HEATHROW

[Fairdealfrank]

Which is what you'll get with a third runway and why with the only sensible solution (the Estuary Airport) you'll sleep peacefully whilst planes fly 24 hours a day on the other side of London, like a proper hub airport
(1) with a third rwy, respite remains, although less than with two rwys; with a third and fourth rwy, respite is as it is now.

(2) It's not only about sleepness nights, it's about daytime respite as well.

(3) An estuary airport cannot work if LHR remains open, so in the theoretical event of it being built and LHR closing, there would be plenty of sleepless nights as local people lose their jobs.

(4) An estuary airport cannot work if LHR remains open, so it isn't going to happen. LHR isn't closing.

(5) Of course we need a "proper hub airport" - at LHR, with 4 rwys.



OTOH the taxpayers i.e. us will be on the hook for the (rather high) cost of building this new airport whereas the third runway will mostly be funded privately with the exception of the new rail and changed road links AIUI.
Another reason that it won't happen.



In principle I support the idea of a new four runway airport for London. Regrettably it seems there would be too many financial, commercial and environmental issues with the proposed location and that's without accounting for the massive delay before such a new airport would even be partially open.
Yes, it is completely impractical for the reasons you list, and others. The Airports Commission has buried it, let's do the same.

[Heathrow Harry]

Frank

All it needs is one really bad accident at LHR - eg someone ploughing a 380 into W London suburbia - and I think you'd be amazed at how fast LHR might be closed down

[WHBM]

There were many things that did in the idea of Boris Island from a poor design point of view, but one was surely that it's runways were still East/West, meaning that aircraft would still pass over the metropolitan area, especially arrivals when they were on Easterlies. And with multiple parallel runways you typically need longer runs in when you are doing parallel approaches.

Why were the runways not north/south ?

Paris, for example, gets it right with both Orly and CDG being north and south of the metropolitan area, with runways east/west so traffic does not pass over the city.

[CabinCrewe]

nice to see BA to KUL about to be announced, presumably taking advantage of the MH misfortunes. And not the last new BA route to be announced either...

[Skipness One Echo]

All it needs is one really bad accident at LHR - eg someone ploughing a 380 into W London suburbia - and I think you'd be amazed at how fast LHR might be closed down
Great point as ever mate. Best not have any overflights over London just in case Lufthansa or KLM inadvertantly drop a B747 into Hammersmith or a passing transatlantic Emirates A380 drops into an Arsenal home game. Best also close LCY with a flight path over Parliament, Trafalgar Sq, Tower Bridge, Downing Street and MI6 when they're on 09 !

btw what makes ploughing an A380 on final approach any more likely in London than anywhere else. Life is risky, deal with it, BA038 should be seen as a one off event, as one hopes OZ214 where a qualified crew banjoed a commercial airliner in CAVOK broad daylight. Risks are managed and mitigated but never go away, perspective tells me that crossing the road in London is still riskier.

[DaveReidUK]

I think you'd be amazed at how fast LHR might be closed down Well clearly that wouldn't happen, any more than Manchester was closed down after the Argonaut came down in the middle of Stockport, or Schiphol after the El Al 747 went into the apartment block.

What would change, of course, would be the dynamics of the Heathrow expansion argument - but we're talking about a hypothetical event so unlikely that there seems little point in considering it.

[Fairdealfrank]

There were many things that did in the idea of Boris Island from a poor design point of view, but one was surely that it's runways were still East/West, meaning that aircraft would still pass over the metropolitan area, especially arrivals when they were on Easterlies. And with multiple parallel runways you typically need longer runs in when you are doing parallel approaches.
Have a look at the standard picture of Boris Island, why are the rwys so close to each other? If starting from scratch, wouldn't it be sensible to have wide spaced rwys?

It looks like there is a road crossing the rwy (will there be traffic lights on the road), what are we doing, recreating Lulsgate and the A38?

It also appears to be Boris Reclamation rather than Boris Island.

Crazy nonsesne, but then what can one expect with an aviation advisor who has no experience in the aviation industry.



Why were the runways not north/south ?
Er, because the prevailing winds are from the west?

[DaveReidUK]

Have a look at the standard picture of Boris Island, why are the rwys so close to each other? If starting from scratch, wouldn't it be sensible to have wide spaced rwys?

It looks like there is a road crossing the rwy (will there be traffic lights on the road), what are we doing, recreating Lulsgate and the A38?

It also appears to be Boris Reclamation rather than Boris Island.

Crazy nonsesne, but then what can one expect with an aviation advisor who has no experience in the aviation industryYes, what does Norman Foster know about designing airports ?

[WHBM]

Yes, what does Norman Foster know about designing airports ?
Well at Stansted he was kept to the terminal. he didn't do anything about the runway - because it was left just as it was !

I'm no admirer of Foster's Stansted terminal building. What idiot thought unventilated toilets in the centre of the "adaptable" big cube would do anything other than stink out themselves and the adjoining areas. That's Architecture 1.01, Norman.

Oh, and he put the long term car park 3.5 miles away from the terminal - in a development put down in open countryside.


Er, because the prevailing winds are from the west?
Actually, if you look at an annual Wind Rose, the percentage bias is not nearly as much as is made out. If it really is an issue, shouldn't the UK's premier aviation facility have a couple of cross runways as well ?

[GT3]

shouldn't the UK's premier aviation facility have a couple of cross runways as well ?

It did at one time

[DaveReidUK]

It did at one timeYes - in the days when aircraft were much more affected by crosswinds than they are nowadays.

Having said that, nobody has built a major airport runway in the UK in the last 60 years that hasn't been aligned either E-W or NE-SW.

Coriolis effect - Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/how-weather-works/coriolis-effect)

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm trying to think of ANY new runways built in the UK in the last 60 years TBH

[DaveReidUK]

I'm trying to think of ANY new runways built in the UK in the last 60 years TBH

Edinburgh, London City, Manchester ...

[WHBM]

Birmingham, Leeds and Prestwick all abandoned use of their E-W/NE-SW runways and concentrated on/extended their NW/SE runways.

[PAXboy]

Thread drift
I'm not interested in Norman Foster's work one way or the other. in his defence - when he designed the STN terminal, no one guessed that the mgmt would subsequently fill it to the roof with shops and boxes and cabins and check ins. The 'open aspect' area with the view of the roof that he designed - vanished.

[davidjohnson6]

Plenty of airlines have left Terminal 1 since the start of the summer, and the bulk of what's left are due to leave by the end of next week (26th October).
It seems there will be a very small number of flights remaining at T1 from 26-Oct-2014 onwards, namely:

British Airways - Amman, Baku, Beirut, Cairo, Hannover, Luxembourg, Lyon, Marseille, Rotterdam
El Al - Tel Aviv
Icelandair - Reykjavik
TAM - Sao Paulo

Yes, really very few flights per day.

Are there plans for retail units to largely close their doors given the reduced number of passengers and for much of T1 to be substantially boarded up on 27-Oct-2014, ready for the demolition crews ? Alternatively, will the terminal remain completely open, albeit with some deserted corridors, well into 2015 ?

[Skipness One Echo]

Pier 4 and Pier 4A (The Green Mile) Domestic and ROI will be closing end of summer scheds. I suspect the remainder will stagger on.

TAM will be T3 bound, El Al to T4 with Icelandair. T4 is almost empty these days now Delta are T3 bound.

[db7]

Last couple of days for Pier 4 and Pier 4A domestic and Dublin flights. When they stop it will be the end of incoming and outgoing paxs mixing airside at LHR. Is gate 8 likely to be used for international departures? Suppose the issue would be separation of incoming paxs.

[jdcg]

All this talk of Terminal changes.... should QR not be moving to T3 and MEA in the other direction?
Also AI to T2 at some point soon?

[KelvinD]

The natives are getting restless re Heathrow. They have just discovered that, since last December, there has been a trial of slightly different departure routes.
BBC News - Heathrow airspace trials: Life under the flight path (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29597561)
One poor woman discovered one day she had "a big jumbo jet on top of her house".
Says a lot for the standard of construction of houses in Ascot, if her house could withstand all that weight!

[DaveReidUK]

The natives are getting restless re Heathrow. They have just discovered that, since last December, there has been a trial of slightly different departure routes.The trials that started last December (DOKEN1 SIDs and easterly Midhurst noise dispersion) finished in mid-June.

It's the subsequent westerly SID trial that started in late August (and which has now ended) that the BBC is getting confused about.

[Trinity 09L]

"a big jumbo jet on top of her house".
How photogenic of the BBC to provide aircraft landing pictures over properties known to be close to LHR, as opposed to 3000ft departures over Ascot.
When folk see the HAL brochure "Taking Britain further" pages 50 & 51, on the third runway plans, which also includes the construction further north & west they will conclude it will not go ahead, irrespective of employment/business development. :eek:

[KelvinD]

This is Nimbyism at its worst.
As far as I can tell, most aircraft departing in the direction of Ascot actually are turning south before they reach Ascot.
And the other poor lamb, concerned about Bagshot & Lightwater hasn't a clue what she is talking about. Any aircraft venturing in that direction are generally heading for 4 to 5 thousand feet. That is getting on for a mile above! And as for all these jumbo jets waking her up after midnight, she is having a laugh.
Add to that the location of the proposed new runway, putting departing aircraft much further away, it begins to sound like moaning for the sake of moaning.
Anyway, at the speed things move here, by the time the 3rd runway is built, there won't be a need for it. We will be getting beamed from A to B in our personal intergalactic transporter systems!
And probably the EU will have passed legislation by then prohibiting powered flight on noise and pollution grounds so look out for some bloody big gliders in the area!

[Sharklet_321]

Can someone inform me of the total number of aircraft stands at LHR

T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Cargo
Maintenance
Private
TOTAL AIRPORT STANDS

Has the airport ever reached 100% (or close to) of it's aircraft stand capacity?

[davews]

I had to look into the recent Heathrow flight trials here in Bracknell for our local Neighbourhood Action Group. The press coverage has been awful to put it mildly. It seemed started by a small group in the Ascot area who happened to have few overflights before and suddenly were under the trial routes (at 3000ft+). Bracknell councillors got on the bandwagon even though completely different routes passed over here. Yes, some of the planes came a little closer to my area but not significantly different as from what we have had for many years. FR24 tells you a lot - and a jumbo at 5000ft a mile away still looks quite large...
The trials ended yesterday, I imagine people will still complain.

[Skipness One Echo]

Total stands available here : NATS | AIS (http://www.ais.org.uk) under London Heathrow and relevant terminals. Runway capacity runs out before parking nowadays.

[118.70]

As far as I can tell, most aircraft departing in the direction of Ascot actually are turning south before they reach AscotSlides 14 and 15 of

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowNoise2/Downloads/PDFs/ascot_presentation.pdf

show the changes to routes over Ascot and the surrounding area

[Heathrow Harry]

looks like most people had less overflights but some had the whole lot very accurately placed over their houses

guess who complains???/

[Fairdealfrank]

guess who complains???/
Indeed, it's usually those living far from an airport and/or those who moved near an airport while fully aware of it's existance and the implications thereof.

You get the same nonsense from people who move next door to pubs......

[AerRyan]

Hows the decision on the third runway doing? Or is it Boris Island that will be persued:ok:

[PAXboy]

No answer until after the election and then made by people who are not politicians so the politicians can claim innocence (!).

Boris island is already off the table. There are threads in this forum specifically talkinh about this if you search.

[DaveReidUK]

A cynic might suggest that the decision was made some time ago, it's just the announcement that has to wait until after the election. :O

[anothertyke]

A different cynic might say that the recommendation by Davies and the decision might not be the same thing. Who can say who will be in power on May 8?

[ETOPS]

Here's a new video showing Airlines, Airports and Routes featuring Heathrow.

NATS - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/NATSATCO1)

[DaveReidUK]

Bad link. Did you mean this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8CQ29yWvZI

[Bagso]

And Easyjet now circling Heathrow IF of course it gets RW3 although with emergence of UKIP, who are against expansion and some animosity in The North which has emerged since the enquiry started the whole thing is back in the melting pot.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8596d4c2-6ef7-11e4-8d86-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3JWZzfxRK

Interesting story.....

Increase in charges based on RW" at LGW would wipe out profit !

also

"We are in confidential discussions with Gatwick and Heathrow.”

No wonder LGW is pushing hard, as I have said before with a glut of slots you could shut LGW down.

[Skipness One Echo]

No serious party thinks a third runway at LHR would close LGW......

[DaveReidUK]

No serious party thinks a third runway at LHR would close LGW......Are Heathrow still arguing, as they were last year, that a second Gatwick runway "could lead to the decline or even closure of LHR" ?

[Gonzo]

No insider knowledge here, but surely it's obvious why Easy prefer LHR R3 to LGW R2....?

LHR gets new runway.

Many carriers move from LGW to LHR.

That frees up lots of spare capacity at LGW for Easy to expand into and increase their punctuality, all without paying for it.

It's what I'd want, if I was them!

[Fairdealfrank]

And Easyjet now circling Heathrow IF of course it gets RW3 although with emergence of UKIP, who are against expansion and some animosity in The North which has emerged since the enquiry started the whole thing is back in the melting pot.
If LHR is ever in a position where slots are freely available and delays and aggravation caused by operating at 100% capacity are eliminated, it becomes logical that U2 would be interested in LHR ops:

(1) it helps it to chase business travellers;
(2) it can take on BA at LGW and LHR;
(3) it can use the availability of an LHR move to drive a better deal with the LGW managers.

Think a small U2 operation at LHR is highly likely if expansion takes place, and this would be in addition to LGW, not instead of. Wouldn't expect the likes of FR to be doing likewise.

As for "some animosity in The North" that maybe more to do with the lack of infrastructure expenditure generally, especially on the railways. There are also many in the north (and other parts of the country) who want LHR expansion so that their areas can once again be connected to the UK hub, and, in some cases, for their local airports to survive and thrive.




http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8596d4c2-6...#axzz3JWZzfxRK (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8596d4c2-6ef7-11e4-8d86-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3JWZzfxRK)

Interesting story.....

Increase in charges based on RW" at LGW would wipe out profit !

also

"We are in confidential discussions with Gatwick and Heathrow.”

No wonder LGW is pushing hard, as I have said before with a glut of slots you could shut LGW down.
Story appears to be behind a paywall.

Have often stated that it is very likely that the exodus from LGW to LHR (the "waiting room", VS and BA longhaul) would be compensated at least in part by an exodus from the likes of LTN and STN, unless LGW does something stupid like hiking its charges over the odds. This being the case, the requirement for a second rwy at LGW becomes less urgent.



Are Heathrow still arguing, as they were last year, that a second Gatwick runway "could lead to the decline or even closure of LHR" ?
Well it would, wouldn't it! Entirely to be expected.



No insider knowledge here, but surely it's obvious why Easy prefer LHR R3 to LGW R2....?

LHR gets new runway.

Many carriers move from LGW to LHR.

That frees up lots of spare capacity at LGW for Easy to expand into and increase their punctuality, all without paying for it.

It's what I'd want, if I was them!
Indeed, and as mentioned above, the opportunity for U2 to start LHR ops.

[anothertyke]

But wouldn't it be nice if a few airlines said 'We really welcome new capacity where we fly, we are confident our customers will pay £10 per one way extra and we will be looking to apply for and take up slots which suit our operation.' At the moment it feels like we have some regulated airport operators who are very keen and some commercial airlines who are not quite so keen.

[Logohu]

Perhaps some of the airlines currently at LHR wouldn't be too disappointed to see the status quo remain.

The last thing they probably want is to face the brunt of new or more competition muscling in on their patch from lower cost rivals such as Easyjet or Emirates etc, and also see the current value of their LHR slot portfolio depleted.

Just an alternative viewpoint (dons tin hat and retreats to trenches)

[Fairdealfrank]

But wouldn't it be nice if a few airlines said 'We really welcome new capacity where we fly, we are confident our customers will pay £10 per one way extra and we will be looking to apply for and take up slots which suit our operation.' At the moment it feels like we have some regulated airport operators who are very keen and some commercial airlines who are not quite so keen.


Yes. Unfortunately there are no slots to apply for. With expansion this would change, and AFAIK, they are allocated 50% for incumbents and 50% for new entrants, and the secondary slot market diappears.


Perhaps some of the airlines currently at LHR wouldn't be too disappointed to see the status quo remain.

The last thing they probably want is to face the brunt of new or more competition muscling in on their patch from lower cost rivals such as Easyjet or Emirates etc, and also see the current value of their LHR slot portfolio depleted.

Just an alternative viewpoint (dons tin hat and retreats to trenches)

Maybe, but it's a double edged sword.

The incumbent carriers that don't want to "face the brunt of new or more competition muscling in on their patch from lower cost rivals such as Easyjet or Emirates etc, and also see the current value of their LHR slot portfolio depleted" would also be prevented from growing/expanding their own businesses.

[dash6]

You have only to listen to any broadcast from Central London to realise why Heathrow should close,apart from all the congestion and lack of space for expansion. Why not "Boris Island" Aligned 23/05 with at least 6 runways with transport links north and South along a barrier across the estuary opening up East Kent and Essex and generating tidal power for the airport? Think big!
Of course,any political party that starts it will have it immediately cancelled by the next government,like most of our potentially great aviation achievements.
Heathrow has been a millstone round the neck of commercial aviation,in Britain,for decades.It's about time we bit the bullet.

[TopBunk]

Heathrow has been a millstone round the neck of commercial aviation,in Britain,for decades.It's about time we bit the bullet.

It is not Heathrow that is the millstone, it is the gutless politicians that are the problem. Also, the millstone is not just around the neck of commercial aviation, but around UK PLC.

[Bagso]

Come May a few of those "gutless" politicians might not actually be there to even make the decision now anyway !

[Fairdealfrank]

You have only to listen to any broadcast from Central London to realise why Heathrow should close,apart from all the congestion and lack of space for expansion.
Do you mean Boris? Even he's gone quiet on the idea of closing Heathrow, suggesting that it could survive as an "Orly-style airport":

"As for the existing hub at Heathrow, you could keep an Orly-style airport"

First stage in abandoning the estauary and backing Heathrow?

Perhaps it's the "Uxbridge" effect?





Why not "Boris Island" Aligned 23/05 with at least 6 runways with transport links north and South along a barrier across the estuary opening up East Kent and Essex and generating tidal power for the airport? Think big! Of course,any political party that starts it will have it immediately cancelled by the next government,like most of our potentially great aviation achievements.
Your argument would carry more weight if you were arguing for (1) a new airport easily accessible from all of the UK, i.e. to the west/north west of London, and (2) an airport a little nearer to London.

But even if a new airport was to be built, Heathrow still needs expansion in the interim, so we might as well stick with it.


Heathrow has been a millstone round the neck of commercial aviation,in Britain,for decades.It's about time we bit the bullet.
So you say, but the evidence suggests otherwise. 70,000,000+ pax (who have other choices) cannot be wrong.

Airlines are falling over themselves and spending millions to acquire LHR slots, and the very fast exodus from LGW by American carriers at the ending of the "Bermuda 2" arrangements doesn't exactly suggest "a millstone round the neck of commercial aviation,in Britain,for decades". You cannot be serious.



It is not Heathrow that is the millstone, it is the gutless politicians that are the problem. Also, the millstone is not just around the neck of commercial aviation, but around UK PLC.
Indeed, nicely put.



Come May a few of those "gutless" politicians might not actually be there to even make the decision now anyway !
One would think so, but even well publicised expenses abuses wasn't enough to unseat many MPs.

[dash6]

What is the Uxbridge effect? Accessibility will sort itself out,as will the airline slot system.If you build it,they will come. If you call it "Heathrow East" most customers won't notice the difference. The reference to broadcasts from London simply refers to the background aircraft noise,not the whining of politicians.

[EI-BUD]

It makes total sense from the perspective of easyJet to oppose 2nd runway @ LGW in favour of 3rd @ LHR.

They maintain their scale at LGW, and less room for an absolute invasion by other LOCO's at the airport. LGW will remain london airport #2, so it will suit easyJet to remain #1 there. An additional runway could change all that as it could provide as serious opportunity for FR DY VY etc to expand there.

An additional expansion of runway capacity @ LHR would give ezy a golden opportunity to fly head to head against much higher cost rivals. Let's call it a honey pot , one where FR will be unwilling to go.

So from an Easyjet perspective it's all about the relative cost position. Expand LHR and challenge higher cost rivals, and disable LGW where rivals tend to be lower cost eg DY, FR, VY etc.

