You could almost promise it by building the new runway just big enough for a Dash 8.
|
I am sure however that a new runway open for SH ops with an easy connection on LH destinations would create a market that would be quickly filled. Not only from the UK regions but also Europe. We would also likely see new routes to destinations that were not previously viable even for Heathrow. 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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by Prophead
(Post 10144818)
We would also likely see new routes to destinations that were not previously viable even for Heathrow.
|
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 |
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. As for the use of a 3rd runway stopping the MAN bus service, dream on. |
Originally Posted by Prophead
(Post 10144901)
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.
|
The central rationale behind Propheahad's (obviously unresearched, unsupported and unsustainable) arguments is revealed... 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. |
Originally Posted by Prophead
(Post 10145005)
Because the airport is now serving the UK rather than the south east.
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. |
Originally Posted by Prophead
(Post 10145036)
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. |
Lots of people in central London say the same thing. I've not seen any stats or forecasts that demonstrate either of those conclusively. 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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by Prophead
(Post 10145129)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo
(Post 10145143)
What happens to the cost of getting slots if you open a 3rd runway? That would surely make a huge difference to the cost/benefit analysis. |
Originally Posted by Prophead
(Post 10145129)
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.
That position is unlikely to change because of: (i) the high cost of land in SE England; and (ii) LHR management coming up with a gold plated scheme (it is so expensive that LGW now offers a stronger financial case). |
Isn`t AMS almost full now?
Ian |
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo
(Post 10145143)
What happens to the cost of getting slots if you open a 3rd runway? That would surely make a huge difference to the cost/benefit analysis. And the main industry customer (IAG) would see their advantage eroded - again = more foot dragging |
Originally Posted by chaps1954
(Post 10145349)
Isn`t AMS almost full now?
Ian AMS has more runway capacity than LHR, but as a general rule uses smaller aircraft. On that basis, it can probably be described as "full" in the same way LHR was supposedly "full" 20 years ago. Of course there are many alternative hub options to LHR/AMS in Europe and the Middle East. |
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 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. AMS is substantially cheaper than LHR, which is a competitive advantage. That position is unlikely to change because of: (i) the high cost of land in SE England; and (ii) LHR management coming up with a gold plated scheme (it is so expensive that LGW now offers a stronger financial case). And the main industry customer (IAG) would see their advantage eroded - again = more foot dragging |
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:24. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.