Stansted expansion

[Stan Sted]

The Financial Times today carries a front page story claiming that the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, has decided that Stansted will get an extra runway under plans for airport expansion in the South East.
The FT says the decision will be formally announced in a white paper to be published in mid-December. He has allegedly ruled out expansion at Heathrow "for now".

[TopBunk]

Stan

No surprise there then. The easy political decision to make (if it has been made). Certainly STN has the most available land and will affect the least (labour) voters, hence the decision.

However, for all it's faults, it is LHR that the travelling public want expanded - it is only truly international gateway to the UK. The people of CDG, AMS and FRA must be laughing themselves silly if this turns out to be the decision.

The UK politicians once again take an easy out before an election, when the decision should have been to REALIGN the 3rd runway (no new runway then!) as an interim measure and announce plans to build a new airport with 6 runways (or whatever) in the Thames Estuary or wherever, that would replace LHR which would be shut down (a la Kai Tak) after it's opening, thus preserving the concept of a single London airport.

[**777lover**]

Hi,

I am really pleased with the news that STN might be getting an expansion. I live roughly 30 miles from and its easier to get to than LHR so go for IT!

thanks Dave :D

[A and C]

Oh No ! expansion for that grotty regional airport run by rude small minded people whos only interest seems to be making the task of the day to day running of an airline almost imposable.

The management of this third rate aerodrome had better grow up quick or the world will get wise and not use the place.

[akerosid]

I don't think this will be the end of it by any stretch of the imagination. BA, VS and BD will fight this tooth and nail and I don't think FR will be in any mood to pay the huge costs associated with it. It's a cowardly decision, particularly if EU pollution standards are being used as an excuse. The runway won't open until at least 2011 (and much later now). The Tories will no doubt make much of the fact that EU law is giving FRA, CDG and AMS a considerable advantage over LHR.

I wonder if BA/BD will begin to wind down domestic flights to certain destinations, underlining the threat to LHR's position as a domestic hub. I can see BA playing particularly hard ball on this (and good luck to them). From the cost and how it will be financed, to the environmental issues and the effect on economic growth, this is going to be a big battle.

Another question is whether it will be a further cause for a rift between Brown and Blair; Brown is known to favour a third runway.

The odd thing is that one of the reasons given for an extension of STN was that a new international hub could be "seeded" there; a hub will not work at STN. If hubbing is still a valid strategy, in the age of low cost carriers, it certainly won't be done "in the lion's mouth"; FR will be the big winner from this (provided the runway cost can be sorted out) and it will cut to pieces any carrier seeking to establish a hub there - and frankly any carrier which did so would deserve it!

A big backward step for British aviation, setting it back many years.

[WorkingHard]

Anyone care to hazard a guess on the effect of the controlled airspace by STN. Essex radar is already perceived to be a problem to GA (which accounts for a very large portion of movements in that part of the world).

[GustyOrange]

I read the story this morning.

The krauts, frogs and dope smokers must be thinking they have just won the lottery.

lets hope Bliar gets the red card ASAP.

Gusty

[BEagle]

I hope this is true! That overpriced, overrated squalid dump called Heathrow is bursting at the seams. Another runway will merely make things worse - much as it might appeal to ba and the rest.

Everything is expensive at Thiefrow; I've now made it a policy to use BHX instead because I live midway between the two. A year ago I used to use STN regularly; nice aerodrome but regrettably now that buzz has been o'Leary-ed, I don't go there any more because flights to where-the-hell-is-Hahn are of no use to me.

More investment in UK regional airports - and let Thiefrow stew in its own juice!

[chiglet]

A n C
quote...
"Grotty Regional Airport"
I beg your pardon sir...
EGSS is owned and operated by the BAA. it has "the" Magic word in front of its "Full" title......
"London" Stansead International Airport...shuld keep Busters laundry going for weeks:ok:
watpiktch

[Final 3 Greens]

Chiglet

As a frequent traveller, I believe that A&C calls it right.

It is a grotty little regional airport, with lots of overpriced shops, officious security and it caters to the lower quartile of travellers. It is served to a large degree by two airlines who compete on price, not service and is effectively a point to point airport with no proper business connections, such as the former AMS service.

Expanding it is a joke without proper mainline airlines flying business people to business destinations, which is what LHR is largely oriented around.

