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)

LAX_LHR 9th Jun 2018 15:51

As a ‘MAN supporter’ is fully endorse the 3rd runway at Heathrow. It’s clear Heathrow needs more capacity and it needs to be addressed. Get the thing built and let the airlines decide on what they want to do with the extra slots (although Terminal capacity then surely creates an issue). I actually think LGW has the most to loose in all of this as there are a few long haulers that could move with open slots, and it’s been widely reported Easyjet are very interested in access to LHR, but, Manchester has supported long haul for many years while LHR had capacity, so no reason why that can’t continue the way it always has. Yes it may experience a little leakage, but, it could be able to weather any ‘storm’ that R3 could produce.

but, bloody hell, propheads arguments contains more holes than the finest of Swiss cheeses! But credit where it’s due, he goes on undeterred and must surely hold the title of the longest discussion with the most inconsistencies going! Kudos.

Ringwayman 9th Jun 2018 15:53

It seems the 1 braincelled person cannot and does not want to understand that NONE of the Northern boost is a result of LHR and its services to China. Its a direct result of that sole route MAN has. MAN may well the focal point for the route but its the whole region that benefits; the same will apply when all 3 Indian routes start as well the Ethiopian service and the 3 or 4 other expected Asian routes happen. Whereas for LHR its going to be the usual trickledown effect and when someone sneezes lets cancel all the shuttle services DESPITE the apparent need for the likes of LPL (and its history of failing to keep hub carriers) and MME (whose owners serm to loathe aircraft) to have the LHR link to boost their economy. Boost the east-west trainline instead of these vanity projects of HS2 and R3 and then even more tangible benefits would accrue.

Rutan16 10th Jun 2018 13:14

Prophead again the downer on Manchester in particular please explain, rationally and reasonably !

Again it is the only UK airport outside of the South East of any size and potential to help meet the local needs for both business and leisure - a position the operator has battled for for fourty years leading the way for modernised and truly competitive bilateral air treaties.

And as I previously stated I believe its a significant driver for the Northern Economy indeed it’s pivotal in the regional growth especially when combined with group Cargo Hub that is East Midlands - got a pallet or two this airport combined with national road network will get it to and from almost the entire UK manufacturing base in under two hours for leaving the gate.

As for Leeds Bradford it’s got a place in the national debate and in truly expanding the access for those over the Pennines .
It hasn’t been too successful in retention of the very few long haul routes particularly to Pakistan and like a few others the gradually weakening Canada links (these includes those at Manchester btw)

Your issues with Manchester Airport an airport handling 28 million mostly point to point seem almost myopic. Indeed you seem to have a beef with the MAG Group in general why?

BTW did some research HAL has NOT provided ANY direct funding of any significance to the Elizabeth Line at all, its ALL from the DFT and TFL .

Indeed HAL have been taken to court and substantially rebuked over their proposed Line charges for use of the spur !

I think a Third of the population and an area of significant density justifiably requires substantive infrastructure spending , would it be that its Manchester being the focal point at the heart of the NP that’s your problem rather than being Leeds ?

You understand its a spine from Liverpool to Newcastle, and no it’s not meant to replace the south east corner but rather ensure the North meets its potential and includes developing the two docks and container ports to get goods into the world markets more effectively.
Right now however for another forum do you know how many of the containers that arrive in Southampton and Felixstowe end up in the North on countless trains every day. It’s phenomenal and accommodating these along the WCML is a major reason for HS2 still I digress!













Rutan16 10th Jun 2018 14:18


Originally Posted by Prophead (Post 10169060)
So 20%+ tax income on a privately funded project is not a benefit to the uk?



Pet Project? Heathrow was based mainly on business travellers. Gatwick was holiday charters and Stansted Loco. That is how they separated them up Heathrow is also well connected to central London and when Crossrail came along, ideally placed for a connection improving access even more. Why would they choose any other to upgrade to a major hub?



Thank you, you have just explained why Heathrow expansion is such a good idea, Create easier connections to the regions and, as you say, growth follows. The fact MAN can support a Beijing link is good news and will hopefully lead to more investment. Other cities however are not viable from MAN. Other regional's cannot support a Beijing connection. This is why an easier transfer through LHR will be so important.

