I tend to agree BUT if you want to go to Caracas there are a myriad one stop options, there seems to be a school of thought that we are so thick that its beyond the wit of man to get there at all.

No direct service doesn't mean no service, this myth is clearly utter codswallop.

There Is a rich irony however that all the MPs who supported this and are now bleating about basic standards of health care were told by Grayling that airport expansion would not cost the taxpayer a penny, the terminal and runway wont, but reroute, tunneling and expansion of the M25 plus all the rail connectivity needed will fall in the taxpayers lap, that's double the cost of the actual runway itself....and that's st today's prices.

The image of the child with pneumonia might be political capital to the left but I can assure you that is the norm in AE every day, it only becomes a story if it effects you personally.

if I was the parent of that child I would suspect they would much rather have the benefits of a decent health service than a daily service to Venezuela from an airport 200 miles away.

Maybe we should ALL think about that next time we clutch our chest with a possible cardio event.... or carry a limp child into a waiting area that resembles a Baghdad field hospital.....!

Caracas? very good choice. Venezuela 168 of 180 in the world corruption index. I can see what there best export service is, and the only import required = cash.
Caracas - Miami - London. Did there DC8 make it non stop in the past?
.

Viasa 1969 times from LHR were via MAD and BGI
Flights from AMS were with stops, and from other euro points went from Paris Orly Madrid Lisbon Rome Milan - nowt was non-stop - All on a DC8 or DC8S

Code shares were with KL AZ and IB plus BA services too on VC-10

It's very important to conflate unrelated matters in a random way to make an argument. That's very important. Somehow....
The money that LHR brings in must be very small, mere pennies, and who needs all those jobs anyway?
Hint : If you want to pay for Social Care then you need a commercial revenue stream flooding into a strong economy. Wittering on about edge cases like Caracas is classic #whataboutery
The pretense here is that core national infrastructure like railways, airports, nuclear power etc are in some way purely commercial enterprises. That does not stack up given 2 seconds of serious thought. They're commercial but intrinsically linked into public infrastructure, stop pretending they're not. TfL et al are massively inflating costs because, they are *ANGLING FOR THE BIGGEST BUDGET SETTLEMENT POSSIBLE*. It's in their interests to inflate to (in some cases), frankly silly levels of cost.
But yeah, cos HS2 is insane, then LHR must be too.

Have you been through an American airport of late? Is that the model you are advocating?

Boris said ?yesterday? that LHR was a private operation with no public money involved which had yet to prove it could meet the environmental air quality challenges

A longgg way from a ringing endorsement apparently - and the other parties are even less supportive

Well I think you are way off the mark if you think Heathrow is flooding the exchequer with taxes to pay for the NHS, social Care , Education, Police etc.

Any profit goes direct to shareholders and they are ALL offshore, as for corporation tax, its not paid any for years.

Again I'm no friend of The Mirror but facts are facts.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/heathrow-airport-owners-120m-tax-14021838

No political party wants to talk about air travel. Irrespective of what they think of it. If criticised, they know that the frequent travellers would not vote for them and infrequents would be worried too.

All major parties have ensured NOT to talk about LHR and to keep it in the long grass.

The Billionaire press love LHR but know when to keep quiet to support their friends.

Well that makes perfect sense once you strip out the tens of thousands of people who pay tax and national insurance via the thousands of businesses linked to the airport. But who needs employment and a world class international hub airport? (We do!) Just a jolly extravagance really, I mean it's not as if we need to trade our way to close a £32.3B deficit and pay down a debt of £1.82TRILLION.
I note these are the good years, we need the money, we really do.

The British ability to have a good moan is legendary, but the economy is beginning to resemble pyramid scheme, sometimes real infrastructure investment is really what you need

But you are now talking as though i want to shut Heathrow down, that's complete nonsense, infact I would go further and suggest if it wishes to expand by all means make a reasonable contribution to the infrastructure that relates very specifically to that expansion.

I'm simply making the point that if we had a pot of £20bn i suspect the public and the majority of MPs would support that spend on more pressing cases for that money than rail and road infrastructure at Heathrow.

The majority of MPs did support LHR expansion but if you were to ask them today where should we spend that money I suspect 99% would say the NHS. Graying was very clear "no public money for Heathrow", he conned the public and he conned the thickos in the House of Commons, all of them.

I'll wager you haven't sat in AE recently but trust me the service really is absolutely broke.

It is true that no politician, local or national is going to prioritise an airport.

I worked in telecommunications for 27 years, usually for large end-users not on the supply side. I recall a friend who worked for a major hospital group telling me that he could never get funding to replace the 20+ year old telephone system. It was always the medical facilities that needed the money. Eventually, he was able to prove that, due to the failing phone system - two patients had died. He got the money, provided the report remained private. That was in the late 1980s. Consider the situation now?

