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)

Heathrow Harry 16th May 2018 20:18

Can't see upgrading rail station at LGW costing abillion quid. Expanding Reding with all sorts of flyovers etc was less than 750mm and came in under budget and ahead of rime

DaveReidUK 16th May 2018 20:53


Originally Posted by LGS6753 (Post 10148610)
Quite wrong, I'm afraid. LHR handles around 70m passengers per year - that's just under 200,000 per day. of those at least half use public transport to get in/out of the airport, so 100,000 per day.

Wrong.

CAA stats show 61% of LHR pax don't use public transport. The proportion of those who do is rising, but only slowly - from 33% to 39% over the last 25 years. At that rate, it will be another 40 years before the public transport modal share reaches 50%.

CabinCrewe 16th May 2018 21:06

VS LHR BOS LAS and Barbados changes.
Interesting when BA also reshuffled LAS

Navpi 16th May 2018 22:48

Crosrail has morphed into Heathrow connectivity which to be fair is bizarre. It was always designed to support Londoners in the West getting to the East. It has now somehow become an artery of Heathrow which in some resoects is good for Heathrow passengers but a total disaster for London commuters.

There link to the East will be swamped by holidaymakers with masses of luggage.

Dobbo_Dobbo 17th May 2018 00:17


Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo (Post 10148397)
Dobbo Dobbo as you are Leeds based, why is an expanded LGW good for your region in terms of UK PLC as it doesn't even have a LBA or MAN connection to help you out?

One reason is because scarce taxpayer resources are not being used to fund and/or underwrite an artificially inflated project. This is particularly stark where taxpayer resources from a relatively poorer part of the UK (e.g. Leeds) is used to fund projects in a relatively wealthier part of the UK (Heathrow).

Another reason is that in Leeds you have the option of KLM from LBA, which as far as I'm aware is not subsidised. This delivers pretty much all the connectivity you get at LHR, albeit via AMS. In short, there is no real
advantage to the Leeds city region from LHR runway 3.

Dobbo_Dobbo 17th May 2018 00:20


Originally Posted by Prophead (Post 10148535)
It isn't, I used to do this drive every day. Most of the traffic on the M4 is going into London and most of the traffic on the M25 is going straight past the airport. If it was all going to/from LHR then the link roads would never be able to cope.

"Most of the traffic on the M4 is going into London".

You say you used to drive this every day.

1 - how did you measure these asserted traffic flows?
2 - over what period did you measure?
3 - how many cars ended up at LHR, where did the other cars continue on to?


Dobbo_Dobbo 17th May 2018 00:23


Originally Posted by LGS6753 (Post 10148610)
If you look at a map Dobbo Dobbo you will see that both the M4 and M25 service some of the most densely-populated and affluent parts of the UK, so your assertion from Leeds is about as far from the truth.

Im not saying the south east isn't affluent. So I don't see what this point speaks to?

The point is that LHR causes much of the traffic on the M25/4. I don't see anything from you that denies or opposes that view.

Gonzo 17th May 2018 05:36


Originally Posted by Dobbo_Dobbo (Post 10148837)


"Most of the traffic on the M4 is going into London".

You say you used to drive this every day.

1 - how did you measure these asserted traffic flows?
2 - over what period did you measure?
3 - how many cars ended up at LHR, where did the other cars continue on to?


Iíve worked at LHR for 20yrs, and I agree with Prophead. The majority of cars on the M25/M4 do not go to/from LHR.

Dobbo_Dobbo 17th May 2018 08:02


Originally Posted by Gonzo (Post 10148955)
Iíve worked at LHR for 20yrs, and I agree with Prophead. The majority of cars on the M25/M4 do not go to/from LHR.

The original point was whether LHR was the primary cause of traffic in and around the M4/M25 interchange. That's not the same thing as journeys to/from LHR, which is what I understand you and Prophead assert. Journeys to/from LHR are likely to be a major part of the wider picture, but there will also be journeys in and around LHR caused by businesses, families and individuals who have located in the area because of its proximity to LHR.

The fundamental point remains that additional journeys on this busy section of the road/motorway network, caused by an expanded LHR, results in a requirement for expensive construction of additional road capacity.


Skipness One Echo 17th May 2018 09:26


Crosrail has morphed into Heathrow connectivity which to be fair is bizarre. It was always designed to support Londoners in the West getting to the East. It has now somehow become an artery of Heathrow which in some resoects is good for Heathrow passengers but a total disaster for London commuters.
The fact that Crossrail is connected to Heathrow is a good indicator that planning was intended to serve people getting too and from the airport. It will also have an impact on LCY as it will suddenly make the City, the Wharf and Heathrow a lot easier to travel between. The Shenfield to Reading market by comparison, is tiny. It won't be a "total disaster" for anyone if people traveling to Heathrow use the new public transport option, it really, really won't

Dobbo_Dobbo 17th May 2018 10:21


Originally Posted by Prophead (Post 10149107)
Do you know how many people live in the Thames valley and work in West London? Also the amount of traffic that goes between the M1/M40 and M3/M4? Much of this has nothing to do with the airport

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the area is home to major operations of financial institutions, tech, telecoms, and life sciences businesses. Nothing to do with LHR at all!

