PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Airlines, Airports & Routes (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes-85/)
-   -   Heathrow-2 (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/599818-heathrow-2-a.html)

PAXboy 27th Jan 2018 13:28

DaveReidUK

Queing Theory 101 says ...
Yup! I used to work in telecommunications so I know all about demand for limited resources and the queue and how many will then go away and how many try again. I did use the word 'dream' twice!

Providing sufficient ground capacity (runways) so that stacking can be limited was the answer but no Brit govt was going to / will ever give it.

I have also sat in the departure queues at EWR and JFK. I think the longest taxi out at JFK from push to turning onto the active was 55 minutes.

Heathrow Harry 27th Jan 2018 13:31

Hmm - it was billed as a Consultation in our local paper

and here

https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/local-community/consultations/

Consultation 1 launched - 17 January 2018

Heathrow has a launched its first planning consultation. To find out more, including how to respond, please visit the dedicated consultation website at www.heathrowconsultation.com

Heathrow Harry 27th Jan 2018 13:33

"I think the longest taxi out at JFK from push to turning onto the active was 55 minutes"

Same here - a Sunday afternoon as well - decent weather, no backup from earlier incidents... just a longgggggggggggg taxi

Trinity 09L 27th Jan 2018 14:57

Consultation with whom?
The opposition say no to moving roads,extra noise over wider area,lack of housing for staff, etc etc.
Pro group sponsored by HAL say yes all good go ahead.
At this time HAL are sitting down with the Govt pre planning process. Q Can we see those plans? Err no. They are building a runway with no plan how it can be used.
They cannot decide what size runway they want now, so do we press a button to select.

DaveReidUK 27th Jan 2018 21:41

Yes, it's a consultation in the sense that there are questions that you are asked to respond to.

And, like most consultations, it doesn't say anywhere that the answers of respondents, whether or not they form a consensus, will carry any weight or influence any decisions. :O

Navpi 28th Jan 2018 09:09

There was a super article in The Times yesterday by Andrew Osborne, economic editor , regarding Heathrow suggesting it's a "crock" calling out the three schemes and how to move the busiest motorway in Europe without bringing the S EAST to complete gridlock.

He also mentioned the somewhat thorny issue of the 12bn (min figure) or 18bn (max figure) for the work involved and who who pays.

Heathrow Harry 28th Jan 2018 09:12

If you paged up to Saturday a/m.............

https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airp...l#post10033017

Heathrow Harry 28th Jan 2018 09:13

"like most consultations, it doesn't say anywhere that the answers of respondents, whether or not they form a consensus, will carry any weight or influence any decisions"

they're only done to avoid a Judicial Review TBH

anothertyke 28th Jan 2018 10:46


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10030691)
Were Heathrow to expand, I'd be very surprised if either EZY or RYR had any real interest in operating from there.


Could you expand on your thinking on that? EZY have been prepared to have a go modestly at AMS, CDG etc. LHR is obviously underserved to the European sun destinations. I'd have thought it is credible that they could enter with a mixed network of cities and sun. I suppose it depends on the size of their cost advantage vis a vis BA and how deep their pockets are just in case there is a fight.


RYR--- totally agree. They will be interested in whatever gets freed up elsewhere.

DaveReidUK 28th Jan 2018 12:12

Exactly. There is no way EZY would want to take on BA/IAG head-to-head.

LGS6753 28th Jan 2018 13:07

Dave,

Didn't EZY take on BA at Gatwick?

DaveReidUK 28th Jan 2018 15:39

Not really.

I'm struggling to think of many, if any, routes from LGW that they actually compete on.

But if EZY started to operate from LHR, even if they carefully chose markets that BA don't currently serve, such is the latter's market dominance that they could undoubtedly squash EZY's ambitions were they minded to (which they no doubt would be).

Skipness One Echo 28th Jan 2018 16:26

Come on Dave, easyJet forced BA out of market after market at LGW. Look at what % of their LGW operation used to be flown by BA. The concept that EZY are in some way afraid to compete with the “mighty” IAG doesn’t ring true. easyJet are quite frankly just as good on shorthaul p2p as anything IAG offer IMHO.
If EZY get into LHR and margins on BA short haul are hit, with IAG now in a monpoly on LHR-DUB/MAD they’re back to their old habits of gouging on price. It’s like the 1970s closed shop all over again in some markets. A decent EZY offering would make major inroads IMHO.

