just one runway not the whole system. capacity is not relevant at 4.45am only later in the day, and not at 9pm plus.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is likely that Heathrow will use all the space granted, then build a shorter runway not crossing the M25 after the costs overrun, and use it for short haul flights only. Then build on in the future when viable.
Prophead - Passengers from the West Midlands, NW England, North Wales and Western Scotland arrive at Euston. It's escalators, tube trains and luggage issues for them. And those pax who do arrive via the ECML into Kings Cross still have to change trains and stations. But since you're clearly happy with enroute chages of this sort, presumably that means it is similarly fine for Londoners to change planes at Dubai, Bejing or Doha when they need to reach a secondary destination. All they need to do is cross a terminal floor! Who really needs a thin long-haul route from Heathrow?
Meanwhile, you appear to reject forecasts which indicate future loss of direct flights from regional airports as implausible. Yet you're fine quoting numbers such as "£187Bn in benefits" attributable to R3 projected over sixty years. Do you not see the irony? Is it just long-term forecasts which don't suit your preferred conclusion that you object to?
Meanwhile, you appear to reject forecasts which indicate future loss of direct flights from regional airports as implausible. Yet you're fine quoting numbers such as "£187Bn in benefits" attributable to R3 projected over sixty years. Do you not see the irony? Is it just long-term forecasts which don't suit your preferred conclusion that you object to?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozzy,
I fully understand how Euston & King Cross are laid out, I use them every day. We are not here to argue about the Channel Tunnel or Eurostar. The point I was trying to make was that the Channel Tunnel was built as a nationally important project not just for the area around it's location. Just because people need to change trains does not alter that fact that it is used by road/rail trafic from all over the UK every day.
It is interesting however that you then go on to talk about the inconvenience of rail travel when needing to change stations. You will find that this is what much of the north needs to do in order to access the LH flights at the likes of MAN.
Well a direct route is preferable and the place you are more likely to get that is LHR but I presume you meant people coming from the regionals rather than Londoners. In that case I absolutely agree with you, changing terminals via a RTS without the need to worry about baggage that is already check at the regional point of departure is much better than lugging case up/down escalators to get to somewhere like MAN on the 2 or 3 trains yes. I do believe you are beginning to get it.
Actually if you read back then I have stated that if only half that figure is correct then it is still a major benefit. There has also been much written about potential benefits and analysis done not just by HAL but regional business and airports themselves. I also believe business don't usually ask for something that will not improve their bottom line.
Having been a local resident to and regular user of LBA I just do not see where that figure of 4449 flights lost comes from and merely asked for more info. It is such a specific number there must somewhere be a list of affected flights.
I fully understand how Euston & King Cross are laid out, I use them every day. We are not here to argue about the Channel Tunnel or Eurostar. The point I was trying to make was that the Channel Tunnel was built as a nationally important project not just for the area around it's location. Just because people need to change trains does not alter that fact that it is used by road/rail trafic from all over the UK every day.
It is interesting however that you then go on to talk about the inconvenience of rail travel when needing to change stations. You will find that this is what much of the north needs to do in order to access the LH flights at the likes of MAN.
But since you're clearly happy with enroute chages of this sort, presumably that means it is similarly fine for Londoners to change planes at Dubai, Bejing or Doha when they need to reach a secondary destination.
Meanwhile, you appear to reject forecasts which indicate future loss of direct flights from regional airports as implausible. Yet you're fine quoting numbers such as "£187Bn in benefits" attributable to R3 projected over sixty years. Do you not see the irony? Is it just long-term forecasts which don't suit your preferred conclusion that you object to?
Having been a local resident to and regular user of LBA I just do not see where that figure of 4449 flights lost comes from and merely asked for more info. It is such a specific number there must somewhere be a list of affected flights.
BBC 1pm news state that Grayling will not contribute to the £14 bn new runway costs, nothing about all the rest that is to be paid for by HMG.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"BBC 1pm news state that Grayling will not contribute to the £14 bn new runway costs, nothing about all the rest that is to be paid for by HMG."
Yes, and I'm afraid the fact that the BBC used that comment from Grayling as a headline is indicative of their inadequate coverage of the issue.
Yes, and I'm afraid the fact that the BBC used that comment from Grayling as a headline is indicative of their inadequate coverage of the issue.
Prophead - You say that the Channel Tunnel was built as a "nationally important project". Well, it was certainly justified to the public on that premise. But once completed it turned out not to be so national after all. Those promised services direct from Regional UK were strangled at birth. I wonder whether that sets a precedent which we may see repeated with R3?
I haven't discussed rail services to Manchester Airport with you, but it does appear to have through-train services with no changes to most major population centres across the North of England. Not sure what point you're trying to make here? I've certainly never discussed travelling to Manchester Airport using two or three trains with you? Is this some crude attempt to 'bait and switch' the discussion onto ground you're more comfortable with?
What I did point out is that you appear to be fine with non-SE residents having to change trains on international journeys, yet appear to suggest that it is unacceptable for SE residents to be expected to change planes at a downroute hub airport when necessary. Your disapproval is very selective.
Moving to the long-term forecasts, you tell us that even half of those quoted financial benefits would be great. Do you similarly accept that a loss of 37000 regional flights per annum by 2030 rising to 80500 by 2050 would still be disastrous? Those figures are of course half the 74000 / 161000 forecast.
I haven't discussed rail services to Manchester Airport with you, but it does appear to have through-train services with no changes to most major population centres across the North of England. Not sure what point you're trying to make here? I've certainly never discussed travelling to Manchester Airport using two or three trains with you? Is this some crude attempt to 'bait and switch' the discussion onto ground you're more comfortable with?
What I did point out is that you appear to be fine with non-SE residents having to change trains on international journeys, yet appear to suggest that it is unacceptable for SE residents to be expected to change planes at a downroute hub airport when necessary. Your disapproval is very selective.
Moving to the long-term forecasts, you tell us that even half of those quoted financial benefits would be great. Do you similarly accept that a loss of 37000 regional flights per annum by 2030 rising to 80500 by 2050 would still be disastrous? Those figures are of course half the 74000 / 161000 forecast.
Thousands of folk are still doing it, but their journey by rail and road will be disrupted at what cost? Crossrail will use existing rail paths, less capacity for suburban trains on the tracks.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder whether that sets a precedent which we may see repeated with R3?
I haven't discussed rail services to Manchester Airport with you,
but it does appear to have through-train services with no changes to most major population centres across the North of England.
What I did point out is that you appear to be fine with non-SE residents having to change trains on international journeys, yet appear to suggest that it is unacceptable for SE residents to be expected to change planes at a downroute hub airport when necessary. Your disapproval is very selective.
Moving to the long-term forecasts, you tell us that even half of those quoted financial benefits would be great. Do you similarly accept that a loss of 37000 regional flights per annum by 2030 rising to 80500 by 2050 would still be disastrous? Those figures are of course half the 74000 / 161000 forecast.
HAL has published many facts about this on their website and it is no secret thay have been out and about choosing sites around the UK to help with construction.
https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/uk...opportunities/
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/busi...north-11642367
https://transportforthenorth.com/sup...ogistics-hubs/
I was asking for more info on the lost flight figures quoted as I cannot find anything to back this up and even the head of LBA seems to think it is a load of rubbish. The only way LBA can lose that many flights is if Jet2 suffer badly from LHR and I cannot see either how that would happen or why LBA would still be supportive of LHR if that were the case.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thousands of folk are still doing it, but their journey by rail and road will be disrupted at what cost? Crossrail will use existing rail paths, less capacity for suburban trains on the tracks.
If we didn't approve projects due to disruption then nothing would get built.