Note: I'm not criticising LHR for generating economic activity - in my view that is clearly a good thing. However you can't have it both ways and claim credit for the economic boost on the one hand but disassociate the costs of it (e.g. increased road capacity, environmental damage) on the other. It is a completely unrealistic stance to take.

Dobbo_Dobbo 17th May 2018 11:07


Originally Posted by Prophead (Post 10149135)
Dobbo, I'm not sure whether you are arguing for or against expansion at LHR but you provide another good reason for it.

Heathrow has, as you say created much growth and employment in a large area.

All those businesses you mention above pay tax. The jobs created attract income tax, the companies pay corporation tax and the services attract VAT.

So why is it so unthinkable that some of this tax goes towards expansion that would lead to more of that income in the future?

All things being equal, Heathrow likely offers more benefits, but that is not limitless. However, all things are not equal and the costs associated with the current scheme are such that LGW now offers the best financial return for the UK.

If LHR were to come up with a credible, deliverable scheme and were willing to take on 100% of the financial risks and costs, they should be allowed to get in with it ASAP.

That HHL have come up with a gold plated scheme, tried to pawn as much risk as possible onto the UK taxpayer, and are prepared to ride roughshod over their environmental and legal obligations leads me to the conclude that the current management team have no intention of ever doing so.

Untill they do present a credible scheme, the strongest financial case for expansion, and the lowest risk to the UK taxpayer, is at LGW, and they should be allowed to proceed ASAP.

DaveReidUK 17th May 2018 11:39

More book-cooking by Heathrow
 
Heathrow yesterday published the latest quarterly instalment of its Booker Fiction Prize submission aka the "Fly Quiet and Green" results: Fly Quiet & Green League Table Q1 2018

If anything, this quarter's FQ&G results are even murkier than usual.

While the basic proposition isn't rocket science - identify LHR's 50 busiest airlines (by number of movements) during the quarter in question, compare their performance on seven environmental metrics and combine their scores in a league table - Heathrow manages to fail at each stage of the process.

For a start, Vueling (daily LCG plus 1-2 daily BCN in Q1) is conspicuously absent from the results but Korean (one daily ICN plus the odd 777F) gets included. Likewise JAL (2 daily HND) is omitted, but PIA and Kuwait (both 10 pw) are in the league table. Go figure.

When it comes to calculating the league table rankings, Heathrow has already acknowledged that it massages the results to favour whichever airline is flavour of the month, so it should come as no surprise that SAS, this time around, gets propelled from its rightful Number 3 slot to the top of the table. Other airlines that have been awarded unjustified hikes up the table include Lufthansa and and Austrian (both 10 places higher than their performance merits), while heading in the other direction China Southern has clearly offended Heathrow and gets an unjustified 11-place demotion.

Aer Lingus, which actually comes out top based on its performance, get unfairly relegated to third place which oddly it shares with Etihad, whose performance only merits 7th position.

On average, every airline gets awarded an extra 235 points (nearly 25% of the available 1000-point maximum) over and above the score that its environmental performance actually qualifies for. That's one way of making your operators look greener, I suppose. :O

In a final twist, for each metric Heathrow awards airlines a Red, Amber or Green "RAG" classification based on the performance bands set for that indicator. So, for example, BA Longhaul gets a Red for being 38th out of the 50 airlines for violations of the late-night movements quota. Virgin Atlantic, Qantas, El Al and EgyptAir, are all lower-placed (worse) than BA for the night flights metric, but inexplicably only get an Amber for it.

You couldn't make this stuff up, though somebody clearly has. :O

Heathrow Harry 17th May 2018 12:13

Let Stansted & LGW pay for a new runway at each and sell LHR for building land - all those affordable houses......

Plane.Silly 17th May 2018 12:23


All those businesses you mention above pay tax. The jobs created attract income tax, the companies pay corporation tax and the services attract VAT.
So why is it so unthinkable that some of this tax goes towards expansion that would lead to more of that income in the future?
Fair point, but the big question is how much? and on which parts of the project?

My two pennies....
Land Purchase - Heathrow should pay
Site development - Again, Heathrow should pay
Transport links (Motorway/Rail), 50/50 between Heathrow and TfL/DfT
Everything else - Probably Heathrow as well, unless i miss something major

But then we're into the charging airlines more, which is also a contentious issue (for another time)...


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:35.


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