[PAXboy]

dash6
If you call it "Heathrow East" most customers won't notice the difference.
Oh yes they would! Once they discover that their (say) less than 1hr to the airport is now 2hrs.

Example, I've lived in West Hertfordshire and North London for 30 years. Going to the Isle of Man was a doddle from LTN. Now I have to schlep to LGW because I have no choice.

I return to LHR on Monday morning and am very glad that it's not to a 2nd at LGW or an island even further away.

Also, to repeat myself from other threads, Britain is broke and the cost for a new airport does not exist. Forget that it would be 'paid for by commercial companies' the UK would have to put an inordinate amount of govt, local govt time and money and effort into legislation and approving new infrastructure. It would have to be squeezed into spaces already tight. Consider the enormous problems of Cross-Rail construction for an example.

[dash6]

Cross rail. Yes there were problems,but now it is nearly complete.One day it will perhaps connect you to the great eastern airport from your rural retreat? Infrastructure never gets any cheaper.

[Fairdealfrank]

What is the Uxbridge effect?
The Uxbridge effect is very simple: Boris is Conservative parliamentary candidate there, he knows very well that a large proportion of his future electorate works on the airport, and continuing to advocate its closure is not doing himself any favours electorally.


Accessibility will sort itself out,as will the airline slot system.If you build it,they will come.
The case of Montreal-Mirabel says otherwise.

It is clearly not the case, otherwise the concept of closing Heathrow would never have surfaced. It is patently obvious that pax, premium pax in particular, want to use LHR, and therefore so do the carriers.


If you call it "Heathrow East" most customers won't notice the difference.
If you call what "Heathrow East"?


The reference to broadcasts from London simply refers to the background aircraft noise,not the whining of politicians.
If aircraft noise under the flightpath and in London was really as bad as is implied, it would be reflected in property prices.

It is not that bad now (ask any flightpath resident who is old enough to remember the really noisy jets of the 1960s/1970s) and certainly won't be by the time any new rwy opens.

[Trinity 09L]

From the Heathrow publication " Taking Britain Further".
Heathrow East will be what old folk called the CTA, Term's 1,2,& 3. Heathrow West will be an enlarged & extended T5 westwards engulfing the north/south road from Staines to Uxbridge, used by non M25 traffic, and as a major freight & airport services road. Term 4 exists on the plan, but is not named on the "refreshed plan" :confused:

[PAXboy]

Cross rail. Yes there were problems, but now it is nearly complete.Crossrail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail)
The concept of large-diameter railway tunnels crossing central London to connect Paddington and Liverpool Street main-line stations was proposed by railwayman George Dow in the London newspaper The Star in June 1941.
[edit]
It is due to begin full operation in 2018

One day it will perhaps connect you to the great eastern airport from your rural retreat?
I don't think I mentioned 'rural', I have always lived in a town, or within 12 minutes of a London bound railway station. Never rural.

Infrastructure never gets any cheaper.Indeed, which is why LHR should have been expanded 30 years ago.

[Fairdealfrank]

Heathrow East/West?
From the Heathrow publication " Taking Britain Further".
Heathrow East will be what old folk called the CTA, Term's 1,2,& 3. Heathrow West will be an enlarged & extended T5 westwards engulfing the north/south road from Staines to Uxbridge, used by non M25 traffic, and as a major freight & airport services road.



dash6 stated: "You have only to listen to any broadcast from Central London to realise why Heathrow should close,apart from all the congestion and lack of space for expansion. Why not "Boris Island" Aligned 23/05 with at least 6 runways with transport links north and South along a barrier across the estuary opening up East Kent and Essex and generating tidal power for the airport? Think big!"

and later: "If you build it,they will come. If you call it "Heathrow East" most customers won't notice the difference."

Not sure that it was a reference to the central terminal area of Heathrow.

[Fairdealfrank]

Heathrow East/West?
From the Heathrow publication " Taking Britain Further".
Heathrow East will be what old folk called the CTA, Term's 1,2,& 3. Heathrow West will be an enlarged & extended T5 westwards engulfing the north/south road from Staines to Uxbridge, used by non M25 traffic, and as a major freight & airport services road.

dash6 stated: "You have only to listen to any broadcast from Central London to realise why Heathrow should close,apart from all the congestion and lack of space for expansion. Why not "Boris Island" Aligned 23/05 with at least 6 runways with transport links north and South along a barrier across the estuary opening up East Kent and Essex and generating tidal power for the airport? Think big!"

and later: "If you build it,they will come. If you call it "Heathrow East" most customers won't notice the difference."

Not sure that it was a reference to the central terminal area of Heathrow.

[DaveReidUK]

Not sure that it was a reference to the central terminal area of Heathrow.

No, it clearly wasn't in this case, although I agree that the term is normally used in the context of the CTA, or more particularly the eastern elements of the toast rack that will eventually stretch from the BA base to the M25.

[Trinity 09L]

Well BAA seem to be using "East" as their EAST, renaming terminals in the CTA, and renaming and expanding T5 as WEST (with further expansion). Maybe they have taken the copyright as well. Will T4 become the "freight" terminal?:E

[DaveReidUK]

renaming terminals in the CTAAFAIK there are no plans to rename any of the terminals. Heathrow's plans (assuming R3 approval) show, reading from east to west:

T2A + satellites
T5A + satellites
T6A (which also has a satellite, but that's not part of the toast rack)

[Trinity 09L]

I do not wish to post the link "Taking Britain Further" (it may go wrong) but it is readily available thru' many search engines. The diagram on page 25 shows Heathrow EAST & WEST. On page 51 item 8 on the page, is described as "two main passenger terminal and public transport areas". You may note that T5 extends further west to engulf the north south road.
This is what I rely on in describing East & West.

[DaveReidUK]

You may note that T5 extends further west to engulf the north south road.There are no plans to extend T5.

The building shown to its west (beyond the MSCP) is T6. Together, they would collectively be known as "Heathrow West" (also referred to in various Heathrow documents as the "Western Front Door" and "Western Campus").

Similarly T2 and, for the time being, T3 are collectively referred to as "Heathrow East", "Eastern Front Door" and "Eastern Campus".

[Trinity 09L]

DRUK
If T6 is built west of the MSCP of T5, and then they both become Heathrow West, so it is not an extension? T6 was originally North of the airport with the 3rd runway.
The A304 will be moved for the comfort of this "extension" as it is on the plan, together with the disappearance of the A4 Bath Road. None of the consultants at the local briefing could explain about the movement of these roads.
Neither could they explain fully the ability of all aircraft to "touch down further along the runways to reduce noise" :hmm:
T09L

[DaveReidUK]

If T6 is built west of the MSCP of T5, and then they both become Heathrow West, so it is not an extension?OK, have it your way. :O

T6 was originally North of the airport with the 3rd runway.Yes, the original 2009 proposal for a shorter northern R3 of 2200m showed a T6 sitting slap on top of the M4 spur.

The A304 will be moved for the comfort of this "extension" as it is on the plan, together with the disappearance of the A4 Bath Road. None of the consultants at the local briefing could explain about the movement of these roads.The latest plan I've seen does indeed appear to suggest the A4 Colnbrook Bypass being interrupted by R3 and T6B and the A4 re-routed along the original Bath Road route (through Colnbrook and Poyle) to a roundabout just west of the M25 (by the golf range), then tunnelling under the airport to resurface and join the original A4 at the Hatch Lane junction.

It's not altogether surprising that they are being coy about publicising that. :O

Re the A3044/Stanwell Moor Road, that's replaced by a link road west of the M25 from the aforesaid roundabout to the J14 roundabout, then via Airport Way to rejoin its original route.

Neither could they explain fully the ability of all aircraft to "touch down further along the runways to reduce noise"That features in a number of Heathrow's recent presentation documents, which talk about displaced thresholds of around 700m on the current runways. That would result in aircraft being about 120ft higher at any point on the approach, which would have a fairly minimal effect on noise.

[Bagso]

Maybe a sign that Heathrow is getting desperate when they are seen be paying various Chambers Of Commerce to in effect support them.

Ironically the list of supporting members is not in the regions where the routes are really required !

The Manchester Evening News refers

[Global_Global]

Accessibility will sort itself out,as will the airline slot system.If you build it,they will come.

You sound like a Spanish local politician now..... There are about a dozen new empty airports in Spain.... ;););););););););););)

[AerRyan]

Nice difference from the 3rd largest airport in the world and these ghost airports in spain hundreds of miles from cities:P

[Fairdealfrank]

Yes, the original 2009 proposal for a shorter northern R3 of 2200m showed a T6 sitting slap on top of the M4 spur.
And if they got it right, slap on top of the railway between Airport Junction and Heathrow-1 2 3, but that history now, apparently.



The latest plan I've seen does indeed appear to suggest the A4 Colnbrook Bypass being interrupted by R3 and T6B and the A4 re-routed along the original Bath Road route (through Colnbrook and Poyle) to a roundabout just west of the M25 (by the golf range), then tunnelling under the airport to resurface and join the original A4 at the Hatch Lane junction.
My intepretation is slightly different (if we're looking at the same document "Taking Britain Further" booklet, page 25):the A4 remains the Colnbrook Bypass north of Colnbrook, then joins the old A4 through Poyle industrial estate to the M25 then disappears (tunnel?). It reappears above the airport tunnel entrance junnction (A408).


That features in a number of Heathrow's recent presentation documents, which talk about displaced thresholds of around 700m on the current runways. That would result in aircraft being about 120ft higher at any point on the approach, which would have a fairly minimal effect on noise. Not a problem, aircraft will be significantly quieter (and cleaner) by the time any new rwy is built, if it ever is.

[DaveReidUK]

There have indeed been a number of different versions of the NW runway proposal since it was moved south from its original line. Your guess is as good as mine as to which is the most recent.

Other differences between the TBF version and the one I'm looking at include the presence or absence of the "Commercial Zone" between the runways, ditto the fuel farm between T5 and the CTA, and the size and positioning of T6A and its satellite(s).

[Skipness One Echo]

Interview: Daniel Moylan – “Boris will never surrender his vision of building a great new airport east of London” | Conservative Home (http://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2014/11/interview-daniel-moylan-boris-will-never-surrender-his-vision-of-building-a-great-new-airport-east-of-london.html#idc-container)

BoJo's mini me clone is banging the drum for his master again.....

[DaveReidUK]

Whether one agrees with Boris's aspirations or not, it's hard to argue with his proposition that the DfT seems to have given up on having an aviation policy.

[NWSRG]

First trip through T2 this week...a couple of observations.

1. The main building is calm...noise seems subdued, and it's good!
2. The building is also a sensible temperature...comfortable, rather than the usual sauna!
3. Walking to the Heathrow Express takes an eternity! So much so, that one the return journey, I chose to walk to T1 and across the footpath to T2. Seems as if the T2 access to the train is via the T3 connection rather than the T1 end?

Also, are the southern gates designed to eventually meet up with the 4 new A380 gates in T3? Looks as if they would line up nicely...

[PAXboy]

Where can I find the rules that govern the Cabs working at LHR? The main website has this: Heathrow: Airport Taxi | Book a Taxi to or From Heathrow (http://www.heathrowairport.com/transport-and-directions/taxis-and-minicabs) but that doesn't tell you the rules under which they operate!

[Fairdealfrank]

Interview: Daniel Moylan – “Boris will never surrender his vision of building a great new airport east of London” | Conservative Home (http://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2014/11/interview-daniel-moylan-boris-will-never-surrender-his-vision-of-building-a-great-new-airport-east-of-london.html#idc-container)

BoJo's mini me clone is banging the drum for his master again.....
Moylan's aviation experience is......?

Don't want to sound disrespectful, but two words come to mind: "organ grinder" and "monkey".

As for the estuary airport option, that particular ship sailed ages ago, 1974 to be precise.

Support for LHR expansion is not "quasi Marxist". The point is that LHR is full now, not in 25 years time. Even if the estuary airport was to be built, something has to be done in the interim, i.e. expanding LHR.

So it's common sense to expand LHR and not waste time and money on the estuary airport

[Trinity 09L]

Paxboy
The London taxi is regulated by either TFL or the Public Carriage Office (formerly a Met Police branch). All taxi's are licensed and all fares will be on the meter from the point of departure, (not starting at the taxi rank outside as a little fiddle in the past). All points of arrival within the GLA or TFL area are on the meter. No taxi driver should show you a price list. If outside the above areas then it is by agreement, and it is unlikely the taxi will take you.
The driver should not refuse taking you to anywhere within the GLA area.
By example a few years ago before Staines was expelled from GLA/MPD the driver said no, I said yes it is still in London = bad luck. They always want the big fare to Central London.
Hope this helps and is not out of date or critical of taxi's. The TFL website is best.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/
T09L

[Heathrow Harry]

If Heathrow is full then whop the prices up - straight capitalist economics.....

You'd soon get a bit of spare capacity, and more importantly, everyone would be making the vast investment in the place more economically efficient

[PAXboy]

MANY thanks Trinity 09L. The journey was unexpected and well outside the GLA, so we knew it was bad. Also, as I was recovering from a serious illness, and it was very cold we had no time (or mental energy) to fight.

So I'm gathering information to decide if what happened was legal. Thus far, it appears to be price fixing between BAA plc and those drivers that chose the nice long jobs. I'll let you know in due course.

[Trinity 09L]

I do not think BAA have any influence over taxi fares, it is TFL, and as you say outside the TFL area it is open season for the drivers. Always better to pre book your car from a local company to your area to collect you.
T09L

[PAXboy]

I know 100% to pre-book and we did but out situation was:


Journey postponed 24 hrs by ilness (mine)
Tuesday 07:30 and 17hrs since leaving my sister's house
cold
me exhausted and still experiencing an illness that drained me (although Doctor approved me to travel).

The mini-cab company tell me cheerily on the phone that they got the cancellation form the previous day and did NOT get the confirmation so they are not there.


an hour to wait for them
or get in a cab?

Obviously there is no choice but what concerns me was that - since it was outside the GLA - we were presented with 'the agreed trip/rate book by the cabs serving LHR'.

In that, you told them the town, and paid what the book said. No choice. Since BAA tell us that they work with three cab firms, someone has agreed the prices to be paid.

NOW, I have no objections to getting in a cab and paying the metered rate. I don't mind negotiating a 'meter off' rate. But I stronlgy object to BAA and three cab companies giving me a stitched up price.

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting package of 10 proposed short- to medium-term noise mitigation measures announced in the last couple of days, presumably a reaction to the adverse PR generated by the recent flightpath trials:

1 Encouraging remaining operators of Chapter 3 aircraft at LHR to phase them out

2 Encouraging operators of A320 family aircraft to embody the FOPP airflow deflector mod

3 Targetting airlines with poor CDA performance

4 Reducing inconsistent deployment of landing gear on approach

5 Trialling 3.25° approaches

6 Changes to nighttime runway alternation

7 Accelerated school double-glazing programme

8 More igloos for Hounslow primary schools

9 Increased fines for operators breaching departure noise limits

10 Improving late-night departure punctuality

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowNoise2/Downloads/PDFs/heathrow_noise_blueprint.pdf

[Heathrow Harry]

all desperate measures to solve an unsolvable problem Dave

[sam dilly]

I came into T5 this afternoon at 16.00, none of the E gates were working !

[Trinity 09L]

To use 1974 noise figures as a base which will include Tridents, 1-11, 727, 707, DC-8 Tristars, maybe even a VC-10, will always show an improvement.
Also surprised the westerly approach over London is shorter than area covered in the west for easterlies. The footprint also misses the approaches for the cross runway (which was still in use)?

[DaveReidUK]

Also surprised the westerly approach over London is shorter than area covered in the west for easterlies.Most of the lobes on the contours correspond to the NPRs, i.e. for departing traffic, so it's reasonable to expect a larger area to the west.

The footprint also misses the approaches for the cross runway (which was still in use)?Yes, Runway 2 was certainly in use in 1974, mostly for landings on 23. But the Lden contours are a weighted annual average value, so the relatively small number of movements on that runway would have very little effect on the noise footprint calculation.

Good intro to noise contours here:

Measuring the impact of continuous noise | Noise | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2832&pagetype=90&pageid=16163)

[Trinity 09L]

As I pointed out to the well paid consultants **of BAA, who were unable to justify their noise abatement figures.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point."

BTW, I moved to the vicinity of LHR in 1973, and no axe to grind.
** = who did not know what a Trident was, or were born in 1973 :rolleyes:

Just found this comment elsewhere
"I know it's the last weekend in November but Gatwick this quiet hardly does the arguments for expansion any favours"

[WHBM]

I came into T5 this afternoon at 16.00, none of the E gates were working !
It's been like this off and on ever since the millions were spent on their introduction, likewise (even worse) their predecessor automated rapid-reader system called Iris, which was introduced in 2004. This previous system required you to register at a desk in departures, which was hardly ever open.

As I understand it there is a continuing issue with the union representing the immigration officers, whose numbers would be reduced if these systems were widely built and installed. At least the e-gates do not seem to suffer from the Iris issue of having chewing gum inserted in the reader at quiet moments, putting them out of action......

[WHBM]

2 Encouraging operators of A320 family aircraft to embody the FOPP airflow deflector mod
The Link Special: Fuel Efficiency (http://www.airbus.com/link_newsletter/link_spe14_FE02/link_special_fuel_efficiency_february_2014.html#_Noise_Reduc ing_Airflow)


The A320 has been in service for a quarter of a century. However has it taken this long to come up with what is apparently quite a straightforward aerodynamic mod for that howl they generate when passing overhead on approach. Reducing by 11 dBA is a significant reduction.

[WHBM]

Paxboy
The London taxi is regulated by either TFL or the Public Carriage Office (formerly a Met Police branch). All taxi's are licensed and all fares will be on the meter from the point of departureNot really so. This only applies to trips inward towards London. Heathrow Airport is right on the very western edge of this designated area, in fact it had to be modified when T5 opened, and for any journeys west, south or north the Public Carriage Office of TfL thinks these destinations are in some parallel universe, "nuffin' to do with us, mate". Our office in Slough has a local taxi firm who charge £12 to the airport. Coming the other way we have had standoffs with black cab drivers demanding, meterless, up to £80 - especially for those in a business suit for whom English is not their first language.

All points of arrival within the GLA or TFL area are on the meter.I wonder how many potential users know the boundaries of these two acronyms, or what they even mean, let alone how the two areas differ from one another.

[Trinity 09L]

WHBM
I had hoped I explained it sufficiently re boundaries, and likewise I would imagine visitors have no "knowledge" like London cabbies.
Surprisingly, T5 was within the old boundaries, (ie Perry Oaks farm)but the cabbies managed to persuade Transport for London (TFL) that they would have to drive on the M25 to get back to London :=
I to use a local company to and from LHR, and persuade my visitors to do the same.

[Heathrow Harry]

Going west from LHR you really are stuck with one of the buses to somewhere were you can get a local taxi if you haven't pre-booked

When/if they open the line to Slough & Reading it will improve but Heathrow Express are bidding to run that "with our unrivalled expertise" - at running the most expensive railway trip in the world....... :yuk::yuk:

[Skipness One Echo]

When/if they open the line to Slough & Reading it will improve but Heathrow Express are bidding to run that "with our unrivalled expertise" - at running the most expensive railway trip in the world......
Or just use Crossrail, which will with any luck, kill Heathrow Express stone dead.

[Fairdealfrank]

If Heathrow is full then whop the prices up - straight capitalist economics.....

Already been done, but capitalism is long gone, it's been replaced by "corporate cronyism".


All points of arrival within the GLA or TFL area are on the meter.


Do they not cover the same area? Isn't TFL a department of the Mayor's Office/Greater London Assembly, rather than a geographical entity, a new name for what used to be London Regional Transport?

[Trinity 09L]

FDF
Taxi world, I have no up to date info other than website. I believe you are correct re area. The oddity was/is that Red Ken kept the GLA area to London Boroughs, but Staines had a portion of the airport (and still does?), cargo and T5 land, so the boundaries moved.
TFL the collected cabs from the Met Police in the GLA power struggle.
The 3rd runway area may even extend into Berkshire and/or Bucks territory :uhoh:

[DaveReidUK]

The 3rd runway area may even extend into Berkshire and/or Bucks territoryNo danger of it extending into Berkshire as that hasn't existed as a LA since 1998.

The NW runway plan extends into the Slough BC area and the Heathrow Hub proposal somewhat further west into the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead.