I agree with the need for the expansion of EGLL and have done so for over 30 years. BUT airports are not going to get discussed and money will have to be squeezed out of a stone.

Well it's on the list....

Election gamechanger?
 

Skip wont like this but given the revised make up of Parliament and the fact nothing has happened with Heathrow in the intervening months since the 3rw was approved, is there a case for a revised vote ?

When the vote was taken the Transport Secretary was unequivocal
________________________________________________
Hansard National Policy Statement 25th June 2018
Chris Grayling

In answer to questions about the taxpayer contribution

"Improvements to nearby roads and paying for parts of the rail projects that are due to happen are built into the plans. It is absolutely essential that that is the case. Heathrow airport will make a substantial contribution"

"I can also confirm that expansion can and will be privately financed, at no cost to the taxpayer."
_____________________________________________________

18 months on and we are no wiser what that contribution is ?

However one wishes to dress this up MPs were left with the very definite impression they were supporting a project that would not cost the taxpayer a bean.

That was clearly a blatant lie. If you were to ask Parliamentarians today

Do you wish to proceed with Heathrow expansion at a cost of £XXbillion to the taxpayer would they still support it ?

The only figures we have to go on in terms of the cost of supporting road and rail infrastructure are those put forward by TFL. These were in the order of £14 billion 5 years ago perhaps £20bn seems a more realistic figure today given the eye watering jump in f'cast costs for HS2 and Crossrail.

The original figures put forward by TFL to create a new underground station, new platforms, new tunneling, widening the M25, reconfiguring the M25 etc is somewhat fanciful but we have little else to go on.

Surely there can be no progress until costs are nailed down and its made clear to this new Parliament who is paying for what ?

Given costs on HS2 and Crossrail have been woefully underestimated and with no timeframe for completion on the horizon would it not be wise for the new Dept of Transport to take a fresh look at costs ? costs which I suspect have risen exponentially in the intervening 3 years to that £20bn figure. This depts involvement (or lack) of thus far has been woeful.

Today's Sunday papers suggest a long overdue cull in Whitehall to include Dept of Transport civil servants who have been involved in this process thus far and whom Johnson believes have been focused on London and to hell with the North. A revolving door policy of civil servants inexplicably finding themselves directly employed in projects they signed off has not helped.

Again does that not raise alarm bells that some civil servants may have treated Heathrow with a somewhat light touch whilst scrutinizing the costs of projects up North to within an inch of their life whilst adopting a "laissez faire" attitude to projects in London.

.....this of course assumes there are some projects up north, last time I looked the cupboard was somewhat threadbare.

With no work started on the rw3 and 50 plus new MPs most being located North of Birmingham, would they not want their say on the possibilities of direct investment in the N West and N East NOW, or the benefits of Heathrow connectivity in 40 years time ?

Surely the same economic multiplier argument could be applied to £20bn going into the NHS/Education/Northern Powerhouse, etc?

A people’s vote? A re-run? Tories lost massively in London, no political capital in re-opening an old wound. The “Global Britain” narrative of Cummings along-with “Get Brexit Done”, i.e. enough blocking and talking suggests not. The fact they’re not digging up Sipson yet doesn’t mean “nothing has happened”. Boris could choose to stop it BUT he has indicated otherwise and it’s a majority Tory Gov where plugging the rest of the UK into the global economy with the benefits of free trade will be the focus. So maybe a MME-LHR or a PIK-LHR will happen!! Time change!

Or maybe they’ll cancel the whole lot? Justo keep LibDem and Labour voters in West London sweet? Hmmm

Any infrastructure spending will go north of Birmingham. People like Cummings can see a once in a life-time opportunity to wipe out Labour in their heartlands (as the SNP did in Scotland)

Expect money for the N Powerhouse, HST3 etc etc instead of London

As C London is Labour territory to a large extent why spend the cash there? Cancel R3 and defer HST2 - that's what the suburbs and the county set want

"As C London is Labour territory to a large extent why spend the cash there? Cancel R3 and defer HST2 - that's what the suburbs and the county set want"

I honestly don't think they will cancel Rw3 but I can see an element of stalemate creeping in with reference to the support infrastructure.

I agree with the emphasis now on the North the Tories if they are clever could actually wipe Labour out totally.

Over the week end the Sunday Papers were highlighting £100bn available for transport infrastructure spend over the next 5 years, they stated and I quote The Sunday Times that £20bn is ALREADY earmarked for HS2, roads, potholes, and flood defence, leaving a balance of £80bn specifically for Transport For the North who just happen to have wish list that also came to £79bn. Coincidence?

What was conspicuous was zero money for Heathrow???

Having given LHR the go ahead I cannot see them bringing a decision back to Parliament although i wouldn't bet against it if Boris was so minded. As I said previously there is an excuse with so many new MPs, but what they could do is of course suggest "there you go , you have the go ahead already but its all fully funded by you".

