HEATHROW [Archive] - Page 15

Fairdealfrank

23rd Feb 2015, 23:04

Just watching the Sky News debate now. In my opinion it has to be Heathrow RWY 3. AMS, DXB, FRA and even bloody CDG have been gutting LHR, and therefore the whole UK economy for years. I and several people I know actively avoid LHR because of the fragility of the schedule due to it being at capacity all day every day, when it used to be our default long haul transfer hub.

Missed the debate unfortunately, was it good?

It really is so obvious. Don’t know why Davis came up with a shortlist of three when only one is necessary. Perhaps it’s because of ludicrous fixed term parliaments nonsense and the consequent delayed election that Davis has to buy time before the final report.

This will almost certainly be kicked into the long grass (more taxpayers' money wasted).

Gatwick RWY #2 will not solve this problem. You'll get far more marginal routes to South America/China etc in LHR than you would in LGW.

Indeed, LGW is an irrelevance in the need for increased hub capacity.

The idea of extending the north runway to 6,000m and making it 2 runways works.,...assuming there's never a go around there again. Madness

The extended-then-split rwy idea also requires permanent mixed mode. This is a non-starter because all respite for flight path residents would be eliminated.

Give Heathrow the go ahead, BUT if Gatwick still want to privately fund their own runway too, absolutely let them, as 10 years after this runway being debated now is completed, another will be needed.

It would be needed at LHR, because LGW will never be full whilst there is spare capacity at LHR. So if/when LHR fills up again, it will still be a hub capacity issue.

I am repeating myself:

1. I agree that we need R3 more than 20 years ago.
2. If R3 is built, it will make no substantial change to the situation.

That is because only a small amount of the hub pax will return. Folks in the regions have got used to going to the usual suspects or the new suspects (M.E.) and have their FFMs etc. We are, as so often, 25 years to late to catch the horse.

Maybe, maybe not. Millions of pax, old and new will have increased choices of destinations, hubs, timings and prices. What’s not to like?

Bagso

24th Feb 2015, 09:32

Missed the debate unfortunately, was it good?

Very poor fair, I had not heard of Ian King and to be honest I now know why.

Come back Paxman all is forgiven, even "Philomena Cunk" would be more forensic.

It was trailed as a Q and A but save for 3 questions from "TWITland" it was really just a forum for the respective parties to restate their case.

No questioning of the LGW CEO about quite how they actually turn LGW into hub when it's clear there is little demand from the carriers who are part of the problem at LHR and see LGW as an irrelevance.

No questioning of the LHR CEO about the various issues re cost which is touted at a higher figure than The Channel Tunnel !

Una Due Tfc

24th Feb 2015, 10:00

It wasn't great. The 2 CEO's just got to make a few classic PR speeches and neither were really challenged about their facts and figures, and neither really attacked the other on the more debatable details of their respective arguments.

Heathrow Harry

24th Feb 2015, 11:02

" AMS, DXB, FRA and even bloody CDG have been gutting LHR, and therefore the whole UK economy for years."

Really? We're doing WORSE than France???

There is absolutely no evidence that you need a single large airport to be successful - see Switzerland, the USA, Germany, China

Skipness One Echo

24th Feb 2015, 12:34

There is absolutely no evidence that you need a single large airport to be successful
Well aside from this :
Ireland - DUB (restricts BFS)
Germany - FRA / MUC, OK that's two but FRA is waaaay ahead
France - CDG
Netherlands - AMS
Switzerland - ZRH (GVA still smarts at only one LX GVA-JFK)
Austria - VIE
Denmark - CPH
Sweden - ARN
Norway - OSL
Portugal - LIS
Dubai - DXB
Qatar - DOH
Abu Dhabi - DOH

ETC ETC

They all have one thing in common. Large airport, usually capital city, a country mile ahead of local competition with a based legacy network carrier or alliance member. I get the impression you have a personal beef clouding your judgement on a fairly obvious market truth.

Voldermort

24th Feb 2015, 13:20

Think you will find Dubai and Abu Dhabi are both in the same country ie the UAE!!!:}

Skipness One Echo

24th Feb 2015, 15:37

Agreed, they are so close that Abu Dhabi decided that they needed to bankroll their own airline :) Nothing about the ME3 is typical.....

Heathrow Harry

24th Feb 2015, 16:44

and there was me thinking there were two airports in Paris...........

:ouch:

Bagso

24th Feb 2015, 16:52

Just curious.

Does anybody have a glimmer of how long it will take to pay for the cheaper of the two runway options ?

Mr Mac

24th Feb 2015, 17:30

Bagso
Usually in my experience (5 airports worldwide) they right them down over either 25 or 50 years (accountant's like round numbers) for terminals and runways. Also I do not know if you read the Sunday Times this week but the HS3 train set fell at the first corner ie financial, and the electrification of the Trans Pennine route looks like going back 20 years.
Also, and I struggle to believe it was not an April fools come early, but there is talk of using ex tube stock which has been cascaded out of London, and fitting it with truck engines to replace the 40+ year old Leyland bus carriages up here. Just to make it even better some of the "new" trains we have got are being sent South to the Chiltern line. At the rate we are going they will be raiding the National Rail museum / preserved steam lines !. Bit of thread drift there sorry.

Skip
Maybe better looking at Italy or Spain both geographically better examples to the UK both having 2nr hubs, similar distances apart to UK. I missed the debate also, but does not appear to have been much of one anyway.

Fairdealfrank
I do not think you will see passengers flocking back to LHR even if they do get a new runway as habits have changed. Few of us going East want to spend 5 hrs + travelling and still be in the UK. On my "normal" commute East I am sitting having my cheese course over Bulgaria with a glass of Port after 5hrs, not being told by "Nigel" that we are awaiting a tug, or that we are 20th in line for take off. Even with a new run way I would not return.

Regards
Mr Mac

BasilBush

24th Feb 2015, 18:17

Bagso

To answer your question about how long it will take to pay back the investment in R3 you need to understand how airport charges are set at Heathrow. These are regulated by CAA, and are set at a level which seeks to achieve payback (including a 'reasonable' rate of return) over the economic life of the assets.

Heathrow's policy on asset lives is on p24 of http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/Financial_Information/Heathrow-Airport-Limited-31-December-2013.pdf

The short answer to your question is that payback will be achieved over the (weighted) average asset life, no more no less. This is currently 23 years, but we might expect it to be a bit longer for the new assets being constructed as a result of R3.

The long payback is not necessarily a bad thing - many investors in infrastructure look for reliable returns over a very long period. In this way they can match returns to liabilities, especially for investors such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. There is a seemingly bottomless pit of funds looking for reliable long term returns, especially as Government bonds no longer offer much of a return.

Fairdealfrank

24th Feb 2015, 20:27

There is absolutely no evidence that you need a single large airport to be successful - see Switzerland, the USA, Germany, China
These countries, and others, do not have one dominant city (usually the capital) that is several times larger than the second city, as is the case with most of Skipness’s list, so the airports set-up is obviously going to be different.

Just curious.

Does anybody have a glimmer of how long it will take to pay for the cheaper of the two runway options ?
Apparently there are some issues about patents for the extended-then-split rwy scheme, so there's potential for years of litigation should it emerge as the favoured scheme.

However this option offers only 700,000 total annual movements compared to 740,000 for the northwest rwy.

So in reality, it’s impossible to compare like with like.

Fairdealfrank
I do not think you will see passengers flocking back to LHR even if they do get a new runway as habits have changed. Few of us going East want to spend 5 hrs + travelling and still be in the UK. On my "normal" commute East I am sitting having my cheese course over Bulgaria with a glass of Port after 5hrs, not being told by "Nigel" that we are awaiting a tug, or that we are 20th in line for take off. Even with a new run way I would not return.Would say that when "going east" you should be a great deal further north of Bulgaria, unless you’re doing the dog leg on EK, EY, QR, etc. (see GCM if you think this is wrong).

It appears that the airport operators and carriers clearly disagree with you,
because with LHR expansion, all that you complain about goes away.

The point that millions of pax, old and new will have increased choices of destinations, hubs, timings and prices, with LHR expansion is valid and still stands.

Skipness One Echo

24th Feb 2015, 22:37

Spain has one hub at Madrid with Iberia. Barcelona is point to point Vueling with IB only flying MAD-BCN, long haul is inbound US and ME3. Like MAN but with more sunshine. Italy has Alitalia which is a money shredder. Bad example.

Hub connectivity is lacking in both examples.

BasilBush

25th Feb 2015, 06:53

In terms of comparing the Jock Lowe scheme with HAL's own scheme the payback period will be the same - it's just that the level of airport charges will be different for the two schemes. The Davies reports show that airport charges would peak at around £31 for the HAL scheme compared with £29 for the Lowe scheme.

Fairdealfrank is right to point out the mutterings over patents, but given that Jock Lowe is over 70 I can't imagine he would want the negotiations to take too long!

DaveReidUK

25th Feb 2015, 08:34

Apparently there are some issues about patents for the extended-then-split rwy scheme, so there's potential for years of litigation should it emerge as the favoured scheme.I had an interesting email discussion a year or so ago with Dan Gellert, the former Eastern Airlines captain who holds the patent for the split-runway concept, although he declined to comment on his involvement with the Heathrow proposals.

Here's the patent:

Patent Images (http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=7590484)

GrahamK

25th Feb 2015, 09:09

Skipness,

How about Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? Calgary to a lesser extent

Una Due Tfc

25th Feb 2015, 10:26

Canada is the second largest country in the world. It takes about 5 days to drive from YYZ to YVR, so not a fair comparison really.

Mr Mac

25th Feb 2015, 11:58

Skip
BCN has links down to South America as well so it is a good example of two hubs in close proximity. Alitalia do however have a two HUB strategy and I and II guess you do not know if their financial losses are due to this or other issues.

Fairdealfrank
Going East from MAN apart from Cathay it chesses and biscuit's over Bulgaria trust me its a twice a month hop for me currently. On CX I agree you are some what East of St Petersburg when the Port comes around. As MAN has no other carriers operating to northern Far East destinations that is currently the lot, though hopefully may change. My point is that I can leave home, check in, and get on plane, and be 1/2 way to the mid East before I have even left the UK going via LHR, never mind the valid concern that my bags may not be on board. With regards the carriers in to MAN I hope to see more from further a field looking at MAN as a good alternative, and perhaps if IAG did not try to put them off so to speak we may see them.

Regards
Mr Mac

SamYeager

25th Feb 2015, 13:52

@ Mr Mac

All fine and dandy for you. I periodically visit relatives in Germany and I find that it is cheaper to fly from Heathrow with BA rather than fly from my local airport of Bristol.

Once the rail link from the west direct to Heathrow is in place it will be even easier for me to get the Heathrow. No more sodding coaches from Reading. :D I believe the rail link will also make it far easier to access Heathrow from the north. Not only that but AFAIK the rail link is due to take place regardless of any decision on a third runway.

Skipness One Echo

25th Feb 2015, 15:13

How about Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? Calgary to a lesser extent
Yes good point but there's no analogy to the UK as the population density is spread across an area many times the size. Canada is *immense*.

and there was me thinking there were two airports in Paris...........

One is a hub like LHR (CDG), one has short haul and long range leisure, like LGW, (ORY). To be clear, the main connectivity is at Air France's main base, where Skyteam focus, at CDG. Both airports have different passenger mixes, much like London.
BCN has links down to South America as well so it is a good example of two hubs in close proximity.
Yes but BCN is a spoke from the hub at the American end, classic spoke to hub like the US majors out of MAN.

Bagso

25th Feb 2015, 18:08

Basil

The short answer to your question is that payback will be achieved over the (weighted) average asset life, no more no less. This is currently 23 years,

Would the infastructure be subject to standard depreciation rules ?

If say that were done on the reducing balance basis to take into account usage, wear and tear etc and was set at say 10% per annum, would that not mean that effectively with such an astronomical build figure the LHR owners would be hamstrung with a colossal write down of circa £2Billion each year based on a build price of £20 Billion ?

You seem quite knowledgeable on these matters hence the request to yourself !

FDF

Always good to see your postings.

Given the high estimation of such a substantial handling cost per passenger to cover costs who would provide the "additional" connectivity to those "unserved" UK domestic destinations ?

Clearly we are looking into a crystal ball 20 years hence but establishing what might happen on current events, is the enormous timescale not a major part of the problem ?

Based on the "here and now" only Flybe a "LoCost" airline would appear to have the equipment, would they contemplate entering this market having just exited LGW for similar reasons.

With little appetite from BA to expand outside the current markets of MAN,GLA EDI etc etc all of which sufficient high frequency OR is part of the thinking to provide frequencies every 30 mins which to me at least seems wholly unneccessary, it begs the Q who steps in ?

Mr Mac

25th Feb 2015, 18:20

Skip
Last time I was there I watched direct flight to Chile leave with LAN and I believe Singapore go to Sao Pau so not all routed through the "empire". Do not know if LAN are still on this route but I believe SQ are, as I was talking to cabin crew who had been on that route when flying with SQ late last year.

Sam
Perhaps you should lobby as hard for Bristol as us in the North do for our regional airports, but I sympathise with the transport difficulties of your region. As for high speed rail, HS3 looks as though its been put back in the play box, and HS2 is mired in conflict / cost and is not as popular up here as you seem to think. The other thing is people are inherently lazy, and are to some degree getting worse, in that they do not want to put up with traveling to a hub airport all the time when they can go from their local airport direct, or change on route. The 787 bless it was designed around this concept of long range on thinner routes.

Regards
Mr Mac

BasilBush

25th Feb 2015, 20:06

Bagso

Yes there will be a very large increase in HAL's annual depreciation charge as the R3 assets come onto its balance sheet. But this be a much smaller percentage than you suggest. Depreciation is on a straight line basis using the asset lives that are shown in the link in my earlier post. The average annual depreciation of R3-related assets is more likely to be around 3% of the capital costs (I would guess the weighted average asset life to be around 30+ years).

Even so it will add substantially to the existing depreciation charge, although the assets will come into the books gradually so it won't all happen at once. The increase in depreciation is one of the factors in the regulatory calculations of the required future level of airport charges.

LN-KGL

25th Feb 2015, 22:59

Last time I was there I watched direct flight to Chile leave with LAN ... Do not know if LAN are still on this route

LAN have two daily flights to Europe these days, one from SCL flown with a B788 and one from LIM flown with a B763, and both flights have MAD as their destination. The SCL flight has a short stop at MAD and continues to FRA. I have flown with LAN on FRA-MAD-SCL a number of times, even when they flew it with B763. Nowadays I prefer a more direct routing and fly with Air France OSL-CDG-SCL (next flight will be on 11 March).

Flying through LHR has never been an option for me on my long haul business flights, but for visits to our subsidiary in Hampshire LHR is perfect.

But let's return closer to the topic - the capacity of London's airports. In 2013 London's five airports LHR, LGW, STN, LTN and LCY had close to 139 million passengers and with only 6 runways available that gives an average of more than 23 million passengers per runway. In Mancunian terms that is 1 million more passengers than you had in 2014 without being allowed to use the second runway. Since I mentioned CDG above, this airport has four runways and with 62 million passengers in 2013 that gives only 15.5 million passengers per runway. AMS, another competitor to LHR, has an average of just above 13 million passengers per runway (only 4 of its 6 runways can be operated on the same time). The only conclusion I can see for London and its airports from a safety perspective is to give three airports carte blanche to build as many runways as they need/want to invest in, and the three airports for me are clearly LHR, LGW and STN.

Una Due Tfc

25th Feb 2015, 23:31

If STN or LGW build a second runway, it won't be used to capacity IMO, whereas if LHR gets #3, it'll fill up rather quickly. The stats LN-KL has kindly provided just show how good London ATC are at getting good runway utilisation, especially considering the antiquity of some of the software/hardware at Swanwick (because of their levels of traffic, they simply can't update as often as the rest of us).

I appreciate some of contributors here have their own stakes, IE living in the noise corridor, or working at another airport, or just loving LGW, MAN etc, and I also appreciate as a non U.K. Resident, my taxes won't be being used to pay the bills, but the only way the U.K. can continue having a world class airport is by building a third parallel runway at LHR.

If this does not happen, AMS and DXB will quickly relegate LHR to the second tier in terms of global airports. The benefits of having a genuine global hub cannot be overstated. The exchequer gets massive money from direct taxation of transfer pax. More shop workers/pilots/cabin crew/controllers/cleaners/mechanics/engineers/electricians/plumbers/paramedics/fire crew and all the other support staff are employed as a result, and they pay tax. Combining these transfer pax with point to point pax results in new routes that couldn't survive as purely point to point. These new routes allow direct links to businesses, meaning, for example, companies in places like Lima, Brasilia, various other South American and Chinese cities amongst others without current direct links can establish partnerships or European offices of their own in the U.K., employing more people, who pay more tax.

A split hub system really will not work. Let's say you are a businessman based near a relatively minor airport anywhere in Europe. Are you really going to fly into LHR/LGW and get the bus to the other because each caters mainly for different parts of the globe, or are you going to jump on the likely direct EK/Q R/Unmentionable airline service east or UA/DL/AA service west and connect through their respective hubs? The same goes for companies sending or receiving air freight.

The U.K. lost it's aircraft manufacturing industry because of the "That'll do" attitude. Putting 3 hairdryers on the Trident and allowing the 727 a free run is an example of this. Your automotive industry, barring tiny companies like Caterham or Ariel is all foreign owned because of a similar attitude for years, Jaguar and Land Rover are Indian, Lotus is Malaysian, Vauxhal is a GM owned company selling rebadged Opels, Bentley and Rolls are German. Don't let your once world class airport die because of the same thing.

LN-KGL

26th Feb 2015, 00:20

Una Due Tfc, I will turn it around a bit - the main reason for British Airways being one of the European airlines with the poorest on time performance is LHR. KLM had the best on time record in 2014 and their home airport is AMS. The airlines need the best tools, and the 2015 edition of LHR is definitely not the best tool - it's overloaded big time.

For me the big fright is an incident over London city centre that don't manage to crawl over the perimetre fence as flight 38. With such a high utilization as today the margins are cut to the bare minimums, and balancing on such a tightrope can be fatal. Not the best for what will be seen as a premium airport and a world class hub.

DaveReidUK

26th Feb 2015, 06:48

The only conclusion I can see for London and its airports from a safety perspective is to give three airports carte blanche to build as many runways as they need/want to invest in, and the three airports for me are clearly LHR, LGW and STN.

For me the big fright is an incident over London city centre that don't manage to crawl over the perimetre fence as flight 38.

Make up your mind.

Or are you suggesting that Heathrow should have a third runway that isn't aligned east-west, so that incoming flights don't route over the capital ?

Bagso

26th Feb 2015, 09:29

But there is a grave danger we are putting sentiment over the "Business Case" here.

There is much emotion which I fully understand;

"Britain needs a hub"
"We are falling behind"
"UK needs to keep pace"

BUT those who for want of a better term are "egging" things on from the back, STILL do not appear to be fully evaluating the two main areas of concern or indeed addressing them.

