DaveReidUK
Yup! I used to work in telecommunications so I know all about demand for limited resources and the queue and how many will then go away and how many try again. I did use the word 'dream' twice!

Providing sufficient ground capacity (runways) so that stacking can be limited was the answer but no Brit govt was going to / will ever give it.

I have also sat in the departure queues at EWR and JFK. I think the longest taxi out at JFK from push to turning onto the active was 55 minutes.

Hmm - it was billed as a Consultation in our local paper

and here

https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/local-community/consultations/

Consultation 1 launched - 17 January 2018

Heathrow has a launched its first planning consultation. To find out more, including how to respond, please visit the dedicated consultation website at www.heathrowconsultation.com

"I think the longest taxi out at JFK from push to turning onto the active was 55 minutes"

Same here - a Sunday afternoon as well - decent weather, no backup from earlier incidents... just a longgggggggggggg taxi

Consultation with whom?
The opposition say no to moving roads,extra noise over wider area,lack of housing for staff, etc etc.
Pro group sponsored by HAL say yes all good go ahead.
At this time HAL are sitting down with the Govt pre planning process. Q Can we see those plans? Err no. They are building a runway with no plan how it can be used.
They cannot decide what size runway they want now, so do we press a button to select.

Yes, it's a consultation in the sense that there are questions that you are asked to respond to.

And, like most consultations, it doesn't say anywhere that the answers of respondents, whether or not they form a consensus, will carry any weight or influence any decisions. :O

There was a super article in The Times yesterday by Andrew Osborne, economic editor , regarding Heathrow suggesting it's a "crock" calling out the three schemes and how to move the busiest motorway in Europe without bringing the S EAST to complete gridlock.

He also mentioned the somewhat thorny issue of the £12bn (min figure) or £18bn (max figure) for the work involved and who who pays.

If you paged up to Saturday a/m.............

https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airp...l#post10033017

"like most consultations, it doesn't say anywhere that the answers of respondents, whether or not they form a consensus, will carry any weight or influence any decisions"

they're only done to avoid a Judicial Review TBH

Could you expand on your thinking on that? EZY have been prepared to have a go modestly at AMS, CDG etc. LHR is obviously underserved to the European sun destinations. I'd have thought it is credible that they could enter with a mixed network of cities and sun. I suppose it depends on the size of their cost advantage vis a vis BA and how deep their pockets are just in case there is a fight.


RYR--- totally agree. They will be interested in whatever gets freed up elsewhere.

Exactly. There is no way EZY would want to take on BA/IAG head-to-head.

Dave,

Didn't EZY take on BA at Gatwick?

Not really.

I'm struggling to think of many, if any, routes from LGW that they actually compete on.

But if EZY started to operate from LHR, even if they carefully chose markets that BA don't currently serve, such is the latter's market dominance that they could undoubtedly squash EZY's ambitions were they minded to (which they no doubt would be).

Come on Dave, easyJet forced BA out of market after market at LGW. Look at what % of their LGW operation used to be flown by BA. The concept that EZY are in some way afraid to compete with the “mighty” IAG doesn’t ring true. easyJet are quite frankly just as good on shorthaul p2p as anything IAG offer IMHO.
If EZY get into LHR and margins on BA short haul are hit, with IAG now in a monpoly on LHR-DUB/MAD they’re back to their old habits of gouging on price. It’s like the 1970s closed shop all over again in some markets. A decent EZY offering would make major inroads IMHO.
Surely he meant a million billion kajillion. At some point, people actually make stats up to make whatever point they’re after. I see it every day at work.....Take in a worst case and conflate in other BAU maintenance costs then reduce the time period, then after a dramatic sigh, point and shreik “Look how terrible, it must never be allowed to happen.” Much like never building on greenbelt to keep asset inflation going.

Well time will tell.

Or, in all probability. it won't.

No, it was a Carillion.

Brilliant :)

If EZY were (or are likely to be) one of the main beneficiaries of an expanded LHR, it would call into question the "connectivity" argument, which as far as I'm aware is the only metric where LHR projects to be a better scheme than LGW. On the other arguments:

Economic case, LGW now projects to offer more net benefit in the long run.

Environmental case, LGW has always proved a stronger case than LHR (chiefly due to its location).

Cost to public purse, LHR has always been the more expensive option (by far), predominantly due to transport infrastructure cost.

Cost of scheme, LHR has always been the more expensive scheme (by far), predominantly due to its location and the need to bulldoze large communities. This is relevant because the airport is not a charity and will seek to recoup the cost from upping the charge to passengers. This may require a government undertaking not to permit a new runway in the south east for [X] number of years so as to not undermine the ability to charge monopolistic prices (bad for the consumer).

Then there is the legal position. LHR seem to be moving the goalposts on a number of issues. For example they are now thinking about phasing construction (sensible, but not part of the initial plan), there are now apparently a number of runway and terminal options (sensible but not part of the initial plan). The main issue caused by this is that there is no properly considered airspace plan - they are apparently waiting for the revamp of U.K. airspace in general. Should the government make a "decision" without this firmed up, I don't see how this would get past the courts when the inevitable challenge arrives.