All the decent international business oriented airlines, save for CSA, have seen the light and gone.

The state of the old KLM exec lounge says it all for me .... the fish tank embedded into the lounge wall hasn't been cleaned out since closure and is now full of algae - it makes me shudder everytime I walk past it.

[BEagle]

A heck of a lot of business travellers used the Friday buzz flight to FRA instead of flying LH and enduring the squalor of LHR T2 and the absurdly expensive long-term car park - and the ladies who looked after the buzz/KLM exec lounge did an excellent job.

But now that it's Ryanair flying to an inconvenient airport - and they don't even have an exec lounge - they're back at Thiefrow....

Except me - I've discovered BHX!

So yes, STN will indeed have to look beyond the low cost sector if it's going to be taken seriously.

[symphonyangel]

A Stansted decision would be a huge snub to the regions unless it comes with displacement of operators from Heathrow - the regions have stated in consultations that Heathrow hub access is whats important and thats why the southeast capacity is needed, so that proper regional access is guaranteed to the hub - a Stansted 'solution' would be pretty useless to the regions therefore

[LTNman]

Extra runway at Heathrow = BAA win
Extra runway at Gatwick = BAA win
Extra runway at Stansted = BAA win.

It is nice to see that the British Airports Authority had to really fight hard to get this runway at one of their airports.

As for Luton BAA can continue to undermine the Bedfordshire airport by subsidising Stansted from the profits of Heathrow and Gatwick.
:mad: :mad:

[Final 3 Greens]

BEagle

There is an alternative to BHX, for those of us who live in the NE London area - it's called LCY and it's a pretty good experience.

Jet service to CDG, ORY, FRA, GVA and ZRH (the latter two sometimes being SAAB200 which is almost as a good as a jet!)

Its a shame STN has gone the way it has - I shall be using it to fly to Scotland this aft., with easyMob and that's about all I do from there these days ... even though it's a 10 min cab ride - away.

[akerosid]

I had a quick look this morning at the DfT's consultation paper on the whole airport issue, this morning. One of the proposals made is to try and "seed" STN with a new hub and spoke operation. Clearly, this has failed in the past and no airline that wants a long term future is going to go up against FR. But, if a new runway goes ahead at STN, the cost for operators there is going to increase considerably. What will FR do then? Pull out - leaving the airport to others.

I suspect this may be the long term plan. There is ample room for two more runways (indeed, among the proposals was a plan for two further runways, although I suspect they'll go for one now and one, down the road). Ultimately, I suspect that the intention is to make STN London's main international gateway, but in order to do that, Ryanair in particular has to be got rid of and the best way is to push prices through the roof. The incumbent carriers at LHR have made it plain that they will be examining the financing of a new runway very closely. They will, of course, have to work on the transport issue, but that will (theoretically!) come in time.

I can't help thinking of Sir Humphrey's old dictum:
Never have a public consultation unless you know in advance what its findings will be.

The other question I have is this:
The media generally is talking about "the new runway" (singular) going to STN. Are we now talking about just one? Is that it. HM Government's great solution is to put a runway where neither the incumbent airline, nor any of the others want it to be. And that one runway is expected (subject to another being added at the same airport) to be the answer to London's air traffic growth for the next 30 years or so?

In the immortal words of Baldrick: "shall I make up the guest room for Mr. Cockup".

[Stan Sted]

For more details read the full DoT report here

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_025935.pdf


and for an alternative view see the Stop Stansted Expansion website here:

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/index.html



Mike J

nice one about the Stan Sted expansion...however, I could easily expand enough to accommodate a runway, during the PPRuNe/Maiden flight bash to Dublin tomorrow.

[BEagle]

F3G - haven't used STN for over a year now; shame, it used to be pleasant flying with buzz. My last flight from STN was with RyanAir to FDH - not in the same league as buzz in any way.

LCY? Perhaps worth considering when the DLR extension is completed in 2 years' time. If I was still in the RAF, that'd be easy. Drive to Northolt, leave car, Central Line to Bank, then DLR direct to the airport. But that would still mean getting round Oxford:(

No - for anyone west of that city of 'mad vegetarians on bicycles' (to use a Clarksonian turn of phrase), it's far simpler to nip along quiet roads through the heart of England to BHX and park for half the price. Shall be doing that yet again on Tuesday, leaving at 0815. Something which would be totally impossible were I trying to get to Thiefrow or even Stansted via the cross-country route.

