How would LHR continue to grow without expansion?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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

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.

Isnt Windsor noisy ?
 

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 "

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.

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.

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.

cabinet approves plan for third runway
 

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.

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.

A nice thought, but it's not really true is it? Economic policy since the 1980s has been to concentrate growth and investment in London and the south east, the old regional development policy of Development Areas and Assisted Areas was swept away in the rush to let the market decide in an unbridled environment. While Scotland and Wales benefitted to some extent from their devolved authorities the result was the stagnation and decline of the English Midlands, the North West, the North East and the South West with the exception of the major conurbations where showpiece developments were permitted and used to illustrate the "success" of this new English growth policy. But step away from the showpiece developments in central Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield, Bristol and Newcastle and you find large areas of deprivation and lack of investment. This applies to many regional airports too.

Many years ago a French geographer published a book entitled Paris and the French Desert abhorring the centralisation of French life in the capital. A similar book could now be written entitled London and the English Desert. Heathrow's third runway will just continue the trend to suck life out of the regions.

I see Boris is threatening to throw himself in front of a bulldozer if the Heathrow expansion goes ahead. Sounds like another perfectly good reason for as many MPs as possible to vote in favour, I'd say.

LHR is one of the few true airport 'hubs' in Europe, serving a variety of routes that wouldn't be financially and sometimes operationally viable from individual regional airports. The new runway provides both additional capacity to facilitate domestic flights, and a number of specific measures to enhance connectivity. They outline some of these in their document 'Heathrow Bringing Britain Closer' (search this on google, I can't yet post links)

Irrespective of the debate on if the UK should grow routes from regional airports, the nation will have better access to the world through LHR expansion - albeit with a connection.

rationalfunctions I don't see how it will improve many regional connections. KLM connect from everywhere (almost) to Schipol. The larger UK regionals MAN, BHX etc. have multiple daily frequencies to AMS, CDG, CPH, DUB, FRA, MUC and ZRH so I can't see it. What is the difference connecting at LHR to any of the other European Hubs, 1 stop connection is 1 stop whichever hub you use. The train is now more competitive for English/Welsh domestic point to point as well. I t won't make any difference to many of the larger UK airports whatsoever.

Hope Lgw and others wheel out their best legal people now and blow the Lhr third runway case out of the water in the courts. Great example of the establishment getting what they want. Feed the tax payer all kinds of rubbish, tell them how great an idea it is and let them pay for it. All this garbage about regional connectivity when there is not one person out there knows if any airline in interested in flying such routes. This is all about maintaining Lhr as a monopoly over long haul and higher fares with it, especially at the front end of the aircraft.

I can buy that argument to only a very small extent. Let's say there will never (in our lifetimes) be a flight from a UK regional airport to Timbuktu - and let's say there isn't even a 737-load of people wanting to go there from London - is it really OK to make a massive hub out of Heathrow just so that a number of people in the UK can fly there non-stop? If we had the 737-load it could use STN for the benefit of London people.

A hub is useful to Londoners but comes at a massive cost of investment and pollution. The price is too high. Londoners wanting to go to Timbuktu can take an indirect flight just as everyone else in the UK needs to.

Yes but what you will be told is that the route to Timbuktu is really important, it will be a new trade route and that the population there can't wait to get buying what we have to sell. Years later it will be seen as a bucket of lies but by then most will have forgotten what was said originally. I find it amazing that Lhr says they have a large waiting list of airlines wanting to fly there. yet as soon as a new long haul route starts from Lgw, within months slots are found for it at Lhr.And why was the commission never asked to correct their seriously inaccurate passenger figures for Lgw?

It's a valid point but my view is that there are still reasons why LHR is important in this respect:

1) Connectivity - by many measures LHR is world's most connected airport. OAG Megahubs use a fairly robust methodology - their 2017 report shows LHR outperforming AMS, FRA, CDG etc. Therefore better access to global network within 1 stop
2) Resilience - the UK rely on other countries to provide this connectivity to other hubs, which is subject to risks. If PSOs are implemented it protects the connectivity
3) Competition - additional competition in the market should ultimately benefit consumers

That said, my view on the third runway is that this is ultimately more London-centric - they will benefit most but be adversely impacted most

No examples/data on hand to support, just the 'conventional wisdom' (for what it's worth). Happy to be corrected though if there is evidence contrary to this...

To confirm: my position isn't that LHR third runway is a golden egg for the UK through providing regional connectivity, but on a holistic level the UK as a whole should realise some economic benefit from it

Ok, before anyone gets into the intricacies, is there really a serious argument against the busiest airport in Europe expanding? Add to that the fact that LHR is second busiest airport in the WORLD by international traffic, but only the sixth busiest by total traffic. This would indicate that LHR is lacking national connections (pretty well known anyway). Easyjet have pretty much confirmed they will open a base at LHR it the third runway is built. Its safe to say regional connections will improve dramatically as a result.