1) Cost
2) Timescales

I could understand the groundswell of opinion IF the costs were say comparable to the Manchester runway cost with a weighting of say 10 times and delivery of the project could be gauranteed within a timescale relevent to where we are today.

The problem is the costs even now are eye watering.

Whilst that is not relevent to me personally if they continue to escalate (Sorry Basil)I have this nagging nay legitimate fear that despite Basils assurance, HAL will infact execute a handbrake turn and be tugging vigourously at the coat tail of Westminster for some funds to redesign the periphery M25/Railways/Tunnels/ Flood Defences et al. This could amount 25% to 30% of what is already an extraordinary amount of money.

The timescales are also a major issue. If this project could be delivered in 5 to 10 years the economic case of today on which the development is based would be highly relevent, the problem is that we could be a generation away from delivery !

If we had a project which could be delivered on time in a reasonable timescale at a not unreasonable cost with a gaurantee of no penalty points to the taxpayer I would join the crusade but what we have on the table is an excrutiatingly high amount of cost coupled to timescales which are flaky to say the least !

Just a caveat re tax

I may be wrong but inbound transfer passengers , a substantial part of Heathrow passenger flows travelling from say the US and onto Europe pay no tax to the UK. Yes they contribute to airline costs, provide employment etc etc etc but I think I am correct in saying there is no benefit to the Exchequer. Again can we call on our resident number cruncher from Basil Associates to clarify the position ?

The service is free i'm afraid, you could not enforce a levy becuase you would then be at a passenger ticket disadavantage to other hubs, it is a frailty of the system that there is an inability to charge a "transfer fee" for using the service provided.

In addition although it is only small beer saddling LHR with a mountain of debt re 3rd RW is unlikely to mean there will be Corpration tax take for the next 30 years so whilst the country again might benefit in other areas Corporation tax is unlikely to be one of them.

Just out of interest if I was a shareholder at HAL would I seriously want to take on this national crusade or simply sit on my hands and take some juicy profits notwitstanding the 2014 results/loss ?

Interestingly the loss was blamed on an inability to provide capacity?
Can anybody explain how you can have such a premium product but seeming an inabilty to make money ?
I assumed the loss was down to terminal redevelopment costs but again maybe Basil could clarify ?

Una Due Tfc

26th Feb 2015, 09:36

I did Shannon-Heathrow-Hong Kong a couple of years back with BA. They very helpfully put a little note on my booking explaining how much tax I was paying and where it was going, IIRC a significant amount went to Westminster, maybe I'm talking nonsense or things have changed though.

Skipness One Echo

26th Feb 2015, 11:25

BUT those who for want of a better term are "egging" things on from the back, STILL do not appear to be fully evaluating the two main areas of concern or indeed addressing them.
Which just translates as putting a brake on hub capacity will allow some growth at my local airport (MAN) whilst ignoring the larger loss of traffic overseas to competing actual hub airports. Localism writ large Bagso.

Mr Mac

26th Feb 2015, 11:44

Skip
You are correct in some degree in that Bagso and others are concerned about their local airport and infrastructure which has been run down or not pushed forward enough over the last number of years to its detriment. If you are not careful you will end up with a greater North South divide then we currently have which is worrying enough now.

Regards
Mr Mac

MANFOD

26th Feb 2015, 11:48

Which just translates as putting a brake on hub capacity will allow some growth at my local airport (MAN) whilst ignoring the larger loss of traffic overseas to competing actual hub airports. Localism writ large Bagso.

Forgive me Skip, but isn't that a not very subtle way of avoiding the perfectly reasonable issues that Bagso raises? Are you saying LHR should get its third runway whatever cost may end up coming out of the public purse?

Shed-on-a-Pole

26th Feb 2015, 12:18

Skipness -

In order to demonstrate total consistency of argument, allow me to make a firm commitment to you from a "localist" MAN perspective. It is widely anticipated that MAN will at some time this year announce plans for a wholescale redevelopment of its terminals complex, likely at considerable cost. So here is my promise to you. If MAG announces that the cost of their terminal redevelopment plans exceed the inflation-adjusted price-tag of constructing the Channel Tunnel almost three times over, I do solemnly swear that I will vigorously oppose the project on the grounds of its business case making zero financial sense. Exactly like the proposed third strip of concrete at LHR.

On the other hand, if MAG's price-tag is in proportion to the measurable benefits of the project ...

Bagso: Outstanding post there. Right on the money.

By the way, is anybody else concerned that the privately-funded portion of the extraordinary price-tag for LHR's plans is likely to be wholly underwritten by the UK taxpayer? The numbers touted exceed the GDP of several small countries. What are the odds of a corporate default once the thing has been constructed?

Fairdealfrank

26th Feb 2015, 12:25

Skipness,

How about Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? Calgary to a lesser extent
Are you comparing Canada with the UK in this respect? Canada, like the USA, the Russian Federation, Brazil, China and India, etc., are enormous and can only support a multiple hub system because the traffic is predominantly domestic.

Fairdealfrank
Going East from MAN apart from Cathay it chesses and biscuit's over Bulgaria trust me its a twice a month hop for me currently. On CX I agree you are some what East of St Petersburg when the Port comes around. As MAN has no other carriers operating to northern Far East destinations that is currently the lot, though hopefully may change. My point is that I can leave home, check in, and get on plane, and be 1/2 way to the mid East before I have even left the UK going via LHR, never mind the valid concern that my bags may not be on board. With regards the carriers in to MAN I hope to see more from further a field looking at MAN as a good alternative, and perhaps if IAG did not try to put them off so to speak we may see them.

Regards
Mr Mac
Not just CX but also SQ via MUC. Looks like you are doing the EK/EY/QR dog leg, Mr Mac.

The lop-sided open skies arrangement between the UK and the UAE is a double-edged sword.

The point is that EK’s long established dominance on eastbound longhaul at MAN (soon to be 3 A380s/day?) is probably a disincentive to other carriers thinking of doing non-stop from there to their respective hubs.

It’s difficult to take on a carrier that is so well entrenched at an airport that does not have as much available premium traffic as the likes of LHR, AMS, CDG, FRA, etc.. On a shorthaul level, it’s the same with FR at STN and many smaller UK airports.

Once the rail link from the west direct to Heathrow is in place it will be even easier for me to get the Heathrow. No more sodding coaches from Reading. I believe the rail link will also make it far easier to access Heathrow from the north. Not only that but AFAIK the rail link is due to take place regardless of any decision on a third runway.
Yes, this is correct, the link from Iver to LHR will allow long distance trains from the west access the airport and should be open by 2018/2019, irrespective of any non-decision on another rwy.

Fairdealfrank

26th Feb 2015, 13:00

FDF

Always good to see your postings.

Given the high estimation of such a substantial handling cost per passenger to cover costs who would provide the "additional" connectivity to those "unserved" UK domestic destinations ?

Clearly we are looking into a crystal ball 20 years hence but establishing what might happen on current events, is the enormous timescale not a major part of the problem ?

Based on the "here and now" only Flybe a "LoCost" airline would appear to have the equipment, would they contemplate entering this market having just exited LGW for similar reasons.

With little appetite from BA to expand outside the current markets of MAN,GLA EDI etc etc all of which sufficient high frequency OR is part of the thinking to provide frequencies every 30 mins which to me at least seems wholly unneccessary, it begs the Q who steps in ?

Thankyou Bagso.

Good question! Hard question!

Think you’re correct about BE. For the thin domestic routes it would be ideal as it has the experience and the right aircraft. Perhaps it’s desire for a base at NHT is with an eye on future LHR operations(?).

As for the high airport charges, these will be known about and be accounted for, not suddenly introduced once the operation is already up and running as at LGW.

On the no-frills front, U2 has made it clear in its evidence to Davis that it would create a network of about 30 routes (UK and European) at an expanded LHR, which makes sense now that it is chasing business pax. It also supports a new rwy there rather than at LGW.

The critical difference between LGW and LHR is the availability of connecting traffic. BE’s LGW operation was point to point and the steep increase in charges made this untenable. LHR routes would be point to point and feeder (perhaps with an arrangement feeding BA/one world longhaul?), hence the potential viability despite high airport charges.

As for U2, it is more likely to be on the trunk routes, taking on BA and others. With the availability of free slots at an expanded LHR, could also see BD regional back at LHR (perhaps feeding star alliance longhaul) because of its previous LHR experience, but would not expect to see FR there.

The problems with LHR go away with expansion: delays and congestion, queues to take off, stacking before landing, etc., and new slots are free, no secondary slot market.

As for 20 years down the road, overcrowding and congestion and the prohibitively high cost of road and rail travel will make domestic air travel increasingly popular. The concept of taking a domestic flights is, at present, not even contemplated by most. That will change.

Pure speculation, of course. Feel free to pull it apart.

Fairdealfrank

26th Feb 2015, 13:39

But let's return closer to the topic - the capacity of London's airports. In 2013 London's five airports LHR, LGW, STN, LTN and LCY had close to 139 million passengers and with only 6 runways available that gives an average of more than 23 million passengers per runway. In Mancunian terms that is 1 million more passengers than you had in 2014 without being allowed to use the second runway. Since I mentioned CDG above, this airport has four runways and with 62 million passengers in 2013 that gives only 15.5 million passengers per runway. AMS, another competitor to LHR, has an average of just above 13 million passengers per runway (only 4 of its 6 runways can be operated on the same time). The only conclusion I can see for London and its airports from a safety perspective is to give three airports carte blanche to build as many runways as they need/want to invest in, and the three airports for me are clearly LHR, LGW and STN.
Interesting way of putting it: so LHR is doing a whopping 36 million pax/rwy, more than double that of CDG and AMS. In these terms, the case for 2 more rwys at LHR is unanswerable.

There is no point having another rwy at STN, it operates way below capacity, and if LHR has 1 or 2 more rwys, an extra one will not be needed at LGW for the foreseeable, so it may not bring the airport company a sufficient return.

Or are you suggesting that Heathrow should have a third runway that isn't aligned east-west, so that incoming flights don't route over the capital ? Not possible, new rwys there have to be parallel to allow simultaneous use. LHR is too busy for any other arrangement. The former cross rwys were disbanded for that reason (and the need for space for terminal expansion).

Whilst that is not relevent to me personally if they continue to escalate (Sorry Basil)I have this nagging nay legitimate fear that despite Basils assurance, HAL will infact execute a handbrake turn and be tugging vigourously at the coat tail of Westminster for some funds to redesign the periphery M25/Railways/Tunnels/ Flood Defences et al. This could amount 25% to 30% of what is already an extraordinary amount of money.
50 years of indecision, dithering and delays comes with a cost. We have to live with that.

I may be wrong but inbound transfer passengers , a substantial part of Heathrow passenger flows travelling from say the US and onto Europe pay no tax to the UK. Yes they contribute to airline costs, provide employment etc etc etc but I think I am correct in saying there is no benefit to the Exchequer. Again can we call on our resident number cruncher from Basil Associates to clarify the position ?
Not quite that simple. Transfer pax allow routes to exist that would not otherwise be viable.These routes also have point to point pax who pay the APD. It’s only about 30% of LHR’s pax anyway, so a pretty low figure.

Forgive me Skip, but isn't that a not very subtle way of avoiding the perfectly reasonable issues that Bagso raises? Are you saying LHR should get its third runway whatever cost may end up coming out of the public purse?
Regrettably, yes.

It’s for the greater good. As mentioned above, 50 years of indecision, dithering and delays comes with a cost.

In order to demonstrate total consistency of argument, allow me to make a firm commitment to you from a "localist" MAN perspective. It is widely anticipated that MAN will at some time this year announce plans for a wholescale redevelopment of its terminals complex, likely at considerable cost. So here is my promise to you. If MAG announces that the cost of their terminal redevelopment plans exceed the inflation-adjusted price-tag of constructing the Channel Tunnel almost three times over, I do solemnly swear that I will vigorously oppose the project on the grounds of its business case making zero financial sense. Exactly like the proposed third strip of concrete at LHR.
Not comparable, Shed, Ringway’s terminal development was not needed 50 years ago. Look forward to seeing it.

BasilBush

26th Feb 2015, 15:20

So we meet again, Mr Bagso

As always you raise some very pertinent points. My only angle on this is to try to bring some facts to the debate. I certainly don’t want to be seen as a cheerleader for LHR R3 – my basic view is that airport capacity should be provided ONLY where there is a proven demand AND where users are prepared to pay for it. I don’t pay much heed to wider economic arguments, which I tend to regard as voodoo cooked up by dubious consultants. This applies not only in the London area but also in my own hometown of Manchester.

I certainly agree with many others that the estimated costs of LHR R3 are excessive, but I am afraid this is partly a consequence of (a) risk allowances being added by Davies to the basic costs, thereby ensuring that the ‘mark up’ is spent, and (b) the crazy ‘cost-plus’ nature of airport economic regulation in the UK.

Even so, I do believe that users of Heathrow would be prepared to pay the modestly higher airport charges that would result from the mega-scheme that is currently proposed, simply because of the attractiveness of the market and the hub model. I do not believe the same can be said of Gatwick, where its main users (easyJet) are highly unlikely to stomach the required increase in airport charges. As an aside, Shed has raised the spectre of taxpayer guarantees for private sector borrowing. I really think that is extremely unlikely (and I for one would be strongly against it) but if it were to happen then the risk of the guarantee being called would be vastly higher for GAL R2 than for HAL R3 - GAL R2 is simply not a bankable project in the face of airline resistance, pure and simple.

I also strongly believe that where a private scheme such as LHR R3 requires investment in (eg) surface access projects, then the cost of these should fall to the private investor not the taxpayer. As I’ve said before, the precedent is that HAL has had to stomach such costs in recent years and I see no reason why this principle wouldn’t be the same for LHR R3. But I think you are right to remain vigilant on this point.

In relation to your other points:

APD on connecting pax
You are right that connecting pax are currently exempt from APD. I’m not defending this, in fact I can see arguments as to why APD (assuming it exists at all) should apply to all pax, especially as it has in the past been justified as a quasi-environmental tax. There is no prima facie reason why it shouldn’t be levied on all pax, even if it affects Heathrow’s competitive position against other hubs, if it is regarded as compensating for the high environmental costs of developing Heathrow. I’ve also crossed swords with Fairdealfrank about my suggestion of concentrating APD on Heathrow and removing it from most other airports, by reclassifying it as a congestion charges/environmental tax. There is an economic justification for this, as a way of dealing with the market failure that results from the current imbalance of demand and supply at Heathrow. The only beneficiaries of this market failure are airlines, through the stratospheric slot values that are evident at Heathrow. I’m surprised that the clever chaps at Treasury haven’t latched onto this already.

HAL Corporation Tax
Your argument is that HAL’s reliance on debt financing will erode its taxable profits and hence reduce the UK's tax proceeds. That is true, but for every £ of tax deduction on interest paid by the borrower there is a £ of tax due on interest received by the lender. Yes, if the lender is overseas then there may be a net loss to the UK taxpayer, but there are probably swings and roundabouts here (for example, British lenders lending to foreign companies and paying UK tax on interest received). I’m not aware of any systematic imbalance, so your argument doesn’t really hold water.

Decline in HAL profitability
I’m not sure who attributed the decline in after-tax profits in 2014 to the lack of capacity, but that is pure spin. The underlying profits (ie at EBITDA level) actually increased by 10.3%. The decline at after-tax level is due to a combination of higher depreciation and various technical factors to do with the need to restate the value of various financial instruments as a result of interest rate changes etc.

I certainly don’t want to imply that all is rosy in the R3 garden, but I do think some of the scaremongering is a little unwarranted.

Fairdealfrank

26th Feb 2015, 16:26

As always you raise some very pertinent points. My only angle on this is to try to bring some facts to the debate. I certainly don’t want to be seen as a cheerleader for LHR R3 – my basic view is that airport capacity should be provided ONLY where there is a proven demand AND where users are prepared to pay for it.
More than proven at LHR: airport operating at 100% capacity, 30+ airlines queueing up to get slots, secondary slot market, slots changing hands for US$20,000,000+......

At LGW, quite a different story.

Even so, I do believe that users of Heathrow would be prepared to pay the modestly higher airport charges that would result from the mega-scheme that is currently proposed, simply because of the attractiveness of the market and the hub model.
Yes, LHR charges are going up in the event, but the airlines will pay this and new airlines will enter at those prices. Money can still be made.

I do not believe the same can be said of Gatwick, where its main users (easyJet) are highly unlikely to stomach the required increase in airport charges.
Exactly, and certainly not up front charges!

Apparently charges will rise at both airports if they get another rwy, but those at LGW would be very much more significant.

DaveReidUK

26th Feb 2015, 17:22

I’m not sure who attributed the decline in after-tax profits in 2014 to the lack of capacity, but that is pure spin.

Notwithstanding the earlier, tentative reference to this

Interestingly the loss was blamed on an inability to provide capacity?

I don't think Heathrow have actually said that, although of course they have been actively promoting the proposition that the only future options are expand or decline.

Heathrow Harry

27th Feb 2015, 12:42

The classic Economics answer is that if you have something that someone really, really wants and there is no extra capacity you whop up the cost and the profit

BasilBush

27th Feb 2015, 14:04

Yes, but HAL is regulated so it is prevented from pushing up prices. As a result, the economic rent (ie excess profits) that results from the imbalance between supply and demand flows through to the LHR airlines. This largely explains the whopping slot values we see at Heathrow, not to mention BA's high profits (despite it not being a particularly efficient airline).

In the end the consumer pays for the decades of indecision on LHR expansion.

GrahamK

3rd Mar 2015, 18:52

Korean Air upgrading their Seoul flight from a 777 to a 747-8 from August. Initially 3 x weekly before going daily

Seljuk22

5th Mar 2015, 17:33

China Eastern: 7th weekly to PVG from 27th April
Avianca: daily to BOG from 1st July

Bagso

11th Mar 2015, 14:03

Shed-on-a-Pole

11th Mar 2015, 14:39

A report by anna.aero received today prompted me to read up on 'Istanbul New Airport Megahub'. Phase one is planned to open in 2018, featuring three runways, a 90 million capacity terminal (plus a smaller one), 4 million square metres of apron space, and all the customary major airport fixtures and fittings. Impressively quick timescale for delivery too. The cost for this project is quoted as EUR10.2 Billion, which today converts to a grand total of £7.2 Billion.

Do you realise that you could build just over one third of a runway at Heathrow with that kind of money? Top value for UK plc!

Bagso ... very interesting find there. If confirmed, that HS2 news should help to dampen concerns about further passenger footfall being sucked from the regions to LHR.

North West

11th Mar 2015, 21:16

A report by anna.aero received today prompted me to read up on 'Istanbul New Airport Megahub'. Phase one is planned to open in 2018, featuring three runways, a 90 million capacity terminal (plus a smaller one), 4 million square metres of apron space, and all the customary major airport fixtures and fittings. Impressively quick timescale for delivery too. The cost for this project is quoted as EUR10.2 Billion, which today converts to a grand total of £7.2 Billion.