Expanding the airports in SE England is like red car theory. ("Why do people buy red cars? Because manufacturers paint them red. Why do they paint them red? Because people buy red cars.....").

And yes, I also drive a red car! But I'd far sooner see the regional airports developed than more money spent on Thiefrow.

[GustyOrange]

Living in the 'regions' I'm equally keen the see the regional airports developed.

That doesn't mean I enjoy holding for 20 mins on my trips to London.

If Bliar builds a new runway for Essex man before LHR I'll be disgusted.

Gusty

[StressFree]

Akerosid,
'Ample room for 2 more runways' - maybe this is true if you want to concrete over thousands of acres of priceless countryside.
Why don't we just abolish grass and cover the whole country in concrete, then we could land anywhere.............. I agree that occasionally development is necessary but I think this issue needs more thought than whats immediately convenient ie. where are the least Labour voters that will be pi**ed off.

Just because STN isn't surrounded by urban sprawl it dosn't mean its ripe for development.

The countryside of today isn't ours to do with as we please - we must account for it to those who come after.

[Tinstaafl]

It never seems that some of the old military aerodromes ever get considered. Wonder why not? They were able to take some quite large, runway hungry a/c.

[Final 3 Greens]

BEagle

If I were you, I'd use BHX too :D

I had an assignment in the North of England last year and needed to to go to Brussels a couple of times - using LBA was a great experience too, because one could get there quickly and it was a smaller a/p (no doubt much smaller than BHX.)

Have a good trip on Tuesday.

[tanker-driver]

I think you will find that a fat man with two jaguar's has already approved the decision to expand STN regardless of cost to taxpayer/public opinion/ loss of green belt.

Cover-it-in-concrete Prescott is not worried about wether STN has the traffic to support expansion or even if intercontinentals could be lured there! as long as its not in his patch!

I firmly believe that if you die and go to hell, then you will undoubltey pass through LHR on the way. Having said that I will continue to use it , as it offers the most direct route to SYD.

LHR expansion is long overdue!

[chiglet]

F3G
I assure you that my tongue was firmly in cheek
watpiktch

[Final 3 Greens]

Sorry, Chiglet, SOH failure as I was thinking about the 'customer experience' that awaits me there later today :yuk:

[52 North]

Does anyone know if this decision to expand STN means that the proposed Rugby airport is now cancelled? I think I remember reading the Midlands part of the consultation paper which stated that Rugby Airport would only be considered if there was no runway expansion in the South-East.

Cheers
52N

[akerosid]

Don't worry Stress Free, I'm not supporting the concreting over of Essex (although some might say that has its benefits); I'm firmly in favour of a third runway at LHR.

A news site called Ample.com is reporting (see speculating) that Darling might offer airlines a third LHR runway as a "peace offering" (its words, not mine). With airline bosses already going over Darling's head to Blair, it looks as if there will be a battle royal if the pols screw this one up.

Another question is this: if the third runway does not go ahead, does London stand a dog's chance of getting the Olympics in 2012? Transport access will be one of the criteria looked at by the IOC.

I would also hope some consideration could be given to a rail link from LGW to LHR; that *&^%@@*! coach from LGW is a miserable experience.

[Unwell_Raptor]

I was all for LHR Rwy 3 until I read that post about the Olympics. Every night I pray for that farrago of corrupt showbiz dressed up as sports to be kept away from my native land.

I shall be starting the Third Runway For Manchester campaign tomorrow.

[StressFree]

Raptor,
Agree totally................
Surely a short term event like the Olympics should not be a reason to influence a major long term decision? With this government however you never know, I believe NOTHING that they say, all they want is re-election at ANY cost. If Blair said that tomorrow is Monday I would have to check my calendar..........

:ugh:

[Civil Servant]

Perhaps if FR get priced out of STN, they will open up at London Norwich Airport.

That would fit in with their policy of "Where?" "How far?"

[MAN777]

Why cant Northolt be used, the runway alignment would not interfere with LHR and it could be connected with a high speed unmanned raillink like the "Orly val" linking the metro in Paris to Orly, northolts runway could easily handle all the uk regional shorthauls, freeing up LHR for the long hauls. Got to be a cheaper option than demolishing 1/2 of Hayes.