[WHBM]

Or just use Crossrail, which will with any luck, kill Heathrow Express stone dead.
What will actually kill the Heathrow Express is they have a 25-year concession to operate on the national railway. They started in 1998 and thus this expires in 2023. Given all the adverse publicity they have had over time about excessive fare levels this is unlikely to be renewed. So, they have less than 9 years to go.

Crossrail starts in 2018, absorbing the Heathrow Connect service and also operating at an increased frequency, so there will be an overlap. It will doubtless hit HEx in their revenue stream, maybe to such an extent that they negotiate to sell out in advance. Crossrail are playing their cards close to their chest on how they are going to handle the commercial relationship with Heathrow, they have said nothing official yet about Oyster cards being used, but it is certainly their intention, and difficult to see how it could work with anything else. It will be interesting to see how HEx handle the competition

[Skipness One Echo]

Don't HAL own HEX? They do own the spur into the airport. The high fares were justified as a necessary ROI.

[Heathrow Harry]

to use Crossrail to the west you will have to go to Hayes and change

The direct line will link to Langley with trains from Reading

BBC News - Heathrow rail link plan unveiled by Network Rail (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26064200)

[Trinity 09L]

A 5km (3m) rail tunnel under the M4 and M25 would link Terminal 5 with Langley and Iver to the railway to the West.
So a tunnel for the rail link under the M25 before the M25 enters a tunnel to go under the new runway before a steep climb to get over the M4.
A lot of tunnelling jobs available, and a lot of water west of LHR. :bored:

[118.70]

Would the tunnel for the rail-link to the West be the same tunnel as the spur to Heathrow for HS2 ? Or is that another one ?

(The published HS2 spur plans had it going over the top of the M4/M25 interchange on the east of the M25 - but that was already a switch-back ride before the suggestion of a third runway would make it impossible.)

[Superpilot]

Saw a front page (OK, second page) double sized piece in yesterday's Evening Standard about an expansion idea that instead of creating a third runway would end up "extending" and "splitting" the Northern strip complete with a 650m buffer zone. Never heard this idea being mentioned before. The "brainchild" of a former Concorde pilot aparrently. What are people's thoughts?

[Heathrow Harry]

"Would the tunnel for the rail-link to the West be the same tunnel as the spur to Heathrow for HS2 ? Or is that another one ?"

Doesn't look like it - the Langley tunnel comes in from the NW whereas I suspect the HS2 spur will have to come in from Old Oak Common almost certainly along the Heathrow Express Link - they're in the process of adding another bridge over the West Coast Main Line on that routing for crossrail services and a bigger station at H&H

[Trinity 09L]

"West Coast Main Line" :eek:
Isambard Kingdom Brunel will be disappointed with that description of GWR line.
More tunnel spotters than aviation spotters in the future at LHR the biggest unfinished airport in the UK.

[DaveReidUK]

Saw a front page (OK, second page) double sized piece in yesterday's Evening Standard about an expansion idea that instead of creating a third runway would end up "extending" and "splitting" the Northern strip complete with a 650m buffer zone. Never heard this idea being mentioned before. The "brainchild" of a former Concorde pilot aparrently. What are people's thoughts?You'll find lots of discussion of this proposal in the various threads dealing with airport strategy (including this one).

Search the Airlines, Airports and Routes forum for "Heathrow Hub", or alternatively for "makeweight".

[Bagso]

Tonights Standard

Heathrow accused of 'faking support' in airport expansion battle - Transport - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/heathrow-accused-of-faking-support-in-airport-expansion-battle-9899734.html)

Perish the thought......

[Bagso]

Incidentally does anybody know UKIPS stance on slots.

They are very much against expansion but yesterday Howard Davies was asked to review UKIPs slot idea. Problem is I cannot find the idea....

I assume its congestion charging ?

[DaveReidUK]

From UKIP Hillingdon's web site:

"I have already taken up with representatives of Heathrow Airport Ltd that they accommodate too many short haul flights for a supposed hub airport and are taking up valuable long distance slots with smaller aircraft"

"Currently, the runways are operating at 98% capacity but the terminals are operating way below that, in the main caused by airlines with historic slot allocations filling them with empty or almost empty aircraft to deny rivals the ability to land"

"Firstly, look at the ‘Grandfather rights’ granted to airlines on slots at Heathrow and how some of the airlines fill them with empty aircraft just to deny airspace to their rivals. "

"By revisiting these ‘grandfather rights’ and moving the majority of short haul flights from Heathrow to Gatwick, Luton and Stansted it will free up the slots for the heavier traffic that Heathrow needs as a ‘hub’ airport for the transcontinental flights (Which are the main reason given for building the third runway.)"

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

The PPRuNe AA&R moderators have recently requested [on 'MANCHESTER - 9'] that very long postings not be submitted on these forums.

I have prepared a very detailed summary of proceedings at yesterday's 'Runways UK' capacity consultation event held at Manchester Airport. LHR and LGW feature very prominently as you would expect. Many high profile figures participated including Sir Howard Davies himself and several prominent aviation industry CEO's.

I am going to respect the moderator's wishes that such a monster six-part posting not be put up here on PPRuNe. However, if you would like to read it, please visit the skyscrapercity website. Search for 'Manchester Metropolitan Area - Greater Manchester Transport Projects - Airport'.

You will find the comprehensive six-parter on the 'Airport' thread pages 343-344. it is NOT a quick read. Enjoy!

[Fairdealfrank]

From UKIP Hillingdon's web site:

"I have already taken up with representatives of Heathrow Airport Ltd that they accommodate too many short haul flights for a supposed hub airport and are taking up valuable long distance slots with smaller aircraft"

Oh dear, this is an elementary mistake, a hub airport needs short haul feeder flights for its long haul routes. Business demands frequency on short haul, hence smaller planes more often.


"Currently, the runways are operating at 98% capacity but the terminals are operating way below that, in the main caused by airlines with historic slot allocations filling them with empty or almost empty aircraft to deny rivals the ability to land"


The new terminals offer plenty of capacity, needs to be matched by rwy capacity, obviously.


"Firstly, look at the ‘Grandfather rights’ granted to airlines on slots at Heathrow and how some of the airlines fill them with empty aircraft just to deny airspace to their rivals. "

"By revisiting these ‘grandfather rights’ and moving the majority of short haul flights from Heathrow to Gatwick, Luton and Stansted it will free up the slots for the heavier traffic that Heathrow needs as a ‘hub’ airport for the transcontinental flights (Which are the main reason given for building the third runway.)"


Not that simple now they have allowed a secondary slot market to develop because of the scarcity of slots. There are also "use it or lose it rules", as well as "slot surrender" requirements when carriers do joint ventures or buy one another.


Interesting, it appears that Hillingdon UKIP are aviation experts, just like the mayor's advisor..........

[c52]

Someone explain to me why, in the national interest, airlines should not be required to fly an A380 to New York every hour instead of 3 757s every hour (or whatever the true figure/type is).

That approach would free a fair number of slots.

[DaveReidUK]

Someone explain to me why, in the national interest, airlines should not be required to fly an A380 to New York every hour instead of 3 757s every hour (or whatever the true figure/type is).

How would that be "in the national interest" ?

[Heathrow Harry]

we wouldn't have to pay to expand LHR for a start Dave...............

[DaveReidUK]

we wouldn't have to pay to expand LHR for a start Dave...............

But the proposition is based on a fallacy..

You can't just take the total traffic on a given route, divide by an A380's capacity, and then operate at whatever frequency that equates to. :ugh:

[c52]

Why is that a fallacy?

If you look at the putative billions in lost trade that arise to the UK because there isn't a direct flight to somewhere or other, the inconvenience caused by consolidating flights should be trivial in comparison. If it's so many billions, the state could pay the market rate for slots that airlines are deprived of.

Airlines could be given a few years to acquire 77Ws/748s/380s for the role.

[DaveReidUK]

the inconvenience caused by consolidating flights should be trivial in comparisonSorry, but you clearly have no idea how the airline industry operates, in particular the competitive advantage that results from providing frequency (one of the reasons, in fact, that Little Red has failed to compete effectively with BA on UK domestic routes).

Airlines could be given a few years to acquire 77Ws/748s/380s for the roleIf airlines were compelled only to use wide-body aircraft at LHR the runway capacity problem would disappear overnight, because many of the routes flown by the narrow-body types that account for two-thirds of all Heathrow movements would no longer be viable.

[c52]

I asked for an explanation - I do have very little idea of airline operations.

I'm sure my suggestion would not apply to a route such as EDI or FRA, but some destinations seem overserved by too-small aircraft. 198 flights a week to New York using relatively small a/c isn't a good use of scarce slots.

[DaveReidUK]

I'm sure my suggestion would not apply to a route such as EDI or FRA, but some destinations seem overserved by too-small aircraft. 198 flights a week to New York using relatively small a/c isn't a good use of scarce slots.But even the New York example doesn't stand up to examination.

The only narrow-body aircraft used on that route are 757s, as you rightly say, but hardly "3 every hour". In fact there are only 2 757 flights a day (3 on Sundays and Mondays), and those are to Newark (all JFK flights are wide-bodies).

So consolidating those, even if feasible, would hardly "free a fair number of slots".

[Skipness One Echo]

No, but this is a market economy not a planned economy and airlines fly routes that make money. LHR-JFK/EWR is profitable due to high loads down the pointy end which cross susidises good deals down the back. To make sure you fill the pointy end you need frequency not capacity.

There's a reason why BA don't fly A380s to New York but all the other BA/AA/UA/VS/DL/KU flights are on wide body aircraft as Dave has said.

[CabinCrewe]

one of the main reasons was(is) because the 747s are being reserved for shorter long haul to east coast (due to fuel efficiency) and can provide capacity and frequency

[Fairdealfrank]

we wouldn't have to pay to expand LHR for a start Dave...............

We don’t




Sorry, but you clearly have no idea how the airline industry operates, in particular the competitive advantage that results from providing frequency (one of the reasons, in fact, that Little Red has failed to compete effectively with BA on UK domestic routes).




If airlines were compelled only to use wide-body aircraft at LHR the runway capacity problem would disappear overnight, because many of the routes flown by the narrow-body types that account for two-thirds of all Heathrow movements would no longer be viable.






But even the New York example doesn't stand up to examination.

The only narrow-body aircraft used on that route are 757s, as you rightly say, but hardly "3 every hour". In fact there are only 2 757 flights a day (3 on Sundays and Mondays), and those are to Newark (all JFK flights are wide-bodies).

So consolidating those, even if feasible, would hardly "free a fair number of slots".






No, but this is a market economy not a planned economy and airlines fly routes that make money. LHR-JFK/EWR is profitable due to high loads down the pointy end which cross susidises good deals down the back. To make sure you fill the pointy end you need frequency not capacity.

There's a reason why BA don't fly A380s to New York but all the other BA/AA/UA/VS/DL/KU flights are on wide body aircraft as Dave has said.



one of the main reasons was(is) because the 747s are being reserved for shorter long haul to east coast (due to fuel efficiency) and can provide capacity and frequency



Have made all these points, many times, as have others. Why does no one offer a cohesive counter argument?

Some appear not to understand. It really isn’t that difficult a concept to grasp.

[eggc]

I'm sure I saw come out of Runway UK event at MAN this week that Boris Island would have cost the public £50bn, expanding Heathrow would need £5/6bn of public funding, whilst growing Gatwick would require just £1bn. I'll try and back that up by finding the quote.

[DaveReidUK]

I'll try and back that up by finding the quote.Here: SkyscraperCity - View Single Post - Airport (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=119603952&postcount=6861)

[DaveReidUK]

Some appear not to understand.On the contrary, I think you'll find that every man and his dog believes he knows how to run an airport/airline/country. :O

[eggc]

Thanks for that Dave. I think SHD knows what he's talking about with these numbers. No wonder Boris Island is a no go !! £5bn for LHR isn't loose change either - but do'able. LGW looks, from a public cost point of view, a good option at under a billion. These costs, and NIMBYS, will have huge effect over the politicians decisions...they always need votes more than hubs unfortunately, however shortsighted that maybe.

[Fairdealfrank]

Heathrow expansion 'right choice' for whole of UK - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11263751/Heathrow-expansion-right-choice-for-whole-of-UK.html)

Four of these airports have links to/from LHR:

ABZ, GLA, LBA, LPL and NCL

Liverpool John Lennon Airport backs Heathrow third runway as it looks to re-establish a London link - Liverpool Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/business/liverpool-john-lennon-airport-backs-8204361)

LPL would appear to want like such links.

Significantly, a few of the larger airports are missing:

EDI (favours LGW? same ownership),
MAN (favours STN? same ownership),
BHX (wants to be the third rwy?)


BE wants to operate from NHT.....very long term LHR ambitions?






The letter in full:
Dear Sir Howard,
The so-called London Airports debate is not about London at all. It is about the aviation industry as a whole – an industry that employs 960,000 people – boosting growth across the UK and contributing £52bn to the UK economy. Airports are an integral part of local economies; our growth generates growth in our regions.
We are continually looking to grow our route networks – by starting new routes to airports in cities and countries that are destinations in their own right, and by connecting to hub airports to allow our passengers to transfer on to a wider variety of long-haul destinations. But the UK’s hub airport, Heathrow, is full. This is limiting the slots available for domestic routes and onward connections, and limiting choice for our passengers.
The health of the UK aviation industry is not about the success of one airport, but the success of all our airports, each performing a vital role. Heathrow’s role is as the UK’s hub, one of only six worldwide with more than 50 long haul routes and expansion there would create over 200,000 more slots. For expansion to benefit the whole country there must be a mechanism in place to strengthen and secure domestic connections to the UK’s hub. We will be backing Heathrow expansion in the Airports Commission consultation as the right choice for the whole of the UK.
Yours sincerely,
Carol Benzie, Managing Director, Aberdeen International Airport
Amanda McMillan, Managing Director, Glasgow Airport
John Parkin, CEO, Leeds Bradford International Airport
Andrew Cornish, CEO, Liverpool John Lennon Airport
David Laws, Chief Executive, Newcastle International Airport

[Fairdealfrank]

On the contrary, I think you'll find that every man and his dog believes he knows how to run an airport/airline/country.


Armchair CEOs?



LGW looks, from a public cost point of view, a good option at under a billion.

Agreed, but is it a good business case?

Premium pax, who make money for the airlines, prefer LHR, therefore, so do the airlines.

[pallan]

BREAKING:

London airspace closed until 7pm - breaking across sky and BBC.

Will we be seeing diversions and cancellations?

[Heathrow Harry]

computer failure apparently

[pallan]

Arrivals not currently affected however no departures from Gatwick and looks as though there's nothing from Heathrow either.

FR24 showing some very very empty London skies!

[Diverskii]

Southern UK Airspace is virtually empty - last few stragglers being let in to LHR. Dutch airspace is pretty busy as flights start to turn around. Interestingly a lot circled for a short while over the Channel but are now continuing on to LHR

[pallan]

An IB and VY flight have turned around from MAD & LCG

[jdcg]

25th March 2015 - Icelandair to T2
25th April 2015 - El Al to T4
27th May 2015 - TAM to T3

[Fairdealfrank]

25th March 2015 - Icelandair to T2
25th April 2015 - El Al to T4
27th May 2015 - TAM to T3


....and then it gets demolished?

[DaveReidUK]

....and then it gets demolished?Yes, though probably not the day after. :O

But it will be in the way of future T2/satellite development, so expect the bulldozers before too long.

[Skipness One Echo]

Interesting that Icelandair are going to T2, the STAR ALLIANCE terminal while the non aligned and Skyteam T4 sits half empty most of the day.

Also given T2 already seems to be full, how exactly were they planning on getting BMI in there. Seems we avoided a whole lot of bussing when BA bought out BMI.

[Fairdealfrank]

Also given T2 already seems to be full, how exactly were they planning on getting BMI in there. Seems we avoided a whole lot of bussing when BA bought out BMI.


It's academic now, but a way would have been found. BD would have been by far the largest tenant of LHR-2, and would have played a vital role in feeding longhaul Star Alliance flights.

Perhaps some of the smaller, shorthaul, or less connection-orientated Star Alliance carriers would have stayed out until the second phase was built.

[c52]

Do we know if the A350 noise trials at LHR next month are a PR exercise to prove to people in Hounslow that they needn't fear a new runway, or is it purely technical in nature?

In the former case, it's a pity there are no VC-10s left to provide a contrast. Maybe a Tornado could do the job.

[edi_local]

BMI would have taken the space of VSLR and EI (although where EI would have gone is beyond me...possibly T5 to feed into BA as they wouldn't have started BHD/DUB again). T2 was designed with BMI in mind which is why it even has the domestic and Irish arrival facilities.

I am confused as to why FI are being allowed in to T2 when they are not star alliance and AI who are over in T4 will be the only non Star alliance carrier outside of T2.

VSLR will cut down by March so that allows space for FI, and then by September they will gone totally, allowing space for possible Air India to come in.

[jdcg]

I suppose FI is fairly easy to squeeze in at this stage of the T2 development and maybe it has something to do with who most of their interlining passengers are flying with. AI will presumably follow at some point (2016?) and then some more non-aligned airlines from T3 when that gets knocked down, as is planned I believe, albeit some way off.

[DaveReidUK]

Do we know if the A350 noise trials at LHR next month are a PR exercise to prove to people in Hounslow that they needn't fear a new runway, or is it purely technical in nature?According to Akbar Al Baker, Qatar's CEO, it's “to prove to the world, especially to the British community, how quiet this plane is".

http://bloga350.bl ogspot.co.uk/2014/12/qatars-a350-will-demo-sound-emissions.html (http://bloga350.********.co.uk/2014/12/qatars-a350-will-demo-sound-emissions.html)

He's not on record as having singled out Hounslow residents in particular. :O

[Fairdealfrank]

Do we know if the A350 noise trials at LHR next month are a PR exercise to prove to people in Hounslow that they needn't fear a new runway, or is it purely technical in nature?
Probably a bit of both, but it's the vocal whingers who live miles away from the airport that need convincing. Trouble is that they will never be persuaded, even by hard evidence.


In the former case, it's a pity there are no VC-10s left to provide a contrast. Maybe a Tornado could do the job.
Ha ha, like it.



BMI would have taken the space of VSLR and EI (although where EI would have gone is beyond me...possibly T5 to feed into BA as they wouldn't have started BHD/DUB again). T2 was designed with BMI in mind which is why it even has the domestic and Irish arrival facilities.
VS only took a tiny of bit the former BD operation which remained substantial even after cannibalisation by LH between 2009 and 2012. As you state, LHR-2 was designed with BD as the "anchor" tenant and it was planned to have EI in there as well (to share the common travel area arrivals facility). When the rebuilding of LHR-1/2 was planned there was no indication that BA would return to LHR-DUB.


I suppose FI is fairly easy to squeeze in at this stage of the T2 development and maybe it has something to do with who most of their interlining passengers are flying with. AI will presumably follow at some point (2016?) and then some more non-aligned airlines from T3 when that gets knocked down, as is planned I believe, albeit some way off.
In a few years time it will be a completely rebuilt LHR-1/2 and it will be much bigger. It is also possible that some Oneworld carriers will find themselves there at some stage, once LHR-3 is demolished.

[PAXboy]

Whilst there are no VC10s left to give a contrast, surely there must be some 707s? Some of those looked like they were burning coal?

Get a weekend afternoon flypast with touch and goes by a 707, 747-100 and couple of others of that era. Get all the sound and vision measuring stuff lined up and record what used to happen.

Then get the 777 and 787 along with a 330 and 340 to show where we are now.

[Swedish Steve]

some more non-aligned airlines from T3 when that gets knocked down, as is planned I believe

What sort of date will T3 be demolished.
Has anyone told BA who have moved in with new check in and lounge and a new baggage system linking T3 to T5? Seems a lot of money for a doomed terminal? And where will One world (and Virgin) go?

[davidjohnson6]

Why does T3 need to be demolished ? Alternatively what will demolishing and building a new T3 achieve ? Am wondering if there is a clear need or HAH are just overly keen on capital expenditure.

[Skipness One Echo]

Pier 7 needs arriving and departing passengers segregated manually by doors, it has no arriving facility at 313 and was truncated for the building of the new tower. Aside from Pier 6, much of the rest was also built for B707s and DC8s. It has almost no natural light and can get a fraction of the aircraft into that space as it would do were it properly aligned with T5 and T2. Knock it down. I'll drive the JCB :)

[DaveReidUK]

Terminal Three was designed and built in an age where a toast-rack was something on the breakfast table and satellites got songs written about them. :O

[PAXboy]

To see why T3 is so bad, you need an up to date aerial view. You can see how the piers snake away and have then blocked future expansion because they did not think they were going to need so much space. It is a 1950s design, that has been dragged along by 'stick-another-bit-on-there' for 50 years.