Do you realise that you could build just over one third of a runway at Heathrow with that kind of money? Top value for UK plc!

You need to eliminate any fx issues and adjust for PPP to make a truer comparison.

Bagso

11th Mar 2015, 21:52

NorthWest

You need to eliminate any fx issues and adjust for PPP to make a truer comparison.

Truly astonishing train of thought !

Those currency and public private partnership issues would "of course" amount to a swing of a further £20+ Billion, damn not sure how we missed that !

That said those "Shrewd Turks" are not just getting a mile of tarmac with some add-ons but a fully integrated, brand new airport, built from ground zero, 3 runways plus 2 new terminal with an accumulated capacity of 90M for a third of the cost of LHR RW3.

Must dig out my 20 year old CIMA notes.

Fx, ppp... can decipher CIMA Mr Northwest

Fairdealfrank

11th Mar 2015, 22:08

Quite suprised this has not sparked some debate ?

HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister

BBC News - HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31814933)
It's not actually that surprising, think it was expected, the only surprise is that a decison, any decision, has been taken before the election.

HS2 is taking quite a bit of stick in that part of Middlesex, there are demands for it to be tunnelled across the county. If this was conceded, with existing planned tunnels, the entire HS2 route between London and north west of the Chilterns would be underground!

Not really practical, and very, very expensive and 100% publicly funded (unlike Heathrow expansion incidentally). Still think the whole thing will be scrapped eventually.

The best way from Ringway and Yeadon to Heathrow (and the Thames Valley in general) is by air, and will remain so.

Bagso ... very interesting find there. If confirmed, that HS2 news should help to dampen concerns about further passenger footfall being sucked from the regions to LHR.
Still a danger that economic activity will be sucked towards the capital rather than being dispersed from there, as is the case with HS rail in France and Japan.

That said they are not just getting a new runway and single terminal but a brand new airport, from ground zero, 3 runways plus new terminal capable of 90M !
So "ME3" will soon be "ME4". Yet another reason to get on with it at Heathrow!

North West

11th Mar 2015, 22:27

You need to eliminate any fx issues and adjust for PPP to make a truer comparison.

Astonishing train of thought !

Those currency and public private partnership issues would of course amount to a swing of a further £20+ Billion !

Oh and those "Shrewd Turks" are not just getting a mile of tarmac with some add-ons but a fully integrated, brand new airport, built from ground zero, 3 runways plus new terminal capable of 90M !

PPP is 'Purchasing Power Parity' - in otherwords 1 Euro in Turkey has more purchasing power in Turkey than it does in the UK, but like for like, it takes you longer to earn 1 Euro. So, a 10.2bn construction cost in Turkey not the equivalent of a 10.2bn cost in the UK.

Nothing at all to do with Public Private Partnerships.

Bagso

11th Mar 2015, 22:45

So "ME3" will soon be "ME4". Yet another reason to get on with it at Heathrow!

But ME3 is ready NOW,
ME4 2018
...and wait for it LHR ready in 20..? who knows

AND that, apart from cost of course is the very essence of the problem.

I really think the World will have moved on by then......

I genuinely theink we are visualising a World that exists today and making assumptions based on TODAY 20 years down the line.

LHR RW3 is 20+ years behind the curve, it should have been decided in year 2000 and even that was a tad late !

PS well in my Frank Wood Accounting Book 2 (The Bible) thats what PPP stood for so we will beg to differ !

Fairdealfrank

12th Mar 2015, 01:30

But ME3 is ready NOW,
ME4 2018
...and wait for it LHR ready in 20..? who knows

probably never

AND that, apart from cost of course is the very essence of the problem.

probably never - THAT is the essence of the problem.

I genuinely theink we are visualising a World that exists today and making assumptions based on TODAY 20 years down the line.

LHR RW3 is 20+ years behind the curve, it should have been decided in year 2000 and even that was a tad late !

No, it should have been built soon after 1977. That was the year that the government declared Heathrow to be "full". Never too late, build 2 rwys now.

Seljuk22

18th Mar 2015, 19:30

Icelandair will lease two B767-300 for its twice daily flights to LHR
Icelandair to Acquire two Boeing 767?s For Heathrow Route :: Routesonline (http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/247853/icelandair-to-acquire-two-boeing-767s-for-heathrow-route/)

canberra97

20th Mar 2015, 06:21

It was a very nice surprise to see an American Airlines Boeing 787-8 at stand 365 at Terminal 3 on Wednesday evening at around 21.45 as I arrived on BA503 from Lisbon.

I believe it was part of a training flight from DFW.

Bagso

1st Apr 2015, 14:18

Access to new Heathrow would cost £20bn, Transport for London warns (From Richmond and Twickenham Times) (http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/12716544.Access_to_new_Heathrow_would_cost___20bn__Transport _for_London_warns/)

TFL Transport For London have today published something of an exocet with some revised figures re cost of surrounding infrastructure LHR RW3.

Rather than £6B, TFL are quoting....wait for it ..... £20B !!!

That doubles the cost of the project to North of £40 Billion ! yes that's wait for it £40 Billion !

A telling comment from the item suggests.....

TfL believes to provide an optimal level of service, the figure would be nearer to £20bn, raising questions about who would pay the additional costs.

...My God, they are not the only ones !

Another line

"the commission has woefully underestimated the associated surface access cost by more than £10bn."

"it is extraordinary that the commission never bothered to ask for its assessment (tfl)"

And from Zac Goldsmith an MP who at least comments on local issues (something we would dearly love to see in Manchester)

This raises serious questions about the thoroughness and reliability of the commission’s work. If TfL is right, the taxpayer may end up having to cough up an additional £15bn to help Heathrow secure its monopoly

A few of us cannot wait for the final report.... more holes than a colender ![/B]

WHBM

1st Apr 2015, 18:04

TFL Transport For London have today published something of an exocet with some revised figures re cost of surrounding infrastructure LHR RW3.

Rather than £6B, TFL are quoting....wait for it ..... £20B !!!
That's ludicrous. That's more than the whole of Crossrail right across London has cost.

Bagso

2nd Apr 2015, 07:07

Some more information for scholars of the costs "seemingly" missed by Sir Howard Davies and his buffooons....

TFL response to APPG on surface access | All Party Parliamentary Group on Heathrow and the Wider Economy (http://www.heathrowappg.com/tfl-response-to-appg-on-surface-access/)

These are not increases btw they were not included in SHDs figures in the first place !

BKS Air Transport

2nd Apr 2015, 17:37

The BBC are reporting that Heathrow plan to reduce their charges for domestic passengers by £10 from next year.

Heathrow to cut domestic charges by a third - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32163676)

Skipness One Echo

2nd Apr 2015, 17:39

This is the same TFL run by Boris Johnson? 20 Billion is a stupid figure, let's all calm down, this is pure politics.

good egg

2nd Apr 2015, 18:19

I suspect that any planning consent (should it ever happen) would be dependent on improving surface access (beyond HS2)...I suspect that burden would be placed as a condition on the development and therefore the developer would pay towards it.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) | PAS (http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE)

BasilBush

2nd Apr 2015, 18:47

Yes, that's right Good Egg. That was the approach that resulted from the T5 public inquiry, with planning permission being granted subject to a whole host of conditions including those relating to surface access. BAA/HAL therefore had to stump up before it could go ahead with the project.

For R3 the difficulty will be in distinguishing between those surface access projects that are driven by Heathrow's expansion and the (longer) list of projects that are put forward by bodies such as TFL which have an ulterior motive.

TFL's intervention, and Boris's refusal of the LCY expansion, point to the inevitability that Davies will not have the last word. Politics will continue to drive things, and may well result in a repeat of the various historic Govt decisions to expand other airports instead. History tells us that Govt was wrong on Stansted (whose development was made possible by Heathrow's profits), and it could well end up being wrong again by eventually deciding that Gatwick is the least bad solution from a political perspective, even if it makes no sense from an industry perspective.

Bagso

4th Apr 2015, 09:16

I am aware there is no love lost between messrs Davies and Johnson and the tfl report is no doubt a late shot across the bows, but there are still some facts in there which cannot be denied is there not ?

Bagso

4th Apr 2015, 11:00

AirportWatch | Heathrow to reduce charges on domestic flights from £29.59 to £19.59 from Ist Jan 2016 (http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/04/heathrow-to-reduce-charges-on-domestic-flights-from-29-59-to-19-59-from-ist-jan-2016/)

How on earth can the airport operator indicate there WILL be new flights to new destinations, it may be an aspiration but you need an airline to make it happen.

It also seems odd that they admit that some domestic routrs are not full NOW, let alone new services in 20 years !

AerRyan

8th Apr 2015, 00:53

So, when is the Runway decision due? June?

ETOPS

8th Apr 2015, 07:13

So, when is the Runway decision due? June?

Yes -absolutely.....definitely :)

Which year do you ask? Can't say for sure, think in terms of decades away :ugh:

yotty

8th Apr 2015, 10:56

I thought it was going to be a recommendation! :cool:

PAXboy

8th Apr 2015, 12:46

A recommendation for the new government to consider by appointing a Committee? :zzz:

Yes Minister :rolleyes:

Bagso

12th Apr 2015, 07:27

The Dft has appointed Rothschilds to report back to them on the financing of both projects should they ever come to fruition.

As two private companies I don't see what the financing has to do with the Dft?
OR is this to do with this improbable but possible public expenditure exposure ?

Bankers drafted in to assess new runway costs | News | Travel Trade Gazette (http://m.ttgdigital.com/4695798.article?mobilesite=enabled)

Is this standard procedure Basil ?

BasilBush

12th Apr 2015, 09:09

Rothschilds' appointment seems sensible. The various Davies reports on financing the new runway capacity have highlighted the fact that the balance sheets of both HAL and GAL would be transformed as a result of investment in a new runway. There would be a serious amount of egg on face if a Govt decision in favour of either airport was followed by a problem with financing.

The Rothschilds input will also be important in the CAA's consideration of how the new runway will affect economic regulation. One of the CAA's duties is to take into account the airports' ability to finance new investment, and they will need to carefully consider whatever Rothschilds say before making any final pronouncements.

Probably the most interesting aspect will be Rothschilds' view on Gatwick. In particular, GAL are proposing a doubling of airport charges in the face of no airline support, a generally-held view (including by CAA) that GAL's current charges are close to market clearing levels, and a gradual deregulation by CAA of GAL's airport charges. Quite how GAL could raise new debt to fund R2 in these circumstances is beyond me, and it is entirely possible that Rothschilds will conclude that the Gatwick R2 project is simply not fundable without public sector support. That would be interesting.

nigel osborne

12th Apr 2015, 12:51

Its certainly been nice to find a few posts on the LHR thread about airlines and routes.

Thought for a while it was a party political thread...not that the 3rd runway decision is not a very important one.

Nigel

handler

13th Apr 2015, 19:39

Hi Guys, I am looking for updated list "who handles who at LHR " any assistance very much appreciated.

DaveReidUK

19th Apr 2015, 15:57

Nothing to do with R3, this is the public inquiry re Heathrow's appeal against Hillingdon's refusal to grant the planning application for the infrastructure works to support post-Cranford easterly alternation.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/docs/public-inquiry-schedule.pdf

Trinity 09L

25th Apr 2015, 16:14

Qantas risks large fines, losing slots at Heathrow for late A380s: internal memo (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-risks-large-fines-losing-slots-at-heathrow-for-late-a380s-internal-memo-20150416-1mmciq.html)

The late arrival of the A380s at Heathrow resulted in Qantas' on-time performance slipping to 75th out of 80 airlines that flew to Europe's busiest airport in February.

"As a result of our performance, London airport has given Qantas an official warning; meaning that we could be fined £20,000 for each non-compliance of our slot time, or worse lose our slot"

BAladdy

6th May 2015, 15:55

Aerolineas Argentinas will operate a total of 4 flights between 18SEP15 and 18OCT15 to LHR. Could this be AR testing the market to see if there is demand for another carrier on the LHR-EZE route with 2 of the flights operating via BCN and via FCO. The flights will operate as follows.

AR1936 EZE 22:55 - 17:20(+1) LHR 19:00(+1) - BCN 22:55 343(+1) (18SEP)
AR1161 BCN 00:15 EZE 08:55 343 (19SEP)

AR1160 EZE 22:55 BCN 16:35(+1) 343 (25SEP)
AR1937 BCN 18:25 - 19:55 LHR 21:50 - EZE 09:00(+1) 343 (26SEP)

AR1938 EZE 22:40 - 17:05(+1) LHR 18:40(+1) - FCO 22:30(+1) 343 (09OCT)
AR1143 FCO 19:25 EZE 05:00(+1) 343 (11OCT)

AR1140 EZE 22:35 FCO 17:10(+1) 343 (17OCT)
AR1939 FCO 19:05 - 20:55 LHR 22:45 - EZE 09:55(+1) 343 (18OCT)

The flights will be operated by a 284 seat A340-300. AR's A343's are configured in a 2 class configuration of 32J/252Y

Peter47

30th May 2015, 11:55

I have just read that the US is considering extending preclearance to Heathrow & Manchester.

US Considers Expanding Airport Preclearance (http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1432952779.html)

My question is how will it work at LHR. Presumably you would require dedicated gates & concourses. Fine if you dedicate a concourse of T5 & a wing of T4, etc, but very hard in practise without building new infrastructure as there are not many spare gates. Could you build an additional US preclearance story above the existing concourse? It could be incorporated into the "toast rack" in the long term but what of the medium term? Any thoughts as to the feasibility anyone?

Una Due Tfc

30th May 2015, 14:06

giblets

10th Jun 2015, 10:08

Rothschilds? Not sure how much influence the family still have but Zac Goldsmith, MP for SW London and prospective London may is firmly against R£ (and married to one of the Rothschilds).

Fairdealfrank

10th Jun 2015, 21:46

US Preclearance
I have just read that the US is considering extending preclearance to Heathrow & Manchester.

US Considers Expanding Airport Preclearance (http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1432952779.html)

My question is how will it work at LHR. Presumably you would require dedicated gates & concourses. Fine if you dedicate a concourse of T5 & a wing of T4, etc, but very hard in practise without building new infrastructure as there are not many spare gates. Could you build an additional US preclearance story above the existing concourse? It could be incorporated into the "toast rack" in the long term but what of the medium term? Any thoughts as to the feasibility anyone?
Would be difficult.

Could indeed dedicate one of the "toast racks", for this. It would probably have to be one of those that will be built on the present Heathrow-3 site after demolition so that it could be accessed from both Heathrow-5 and Heathrow-1/2.

This means that the underground transit railway would need to run all the way between Heathrow-5A and Heathrow-2C, but access from Heathrow-4 would be problematic.

Also, it would have to be a very big, well-staffed and efficient facility, with long opening hours, to cope with the numbers bearing in mind the amount of flights to the USA.

Looks like the proposed pre-clearance facility at the rebuilt Ringway-2 is going to be simpler to organise and probably the first in the UK to open.

AerRyan

10th Jun 2015, 21:48

Willie Walsh has said that Heathrow will never get USPC, but it is a possibility in Madrid. He says Dublin was built with USPC in mind, no other EU Airport has so that makes it difficult.

CKT789

25th Jun 2015, 07:44

When Little Red stop services at the end of September, what will happen to the UK arrivals hall in T2? Will they mothball it to retain domestic capability?

toledoashley

25th Jun 2015, 08:23

Is Belfast not domestic? (Aer Lingus)

CKT789

25th Jun 2015, 12:25

My bad, clean forgot about EI.

Heathrow Harry

25th Jun 2015, 14:00

Put the pre-cleared on buses to wait until the plane is ready............

PAXboy

30th Jun 2015, 19:46

Today: visited T2 to greet friends. Not my first visit and all went well until I went to pay for the parking.

The machine's main screen invites you to insert your Debit/credit card and, lower down, the PIN screen flashes the same message. There is a fixed decal sign pointing to the conventional card slot.

After inserting card - the machine continues telling me to insert card. So I remove and repeate the process. The machine still tells me to insert the card.

Happily, before machine rage erupted, a member of staff arrived and said that the machince actually wanted me to insert the Debit/Credit card in the same slot as the original paper ticket. :rolleyes:

He was polite and helpful and said that no one understood this.

I mean What The Blankety-Blank?? :ugh: :mad:

I was on a different floor to ones I have used before so perhaps that was it? How can they do that - when right alongside is the very smart 'find your cars parking place by your number plate' machine? On leaving the park, the gate did not recognise my number plate (as on all previous occaisions) and I had to fumble for the ticket. Sheesh!

Seljuk22

4th Jul 2015, 11:17

QR will increase DOH-LHR to 46 weekly from 25th October

double daily A380
double daily A333 (2-class)
daily B77W
daily B788
4 weekly A346

No more A319LR.

owenc

4th Jul 2015, 12:11

Willie Walsh has said that Heathrow will never get USPC, but it is a possibility in Madrid. He says Dublin was built with USPC in mind, no other EU Airport has so that makes it difficult.

What would be the point in doing that? You would be going off track by 1,000 miles just to go through immigration. It doesn't seem worth it to me.

It only works from Dublin because you are going towards America. Unfortunately I can't see too many people flying to Madrid for preclearnace.

It's great to get preclearance but its not the end of the world if you don't get it, i'm not going to detour for hours just to get it.

DaveReidUK

4th Jul 2015, 13:16

You would be going off track by 1,000 miles just to go through immigration. It doesn't seem worth it to me.I'm sure WW's grasp of geography is at least as good as ours - where do you get the idea that he is suggesting anyone is going to route LHR-MAD-USA?

Fairdealfrank

4th Jul 2015, 19:10

What would be the point in doing that? You would be going off track by 1,000 miles just to go through immigration. It doesn't seem worth it to me.

It only works from Dublin because you are going towards America. Unfortunately I can't see too many people flying to Madrid for preclearnace.

It's great to get preclearance but its not the end of the world if you don't get it, i'm not going to detour for hours just to get it.
No point, clearly.

People won’t fly from the UK to MAD for pre-clearance, but it may attract pax from southern Europe to fly on IB, just like it is expected that some pax from northern Europe may use EI with pre-clearance at DUB.

Willie Walsh is the head honcho of IAG and that includes IB as well as BA.

DaveReidUK

10th Jul 2015, 08:20

Due to last for 6 months, participation mandatory for all RNAV (RNP) 0.3 equipped aircraft using LHR.

Should be interesting.

Gonzo

13th Jul 2015, 10:19

Yes, it would be interesting if that was what was going to happen.

DaveReidUK

13th Jul 2015, 10:57

if that was what was going to happenOK, I'll bite. :O

Which part have I (and the AIP) got wrong ?

Gonzo

13th Jul 2015, 16:09

All the AIP supplement mandates is that RNAV 0.3 capable aircraft have the procedures coded, ready for use.

DaveReidUK

13th Jul 2015, 16:32

OK, I was wondering about that.

