Heathrow-2
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/info/g...united-kingdom
£ 40 quid to HMG then US$100 - but valid for 5 years.....................
£ 40 quid to HMG then US$100 - but valid for 5 years.....................
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order to keep Skip happy some Heathrow good news, there has to be some somewhere.
London named in top 5 business destinations alongside Paris, Amsterdam , Berlin and Manchester!
http://paper.li/f-1449692491?read=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.traveldailymedia.com%2Ftop-five-business-travel-destinations-in-europe%2F
London named in top 5 business destinations alongside Paris, Amsterdam , Berlin and Manchester!
http://paper.li/f-1449692491?read=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.traveldailymedia.com%2Ftop-five-business-travel-destinations-in-europe%2F
some Heathrow good news, there has to be some
How about Hainan to Changsha on the 789?
Capital Airlines from Qingdao?
Xi’an with Tianjin? And also poaching the LGW ops?
China Southern from Wuhan?
China Southern from Sanya?
Additional capacity on Air China from PEK?
Air Canada going double daily to Vancouver?
Ethiopian adding 3 more weekly A350 to ADD?
All net new proving the demand for expansion is as strong as ever!
The “East Anglia” tag is fooling no one sweety!
Last edited by Skipness One Foxtrot; 15th Aug 2018 at 01:27.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" The Heathrow Hub proposal could be a template for a 4th parallel rwy "
That's the problem with LHR cheer -leaders - they don't know when to stop....
Frank, you've just handed more ammunition to the Anti's...........................
That's the problem with LHR cheer -leaders - they don't know when to stop....
Frank, you've just handed more ammunition to the Anti's...........................
"Sometime in the future, once aircraft are even cleaner and quieter than now and mixed/segregated mode operations are no longer an issue, and once the technical and safety concerns are sorted, the Heathrow Hub proposal could be a template for a 4th parallel rwy."
Please note the words "cleaner and quieter" and "mixed/segregated mode operations are no longer an issue".
The last line reads as follows:
"However, it's academic for all of us, we'll all be long dead."
Don't think that this is giving anyone any ammunition.
The people you mention don't need any help from me. They have 10 people who have made half of all the complaints about aircraft noise.
Half of Heathrow Airport's 25,000 noise complaints for the last three months of 2016 were made by 10 people | City A.M.
Morning Skippy,
A bit of churning of good news then, you have already advertised the extra flights from Peking on 13thAugust 2018.
These slots must be more valuable than operating a regional flight in the UK.
A bit of churning of good news then, you have already advertised the extra flights from Peking on 13thAugust 2018.
These slots must be more valuable than operating a regional flight in the UK.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any provision at present for a certain percentage of the new slots to be assigned to domestic routes? A Telegraph article suggests that while a member of the EU this would not be possible (but I'm not sure that this is true - BE has 'domestic only' slots, albeit a temporary restriction). Currently 6% of LHR flights are domestic. If central Government are serious about "Global Britain" and "Northern Powerhouses" and making sure that additional runway capacity in the SE benefits all of the UK then restrictions on slot use seems a reasonable idea. Heathrow could, themselves, encourage domestic operations and reduce handling charges for aircraft of <100 seats, or Turboprops.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of churning of good news then, you have already advertised the extra flights from Peking on 13thAugust 2018.
These slots must be more valuable than operating a regional flight in the UK.
These slots must be more valuable than operating a regional flight in the UK.
Trinity 09L, why are all your posts just one never ending moan about your local airport? You’re old enough to remember VC10s and Tridents on TEN LEFT for God’s sake! Unless you’re an incomer who bought without doing their homework?
No. Just legally unenforceable 'aspirations' & 'promises
Heathrow will then want to reduce their tax bill below zero?
Every operator wants to do that. It’s up to HMG to make sure they can’t.
None of which is related to the government influenced charging regime or handling costs.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In real terms the Heathrow tax bill is non existent because they re invest the money, or at least I think they do.
by way of example in 2016 corporation tax paid was £24m by Heathrow to HMRC.
that seems somewhat low but I'm unsure what the P+L figures were.