[Bagso]

Airport expansion in the South East appears to be falling foul of the usual politics !

Political deal for Gatwick expansion 'fading', says Boris Johnson - www.travelweekly.co.uk (http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2014/12/23/51617/political-deal-for-gatwick-expansion-fading-says-boris.html)

[ATNotts]

Airport expansion in the South East appears to be fading !

Hardly surprising when you consider there's an election coming up in May.

Plenty of Tory seats within "earshot" of LHR / LGW, so lots for the Conservatives to lose - and Labour are hardly likely to stick their head above the parapet and promise extra runways willy-nilly as they will need all the luck they can muster to win outright.

That's the problem with democracy - elections come around every 5 years and infrastructure takes more than 5 years from proposal, through planning to fruition - so in the end we wind up with the usual British mess where too little is built too late and costs too much, leading for even more planning and political buck passing - and yes, yet more cost to still not get it right.

Look at China, no democracy, government not answerable to the NIMBYs, and economy (allegedly) growing apace, along with infrastructure. Question is, would we rather live in China or the UK?

[Fairdealfrank]

Why does T3 need to be demolished ? Alternatively what will demolishing and building a new T3 achieve ? Am wondering if there is a clear need or HAH are just overly keen on capital expenditure.
Because it's a bad use of space with the present configuration of the airport. It was designed to fit in the space allowed by the old cross rwys, as is (the soon to be demolished) LHR-1 and the former LHR-2. The space will be needed for more satelites for both LHR-5 and LHR-1/2.


To see why T3 is so bad, you need an up to date aerial view. You can see how the piers snake away and have then blocked future expansion because they did not think they were going to need so much space. It is a 1950s design, that has been dragged along by 'stick-another-bit-on-there' for 50 years.
Yes, it was opened in 1961 for longhaul, to replace the northside terminal. Over the years bits were added piecemeal and now it's well beyond its sell-by date. It has to go.

However, it's demolition date may be dependent on another rwy and whether LHR-5 will be expanded (to take Oneworld carriers).



Airport expansion in the South East appears to be falling foul of the usual politics !

Political deal for Gatwick expansion 'fading', says Boris Johnson - www.travelweekly.co.uk (http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2014/12/23/51617/political-deal-for-gatwick-expansion-fading-says-boris.html)
Good, it's red herring, a second LGW runway does not address the specific problem.

In a cheeky move, "Gatwick obviously" leaflets are now being distributed under the LHR flightpath.

Is "Taking Britain Further" literature also making an appearance under the LGW flightpath?



Hardly surprising when you consider there's an election coming up in May.

Plenty of Tory seats within "earshot" of LHR / LGW, so lots for the Conservatives to lose - and Labour are hardly likely to stick their head above the parapet and promise extra runways willy-nilly as they will need all the luck they can muster to win outright.
Disagree, airport expansion is not sufficiently high on the list of issues that might make marginal seats change hands.

That said, there aren't many marginal seats under the LHR flightpath: Mary McLeod at Brentford and Isleworth (Con-Lab) is the only one that comes to mind.

If Vince Cable loses the not particularly marginal Twickenham, it will be more to do with the Libdems behavior at the national level as reflected in their current opinion polls showing than any local issue.

Both MPs have nailed their masts to the anti-expansion lobby.



That's the problem with democracy - elections come around every 5 years and infrastructure takes more than 5 years from proposal, through planning to fruition - so in the end we wind up with the usual British mess where too little is built too late and costs too much, leading for even more planning and political buck passing - and yes, yet more cost to still not get it right.

Look at China, no democracy, government not answerable to the NIMBYs, and economy (allegedly) growing apace, along with infrastructure. Question is, would we rather live in China or the UK?


It's not always that simple, many democracies have excellent infrastructure, most totalitarian states have rubbish infrastructure.

But you're right, the government should not be answerable to NIMBYs, it should have the interests of the nation as its priority.

It's not as if the NIMBY lobby are mainly Conservative or Labour voters.

[118.70]

That said, there aren't many marginal seats under the LHR flightpath: Mary McLeod at Brentford and Isleworth (Con-Lab) is the only one that comes to mind. Electoral Calculus

Majority Sorted Seats (http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html)

also has Angie Bray in Ealing and Jane Ellison in Battersea as being vulnerable.

And the flight path trials that have brought new noise to rural areas and angered residents have caused alarm and bulging postbags to several "safe" seats. If they are necessary for a new runway, they may be concerning quite a few members of the Cabinet : Gove, Hammond, May, Maude ........

[Fairdealfrank]

Electoral Calculus

Majority Sorted Seats (http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html)

also has Angie Bray in Ealing and Jane Ellison in Battersea as being vulnerable.

Interesting analysis, but a needs updating. It has Alan Keen listed as MP for Feltham and Heston. He died, there's been a by-election, which means more recent data is available and not being used (the seat won't change hands). It's also in a vacuum where there are no UKIP seats........

As for Angie Bray, yes, she's vulnerable, but her constituency is visible from a right hand window seat when doing a westerly landing at LHR, not underneath, the proposed third rwy is also south of her constituency.

Jane Ellison is also vulnerable, but her constituency is miles from LHR.



And the flight path trials that have brought new noise to rural areas and angered residents have caused alarm and bulging postbags to several "safe" seats. If they are necessary for a new runway, they may be concerning quite a few members of the Cabinet : Gove, Hammond, May, Maude ........

None of those are remotely vulnerable (even if UKIP do well), all have huge majorities, Libdems in second place, and a derisory Labour vote.


As stated before, another LHR rwy isn't a sufficient important issue to unseat MPs, plus no decision would have been made by the election.

[ATNotts]

As stated before, another LHR rwy isn't a sufficient important issue to unseat MPs, plus no decision would have been made by the election.

Not necessarily so. Remember the "save Kidderminster hospital" campaign a few years ago which lead to an independent, one issue candidate winning in the General election that year; also Martin Bell winning in Tatton, simply because the sitting MP was an (alleged) crook.

A well organised campaign can unseat the most firmly ensconced MP, even with our undemocratic first past the post electoral system - but I would concede that there is probably insufficient time between now and May to whip up voters into a frenzy over new runways at either LGW or LHR - that will be for 2020 (perhaps).

[DaveReidUK]

A well organised campaign can unseat the most firmly ensconced MP, even with our undemocratic first past the post electoral system - but I would concede that there is probably insufficient time between now and May to whip up voters into a frenzy over new runways at either LGW or LHRWhich is, of course, why the Airports Commission has been told not to report until after the election ...

[118.70]

Which is, of course, why the Airports Commission has been told not to report until after the election ...And it may not be a coincidence that the frenzy-inducing flightpath trials over Ascot / Horsham et al and any expansion to other areas have been put on hold until next summer.

As for Angie Bray, yes, she's vulnerable, but her constituency is visible from a right hand window seat when doing a westerly landing at LHR, not underneath, the proposed third rwy is also south of her constituency.But presumably you have looked at the "indicative only - subject to consultation" flight routes assumed for the R3 modelling ? I don't think Ealing will be unaffected.


Jane Ellison is also vulnerable, but her constituency is miles from LHRTrue, but, like Justine Greening, next door in Putney, Battersea still gets the benefit of flightpath noise - particularly in the early morning.

[Fairdealfrank]

Not necessarily so. Remember the "save Kidderminster hospital" campaign a few years ago which lead to an independent, one issue candidate winning in the General election that year; also Martin Bell winning in Tatton, simply because the sitting MP was an (alleged) crook.

A well organised campaign can unseat the most firmly ensconced MP, even with our undemocratic first past the post electoral system - but I would concede that there is probably insufficient time between now and May to whip up voters into a frenzy over new runways at either LGW or LHR - that will be for 2020 (perhaps).
Indeed, but the anti-airport lobby has never stood a candidate in a flightpath constituency, or even at local government level. There must be a good reason for this.....

As for Tatton, IIRC, "cash for questions" was the issue.



Also you state that "first past the post" electoral system is "undemocratic" without offering any evidence or explaining why.

Probably a not a good idea to make assertions of this nature as it's another debate, and could lead to thread drift and unhappy mods.



True, but, like Justine Greening, next door in Putney, Battersea still gets the benefit of flightpath noise - particularly in the early morning.


Yes, aircraft noise is so bad that people are paying "megabucks" to live in these locations, pushing up house prices and pricing locals out.

Sorry to disappoint, but facts are facts, and it's likely that the proposed "mansion tax" will be concentrating more minds in these areas rather than aircraft noise.

[Bagso]

Passengers avoid connections at busy London airports in favour of continental rivals - News & Advice - Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/passengers-avoid-connections-at-busy-london-airports-in-favour-of-continental-rivals-9938032.html)

This has been blindingly obvious for a while seemingly missed by the Airport Commission.

It will take more than a 3 RW in 15 years to claw that traffic back.

[DaveReidUK]

seemingly missed by the Airport Commission"Indirect travel via airports in other countries may in some cases provide an alternative to travel via UK airports. Around 10% of passengers at UK airports currently choose to make their journey via airports abroad. Whilst in many cases these indirect journeys help facilitate long-haul travel to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, a number of the most frequently accessed countries, such as United States, Italy and Germany, appear in both the top 10 lists for direct and indirect travel. Airports across the UK play an important role in providing these indirect connections through linking their passengers to other international hubs: for example, Birmingham and Manchester airports together provide more than 5,000 flights per year to Amsterdam Schiphol, 4,000 to Paris Charles de Gaulle, nearly 3,500 to Frankfurt and more than 1,500 to Dubai."

Airports Commission Discussion Paper 02: Aviation Connectivity and the Economy (March 2013)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/138162/aviation-connectivity-and-the-economy.pdf

What was it you reckon they missed?

[Bagso]

Airports Commission Discussion Paper 02: Aviation Connectivity and the Economy (March 2013)

MAR 2013 !

...that's about as up to date as the Bayeux Tapestry !

Connectivity to the regions has been mentioned at EVERY single Transport Select Committee Meeting,
every public presentation,
each review since the comission was formed
every press release
AND
is the mantra of both Heathrow and Gatwick adverts......

It is at the absolute pinnacle of arguments to push ahaed with expansion !

It is so absolutely critical that since the mention to which you refer (now almost 2 years old), equal weight appears to have seemingly been missed with reference to the significant increases to other competing hubs from those very same regions !

MAN an increase in capacity to Abu Dhabi by ETIHAD
An annoucement of a return to double daily of QATAR to Doha
A 50% increase to 3 daily by THY to Istanbul , a major hub that should not be overlooked

BHX an announcement of a 3 daily to Dubai
A 100% increase again by THY

EDI new service by QATAR
Announcement of new service by ETIHAD
30% Increase of THY service to daily

One cannot help thinking the data the commission is going to present late 2015 may need , how shall we say "dusting down" !

Unless the committee IS aware and its members are suffering from collective amnesia in keeping its records up to date ?

Such a highly significant trend to use other airports from the regions is surely worthy of equal airtime if they are deemed to be of such importance ?

[DaveReidUK]

Airports Commission Discussion Paper 02: Aviation Connectivity and the Economy (March 2013)

MAR 2013 !

...that's about as up to date as the Bayeux Tapestry !

A neat bit of footwork there - from complaining that regional connectivity was something that the Commission hadn't picked up on, to acknowledging that they addressed it in one of their first discussion papers, and without even a pause for breath in between. :O

[Bagso]

they addressed it in one of their first discussion papers

indeed but not since , and that is the point !

We shall joust the other side of 2014 Sir

Happy New Year !

[Skipness One Echo]

Bagso, remind me, what is it you would like to see?
A 1-5 of likely and achievable outcomes, a practical and semi-likely wish list?

Curious.

[Bagso]

Happy New Years Skip

More jousting in 2015 I hope !

I "think" we are in agreement re RW3 LHR although would have still preferred a new 4 runway airport 20 miles up the M40 !

My comment was purely with the quality of work by the commission.

As I said previously some of that data has not been updated for nigh on 2 years, is it relevent to the final comission findings ?

Surely it is and IF its trend it should be included for completeness !

When they came to Manchester 12 months back there appeared to be a rather hesitant civil serveant charged with digging out detail, I sincerely hope we are not relying on him to spoon feed the comssison data, hesitant was not the word AND if he was based in Whitehall he would not have a clue what was going on outside the M25.

IF you are going to set up agency to provide you with forensic detail lets at least make sure its up to date and acccurate !

[Fairdealfrank]

Airports Commission Discussion Paper 02: Aviation Connectivity and the Economy (March 2013)

MAR 2013 !

...that's about as up to date as the Bayeux Tapestry !

Connectivity to the regions has been mentioned at EVERY single Transport Select Committee Meeting,
every public presentation,
each review since the comission was formed
every press release
AND
is the mantra of both Heathrow and Gatwick adverts......

It is at the absolute pinnacle of arguments to push ahaed with expansion !

It is so absolutely critical that since the mention to which you refer (now almost 2 years old), equal weight appears to have seemingly been missed with reference to the significant increases to other competing hubs from those very same regions !

MAN an increase in capacity to Abu Dhabi by ETIHAD
An annoucement of a return to double daily of QATAR to Doha
A 50% increase to 3 daily by THY to Istanbul , a major hub that should not be overlooked

BHX an announcement of a 3 daily to Dubai
A 100% increase again by THY

EDI new service by QATAR
Announcement of new service by ETIHAD
30% Increase of THY service to daily

One cannot help thinking the data the commission is going to present late 2015 may need , how shall we say "dusting down" !

Unless the committee IS aware and its members are suffering from collective amnesia in keeping its records up to date ?

Such a highly significant trend to use other airports from the regions is surely worthy of equal airtime if they are deemed to be of such importance ?
Bagso, there is nothing unusual in what you report about flights from airports other than Heathrow, it's the nature of the ubiquitous hub and spoke system. The above-mentioned carriers feed their hubs from Ringway (and other airports around the world), just as BA feeds its hub, Heathrow, from airports around the world.

The capacity constraints at Heathrow means that BA can't do this as effectively as other carriers can at their hubs, and as a consequence, the UK is losing market share on many levels, including, potentially, its status as Europe's #1 aviation hub.

It's not just the lack of routes to new countries with expanding economies from the nation's hub. It is also the incomplete nature of the domestic air network and the lack of connectivity to/from the nation's hub, and this where the Airports Commission has an interest.

It's obviously excellent to see that the larger non-LHR airports sucessfully expand their longhaul routes, but it's hardly an issue for the Airports Commission, because it has no impact on the UK's position as Europe's #1 aviation hub.

The Airports Commission's remit concerns the maintenance of the UK as Europe's #1 aviation hub. That means addressing the lack of capacity at Heathrow, and that means expansion there. Anything else (e.g. Gatwick) is a side show.

It is as plain and as simple as that.



Happy New Years Skip

More jousting in 2015 I hope !

I "think" we are in agreement re RW3 LHR although would have still preferred a new 4 runway airport 20 miles up the M40 !
"London-Oxford" (Kidlington)? No only kidding.

Seriously, do you mean 20 mi. from Heathrow? If so that means about 40 mi. from London.

Bit too far out isn't it? To put it in context, would you want Ringway replaced with a Manchester airport at Stoke, or north of Preston?



When they came to Manchester 12 months back there appeared to be a rather hesitant civil serveant charged with digging out detail, I sincerely hope we are not relying on him to spoon feed the comssison data, hesitant was not the word AND if he was based in Whitehall he would not have a clue what was going on outside the M25.
Outside the M25? You’re having a laugh!

You’re talking about civil servants, so it's more like outside zone 1, or zone 2 if you’re very, very lucky.

[PAXboy]

BagsoIt will take more than a 3 RW in 15 years to claw that traffic back.
It does not matter how many runways they build - the traffic is nerv coming back.

[Skipness One Echo]

http://airlineroute.net/2015/01/09/v...ampaign=social

Vietnam reportedly moving LGW to LHR from the end of March with B787s from July. LGW has no credibility in this market sadly.

[Fairdealfrank]

http://airlineroute.net/2015/01/09/v...ampaign=social

Vietnam reportedly moving LGW to LHR from the end of March with B787s from July. LGW has no credibility in this market sadly.


Yep, as predicted: VN off to LHR-4.

More evidence of LGW being LHR's waiting room (as far as long haul is concerned).

GA next?

[chinapattern]

More evidence of LGW being LHR's waiting room (as far as long haul is concerned).


Only Heathrow Airport expansion will allow Britain to win the global race for growth | City A.M. (http://www.cityam.com/207147/only-heathrow-expansion-will-allow-britain-win-global-race-growth)


The above article states that their is a long list of airlines who want to use to Heathrow but can't due to capacity constraints.


Assuming that this list includes all the current operators who use Gatwick but not Heathrow (easyJet, Garuda, Ukraine International, Air Baltic etc) I have to admit I'm struggling to come up with that many others.


For me the obvious contenders are LAN Airlines, their various offshoots and Aerolineas Argentinas. Would China Airlines want to have another go? Would Air Namibia do any better at Heathrow? What about airlines such as Xiamen which are planning on going long haul?

[anothertyke]

I think he means primarily there's a lot of existing airlines at LHR who would use more slots if they existed. We've had this conversation before but if I recall 50% of any new slots are initially allocated to existing operators and 50% to new operators defined as operators with 4 or fewer pairs of slots per day. There are many interesting questions about how the process of allocating a massive increase in slots would actually be managed given issues of 'use it or lose it' and organising the terminal capacity, slots and gates depending on who gets the slots.

[davidjohnson6]

Iberia Express to launch nonstop routes from Heathrow to Tenerife-North (TFN) 3x weekly and Gran Canaria (LPA) 4x weekly for the start of S15

[jdcg]

Thai introducing the A380 to LHR this summer, but reducing frequency to just 1 per day, down from 2. Predictable and sensible move in their current situation.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Iberia Express to launch nonstop routes from Heathrow to Tenerife-North (TFN) 3x weekly and Gran Canaria (LPA) 4x weekly for the start of S15"

now that is going to improve the Business position of UK plc............

BA should be using those slots for trips to the middle of China etc etc :}:}:}

[Red Four]

now that is going to improve the Business position of UK plc............

BA should be using those slots for trips to the middle of China etc etc

Couldn't agree more.

[Skipness One Echo]

BA should be using those slots for trips to the middle of China etc etc
Or alternatively, and this is clearly a crazy idea to some, BA should run flights on assets where they will get a maximum return on their investment, like any normal business.

[Fairdealfrank]

BA should be using those slots for trips to the middle of China etc etc


Think it's a lack of sufficient long haul aircraft preventing this at present. On the other hand, loads of extra A320 series aircraft came with the acquisition of BD.

[Fairdealfrank]

Not really surprising and confirms my suspicions that U2 would be at LHR if the present impediments (high slot charges, congestion both on the ground and in the air, delays, etc.) were removed by expansion.


BBC News - Budget airline Easyjet backs Heathrow expansion (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31060825)

Easyjet says would fly from expanded Heathrow airport | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/30/uk-easyjet-heathrow-expansion-idUKKBN0L31J420150130)

[Heathrow Harry]

"BA should run flights on assets where they will get a maximum return on their investment"

I agree

but then LHR should pull all these adverts saying how important expanding LHR is for British Business connectivity

[Fairdealfrank]

but then LHR should pull all these adverts saying how important expanding LHR is for British Business connectivity


Because.................................?

[eggc]

...nobody in LHR, BA, London or the Govt actually really cares about the regions, possibly ? That's how they make us feel anyway !

[DaveReidUK]

BBC News - Budget airline Easyjet backs Heathrow expansion'A spokesman for Gatwick Airport said Easyjet's position was based on its own "narrow commercial interests".'

Gosh, what scoundrels !

[Bagso]

EZY would be at LHR if the present impediments (high slot charges, congestion both on the ground and in the air, delays, etc.) were removed by expansion.


Double edged !

If they DID move to LHR does that not confirm that you may as well close LGW, not sure what LGWs outstanding USP would be !
Would there be anybody left ....?

If they support LHR expansion but are not interested in moving is it not because other airlines will have to pick up part of the tab allowing them to corner the LGW market without the inflated cost of paying for a new runway ?

Bit like BHX supporting LGW, a warm embrace with one arm whilst sticking two fingers up with the other as they know expansion at LGW will not effect them one iota !