If the connectivity argument is undermined in some way, I don't see how any government could continue to support the scheme.

HAL response to TfL

Our proposal to expand Heathrow will be entirely privately funded with no public funds required to deliver the airport infrastructure. Our plans to significantly improve rail, bus and coach connections will enable tens of millions of additional journeys by passengers and colleagues to be by public transport when travelling to the airport.

HAL are not paying for rail improvements, ie new tracks.

Has a single airline called for expansion at Gatwick rather than Heathrow?

It's funny watching so many selective stats being thrown around, it's just like my day job... Stats will advise and model possible outcomes, the forecasts will most likely be wildly out, mystic meg types of what something will like like in 5 years often are. It's a government's job to decide and lead, and fight the battle in the courts as required, some hope with May alas. The stats purporting to show LGW having a better ROI than LHR work if you don't want to expand LHR and inflate every cost you can while minimising the risks at LGW.
So yes, what airline wants LGW over LHR? Any?
If we had a 50% larger LGW tomorrow with a whole new runway, exactly who would be queuing to use it that wasn't already there today?

For the record I would have no issue with a new runway at both, so not anti LGW per se.
Is the concept of the taxpayer paying for new road and rail infrastructure so the taxpayer can get a flight on time so alien?

EasyJet's whole development has been based on taking on the established carriers in city-to-city routes. Serving oddball points, Ryanair style, has not been part of their model.

Likely initial offerings for them from Heathrow would be Glasgow, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris, Nice, Athens, and such like, a small selection of good business yield routes where they have established strength at the other end as well, which they could move on to serving multiple times daily, at less than BA fares.

Skipness One Echo

Rather a lot of questions there. But just on one of them, it is not really about tomorrow, it is about 2030. If the total London market is a quarter larger than today -- admittedly a big if-- then there will be quite a lot of decanting from LHR by then and quite a bit of growth which has to happen at LGW if R3 goes up the swanee.

This is not a decision that should be dictated by airlines. However, I'd guess far more airlines, or airline groups, have called for LHR to control its costs than anything else in this debate. Obviously that comes as no surprise.

The problem LHR have is that, when the same model supported their position (i.e. LHR offers the strongest economic case) they trumpeted the finding. As they have now been found (using the same economic model) to offer a less advantageous outcome than LGW, they cannot criticise the model without looking opportunistic.

This is not a decision taken by airlines.

If we had a larger LHR who exactly would be there who aren't using it today?

Easyjet? Jet2? Ryanair? Flybe? You might get the odd full service carrier thrown in there as a new carrier (China Airlines springs to mind). If that's the case why spend the extra money on LHR when you can spend far less at LGW or STN and achieve pretty much the same outcome?

I think the problem is that,in the short term the market cannot support a new runway at both.

I agree that both should be allowed to get on with it and we'll see which scheme gets investors backing. I suspect LHR but they'd have to come up with a realistic scheme that doesn't rip off consumers by taking advantage of a monopolistic charging structure.

It is when it supports the investments made by sovereign wealth funds! I don't expect LHR or the government to fund 100% of this, but I'd expect LHR to contribute the vast majority of this (and not pass the cost on to the consumer).

Good point, just keen for us not to do a Stansted and build something the market won't use.
Again fair, but modelling is notoriously innacurate and open to scandalous mis-interpretation by all sides, see also #brexit
No but pointless building infrastructure if it's not used as intended, see Stansted.
Ohh good question. I think we'd see more of the Chinese long haul players as well as China Airlines moving from Gatwick. Westjet would likely be tempted to move as well. easyJet for sure
Also a chance of LanChile, Aerolineas Argentinas, airlines to whom Gatwick would not be an option.
Cargo would also be opened up massively allowing some of the heavy traffic AMS gets and STN to a lesser extent to use LHR. Some would be net new, some would just hammer Gatwick. Time will tell.

Fair points Skippy - time will tell!

One of the main environmental issues with LHR is the pollution caused by LGVs queuing at the cargo terminal.

I've said before - R3 will not be built. Not least of all, it's now waaay too late. The traffic has moved elsewhere and the traffic that would move in would not be enough. BUT if we could clear the stacks? That would be a huge environmental benefit.

"We started off with running out of runway capacity in the South East because of the rise of LoCo's and tremendous increases primarily in O&D leisure traffic."

So true.

Hi guys I don't often transfer at LHR these days and not familiar with anything but your basic T5-T5 transfer but I have a trip coming up soon which will mean I transfer T5 - T2. Is this straightforward and how much time do I need?
I'm transferring BA to a non OneWorld carrier and not sure whether I will get a boarding pass at MAN for the onward. Any tips appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

I don't know about the transfer at LHR as i've never done one. But with your non One World airline you may want to check and see if you can print a boarding pass out online and then you'll have it with you if you have to go through some sort of security checkpoint.

Is your travel on one ticket? ie: you can check your luggage all the way through?
It's fairly straightforward - follow the purple flight connections signs and you will end on an air-side bus transfer.
You will need to go through security again.

Otherwise you'll need to travel on the free Heathrow Express from T5 to T2/3 to check-in your luggage, go through security etc.