Quoting The Sunday Times however
£24m was paid in corporation tax
£2000m was paid in dividends
I assume there are special rules whereby the shareholders are reinvesting all that money.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-pays-pound2bn-to-owners-and-pound24m-tax-wnhjqldmcbm
I think thery fall under special rules governing tax as they are exempt from public scrutiny like other companies. We saw that with the Heathrow rw3 vote. It's doubtful Mps would support expansion if they knew that the taxpayer was pumping billions in whilst foreign owners were taking out billions at the other end.
It would be a bit like AMAZON suggesting they want to build a new mega warehouse and Westminster saying "there you go , have £12,000,000,000m" , whilst at the sametime handing over a derisory nay pitiful tax sum to the treasury.
HEATHROW is clearly a special case but I'm unsure of what the actual tax rules actually are. Is it something to do with transfer traffic and therefore an exemption applies?
by way of example in 2016 corporation tax paid was £24m by Heathrow to HMRC.
that seems somewhat low but I'm unsure what the P+L figures were.
Quoting The Sunday Times however
£24m was paid in corporation tax
£2000m was paid in dividends
I assume there are special rules whereby the shareholders are reinvesting all that money.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-pays-pound2bn-to-owners-and-pound24m-tax-wnhjqldmcbm
I think thery fall under special rules governing tax as they are exempt from public scrutiny like other companies. We saw that with the Heathrow rw3 vote. It's doubtful Mps would support expansion if they knew that the taxpayer was pumping billions in whilst foreign owners were taking out billions at the other end.
It would be a bit like AMAZON suggesting they want to build a new mega warehouse and Westminster saying "there you go , have £12,000,000,000m" , whilst at the sametime handing over a derisory nay pitiful tax sum to the treasury.
HEATHROW is clearly a special case but I'm unsure of what the actual tax rules actually are. Is it something to do with transfer traffic and therefore an exemption applies?
Last edited by Navpi; 15th Aug 2018 at 06:34.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any provision at present for a certain percentage of the new slots to be assigned to domestic routes? A Telegraph article suggests that while a member of the EU this would not be possible (but I'm not sure that this is true - BE has 'domestic only' slots, albeit a temporary restriction). Currently 6% of LHR flights are domestic. If central Government are serious about "Global Britain" and "Northern Powerhouses" and making sure that additional runway capacity in the SE benefits all of the UK then restrictions on slot use seems a reasonable idea. Heathrow could, themselves, encourage domestic operations and reduce handling charges for aircraft of <100 seats, or Turboprops.
EU rules prevent this except where its own rules are broken by the commission in the name of interfering in UK "competition" issues, hence VS/BE LHR-ABZ and LHR-EDI. Of course those slots could have (should have?) been used for other domestic routes rather than those that already exist, in order to increase connectivity.
Heathrow Ltd. has slightly reduced airport charges for domestic routes until 2037 and arguably could do more. APD could be scrapped for domestic routes, but that would be illegal, allegedly until March 2019.
Brian D,
”reduce handling charges” Heathrow will then want to reduce their tax bill below zero?
”reduce handling charges” Heathrow will then want to reduce their tax bill below zero?
Trinity 09L, why are all your posts just one never ending moan about your local airport? You’re old enough to remember VC10s and Tridents on TEN LEFT for God’s sake! Unless you’re an incomer who bought without doing their homework?
Some positive news, China is the new hub.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-...eporting-story
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-...eporting-story
Thread Starter
Heathrow "releases" Q2 Fly Quiet & Clean results
Q2 2018
Accessible since 13th August to anyone possessing the necessary password (no, I don't know anyone outside Heathrow who does
).
Accessible since 13th August to anyone possessing the necessary password (no, I don't know anyone outside Heathrow who does
).
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garuda dropping LHR from end Oct 18. Sad to see them go but never seemed likely to.be successful. I live in London but very rarely meet anyone from Indonesia in contrast to most other nationalities. I think I saw an Indonesian tourist family once, but that's in 20 years! I'd hoped to find some excuse to fly them again, having flown CGK-FCO-AMS many years ago. By all accounts they're a great airline these days.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Credit Sunday Times
How much is clear from a Civil Aviation Authority spreadsheet, squirrelled away this week on its website. It projects Heathrow capex for the first half of this century, though the key period is between now and 2035. That’s when the third runway project is scheduled to be complete, with Heathrow having built not only the landing strip (due to open in 2026) but related terminals for 130 million passengers a year — up from 2017’s 78 million.