So I guess the trial could end up being a non-event if everyone decides to request an ILS or MLS approach ... :O

Out of interest, which airlines do you think are likely to be on board ?

nigel osborne

24th Jul 2015, 11:05

Clearest signal yet that the Govt are to give LHR the nod for a 3rd runway.

The PM has selected a committee to look into the findings of the Airport Commission report that favours LHR.

He has left out all MPs that are opposing the 3rd LHR runway and had secret talks behind the scenes with Boris Johnson on the topic yesterday ...

PM says he will announce his final decision before this XMAS after his committee reports back.

Nigel

Heathrow Harry

24th Jul 2015, 11:37

just opens another route to a legal challenge..................

VickersVicount

24th Jul 2015, 11:54

Almaty and Entebbe dropped by BA from LHR

True Blue

24th Jul 2015, 11:59

Are there any banana skins out there that they have ignored that could lead to a legal challenge and derail this yet? Like using out of date figures for Lgw pax?

TB

Heathrow Harry

24th Jul 2015, 15:17

The whole process is open to numerous challenges - the one that will probably sink them is the lack of consideration of pollution around LHR

especially when the UK is already in the dock over not doing enough to lower airborne pollution.........

this will make T5 look like a morning in the Magistrates Court

Walnut

24th Jul 2015, 16:23

Having crawled around the M25 abeam LHR yet again yesterday I still think this will sink any proposals to expand a pointless expansion

Trash 'n' Navs

24th Jul 2015, 18:45

That old chestnut hey err... Walnut?

By that yardstick, we'd better move LGW 'coz every time I drive the motorway down there I get stuck in traffic.

Or move Slough 'coz the M4's always congested when I go passed....

From the data in the AC report & Highways Agency, LHR isn't the main reason for congestion on the western M25 stretch. Convenient excuse but not the cause.

robbie1973

25th Jul 2015, 01:52

Looks like Iberia are starting their own LHR - LPA rotations from 25th October operating Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday & Friday using A319 A/C -

IB3006 - 14:00 LPA - 18:20 LHR
IB3005 - 19:10 LHR - 23:30 LPA

Iberia Express are reducing their frequency to once weekly on Tuesday's with the above timings using A320 A/C

British Airways will still operate the Saturday seasonal flight which means daily departures will be offered on the LHR - LPA Route.

Fairdealfrank

27th Jul 2015, 18:14

From the data in the AC report & Highways Agency, LHR isn't the main reason for congestion on the western M25 stretch. Convenient excuse but not the cause.

Too many junctions on top of each other doesn't help on that stretch. Encourages local traffic and junction-hopping on what was designed as a bypass, and that means mass lane changing which slows everything down.

BHX5DME

11th Aug 2015, 19:04

July was a month of personal bests for Heathrow, with the UK’s only hub welcoming a record 7.29 million passengers (+4.7% on July 2014) and for the first time ever serving over a quarter of a million passengers, not just once but on three separate days. July 31st saw the most passengers ever travelling through Heathrow, with 254,375 passengers choosing the UK’s only hub airport
Larger, quieter, fuller aircraft continued to be a driver for passenger growth at Heathrow. Seats per aircraft increased 2.3% to 209.6 while passengers per aircraft rose 4.1% to 175.6 and load factors increased 1.8% to 83.8%
Within emerging markets, passenger volumes were particularly strong to Mexico which was up 29.5%, China up 13.7% and Brazil up 1.6%. Middle East traffic was also up 13.3% as carriers added new A380s to these segments
Heathrow continues to welcome the transfer passengers that make such long-haul flights possible, with year-on-year volumes increasing 2.5%
Cargo volumes at Heathrow, the UK’s biggest port by value, recorded growth of 3.2% over the past 12 months, with increases to notable emerging markets including 41.3% to Mexico, 26.3% to Turkey, 18.6% to Brazil, 10.7% to India
Heathrow is Britain’s link with global markets, enabling trade and tourism by hosting over 70% of the UK’s long-haul flights. The airport has seen significant increasing demand for services to fast-growing markets like Mexico and China, but without additional capacity this growth cannot continue. The Airports Commission found in its recent recommendation that new opportunities for trade are dependent on improved global connectivity and an expanded Heathrow will provide this

Heathrow CEO John Holland-Kaye said:
"I agree with the Prime Minister’s comments during the recent trade mission to South East Asia that Britain should be trading more with the rest of the world.
As the UK’s largest port, Heathrow is the beating heart of Britain’s trading network. Our best exports, whether Scottish salmon or life-saving pharmaceuticals, all pass through Heathrow on their way to markets across the globe. With expansion, we can add connections to new markets, opening up the lucrative trade routes that will secure British prosperity over the coming decades.”
- See more at: Heathrow - Traffic and business commentary July 2015 (http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Corporate-operational-24/4878#sthash.NHl5olTA.dpuf)