[HOODED]

Unfortunately Northolt is an in use military airfield with a certain 32 Sqn based there and whilst the airfield is owned by El Tone I doubt even he is stupid enought to give it up. But then again.......

[Ghostboy]

Surely if STN is expanded, costs rise and FR pull out this would reduce the need for the expansion in the first place:confused:

Ghost

[Bagso]

Stansted..... ho ho ho

Now just remind me again is that anywhere actually near London ?

Nice work Labour - yet another wrong turn.

[Wycombe]

Funny that a few years ago, BEags old stamping ground was being considered (as rumour has it, by the smiling jumper at least) as a future long-haul hub....(perhaps in these days of PFI's, it's time will come again....if there weren't all those nasty turboprops moving in in a few years!!)

Where they should have put it, of course, is Greenham Common.
Loads of space, good road/rail links, huge (& largely affluent) catchment area right in the middle of S England, 3000m runway, huge fuel storage already in place etc etc.

But that would have made to much sense, wouldn't it (although
the large "Establishment" that lies about 6 miles to the E under the Westerly approach that might have been an issue
;))

[PAXboy]

Northolt: I think that the problem is not so much 32 Squadron as it can be argued that military and civil air operations can use the same runways without a problem and there are many examples of it. I have no doubt that the politicos will think up all sorts of things and the word 'terrorist' will feature highly.

I agree that Northolt could work very well, with a link to LHR for international transfers, running every ten minutes as part of the Heathrow Express, it could also link into the Paddington service. There are already two tube lines that run close by and the end of the A40 that links to the M40 and M25. Any Pax that was just going internally in the UK, might not need to touch the main site.

The problem is that the residents of the area have had Northolt with it's low level of operations for many, many years. If you were to increase that number by (pure guess) 200%, then they might object and ask for compensation.

Also, the residentail area in that corner of London is of very high value and has some rather rich people living in it. The political and financial fall out would be considerable. As I say, I think it makes complete sense to use an existing facility, rather than turf other people out of their homes by building the third, short, runway at LHR between the A4 and M4. The taxing times are going to be long and what about getting across the North runway?

Incidentally, BA have fired the first broadside regarding STN and it is as expected: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3255196.stm) British Airways executive Andrew Cahn has said the firm 'absolutely needs' another runway at Heathrow if its business is to grow.

[Say again s l o w l y]

BAA Chief Executive Sir John Egan was quoted "It is the company's view that the local communities should be given assurances. BAA would urge the Government to rule out any additional runway at Heathrow."
This was in the T5 enquiry, seems like they have short memories don't they!

The very fact that Terminal 5 is being constructed at a cost of over £2.5 billion makes it unlikely that Heathrow will not be in the forefront of any expansion plans. Especially with a supposed cap on the number of movements. If the 480,000 cap is to be upheld, then the issue of a third runway is totally irrelevant.

Personally, I think we'll see an extra short runway at Heathrow, A full size second runway at Stansted and another new runway at Gatwick after 2019.

What the Government intends to do with the BAA is yet to be seen, but I feel they may try to break it up somehow, as they have too much of a monopoly now, let alone if these expansions do go ahead.

[Woodman]

I started drawing a salary (very small) in this industry back in the 60s and the talk was to develop Stansted. Then the decision went to develop Maplin to open in 1982 and that was cancelled in the first fuel crisis. Then LHR T4 rapidly followed by Gatwick North. Next was STN and LHR T5.
It has all been too little, too late and no-one has ever had the guts to make and stick with a bold decision.
This government claimed that the current process will set airport development for the future. Now the suggestion is that all we will get is one (or two) runways.
What we need is a firm and lasting decision that future development will be at this or that place. Airlines will always argue for development where they happen to be based at the time. Airlines rarely move but the growth is almost always from a new set of carriers - charters at Gatwick, low-cost at Stansted - with established airlines picking up traffic round the edges as the whole market grows.
It is absolutely certain that the only way that airlines will develop at any airport is if they think they can make money. The landing fees have little bearing on airlines' decisions though they can always use the argument if necessary. There are various people in UK and doubtless more elsewhere who would love to start an airline and will leap to grab any opportunity that allows a sensible business plan.
It is also wrong to judge the long term future of any airport with what it is now. It is highly likely that there will be another terminal which will separate one element from another.
Stansted is laid out to be a major airport with the potential - if allowed - to have four runways and a line of terminals up the middle with a rail and road access spine.
Raise your eyes to the wider scene and allow a redeveloped access to tie into the Channel rail link terminals and the Olympic developments. Add a proper rail link through the main East Coast line.
Maybe strategic vision or maybe pie in the sky but my guess is that this is not the time to sell your shirt to start an airline at Gatwick.