Tot up the damage and it comes to £33 billion: a run rate of £1.8 billion a year. Or, to put it another way, £1 billion a year more than the airport’s present capital expenditure — for 18 years. So, ask yourself this: is it really conceivable that Heathrow can deliver the third runway and make the required investments in its existing facilities, while keeping passenger charges “close to current levels”: the promise of transport secretary Chris Grayling?
Look at last year’s figures. Total revenue was £2.9 billion. Knock off the £1.1 billion operating costs. Then the capex and hefty interest costs of a business 86 per cent geared with £13.7 billion net debts. The free cashflow left? About £480 million. Or enough for only half the required extra annual capital expenditure. Too little, too, to invest and keep up dividends for shareholders, led by Spain’s Ferrovial. They’re not an altruistic bunch, either, presently en route to take out £3.5 billion in seven years.
So how will Heathrow pay for it? The airport argues it’ll be able to keep charges broadly flat because it will have higher passenger volumes once the runway opens in 2026. But it’s got to get there first, with the CAA expecting £17 billion of capex by then. And that assumes no cost overruns for a project predicated on diverting all 12 lanes of the M25.
The numbers don’t stack up. Yes, maybe Heathrow could borrow a bit more, even if it’s already highly geared. And perhaps shareholders could forgo all dividends for as long as it takes — though why would they do that? Who invests £33 billion without demanding a return? No, the obvious way out is for Mr Holland-Kaye to persuade the CAA to permit regulatory pre-funding — allowing higher passenger charges years before the runway’s built. But that would involve Mr Grayling breaking his big promise.
And the airlines would be livid. Willie Walsh, boss of British Airways owner IAG — Heathrow’s top customer — is hardly alone in finding the runway costs “exorbitant and unacceptably vague”. He also objects to Heathrow’s incentive to “gold-plate” capex, with spending allowed by the regulator added to the airport’s “regulated asset base” to boost future returns. He expects the CAA to keep a lid on charges. But if it does that, can Heathrow fund the runway? It’s about time Mr Holland-Kaye explained how
Heathrow boss’s plan simply won’t fly
Nohing gives John Holland-Kaye a bigger thrill than his £14 billion third runway project. But, whatever his obsession with that, the Heathrow boss can’t overlook another thing: he’s also got an airport to run. And that guzzles money, too.How much is clear from a Civil Aviation Authority spreadsheet, squirrelled away this week on its website. It projects Heathrow capex for the first half of this century, though the key period is between now and 2035. That’s when the third runway project is scheduled to be complete, with Heathrow having built not only the landing strip (due to open in 2026) but related terminals for 130 million passengers a year — up from 2017’s 78 million.
Tot up the damage and it comes to £33 billion: a run rate of £1.8 billion a year. Or, to put it another way, £1 billion a year more than the airport’s present capital expenditure — for 18 years. So, ask yourself this: is it really conceivable that Heathrow can deliver the third runway and make the required investments in its existing facilities, while keeping passenger charges “close to current levels”: the promise of transport secretary Chris Grayling?
Look at last year’s figures. Total revenue was £2.9 billion. Knock off the £1.1 billion operating costs. Then the capex and hefty interest costs of a business 86 per cent geared with £13.7 billion net debts. The free cashflow left? About £480 million. Or enough for only half the required extra annual capital expenditure. Too little, too, to invest and keep up dividends for shareholders, led by Spain’s Ferrovial. They’re not an altruistic bunch, either, presently en route to take out £3.5 billion in seven years.
So how will Heathrow pay for it? The airport argues it’ll be able to keep charges broadly flat because it will have higher passenger volumes once the runway opens in 2026. But it’s got to get there first, with the CAA expecting £17 billion of capex by then. And that assumes no cost overruns for a project predicated on diverting all 12 lanes of the M25.
The numbers don’t stack up. Yes, maybe Heathrow could borrow a bit more, even if it’s already highly geared. And perhaps shareholders could forgo all dividends for as long as it takes — though why would they do that? Who invests £33 billion without demanding a return? No, the obvious way out is for Mr Holland-Kaye to persuade the CAA to permit regulatory pre-funding — allowing higher passenger charges years before the runway’s built. But that would involve Mr Grayling breaking his big promise.