[Mr Mac]

Skip
I told you about VN maybe a year+ ago (check my posts) please keep up old news always going to happen will be T4 I believe. Had it from horses mouth in HCM so to speak.
Bagso
Anyway just back from far east via DXB but delayed due to snow at Manchester - can we get some better gear, as if we are going to be the northern LH hub for none UK based carriers it would be good to get a few more ploughs / staff in for these times. Will maybe have some news for you about your terminal redevelopments soon.


Jet Lagged
Mr Mac

[eggc]

How many EZY a/c at LGW ? 60 or more is it ?? Not a cat in hells chance all those will move to LHR even if they do start from there. LGW need not worry too much.

[Skipness One Echo]

...nobody in LHR, BA, London or the Govt actually really cares about the regions, possibly ? That's how they make us feel anyway !
If you think that's what government and business are here to do you should reconsider. BA are a business they serve the regions, unless BHD, GLA, EDI, ABZ, LBA, NCL and MAN have declared UDI.
I told you about VN maybe a year+ ago (check my posts) please keep up old news always going to happen will be T4
Funny thing, they've been at Gatters for 3.5 years and the slot they eventually got was a rare new one created by NATs. I am well aware VN wanted LHR, so do Garuda, there's a queue and it's not exactly easy or cheap. Hardly old news if they just went to market with it last week now is it? Behave :)

What does it say about LGW expansion if their main tennant would prefer LHR? Or would BA prefer no third runway if it kept Team Orange at Gatwick...

[Fairdealfrank]

'A spokesman for Gatwick Airport said Easyjet's position was based on its own "narrow commercial interests".'


To quote Mandy Rice Davies of Profumo scandal fame (circa 1963): "well he would, wouldn't he".



Double edged !

If they DID move to LHR does that not confirm that you may as well close LGW, not sure what LGWs outstanding USP would be !
Would there be anybody left ....?


According to U2's submission to the Commission, it's expansion to LHR that's envisaged, not a move from LGW.


If they support LHR expansion but are not interested in moving is it not because other airlines will have to pick up part of the tab allowing them to corner the LGW market without the inflated cost of paying for a new runway ?


The steep rise in higher charges at LGW to pay for a another rwy is a concern for U2, obviously. These would have to be passed on to pax in higher fares, or result in lower dividends for shareholders.


Bit like BHX supporting LGW, a warm embrace with one arm whilst sticking two fingers up with the other as they know expansion at LGW will not effect them one iota !


Nothing like it.


Have a look at U2's submission to the Commission, it's a good read and makes a lot of sense. Page 15 outlines what a U2 operation at LHR might be like.

http://corporate.easyjet.com/~/media/Files/E/Easyjet-Plc-V2/pdf/about-easyjet/easyJet-response-to-the-airports-commission-consultation-jan2015.pdf




Skip
I told you about VN maybe a year+ ago (check my posts) please keep up old news always going to happen will be T4 I believe. Had it from horses mouth in HCM so to speak.



Also predicted that, it was inevitable. It's the same for any carrier in the LGW "waiting room".



How many EZY a/c at LGW ? 60 or more is it ?? Not a cat in hells chance all those will move to LHR even if they do start from there. LGW need not worry too much.


No, not move to LHR: expansion. When U2 started at LGW, it did not move from LTN, it's still there.



What does it say about LGW expansion if their main tennant would prefer LHR? Or would BA prefer no third runway if it kept Team Orange at Gatwick...


No, BA needs the third rwy, with or without a U2 presence.

[Logohu]

What eggc said. If LHR gets R3 I expect Easy would maintain LGW as their biggest base, but would establish a smaller base at LHR cherry-picking some of the more profitable routes from there.

And I've always thought R3 at LHR is a double edged sword for BA. Yes they would get a share of the resulting extra slots for expansion. But the value of their existing slots would be diminished, while their existing competition like Emirates and others would also get more slots, as would a number of possible new and lower cost entrants. Would IAG still control over 50% of slots at a three runway LHR ? The last thing they probably want is a flock of orange tails diluting their yields at LHR, not to mention maybe red noses and others

Certainly with their various other airline acquisitions IAG seem to be setting themselves up in case of a no decision on R3 at LHR. Looking at the history of the last 50 years its still entirely possible the next lot of pollies will decide to ignore Davies and do neither LHR or LGW ! That would be a shame.

[DaveReidUK]

Certainly with their various other airline acquisitions IAG seem to be setting themselves up in case of a no decision on R3 at LHR.

Yes, Walsh is on record as saying that:

British Airways: Heathrow expansion is a ?lost cause? | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/02/british-airways-heathrow-third-runway-lost-cause-willie-walsh)

[BasilBush]

Quote:
'A spokesman for Gatwick Airport said Easyjet's position was based on its own "narrow commercial interests".'

It's also rather hypocritical of GAL to complain about narrow commercial interests. Their campaign for a second runway is not unconnected to the fact that GAL's key shareholder GIP intends to sell its stake within the next couple of years and believes that its value will be enhanced by Davies recommending a second runway. It is also believed by many in the industry that GAL's CEO Stewart Wingate is financially incentivised to get Davies's nod, via a generous bonus structure....

[anothertyke]

Walsh's article quoted by Dave Reid above is quite interesting. He says the case for doing Heathrow is stronger than Gatwick but the politics are more difficult and he doesn't think Britain is strong on political will.

Would he be saying that if BA really really wanted R3? Maybe not, but I don't think he has yet said in terms 'Don't do Runway 3'.

Perhaps that's another Mandy Rice Davies quote -- he wouldn't say that, would he!

[BasilBush]

There is a school of thought which says that BA might regard a no-R3 decision as being to their financial advantage. In that scenario, demand and supply become increasingly out of kilter, allowing the incumbent LHR carriers to increase their yields. With BA gradually increasing its slot holdings, it is clearly best positioned to take advantage of such a dominant position.

Personally I think this would be a risky strategy for BA, as we might expect the competition authorities to step in if BA sought to exploit its dominant position. Actually I think BA is already skating on thin ice, as some of its recent actions might already be attributed to having an over-strong market position.

[Heathrow Harry]

comment in the Times financial pages this morning that Qatar will have trouble owning significant shares in LHR and BA

[Bagso]

I have no issue with more runways as long as its paid for by private industry !
If Heathrow is such a cash cow, which it clearly is, why on earth is there a need to ask UK taxpayers to stump what amounts to a third of the cost ?

[Fairdealfrank]

What eggc said. If LHR gets R3 I expect Easy would maintain LGW as their biggest base, but would establish a smaller base at LHR cherry-picking some of the more profitable routes from there.
It’s actually quite a big base, take a look at page 15 of the U2 submission to the Commission.

http://corporate.easyjet.com/~/media/Files/E/Easyjet-Plc-V2/pdf/about-easyjet/easyJet-response-to-the-airports-commission-consultation-jan2015.pdf



And I've always thought R3 at LHR is a double edged sword for BA. Yes they would get a share of the resulting extra slots for expansion. But the value of their existing slots would be diminished, while their existing competition like Emirates and others would also get more slots, as would a number of possible new and lower cost entrants. Would IAG still control over 50% of slots at a three runway LHR ? The last thing they probably want is a flock of orange tails diluting their yields at LHR, not to mention maybe red noses and others
To an extant maybe, but BA only got over 50% of all slots when BD was shut down. For decades BA had around 40%, considerably less than competitor carriers (AF, KL, LH, etc.) at their hubs.

BA needs a third rwy. Apart from an ability to expand when and if it needs to, congestion, delays, queues to takeoff, queues to land, queues to get onto the stand (because the previous aircraft hasn’t yet left because of the take off queue) at LHR isn’t doing BA any favours.

Having its aircraft stuck on the ground longer than its competitor airlines (or stacking in the air and going nowhere) must be a serious impediment. Sure, BA doesn’t necessarily want a flock of orange, but will adapt to it. The status quo is untenable.



Certainly with their various other airline acquisitions IAG seem to be setting themselves up in case of a no decision on R3 at LHR. Looking at the history of the last 50 years its still entirely possible the next lot of pollies will decide to ignore Davies and do neither LHR or LGW ! That would be a shame.
A tragedy in the case of LHR, but, agreed, it probably is the most likely outcome.





Personally I think this would be a risky strategy for BA, as we might expect the competition authorities to step in if BA sought to exploit its dominant position. Actually I think BA is already skating on thin ice, as some of its recent actions might already be attributed to having an over-strong market position.
For example?






I have no issue with more runways as long as its paid for by private industry !
If Heathrow is such a cash cow, which it clearly is, why on earth is there a need to ask UK taxpayers to stump what amounts to a third of the cost ?

Who says that taxpayers are stumping up a third?

If this is the case, could one possible explanation be because it's in the national interest?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

It is perhaps inevitable that contributors on a forum provided for aviation professionals will debate the LHR/LGW runway options from a purely operational perspective. However, there is another major angle to consider.

The last full-length runway constructed in the UK was 05R/23L at MAN/EGCC. This is 3050M in length, offering comprehensive long-haul capability. Opened in 2001, it was delivered for a price-tag of £172M. Run that through an inflation calculator and we get a price of £253M in "today's money".

So, if a long-haul capable runway can be built for £253M in Manchester, how much should we expect to pay for an equivalent project in London? Well, obviously, land acquisition costs are higher and there will be more CPO's required than was the case at MAN (although theirs were smart 'Cheshire belt' properties). So what do we think for London? 4x the MAN figure? 5x the MAN figure? Even as much as 10x the MAN figure? Well, let's do some maths!

The LHR NW option is projected to cost ... wait for it ... £18,600M. However, one analyst anticipates an overrun of a further £4,000M. So, the lower figure is 73.5x the cost of EGCC 05R/23L adjusted to today's prices. Add in the anticipated overrun and we get 89.3x the cost! The numbers for the LHR Northern extension option ('double length' runway) are £13,500M [53.4x EGCC price-tag before overrun, 69.2x EGCC allowing for overrun].

Now I know that London can be pricey, but seriously ... upto EIGHTY-NINE TIMES the price of delivering a directly comparable facility at Manchester? Surely that is outrageous? Even ten times the price would be outrageous! Arguably Britain's greatest engineering achievement to date - the Channel Tunnel - was delivered for £4,650M in 1994. That is £8,270M adjusted to today's money via the inflation calculator. How can a single additional runway at LHR possibly amount to more than twice the cost of constructing the Channel Tunnel at today's prices? This is simply mindblowing!

Moving on to LGW. Their option is costed at £7,800M with an anticipated budget overrun of a further £2,000M. These numbers are 30.83x and 38.73x the equivalent MAN runway price-tag adjusted to today's prices. Even for Gatwick, these statistics are staggering. North-South price differentials aren't THAT big!

These monstrous price tags demand further investigation. I'm sure most of us on PPRuNe agree that London's airports infrastructure would benefit from additional slot capacity, but there comes a price-point at which we must ask whether this scale of cost is truly justified measured against the net incremental benefit provided by the additional runway.

Of particular concern to those of us outside the SE is the amount of public (taxpayer) money required for the respective projects. The numbers cited are £6,000M for LHR and just short of £1,000M for LGW. Even at LGW - by far the cheapest option - the public element of funding is just shy of 4x the entire cost of delivering EGCC 05R/23L (which was privately funded, BTW).

Now the wider issue here is that state funds earmarked for infrastructure investment can only be allocated once. And London has enjoyed a veritable feast of enormous infrastructure innovations one after another spanning the last 30 years. Crossrail 2 is next up for funding ... projected cost £27,500M. This follows on from the Channel Tunnel, HS1, Crossrail, Thameslink re-invention, underground extensions, DLR, terminus station rebuilds, London City Airport, 'reborn' Stansted with Norman Foster terminal, Gatwick North Terminal, LHR T2 & T5, Olympic village, the M25 and assorted other new roads / motorway upgrades etc etc. So as you can imagine, those 70% of us Brits who don't reside in the SE wish you well with all your recently-added super-infrastructure. But we kind of feel that it is time for a bit of state largesse to head in our direction for a change. It is not an unreasonable idea. The non-SE 70% are taxed at exactly the same rates as Londoners.

So ... LHR/LGW new runways. If you can fund them entirely privately, good luck to you. Go right ahead. But if you need another £6,000M from the public kitty I have to oppose this. Bear in mind that the largest state-funded standalone project so far approved in Northern England is the 'Northern Hub' rail upgrade programme. This project is costed at around £750M, and is in reality a series of loosely-related upgrades across the northern network to prevent the system from grinding to a halt. Cynics say it is really the minimum requirement to prevent complete collapse of the service, packaged as a single grand innovation! And the 'Northern Hub' proposals were subjected to all manner of scrutiny and cutbacks to secure even that level of funding. It all came across as rather grudging considering that Crossrail alone has cost around 20x this amount. Even the London - East Anglia railway is getting a £4 Billion upgrade.

The North has not yet had a single standalone publicly-funded infrastructure project approved at a price tag exceeding ONE billion (£1,000M), and to the best of my knowledge neither has any other region of the UK outside the SE. Thus, any suggestion that LHR should get £6,000M of public funding ... or even a 'rounding error' of a cool ONE BILLION for LGW ... is somewhat offensive to us regionals. And don't forget that the remainder of the price-tag will likely also be underwritten by taxpayers nationally.

Six Billion from public funds. That is money which can't then be spent in the regions. Where we still patiently await our very first one-billion-pound publicly-funded infrastructure investment. THIS is our objection. The super-funding which London has enjoyed is sucking the lifeblood out of provincial Britain. How do we persuade CEO's to locate their new facilities next to our decrepit 'Pacer Halt' when London is offering state-of-the-art parkway stations aligned along Crossrail, Thameslink, and HS1? And unrivalled global air links. There is a compelling need for a more equitable distribution of public funding across the UK ... the current differential is obscene and accelerating. Public funding for LHR/LGW on the scale proposed would significantly worsen this.

Of course, we've all heard the propoganda about how this is a project for the whole nation. As Sir Richard Leese ['Core Cities Group'] aptly quipped: "In my experience, trickledown really does mean a trickle!" So Liverpool and Teesside could get 3x daily Shuttles to LHR. Well ... whoopeedoo! Just think what those two regions could get for £3 Billion each in direct public infrastructure spending. Liverpool needs a total replacement for Lime Street Station (half the required size) which would enable a spur to HS2, doubling of frequencies to Euston and direct trains to Scotland. Sheffield requires a transpennine motorway. Taxpayer rail spending on NE folks has been five pounds per head annually in recent years (diabolical). Other regions have projects of merit to put forward also. And we mustn't forget that the allure of an expanded LHR could be expected to suck further air services, businesses and wealth directly out of the regions (in the footsteps of Astra Zeneca).

Personally, I am supporting the LGW option for London. It is clearly not the best choice operationally, but the price-tag differential is too enormous to disregard. Especially the public contribution required (five billion less than LHR). Although I would urge our politicians to ensure that any London runway option is entirely privately funded at the point of delivery.

London needs a new runway. But it is needed BY the South-East FOR the South-East. Claims that it will benefit the entire nation simply don't stand up to scrutiny. The benefits of the new runway will accrue overwhelmingly to the SE alone. LHR/LGW/Crossrail2 must not be allowed to dominate the public infrastructure budget until the regions have enjoyed a substantial period of playing 'catch-up'.

[Skipness One Echo]

Not being funny, but if there was a practical way of regional catch up, they'd have done it by now. Honestly, spreading that wealth in a practical way would be a vote winner, but it doesn't appear to be that simple.

Also another runway at LGW does nothing to address hub capacity, so you also managed to agree that we continue to allow that to wither sadly. Can you link to those numbers you're quoting costs on, keen to have a read?

Ta

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

The LHR/LGW numbers cited were lifted from a briefing document distributed at the 'Runways UK - Regions' event. I only have a hard copy plus info drawn from slides at the event. Sorry. The MAN figures are in the public domain and easily verified via the usual channels.

By the way, I don't expect the regions to [fully] catch up with the SE. That is as impractical as you suggest. But there is tremendous scope to close the gap.

As for the hubbing-capability issue, there comes a point at which the price-tag required to achieve that capacity enhancement surpasses the return on investment for so doing. What is that price-tag? Discuss! :-)

EDIT: Whilst I can't post a link to printed matter, I do refer you to the 'Runways UK - Regions' website. The full speaker presentations are posted online in ewe-choob* format for public viewing. Parts of the Q&A sessions have been uploaded also, though the question contrasting London costings with Manchester 05R/23L was amongst those edited out. The LHR/LGW costings I quote are discussed in-depth in the main presentations. [* this slight adjustment to the spelling should prevent site software converting the name to read PPRuNe!]

[eggc]

Wow...just wow ! Unreal and shocking figures. After seeing them personally I'd be appalled if that amount of public money went on LHR, or LGW come to that. Best post on Pprune in years.

[WHBM]

It is perhaps inevitable that contributors on a forum provided for aviation professionals

I can tell you, as one of the "professionals" more than a little involved with actually constructing a runway, that the figures being bandied around are equally incomprehensible to those of us who price up concrete, reinforcing bar and drainage pipes for a living. It certainly doesn't end up trickling down to the lads on the ground driving the excavators.

Although there's a lot more to it than the actual runway. Heathrow actually has a shortage of not only runway, but also aircraft stands, terminal space, access roads and railways, etc. However the way in which the figures get to these huge amounts, and whatever was quoted last time rises by way more than Spon's (the industry-standard pricebook of construction costs) inflation index tells you that, still, nobody has a real clue.

I understand that the figures include land purchase costs which get hiked by London-area house prices. But in actual fact, in Harmondsworth etc, Heathrow have (of course) been steadily buying up each house as it comes on to the market over the years, then just renting them out in the interim. Yet I understand these purchases already made are solemnly counted at projected forward prices.

[Bagso]

Runways at Heathrow and Gatwick will cost more than forecast - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11221719/Runways-at-Heathrow-and-Gatwick-will-cost-more-than-forecast.html)

The bbc also had similar coverage.

There has been much talk of the #Northernpowerhouse but what we accept are "make do and mend policies" rather than the Mega-transformatiomal investment that Ministers sign off with a flourish in the South East. Our MPs and local media are equally culpable.

We salivate at investment figures of £5m, £20m thinking we are being offered a great deal on a silver platter, we are not !

Last week a political discussion on 5 Live was interrupted by a caller asking the panel if they knew the difference between £1m and £1b..of investment

...one person confidently suggested, "it's three times more" before they eventually agreed it was of course 1000times more. It took 30 seconds for them to agree !!!!!!!!

Lord help us if people, MPs, and the media cannot do basic maths

Maybe that IS a part of the problem the figures quoted by The Airport Commission SHOULD be subject to forensic scrutiny , rather than be nodded thru with some ultra vague assurance that "it's in the national interest".

I have asked the Comission for the ROI figures, whilst they bandy about sums between £200B and £500B in the press there does not appear to be any concrete forensic valuation which fully supports these wildly optimistic figs.

FDF I appreciate that you are as passionate about more runways as some of us are about the cost of actually paying for them, but what is the cut off ?

At what point do the figures simply become untenable ?

[All names taken]

A very good post Shed.

Another point that troubles me is this notion of maintaining the UK's hubbing capacity.
If we are concerned about this subject, then the biggest beneficiary of the State's largesse would be British Airways. This cannot be right. A new runway at LHR would essentially provide the capacity to run a small number of extra flights from places like LPL or EXT by BA for their benefit....if the numbers stack up. And there's no guarantee they will. After all other airlines offer much better point to hub service than BA can dream of - KLM being a case in point. If these opportunities are so lucrative why are KLM not offering them now?

I also totally refute the argument that what's good for London is good for the rest of the country - it's a line we've been fed for years - ''the Olympics will be good for the whole country'' indeed !!! Total bull.

Likewise an expanded LHR or LGW is likely to be be bad for UK regional airports such as BHX; it will also stymy MAN's aspirations to grow into a northern counterweight as airlines put all their efforts and energy into getting hold of new slots at an expanded LHR.

As Shed has said - if London wants new airport capacity, get the private sector to pay for it - it benefits the privately owned London Airports and the privately owned BA not the rest of the country.

I paid a large amount to the taxman last week and I'm getting sick of the thought that the CAPEX part of the national budget almost totally benefits London and the South East.
Taxpayer revolt anyone?

[eggc]

I think we'll see a trend here...

Those in London and SE will defend expansion.

Those outside London and SE will condemn it.

That speaks volumes in itself.