It's all here:
https://www.heathrow.com/flight-connections

Many thanks, that's very helpful

Heathrow Airport's control of building costs 'abysmal' - BBC News

Heathrow Airport has a "abysmal" record of controlling building costs said the boss of British Airways-owner IAG.

Willie Walsh told the BBC that other companies should be allowed to design and build any new terminals at Heathrow. Heathrow said it did not believe such a model was appropriate.
The government is due to publish final proposals for a third runway at Heathrow in the next few months. MPs will then vote on those plans. Mr Walsh called for an end to Heathrow airport's "monopoly" on its terminals. "Heathrow Airport Limited run an airport - they're not the best at designing or building the facilities," he said. "We believe that should be left to others who are much better, and who would have a greater focus on cost control."

Mr Walsh does not think that existing terminals should be sold off, but rather that competitors should be allowed to submit proposals for developing, designing and building new terminal facilities. "It's not rocket science, there are plenty of people who have been involved in this type of construction in other areas who would be interested," he said. "We know because we've been approached by many of them, who believe that they could do this in a much more efficient way than Heathrow."

Mr Walsh's call is the latest salvo in his ongoing war of words with Heathrow, which is ultimately owned by Spanish firm Ferrovial. IAG, which owns Iberia and Aer Lingus as well as BA, controls just over half the landing slots at Heathrow - Europe's busiest airport. Mr Walsh long been a vocal critic of the fees imposed on airlines by Heathrow, which stand at about £22 per passenger.

IAG said the proposed expansion of the airport could allow independent companies to build and operate commercial facilities at the airport, including terminals. "Heathrow's had it too good for too long and the government must confirm the Civil Aviation Authority's powers to introduce this type of competition," Mr Walsh said.

A spokesperson said Heathrow wanted to ensure competition and choice between airlines at the airport: "Expansion will open up opportunities for IAG, easyJet, flybe, Virgin and dozens of international airlines with whom we are working closely to deliver expansion at close to current charges." Heathrow chief executive John Holland-Kaye is due to give evidence to MPs on the Transport Select Committee on Monday afternoon.

The third runway was due to cost almost £17bn, but Heathrow argued that it could complete the project for £14bn. Airlines fear that the airport will increase landing charges to help pay for the third runway. IAG has threatened to call for a price cap on landing charges if they do not fall after the new runway is finished. "With more passengers and the introduction of internal competition, the airport's charges should go down," Mr Walsh said. "If they remain at current levels we, along with other airlines, support a price cap to ensure they cannot rise and have written to the Transport Select Committee to highlight this."

This inevitably happens where you have a Regulator who sets the revenue (charges) in a form which takes the "costs" incurred into consideration. It then is in their interests to jack the costs up as high as possible - or more precisely, as high as the regulator will let them get away with. All sorts of extras get stuck into the price for which the operator can claim a rate of return on its "investment".

Mr H-K is entitled to his opinion. But in saying this he has shot himself in the foot on charging the current airline operators a premium to start funding the expansion.

Booker Prize candidate?
 

Heathrow today published the latest volume of its magnum fictional "Fly Quiet & Green" opus.

With 4 quarters' results now available from the revised scheme, trends are starting to emerge.

LHR has clearly got it in for China Southern, which yet again gets massively marked down, this time by 20 places, from the position in the "league table" that its performance actually merits. Air China similarly gets demoted by more than a dozen places, as does newbie to the "Top 50" Japan Airlines.

But Air Malta, on the other hand, for some inexplicable reason again gets pushed 10 places further up the table than it should be.

Delta is another airline that seems to have incurred Heathrow's displeasure. Robbed of its rightful Number One slot in Q2, and of second place in Q3, it again qualifies for first place in Q4 but is predictably demoted to 7th place.

El Al, as is traditional, gets awarded more than double the number of points that it actually deserves.

Perhaps most outrageous of all, Flybe, which according to LHR's methodology loses over 100 points each for both its CDA adherence and its track-keeping performance, nevertheless gets propelled into first place after being awarded 930 points out of a possible 1000!

Fly Quiet & Clean Q4 2017

Social media is suggesting the DFT have this afternoon declared "that they will not pay a penny for tunneling, bridgework or widening of the M25".

It will be interesting to see HAL justify that cost to shareholders.

Suspect that would take Heathrow from mega profits to negative territory for decades ?

HAL have told me they’re paying for the M25 diversion,tunnel & runway on top. As they do not know the length of R3 anything can happen :ugh:

So if it's not the DFT and it's NOT HAL who is it ?

Navpi.
HAL are paying for M25, A4, A3044 etc. But not rail links. They are showing runway use, with the centre runway on mixed ops only to avoid conflict. So noise will increase above current alteration.

Well not according to this

Parliamentlive.tv - Transport Committee

Absolutely explicit at 1755. Costs of M25 remodelling and indeed the movement of other infastructure will be "bourne by Heathrow". The Government will however ensure via CAA that charges are not passed on to the airlines OR the passenger.

This will be news to HEATHROW who have been equally robust that their contribution is topped out at £1bn so who is paying the difference of £11bn or £17bn ?

Trinity I'm not interested in the noise issue, just cost !