HAL of course will not accept that and then it becomes brinkmanship in terms of the Government tieing themselves in knots. If you follow the Grayilng line I suspect many senior MPs took him at his word and didn't read the ANPS report, they assumed they would not have to stump up any government money and you would simply plonk another runway in without realising it needs massive investment beyond the runway and terminal to make it work !

They'll just let it wither on the vine - let the environmentalists make the running , drag it through the courts and just keep murmuring "it still doesn't have the permits to go ahead" until it finally dies

I prefer to focus on the political discussion not the environmental one.

Political and Environmental are now entwined.

I agree with Asturias 56, it will just be kicked into ever longer grass. About three years ago, I started observing that R3 will not be built.

Another three year delay!

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a9254176.html

Y’all may well be right.

No promises by anyone were ever made on LHR R3 - All hot air and bluster - The Indy article is misleading.

R3 will not happen in our lifetime., if ever...My Tuppence.

RW3 RIP

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-en...ondon-50861132

I think views on climate change mean that there will be no extra runway capacity in the London area. This may make a Manston revival more likely. I suspect that for Europe at least demand for air travel may now have peaked and there will be little further growth, but probably not much of a downturn either other than perhaps for domestic routes.

Hardly RIP - another delay............

Heathrow has said its project to build a third runway has been delayed by "at least 12 months" after the aviation regulator rejected its spending plans. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has refused Heathrow's request to lift spending from £650m to £2.4bn before it even gets planning consent. The CAA is concerned passengers will end up shouldering the cost if Heathrow does not win permission to expand.

The airport now expects to complete a third runway between 2028 and 2029.

In a consultation published by the CAA, it said "the best approach in the interest of consumers" is to limit certain early construction costs to £1.6bn. The consultation also said an assessment by an independent fund surveyor of Heathrow's plan to open a new runway by 2026 was an "aggressive schedule" which would require "maximum activity" even before the airport knew whether it had been granted a development consent order.

Paul Smith, group director of consumers and markets at the CAA, said: "We believe that more runway capacity at Heathrow will benefit air passengers and cargo owners. "Its timely delivery is required to prevent future consumers experiencing higher airfares, reduced choice and lower service quality. However, we have also been clear that timeliness is not the only factor that is important to consumers. Passengers cannot be expected to bear the risk of Heathrow Airport Limited spending too much in the early phases of development, should planning permission not be granted."

The CAA has approved Heathrow's proposal to increase its spending on planning costs from £265m to £500m. Heathrow said the CAA's announcement was "an important milestone" in the expansion of the airport.
A spokesman added: "We will now review the detail to ensure it will unlock the initial £1.5bn to £2bn of private investment over the next two years at no cost to the taxpayer. While this is a step forward, the CAA has delayed the project timetable by at least 12 months. We now expect to complete the third runway between early 2028 and late 2029."

I think you are showing a breathtaking level of naivety if you genuinely think the government will stick by this project
The are already embroiled in arguments over HS2, they are also fighting fires with Crossrail where costs are completely out of control. There will be zero appetite to get involved in something as toxic as Heathrow.

As I said previous they can claim the high moral ground having granted planning permission for the runway, but can now walk away leaving the whole ball game in HALs court. If HAL claim they want "public money " I suspect they are unlikely to get a sympathetic public hearing, they will be even more marginalised given there are now 80 new "Northern Mps" who want a slice of the investment cake now, not 30 years hence.

One other point the timeframe isn't 12 months its actually 3 years. It was supposed to be 2026, it's now 10 years away.
more sleight of hand.

I don't get any sense that David Cummings has any appetite to sign a blank cheque on LHR. Infact given he is regarded as something of a rottweiler I wouldn't be suprised if he ships the whole of the DFT up to Yorkshire !

- Do you mean Dominic?

So that's why the CAA want another 12 months delay..... :ugh:

And it would be a tight schedule to have the 3rd runway working by 2028/9 if they started digging tomorrow and they are a LONG way away from being in that situation.

2035 is more likely IMHO......if it ever happens.

https://www.ft.com/content/f5bdcb98-...5-4234e74b0ef3

I think Holland Kaye has totally lost the plot or been on the sherry. I know its the panto season but these figures are beyond belief.

Can anybody make sense of this as I think he has had a nervous breakdown.

Out of the blue we have a PR puff piece which mentions supporting infrastructure but inexplicably signals a total reliance on rail, mway infrastructure appears to have been brushed aside ?

But with regards to rail even the figures of £3bn are by any stretch woefully inadequate for all the extensions tunneling, platforms and stations.

You will be lucky to get a signal box for £3bn !

As for timescales these are equally absurd, its 5 years AFTER the RW opens.

There is not a cat in hell's chance of optimising the benefits of the extra capacity on day1 of runway opening if you cannot then increase traffic viz viz via supporting infrastructure?