From an outside of SE point of view the whole thing benefits purely the SE, despite of any propaganda of the contrary, and BA...and worse still will damage the likes of BHX, MAN, GLA etc further growing the gap between the rest of the country and the SE.

[Bagso]

Ed Cox of the Northern think tank Ippr was on 5live last week.

Admittedly it is a left thinking.

There was a discussion re North/South investment but YET AGAIN the political commentators fail totally in making the killer points so admirably demonstrated in Sheds post......!

When will somebody grasp this issue and lay down a proper authoritive challenge !

The CBI, Unite union, various regional airport chiefs, various regional Chambers of commerce all support a 3RW at LHR !

Has anybody actually said to these guys..

"...and you do realise it will cost.... £18B
£6B being public money.

I do wonder if any of them have a glimmer as to what a small proportion of that £18b split across the UK could actually buy in there area ?

[BasilBush]

I'd be careful about provoking a taxpayer revolt. All the studies show that if you compare tax receipts with Government expenditure, the only region that pays its way is London and the South East. My own region of the Northwest is better than some (eg Wales, NI and the Northeast) but it still depends on 'subsidies' from other regions.

There's nothing wrong with that - we are one nation after all, and there is greater deprivation in many regions outside the Southeast - but be careful of overplaying the 'fairness' hand.

That being said, I agree that the costs put forward for new runways are beyond the pale. Part of the problem results from Davies including a very large uplift to reflect 'optimism bias', based on the assumption that the costs will escalate in the same way as badly managed projects in the public sector (eg rail etc). Of course as soon as you include such a cushion, it ensures that the project cost will increase to take up the slack. There needs to be much more discipline in setting the new runway costs, and reference back to MAN R2 is relevant, even if there is no direct comparison (a large chunk of the new runway costs relate to new terminals, whereas MAN R2 was purely a runway with associated taxiways etc).

[Fairdealfrank]

Now I know that London can be pricey, but seriously ... upto EIGHTY-NINE TIMES the price of delivering a directly comparable facility at Manchester? Surely that is outrageous? Even ten times the price would be outrageous! Arguably Britain's greatest engineering achievement to date - the Channel Tunnel - was delivered for £4,650M in 1994. That is £8,270M adjusted to today's money via the inflation calculator. How can a single additional runway at LHR possibly amount to more than twice the cost of constructing the Channel Tunnel at today's prices? This is simply mindblowing!
Price doesn’t matter, rwy construction is a private sector undertaking. The public sector undertakings may be highway diversion/tunnelling (was the same at MAN although on a smaller scale) and rail infrastructure (which is needed and has been/is being done at MAN).

MAN already doubled its number of rwys (good), why shouldn’t LHR? Have racked my brain but can't remember Ringway being at 100% capacity in the years before 2001.

Even now the second Ringway rwy isn't used all day, and you begrudge Heathrow a third rwy which would be used all day every day.

So a decent bit of forward planning at Ringway, should have been the same at Heathrow.


And London has enjoyed a veritable feast of enormous infrastructure innovations one after another spanning the last 30 years. Crossrail 2 is next up for funding ... projected cost £27,500M. This follows on from the Channel Tunnel, HS1, Crossrail, Thameslink re-invention, underground extensions, DLR, terminus station rebuilds, London City Airport, 'reborn' Stansted with Norman Foster terminal, Gatwick North Terminal, LHR T2 & T5, Olympic village, the M25 and assorted other new roads / motorway upgrades etc etc.


And don't forget HS2, that will suck even more economic activity towards the capital/largest city as the high speed railways do in Japan, France, and Spain.


Of particular concern to those of us outside the SE is the amount of public (taxpayer) money required for the respective projects. The numbers cited are £6,000M for LHR and just short of £1,000M for LGW. Even at LGW - by far the cheapest option - the public element of funding is just shy of 4x the entire cost of delivering EGCC 05R/23L (which was privately funded, BTW).
LGW is cheaper but doesn’t deliver the goods. If you don’t want more money spent in the south, why would you want to waste public money on a remedy that does not resolve the problem?


The non-SE 70% are taxed at exactly the same rates as Londoners.Indeed, but we are clobbered by very, very much higher train fares.


I think we'll see a trend here...

Those in London and SE will defend expansion.

Those outside London and SE will condemn it.

That speaks volumes in itself.
Not everyone outside the southeast is against LHR expansion.

[682ft AMSL]

I think we'll see a trend here...

Those in London and SE will defend expansion.

Those outside London and SE will condemn it.

That speaks volumes in itself.

Plenty of support for Heathrow expansion over here in Leeds. Places like Leeds (the city region and the airport) benefit from connectivity to global centres of trade. The fact that London (being one such economic powerhouse) happens to share the same geographical land mass doesn't change the fact it's still the type of place you want connectivity to. Labour and property costs are cheaper here than the South East, so we can leverage that advantage if we can make it an attractive place for businesses to locate here. For businesses that depend on international connectivity, a regular, reliable, high frequency link into Heathrow is a major selling point in making that case.

[Bagso]

FDF

Heathrow "can" double it's runways, but can the rest of us not have to stump up a third to pay for it ?

LEEDS
With ref to Leeds you ALREADY the connectivity, if every flight was full do you not suppose BA would increase levels as per MAN, GLA, EDI etc ?

That is part of the point connectivity is key and yet all the regions already have it!

If they need more it WOULD be found !

[MANFOD]

Likewise an expanded LHR or LGW is likely to be be bad for UK regional airports such as BHX; it will also stymy MAN's aspirations to grow into a northern counterweight as airlines put all their efforts and energy into getting hold of new slots at an expanded LHR.

Not that it will do much good, but I made this very point among others in a letter to our MP, more especially about LHR. It could even mean that MAN gains routes in the short term but will then lose business if and when R3 at LHR is built and airlines transfer flights there using the newly available slots. I know aviation is a commercial business but to me it will simply distort further the imbalance between London/SE and other regions which is not good for the UK as a whole.

Thanks for an excellent post Shed. I hope you've sent copies or something similar to various interested and possibly influential parties, given that our MPs and most business leaders appear on the surface to be silent on the issue or are openly supportive of Heathrow expansion, whatever the cost.

[AndyH52]

Bagso, you aren't looking at costs for a directly comparable facility. Of the £18bn quoted for the third runway, £11bn is for 'airfield infrastructure' which includes the runway, associated taxiways, a new terminal 6 and an expanded terminal 2 and the infrastructure to get passengers and their baggage between terminals. Not quite like-for-like. The fact it cost £21 million in 2011 just to resurface 05L/23R gives an indication of how costs have risen since runway 2 opened.

[BasilBush]

The figure of £6 billion public expenditure for R3 needs to be put into context. It relates to the estimated cost of surface access, including roads and rail. Davies has stated that the allocation of this between the scheme promoters and the public sector would be a matter for negotiation. For some reason, however, his 'base case' numbers assume that it is funded by the public sector ( ie the taxpayer).

In the supporting documents on the website alternative scenarios are considered. One of these assumes that the scheme promoters meet the full cost of the £6bn surface access works. It calculates the impact on Heathrow's airport charges, showing that the swing of £6bn from public to private only adds c10% to HAL's projected airport charges.

I think it would be safe to assume that HAL, as the scheme promoter, will end up having to swallow these £6bn costs. That would be my view anyway. Recent precedent is that HAL has had to foot the bill for surface access costs, at least in relation to extending HEX and the Piccadilly Line to T5. I can't see why this principle shouldn't also apply in the case of R3-related surface access costs.

[WHBM]

I can't imagine why BA is not out there announcing that, with a third runway, they will be adding domestic services to various points around the UK. With the absorption of BMI they already added two Heathrow domestic routes, Leeds and Belfast, which has given them some additional UK coverage. Inverness, Cardiff, Norwich, Liverpool etc would have politicians biting their hand off if offered a trunk route connection to Heathrow.

It is notable I believe that at all the UK provincial airports which have a Heathrow service, that route is the No 1 for flights per day from those places, and for all that we hear of diversion of provincial traffic through Continental hubs, the route to Heathrow is still the principal destination for Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast, Manchester etc.

[pax britanica]

Well I for one can believe the estimate and indeed would be willing to bet it would ultimately prove to be too low. While we like to think 'it doesn't happen here' large construction projects worldwide are endemic for corruption and there is no reason to suppose the UK is any different.

Also this project has particularly great opportunities for dodgy accounting because where does a third runway stop and new taxiways flyovers /unders etc etc begin. What actually is the definition of the project does it include compulsory purchase -does HAL get compensated for all the homes they already bought etc etc.

It will also drag on for ages because of planning processes requiring armies of highly paid consultants doing work that is unnecessary, repetitive , or could be done by a few full time staff just getting on with their job.

There are multiple stakeholders - Mayor of London (the office not the person ) Borough of Hounslow/Uxbridge -maybe it extending into the neighbouring counties plus central government.

it will likely span two government terms meaning there is a chance one side will pass it on to the other ensuring that no dodgy activity will be pursued because it happened on both watches and both parties will want to cover it up.

Who will be in charge of the project management , who will guarantee that the airspace can handle the new volumes of flights .

It can go on and on and on and each day delay probably adds $1m to the bill.

And I support the project because it is necessary for the country - extending Gatwick alone is daft and just means London has two big airports which cannot compete with CDG AMS and FRA instead of just one . Blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever travelled on business but nevertheless a huge costly complex enquiry is seemingly necessary to come to the same conclusion that could be determined over a weekend and that would be one day more than necessary.

PB

[Skipness One Echo]

who will guarantee that the airspace can handle the new volumes of flights .
NATS have done the modelling, do you think when this much £ is being invested no one thought to ask?
LEEDS
With ref to Leeds you ALREADY the connectivity, if every flight was full do you not suppose BA would increase levels as per MAN, GLA, EDI etc ?

That is part of the point connectivity is key and yet all the regions already have it!

If they need more it WOULD be found !
Of course it would, in an unrestricted market. Which this isn't! Every slot has to have an ROI or a raison d'etre like slot sitting in the casee of Leeds.

[HOODED]

Nice. Leeds is definitely a slot sitter then. Probably why the poor timings then. The route has carried over 250000 since it was introduced and would do better still with better timings. Sadly KLM still carry the majority of onwards due to their early morning departure shortly followed by a Jet 2, and the KLM late evening arrival for those returning. I'd love to see more pax on BA through OUR hub and not AMS but slot restrictions mean it won't happen. Not going to change anytime soon sadly.

[DaveReidUK]

Latest broadside from LGW in the war of words:

Heathrow plans for new runway blasted by rival | City A.M. (http://www.cityam.com/208447/heathrow-plans-new-runway-blasted-rival)

[WHBM]

Latest broadside from LGW in the war of words:

Heathrow plans for new runway blasted by rival | City A.M. (http://www.cityam.com/208447/heathrow-plans-new-runway-blasted-rival)


which opens with

HEATHROW Airport has underestimated the cost of a new runway by up to £5.6bn and will take at least four years longer than planned to complete the project, according to research from EC Harris that was commissioned by Gatwick Airport.
Now what do EC Harris, project management consultants, know about projects blowing timescales and budgets. Let's look at where one of their top team went.

HS2 appoints EC Harris infrastructure boss as programme director (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/HS2-News/Page-5/hs2-appoints-ec-harris-infrastructure-boss-as-programme-director)


Yes, the hugely budget-blowing, delivered at some date way off in infinity, HS2 rail line, open (well, the first little bit) way after Heathrow's new runway will be open, is headed up by an ex-EC Harris guy. What's the estimate today ? £43 billion I read. For 120 miles of double track railway ...... :ugh:

[Bagso]

Can i just say which ever side of the fence you sit on its an intetesting debate but why oh why is the Transport Select Comittee not having this discussion. I have followed the various meetings with interest and at no point has one of the MPs scrutinised the figures as one of the posters on here has!

Anyway time to introduce some levity !

The cost has gone up another £8Billion since Sheds posting earlier today !:ok:

[anothertyke]

A very good post from Shed. Yes both LHR and LGW are stonkingly expensive.
Anyone interested in the content of the projects should look at the Jacobs/Leigh Fisher reports on the Commission website.

I don't know the content of Manchester runway 2 project but my reading of the LHR North-West option is that the runway plus taxiways component of the work is of the order of £1bn before allowing for risk. So it might be a few times the price probably for a bigger and more complex project. But that's not really the point.I think the key issue is more the sheer size of the M25 costs, the land acquisition, the T6 costs and the new sections of railway to deliver the project in its entirety which take the project from £1bn to £12.9bn before risk and optimism bias which add another £5bn or so.

[DaveReidUK]

Anyway time to introduce some brevity !

Not to be confused with levity. :O

[WHBM]

The North has not yet had a single standalone publicly-funded infrastructure project approved at a price tag exceeding ONE billion (£1,000M), and to the best of my knowledge neither has any other region of the UK outside the SE.
The Edinburgh Tram finally came in at just over £1bn, for what turned out to be half of one line with a reportedly very low uptake of passengers. The benefit it delivers is miniscule in comparison to rebuilding Heathrow.

[nigel osborne]

WHBM.

Well EC Harris project manage many airport projects around the World ,and delivered T5 at Heathrow !!

They are also project managing recently a $1.5bn airport expansion programme at San Paulo airport, including detailed analysis of expected air traffic flows on existing and any further runway.

Also have just done the same for Kuala Lumpur airport last year.

They have provided costs of each project and time scale and viability of finances being put aside for the projects

So fair to say EC Harris know a great deal about airport infrastructure,projected runway capacity, time scales and costs .

Oh and Im not a Gatwick supporter and don't work for EC Harris either, Im from Brum.:ok:


Nigel

[Mr Mac]

Nigel Osborne / Shed
EC Harrris do have a good reputation as PM on foreign projects and indeed I have worked with them on some, but their star does wane a little on UK projects, probably due to political interference and enquiries. We seem incapable of keeping projects on budget in the UK as we never ever seem to reach a stage of design freeze, be it a school, an airport, or rail link, we just keep adding extras which are priced by the contractor accordingly.


Personally I do not want much more spending in the SE, I do not want HS2 as the saving of 20min on a fast train to London would spoil breakfast. HS3 is not required we just need longer trains so people do not have to stand on their trans Pennine journeys every day. It is just a joke what politicians think we want and they just get bemused by numbers


Shed
Your post of the 2.2.15 is excellent and just about sum,s up the feeling in the regions'. I will be sending to my MP for comment today, and will await the normal garbled reply of sound bites, and posturing (he is a Conservative incidentally).

Regards
Mr Mac

[Mr Mac]

Shed
Please see response from my MP on your very erudite post after I sent a copy to him for comment.


Regards
Mr Mac






Thank you for your email. I really appreciate your calculations and insight into potential options for airport expansion in the South East. That information will be invaluable when the Transport Committee, which I sit on, return to this subject later this year.





For 5 years I have been banging the drum for infrastructure investment in Yorkshire and I’m a keen advocate for HS2 and HS3. You rightly identify the Northern Hub. Electrification of the Trans Pennine Route, the managed Motorway schemes on the M1 and M62 and the Billion Pound Growth Deal for the Leeds City Region (Kirklees is part of this) are also major steps in the right direction.





The Prime Minister will be giving a major speech later this week on investment in Yorkshire – so watch this space.





Thanks again for you input.