[brabazon]

Woodman, a good post and resume of recent history of UK airports development. Like a lot of things with this governement they've promoted the airports consultation as something that Joe Public can influence, but it looks like it will all come down to what's in for themselves. Airlines will ultimately have to deal with whatever is decided and that's that. For BA to jump up and down now is not unexpected, but it must be remembered that the UK has many airlines who can compete with BA and Joe Public benefits from them all (even those who aren't based here - such as Ryanair). In an ideal world the UK would have one superhub - but it's not going to happen now so we'll just have to make do again and hope that the process doesn't drag on for years and years (as with T5).

[answer=42]

The situation seems to me to be as follows:
1. Heathrow showed up in the government report as having the greatest economic benefits (ie that's where the public wants to fly to/from in the medium term).
2. Heathrow also has a risk of breaking legally binding pollution rules if developed further
3. Gatwick is blocked for the time being
4. Any new airport, eg Cliffe, doesn't work economically
5. Luton?
6. Stansted is not bad economically (though not as good as Heathrow) and doesn't have the environmental issues. A new high-speed rail line might have to be built.

So, the conclusion is Stansted 2 today, Heathrow 3 tomorrow (only if the industry gets its act together to get emissions down).

Brabazon, sure the government will have done its political homework to see what local reactions are. But if you have a look at the political map around LHR & STN, the answer is not as obvious as you might think.

LHR & STN the two London hubs. Like JFK & EWR on a bigger scale.

Agree with Woodman's views that LGW is not the place to be. Ryanair from London South?

[LTNman]

If BAA owned Luton and not Stansted where do you think a new runway would be put??? :mad:

[LGS6753]

A clue - look for Labour-held marginal seats.

Near Luton there are Stevenage, Luton North & Luton South.

Near Heathrow - lots of London area marginals.

Near Stansted - solid Tory territory.

It's a no-brainer - put the unpopular airport where it won't affect your friends.

Stansted it is, right or wrong.

[answer=42]

LGS6753

Please, have a look at a map of the constituencies. The constituencies you mention dont exactly have the profile you state:
eg
Luton North Labour maj 10 000 56% hardly marginal
Luton South Labour maj 10 000 55% hardly marginal
Braintree (nr STN) Labour maj 400 42% very marginal
Richmond Park (right under LHR flight path) LibDem maj 5000 fairly safe.
But only your own eyes will convince you.

Yes, of course local politics comes into it to an extent. But it's far from being decisively in favour of STN.

The legal situation concerning LHR emissions is driving the decision. Goodness knows the government wants to avoid winding up in court again.

And I think you'll find that it's Darling in the hot seat in transport, not Prescott.

The cowardly thing to do would be not to make any decision. Surely STN 2 + LHR 3 if emissions permit is better than zip?

answer=42

[terrain safe]

Why not close hathrow and build 3 new runways at EGSS?

Just testing the water...............

[jumpseater]

Stan do you remember one of my first posts a couple of years ago (round about the time of the Ash Bash), when I said STN would be the next one for expansion? looks like I might have been right, tee hee!

LTN man
In your scenario the answer is still STN, and always will be, due to geographical topography, air traffic management, and environmental impacts, and not least of all financial cost!

[akerosid]

Where is the money going to come from for this expansion? The cost put on the expansion of STN is huge (one figure I saw was GBP4bn - surely incorrect?). Although the govt is making the decision, it can't provide the money; BAA will have to and will have to (presumably raise it from STN). This, as Ghostboy pointed out above, would probably push FR out, BUT this isn't the main point.

BAA doesn't really want to add a new runway at STN - clearly in this scenario, without the possibility of raising new cash for STN from LHR, it wouldn't make business sense. Could it raise cash on the markets for this? Would the stock market be willing to support this without the government doing anything for what the city clearly wants (LHR)? To cut to the chase: can the government force BAA, a privately owned company, to take a decision which its does not wish to take and moreover, which may not represent the best decision/returns for the shareholders, to which the directors have a responsibility?

