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)

Dobbo_Dobbo 13th May 2018 09:29


Originally Posted by Prophead (Post 10145447)
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.

LHR can do what they like to try and make the numbers work. The same applies to LGW if they got the go ahead.

What your one dimensional "analysis" ignores is the impact of the regulated asset base on the charging structure, which incentivises LHR into proposing gold plated solutions to basic problems.

Your retail based silver bullet is also no answer to the environmental or competition based impediments to the scheme.

It also does not account for financing the various surface access schemes, or the fact that LGW offers the best long term financial return for UKplc.

Dobbo_Dobbo 13th May 2018 09:33


Originally Posted by Prophead (Post 10145447)
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.

This is pretty much the polar opposite of the evidence given by IAG, Virgin Atlantic and FlyBe in evidence to the select committee.

Heathrow Harry 13th May 2018 16:41

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

Hussar 54 13th May 2018 17:26

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.

Trinity 09L 13th May 2018 19:13

Coming to a motorway near Heathrow, the M4 is to be re modelled as a smart motorway starting shortly, from outside Maidenhead to the two lane carriageway at the elevated section, ie four lanes of volume into two. The work will take 54 months which is quicker media speak than 4.5 years. Traffic will be diverted onto the A4 which will also be moved for construction of R3 at the same time as as the M25 alteration. Please bring extra fuel,food and boredom in the resulting traffic chaos.��

anothertyke 13th May 2018 20:27


Originally Posted by Hussar 54 (Post 10145811)
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.

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?

Navpi 13th May 2018 20:37

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

Dobbo_Dobbo 13th May 2018 20:39


Originally Posted by anothertyke (Post 10145924)
Because the LGW business case is contingent on LHR not happening.

I think it's important to point out that both business cases are contingent on the other not happening (largely because the government said it would only give approval for one or the other).

DaveReidUK 13th May 2018 22:53


Originally Posted by Trinity 09L (Post 10145888)
Traffic will be diverted onto the A4

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

Heathrow Harry 14th May 2018 07:15


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10146018)
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

Skipness One Echo 14th May 2018 07:41


Dear Prop ploppy sorry typo
Grow up, youíre not 14, unless you are in which case, grow up.
The sad reality is that government is hopeless at controlling costs partly because they canít make up their mind half the time and partly because the private sector is better at dealing. The NHS is full of such scandalous costs, however it remains the cost of doing business and no one is suggesting we close the NHS. The carriers are another example, we lack real leadership in this country alas.

Hussar 54 14th May 2018 15:25


Originally Posted by anothertyke (Post 10145924)
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?



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....

Dobbo_Dobbo 14th May 2018 15:29


Originally Posted by Hussar 54 (Post 10146614)
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 '.

LHR rely on precisely the same thing - we can do it proclvided there is no competition from LGW (so we can continue our monopolistic charging structure).

Hussar 54 14th May 2018 16:06


Originally Posted by Dobbo_Dobbo (Post 10146618)


LHR rely on precisely the same thing - we can do it proclvided there is no competition from LGW (so we can continue our monopolistic charging structure).

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.

Dobbo_Dobbo 14th May 2018 16:51


Originally Posted by Hussar 54 (Post 10146638)
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.

No need to apologise - it is a confusing debate, and is not helped by my typos!

I don't think it is a contradiction because both LHR and LGW understood that the airport's commission was to reccomend one new runway only (i.e. LHR or LGW - not both).

Therefore, it was right for each airport to put forward its business case on the basis that the other would not proceed for a significant (I think 20 year?) period.

Does that clarify the point?

Hussar 54 14th May 2018 17:48


Originally Posted by Dobbo_Dobbo (Post 10146671)


No need to apologise - it is a confusing debate, and is not helped by my typos!

I don't think it is a contradiction because both LHR and LGW understood that the airport's commission was to reccomend one new runway only (i.e. LHR or LGW - not both).

Therefore, it was right for each airport to put forward its business case on the basis that the other would not proceed for a significant (I think 20 year?) period.

Does that clarify the point?


OK.....Thanks.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:03.


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