As for road and the mega re design of the M25, well a magic wand appears to have made this necessity totally disappear
as indeed has the cost.

Bizarre.

Sadly, it's behind the FT's paywall - any chance you could cut-and-paste the meaty bits?

Some highlights:

-Heathrow’s fee per person is already one of the highest in the world​​​​​​
-But John Holland-Kaye, chief executive officer at Heathrow, said the rise in airport charges was “pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things”
-On Thursday, the aviation regulator rejected Heathrow’s proposal to more than quadruple certain early construction-related spending

from the comments:

mostly rehashing the old arguments about the wrong runway in the wrong place with a bit of added no one will fly any more because of Brexit or global warming

Heathrow - our flagship state owned airport

Ferrovial 25%
Qatar Holding 20%
Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec 12.62%
Government of Singapore Investment Corporation 11.20%
Alinda Capital 11.18%
China Investment Corporation 10%
Universities Superannuation Scheme 10%

The FT have made their link available.
credit FT
As requested.
No mention of road?

Heathrow Airport has for the first time laid out detailed costings for its contentious third runway expansion, including an option to spend an additional £3bn over the first 15 years to improve rail links and passenger service.

The UK’s busiest airport ;has outlined two options as part of its initial business plan which it will submit this week to the Civil Aviation Authority. The first plan focuses on savings and would allow the runway to open more quickly in 2028, while the second prioritises service and would require additional investment, delaying the runway opening for a further year.

However, regardless of which option is chosen, airport charges are set to rise, an additional burden likely to face strong opposition from Heathrow’s airline customers. These fees are paid by airlines which then decide how much to pass on to passengers in the form of higher ticket prices. Heathrow’s fee per person is already one of the highest in the world — and the government has pledged that Heathrow should “keep airport charges as close as possible to current levels”.

But John Holland-Kaye, chief executive officer at Heathrow, said the rise in airport charges was “pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things” compared to the cut in air fares it believes will result from increased competition following Heathrow’s expansion. In its initial business plan, the airport estimates average ticket savings of between £21 to £142, depending on which scheme is chosen.

“Most significantly we show how this will be a real prize for consumers in bringing down the cost of flights. Our airport charges are going up potentially by less than 10 per cent; for us that’s a fantastic achievement,” he said.

Under the first plan, charges would rise from £21.75, based on prices in 2014 when Heathrow was first chosen as the preferred expansion scheme, to £23.81, a rise of about 10 per cent. Under its second plan which prioritises service, airport charges would rise more steeply to £27.19, increasing by about 25 per cent.

The second, more expensive, option would see Heathrow invest an additional £500m every five years on passenger service, such as upgraded passenger lounges and faster delivery of digital service, as well as £750m investment each in western and southern rail links.

The submission of Heathrow’s initial business plan comes just days after the airport said the opening of its third runway could be delayed by up to three years after the CAA said it was minded to approve only just over half the amount London’s busiest airport wanted to spend on its project ahead of final planning approval. Heathrow had originally planned to open its third runway in 2026.

On Thursday, the aviation regulator rejected Heathrow’s proposal to more than quadruple certain early construction-related spending to £2.8bn because of the risk the costs would be passed on to passengers if the project is eventually cancelled. The CAA said its preference was for spending to increase to £1.6bn.

IAG, the owner of British Airways and Heathrow’s biggest customer, has consistently said it will not pay excessive costs. IAG said: “The third runway was approved by the secretary of state for transport based on customer charges remaining at current levels. Yet Heathrow is already talking about charges going up — they just can’t be trusted.”

Heathrow said it had no preference for either of its two plans, noting that it will hold discussions with key stakeholders such as the CAA, airlines and consumers over the next six months before publishing its final business plan. The CAA will be responsible for scrutinising Heathrow’s spending and for agreeing the new passenger charges.

___________________________________________

Apologies if already mentioned but as a distraction the the endless R3 debate, British Airways will launch 6 new routes from Heathrow for summer 2020 - Bodrum, Dalaman, Perugia, Podgorica, Pristina and Rhodes

Every one a major business hub post- Brexit I see.................... :uhoh:

Except for the Umbria flights, which operate on weekdays.

Parking: It is many years since I've had a trip that was out of one terminal and back to another but now have an Out - 5 and Back - 3. If I park in the Long Term 5, what is the easiest route to that park from T3? Do I have to go back to 5 to get a bus?
Thanks.

I wonder if there are third party carparks which serve T3 & T5 from the same carparks?

I think travel between Heathrow Central (T2/3) and T5 on the Heathrow Express is actually free of charge. Check it out.

https://www.milesfaster.co.uk/inform...o-terminal.htm

Yes land-side transfers are all possible using the tube/train service - But always allow a fair bit of time - especially for the EXPRESS - often a 15-20 minute gap