rutankrd

11th Aug 2015, 21:18

`````boxes pallets and containers along with documents couldn't give stuff where they depart/arrive .

Much of the hardware exports/import could and do travel through regional airports (mainly the MAG group !) and via road /rail to the lowlands every day.

Under floor use useful but not the be all and end al!

And as a vehicle in the LHR needs a 3rd runway because its a rather weak argument on its own!

And the China route queue is a myth right now - The UK is not welcoming to the Peoples Republic with all the Visa issues combined with the rhetoric over immigrants conflated with asylum seekers currently.

As for Brasil its remains a tiny market for the UK in every respect other the timber and thats put on ships to you guessed it the lowlands put on smaller ships and landed in places such as Hove !

India is a basket case low profit VFR and even lower profit (for UK PLC) transit traffic to/from the US

The other bric -Russia well the UK are having our own little cold war right now.

Other than Oligarchs hiding their money and flying rather luxuriously in/out of Luton - The market has collapsed !

ATNotts

12th Aug 2015, 07:54

And the China route queue is a myth right now - The UK is not welcoming to the Peoples Republic with all the Visa issues combined with the rhetoric over immigrants conflated with asylum seekers currently.

Indeed, the refusal of the UK to accept Schengen visas add an unpleasant extra cost to Chinese (and other) tourists "doing Europe", of which the UK is (allegedly) a part.

It matters not how much less the UK government charges for a UK visa, there will always be a cost in time, more forms to fill in etc - that will put some potential visitors off adding the UK to their European itinerary.

jdcg

1st Sep 2015, 22:10

Aeroflot has just bought a 75% stake in Transaero for 1 rouble. Does this mean that they will have to forfeit the Transaero slots at LHR to another Russian carrier under the terms of the bilateral?

Bagso

13th Sep 2015, 12:31

Jeremy Corbyn's election as leader of Labour party could scupper plans for third runway at Heathrow - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-election-as-leader-of-labour-party-could-scupper-plans-for-third-runway-at-heathrow-10431575.html)

And it came to pass....!

Skipness One Echo

13th Sep 2015, 12:55

Hardly, the govt and the SNP want it and there's not enough rebels.
Quite news day bagso, stop agitating.
Corbyn's analysis is what you'd expect from someone who got 2 Es at A Level and dropped out of a polytechnic. He's now about to be found out. The idea he could whip the Labour MPs into line on this would allow the Tories to paint them as Green left wingers actively killing jobs and investment. His MPs won't allow this comedy horror show to even get to the 2020 election IMHO.

Bagso

13th Sep 2015, 17:08

I think the only agitator on here, nay the whole forum is your goodself Skip.
Although MM is always a close second.

This is an observation on Corbyns views on Heathrow NOT a discussion about the merits for good or bad of the Labour Party electing him.
Please lets not stray off-piste.

At least I can support my comments with evidence rather than soundbites !

The link I posted is highly relevant to observers of the LHR debate as indeed are the following links below.

On a theme where on earth is your evidence that the SNP support RW3 ?

I think you will find that since the initial Davies report was published, many SNP MPs have scrutinised the small print. Many are rightly concerned re costs and in addition have been "got at" by Edinburgh Airport who having had a sniff of long haul are determined to hold onto it.

Alex Salmond "grandee" of the SNP is now decidedly anti.

I think you are deluded if you believe SNPs are "really" going to defy him and indeed Nicola Sturgeon who also appears to be now somewhat lukewarm.

Heathrow decision just latest example of UK Government?s London obsession - Alex Salmond / Politics / News / The Courier (http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond/heathrow-decision-just-latest-example-of-uk-government-s-london-obsession-1.897515)

Nicola Sturgeon: Decision over third Heathrow runway will be decided by SNP vote | London | News | London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/nicola-sturgeon-decision-over-third-heathrow-runway-will-be-decided-by-snp-vote-10404238.html)

DaveReidUK

13th Sep 2015, 18:14

Call me a cynic, but I don't think the SNP have strong views on whether airport expansion should be at LHR, LGW or not at all.

The most likely scenario would seem to be that any potential support for the Government on the issue would involve some serious horsetrading in other areas that are more important from a Scottish point of view.

Which, after all, is what they were elected to do.

Fairdealfrank

13th Sep 2015, 21:40

A couple of points on this:

(1) The outcome of a Parliamentary vote on Heathrow expansion would be determined by one thing: the number of Labour MPs in favour (and willing to vote in favour irrespective of any instructions from the whips) has to be greater than the number of Conservative MPs against, after abstentions and non-attendances are taken into account.

(2) It is unlikely that the SNP group has a homogeneous view on Heathrow expansion, many of them want it badly.

(3) If the mathematics in (1) above work in the government's favour, it doesn't matter how the SNP vote.

(4) If not, there may not be a parliamentary vote at all, and the noise of cans being kicked down the road will be deafening (louder than any aircraft on the flightpath) as another Commission is set up with a remit to look at Heathrow only and told to report after the 2020 election;

(5) Corbyn has been a serial rebel for 32 years, this will make it very difficult for him to be able to enforce his will on the Parliamentary Labour party already split down the middle. Most Labour MPs realise that it's very unlikely that they can win in 2020, so many may think nothing of the rebelling. Some may do it in the hope of bringing down the Corbyn leadership. In many ways it could be reminiscent of Iain Duncan-Smith's ill-fated Conservative opposition: the serial rebel turned leader or, if you prefer, poacher turned gamekeeper.

Either way, it is far too early to tell how things will pan out, it could go any number of ways. For the Labour leadership to do a U-turn on this would upset many of their MPs. What would be the effect of Labour voting with the Greens, the SNP and the Libdems (remember them?). On this issue, it wouldn't look good.

One thing is for sure, the 50 year saga looks like not being resolved any time soon.

Hope this helps.

chrisy08

19th Sep 2015, 11:02

I don't know where to write this, so I'll give it a go in here.....

I'm picking up some family from Heathrow late this afternoon... I was going to go an hour or two before they land to watch the planes go out and in... I need somewhere to park (free preferably) and the best place to watch.....

Thanks in advance

Bagso

20th Sep 2015, 08:43

Agitating again Skip

Labour abandons support for new Heathrow runway | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4561784.ece)

As predicted Labour have now also done an about turn on Heathrow support.

It now depends on your individual view as to whether Labour MPs will tow the party line or rebel.

Politics being what they are however it seems unlikely that there would be such a damaging split so early in the tenure.

CabinCrewe

22nd Sep 2015, 16:15

I see QR are to scrap the business only rotation between LHR and DOH. Not sure if im surprised or not...

canberra97

22nd Sep 2015, 21:54

Already been announced by Qatar a while back,it was more of a slot filler in my opinion although the flight and timings we remain but operated with larger aircraft but not as a business class flight.

Heathrow Harry

25th Sep 2015, 15:10

Opponents are saying the VW scandal means the pollutiion study will have to be re-done with the correct figures this time.... this will run and run -

Trash 'n' Navs

25th Sep 2015, 19:25

Good grief!!

They'll clutch any straw that floats past.

Those complaining seem happy to take the benefits of LHR (jobs, travel, trade) but want someone else to pay for it. Seems rather selfish to me.

Heathrow Harry

26th Sep 2015, 11:24

the people complaining are the ones who DON't Benifit from LHR but get the noise and pollution

Actually the pollution case is serious as the European Courts have already put the UK Govt on warning about general pollution levels - so it's a major issue

It's not the aircraft so much - it's all the car traffic generated around LHR that causes the problem - and if the numbers in the study are way too optomistic (as they must be given what we know now) then the protesters have a damn solid case on this issue

Again it means the case will be stuck in the courts for years

Trash 'n' Navs

26th Sep 2015, 11:33

Oh Harry, how wrong can one be?
the people complaining are the ones who DON't Benifit from LHR but get the noise and pollution

Everyone benefits. UK plc benefits. It's the inconvenient truth that anti-expansion campaigners don't want to acknowledge.

Shed-on-a-Pole

26th Sep 2015, 19:39

Everyone benefits. UK plc benefits.

T&N - Your recent postings on this topic present you as a cheerleader rather than somebody prepared to engage in serious debate.

Everyone benefits? You cannot be serious! I don't see any value in typing up an extremely lengthy list of those who do not benefit - it would be too time-consuming. The whole LHR R3 issue is deeply contentious precisely because so many do NOT benefit. If it were otherwise, R3 would have been a done deal long ago.

UK plc benefits? Well, London and the SE will see some benefits but as for UK plc in its entirety ... that is another area of contentious debate. The regions would certainly benefit far more if the public portion of funding earmarked for LHR R3 and associated works were spent on infrastructure projects directly in the regions instead. There is a substantial 'opportunity cost' associated with any decision to publicly fund LHR development as opposed to investing directly in regional projects of merit. And regional projects are decades overdue their turn for public infrastructure investment. Currently, planned public infrastructure spending per head by region shows London at £5305 per annum and the NE at £414. This is before Crossrail 2 and LHR R3 come into play. Source: Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute.

The LHR 'good for Britain' argument relies on the concept of trickledown working its magic. Well, trickledown produces very little magic for the regions. It produces a trickle! And as for £147Bn payback from LHR R3 (as forecast in the Davies Report), reputable commentators have ridiculed that figure as vastly over-optimistic. Based upon standard government accountancy principles the true number is projected to be a fraction of this. The article containing the exact details and numbers was published on August 28th - I would like to link it here as is good practice, but the link now leads to a blank page save for onward links to football reports and lots of side-adverts promoting LHR expansion! Funny that, although it could of course be remotely targeted advertising generated by Google. If I am able to locate the original article I will come back with the figures quoted.

Let's just say there is a debate to be had here. This is not cut and dried. They who you dismiss lightly as "those complaining" actually have genuine and substantial grievances backing them up.

True Blue

26th Sep 2015, 20:18

I wonder if the Government will see expansion at Lhr as too hot to handle and go for Lgw, as additional capacity is needed somewhere?

I have just been reading yesterday's Times on the car emissions scandal. On page 8 there is a report that the Government knew about this problem a year ago. In the report, it mentions a recent court case taken against the Government by ClientEarth to reduce air pollution. In evidence to the court, the Government said"The main reason for this is that the real world emission performance of a vehicle has turned out to be quite different to how the vehicle performs on the regulatory test cycle". Quote taken from The Times.

What impact could the current scandal have on Lhr expansion as some have questioned the reports findings on pollution around Lhr and as I have already asked, could this make the Government think deciding for Lhr now is too risky and go for Lgw instead?

Any views?

TB

Skipness One Echo

26th Sep 2015, 21:12

I think Shed nailed it, whenever certain posters deny the wider benefits of LHR to the UK, the word "grievance" was used.

That sums up the mentality, it's prevelant back home in Scotland where people are constanatly angry at not being served their "fair share" on a plate in their own locality. MAN is doing rather well without trying to constrain LHR, as is LGW. We need to see LHR the same way Changi is seen in Singapore, KUL in Malaysia etc, a proper staregic national asset. Too much to ask where all politics is local of course.

Shed-on-a-Pole

26th Sep 2015, 21:47

MAN is doing rather well without trying to constrain LHR

Whilst MAG has its own views on LHR, especially in view of group ownership of STN, I am not aware of any active campaign by them to 'constrain LHR'. MAN has actually been remarkably reticent about expressing views on this topic until the latter stages of the process. Some PPRuNe regulars suggested they could have spoken out more forcefully. Certainly, it seems inappropriate to imply that MAN is involved in 'trying to constrain LHR'.

certain posters deny the wider benefits of LHR to the UK

Consider me one of them. The problem with these 'wider benefits' to the regions is that they are pitifully small to not there at all. And definitely outweighed by the 'potential benefits' of regional projects of merit which are denied funding in favour of yet more public investment in London and SE infrastructure.

people are constanatly angry at not being served their "fair share"

Just look again at those numbers I posted comparing infrastructure spending in London versus the example of the North-East region. £5305 v £414. This isn't afew percentage points of differential. London is getting almost THIRTEEN TIMES (!!!!) per head what a NE resident is receiving. And this imbalance is three decades old with every sign of the gap widening further. This is not a case of small-minded provincials failing to understand the big picture. This is a massive and very real scandal. Those who speak out are absolutely right not to be rolled over on this (yet again). They get a hearty pat on the back from me, not a condescending shake of the head. They are the ones who do "get it".

Trash 'n' Navs

26th Sep 2015, 21:48

You cannot be serious
I can.
I am.

I could levy a similar charge against you Shed, from your posts you don't appear able to "engage in serious debate"!!

Everyone benefits - either directly or indirectly.

From the length of your diatribes, you seem to labour under the mistaken belief that mere volume of words wins debates.

We can trade stats all day but there's little point because apparently yours are above reproach whilst everyone else's are suspect or fanciful.

To me it's simple. Don't expand Heathrow. No skin off my nose. Just watch the UK slide down the worlds economic ranks through lack of connectivity & trade. I've seen enough credible evidence to convince me LHR needs it. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad to see you (Poms) get your knickers in a twist over this.

Shed-on-a-Pole

26th Sep 2015, 21:57

We can trade stats all day

Stats? Where are your stats? From you I see only one-liners ridiculing those who disagree with you.

Everyone benefits

No they don't. That's why this topic is contentious.

Itchin McCrevis

26th Sep 2015, 22:10

Don't expand Heathrow = Just watch the UK slide down the worlds economic ranks through lack of connectivity & trade.Sums it up nicely - don't the most succesful businesses put the bulk of their resources behind their most succesful products to get the max out of them? - it works for economies too, investment in the south east can return a multiple on investment in the regions. The south east could survive without the regions but not vice versa (the Scots demonstrated their understanding of this a year ago) - the truth may hurt and we may not like it but it is still the truth.

Trash 'n' Navs

26th Sep 2015, 22:13

According to Prof Henry G. Overman of Spatial Economics Research Centre in 2014,

"IPPR North's numbers which suggest we are set to spend £5,000 per person on infrastructure in London but only £250 per person in the North East. These figures are certainly striking, but they should be interpreted with considerable caution because they are far out of line with actual expenditure. Actual expenditure is reported in the Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis Tables. According to those tables, in 2010-11 London received £800 per head (compared to an English average - including London - of around £400)"

and

The £5,000 per head figure for London includes both private and public investment. If you look only at projects that involve the public sector as a funder the London figure is £2,500 per head. If you look only at projects where the public sector is the sole funder the figure is £770 per head.
http://spatial-economics.********.co.uk/2014/03/how-unbalanced-is-infrastructure.html?m=1

So Shed as I said, we can quote stats all day but you still continue to disparage those who have a different opinion to you.

I'm forming an opinion that you don't understand macro-economics. I thought the Davies Commission provided ample credible evidence that the benefits were substantial and UK-wide. I also note the South-West are in favour of Heathrow expansion because of the benefits their region will receive.

Trash 'n' Navs

26th Sep 2015, 22:30

Hey TB,
What impact could the current scandal have on Lhr expansion as some have questioned the reports findings on pollution around LHR

IIRC, only 14% of traffic is generated by LHR itself so it shouldn't impact expansion.

I think Boris is in trouble because London generates & attracts the most traffic so his emission numbers will be more affected.

Shed-on-a-Pole

26th Sep 2015, 23:16

T&N - Well done. Some stats this time. And whilst the figures vary from the source I quoted, note that the disparity still remains inordinately large even based on Spatial Economics' interpretations. Even if the London figure for public infrastructure funding is £2500 per head, that is still multiple times the NE equivalent. Or that of any other region. So the regional objection remains valid.

As for the personal remarks, hold whatever opinion you want. I'm not debating you on that level.

Fairdealfrank

26th Sep 2015, 23:48

the people complaining are the ones who DON't Benifit from LHR but get the noise and pollution
Actually no. Most of the complaints are from a rich vocal minority who live far from Heathrow and who certainly benefit from it (longhaul overseas holidays anyone? business trips?). The complaints don't come from the residents of towns and villages right on top of the airport rwy thresholds like Cranford and Colnbrook.

Actually the pollution case is serious as the European Courts have already put the UK Govt on warning about general pollution levels - so it's a major issue

It's not the aircraft so much - it's all the car traffic generated around LHR that causes the problem - and if the numbers in the study are way too optomistic (as they must be given what we know now) then the protesters have a damn solid case on this issue
Indeed it's not the aircraft. Any one who has lived under the flightpath for many years will tell you that today's aircraft are increasingly cleaner and quieter.

The climate change brigade are so obsessed with carbon dioxide they completely took their eyes off the ball as far as NOx is concerned. As we know, this pollution from diesel engines is far worse, and the chickens are coming home to roost with another scandal, allegedly known about by the EU for at least 4 years (what a surprise!).

Again it means the case will be stuck in the courts for years
Regretably this may be the case, one thing the rich NIMBYs are not short of is money.

Fairdealfrank

27th Sep 2015, 00:00

This is going round in circles again.

It is not about public spending in the north and south it's about Heathrow. The clue is in the thread's title.

Anyone who thinks that the money earmarked for a third runway will be spent in the north if the runway is not built is severely deluded, because this is private sector money.

Sums it up nicely - don't the most succesful businesses put the bulk of their resources behind their most succesful products to get the max out of them? - it works for economies too, investment in the south east can return a multiple on investment in the regions. The south east could survive without the regions but not vice versa (the Scots demonstrated their understanding of this a year ago) - the truth may hurt and we may not like it but it is still the truth.
It works for the UK's constituent countries as well. If one or more of the 3 smaller constituent countries decide to leave the UK, the UK survives. If England leaves, it's the end of the UK. Better of course if all stick together.

Oops sorry, going off topic, apologies.

I also note the South-West are in favour of Heathrow expansion because of the benefits their region will receive.
Good, back on topic now. It's not just the southwest, the entire country is in favour.

Walnut

27th Sep 2015, 00:09

Now we know the true value of road pollution (VW scandal) is being stuck in the proposed 800mtr tunnel under R3 a Health & Safety issue?

Shed-on-a-Pole

27th Sep 2015, 00:52

Anyone who thinks that the money earmarked for a third runway will be spent in the north if the runway is not built is severely deluded, because this is private sector money.

Sorry Frank, can't let you away with that one! Funding proposals call for a minimum of £5Bn from the public purse with claims running to £20Bn dependent on source. This of course includes infrastructure upgrades on surrounding roads / railways as a consequence of LHR R3 approval. And it is not delusional to suppose that there are alternative uses for public sector infrastructure funding. Each pound allocated can only be used once. If yet another vast sum is nodded through for the SE, that money cannot then be used in the regions where it is long overdue and acutely needed.

the entire country is in favour.

On the contrary, the country is extremely divided on this issue. There is no consensus. That is why this topic attracts passionate debate.

Moving on, I would like to pick up on one other point raised on the R3 issue: connectivity. If a British company wishes to do business in Chongqing, Duluth or Hyderabad, do contributors here honestly subscribe to the myth that contracts will never be signed if there isn't a non-stop flight between LHR and these destinations? Have you ever heard of one-stop connections via hubs such as DXB, PEK or ORD? This is routine for business travellers in reality. A couple of hours additional journey time will not kill international commerce. Besides, the real truth is that London's greatest demand for increased runway capacity is driven by the leisure sector, not business. Those flights to PMI, AGP and TFS may not be glamorous enough for some, but they all require SE runway space. As do flights servicing inbound tourism. Over coming years, London will have to cope with far more growth to Mediterranean resorts than to regional China.

DaveReidUK

27th Sep 2015, 06:33

If a British company wishes to do business in Chongqing, Duluth or Hyderabad, do contributors here honestly subscribe to the myth that contracts will never be signed if there isn't a non-stop flight between LHR and these destinations? Have you ever heard of one-stop connections via hubs such as DXB, PEK or ORD? This is routine for business travellers in reality. A couple of hours additional journey time will not kill international commerce.

It's true that even Heathrow, in their Airport Commission submissions to the effect that "Britain does more trade with countries that can be reached by direct flights", concede that it's not at all clear which way round the cause-and-effect link works.

Trash 'n' Navs

27th Sep 2015, 07:40

Shed, classic! Ignore and deflect the inconvenient truth.

"that is still multiple times the NE equivalent. Or that of any other region."

It isn't.

Firstly, you still fail to compare like-for-like. Excluding private and joint public/private investment, London gets £770 versus the UK average of £400. Nowhere near the "multiple times" you continue to claim - although I note you've downgraded that multiple
"London is getting almost THIRTEEN TIMES (!!!!) per head what a NE resident is receiving."

Second, with 76% of the traffic using the M4/M25 junction not related to LHR, Public finance investment would still be required to improve traffic flows. So the £5Bn to £20Bn (dependent on source) you quote will still be required, regardless of expansion. An inconvenient truth for you.

Third, spending that £5-20bn in the North-East won't have the multiplier effect that it would as part of the R3 project. So yes you could spend it up there but the benefits case is much, much weaker. It's better for the UK - not just one of the regions. Another inconvenient truth.

Fourth, why do you think there's so much private/public investment in the South-East? I agree the difference between £770 & £2500 is stark however it's the result of private investment. Clearly, private investors aren't interested in investing to the same degree, elsewhere in the UK. Another inconvenient truth.

Finally, even the North East supports an expanded Heathrow. Unsurprisingly, there are anti-expansionists across the UK so you're in the minority. Another inconvenient truth.

Shed-on-a-Pole

27th Sep 2015, 13:04

T&N - I am not going to engage in this silly style of typing up a series of outbursts and adding the suffix "inconvenient truth!" after each one. That is knockabout kindergarten stuff. Besides, that phrase is closely associated with a former US presidential candidate whose own wild claims under that title have been widely discredited. However, I will address factual points raised.

Firstly, you are presuming that the research published by Spatial Economics Research (your source) is superior to that of the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (my source). It may indeed be so, but I don't know this and neither do you. It is a moot point. But neither source can be discarded because the other suits our case better.

Now, addressing some of the numbers which you quote from Spatial Economics. Firstly, that GBP400 UK Average figure which you quote (it is actually the English average BTW) includes London. This of course has the effect of making that GBP400 number far higher than it would otherwise be. Next, the GBP770 figure which you quote relates to projects where the public sector is sole funder. It is therefore appropriate to use the higher GBP2500 number which includes projects which are partially funded by the public sector. And based upon those numbers - from the research which you cite - my 'multiples' claim is validated. As for your noting that I have downgraded my original multiple, this is a nod to the maths provided by Spatial Research. Neither of us can say that Sheffield P.E.R.I.'s numbers were the invalid ones.

Next, M4/M25 measures. What upgrades may or may not be required there in the future is pure speculation. What will or will not be funded is unknown. I see no 'inconvenient truth' established there. I see conjecture.