Kind regards,





Jason





Jason McCartney MP


Member of Parliament for Colne Valley





http://www.pprune.org/ WJMgaglBEonsy0z28/+d75uZzEziun2ef5/nvnxP5jvvWd/9fb+jEQT8BbDr4nace3gRfl7VIVfQajR4kZOGmp5VMaNXEKD5CxaVh/mrYP2pYIHREL4zIDAGYsbOsX/VUsq8pNqfh9aL3njpoLiUhyI1K8WEn7V7onD6FOK9Fa1Mbbr8XHEv8e5L5xi +boh4nPLgT2/sTx+mpKRY4COIjadXVbhYYuYzUWuWpwmXkZuq9L/04JKprf2XzcSpO79VOP7OsxiBwRA3H1/904fRWkvug6RYJKYlvFSgi0uL4OkFLPttoamPPl9n+u1g64S8oky4T9Rg7v7 PsPzoAri4AVvDV+PLQ5+j3hwvXHwUBS+nyqYx2bos0+9pe8bCkajS0perclF RIU7eOlJujxaHGRM6GF1WdkZ1b7+XHsbe1hG2Gjs8TstGQnoStl3YDOeBLqg bpG5Oo9FS2YES7sXd0QG+btVQUgp4u1aGt7MXSvhPVX7VAny0cRg8+nvi061 DlfdTdy/DyY793X1eugc7O3tsOfcj2i9rDmpjGUheRsVfV1grlfVM7O8m9obfPWv6/d3xVeLjkA9FYVGB6Le6vfCYDDFyQx9Rfbq7+D3mFzF/3wxxOuakyNCliarTXMr0ozBPOI2DeJAca2prPL+mCL9/SsQlPxRjQz8QZ+4eEU0W1BSfbB4h3DlvnTnuSt8ZuyaIWbunm8advnXUQvQw gnv+AGLL+VBLA+A/00Xg71Sh0rL+GAmRlpOmdhwA8c5XjYXPVCdRZ7azqD1HPXx0fJTFAg+S/+Am75va0nNfCLtPIO4mRpvasvOyREz8DUud4LoYBVE7CKLuHEfhPF4rege/q6x7LS5C3cNQSxX3mqjuwQgmMTs76waQxv9ZKQrbsvMyAVtgVOgA5OiyETzu W5yfdwspq3RoXqMd8gpVSalXtaGFONT1bYA6vvVMbfeeP0CRHjgS9Zupzc3Z HU1qUkTMQc5VxQUFRbLRBXnrSnB42hmcXX4MyTmJ+PrwUsAJ+D3mV9OoDG41 ZOQmSzEzniyQlBi3ZaTy2nZpI+EiTz4c4vaTMqpKnD5fL3ynQ7hMgNh5UWWx hPD7F8S2CxssKD74++6i0lSIpov8LdqP3/pV7AgPMbVFcKzHJCjie+PRNUuuSa7QIkqcO/ck4UDkdmE71pJTGoV9ZqAZroG3txbvNuyFdvXb4/GLJwiL2IT074pNvSLjwtEtuD2VGnj0HMj8PgsepLbreA3yyN3U0BR4u/kgnS8BcyrDi/0Syejj086iY8OOyjyeEx2RlVoAsUdd3m+mK2xs85BBw/jD0BB81P5j03qtlgSgjk8TvF2vLZ6mxmPNyQ2K4t9dGo3Xqr9RMWfkwZYdXC T6BHcuR5nHyQ9Ey8VNRMyTm+LaowjhRgrVCdIIh/EQR2+U+Yw8fbZpbLuvmirev06QVvjPgqjG3+ZQXFyovMZxbmdyWc4npWF7eK goKioWLRc1JrdVfTGHtb8vE11WtCvXXo4z8piakRrM6T0Dy4esNJ365J0j6D olECs/+wIzei5ArdkeNMPZsLHRIj6tFK40p6PaTUDD6vWQq8/D6hP/hL5UR/NcZv0LaaMzcoDZPeajCp1VQvoLbI/4AfHpOaS8hsQWyMsHHi/P5ZxxeH1EU6yYtRSzAueb9nEs+gh6zA2E+LW8H6rwMFHxl9F8Vhu83bQRzs2 Ogr09d2oGC3/+DGtPr4SXi/QVGsVjlIpS6CmJ+TQM0q842asDzIVY6c2z6dlH/nZkH+lTbNho3FpOfik61u2BA5OOWqwpX4au74c9pw8hePTXmNZzdjl8hYeRv XqtfBeXn55DBmW9a+M26Nt8IFwcnLD7yk5cfHgJ1TwkJbl5Rjc6UjOLD/j4+WrxWrVWqOlVj06yCtydXHhQwUNooS/Ix4u8FDzPfIR7KTfwIJFssgHcXGi/HHg4Wk8tD5auK4WfWw1M6jKT1CjGuXvh2HXpZ3h7yu72SF5VUO4gikRZGwBj L0EXrh2nJfuBAlJcUlNuXi4qf7zIBQrZNrBZD/R4oyd6N30fNbxrVrjIf2rMycvBweh9OHnnJHaRUPkMEKq6A3Y8WI4kEEFyz9 FOgydpApeCItAqoM2rDyNKS0hBksoAi3+Zi+CTy2m1pNxTngsEUmitejXrhJ ndg9ClSY8/vflXDaAbYDz3JXaE74eXB+BB3yJDpLzCUrSo3h5HZl546RQKZ8aFjsLP18Pw dq1eOBZ7CHHfPIFfJX9lUIN5VVFQkox8OrMpnRdhft/Fr9rP/xs+LHw75v4yFlptITLzgPTVJfytGhSfyXZo6NsambpU2NiX4OaSB9BsvfCju PrgMtaMXGfahNMYyncItZjQcL4P/khORYC3F+pXqYeU7BQUl6o+RypxCX/H0yp5ubjAi77GWuGLSgtpmV5Qxzwpoi7l8LoiHX1QJvy9vOFg62AyBFJ3vFy 9qI/5iHx4D76M1JOZ60kImFUdMUtjOR9ZRzj3xzGEnA2BdvPZdRYHiU2KQb+WvfG v3xbj3N3j+CMpFbcXR+HHUQcQHncFL3TxyMhPUJ4XugRyTYcXwXkY33EiHqW r7cYnOTcBzvaOyPtBoG3dTniaZYl/lp2A5v6tGbqUwtfDB8/Z3zg2Tf8UNyhy77cchoINhdBR53+iTh24EgZ7uyLEJsSaiN/xte6IfX4ZWusKQGUXH7g5eMHXtSoCKtdXBrxeoyk6NuoMO6qTfOxttcrD/6jh9RocHRzxTv1utM9lOImXEtGgalOFhW3rdlS4Yhwr/0o6t63TWVmjuV876oY5Xk0R+jUdDHsHO+qtL2p4+KNmpTpc14HrqmpgBOmjN Dsitouzt09g45gt0DMidLJzgsPHGhSEqiz1mKxBIfVFvnnRhD6nATDKgg0tm w8TLx0DSSl4blRWSqQJaMnh7qzibWmdBPeXXZaHwZ1SIjWAdge2tFjSYtLfm oCSTaNDArJFT0IVbVD3VC/ID9cWxjCEqqS8n2KiFnZpB7QfthlB++6EatMc4TfNE17jNHj87TPThJJaVTy 5aZrL2t71mTyQBlvVJ2phlML+StyUJw/aLqCLCSfxR6acQC7xvhwvuRTUbYEFfn7PRQo3vDl3IamxZ8whC/ygN0cq83pzfnsSo7RY1eMHyxPQbEF9VJ3uhOrT3TDnp5kIGRumEEbRmaRV+R jUchQyePpqnpaZprEqJFNmc0jXqemCEgOQaAXFMi8og5xCsoHtGnUZmlc6Jz PILcg2vFHk2C+vkE7UDApK6Ghekj0/XpmGVUPXIHzuTVxZeEcZZZE2a19RzJL23hwcKZLmYGPmo2S7A1Nsc7C1sQyL 7AzvRmLZ05pZ9NeSHSq1XgJa2Bj7sIdtUXER3lpSH7V9q+H8g6uI/yYCbeoOxOKBi00TSLmVBCooysPuSyEoKimmEtoyJLkD6iay9QK2NAxpuUn4+ WoYPXcOxcIeMQlR9NxMESjwjEdx73kU9kdug65QRyvnjNikKAaqKt6B+454e ByFJZkUuUK4OrjiWeZ9Jc7Loc6Zw8Gb/8byQ9ORXZBJd+BNjuqwe9wxaLZdWC/8aSE6NeqO+8n36EsaoOeKt3B09hWVKGM0mNH1U+QWpmP/jT0oprIaOS8tm+TVvMAvcCjqIGISryqhjxGknLvYOSKo53KsP7sMCfRRUjeM IGMxWeSY2X0Jlh35nJvLtsBLAr1dqyMCmwRiyo4glIYyQiFVunzdGSfnnCYR sxj7qb5m4vZJ0DqSQrn5mUqDPIgEOxtDyGtYdeWwH7Bh5G5y2waVqJCVGd7I R1K9a8P3Mb37AoSMDmMgWYaTeFml6d98MD59bypWDNqqRBE+hrHyr4yylw/agrHvTsbodp8qqxnnruzKQJZc2Tp6DyZ3m4PW9VrzoGqA6UTfJcF4EF1BntL 2KqGEVINB3wfSauVwcyXIljopV1EODRyN/QnTd07BybsH4EYznMmI1wgyWNx7dTvstZWx//pa+i8wkyzDu5JmE3b2x+WH8xAa8bXit8zHS872XN0OHesHIvJBJEXXUqfKeK z+spVZs0baR3Mwe3cjESIeHVFEy4fhxScdZiohjNSZuLT72HN1K3ZdW6voRE 3P2hjVdiKLgHk8qB3uJt3Cvhu7EHYlWBnfumY79GjSn/5Mp7iD43cO4nJ8OEIvLZP+Fv2afICmdNCFJUVwpnHZfy0MsSnR2H3te7gw9T bKt7WBM+7ftrSkhAqpeqq45/cQULUBUnOZ2JuBVE5p4l2dKmFa97Ks7+qjCGy5uJX5Pp1skUBVjzr4tMtnpp HHbh/F1ku7GJdpFY60qtUBE7uUJVWZ+kycfxgOT2ctY75S9Gk6FANaDjCNv/4sBrHJ0UoKINMBeQhJ9nyZARKydaycOnsqXxjyKGq2Q9uOxphNI3AiOgKHYw +gW0AffDN0ozUHlXfJEXPQG4hgbLP2Q3pyyBwKSiyTqsJiQ8Ji6FRuPiu/ZZxr27hQDF87AvczbsLXxR8eDpWwc9J21c+EfLIDG8auR+/XB2LLRJY9G7xX7jBKmmtH7TcDb7cqZT6AHZzspSyUQVX3GmqUbJBiL0dvC7y HoxqOGKW6iruls3Z1ZGjAsdZa4FepFnZO3kEpmYS1I1bzIGGchV7SPNP8x4/jsXH0eosFvaZoaALVCX05d5KMzQzgQH2UoUgi21zpP2UWmizxhs07sU0mV88 zGNcxhpNykiGdvsTzt5fcK41IOgMFH1pYHaUnz1iDJ96HsVkOmZnPx57GQr+ W+Yy0EgbYExnCEKor/CvXUlq0WboM1JvljSFru+OXayEYuKobxoYOMQ3I5EIlm5jnry2g4gJ1qsqH6 TQfX26ghnsDiBDBFIEpL/EB1VRcAB8ZmLao2QGCQetnXalr3IcJz37SUk6gQZH47o0GKIGqHKeMr6ahcw YOTzimzO9Og1DCeoCEjSfXozOL5l/8ex4+2tAXrRYF4Py9U9AevLkPoR/vxt7Jx5DA+OznaceRlF4WaMrBeQW5NAophiqMWomRjxShgmLVPWfrSX6CEVc i8XzPN8RjWfp0NUI2jJV/Jch2dQ01nJbjJK5EWlm+y3UlFJQUGupANPfX9+L0vJu4/VUyzsyPxtUlcdgb+Qs0eyO3CUfa775vlnGjz8r2ODzzojKJ11SNkrJKMfPzJ KvJcvnpRC4k/YANn4QXDP8pRu4043ozqyP9jKR+EvFeFBkn/pa1ZDleHkyKqYwY0nieKvILBtuLDOmGoqOcL5Nip+PjSK7p1jACoJj1Ce6Fw 9PLvs9Ip7nwl0WqAVArX2Vg/iapLys0NbiZmt6NkLpGIH2tQBqf459FKSZTioT0R20CeirtRvzPE8ORQULU9 eMynGfqe0tM41PZb3rXxcrB6tbQMgoBdow+ZTF+YLOxCoECKNoymngVMNOUQ aIhEDD0to6O5YGUQLO47AuZ7JohRcCAk3/1ViF+Sm6iwlFjNpuVr4qiEbLpZyQYP5K9YH9zMKYI1h/RrJ2mMfrWyiLCjfgrLJtmYB/zaz1NR2L20wqJYH3IVxHBVmsZ8ttI02UG1imDdX+tVUphPEQxo93nmUm48Md p8Bsoop5cpw/Uw7Z/iw8QmxiD4OOLsf/qAUTGncb+iSctFpVhuKSOrKs9S3tMuc9nkc4BiRnPlBC+SH7zIweKGQimZid TztPptZ3xnAUMGb8VcQIZ7mSTM8ncRA4DWzdHD4b2mUoGKvEyrU7JTkRCWrw S7ng4etF45CipdhHXN5ey32b8is/2jmOxJYb3DGoxgqiE4GEbrfxMCP3MGEs/48wPrbU8KjGcob8pTKN1KUsBnEl4udmm1VvgzvPrysFSzJJFVyq4PdsaV2mK W8+jlTpzullQICNwGVS0qPkWrj29osRnxiqmpKY38TY8RQOfN5hrxaB0o5oC GCEsYgPaMlUPYAlMgglTzPpWbnEWigxhtnGAnmoSuywN95enKolSLTrxOvx+ Ix9PRsmdGvTE2aBriAi6y+p/GU7i5WH/1mIIzs6NwqYRe5RcxThW/pV+5PvhYTgxKxJT3psOB+7GiK/trVFyp6vznuDc3Gg0rdbYlALIvfHbKh1qFpJZriqi2ZZg+zD5Lnqt6oV+zQf gwr2jZN8c3H4ajhNzIk0U2Bm+BQmZqh7JCopSUyJI5b4afxYnbh3Fnis7WHK i+ZQyYRBuyYkL90+wiBeO704vUwJGHcusRnCiaP1w5p9oQMr+Gn2A3t0Mz7m lCC79bRYGtxiJ6MTbpjxr+rYJrNaUIjrhAq3sRXLXhq4lEJqw8M3Cz8MP777 e07RIP/qZg2Z+RnJEcreyizM61R/MEL2A7Leho0zDhUdHlXKQTNSquFUm2/uSalRGpgBJ2Y9w7ckFRXRkuFPfuyEaV29LndMz3XZi2nwJ91JjFbzMdZoT5+ 9dj9JRRB/myLEn8YRElEGypE8uy7PSz/Rc2R1HZx6z0Otpu6azXMVcPYeJlzmU0U41q1J2ZQrg7eqHTaO3mLreiI9Ep3 8dZe1MTQHqV2mOTaNCTfgzd08icE1XVnuYAuSVIrDxIMzvzw+tBvjn4fm4fT wW1dy1FJdSTOkyH73f7G3Cj98+Gkk3t8CdMVyysZAjxcnKykmnKdssyy2GaV 7mn6xD/LJSkTrQOqTPMqTjRrHTF1umBNJqSTCa3Ox8NaQxQj4LFQre2rFY9Cp70ZbQ3 MpKiTmUyzwNyFf6BSs/Yl1LMC8LySmt343Oz7gXW6tahLHd+nDOLMjLD1ra2t4B+Ob3ldh2aR16fdsR Oy5v4L0wM54aZpDhREZeMvZF7lZa5N2WWwk3lBKTBKnsuSz9JLF4LqGA1uYu 8dJ0S8LKfgnpj5CnVwuBOt63eZYep+iiBBnn3Uu+xbBGxV+8d4b+77Jpftlm ZJAzO687swITtg/D0kNzseTgTPi4eEDbpl5H/GvwSjSs3ITd7VDboy4iFkVbcEqlIuU6JxfhD1SHquXpFv4yH85KjUEDB+7qz O0oWpgo9XD898XhRUoaIEHmOj9eOoDHPICENH5W33z+JyWmkyDzngUHv+C9H DW0yuJFivCH9+mnymvCvkmH6LtawNPJE/4spnd9rQ/m9l2o6kxj/zdZyumA2pUa4p2GXcsdxNiQTTuxsN8KE375oNUmJ1hEU/m6vx8/CQYqeHte1pnAElKmoYAno+V367dAYz9+FSD4e/vz02EHJQeSIC3a2HdY9+YXBQmBzfuhEhNXmRJUBB0bdUXzWm/xe2sftH+ts9JFOUwp9WbkpmH46eY2bL9Ycf4vQ4529ZspH4CM8Pd2Y+AkP01 wQZkmfNh6pMW6/+g0HSx+yhWUyCEosMySydYFfVYgSdF5oaQCEzpPtRg/oNlQ1a9VYJEuPzyPZYeWYfjm4cxk1fxLW0CLYjPCFl8N+gpr/7YZ9xIeoe+3/NZiBTKvGPbWcItWDUUtsHF/JbWV3n1ilyALfG2fOmjm30xJh2t4VkL3Jr0s8G/Xa4P6Pr7kjoC/Z3U0q9nKAj+Xh09hoG19lvUn1mNq2Dis+ygEmz/ahLrz/XHr6U1gyHdDRJ4+y+K2Q4cv24rUnBdKm7yvotxg+rjiS4PXH18WNv8AbyB1K HdjQjYciTok5FWq2XsnVIhf+NM05TbT1gubK8TXC/IW/rOh3OAQxWoXeZvJGprMqy208em34CyrIGbQg47r8v3zppZ8Uv39FhV/WX6zVmslGJzDenNF0I3ckAW88Z2mVYif2vVzJToa2vqjCvF/bztWKZwr3DGwqKVfeb32kuXRDzcMF4npTywO2vzzBiJLl6m0yVuv+BDibOyp CiknG3+K3CXSc1Jfil9/IvilOIlYc2T5S/E63qDCMO6B3CthriHBnRdYreHNBQ3U27MYAnHs1r9Fem6KGBjcXYzfPMbUd9 XvX4hvjy7+j5v5q5G7GD9+c2SBKClRb/YduLJfVOMNxKdpceL2s5tCXvKTv011s5m7JyIhIwNjOwxH1yZ9KmT5/1Ljk9Q4zPv5c8W/fT9iI+/hOL/8usn/0sb/271UGGj+t4P/1/r9H9X0NJJezDGwAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC





Tel: 020 7219 7041 (Westminster)


Tel: 01484 688364 or 688378 (Constituency)


Email: [email protected] ([email protected])


Web: www.jasonmccartney.com (http://www.jasonmccartney.com/)

[nigel osborne]

Mr MAC thanks for your reply.

Thought it was amazing to see how the roof of T5 was slowly raised in one piece , whether that was EC Harris or someone elses idea on the project ,ingenious.

I share your view on HS2. The new station for it near Birmingham Airport is actually nearly a mile away from Birmingham International Station and BHX.

There is to be a rapid transit system between the HS2 Stn here and Bham International Station .So any time saved with the speedier train is surely lost by the time you get off it wait for the transit system and get into Bham Int for an onward train or to get to BHX...crazy ?


Nigel

[Bagso]

Well done Mr Mac:ok:

Jason McCartney has been outspoken in terms of why Manchester never formed part of the Airport Capacity debate , one which started as one about all UK airports but somewhow "morphed" into one specifically about the South East !

I also wrote to JC as letters to my nearest MP Graham Stringer, are naturally ignored as he sits very firmly in the Heathrow camp (he is only the MP for a constituency in ...er wait for it Manchester)

[MANFOD]

Jason McCartney has been outspoken in terms of why Manchester never formed part of the Airport Capacity debate , one which started as one about all UK airports but somehow "morphed" into one specifically about the South East !

I'm not aware that anyone on the Transport Select Committee or any of the other interested parties have questioned whether Davies has reinterpreted his original remit, and if so why. Perhaps it was inevitable it would come down to a choice between LHR and LGW but I feel he has given short shrift to the role that regional airports can play other than to emphasise 'connectivity' to London, at least from what has been reported. It's surprising in my view that people like
G Stringer MP appear to have accepted the claim that expansion of Heathrow will benefit the regions (implying all regions and by inference all regional airports). That is a highly questionable assertion for some of us.

[Bagso]

Tonights Evening Standard

Evening Standard Comment: Airport expansion will take political courage - Comment - Comment - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-airport-expansion-will-take-political-courage-10020552.html)


Airport Expansion Will Take Political Courage ...and seemingly a bottomless pit of cash, one third of which will be ours !

[Fairdealfrank]

I can't imagine why BA is not out there announcing that, with a third runway, they will be adding domestic services to various points around the UK. With the absorption of BMI they already added two Heathrow domestic routes, Leeds and Belfast, which has given them some additional UK coverage. Inverness, Cardiff, Norwich, Liverpool etc would have politicians biting their hand off if offered a trunk route connection to Heathrow.
With a third rwy there may well be other carriers with aircraft more suited to thin domestic routes, BE perhaps, it wants to operate from NHT. Also, U2 has said (in its submission to the Commission) that it would introduce IOM, INV and JER plus taking on BA on the domestic trunk routes as well as on some Europe routes, should a third rwy be built.


It is notable I believe that at all the UK provincial airports which have a Heathrow service, that route is the No 1 for flights per day from those places, and for all that we hear of diversion of provincial traffic through Continental hubs, the route to Heathrow is still the principal destination for Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast, Manchester etc.
Indeed, and many other UK airports want (need?) such a link, as does business and enterprise. The suggestion that no one outside the southeast wants LHR expansion is risible.


And I support the project because it is necessary for the country - extending Gatwick alone is daft and just means London has two big airports which cannot compete with CDG AMS and FRA instead of just one . Blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever travelled on business but nevertheless a huge costly complex enquiry is seemingly necessary to come to the same conclusion that could be determined over a weekend and that would be one day more than necessary.
Quite right, or as they say at Gatwick, obviously.



Nice. Leeds is definitely a slot sitter then. Probably why the poor timings then. The route has carried over 250000 since it was introduced and would do better still with better timings. Sadly KLM still carry the majority of onwards due to their early morning departure shortly followed by a Jet 2, and the KLM late evening arrival for those returning. I'd love to see more pax on BA through OUR hub and not AMS but slot restrictions mean it won't happen. Not going to change anytime soon sadly.
Me too, and Leeds is not a slot sitter.



Can i just say which ever side of the fence you sit on its an intetesting debate but why oh why is the Transport Select Comittee not having this discussion. I have followed the various meetings with interest and at no point has one of the MPs scrutinised the figures as one of the posters on here has!
the Transport Select Comittee did, yonks ago, and, unsurprisingly, came out in favour of……..Heathrow.


Personally I do not want much more spending in the SE, I do not want HS2 as the saving of 20min on a fast train to London would spoil breakfast. HS3 is not required we just need longer trains so people do not have to stand on their trans Pennine journeys every day. It is just a joke what politicians think we want and they just get bemused by numbers
Since the south east has a third of the UK's population, it is hardly surprising that so much infrastructure spending takes place there. If not, the SE would grind to a standstill. Because of the high population, the SE also pays the bulk of UK taxation.

HS3 may not be needed but a massive improvement is necessary on Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield-York-Hull, and not just longer trains, and if SE taxation pays for it, good.



It's surprising in my view that people like G Stringer MP appear to have accepted the claim that expansion of Heathrow will benefit the regions (implying all regions and by inference all regional airports). That is a highly questionable assertion for some of us. Why? just because he's a Manchester MP? As mentioned before, the suggestion that no one outside the south east wants LHR expansion is risible.

[eggc]

Nobody is perhaps a little over the top I agree Frank...the vast majority is probably more accurate.

Don't underestimate the resentment from non-Londoners about the excess of spending in London/SE, and lack of it everywhere else...it's a sure fire subject to get folks back up.

Then add local, and vocal, NIMBY's and spineless politicians to the mix...it's going to be an uphill battle to expand LHR in my humble opinion no matter what any committee recommends.

[Suzeman]

Why? because just he's a Manchester MP? As mentioned before, the suggestion that no one outside the south east wants LHR expansion is risible.

But Stringer could have been more vociferous in promoting the idea that by encouraging growth at regional airports and allowing them to satisfy more of their own demand on direct services, this can help the situation in the SE. This would free up some, albeit small, amounts of capacity for people who really need to go to or through London's Airports. This will become increasingly important as whatever happens in the SE won't add much extra capacity in the short term.

Stringer used to be a massive supporter of MAN but seems to be much less enthusiastic nowadays. He was of course a big cheese on Manchester Council when it was the majority owner; I wonder whether the formation of MAG and the sale of some of it privately due to the acquisition of Stansted has been one of the factors in this apparent reluctance to bang MAN's drum as hard as he used to?

[M62]

I'm getting fed up of being told how the South East pays more tax than the rest of the country and subsidises the rest of the UK and this justifies the huge infrastructure costs in the the south east. Don't forget that there are disproportionately more company HQ's in and around London. For example Marks and Spencer may be based in London and their corporation taxes are probably counted in the SE total but the profits are generated by the whole of the UK.