Will the government indemnify the BAA board? Is there a legal mechanism for them to be forced? What if they all jumped ship?
I'm not sure the government has really thought this through; it may be worried about environmental problems at LHR (SURELY not insurmountable!), but perhaps when the realities of company law - and the opposition of the business community - become clear, they may take a different view.

[answer=42]

akerosid

Good post.

BAA would fund Stansted expansion in the way that is most profitable for them: by issuing bonds, syndicated loan, retained earnings, rights issue (unlikely), some combination of the above, whatever. The backing for the financing would be landing fees and other income from all London airports - we are agreed that there will be a cross-subsidy, notably from Heathrow.

So, as you ask, why should they do this, given that they are against STN?

In a word, because it is profitable. The government background document shows considerable economic benefits, some of which are captured in landing fees and other airport income, including a profit.

The point is that these economic benefits are less than would be realised from LHR-3. As you say, STN-2 is less profitable for BAA than LHR-3. The government state this clearly in the background document.

Sure BAA could say no to STN-2. But as a regulated business, they won't be allowed to build LHR-3 instead (assuming that we are right in saying the government is going for STN-2 first). If BAA say no to STN-2, they would be throwing away profitable business. But they could always make the threat ....

Cliffe (or I presume any other new airport) has fewer economic benefits than STN-2 (according to the government). That's why there won't be a new airport.

Next you come to the real point of the argument. Are the environmental considerations surmountable? Given time and money, probably not.

This is a classic economic benefits versus environmental benefits decision. They will be teaching this case study in universities for years to come.

The classic way to make a decision like this is to use peoples' valuation of the environmental benefits and weigh this against the economic considerations.

But this is not being done in this case. Because there is a legal commitment to avoiding emissions above a certain level, the environmental versus economic considerations are not being valued one against the other. It is only the legal threshold that counts.

OK, it makes for a clear decision. But it's far from the best way to decide these things.

Of course the government could be trying to push the industry (especially BAA) to make a clear, legally binding commitment to reducing emissions at LHR.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Absolutely, how do you put a financial cost onto an environmental issue?

If the new runway at Heathrow is built it has been calculated that 35,000 people would be exposed to levels of nitrogen dioxide exceeding the annual EU limit and even with advances in engine technology, this would only be reduced by 5,000 by 2015.
321,000 people would be affected by a noise level of 57db (this is classed as the onset of community annoyance) by 2015 if a new runway was built at Heathrow. These figures are from the SERAS stage 2 findings and the UK sustainable development policy.

Stansted doesn't have anywhere near the environmental impact that Heathrow does/would have.

Cliffe to be honest was never going to be a real proposition, the cost both financially and environmentally would just be too high. estimated at around £11.5 billion excluding transport links! Compare this to Heathrow at around £3.85 billion including T5 and T6. BA's figures for the financial benefit of an expanded Heathrow are in the order of £37 billion over 60 years.(A bit higher than the Dft at £7.8 billion!)

Unfortunately I can't see the real drivers of Government policy being anything but political, which is why I would be very surprised if Heathrow doesn't get a new runway. Not being cynical of course!!:rolleyes:

[Woofrey]

Just caught up with some of the points on this which are well made.

1. Regarding the breakup of BAA, and the particularly good post about governments making decision for private companies and the ramifications for directors responsibilities to shareholders and cross subsidies etc, why shouldn't the BAA offer Stansted up for sale ? There's enough funding going into T5 to push their finances to the brink, so why make matters worse by trying to build a new runway at STN - sell the place, let MOL and the low co's take a stake and they can build the new runway at half the cost !

2. Interesting point about not starting an airline at LGW. Why not ? Surely LGW has capacity, they haven't got back to pre 9/11 traffic levels yet, there are slots in the off peak, the charges are pegged to inflation and there are good transport links rail and motorway.

3. If, as some of you suggest, LHR is so appalling why is everyone clamouring to get in there - I'm sure if the US/UK govts sorted out the open skies / bi-laterals, the 5 US carriers at LGW would be up the road the day after the deal was signed .... which leads me to conclude all this ranting about airport charges is diversionary - LHRs charges are going up by inflation + 6.5%, but is anyone walking away ?