On spending GBP5Bn-20Bn in the NE. Firstly, let's be quite clear. I have never proposed anything of the sort. As for what the multipliers and benefits of an undefined future notional project might be, nobody knows. Claims to the contrary make no sense. By the way, I propose fairer distribution of public infrastructure expenditure around the regions generally, targeted at projects of high merit. I have never suggested a single 'big-hit' one-off project. And whilst I support a fair deal for the NE (amongst others) note that it is not my own region. As for your contention that spending in the SE will in all cases provide better ROI than spending in the regions: utter hogwash. Although I can certainly appreciate the advantage to SE interests of promoting this myth!

There is , as you say, significantly higher private investment in the SE than in the regions. However, much of this goes on projects to which the public sector contributes. There is a need for this investment model to be encouraged regionally.

Finally, it seems that you have conducted a nationwide plebiscite on support for LHR R3. Amazing. Care to share your full results with us?

Trash 'n' Navs

27th Sep 2015, 15:58

That's funny coming from you Shed. I reckon every post you write is pure conjecture.

You've ignored something (again) to further your opinion. The source of the figures I quoted was HM Treasury (their 'Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis Tables ' to be exact). Are you saying their numbers "were the invalid ones"?

Good luck with convincing your MP to vote against LHR expansion.

Skipness One Echo

27th Sep 2015, 16:24

There is , as you say, significantly higher private investment in the SE than in the regions. However, much of this goes on projects to which the public sector contributes. There is a need for this investment model to be encouraged regionally.

Hang on, public spending is the only thing that keeps some parts of the country going, given that there are towns which are dying and the world left behind. I grew up in one of them, all the public money in the world in the hands of "local government" just was ****ed up the wall. Are you asking for more public subsidy for places which have fallen so far behind that no business can see a return on investment?

eggc

27th Sep 2015, 16:24

I find the last line quite amusing Trash, considering no politician will have the balls to approve such a move. It's biggest support was Labour, but note the "was"...even they, with a new leader, have changed their minds and now don't support the idea.

IMO its more good luck convincing them to do it !

Shed-on-a-Pole

27th Sep 2015, 16:45

I am glad that you are amused, T&N. However, far from 'ignoring' the figures you quote I used them in my reply to you (see paragraph three of my earlier posting). And, no, I do not label any of the statistics provided as invalid. I argued that we cannot know which set of data quoted have used the superior methodology in reaching their conclusions. By the way, statistical data (especially forecasts) are subject to inaccuracy whoever the sponsor / publisher may be. That includes Spatial, Sheffield, HMG agencies and everybody else.

Ah, my MP. Well, I haven't raised the subject of my local MP at all. But it just so happens that he is brother to a good friend of mine. Maybe I should take up your suggestion and have a chat!

Interesting to note that you have resorted to the 'personal attack' style of response again. I guess asking you to justify your one-man national opinion survey was a bit much?

Shed-on-a-Pole

27th Sep 2015, 17:07

Are you asking for more public subsidy for places which have fallen so far behind that no business can see a return on investment?

No, Skipness. As made abundantly clear in earlier postings I am calling for an equitable distribution of public sector funding for infrastructure investment. And that does not mean 13:1, 8:1 or even 5:1 in favour of London (depending on which statistical methodology you prefer). Please remember that the communities you propose to write off pay taxes to the exchequer at the same rates as Londoners. They deserve their fair share in return.

By the way, are you familiar with the concept that investment attracts investment? Invest some capital to improve an area's functionality and private investment will follow. London's Docklands is a fine example of this principle in action. There are many areas of the UK which would benefit from similar thinking.

Taking your own example of Scotland (which now has considerable control over its own infrastructure spending) we see the recently re-opened borders railway. It is too early to quote statistics, but the early signs are that communities all along that route will benefit from new investment as a result. Exactly the kind of project we need to back.

Trash 'n' Navs

27th Sep 2015, 18:46

statistical data (especially forecasts) are subject to inaccuracy whoever the sponsor / publisher may be. That includes Spatial, Sheffield, HMG agencies and everybody else.

So why did you introduce suspect data claiming it to be fact and the basis for your "THIRTEEN TIMES claim?

I guess asking you to justify your one-man national opinion survey was a bit much?

Nope, keep guessing.

To summarise your argument, you'd rather invest £5bn of public money to better regions within the UK (but not the South East) but not £20bn of private/public to better ALL regions within the UK?

LHR is the UK's most valuable port for trade. More valuable than Felixstowe or Southampton. Failure to invest in its expansion will see the UK drop down the work rankings due to lack of connectivity and trade. Investing in a few projects up North won't prevent it. Investing in R3 will support UK exports - not just London.

eggc

27th Sep 2015, 18:58

Trash wrote (then deleted) :

You claim not everyone supports LHR R3. Where's your evidence? Did you conduct a one man plebiscite?

Just a quick question Trash, do BA count in this universal support for R3 ? What about good old Boris ? Labour ?

I think Shed could prove they don't support it, and I suspect many other groups, parties, organisations and individuals.

To suggest LHR expansion is supported by everyone is just plain ridiculous.

Trash 'n' Navs

27th Sep 2015, 19:29

EGGC, I've never said "everyone" supports R3.

Equally I've never claimed BA, Boris & the flip-flopping Labour party represent "everyone".

From the surveys I've seen, there is more support for R3 than against.

The Commission made a cogent argument with solid evidence. Since it published it's recommendation I've seen even stronger and more widespread support.

eggc

27th Sep 2015, 19:35

Seems I'm nit picking, but that's not how this reads to me...

"You claim not everyone supports LHR R3. Where's your evidence?"

One thing that is clear to me, and a massive problem for the project...support is far from across the board.

Red tape, politics and more will be (already is) a huge hurdle...not one I am sure will be jumped at anytime soon.

AerRyan

27th Sep 2015, 19:46

Heathrow is a great example to Irish people that beating around the bush is not just an Irish trait. I can see no opposition that over-rules the economic benefits of a RWY3. The more its delayed, the less the economic benefit.

Shed-on-a-Pole

27th Sep 2015, 20:12

So why did you introduce suspect data claiming it to be fact and the basis for your "THIRTEEN TIMES claim?

What are you on about? The Sheffield research deserves as much respect as any of the data you have presented. Unless you can discredit it. Which you have not done so far.

To summarise your argument

You have not summarised my argument. You have concocted a twisted parody of it which suits your personal agenda. My actual argument is there for all to read in my own earlier postings on this topic.

LHR is the UK's most valuable port for trade

LHR's current status is not the issue here. The debate surrounds the stratospheric cost of providing expansion from this point forward versus the ROI which will result. There is a very substantial opportunity cost associated with allocating public funds to supporting this project as opposed to alternatives. Opposition is justified.

You want this debate to be straightforward. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Fairdealfrank

27th Sep 2015, 22:37

Shed, is your opposition to Heathrow expansion based on the amount of public expenditure to be spent on the associated surface road and rail infrastructure improvements?

Shed-on-a-Pole

29th Sep 2015, 19:37

Frank - Thankyou for your question. Sorry it has taken me a couple of days to respond. Multiple demands on my time beyond PPRuNe. Actually, I plan to answer your question in a second posting (after this one). The reason for that is to be found in my recent post No.3631 on this thread in which I referred to claims made in a newspaper article dating from late July which is unfortunately no longer accessible via its original link. The good news is that I have now located alternative coverage of the same news-story. It is logical to first report back on that as I promised, then answer your question with this new information taken into account.

The story was entitled: Airports Commission Accused of Burying Evidence. The version I printed off originated from Putneysw15.com, but there are alternative sources reporting the story. The gist of the story is that the Airports Commission "were hell bent on presenting Heathrow as the best option".

The report arises from the discovery of a letter penned by two of the commission's expert advisers which calls into question the reliability of growth forecasts used to justify the recommendation. These two advisers are named as Professor Peter Mackie and Mr Brian Pearce. They take issue with the forecast produced by PWC which suggests that LHR R3 (NW) will add £147Bn to GDP in a timeframe of 60 years.

According to PM and BP, the methodology used by PWC to reach this conclusion is experimental and has never been tested against a live project. Using the government's established approach to economic modelling, the predicted number for LHR expansion is £33.6 - 54.8Bn. In their letter, they warn that the PWC figures include "a high degree of overlap between the direct and wider impacts ... double counting ... and rely on economic growth and other assumptions which are at the extreme end of the range."

PM and BP highlight the risk of "exaggeration by media" if care is not taken to caveat these figures. Using the £147Bn figure could mislead the public and "qualifiers such as up to do not give a flavour of the likely median or mean outcome across the economic scenarios."

In response to these claims, a number of council leaders issued comments. Typical amongst these is Wandsworth Council Leader Ravi Govindia: "It's clear the commission has based its recommendation to expand Heathrow on a grossly exaggerated economic case. Their own expert advisers tore apart the PWC growth forecasts but their evidence was buried and ignored. Sir Howard and his team were hell bent on presenting Heathrow as the best option and refused to let reality get in the way."

Well, what a story. Curious that it did not (apparently) receive broader coverage beyond the local news in afew London boroughs.

I would like to extend my thanks to regular PPRuNe contributor 'MANFOD' for drawing my attention to the original 'South London Today' coverage of this story.

Fairdealfrank

29th Sep 2015, 22:12

Shed-on-a-Pole

29th Sep 2015, 23:33

Shed, is your opposition to Heathrow expansion based on the amount of public expenditure to be spent on the associated surface road and rail infrastructure improvements?

Hello Frank. That is certainly a core consideration, but my objections go deeper than that. Bear in mind that I was an early supporter of expanding LHR - preferably to four parallel runways - based on purely operational considerations. My opposition was spawned when I first saw the shocking proposed costings for the various expansion proposals. I favour positive development of the UK's infrastructure assets generally, but only at a pricepoint which makes financial sense.

Prior to the first costings for LHR expansion proposals emerging, I figured that it was reasonable to expect numbers approximately ten times the inflation-adjusted sum required to deliver MAN's intercontinental-capable second runway. This would mean around £2.53Bn - a very large sum, remember - and 10x more than MAN prices seemed more than generous leeway.

When the actual proposed costings emerged the numbers involved were just staggering. Note that the proposal here is not a total new-build mega-airport such as 'New Istanbul' (£8Bn) or Hong Kong CLK delivered to date for an inflation-adjusted £19.5bn including the costs of land-reclamation from the sea. Even the Channel Tunnel - a challenging 31.4 mile tunnel under the sea came in at an inflation-adjusted £8.46Bn - and that represented a cost overrun of 80%. This LHR R3 proposal - even taking Davies' optimistic projections - comes in at a scarcely believable £18.6Bn plus £5Bn in supporting local infrastructure works. That £5Bn of support works alone (likely public-funded) is twice the projected cost of rebuilding New York La Guardia Airport from the ground up by 2021. Extraordinary numbers.

And yet, this stratospheric pricetag will deliver just one new runway and some supporting ground infrastructure at LHR. That money buys 260K additional runways slots per annum. The Davies Report projects that it will add 40 new destinations to LHR's network including 10-12 long-haul routes.

Afew months ago I had the opportunity to put a question to Sir Howard Davies directly. I pointed out that at LHR the latest aircraft types are subject to exactly the same draconian restrictions as their deafening 1960's and 1970's counterparts. But today's aircraft are quieter by orders of magnitude, and the impressive climb-rates of new types makes for very small noise footprints on departure. Why not reward airlines' investment in this expensive quiet technology by allowing them to fly at night? This measure alone would enable at least 10-12 new long-haul routes at LHR before the need to spend any money on additional construction. Sir Howard responded that this was a very interesting idea which he had not previously considered ... he would take it away to discuss with his team. Of course, when the final report came out, the proposal was for reduced operating hours, no concessions for new types, and even a suggestion of a 50p per passenger noise-levy on all flights. Thanks for being environmentally-friendly, Mr Airline-Exec.

By the way, before I attract howls of criticism for the suggestion above, note that I myself live extremely adjacent to one of the busiest night-time commercial runways in Europe. Modern aircraft do not keep you awake. As one visitor said to me: "I'm relieved that there were no flights during the night. I didn't think I'd be able to sleep." My reply to that came as a huge surprise!

So, as you see, I am not opposed to expansion as such. But I am opposed to gross misallocation of capital. Especially that scarce variety from public funds ... even that £5Bn "rounding error" proposed represents more than 5x the highest sum ever allocated to a single infrastructure project in the regions. That is how big these numbers are. And whilst the £20Bn suggested by TfL for the same works may be on the high side, the £10Bn mentioned by Sir Peter Hendy seems entirely plausible. Now, ten thousand million pounds funded from the public purse really is an extraordinary sum.

£10Bn from public funds would inevitably mean famine conditions for public infrastructure projects elsewhere ... ie. in the regions. It would be nothing new there of course ... the regions have received a small fraction of the public investment funds lavished on London and the SE over the past three decades. This cannot be allowed to continue. There are many projects of merit lying unfunded in the regions ... projects which themselves would provide significant enhancements to the UK's GDP. When considering the payback of LHR R3, we must take into consideration the opportunity cost to our GDP of not funding these merititious alternatives. As I have frequently pointed out in this debate, those living in the regions pay taxes to the exchequer at exactly the same rates as Londoners. And those outside the SE represent more than 70% of the population. They deserve their fair share of public infrastructure investment too. And as they are already 30 years behind London in this regard, that means before funding LHR R3 support works and Crossrail 2. We in the regions do not begrudge Londoners the world-class transport infrastructure which they now enjoy. However, we do believe it is high time for the regions to play catch-up for a while before London gets yet another monster sequential turn at the trough.

Of course, several here will remind me of the mantra that spending on LHR is for the benefit of the whole country. Right. Well let's just get real here for a moment. Firstly, trickledown is a total myth. I can assure you that LHR mega-investment does not transform life in Hexham, Halifax and Hull. Trickledown is conspicuously absent. What really would help communities such as these is direct public investment into the transport infrastructure priorities within their own regions. Something which just hasn't happened for more than a generation.

Now look at my posting above. We are told that LHR R3 will add £147Bn to UK GDP over 60 years. And that will trickledown to the whole country. Whoopeedoo. Just one problem. As we see, the commissions own experts reckon that the real number is £33.6 - £54.8Bn. Now that is quite a difference. And whilst the authors of that letter suggest that the £147Bn number "rely on economic growth and other assumptions which are at the extreme end of the range", let us consider also the numbers used on the cost side. We already know that the £5Bn Davies suggests as the figure required from public funds will more likely be £10Bn according to Sir Peter Hendy, a man very well qualified to judge such things. And I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that it won't be the £20Bn suggested by TfL. And the underlying construction cost: £18.6Bn. Is this an optimistic "Goldilocks" figure too if the others are? Could we be looking at an 80% overrun as the carefully-budgeted Channel Tunnel managed to produce?

I'm pleased to say that I smelt a rat regarding that £147Bn number early on. I questioned it in a PPRuNe posting dated 11 July, well before the reports above appeared. Looks like my instincts were correct.

In an earlier PPRuNe exchange on this topic, I was informed that major infrastructure projects are evaluated to determine a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR). Apparently, the methodology used in this appraisal system is stacked against the regions. Regional projects apparently produce very poor numbers under this system with - I am told - 5 constituting a good result for a project in the North. Yet, we are told, LHR R3 has a stellar BCR rating of 14. All arguments dismissed! Build it at once! For the benefit of everybody! But ... just hold on a minute. That BCR is calculated according to a £147Bn boost to GDP over 60 years ... err, what if the actual number really is £33.6Bn or even the higher estimate of £54.8Bn? And what if the construction cost overruns by 40% - just half of the figure we saw with the Channel Tunnel? And what if Sir Peter Hendy is correct and the support works come in at £10Bn? Note I'm being conservative here and not inserting TfL's £20Bn number. What is the BCR rating now? Below 5 yet (or even zero)? 5 being in line with all those neglected regional alternative bidders for public funding? Interesting, isn't it?

Of course, as I have often been told, HAL will be forced to pay up for all those infrastructure support works around LHR. It won't fall to the taxpayer at all! Except that ... in a Daily Telegraph report dated 24 July 2015, John Holland-Kaye (Chief Executive of Heathrow) has "ruled out" that idea. "Those are things that the Government should be paying anyway," he said. "That's the way these things work, that Government funds roads and rail ... so that's what we expect to happen here." Looks like the taxpayer is on the hook for that additional £5Bn-£20Bn after all then.

Another common argument put forward is that the sum representing the direct cost of LHR R3 will be privately funded by Ferrovial - foreign private money - so why not just let them do it? Well, a couple of points here. If you notice that your friend down the road is about to burn his house down, should you try to stop him? It is not your money, is it? And think of the boost to the local economy that the rebuild would bring! Seriously, there is an important point here. If these phenomenal costings make no sense, the project should not proceed anyway. Whoever is funding it. Because if all those corporate bonds go belly-up, you may find that it is your pension fund and your community that was invested in them. And even if it is someone else who ends up getting hurt - like the Greeks or the Cypriots did - do we really want to see that? Gross misallocation of capital will eventually bite someone. The corporate bond market is monstrously overheated, and it is going to maul alot of unsuspecting people over coming years.

Meanwhile, how does HAL plan to recoup its investment? From the airlines, of course, via higher charges / fares. Except that ... cue Willy Walsh: "We will challenge it by any and every avenue open to us. We are not prepared to pay for it. There's a belief that we will be willing to pay. That's nonsense." He added: "The infrastructure will be expensive, inefficient, not fit for purpose. We did not ask for it and we do not want it. I'd be surprised if other airlines were to stand idly by." No ambiguity there, then! He continues: "The funding issue has been glossed over. The question that needed to be asked - over how this is going to be funded - has not been asked. It is a huge question. The debate over affordability has not even begun."

So that is the brief version of why I am opposed to the LHR R3 project. Thanks for the question!

Quite simply, infrastructure projects of merit in the regions represent a far better proposition for UKplc and fully deserve their long-overdue turn at the public funding table.

Bagso

30th Sep 2015, 07:00

Interesting post from Shed.

Out of curiosity.... and if poss a black and white answer. At what point do the supporters of Heathrow actually admit the costs are too expensive?

30bn
50bn
100bn
200bn

Or is it so sacred there is infact no cut off ?

At the moment I see some sensible debate based around a ludicrous proposition!

It's a line seemingly followed by some MPs who have not but a clue about the cost of all this.

Prophead

30th Sep 2015, 08:49

Wow, this subject is still going round in circles.

I think there are some common misconceptions about the funding of these large projects. Let me give you an example.

Heathrow built a tunnel fairly recently to transfer baggage from T5 to the new T2 and T3. As is the way with tunnels this was not cheap but being inside the airport perimeter was funded by BAA.

One of the large costs in any tunnelling project is the cost of the tunnel boring machine (TBM). This was manufactured by a company in Doncaster and would have provided an income for many workers who then took it back home with them where it was probably spent in local shops, pubs restaurants etc. This project also provided a profit for a northern based business.

The tunnellers came from all over the country as well as some from abroad. I cannot remember a single one that actually lived within the M25. They all earn't very good money and took it back home with them where it was probably spent in local shops, pubs restaurants etc.

Another large cost is the tunnelling segmental lining. This was manufactured by a company in Derbyshire and delivered by road using a haulage company from the north also. This would have provided an income to the northern based workers who then took the money home to spend on .........

The project also consisted of plant hire, concrete finishing, excavations, employment agencies plus many other trades and services, to much to mention here but I cannot think of many that came from within the M25.

I then worked on Crossrail. Pretty much the same happened there with the exception of the TBM's being from Germany. They were still driven by people from all over the UK and Ireland though and the project being a lot bigger employed many more workers from the regions and put a lot of money out into the local economies.

It is easy when looking at these huge figures to think it is just disappearing from the government coffers to benefit the capital but it is truly filtering back into the economy throughout the whole country. One of the main costs is wages. Straight away part of that comes back in taxes. Companies around the whole of the UK benefit as suppliers and we end up with a new piece of infrastructure and most of the money back into our economy. This is why countries like to build during a recession.

If we get finance from a foreign nation then we get the infrastructure built, the money into the economy and can then pay it back out of the income generated from the new asset. It is a win win situation. The only caveat is that the proposed project has to be a solid investment opportunity that has the ability to generate the cash to pay back the loan and any interest.

eggc

30th Sep 2015, 08:57

The only caveat is that the proposed project has to be a solid investment opportunity that has the ability to generate the cash to pay back the loan and any interest.

Which nobody wants to pay for ! Read Willy Walsh's comments on paying for it (LHR's biggest customer) and find me a passenger that wants increases in fares to cover said loans and interest. Do'able if the investment is modest, but this is a huge cost needing significant repayments that somebody is going to have to foot.

Prophead

30th Sep 2015, 09:22

Oh so now it's the business case that doesn't work?

BAA have the investment, WW is just doing his job and making sure they don't pass the cost onto BA. The portion financed by the tax payer will work as the above.

Clutching at straws springs to mind now, especially bring the VW case into the equation.

I would say the UK population is mostly split between those who want expansion at LHR and those who really don't care. There is a minority who do not want it made up of a mixture of people either worried about their house price, spotters concerned about losing new types from the regionals and those in the north with a huge chip on their shoulder about investment in the nations capital.

Bagso

30th Sep 2015, 09:23

Prophead

..on that basis maybe we should have some direct investment in The North ?

I for one would be happy to trade a reverse that sees direct investment up here with a "trickledown" effect of peripheral activity to the SE. ..just for a change!

Prophead

30th Sep 2015, 09:31

On that basis there is absolutely no reason not to build as much as we possibly can. I am all for that being both a northerner and in the construction industry.

Osbourne's visit to China was all about this. The only thing that would stop it is a lack of will to invest. If the project is viable then it should go ahead.

Maybe the numbers are not attractive enough to potential investors.

Shed-on-a-Pole

30th Sep 2015, 11:47

Companies around the whole of the UK benefit as suppliers and we end up with a new piece of infrastructure and most of the money back into our economy. This is why countries like to build during a recession.