[Bagso]

Whilst there is "evidence" that extra runways at Heathrow will be in "The National Interest" quite how the benefit will ripple across The North, remains as hazy as the view from a runway with an RVR of less than 200ms.

There are still many Qs unanswered and certainly to me this is where the Transport Select Committee who are scrutinising this project need to be much more robust and forensic in their questioning. The "public costs" are at least now well detailed, although is it just me that seems to think they have only manifested themselves since a poster on here first alerted us to them a few months back ? (Thanks Shed)

I refer to the state aid element of course, (Transport Select Comittee members are you reading this...) if of course HAL want to throw £20B+ of there own money at this then by all means, proceed. I'm sure they will argue "National Interest" when they put there bowl out for the collection after the sermon, but hang on they will of course be the main benefactor of all future profits regardless of where the investment originates private .........OR indeed public !!!

The "costs" will start to kick in on the first day a yes decison is made ! The actual "income" figures being tossed around by those who are gushing about its probable success, well shall we just say they seem somewhat more vague as to a precise date we see a return.

AND what is the national ROI , "£250B, £300B, £450B" it really depends which day of the week it is and which way the wind is blowing.

How will this return be actually spilt ?
If the country puts in a third do we then deserve a third of the future profit or does it all go to HAL ?
#justasking

It's a bit like the country taking out a 20 year mortgage, it needs repaying from day 1 but it will be at least 20+ years before the debt is paid and even longer for any benefits to begin to accrue. Even then how long will it actually be before this multi billion windfall washes across the country and The North in particular?

Most importantly how does the country gaurantee its "own" return ?

Is it best use of £6,000,000,000m and WHO will ensure our investment is protected OR is it simply written off ?

Local MPs primarily should support initiatives in their own area. They should of course also support issues in "The National Interest" but not without recourse to their implications not least where there is a cost involved.

There are many MPs of a Northern persausion on the Transport Select Committee Louise Elhman (Liverpool), Graham Stringer (Manchester), Jason McCartney (Colne Valley). They do of course have to be totally impartial but not to the point where those "local interests" are discarded " at any cost" !
Mrs Elhman and Mr Stringer would do well to follow Mr McCartneys lead...

Those same MPs should also be mindful that an investment in their local area "might" be more immediatly transformational whilst the aggregate investment in a project 200 miles away with a timeline of over 20 years somewhat less so.

It is the type of reasoned questioning they should be following.

Maybe there are other projects across The North and indeed the UK of equal merit ! I think the term is "bangs for your buck".
I hasten to add I am not suggesting throwing cash around on ad hoc basis but investment in properly costed infastructure where
current thinking suggests we would obtain a real benefit and a thoroughly costed return.

I could be narrow minded here, a one sixth (yes one sixth, that's all) , spend of the the Heathrow allocation on say Manchester Airport would pay for all of Airport City...and still leave £200m in small change !

Alternatively could £1B be used for terminal expansion and improvement ?

How long to complete 3, 4 years ? Probably 5 years at most !

Utterly transformational for The North AND the added benefit of not having to wait a minimum of another 16 or 17 years for that still vague "Heathrow trickledown effect".

Given MAGs track record of paying back divdends at least we know "The Country" would get its money back.....

Of course there is a problem , we are not in London but could investment in an airport that is


Central to the vast majority of the UK population.
Serves 22m people
Connects all the regions of the UK from Inverness to Newquay,
Has thee best rail connections of any airport in the UK
AND is less than one hour from 5 of our largest Cities

..... not be considered to be "In The National Interest" ?

Or

is it mandatory to be a "London Thing" ?

I suspect Frank is polishing the keys on his laptop as I type !

[eggc]

...but BA may have to break their business model (or stagnate in a restricted LHR), also god forbid Londoners/SE folk may have to travel to catch a flight plus LHR would not be able to keep up with / complete with CDG, AMS or FRA if MAN was used more being central to the entire country with more existing domestic connections than any other UK airport. We couldn't possible have any of that happening :rolleyes:

[Skipness One Echo]

There's one national hub airport, either fix it and make it work properly or allow it to wither.
When the French discovered Concorde wasn't a success they invested phenomenal amounts of money supporting Airbus to make Toulouse a world leader. Meanwhile Filton where the BAC Concordes were built is a housing estate. The problem some people seem to have, in my view of course, is that if they can't get what they see as their "fair share" in a competitive market, then the National Interest can go hang. Hence the love for Emirates, Etihad and Qatar with their shiney heavies despite being countries where as a gay bloke, I'd be jailed.
You think the Qataris spent more than a split second pondering the unfairness of it all when they just went ahead and built a proper airport?

[Mr Mac]

Skip
The competitive market is heavily skewed to a SE bias with regards to infrastructure spend, and the regions need some support. Asking people who do not live there to pay for another wonder project is just wearing thin with the population up here. You site the "National Interest" as the reason for this project. A national interest is where everyone benefits from the expenditure, not just the SE. Many people who live outside the area no longer use LHR for either business or pleasure and even people coming to visit my own company from overseas avoid the place. There is much talk of national interest but nobody seems able to show concrete irrefutable evidence of this, only vague figures and promises , much like those given about the Channel tunnel. The main driver appears to be improve connections to London on the ground so we can increase the commuter belt size !. As for trickle down ask the towns people of Lyon what the effect has been with the TGV link to Paris - office flight to Paris.


With regards to human rights in the Gulf States I agree with you and I have and do work there. But you must remember that if you were lucky enough to be born, or live in western Europe, North America, Australasia, and some small other areas eg Japan, you have drawn in life the Ace in the pack,the biggest Silver spoon in your mouth you will ever have !. The rest of the world is not yet like that and it will take more than either my, or indeed most probably your life for that to change. By the way I hope it does.


As for the use of the Gulf carriers we are going over old ground. BA is not as good as any of the carriers you mentioned in either equipment or service currently, and according to a colleague who used their new 380 to LA can not even get it right when they do have new equipment.


Regards
Mr Mac

[Bagso]

if of course HAL want to throw £20B+ of there own money at this then by all means, proceed.

I think I made it clear Skip I have no issue with HAL spending their own money!

I do however object to the rest of us stumping up a third of the cost for what is ;

a) a highly questionable return, for us "up North " at least !

b) a project where those same costs seem to change daily usually in an upward direction.

Of course we need to expand LHR I am simply saying that IF its dependent on public money, well, that element needs thorough examination and indeed ringfencing.

Perfectly sensible !

And again we are going over old ground, arguements over QRs record on human rights (or football), really does have precious little to do with LHR expansion, does it now !

BUT if as you suggest we are to make an example of an airline over human rights, a ban at the main hub would seem the best way to start , rather than at an airport that you yourself might descibe as of questionable significance at national level like Manchester.

By way of balance QR operate into Heathrow with much more capacity and at a much higher frequency !
oh so do Etihad, oh and Emirates, oh and SAUDIA and...and ... and etc

[willy wombat]

But Bagso, sometimes money has to be spent nationally even 'though not all areas benefit. I live in Sussex and I'm pretty sure that Sussex won't see any benefit from HS2, whereas the North will, but my taxes still go towards it.

[BasilBush]

Bagso

I suggest you read my post 3457 regarding the £6billion of so-called public investment. This is actually surface access investment which in reality is likely to be picked up by HAL, not the taxpayer. It's really just loose wording by Davies which might lead you to think that he is suggesting that this needs to be paid for by the taxpayer.

If you read the detailed Davies documents you will see that they acknowledge that scheme promoters (HAL in this case) normally pick up such costs, and recent precedent at Heathrow is that HAL has indeed had to get out its cheque book.

The detailed documents also calculate the impact on airport charges of HAL paying for this £6billion.

So you can rest easier that your taxes are highly unlikely to be used in support of LHR expansion.

[Mr Mac]

Willy Wombat
This may come as a little shock, but I have yet to meet anyone up here in either business or socially, apart from some MP,s who want the new train set.


Fair deal frank
You may not be aware but the trains which run on the trans Pennine route are more often than not, just 3 or less carriages. Now I also have a flat in London from who's windows I can see the approaches to London Bridge as well as Thames Link and see trains of 10 + carriages. Why can we not have similar length trains to overcome the congestion that the commuters suffer up here, it would be a lot cheaper and a quicker fix than new track and tunnels ?.


Basil Brush
Who is paying for the public enquiry currently ?.


Oh I do like being back in this country it so Machiavellian how stuff does, or does not get done, unfortunately for the population usually the latter !.


Regards
Mr Mac

[BasilBush]

Yes, you're right that the costs of the Davies commission itself are taxpayer funded, at least in relation to its own costs. It would be interesting to know how these costs compare with the very large sums being spent by HAL and GAL on promoting their own schemes.

Actually I remember from when the Davies commission was set up that at least one interested party said that this was a relatively good deal for the taxpayer in that the scheme promoters were assumed to incur most of the costs. This was in contrast to previous inquiries where virtually all of the costs were footed by the taxpayer.

Even so, Davies's direct costs won't be cheap.

[Bagso]

Mr Brush

I have indeed read your post, always an interesting contribution.

When we get a definitive

"HAL are footing the whole cost".

at that point I shall of course retire from this subject.

Until then the sceptic in me has this nagging fear that should LHR go through, the amount coming from the public purse will somehow be signed off behind some "smoke and mirrors".

Continuing the animal theme Mr Wombat

And as Mr Mac rightly suggests HS2 is being "dressed up" as some kind of Messiah bringing salvation for The North !

I can assure you many of us are aghast at this expenditure, just give us a measly couple of billion NOW (not in 20 years) to improve what we already have cross country Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds Hull !

It does show the confidence trick being played out here that ordainairy folk actually believe the North is getting some kind of massive investment and depriving the rest of the country ...

Trust me it really is complete B..........

At this point the editor had to step in because of the number of profanities....

[BasilBush]

I don't blame you Bagso for your vigilance. I agree with you that there should be no taxpayer contribution to costs that result directly from a private project.

All I can say is that I am aware of the virtual blackmail that BAA/HAL was put under during the T5 public inquiry to write a blank cheque for projects such as the Piccadilly Line extension etc. Since that time, the attitude of Governments on such matters has only hardened, particularly in these austerity-focussed times.

You won't get a commitment from Davies however as it's outside his brief, but I really think that it's inconceivable that a future Government of any colour would let HAL off the hook on this issue. HAL has already accepted the principle of paying for such costs - the argument is over the extent and scope. But HAL's negotiating position is very weak, as they know that planning permission would be refused otherwise (it's just a larger scale repeat of the T5 arguments really).

[Bagso]

I know I have asked this before but what is the cut off point where the cost of expansion becomes untenable ?

£15B, £25B, £50B ?

HAL are a private company and have to be accountable to their own shareholders do they not and whatever "national interest" they are serving in terms of the UK if there profits are submerged by debt for years surely they won't get the ahead ?

How can they possibly gaurantee the same demand will exist in 20 years time ?

[kieb92]

SAS have sold 1 of their 21 daily slots at LHR. Any speculation as to who they have gone to?

SAS Scandinavian offloads Heathrow slot pair for $60mn - ch-aviation.com (http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/34926-sas-scandinavian-offloads-heathrow-slot-pair-for-60mn)

[Aero Mad]

$60m is a gamble indeed on Davies' findings.

This is a most interesting discussion, but I'm not sure we're assessing total economic benefit entirely fairly. Without wanting to stray off-threat too much, I think Bagso and willy wombat perhaps underestimate the extent to which HS2 will benefit the country more widely. For instance, by relieving the West Coast Main Line (which is under significant pressure as is) of thousands of passengers, there is more room to accomodate freight. Given that the North of England as a whole does most of its trade with the UK and, within that, with the South, reducing the time and cost of rail freight between the two represents a benefit to each area as a whole; not just the local environs.

Similarly, taking pressure off the road network (with similar benefits) by allowing more passengers and freight to travel by rail benefits the country more widely.

I won't go on and on but there are a load of ways that HS2, like LHR R3, benefits trade across the country - not just in London, Birmingham or Manchester. When trade is made easier, businesses benefit and thus their employees benefit. So to say that HS2, or LHR R3, won't benefit 'the regions' isn't quite true - sorry to state the blooming obvious but it's perhpas been missing from the debate somewhat.

[Trinity 09L]

An article from the Beeb magazine today, on a NATS proposal on spacing. Apologies if it is out of order, or over past threads.

BBC News - A new way to stop the gridlock in the skies (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31109732)

Slough Boro' Council have agreed to take the money and support Heathrow expansion

[Gonzo]

Trinity09L

It's not a proposal.

It's coming.

See Time Based Separation | NATS (http://www.nats.aero/tbs)

[Mr Mac]

Aero Mad
The freight argument really does not work in the UK apart from perhaps Scottish traffic and container and bulk traffic from Ports as the transhipment time and charges eat into making it viable. If you remember many years ago BR had Freightliners running around the country to various terminals from within the UK as well as overseas. With a few exceptions these terminals have gone. In Germany / France rail freight works due to the shear size of the country. It would be better looking at the Netherlands as a similar example to the UK which has one high speed rail line and has plans for no more and apart from Port freight most stuff is on a barge or truck.


Regards
Mr Mac

[Aero Mad]

Apologies for thread creep, but I think you underestimate the role of rail freight. Between 1995 and 2013 volumes increased by 60% (with 105 tonnes carried in 2011/12), to a level not seen since the early '80s. It now has a market share of 11% of surface freight transport.

However, my point wasn't about rail freight - that was an illustration - it was about the benefits from big infrastructure projects being (in turn) bigger than they seem prima facie. Back to thread...

[Fairdealfrank]

But Stringer could have been more vociferous in promoting the idea that by encouraging growth at regional airports and allowing them to satisfy more of their own demand on direct services, this can help the situation in the SE. This would free up some, albeit small, amounts of capacity for people who really need to go to or through London's Airports. This will become increasingly important as whatever happens in the SE won't add much extra capacity in the short term.
Is it possible that he wasn’t because the two issues are unrelated?

They are unrelated because (1) LHR is operating at 100% capacity and obviously needs more rwy capacity; and (2) increased or decreased activity at non-London UK airports does not alter that fact.

The perfectly reasonable argument for more destinations and flights at non-London UK airports is not dependent on the fate of LHR expansion. It really has a lot more to do with economics: can an airline make money on such a route? is there enough premium business?

Indeed, LHR has needed a third rwy for forty years and it has not been delivered putting that airport at a major disadvantage relatively, but the non-London UK airports have failed to capitalise on this.

Why? because carriers that want to be at LHR but are unable to be end up either at (1) AMS, CDG, FRA, etc..; or (2) in the waiting room at LGW. Carriers that operate out of non-London UK airports usually operate at LHR as well (except the holiday based and no frills carriers of course).


I'm getting fed up of being told how the South East pays more tax than the rest of the country and subsidises the rest of the UK and this justifies the huge infrastructure costs in the the south east.
Not surprised, but facts remain facts nonetheless. Of course there should be more infrastructure spending in the north, it‘s a no brainer.


Of course there is a problem , we are not in London but could investment in an airport that is
Central to the vast majority of the UK population.
Serves 22m people
Connects all the regions of the UK from Inverness to Newquay,
Has thee best rail connections of any airport in the UK
AND is less than one hour from 5 of our largest Cities
..... not be considered to be "In The National Interest" ?


So what exactly is it that you want at Ringway? It already has its extra rwy, it already has rail connections to many parts of the UK, it already has good motorway access. It also has plenty of capacity, and plenty of scope for route development. It’s an excellent airport in many ways (yes, there are some local people there who slag it off, but it’s likely that they haven’t travelled very far, and consequently, not been through some really rough airports).

Another rwy at Heathrow (or not) doesn’t have a bearing on any of this.


I suspect Frank is polishing the keys on his laptop as I type !
Ha ha! Hadn’t been, but now that you mention it, the kbd could do with a clean!


Skip
The competitive market is heavily skewed to a SE bias with regards to infrastructure spend, and the regions need some support. Asking people who do not live there to pay for another wonder project is just wearing thin with the population up here. You site the "National Interest" as the reason for this project. A national interest is where everyone benefits from the expenditure, not just the SE. Many people who live outside the area no longer use LHR for either business or pleasure and even people coming to visit my own company from overseas avoid the place.
You’ve argued against yourself, LHR does not have links to sufficient numbers of UK airports, so they can’t "use LHR for either business or pleasure".

Another rwy would enable this. Many areas of the UK desperately need and want a link to LHR, so the "national interest" is argument is valid.

If you honestly believe that no third rwy at LHR automatically means more infrastructure spending in the north you are deluding yourself.

Ask yourself why it never happened in the 40 years that LHR needed, but was denied, a third rwy. Also ask yourself what has changed now.


Fair deal frank
You may not be aware but the trains which run on the trans Pennine route are more often than not, just 3 or less carriages. Now I also have a flat in London from who's windows I can see the approaches to London Bridge as well as Thames Link and see trains of 10 + carriages. Why can we not have similar length trains to overcome the congestion that the commuters suffer up here, it would be a lot cheaper and a quicker fix than new track and tunnels ?.
Am well aware of it, was on one of those a few weeks ago. It’s not only in the north, you see old 2-3 car diesel trains all over the west country as well as on the Cardiff suburban services.

Both are needed: longer trains now, along with better signalling and shorter journey times as soon as, and a HS3 express route in the longer term.

But again, none of this automatically happens if LHR is denied a third rwy.


Yes, you're right that the costs of the Davies commission itself are taxpayer funded, at least in relation to its own costs. It would be interesting to know how these costs compare with the very large sums being spent by HAL and GAL on promoting their own schemes.
All taxpayers are paying for government dithering and its failure to make the right decision.So nothing’s really changed.

[Ringwayman]

Indeed, LHR has needed a third rwy for forty years and it has not been delivered putting that airport at a major disadvantage relatively, but the non-London UK airports have failed to capitalise on this.

Well we could look at the major player at LHR as one of the reasons for this by competing against themselves by drawing down the passengers that could easily have been taken out of the SE England equation. Then the bilateral issues that took ages to sort out.... QF at MAN only if Perth and Darwin opened up for BA. SQ, you can operate at MAN but for every frequency at MAN, we'll take one frequency away from you at LHR. JM, I'm afraid your only other UK airport we'll let you have is PIK, etc

Just find it funny that an airline that let all and sundry grab a portion of the MAN-HKG service operating over hubs for years and years as it wouldn't be profitable serving this route themselves is now openly talking about wanting to boost a non-stop MAN-HKG service to daily "as soon as possible". It's not the lack of premium demand that's letting down the regions. It's the attitude of airlines.

[anothertyke]

My impression, I may be wrong, is that HAL do not think the entire cost of either of the Heathrow schemes could be funded commercially. So if you take the view of some here -- not a penny of taxpayers money-- I disagree with Basil Bush, I think R3 is unlikely to happen on those terms. It really depends on a proposition that an expanded Heathrow warrants a significant public contribution, say £6bn.

At the moment, Gatwick are saying their scheme is fundable with a relatively small public contribution to works on the London to Brighton line which are needed for many reasons not just airport ones. Could they really fund their scheme? Maybe with difficulty.

Bagso--- remember these companies are regulated utilities. They do not have 'their money'. They have revenue streams from passengers, shoppers, freight. Gatwick is in the middle of the market so how much price premium it can command vis a vis Luton and Stansted for its main traffics is an interesting question.

[BasilBush]

Hi another tyke

If you look at the "Funding and Financing" document on the Davies commission website you can see that they consider a range of assumptions about HAL's financing of the project.

They state that the funding of surface access projects (c£6bn) would be subject to negotiation between HAL and the various public sector bodies, noting that it is customary for the scheme promoter (in this case HAL) to make a contribution. However, it states that Davies is not taking a position on this (as it has no power to pre-empt such negotiations) so figures are shown representing the two extremes.

Under the scenario where HAL is assumed to pay "only" the R3 scheme costs of £18bn, airport charges would have to rise from c£20 per passenger now to a peak of c£31. If HAL also has to pay the £6bn of surface access costs, then airport charges would peak at c£34 per passenger.

Although these charges are high in relation to benchmarks, they would almost certainly be achievable in the attractive Heathrow market.

Therefore, it seems pretty likely that HAL can fund the investment irrespective of whether the £6bn of surface access costs are included or not.

Based on T5 precedent, I really do think it highly unlikely that HAL will succeed in arguing that the taxpayer should contribute to surface access costs. HAL's negotiating position is extremely weak, as planning permission would certainly be refused unless the essential surface access projects go ahead.