[carbootking]

why would baa put stansted up for sale why spend so much money in the past 15 years look at the roads around the area or dead ends its all marked for somthing as for stansted not making money any big company tkaes money from the profitable one to give to the other just to get the business like look at luton stansted on locos all the pax in the terminal r spending money new shops opening every week more rent baa. if tbi wanted the business surley they would give the lading fees away as well . all i say harry up branson come to stn.

[HZ123]

As someone who has had the dubious pleasure of working at LHR on and off since 1970 and having spent 73-74 at STN I can recall without any doubt that STN was always going to be the third London airport even then. There was no question about it.

Back to LHR and the present issue. LHR is a dump and has been for the last decade and longer. Whatever your views are, LHR is third world and lacks proper communications and road systems to get pax away or into the airport.

Why after forty years was no monies spent on another entry tunnel to the CTA. Why was the railway not connected up years ago to the GWR.

Even with the Heathrow express you end up at another bottle neck at Paddington and since Nov 11 the check-ins have all closed.

This situation is once again the product of mismanagement a condition that UK plc is very good at. Surely the answer should be to expand Northolt as the third (LHR) runway and expand STN and LTN looking to open a new airport within the next decade.

[timzsta]

My own points, in no particular order:

LHR:
1) M25 is already suffering from massive conjestion around the LHR area, and it will be even worse now the 10 year long widening project for the London Orbital Car Park has begun. Heathrow does have the Heathrow Express, but if your trying to get into LHR from anywhere other then central london by rail it is a nightmare as you need to get into central london.....
2) Why dont we just choose to ignore the EU pollution regulations? Other EU countries ignore EU law when it suits them.
3) The major flag carriers want to come to LHR as it offers the best onward flight connections to europe and smaller UK airports through BA / BMi and other European majors. The likes of Cathay, Emirates, United, American, Japan etc etc do not want to go to STN. In fact STN does not even have the security infrastructure anymore to deal with transfer pax and baggage.

STN
1) 45 mins from London on train, not that different in that respect to LGW. Major road improvements now completed with M11 sliproads and new A120 just opened which is a massive improvement from the country road it used to be. Also the new hotel will open within a year.
2) STN does not suffer with delays such as ramp congestion, lack of stand availability and runway slots as much as LHR and LGW although I think we get a bit more fog at STN due to its elevation (350ft vs LHR 70ft).
3) Maybe some validity in charter airlines at LGW moving more of their work to STN as landing fees cheaper, less slot delays etc etc. Possible financial savings in this competitive age.
4) Some change of mindset needed amongst certain areas of BAA staff at STN. They seem to forget sometimes that the passenger / airline / handling agent is their customer etc.
5) CSA still at STN as they carry large amounts of mail on their flights here, up to 3 tonnes daily. Mail = mega bucks.

It is not just Easyjet and Ryanair who are expanding out of STN. Overseas operators are beginning to come to STN in greater numbers. The list of foreign carriers at STN is now growing (current schedules)
Flag Carriers Charter
El Al Kirbrish Turkish
CSA Cyprus Airways
Air Malta Helios
Viking
BRA
Onur Air

Low Cost Cargo
Air Berlin Fedex
Sky Europe UPS
Iceland Express TNT
Flying Finn Asiana
Air Polonia All Nippon
GermanWings Cygnus
Transavia Egypt Air
Norweigan Japan Air

It gets very busy at the runway holding points and on the culdesacs at certain times of the day when you add the likes of Easy and Ryan to that lot and through in the odd Britannia, My Travel, Air 2000, Thomas Cook, European, Titan, Channel Express, Aurigny, Eastern Airways, Global Supply. Get the point, we need another runway and some more satellites at STN because it is where more and more people want to come despite the long distance car parking and the transit train.

[Flightmapping]

I am still trying to work out how this new runway at STN will cost £4bn. Any answers?

[duality]

Flightmapping,

The answer is simple is you are a government accountant.

£5 Mil for the actual runway,

The rest - secretly drawn into the governments "Oops we :mad: up slush fund" aka "Tony's holiday pot".

My view:

Downsize STD & LHR, then throw more money by way of regions and let London sit in it's own self pity ;)

D