It seems to me that those around MAN want all this access and growth for themselves.

Chinese operations need to be understood very carefully they more to do with Xi Jinping global power projections than simply profit.
As for other cities Edinburgh has service about to start and Birmingham is fighting hard.
Other Chinese cities including Guangzhou and Shanghai are in negotiation .
Whilst the likes of Tianjin and Quidao and Xi’an and Changsha already have those lucrative services into “Full” Heathrow though they are stuffed with low yielding loss making tourists you know the type that Heathrow doesn’t apparently need or want !

LAX_LHR 10th Jun 2018 15:20


My problem is not with Manchester Airport or it's owners. It is with the airports supporters who live nearby, expecting others to travel long distances to use the airport so that they can enjoy more direct flights.
So, let me get this straight. A MAN supporter advocating people from the north travel ‘long distances’ and use the direct flights is a completely unreasonable argument.
Yet yourself, a LHR supporter, advocating the people of the North travel ‘even longer distances’ (so long you need a secondary flight to complete the journey) to Heathrow is a complete sound argument. Do you not see the irony in that at all?

​​​​​​​this is just one of the many holes in your argument that I was talking about, there are many many more.

LAX_LHR 10th Jun 2018 16:34

Prophead.

you are either eluding the answer or missing the point.

why is to acceptable for LHR to draw in pax from across the North (and U.K. in the bigger picture) to bolster its numbers. but it is not acceptable for MAN to do the same thing? I’m not asking about pax choice (at this time), im asking why you are practicing double standards to try and support your argument.

Thats is the irony point. I will happily debate your other flaws if you can answer that basic point.

Rutan16 10th Jun 2018 16:40

Can’t speak for Lax however I can speak for myself as when I lived and worked in Manchester until the mid 90s ! my work took me over the Pennines up as far as Gateshead almost every week come rain or shine.
Took the train at times and even flew on Gill Air flying box a few times.

I have been snowed in a few times and nice to know have actually cycled over the snake pass so I know the area pretty well and what to expect!

I am far from delusional oh and once it took me 4 hours to get from my last home in South Oxford to Leighton Buzzard in snow the likes I’ve never encountered up north !

Manchester Airport is and will form the pivotal point of the TPExpress rail services currently heavily delayed by cost overruns down south and Graylings incompetence did I say that before ?
When completed it will be unbelievably easy relatively quick and significantly cheaper to travel from the likes of Malton, York or Cleethorpes by modern clean fast trains than via the ECML , Crossrail and Heathrow Spur still what ever take your boat.

As for domestic flights haven’t you understood that government narrative of the last 15 years irrelevant of access they have used tax to actually discourage many/most of these types of journeys haven’t they ?

Again the domestic connectivity is questionable at best imho.

It doesn’t work financially now and never did and probably never will cepting Tax payer support







MANFOD 10th Jun 2018 16:56

Good luck with that one LAX. When I argued the same point after he claimed MAN's catchment area was too large while LHR should have no limits, I was told it was a 'ridiculous' comment. And he accuses others of childishness.

I accept the M62 can be a pain at times but then by road to LHR is hardly a doddle. We're told we should think about it after all the road and rail link improvements to LHR are in place. It would be nice to think we could make the same argument for the North but alas that would require some serious infrastructure spend from a Transport Secretary who has cut back on proposed Manchester - Leeds electrification, and won't even approve 2 extra platforms at Piccadilly station to allow more train paths, including to the airport, for a minute proportion of the cost of some of the projects down south.

Incidentally, the current train services despite limitations are carrying an increasing number of passengers to MAN, apparently with a fair number from Leeds, Sheffield, York and the like.

LAX_LHR 10th Jun 2018 21:03


It is about adding choices. Nobody is suggesting those that are happy travelling to Manchester should not continue to do so.
so if that is your true argument, why are you going out of your way to disprove the MAN catchment? Saying such as ‘the MAN catchment has been too large’ etc. But, You are still not answering the question, which why are you stating that MAN should not continue to attract pax from the north to bolster its pax but LHR should?