He also mentioned the somewhat thorny issue of the 12bn (min figure) or 18bn (max figure) for the work involved and who who pays.
Surely he meant a million billion kajillion. At some point, people actually make stats up to make whatever point they’re after. I see it every day at work.....Take in a worst case and conflate in other BAU maintenance costs then reduce the time period, then after a dramatic sigh, point and shreik “Look how terrible, it must never be allowed to happen.” Much like never building on greenbelt to keep asset inflation going.

DaveReidUK 28th Jan 2018 16:44

Well time will tell.

Or, in all probability. it won't.

LGS6753 29th Jan 2018 08:25


Surely he meant a million billion kajillion
No, it was a Carillion.

Skipness One Echo 29th Jan 2018 09:54

Brilliant :)

Navpi 29th Jan 2018 10:53

TfL sounds alarm over public transport crowding from Heathrow expansion | City A.M.

Dobbo_Dobbo 29th Jan 2018 11:02


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10034201)
But if EZY started to operate from LHR, even if they carefully chose markets that BA don't currently serve, such is the latter's market dominance that they could undoubtedly squash EZY's ambitions were they minded to (which they no doubt would be).

If EZY were (or are likely to be) one of the main beneficiaries of an expanded LHR, it would call into question the "connectivity" argument, which as far as I'm aware is the only metric where LHR projects to be a better scheme than LGW. On the other arguments:

Economic case, LGW now projects to offer more net benefit in the long run.

Environmental case, LGW has always proved a stronger case than LHR (chiefly due to its location).

Cost to public purse, LHR has always been the more expensive option (by far), predominantly due to transport infrastructure cost.

Cost of scheme, LHR has always been the more expensive scheme (by far), predominantly due to its location and the need to bulldoze large communities. This is relevant because the airport is not a charity and will seek to recoup the cost from upping the charge to passengers. This may require a government undertaking not to permit a new runway in the south east for [X] number of years so as to not undermine the ability to charge monopolistic prices (bad for the consumer).

Then there is the legal position. LHR seem to be moving the goalposts on a number of issues. For example they are now thinking about phasing construction (sensible, but not part of the initial plan), there are now apparently a number of runway and terminal options (sensible but not part of the initial plan). The main issue caused by this is that there is no properly considered airspace plan - they are apparently waiting for the revamp of U.K. airspace in general. Should the government make a "decision" without this firmed up, I don't see how this would get past the courts when the inevitable challenge arrives.

If the connectivity argument is undermined in some way, I don't see how any government could continue to support the scheme.

Trinity 09L 29th Jan 2018 12:07

HAL response to TfL

Our proposal to expand Heathrow will be entirely privately funded with no public funds required to deliver the airport infrastructure. Our plans to significantly improve rail, bus and coach connections will enable tens of millions of additional journeys by passengers and colleagues to be by public transport when travelling to the airport.

HAL are not paying for rail improvements, ie new tracks.

Skipness One Echo 29th Jan 2018 12:08

Has a single airline called for expansion at Gatwick rather than Heathrow?

It's funny watching so many selective stats being thrown around, it's just like my day job... Stats will advise and model possible outcomes, the forecasts will most likely be wildly out, mystic meg types of what something will like like in 5 years often are. It's a government's job to decide and lead, and fight the battle in the courts as required, some hope with May alas. The stats purporting to show LGW having a better ROI than LHR work if you don't want to expand LHR and inflate every cost you can while minimising the risks at LGW.
So yes, what airline wants LGW over LHR? Any?
If we had a 50% larger LGW tomorrow with a whole new runway, exactly who would be queuing to use it that wasn't already there today?

For the record I would have no issue with a new runway at both, so not anti LGW per se.
Is the concept of the taxpayer paying for new road and rail infrastructure so the taxpayer can get a flight on time so alien?


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:40.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.