You could almost promise it by building the new runway just big enough for a Dash 8.

Or easyJet move in and fly people on holiday to the same destinations...

Are the environmental issues really spurious - more flights means more noise, and it ain't cheap.

Talking about the differences in the level of regional infrastructure expenditure isn't just a "fan club" issue.

When you are talking about a project that is likely to not be operational until the 2030's at least then using todays air quality measurements isn't accurate. Especially when you look at the move towards electric vehicles and more more eco friendly aircraft engines. Then there is the argument about less aircraft in the hold.

The Manchester lot are behind Gatwick expansion so it's not about north/south. They see a hub at LHR as a threat to their spotting books.

I'm struggling to see how a route that's not viable (i.e. not enough demand to operate at a profit) becomes viable simply by building an additional runway at one end or another end of the route.

People hope the new runway will reduce the operating costs significantly...................... ho, ho ho

Prophead
Your location says Berkshire not LBA or Yorkshire hence my belief you live in the SE, unless you commute like I used to do. As for the use of a 3rd runway stopping the MAN bus service, dream on. It is BA who run the service and I have no doubt 3rd runway or not I would be on a bus if I returned to using BA and LHR. I would be back on that bus again within 6 months with the optional delv of my bags outbound, or inbound. Its funny I started to leave LHR and BA in around 2007 apart from the odd flight. Now despite numerous flights , gales , storms, volcanoes, Fog EK /SQ/LH have got me home, or outbound with my luggage at the same time, to the same place, a point that BA and LHR failed to do on numerous occasions hence my move. As for spending money at LHR I have to ask why. The place functions badly now so here is a radicle thought, cut the number of services but get it right for those that remain, and this applies to both BA and LHR and then rebuild your airline and airport rather than this dash for growth which is proving so trouble some.

Regards
Mr Mac

Because the airport is now serving the UK rather than the south east.

Your still talking about LHR today rather than with the proposed third runway. The domestic flights are cancelled due to capacity issues.

Whatever that means...

The previous thread on Heathrow had a large number of people, all from around MAN all saying it should be Gatwick not Heathrow that's expanded.

Yes, it's the two assumptions implicit in that comment that I'm struggling with:

a) that a significant additional number of domestic destinations will be served by a 3-runway Heathrow, and

b) that the traffic on any new domestic routes will contain sufficient additional connecting passengers to make any international routes viable that aren't already being served.

I've not seen any stats or forecasts that demonstrate either of those conclusively.

As I have already said, the first debate should be whether or not we want to build a hub that could compete with AMS etc. If the answer is yes then it won't be at Gatwick and the only viable option is Heathrow.

If it was necessary to provide Joe Public with conclusive evidence of future usage then we would not build anything.

We do however know that people would be more than willing to use a shuttle service from their local airport to connect onto LH as they do it already through AMS.

Isn`t AMS almost full now?

Ian

But it's not simply more runway space - it's airspace, terminals, roads, railways etc etc that also have to be increased - and the costs for all that is very significant - infact a major reason it'll never happen

And the main industry customer (IAG) would see their advantage eroded - again = more foot dragging

The railways are already being built or are planned to be. When any third runway is fully operational we will have Crossrail connecting it to central London, an interchange with HS2 at Old Oak Common allowing HS rail travel up north and a western connection linking into the GWR.

The roads around Heathrow are chaos at the moment. We can pretend nothing needs doing here unless the airport is expanded but it is in dire need of redevelopment. The problem is until the expansion plans are approved nobody is going to put money into it. If they are approved then as much as possible is being lumped into this project. If it doesn't go ahead then there will likely be major improvements built around the M4/A4 that will cost a huge amount. Anyone that thinks this will not be done before 2035 has never had to commute around this area.

The rest is airport infrastructure that will be financed by LHR.

If you believe that HAL will borrow x amount to build this scheme and then not do everything they can to persuade people to use it and shop in the terminals then you really do not understand how this business is run.

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.

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.

" 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.......................

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.

Yes, I know the M4 well. The western rail link will allow people to travel in from the west by train without having to switch and is much needed. The M4 does need widening but I suspect nothing will be done around Heathrow until a decision is made. When you are deciding between Heathrow or Gatwick however, for people coming from that direction it is irrelevant although better to just have to face the M4 to LHR rather than M25 also round to Gatwick.

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.

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?

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

As far as I recall, they managed to convert the M3 into a smart motorway without needing to close it at any stage.

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

:confused::rolleyes: obviously an intelligent comment coming here then.

£500m actually.

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.

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.

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....

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.

OK.....Thanks.