The fact is for many it is not convenient and a shuttle flight to another airport from their local regional is preferred. This is borne out by the fact that many people currently do just that via AMS & LHR using an existing service. The LHR shuttle will provide check in at the regional with a baggage transfer at LHR so will be much easier than lugging the cases on 2 or 3 trains. Contrary to what the MAN supporters would have you believe, it is very inconvenient for a lot of people in the North,
So this is flaw number 2. You are stating that people prefer to travel from their local airport to Heathrow (and AMS). Let’s use a case study in your proffered point, LBA, shall we? Do pray tell why the LBA-LHR shuttle has been offered as viable option by BA, but is now reducing, quite drastically, in both pax and frequency, yet MAN pax numbers overall continue to rise, now reaching 28m pax. This is a case point that people are being offered the alternative you are so desperate to point out, but are choosing not to use it. Seems MAN isn’t quite as inconvenient as you would have people believe, is it? It’s quite a big flaw when one of your case arguments is working against you, isn’t it?

Is I’ve said, these are just the first in the flaws in your argument, and ones you cannot rebuff despite being asked twice now to elaborate. I don’t have to outline my own argument, I support both MAN and LHR expansion, it’s you making the ludicrous claims but then throw your toys when someone hits back.

What’s even more funny is that you force your opinions as fact and belittle others, but then call me arrogant, clearly not read back your own responses, have you?

MANFOD 10th Jun 2018 22:18

"MANFOD, give the north/south rubbish a rest will you"

Easier to be arrogant than answer some folks' legitimate questions and concerns, isn't it?
May I politely suggest Prophead that just occasionally you make it clear it is your opinion you are expressing in many cases and not absolute concrete facts.

Nobody knows exactly what will happen if and when LHR gets its 3rd runway. Some passengers may suddenly be persuaded to use an airport as a hub they have been studiously avoiding previously for whatever reason, but it's conceivable they may be happy to continue to use direct services from another airport or via a ME hub for Australia for example.
You said:
That being said LHR expansion will service more than just the north of the UK. People from the South East, Scotland, Ireland and near Europe will have access to flights from the UK's number 1 airport also.

You make it sound as if this isn't the case at present. GLA, EDI, NCL and MAN all have plenty of flights to LHR at present and as far as I know are well used. I don't dispute that if DTV or HUY for example got new services, they would likely draw in extra pax. How successful LHR would be in winning and keeping new passengers would surely depend on the transfer experience for pax and luggage and confidence that flights wouldn't be cancelled.
Comments here and elsewhere suggests that LHR's reputation in that regard, while it may have improved with new terminals, isn't always great.

Navpi 10th Jun 2018 22:35

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/have-government-ministers-misled-parliament-over-heathrow

Channel 4 asking if Westminster has been misled

Powerful stuff !

Navpi 11th Jun 2018 06:23

Credit The FT.

Hole at the heart of Heathrow’s third runway - Sunday headline.

After a decade-long debate, money remains an unsettled question

Can Heathrow afford its third runway? It might seem an odd question. Etc etc

The FT article appears behind a paywall and they ask readers not to distribute freely over the web. I have accepted their advice.

But would suggest Prophead and indeed Howard Davies gain access and have a read !

I am not against rw3. If HAL and The government want to provide a 1970s solution to a 21st Century problem by all means carry on.

LAX_LHR 11th Jun 2018 09:46

Prophead.

how can I be missing the point ‘again’ when you are not providing the coherent point to understand In the first place?

you are still not answering the question but instead just rambling on. It’s clear you have no idea what you are actually talking about, and thus, it becomes a seriously laboured task trying to understand just what the nonsense is coming from you. And for that reason, I’m out from trying to get a straight and unbiased answer from you. It’s just a good job no one is taking you seriously so i can leave you to it.

Trying to argue against stupidity is like trying to swim through treacle. It will take you a long time and you’ll get no where, so, welcome to my ignore list. Have fun, someone, somewhere one day may just about fall for your nonsense.


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:51.


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