This principle would also work for construction of a new transpennine motorway running westwards from Sheffield, a new-build railway terminus to replace the horribly-constrained Liverpool Lime Street, and of course the "indefinitely paused" Transpennine rail upgrades. But there is no sign of these getting funded.

Clutching at straws springs to mind now

In the case of the LHR R3 financing proposals we're clutching at mature oak trees.

spotters concerned about losing new types from the regionals

Aha ... so you actually believe that an extended LHR will suck business away from regional airports (although you phrase it in disparaging terms). Well that would be great for regional economies, wouldn't it? Is that an example of 'trickleup'?

those in the north with a huge chip on their shoulder about investment in the nations capital.

A chip on the shoulder ... yes, we can dismiss all pesky objections from the regions with that put-down. Except that those provincial folks pay taxes at exactly the same rates as Londoners. And they're 70%+ of the UK population. And whilst very few resent recent national investment on Crossrail, HS1, Channel Tunnel, M25, assorted LTU extensions / upgrades, Docklands Transformation, DLR, Olympic Villages, Thameslink Renaissance, London Terminal Stations Rebuilds and so much more, they do now feel that the time has come for a little public investment to come their way. Is that a really a 'chip on the shoulder' or is it a valid aspiration by any reasonable measure?

Remember that all your arguments about major infrastructure projects creating employment opportunities and wealth across a wider spectrum apply equally to initiatives located in the regions. The difference is that they've been waiting 30 years (and counting) for their turn.

Prophead

30th Sep 2015, 12:29

Shed,

You seem to have missed my point.

This principle would also work for construction of a new transpennine motorway running westwards from Sheffield, a new-build railway terminus to replace the horribly-constrained Liverpool Lime Street, and of course the "indefinitely paused" Transpennine rail upgrades. But there is no sign of these getting funded.

Yes it would, but for whatever reason the money is not forthcoming from investors. Maybe it is just not as good an investment as others such as LHR.

Aha ... so you actually believe that an extended LHR will suck business away from regional airports (although you phrase it in disparaging terms). Well that would be great for regional economies, wouldn't it? Is that an example of 'trickleup'?

No, I do not, quite the opposite in fact. I do however believe it will create more short haul flights from the regions and we will not be seeing A380's at Humberside any time soon.

Remember that all your arguments about major infrastructure projects creating employment opportunities and wealth across a wider spectrum apply equally to initiatives located in the regions. The difference is that they've been waiting 30 years (and counting) for their turn.

I will say it again, I am not opposed to any projects being built in the regions and would welcome all of them. If the money is coming in from abroad, improving our infrastructure and creating jobs then it's all good to me.

There is a huge amount of cash worldwide looking to be invested and I would say that the people hoping for these northern projects to come to fruition would do better promoting them to investors and making a viable business case rather than bleating about the unfairness of more money going into the capital.

Shed-on-a-Pole

30th Sep 2015, 14:55

Maybe it is just not as good an investment as others such as LHR.

Or maybe the numbers are skewed. Note post 3662, Paragraph 12 - the alternative numbers from the expert advisers to the Davies Commission and the estimates of Sir Peter Hendy.

we will not be seeing A380's at Humberside any time soon.

So when you posted that spotters would be worried about losing types from regional airports you were referring to services which have never existed? Where is the logic in that?

If the money is coming in from abroad,

But the issue is the money coming from the taxpayer. Which is overwhelmingly concentrated on infrastructure in London and the SE, and has been for the past 30 years. What about that money?

bleating about the unfairness of more money going into the capital.

Bleating? May I congratulate you on your fine vocabulary of disparaging words and phrases deployed against that 70%+ of the UK population seeking a fair return on their contribution to the success of the nation. The proportion of public funds which have been allocated to infrastructure projects in and around the SE over the last three decades is so obscenely unbalanced that it really is unfair. Dust off those old school maths books and revise the chapters on fractions, ratios and percentages.

"From each according to their means. To each according to their proximity to London." - Credit to 'Philip49' on another forum.

Prophead

30th Sep 2015, 15:11

Or maybe the numbers are skewed. Note post 3662, Paragraph 12 - the alternative numbers from the expert advisers to the Davies Commission and the estimates of Sir Peter Hendy.

Do you truly believe that potential investors do not have their own methods of working out the ROI?

But the issue is the money coming from the taxpayer. Which is overwhelmingly concentrated on infrastructure in London and the SE, and has been for the past 30 years. What about that money?

A large chunk of which will come straight back in taxes on the wages and VAT on the suppliers and materials. Also, it has been explained many times that the areas the taxpayer would be funding are in need of upgrading now and will need to be done at some point anyway. To do so at the same time as LHR expansion will provide a major saving to the taxpayer.

May I congratulate you on your fine vocabulary of disparaging words and phrases deployed against that 70%+ of the UK population seeking a fair return on their contribution to the success of the nation

Who is this 70% for which you speak? Pretty much everyone I know back home couldn't care less about LHR. Those that have an opinion are all for it due to the easier access to flights worldwide and also the potential for work on the project.

The bottom line is that the government cannot afford to fully finance any large scale construction projects these days. It has to have the outside investment as well in order to go ahead. The government have shown that they are interested in the northern powerhouse by trying to get the Chinese on board but without the will to invest their hands are tied.

LHR is nothing to do with the lack of construction up north and I really don't know why it has become part of this debate. The problems at LHR are political not financial.

Shed-on-a-Pole

30th Sep 2015, 16:08

Do you truly believe that potential investors do not have their own methods of working out the ROI?

I'm sure they can crunch the numbers if they're given correct data to put into their models.

A large chunk of which will come straight back in taxes on the wages and VAT on the suppliers and materials.

As is the case for regional projects of merit left unfunded for the past 30 years and counting.

Pretty much everyone I know back home couldn't care less about LHR.

Yes, because it is in London and has negligible effect on their daily lives. But do they care less about the public amenities in the area where they do live? I rather suspect they might ...

Those that have an opinion are all for it due to the easier access to flights worldwide and also the potential for work on the project.

And in reaching this opinion, have they given careful consideration to just how much £10Bn public funding actually is and how it could be much better used close to home? Creating jobs near them? Making their own area more attractive to investors? Meanwhile, on the subject of easy access to worldwide flights. How easy do they find the queues and double security search which comes with changing flights Domestic-International at LHR? Do they love the transfer from T5 to T2, T3, T4? Has their domestic Shuttle ever been cancelled? Or is it perhaps easier for them (if they're in the North, as you mentioned) to fly MAN-DXB-SYD or NCL-EWR-CVG for example?

LHR is nothing to do with the lack of construction up north and I really don't know why it has become part of this debate.

Then let me explain. If £10Bn of public money is allocated to LHR support works (and more for Crossrail 2?), that money cannot then be deployed elsewhere. The sum involved is so very large that it will cause a public-investment famine for other deserving projects for years to come. And many of those regional priorities have been stuck in the waiting room for 30 years already.

The problems at LHR are political not financial.

Oh WOW!!! Your best line yet. The CEO of British Airways / IAG - LHR's biggest customer by far - profoundly disagrees with you. As does John Holland-Kaye (CEO Heathrow). Their comments on matters financial are summarised in post No.3662. Not that I wish to downplay the political challenges, of course.

anothertyke

30th Sep 2015, 19:32

A couple of points Shed and Bagso.

1. I don't think it has been or should be an absolute principle that all surface access works should be funded by the airport (or more correctly the air travellers). Two reasons. First, projects may produce benefits for non-air travellers. Second, there may be benefits to the wider economy rather than to the air travel system. So I don't think it's the principle, it's the numbers in the business case and their credibility which are important.

2. I don't think Willie Walsh can be regarded as a wholly objective player. BA could lose and UKplc could win. Dominant incumbents rarely welcome threats to their market position. If every airline CEO says 'Not at that price' then that would be different.

3. Nevertheless it is stonkingly expensive and maybe the 1800 metre R3 with no M25 tunnelling works which was being thought about in 2003 needs to be revisited at least as a Phase one. Such a long construction period with no payback is part of the problem.

I hope the Another Runway at Heathrow thread can be revived because there is a lot of mileage in this yet and this stuff would be better there.

Bagso

30th Sep 2015, 21:27

..I'm still in shock that somebody on here putting fwd supposedly reasoned arguments suggests involvement by the BAA. ... !

True Blue

30th Sep 2015, 21:31

Sure throw lots of tax payers money at a virtual monopoly, especially on long haul, to make it an even more effective monopoly. Then we, the travelling public, can sit back and enjoy higher air fares due lack of competition from other airlines from other airports. Seems like a great policy to me.

And to add, I don't believe one word of the forecast financial benefits, seen it all too often before for it all to turn out to be rubbish. Who can say what the economy, either within the UK or worldwide, will be doing in 10, 20 or 30 years. Just figures pulled from the sky. But will be used to justify when it suits.

TB

Mr Optimistic

30th Sep 2015, 22:22

Could someone explain to me the argument supporting LHR being a 'hub' and therefore more deserving of investment. I assumed that hub meant passengers transferring so they come in and then leave again. In so doing, they can hardly benefit the economy. Am I missing something?

PAXboy

30th Sep 2015, 22:38

Mr Optimistic You are! The answers are in the many threads about LHR R3, some of which have not been posted to in a while and have slipped down the pecking order. You might want to search for them. But, actually, someone will be along shortly to reprint them.

Mr Optimistic

30th Sep 2015, 23:18

If the answer is simple, in terms of the source of added value, can't a simple answer be provided? Anything subtle or complicated will either go over my head of be met with scepticism. From a simple pax perspective, and tax payer, a load sharing idea of shunting additional traffic elsewhere, eg STN, seems reasonable, however clearly LHR has advocates but why?

Edit. Let me expand on this...I live in Thurleigh which was a contender, before my time, for the third London airport as they called it. Foulness and Thurleigh missed out in favour of STN. What was the logic then for not expanding LHR but rather to start afresh somewhere else? Surely it was a capacity and infrastructure arguement and why doesn't the same logic hold now? But the 'hub' word seems to be a factor. So sitting here, with a memory capable of spanning 30 years, what is the argument now for expanding LHR when a different decision was taken in the 70's?

pabely

30th Sep 2015, 23:58

The missed opportunity was Cublington, UK PLC would not be in such need now of more capacity where it is needed!

PAXboy

1st Oct 2015, 00:51

briefly:
In the late 1960s, the problem of LHR being built around and limiting expansion was recognised and later ...
In 1971, the Report of the Roskill Commission on the London Airport expansion selected Cublington as the location of a proposed third airport for London on the basis of Cost Benefit Analysis. One Commission member, planner Colin Buchanan, produced a dissenting report rejecting the proposal to build on Cublington as "an environmental disaster." The government later rejected the Roskill recommendation on environmental grounds, in favour of a site at Maplin Sands, Foulness. Entry on Cublington in WikipediaCublington, Maplin Sands (and sundry other locations) were all defeated by:

NIMBY
Environment
The 1970s Oil Crisis

When the West had recovered from the hike in oil prices Stansted, which was already operational, was picked for expansion. LGW continued to serve it's corner of England and the leisure market. This changed later as LHR filled up and LGW became known as the 'Waiting Room'. LTN and LCY also picked up the expansion as LHR could not give space to all the short and medium haul demand. This pertains today.

The main advantage of a Hub airport is that the connection pax make certain routes viable. It might be that LHR to 'Go Jump In The Lake' would not be a viable route but, with connecting pax from various places, the route becomes viable. So the airport gains a service it would not otherwise have had. Further, a route that might have supported x3 rotations a week might now support x7 and so on.

Others will point you at the other posts, here is one thread that was active in the debate: http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/543230-another-runway-heathrow.html

I sit to be corrected on all of the above.

Mr Optimistic

1st Oct 2015, 06:07

OK, thanks.

Trash 'n' Navs

1st Oct 2015, 06:21

Mr O, try this...
http://your.heathrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Mexico_Transfergraphic.jpg

DaveReidUK

1st Oct 2015, 07:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4nspUFLcE8

Mr Optimistic

1st Oct 2015, 18:28

Thank you all very much. Read the other threads, hadn't realised the length of the discussions! Anyway, thanks for your help and patience.

PAXboy

2nd Oct 2015, 12:59

Mr. O. I forgot the overriding reason for the situation we are now in ... Total failure of all politicians across 40 years.

Mr Optimistic

3rd Oct 2015, 05:24

Yes, but think I would be a hypocrite if I didn't sympathise with them on this. Hiding to nothing comes to mind.

By the way, an opponent of growth would take your hub argument and turn it around. How does the leverage effect benefit the wider economy, beyond the carriers and perhaps allowing the well heeled enjoy esoteric holidays beyond the mass package model? More demand drives to bigger aircraft and more flights....If the hub wasn't there, would the carriers develop along lower cost based model lines, albeit with higher fares to the public?

No intention to resurrect the debate from elsewhere but mypuzzlement about the significance of the hub model came because I couldnt understand its significance. Thanks to all the efforts to point me at the facts, which were very interesting and new to me, I understand that but the wider economy?

Trash 'n' Navs

3rd Oct 2015, 05:55

I just look at the value of UK trade that goes through LHR - more than the main sea ports (Felixstowe & Southampton). Surprised me when I saw the numbers. Would've thought EMA was a bigger player.

Mr Optimistic

3rd Oct 2015, 06:09

So can a similar argument be made for freight as for pax re hub ? But again, how does the benefit leak out into the wider economy, beyond the benefit to the industry itself? If there is a good case, haven't seen it articulated in the press or elsewhere which needs to happen if the argument to spread things around, or minimise number of voters inconvenienced, is to be countered.

Bagso

3rd Oct 2015, 08:46

I think some of the posters here exercised by those having the temerity to criticise LHR expansion should look at the detailed argument we put forward which is fundamentally about cost!

We are going round because the eye watering cost is simply not being addressed with a sufficient response

There seems to be a build "at any cost" mentality so I ask again, what is the price point where it becomes untenable?

Trash 'n' Navs

3rd Oct 2015, 09:24

I'd say it's the point at which the private investors decide they can make more money investing their £15bn elsewhere.

That's why commercial organisations spend so much time developing the business case.

Skipness One Echo

3rd Oct 2015, 09:34

Bagso do you have a view on why AMS and FRA have huge line ups of main deck freight operators supporting thousands of jobs whereas a constrained LHR has a mere handful? Just wondering what your view is as to why they don't use STN or MAN in the same volumes since LHR is full.

Shed-on-a-Pole

3rd Oct 2015, 09:43

Bagso

3rd Oct 2015, 10:13

But Skippy that is "precisely" the point that once again you as a supporter of LHR illustrate perfectly.

There are numerous valid and absolutely reasoned arguments that support extra capacity....they are undeniable.

BUT if the underlying cost of the proposition is "off the scale" there has to be a debate as to its viability.

Trash 'n' Navs

3rd Oct 2015, 10:49

there has to be a debate as to its viability.

Why? It's not public money.

Shed-on-a-Pole

3rd Oct 2015, 10:59

Why? It's not public money.

Naughty, naughty T&N. Public funding is a significant and highly contentious element of LHR expansion costing proposals. And you know this.

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2015, 11:01

Why? It's not public money.

We're going round in circles here.

Another common argument put forward is that the sum representing the direct cost of LHR R3 will be privately funded by Ferrovial - foreign private money - so why not just let them do it? Well, a couple of points here. If you notice that your friend down the road is about to burn his house down, should you try to stop him? It is not your money, is it? And think of the boost to the local economy that the rebuild would bring! Seriously, there is an important point here. If these phenomenal costings make no sense, the project should not proceed anyway. Whoever is funding it. Because if all those corporate bonds go belly-up, you may find that it is your pension fund and your community that was invested in them. And even if it is someone else who ends up getting hurt - like the Greeks or the Cypriots did - do we really want to see that? Gross misallocation of capital will eventually bite someone. The corporate bond market is monstrously overheated, and it is going to maul alot of unsuspecting people over coming years.

Mr Optimistic

3rd Oct 2015, 13:32

I suppose I can take the blame for this! My conclusion after the helpful information given was that I don't know enough to validate having an opinion one way or the other. I do regard infrastructure spending as an inherently good thing though, investment for the future. There are too many vested interests to trust clever arguments without far more research than I am able or willing to do.

Habana2118

3rd Oct 2015, 13:59

How come Air Berlin seems to be operating out of LHR? Is it a wet lease for someone else?

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2015, 15:55

opf Germanwings.

PAXboy

4th Oct 2015, 10:36

Air Berlin might have the heritage of an LCC but they are aiming for the big time.

Trash 'n' Navs

4th Oct 2015, 18:47

STN is actually doing very well on the cargo front
<<...>>
Does a B747-8F landing at LHR serve the UK economy better than the same aircraft operating via STN?

Actually Shed, STN only accounts for <9% of UK trade.

The B748F landing at STN may/may not serve "the UK economy better" but it doesn't help the emissions debate if, like IAG, you have to truck it down to LHR for processing before it goes out to distributors.

chaps1954

4th Oct 2015, 19:58

A lot of UK cargo is trucked to Holland as you will find that most cargo carriers only go to 1 maybe 2 places in Europe

Ian

Fairdealfrank

4th Oct 2015, 21:33

Actually Shed, STN only accounts for <9% of UK trade.

The B748F landing at STN may/may not serve "the UK economy better" but it doesn't help the emissions debate if, like IAG, you have to truck it down to LHR for processing before it goes out to distributors.

A lot of UK cargo is trucked to Holland as you will find that most cargo carriers only go to 1 maybe 2 places in Europe

Ian

Indeed, and trucking cargo all over Europe really helps in the fight against pollution.

Fairdealfrank

4th Oct 2015, 22:00

Thanks for your answer Shed, no wonder there was a long wait for it. It was a simple question, was expecting a binary answer: a simple yes/no.

This may be of interest to you, a headline in the "Metro" a few days ago:

"New rail link would boost UK economy"

Now the bit you won't like, Shed, it refers to "Crossrail-2" a railway tunnel that will cross London and join up existing commuter routes on a similar basis to Crossrail and Thameslink.

The article states that a study by analysts KPMG that Crossrail-2 would be worth up to £102 billlion to the UK economy with the West Midlands benefiting by £1 billion, the north east by £200 million, and Scotland £170 million by the creation of new jobs. The idea is that many engineering, manufacturing and construction jobs will be created accross the UK.

Interestingly, it is a similar argument that you have dismissed in relation to Heathrow expansion.

A couple of other questions for you Shed.

(1) do you think that taxes raised in London should be spent in Manchester?

(2) do you think that taxes raised in the south should be spent in the south (e.g. house purchase stamp duty raised in London spent on surface transport infrastructure upgrades related to Heathrow expansion)?

(3) do you think that HS2 should be scrapped and the money spent on upgrading and duplicating existing track and sorting out bottlenecks?

(4) do you agree with me that high speed rail priority (if we have to have it) should be a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds route?

(5) do you think that a "do nothing" policy at Heathrow is the right one?

Skipness One Echo

4th Oct 2015, 22:37

STN is actually doing very well on the cargo front and is constructing more stands to increase this side of the business. The UK also has a very successful freight specialist in the form of EMA. At LHR and MAN most of the flown freight business is bellyhold cargo sharing space on passenger flights ... a very important element in the viability of certain long-haul scheduled services. As with everything else, if the cost of expanding LHR's cargo capability makes sense from a business perspective then it can happen. If not, then alternatives such as STN will fill the gap. Does a B747-8F landing at LHR serve the UK economy better than the same aircraft operating via STN?
Stansted had a piddling sized main deck cargo operation in comparison to AMS. Flew out recently on a Sunday am AMS-LTN, past an Emirates B777F, Qatari B777F, two Atlas B744Fs, an Air China B777F and two Martinair B747Fs. The sheer volume of trade and commerce is impressive and is exactly what we need to encourage to live within our means and pay pur debts down. Now whereas both sides have their favourite stats to quote, the commision has spoken and we need to move forward. Since STN is not the answer to any strategic question beyond Ryanair (see LH, SK, AA, AB, 4U who have left and EZY who downsized), we need to move forward with putting capacity in where it's needed. We've had decades of constraining capacity in the SE and, for example, MAN has not exactly filled the gap, for reasons understood by most on here, including Bagso and Shed. You guys are fighting a fight simply on a North/South political view rather than any strategic view of aviation policy. No further thousand word tangent on aged rolling stock of the NW from Shed is likely to make any difference to the fact that screwing over LHR expansion won't help MAN.

Shed-on-a-Pole

5th Oct 2015, 02:07

WOW ... Looks like I've stirred the entire Heathrow Appreciation Society into action en masse! Could it be that the truth hurts?

All those questions ... the hour is late, but I'll have a go.

Actually Shed, STN only accounts for <9% of UK trade.

That is a very respectable total for one gateway alone. Especially one which is not centrally located within the UK. And it is growing too.

was expecting a binary answer: a simple yes/no.

OOPS! You should have said! ;-)

worth up to £102 billlion to the UK economy with the West Midlands benefiting by £1 billion, the north east by £200 million, and Scotland £170 million by the creation of new jobs

Dear, oh dear! Are these numbers supposed to enthuse the regions and justify yet more massively imbalanced investment in the SE alone? Just do the maths here. Even if that £102Bn number is in any way credible, the W Mids windfall is just under 1%, the NE share is shy of 0.2%, Scotland scores around the 0.15% mark. It appears that these numbers demonstrate my point, not yours. Talk about crumbs from the rich man's table!

do you think that taxes raised in London should be spent in Manchester?

Many corporate entities which derive profits nationwide and globally declare profits from a London HQ address. Should these taxes 'raised in London' be spent on Londoners alone? Besides, to attribute taxes raised by district would be a futile and pointless endeavour.

do you think that taxes raised in the south should be spent in the south

See the answer above.

do you think that HS2 should be scrapped and the money spent on upgrading and duplicating existing track and sorting out bottlenecks?

HS2 is an extremely complex topic. I follow the debate with great interest on the rail forum of the skyscrapercity website. Best not open this can of worms on the PPRuNe LHR thread!

do you agree with me that high speed rail priority (if we have to have it) should be a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds route?

Another debate for skyscraper really. But the main issue on this route is capacity rather than line-speed. The best outcome would be to double up the route to four tracks (two fast, two slow) all the way to the junction with the ECML. (Much) longer trains are essential too. Travel distances between the various major centres of population clustered along this route are too short to enable a conventional high-speed model to work.

do you think that a "do nothing" policy at Heathrow is the right one?

Ideally not, but whatever we do must make good sense from a financial perspective. This is where the R3 proposals fall down. They are wildly over-priced. I support measures which can enhance the functionality of LHR on a cost-effective basis.

AMS ... The sheer volume of trade and commerce is impressive and is exactly what we need to encourage to live within our means and pay pur debts down.

