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)

canberra97 13th Mar 2018 10:22

Any ideas as to where the slots have come from?

Trinity 09L 13th Mar 2018 16:36

Skip
Fig 2 is fake material, common practice, so a lumbering A380, 747, and 777ULR
would be where?:rolleyes:

Navpi 13th Mar 2018 21:53

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/13/cost-heathrow-third-runway-mps-justine-greening-vince-cable?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

Skipness One Echo 13th Mar 2018 21:59

Departing BA059 was at 1500 feet by the first reservoir as I watch fr24 and hear it roll.
Departing Garuda B77W was at 2000 ft by Wraysbury reservoir heading for CGK. Phillipines B77W for MNL 1000ft at same point. Low heavies tend to B787s which are the quietest of long haul but derate their take offs.
The medium and heavy profiles are not too dis-similar as the SID height is a lowly 6000ft to stop conflict with inbound traffic.

Navpi 15th Mar 2018 07:51

Softening up exercise for a No ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43405684

DaveReidUK 15th Mar 2018 09:04


Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo (Post 10082631)
Departing Garuda B77W was at 2000 ft by Wraysbury reservoir heading for CGK. Phillipines B77W for MNL 1000ft at same point. Low heavies tend to B787s which are the quietest of long haul but derate their take offs.

All LHR departures are subject to the "1,000 ft rule" which dictates that they must be at least 1000' AAL by the time they reach a point 6.5 km from the start of the takeoff roll. That's roughly overhead the original noise monitors, most of which (on 27s) are along the western edge of Wraysbury Reservoir.

c52 15th Mar 2018 09:58

I reckon the most likely reasoning behind a NO would be the cost to the public purse, if that is presented as "yet more public spendin in London instead of (name your county)", as show in the Guardian article above.

Trinity 09L 15th Mar 2018 11:59

HAL finance the expansion through loans from overseas investors, and from increased profit they repay the debt + interest, therefore not paying any corporation tax in UK.
They require HMG to fund rail connections + TFL upgrades on tube, + the unquantifiable costs of traffic congestion during construction, and pollution caused by expansion in the air and ground.

Navpi 16th Mar 2018 23:38

https://www.ttgmedia.com/news/news/n...-service-13555

I'm sure Crossrail /Elizabethan Line was envisaged as a West East West commuter line, not a feeder service for Heathrow. It wasn't built to carry suitcases!

Skipness One Echo 17th Mar 2018 14:00

It was always intended to get people to Heathrow Navpi, that’s a huge part of the selling point. It takes pressure of the Piccadilly Line for commuters as well. It was very much designed and sold as a feeder for Heathrow but it won’t be as “luxurious” the Heathrow Express, as expensive or as pretentious.

The way everyone is shouted at to wait on the platform while the “SECURITY CHECK” is performed is just a joke.

Navpi 18th Mar 2018 22:27

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/b...tors-k9l0kd9j9

At least corporation tax is ringfenced.

Donkey497 18th Mar 2018 22:59


Originally Posted by Navpi (Post 10088587)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/b...tors-k9l0kd9j9

At least corporation tax is ringfenced.

.... As is the Times website, unless you feel you want to donate to Rupert's retirement fund.

However, I tend to agree with the sentiment though - Heathrow & its Spanish master Ferrovial should not expect to keep up- the same rate of return to shareholders whilst laying their shiny new tarmac. That's why its called an investment - it needs time to be repaid.

To try to soak the travelling public or the government to keep up their dividends would be just a bit much.

Trinity 09L 19th Mar 2018 10:59

The bosses of some of the world’s biggest airlines received a strange request last year from Heathrow airport — it wanted to spend £74,000 to chop down three trees. A little research suggested that the quoted price was up to 20 times what a tree surgeon would normally charge for the simple task, if the trees were located elsewhere. :uhoh:

A little snippet from Ruperts ring fence

anothertyke 19th Mar 2018 17:22


Originally Posted by Donkey497 (Post 10088611)

However, I tend to agree with the sentiment though - Heathrow & its Spanish master Ferrovial should not expect to keep up- the same rate of return to shareholders whilst laying their shiny new tarmac. That's why its called an investment - it needs time to be repaid.

To try to soak the travelling public or the government to keep up their dividends would be just a bit much.


But from HAL's point of view isn't that what it's all about? You increase the regulated asset base on which your max permitted revenue is calculated. After deducting operating costs,the difference between that and your cost of capital is your margin. If you're not allowed to make a margin, how can you justify the investment to your shareholders? HAL is only interested in promoting the scheme on the basis it makes an adequate margin for them.

WHBM 19th Mar 2018 19:57


Originally Posted by Trinity 09L (Post 10089002)
The bosses of some of the world’s biggest airlines received a strange request last year from Heathrow airport — it wanted to spend £74,000 to chop down three trees. A little research suggested that the quoted price was up to 20 times what a tree surgeon would normally charge for the simple task, if the trees were located elsewhere.