I agree regional airports still play a part, and always choose to fly out of my local airport given the opportunity. Do i think it makes sense that Emirates are opening long haul routes from various regional airports, illegally subsidized by their wealthy government, whilst LHR bursts at the seams? No I do not. The skies are already extremely crowded, it surely makes sense that long haul routes are served by the largest aircraft from LHR, which are fed nationally from the regional airports (e.g. AMS, CDG etc).

All other London airports are tolerated, like all offsite airports in other countries that FR love to fly too. People only fly there as the fares are the cheapest, but they are a pain to get to. LHR has the M25 on its doorstep, the Heathrow Express connecting to Paddington Station, an underground stop at every terminal going direct into London and eventually by Crossrail. How much would it cost to connect LGW to all of that? Probably a lot more than a third runway at LHR is going to cost (and that is before the cost of a third runway at LGW is taken into account).

As for homes being demolished, LHR have long since bought most of the properties required for demolition. Plus if someone came to my door and said we will pay you much more than your property is worth I would move in a heartbeat (free money).

Crowding would no doubt be dealt with by a new terminal to serve the third runway. The toast rack model they have already started implementing is the future of airport design (another few billion LGW would need to find to even catch up with LHR).

More flights over London? Expansion at the other airports in London would not result in this? Surely larger aircraft and fewer frequencies, is more environmentally friendly than the likes of Emirates, Norwegian flying half empty jets from airports other than LHR? Not to mention LHR is long and established, putting an airport in the middle of the Thames is going to disrupt millions of people who have consciously chosen to live away from an airport. There cannot be many people still alive who moved in before LHR arrived on their doorstep?

As for Boris, he has to say he will lie down in front of the bulldozers, he represents one of the local constituencies. This from a man who is also one of the chief brexiteers. We are now open for business to the world (but only if you arrive on an Arab airline via Newcastle because we are still deciding the merits of expanding our hub!).

No offence, but this is possibly the worse comment I have ever seen on this forum. You are seriously sat there hoping that substandard airports (that only exist to serve the over flow or scraps that fall off LHR's table) gang up to keep the ball and chain around the nations hub? Newsflash, brexit has happened. We cannot open for business to the world and not enable them to actually land on our soil! Meanwhile, Dubai and China would probably tarmac over a cemetery just to keep growing. Time and time again, an airline will open a route at LGW, and the second a slot comes free at LHR, the route is moved in a heartbeat. Must be a reason why these airlines do this?

Th establishment? I am assuming you have insider knowledge on the shareholder structure at LHR? I certainly did not know I had a share in LHR, news to me! It was also pretty clear in the reports that the investment would come from the private sector. If there was not a more ringing endorsement of the viability of a third runway at LHR, it is the private sector putting its hand in its pocket in the midst of brexit.

When failingGraylings credibility is totally shot re Northern rail it's coming to something to follow anything he does in terms of recommendations .

Even his Tory colleagues recognize he is a buffoon and would not be there but for the Prime ministers woeful position.

Wait to see if she tries to steam roller thru the Brexut bill in next 14 days. She could be history by then as could RW3.

River Joint. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I. I have seen enough of these wonderful forecasts over the years to realise almost all of them turn out to be something completely different . I work in the financial sector they can't even see what is coming in the next 6 months but expect us to believe their forecasts for the next 25 years and more. It is complete rubbish most of it in my opinion.

The range maps posted on the internet by Airbus show that the ME is the only place where you can fly to any airport in the world in one hop. Hence the attraction as a hub to all the world. Passengers outside close access to the large European hubs will be hard to win back from what they have become accustomed to.

Rivet Joint, You are talking far too much sense for this thread and most of your comments are spot on.

Those against LHR constantly contradict themselves and I have not yet heard a viable reason no to build it.

We are told nobody wants to travel via a hub from a regional, then they talk about how many people are doing just that via AMS

We are told it's about demolishing houses or the poor people below the flightpath. Then they say expand Gatwick.

Then they fall back on the surface access costs borne by the taxpayer and complain about the north/south divide. The solution to this apparently is to build an island in the Thames and all the access to/from that which would be eye wateringley expensive, and, it's in the south.

If we are to build a hub then only LHR makes sense.

I'm not too sure what people ( on here and in government ) mean when they talk about Regional Connections.

With more capacity at Heathrow, Regional then means not just the UK, but includes all of Europe.

There are hundreds of MAN, BHX, EDI equivalents all around Europe from where passengers are required to fly to a hub for an onward connection - and this is why AF, KL, LH offer all those flights to UK and European.Regional airports to capture those passengers. Quite often, point to point traffic for, say, EDI > CDG is less than 10% of total passengers on the flight.

With more capacity and slots, expect BA to be able to challenge AF, KL and LH on much more equal terms, which would be a huge gamechanger for IAG and especially BA and more non-UK Regional Airports will see LHR as a viable Connecting Hub instead of just CDG, AMS and FRA / MUC as it is at the moment.

On the other hand, I've no idea whether IAG include the value of their LHR slots on their Balance Sheet - but if they do then they would have to write these down and which could be £billions with currenly impossible-to-get, scarce LHR slots reportedly changing hands for $50 million a throw.