This stuff about the phenomenal success of AMS as a freight hub merits further examination. Do you believe that if LHR was unconstrained those freighters would be choosing London instead? Is London well placed for distributing arriving / departing air freight not only across Benelux, but rapidly into Rhine / Ruhr and the heart of Europe beyond? AMS offers this; London is located on an island. Slot scarcity on London's runways is not the reason for Amsterdam's success in handling air freight.

the commision has spoken and we need to move forward.

If the sums add up. Some very well-informed experts are warning us that they don't. Including the CEO of LHR's largest airline customer.

we need to move forward with putting capacity in where it's needed.

Within the confines of fiscal responsibility. But not regardless of cost.

You guys are fighting a fight simply on a North/South political view

We are fighting on the grounds of cost. Particularly those multiple billions which will be required from public funds which can be allocated one-time only.

screwing over LHR expansion won't help MAN.

Skipness, really. We know that you are an intelligent, well-informed professional. Lashing out in tantrum-mode does you no credit. You are better than that.

Firstly, as you know, I have never argued against LHR expansion on the misapprehension that MAN would benefit from displaced SE demand. All my archived postings on the topic bear witness to this. I have argued clearly and consistently that MAN is a solution for air travel in the North, not a viable conduit for SE-originating business. And you know that I have always argued this. The only reason I mention MAN at all in this debate is in direct response to your insistence on inserting innuendo-heavy references to that particular airport at every opportunity.

And I do not argue for "screwing over" anybody. In fact, over the last three decades it is very much the regions which have been "screwed over" whilst the SE has soaked up an obscene proportion of public infrastructure funding at the expense of everywhere else. Rebalancing of this anomaly is long overdue.

My objection to LHR R3 is clearly outlined in my earlier post, No. 3662 on this thread. The wildly excessive cost is the issue, not an inherent desire to inhibit LHR. The price-tag for any expansion project, no matter how desirable, has to make sense financially.

Trash 'n' Navs

5th Oct 2015, 06:18

Nice one S1E.

I'm told the UK has the 2nd largest airfreight market in EU. It has the largest import airfreight market.

Slot constraints at LHR have helped push freighters to STN & AMS. This has added to the number of HGV to/from LHR.

Skipness One Echo

5th Oct 2015, 10:54

Lashing out in tantrum-mode does you no credit.
Condescending again?

WOW ... Looks like I've stirred the entire Heathrow Appreciation Society into action en masse! Could it be that the truth hurts?
My key objection is that attempting to stop growth which has the biggest potential benefit to UK PLC is putting locality before the national interest.

I support measures which can enhance the functionality of LHR on a cost-effective basis.
You mean "fiddle while Rome continues to burn". We're long past tinkering around the edges, this is major strategic infrastructure investment time. The Channel Tunnel was the same, wildly over budget and felt like a bad idea at the time but in the medium term, we're glad we did. Terminal 4 was the same, as was Terminal 5, as will runway 3. The sky will not fall in, the books will be balanced over time.
Incidentally, now you're being childish, there is no "appreciation society", just a pragmatic realsim in my view. I am not a fan of LHR, it's in the wrong place if we were to start with a clean sheet. However we are where we are, the Commission has spoken, Gatwick is throwing toys from the pram at a huge rate and most of the regional airports would quite like increaesed LHR access.
Within the confines of fiscal responsibility. But not regardless of cost. Agreed, the cost will be high, but you're inflating to suit your argument. A way will be found, the sky will not fall in.

If the sums add up. Some very well-informed experts are warning us that they don't. Including the CEO of LHR's largest airline customer.
You mean Willie Walsh, the man tasked with an ROI for shareholders of IAG? The business owning BA which has tried to kill Virgin Atlantic and destroy every competitor that ever challenged it then went and got jiggy with an American one? This guy is against allowing more consumer choice at his home base? He supports an artificial constraint that keeps fares high and benefits his US dominance? By golly, what a surprise (!) We should really listen to Willie, he has my interests as a customer at heart. Is this the same BA that was recently fined millions for price fixing in air cargo btw?
Or would these be the same independent experts on the payroll of GIP (Gatwick, your London airport)?

PAXboy

5th Oct 2015, 11:17

As thread drift contines... one reason AMS is big could be that Rotterdam is the largest Container port in Europe. Felixstowe is at #7.

DaveReidUK

5th Oct 2015, 11:40

As thread drift contines... one reason AMS is big could be that Rotterdam is the largest Container port in Europe.

Notwithstanding the array of freighters to be seen at Schiphol, AMS doesn't handle appreciably more cargo than LHR, the difference being that the latter gets only a minuscule number of main-deck cargo flights.

pwalhx

5th Oct 2015, 12:24

Why does freight landing at Stansted have to go to Heathrow for processing?

It will be cleared and delivered from Stansted.

As has been said a lot of cargo is trucked from many UK airports directly to hubs in mainland Europe for onward shipment.

Freight unlike passengers doesn't care where it is being flown from.

Trash 'n' Navs

5th Oct 2015, 14:52

Why does freight landing at Stansted have to go to Heathrow for processing?
.

It doesn't but that's how the industry does it. Just look at IAG/BA.

Una Due Tfc

5th Oct 2015, 15:32

As has been said, WW is against LHR expansion for purely selfish reasons. If R3 goes ahead then BA will take a major hit in profits. Buying up BMI and now EI was as much to prevent a competitor getting their hands on slots as to allow expansion. He's banking on making DUB a North American release valve for LHR. If R3 goes ahead all of a sudden his buyout of EI will look expensive, if it doesn't it'll be a bargain.

pwalhx

5th Oct 2015, 15:38

It doesn't but that's how the industry does it. Just look at IAG/BA.

Really, that is exactly the industry I work in and it is not the way we do it

ETOPS

5th Oct 2015, 16:33

Latest images of Heathrow expansion - see the news item and gallery..

News: West London news updates from across the region - Get West London (http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/)

Shed-on-a-Pole

5th Oct 2015, 16:54

Good Afternoon, Skipness.

Condescending again?

No. To truly master that dark art I would have to study your persistent trolling of postings made by PPRuNe regular LAX_LHR.

My key objection is that attempting to stop growth which has the biggest potential benefit to UK PLC is putting locality before the national interest.

Supporting arguably the largest infrastructure capital misallocation ever proposed on UK soil is not in the local or the national interest.

You mean "fiddle while Rome continues to burn".

The devastating May 7th fire at FCO has been extinguished. The terminal reopened fully around late July. A major refurbishment is planned for the affected terminal. Never cared much for the fiddle. The trombone is much better.

We're long past tinkering around the edges, this is major strategic infrastructure investment time.

Only if the cost of providing the resulting facilities makes sense from a financial perspective.

The Channel Tunnel was the same, wildly over budget and felt like a bad idea at the time but in the medium term, we're glad we did.

No doubt Londoners are glad we did. 21 years on from opening, those of us in the regions are still patiently awaiting the first of those daily trains to Paris and Brussels which we were promised "because the tunnel is a project for the whole nation." And which we were then promised again when the contract for construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) was awarded in 1996. Judging by the recent disgraceful decision to axe the proposed short spur from HS2 to HS1 saving just 2% of the overall projected cost, attitudes towards incorporating regional interests have not yet changed in Whitehall.

The sky will not fall in, the books will be balanced over time.

A way will be found, the sky will not fall in.

HOPIUM ... The most abundant element in the Periodic Table.

just a pragmatic realsim in my view.

I take it you mean "realism" ... it is not pragmatic to avert one's gaze from a calamitous funding package. "Wishful thinking" seems more apt in this case.

I am not a fan of LHR,

Perish the thought, Skip!!!! ;-)

most of the regional airports would quite like increaesed LHR access.

But the regions in which they are located would very much prefer long overdue direct investment in their own infrastructure priorities, abandoned on the shelf for the last three decades. 'Trickledown' isn't cutting it.

Agreed, the cost will be high, but you're inflating to suit your argument.

The acknowledged base-case cost is already staggering enough. And those inflated numbers come not from myself but from experts who are very well qualified to judge the situation.

You mean Willie Walsh, the man tasked with an ROI for shareholders of IAG?

Of course it is Willie Walsh's job to fight for the best interests of IAG. But that does not mean that his stated objections to LHR R3 have no basis in fact. His objections are 100% justified by any rational measure. It just makes his task more straightforward that shareholders interests are aligned with his in taking a robust stance against massive misallocation of capital resources as proposed at LHR.

(Gatwick, your London airport)?

I'm pleased that you now recall me arguing the case for LGW. It seems only hours ago that I stood accused by you of opposing LHR R3 in support of misplaced North v South political antagonism and an irrational belief that MAN could serve as an alternative to LHR.

Mr Optimistic

5th Oct 2015, 20:38

What's going on here ? Building another runway at LHR would hardly be the end of the world. Put one at Gatwick too and the world would go on.

Fairdealfrank

5th Oct 2015, 21:14

No further thousand word tangent on aged rolling stock of the NW from Shed is likely to make any difference to the fact that screwing over LHR expansion won't help MAN.
But it will continue to help AMS, CDG, FRA, MAD.

OOPS! You should have said! ;-)
They were simple enough questions, Shed, was merely seeking clarification.

Dear, oh dear! Are these numbers supposed to enthuse the regions and justify yet more massively imbalanced investment in the SE alone? Just do the maths here. Even if that £102Bn number is in any way credible, the W Mids windfall is just under 1%, the NE share is shy of 0.2%, Scotland scores around the 0.15% mark. It appears that these numbers demonstrate my point, not yours. Talk about crumbs from the rich man's table!
Don't shoot the messenger, was not agreeing or disagreeing. Apparently it is an accepted view, right or wrong, and not just applicable to LHR expansion.

Could it be that a Manchester crossrail between Liverpool and Leeds, a similar distance as Thameslink (between Bedford and Brighton), for example, would offer similar benefits around the country as well?

Many corporate entities which derive profits nationwide and globally declare profits from a London HQ address.
Again, just asking the qestion, which was about taxation not profits.

Should these taxes 'raised in London' be spent on Londoners alone? Besides, to attribute taxes raised by district would be a futile and pointless endeavour.
Is that yes or no?

Agree with your second sentence, although that is the logical end result of devolution.

HS2 is an extremely complex topic. I follow the debate with great interest on the rail forum of the skyscrapercity website. Best not open this can of worms on the PPRuNe LHR thread!
It isn't. The way it's been planned is a "pig in a poke". It will suck more economic activity to the south and undermine any idea of a "Northern powerhouse".

Another debate for skyscraper really. But the main issue on this route is capacity rather than line-speed. The best outcome would be to double up the route to four tracks (two fast, two slow) all the way to the junction with the ECML. (Much) longer trains are essential too. Travel distances between the various major centres of population clustered along this route are too short to enable a conventional high-speed model to work.
Exactly, but this is required as well as LHR expansion (and other infrastructure requirements), not instead of. Simple as that.

Or would these be the same independent experts on the payroll of GIP (Gatwick, your London airport)?
Obviously

No doubt Londoners are glad we did. 21 years on from opening, those of us in the regions are still patiently awaiting the first of those daily trains to Paris and Brussels which we were promised "because the tunnel is a project for the whole nation." And which we were then promised again when the contract for construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) was awarded in 1996. Judging by the recent disgraceful decision to axe the proposed short spur from HS2 to HS1 saving just 2% of the overall projected cost, attitudes towards incorporating regional interests have not yet changed in Whitehall.
Refer you to my comments about the bad planning of HS2, this is just one example: its London terminal should be at St Pancras to allow trains to/from the north to access Europe via the tunnel.

Of course it is Willie Walsh's job to fight for the best interests of IAG. But that does not mean that his stated objections to LHR R3 have no basis in fact. His objections are 100% justified by any rational measure. It just makes his task more straightforward that shareholders interests are aligned with his in taking a robust stance against massive misallocation of capital resources as proposed at LHR.
Clearly it's a double-edge sword for IAG, one one hand there's more competition and the likelihood of other UK carriers operating from LHR, on the other, there's plenty of free slots to be had which, of course, is a huge saving.

Bagso

5th Oct 2015, 21:51

John McDonnell MP condemns Heathrow Airport’s non-payment of Corporation Tax - John McDonnell
John McDonnell MP condemns Heathrow Airport?s non-payment of Corporation Tax - John McDonnell (http://www.john-mcdonnell.net/john_mcdonnell_mp_condemns_heathrow_airport_s_non_payment_of _corporation_tax)

Hmmmmm... maybe somebody needs to recalculate the benefits of the "tax take " ?

Una Due Tfc

5th Oct 2015, 21:55

Right first of all I'm not a UK tax payer or resident, so I'm genuinely not all that bothered either way, it's not my money and it's not my country. I can see both sides of the argument and both have very valid points.

The bigger the hub the more marginal routes it can sustain. 80% of pax on some routes might be international transfers, but they pay taxes to your government, support jobs in UK companies (airlines, shops, cleaners, customs etc), and crucially open up new business opportunities for UK companies, both in the cabin and the hold.

But the question of where to draw the line cost wise is a valid one and is hard to quantify. Ideally you could say "increased tax revenue from all this extra business will pay off the runway in x years" (anything less than 30 in my opinion would be worth it), but that's a tough thing to prove.

I've noticed from the argument that it seems to be the pro MAN folks who are opposed. Totally understandable as it's your tax money just as much as any Londoner. But I have a question for you: WW has more than doubled the number of EI pilots set to do the A320 to A330 conversion course this year for EI, as well as increasing the number of cadets being hired and changing the cadetship to a fully funded one. Many of you see DUB as your main rival now. WW has made no secret of the fact he wants to make DUB and EI the hub for North America for the UK regions if R3 doesn't get the go ahead in LHR. So the question is thus: LHR 3 or DUB hub? One costs you nothing up front, the other may cost much longer term.

Edit: more EI pilots, more EI long haul aircraft, more UK taxes lost to DUB. Would that change where the financial line is drawn? The 4 Little Red A320s have come home and are being pointed at UK regionals currently served by ATRs too.

Shed-on-a-Pole

5th Oct 2015, 22:14

Could it be that a Manchester crossrail between Liverpool and Leeds, a similar distance as Thameslink (between Bedford and Brighton), for example, would offer similar benefits around the country as well?

The goal is to establish fast state-of-the-art trains providing frequent and reliable high-capacity rail services between Liverpool and Newcastle (with some trains deviating to serve major offline cities nearby such as Sheffield, Bradford, Middlesbrough and Hull). However, the last portion of that journey from north of Leeds runs on the route of the ECML, so the main investment would be required as far as the ECML junction. What would the national benefits be? This is a matter for in-depth expert analysis to quantify. However, if one were playing the odds of regional infrastructure innovations likely to provide the highest ROI, this proposal must rank amongst the favourites.

Again, just asking the qestion, which was about taxation not profits.

Is that yes or no?

Sorry, I thought I had been clearer on this one. When a company announces profits from a London HQ address, statistics show taxes collected against these profits as having been 'raised in London'. But those profits often derive from commercial activity around the wider UK or globally. Therefore, London's recorded tax-take is skewed markedly higher than would otherwise be the case whilst the numbers attributed to many other cities underplay their economic contribution in real terms. Therefore, we cannot use a simplistic model of using taxes directly where they are raised with any semblance of fairness. Also, many would argue that there is a moral case for helping out the neediest areas beyond their own tax-raising ability to prevent the poverty gap widening indefinitely.

Exactly, but this is required as well as LHR expansion (and other infrastructure requirements), not instead of. Simple as that.

We have established in our earlier exchanges that we agree LHR expansion to be operationally desirable. But the sums required to make this a reality must make sense from a financial perspective.

I am in agreement with much of your remaining commentary. Thankyou for the feedback as always.

Shed-on-a-Pole

5th Oct 2015, 23:17

I've noticed from the argument that it seems to be the pro MAN folks who are opposed.

Many of you see DUB as your main rival now. WW has made no secret of the fact he wants to make DUB and EI the hub for North America for the UK regions if R3 doesn't get the go ahead in LHR. So the question is thus: LHR 3 or DUB hub? One costs you nothing up front, the other may cost much longer term

Good questions, Una Due Tfc. It does appear anecdotally that most contributors opposing LHR R3 are posting from NW England. Of course, the actual PPRuNe discussions on this topic appear to have only a handful of regular participants anyway. It would be helpful to gain perspective from other regions as well if any lurkers wish to contribute.

As you know, my own posting location is Manchester. However, that does not mean that my postings are slaved to the best interests of my closest airport. The record shows that I argued the case for LGW expansion prior to publication of the Davies Report. This was because IMO LGW offered the SE a reservoir of additional runway slots at a significantly less prohibitive price than does LHR R3. An operational trade-off in return for much less financial exposure, with particular emphasis on the projected requirement to draw from scarce public funds. If you are interested in my detailed reasoning on all this, my archived postings on the topic remain easily accessible.

Out of interest, some of the LHR advocates challenged me on my support for LGW arguing that expansion there would be detrimental to MAN itself as well as to MAG's stablemate at STN. I actually disagreed with many of those suggestions anyway, but the point is that I do support cost-effective provision of airport infrastructure in the SE regardless of any anticipated negative implications for MAN.

Moving on to the 'LHR R3 or DUB hub' question. Quite understandably (on an aviation forum), the question is posed purely within the context of this industry. And on this level, MAN must be ready to compete with all its competitors for business regardless of which of these is in the ascendancy. However, whilst I do of course wish to see Manchester Airport prosper, my answer on this issue must address bigger considerations.

For me, the fundamental problem with the LHR R3 proposal is cost, specifically the publicly funded portion thereof. Davies puts this at £5Bn, Sir Peter Hendy (very well placed to judge) at £10Bn and TfL at £20Bn. I accept that TfL's number may be too high - perhaps politically motivated as some here suggest. But Davies' number does seem too low as well, and Sir Peter Hendy's number pitched at just half the highest projection makes a lot of sense. Now, please keep in mind that £10Bn is more than ten times the largest sum of public money which has ever been allocated to a standalone transport infrastructure project outside the SE. Over the last three decades, London and the SE has enjoyed a conveyor belt of multi-billion pound projects supported by public funds. Endorsements now for further multiple billions in favour of LHR R3 and Crossrail 2 will assure that the regional famine in public infrastructure investment will be locked in for many more years to come. The infrastructure funding budget is finite. If London monopolises it again, the regions will pay a terrible price. Their transport infrastructure is already a generation behind that enjoyed in the SE.

This for me is the key issue, and as you will appreciate it goes way beyond aviation considerations alone. That there might (or might not) be a slightly better outcome for Manchester Airport specifically dependent on the LHR R3 decision cannot be allowed to take precedence over the more important consideration. The time is right for public funding of transport infrastructure initiatives to be more equitably distributed around the UK as a whole. It is not an airport v airport issue. It is yet more public infrastructure investment concentrated in the SE only v the elusive concept of a fair share of public infrastructure investment everywhere else.

Una Due Tfc

5th Oct 2015, 23:48

Just pointing out I edited my post a bit Shed, didn't want you thinking I was pulling a fast one.

Una Due Tfc

5th Oct 2015, 23:58

Are there any figures available for LHR's contibution the UK Exchequer currently? Because let's be honest within ten years a new runway at Heathrow would be full, so increase the currently available figures by say a third (just to be conservative) and use that as a ballpark figure for how long R3 will take to payoff. Obviously that won't include airport personnel taxes, increased business activity but that's extremely difficult to quantify and open to manipulation by both sides.

ETOPS

6th Oct 2015, 07:18

Una Due Tfc

6th Oct 2015, 07:46

Thinking about NW passengers (and me) travelling to the USA - why would I take a short flight to DUB, change gauge for the second sector when I can use my local airport MAN and fly a single sector to get where I want. Pre-clearance discounted as it may feature at both airports and, likewise, over and beyond domestically as it amounts to the same.

Price I can hear you shouting but it's still an extra sector ........
I was more thinking of LBA, LPL, EMA, BRS, CWL, NQY etc, who might otherwise have used a UK airport to cross the pond.

DUB is just an example. Not every service that would commence in a 3 runway Heathrow will switch to another UK airport instead. In fact I'd argue most won't. But again, it all depends on figures, cost/benefit. And I doubt either side will be totally honest with those in the public domain.

ETOPS

6th Oct 2015, 08:41

I was more thinking of LBA, LPL, EMA, BRS, CWL, NQY

Fair point - I'm very near to MAN thus not so concerned with those airports..

Sláinte

Prophead

6th Oct 2015, 09:25

I'm very near to MAN thus not so concerned with those airports.

This seems to be the mindset of many R3 opponents.

To try and sum up a bit, the arguments for expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick come down to whether the hub requirement will be met or not. You will not turn Gatwick into a hub that could rival the plans for LHR without spending significantly more money than is being proposed at the moment. The LGW option is to add a new runway that will help Gatwick but do nothing for congestion at LHR. The debate on expansion there will still go on.

R3 will allow people from LBA etc. to take the shuttle down to LHR and fly to pretty much anywhere. There will inevitably be a loss of future new routes at Manchester that would not be viable without the pax from the other regions making the long drive instead of taking the shuttle down to LHR.

I would however say that those people deserve to make their own decisions and would rather take a cheaper taxi from home to the local airport and a 45 minute shuttle to an airport which will open up the world to them, also the chance to fly in large economical comfortable aircraft. (Before making the obvious comments about transfer times at LHR we are talking about building a new facility so that argument is invalid).

Now we have the cost of the project. The majority of this is coming from private investment and will boost our economy. The project will create jobs and opportunities throughout the whole of the UK as well as increased access to the rest of the world thereafter so this therefore is a win win situation.

The publicly funded part is the main cause for concern for some. This has been estimated at between 5 and 20 billion pounds. I cannot believe that figure has not been narrowed down and an actual budget been drawn up but lets just go with £10bn.

We now need to know the figure that would be required to maintain or upgrade the existing infrastructure had the expansion not taken place. The M25 and M4/A4 are in dire need of widening at this location anyway and this would not be cheap. I strongly suspect a large part of this cost is being shifted into the LHR budget but if R3 doesn't go ahead it will still need to be spent. We need to know this figure and minus it from the LHR budget.

This figure will now be significantly lower and I find it hard to believe that these sums have not already been done by somebody with the facts.

Now we will have the publicly funded part of the direct costs of R3. A large chunk of this cost will come back in taxes on wages and VAT so is not really being spent at all. There are not many civil engineering contractors based in Central London so this work would probably be carried out by companies from around the UK.

A figure can also be obtained of the proposed benefits to the country as a whole and this put side by side with the above. I do not have access to the facts to calculate the above and doubt anyone on here has but the calculation can and should be done.