And the airlines would be livid. Willie Walsh, boss of British Airways owner IAG — Heathrow’s top customer — is hardly alone in finding the runway costs “exorbitant and unacceptably vague”. He also objects to Heathrow’s incentive to “gold-plate” capex, with spending allowed by the regulator added to the airport’s “regulated asset base” to boost future returns. He expects the CAA to keep a lid on charges. But if it does that, can Heathrow fund the runway? It’s about time Mr Holland-Kaye explained how
Thread Starter
Heathrow publishes worst Fly Quiet & Green results yet
After nearly four weeks in quarantine (why?) Heathrow has now published the results from its Fly Quiet & Green programme for 2018 Q2.
Unfortunately it seems determined to persist with the flaky arithmetic and absence of logic and common sense that characterised the results for previous quarters (which remain unaltered).
For Q2, as with previous quarters, league table scores have again been inflated, this time by an average of around 42% compared to the results that are produced when Heathrow's own published methodology and performance rankings are used. Once again that increase has not been applied uniformly across all 50 airlines (a number of them have been awarded more than double the number of points that they merit), with the result that the relative league table positions are significantly altered.
Notably, Q2 contains the single most egregious example of distortion of an airline's true environmental performance (Air France, see below) since the current flawed scoring system began at the beginning of 2017.
Among the many anomalies in the Q2 results are:
a First placed airline Scandinavian, with 810 points, is arbitrarily demoted to the Number 2 slot in the table, while 2nd placed Aer Lingus with 30 points less is bizarrely awarded the Number One position.
b Austrian and Cathay Pacific are given an unjustified hike up the table (by 15 and 13 places respectively).
c Air France, whose performance qualifies it for 9th place with 650 points, just above Air India in 10th place on 648, is inexplicably demoted by 22 places to 31st, leaving the two airlines 25 places and 154 points apart. Pour encourager les autres, presumably.
d Other airlines entitled to feel aggrieved with this quarter's published results include Qatar Airways, relegated 17 places from its rightful position, together with Turkish Airlines (short haul) and EAT (demoted by 13 and 12 positions respectively).
e "RAG" (red/amber/green) classifications are again applied inconsistently; for example Air China and Qantas, ranked 43rd equal by Heathrow for early/late movements, get an "Amber" for that category while BA Shorthaul, ranked 30th for that metric by Heathrow, gets a "Red".
f Heathrow's results, which aim to compare the "top 50" airlines (defined by number of flights in Q2) omit Korean Airlines, while Middle East Airlines (short haul), which operated fewer flights than Korean in Q2, is included.
Q2 2018
Unfortunately it seems determined to persist with the flaky arithmetic and absence of logic and common sense that characterised the results for previous quarters (which remain unaltered).
For Q2, as with previous quarters, league table scores have again been inflated, this time by an average of around 42% compared to the results that are produced when Heathrow's own published methodology and performance rankings are used. Once again that increase has not been applied uniformly across all 50 airlines (a number of them have been awarded more than double the number of points that they merit), with the result that the relative league table positions are significantly altered.
Notably, Q2 contains the single most egregious example of distortion of an airline's true environmental performance (Air France, see below) since the current flawed scoring system began at the beginning of 2017.
Among the many anomalies in the Q2 results are:
a First placed airline Scandinavian, with 810 points, is arbitrarily demoted to the Number 2 slot in the table, while 2nd placed Aer Lingus with 30 points less is bizarrely awarded the Number One position.
b Austrian and Cathay Pacific are given an unjustified hike up the table (by 15 and 13 places respectively).
c Air France, whose performance qualifies it for 9th place with 650 points, just above Air India in 10th place on 648, is inexplicably demoted by 22 places to 31st, leaving the two airlines 25 places and 154 points apart. Pour encourager les autres, presumably.
d Other airlines entitled to feel aggrieved with this quarter's published results include Qatar Airways, relegated 17 places from its rightful position, together with Turkish Airlines (short haul) and EAT (demoted by 13 and 12 positions respectively).
e "RAG" (red/amber/green) classifications are again applied inconsistently; for example Air China and Qantas, ranked 43rd equal by Heathrow for early/late movements, get an "Amber" for that category while BA Shorthaul, ranked 30th for that metric by Heathrow, gets a "Red".
f Heathrow's results, which aim to compare the "top 50" airlines (defined by number of flights in Q2) omit Korean Airlines, while Middle East Airlines (short haul), which operated fewer flights than Korean in Q2, is included.
Q2 2018