A little snippet from Ruperts ring fence

This is standard stuff in regulated industries. You try and present your costs as HIGH as possible, as the regulator is looking to give you a fixed percentage return on your asset. Reduce the margin by excessive costs and they will let you get back up to the agreed amount by increasing regulated income like landing fees. The regulator should be alert and auditing for this.

The real classic is the cost of runway 3. A lot of this is land purchase, including "all of Harmondsworth". Now HAL/BAA etc have been buying up property in Harmondsworth etc for years as it comes onto the market. But they pass it on, at cost, to a separate organisation, which is owned through various overseas companies. Meanwhile they rent it out. They also regularly revalue all of the property there at current market value, as allowed by the regulations. This is part of the reason why the costs go ever upwards. Should the project start, they will buy it back from the separate company, but of course at then current market price, which, backed up by surveyors' valuations, they will present to the regulator as part of their return on investment calculation.

Heathrow Harry 19th Mar 2018 22:12

Crossrail was always about improving capacity between Paddington & Liverpool street with added feeders east and west

Lhr only came into it when HS 3 was scrapped IIRC

Navpi 20th Mar 2018 07:15


Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry (Post 10089681)
Crossrail was always about improving capacity between Paddington & Liverpool street with added feeders east and west

Lhr only came into it when HS 3 was scrapped IIRC

This is true. It was supposed to massively improve capacity for commuters in West London but has now morphed into a Heathrow feeder service. The impact on journeys will be dramatic as suggested by TFL. Can you imagine passengers getting on with 2 pieces of hand luggage each .

It will halve the avaliable f'cast capacity instantly.

Heathrow Harry 20th Mar 2018 08:49

A lot of people outside C London are being conned - it will really be a stopping service all the way from Reading to Essex - not quick at all

It will save commuters from changing at Paddington or Liverpool Street which will be a saving but really it's about increasing capacity W-E across C london

Navpi 21st Mar 2018 18:31

From today's leader in The Times.
Apologies for length but it's behind a paywall so out of reach for most readers.


MPs are always voting on things they don’t know much about. But you would think that, by now, a few facts would have been established ahead of this summer’s big vote — on the £14 billion third runway at Heathrow.

For starters, the idea has been knocking around since 1968. Plus, the project has had a recent update: the £20 million waste of public money otherwise known as the 2015 Airports Commission report, the one that got all the traffic forecasts wrong and ducked two key issues: noise and air quality. On top, there’s been the government consultation on the Airports National Policy Statement.

And now? Well, Wednesday next week is the deadline for submissions to the airport’s own consultation — the one all “about helping to shape our expansion plans at an early stage”. Yes, an early stage. Heathrow’s not kidding, either. Despite spending £30 million so far on planning, the main message from its 70-pager is how much is still up in the air — a point you hope MPs on the transport committee will raise in their report due by Friday.

Yet it’s on the basis of these sketchy plans that MPs will vote for or against the project. Rather fundamentally, Heathrow doesn’t even yet know precisely where the runway is going. As it notes, that still requires “further work” to determine its “exact” length, “end locations” and “how they sit in relation to the Colnbrook and Sipson communities”. Neither does it know precisely how it will cross that problem known as the M25.

And partly because of all this, it’s a long way from producing a third runway safety case — done in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Authority. Of course, there’s no suggestion Heathrow would build anything that wasn’t safe. It’s just that “there will be ramifications that come with the safety case that raise questions over how many planes it can handle safely and the respite it can give over noise”.


Or so says Jock Lowe, the former Concorde pilot behind the other Heathrow plan shortlisted by the Airports Commission: the £5 billion cheaper Heathrow Hub project based on extending an existing runway. Mr Lowe says that the airport’s northwest runway plan has “significant flaws”, not least because of safety constraints around the middle runway.

Planes will require extra space for taxiing on the ground or turning in the air. And that, he says, will have two key effects. First, Heathrow will not be able to deliver the promised 740,000 air movements a year; in fact less than 700,000, so cutting the project’s economic benefits. Second, due to the complexity of flight paths caused by planes turning, the approaches will be much noisier than billed for local residents.

One reason, maybe, for one glaring hole in the consultations: no news on flight paths. Indeed, Heathrow admits that it will not even be consulting on “flight path options” until “around 2021” — years after the MPs have voted. True, it dismisses Mr Lowe’s analysis, noting that the commission found his project “less attractive” — even if the commission did get quite a lot wrong. And as Heathrow points out, should the MPs vote in favour, there will be planning inquiries, further consultations and possible judicial reviews before anything actually gets built.

Yet here are a few things that won’t be resolved before the MPs vote: the project’s cost, final design, safety case, road and rail links, noise and air quality. Or to put it another way, just about everything we need to know. After half a century in the planning, you’d think Heathrow could do better than that.

PAXboy 22nd Mar 2018 06:47

It will never be built.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:50.


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