HEATHROW [Archive] - Page 16

Bagso

13th Oct 2015, 16:27

Skip

I have long argued that Heathrow requires a root and branch evaluation of cost. At no point have ANY of our English MPs discussed the taxpayer exposure or implications that is why it is a source of frustration, the real story is yet to come out.

Labour have completely side stepped this and focused on air quality , The SNP however have clocked that £5bn exposure so I would not be so sure they will support this. Only last month they noted it was a another slug of cash heading into the SE.

The posting from the Independent is I'm sure of interest to those both for and indeed against. I would have posted exactly the same reference had Labour been initially against and had changed to yes vote.

It's of interest whatever the outcome, as an aviation analyst surely it is something you would be mindful of.

In addition if LHR gets its 3rw there may possibly be cuts on service at other airports in order that the UK meets UK wide emissions, well sorry that is not something I agree with. Each airport needs to get its own house in order. In that respect with "continous descent" procedures Manchester is ahead of the game with 89% of landings accomplished this way. Not sure what the figure is for LHR but MAN should not be penalised based on what happens 200 miles away !

The fact you don't like the end result of this change of heart is of supreme indifference. Others will have an opinion on the implications of this.

The article did suggest that such is the retinence of Tory Backbenchers, the PM would be relying on the support of Labour ! That is now unlikely with previous labour pro RW3 MPs unwilling to vote against Corbyn at least not on what many perceive as a minor issue ie Aviation

Skipness One Echo

13th Oct 2015, 22:25

You just can't help yourself can you, Skipness? Your risible attempts to depict all PPRuNe objectors to LHR R3 as MAN reggie-collectors has been exposed as lies time and again
Calm down, at no point did I suggest you're a reggie collector. As it happens I am also one myself, the industry is also full of #avgeeks .I wouldn't dare compare your esteemed self to a mere eccentric like myself.
Actually, we're going round in circles now, there's nothing new to add at the mo.
Bagso and myself have consistently argued against R3 on the grounds of cost. Our posting histories confirm this. There is a serious case to answer. Argue the issues on that level if you can and spare us all the childish innuendos.
One can make a good case on cost benefit for many things, good lawyers can argue any case given some half credible numbers. You don't think it's worth it, you think they should spend more money on trains in the North, maybe they should. All major infrastructure projects are ball crunchingly expensive. The Chunnel, Sizewell B, etc etc, however we never turn around afterwards and say "By God that was so expensive we shouldn't have done it." Well maybe the Olympics. This is like the Olympics now, it's becoming about driving growth, jobs and investment, inward tourism and boosting construction. It's a matter of politics and belief, the bill will be high but I think reality is setting in across both Labour and the Tories. Let's see what happens in December.

kcockayne

13th Oct 2015, 22:31

You mean something IS going to happen in December ?! Surely not; that would be a first !

Shed-on-a-Pole

13th Oct 2015, 23:50

a reggie collector. As it happens I am also one myself, the industry is also full of #avgeeks

My comments imply no attack on aviation hobbyists. I take aircraft photos myself and regularly defend enthusiasts on this forum. I know that many of the finest minds in the industry were drawn in thanks to a healthy interest in aircraft. Some of the best I ever worked alongside still do collect registrations. However, it is important to draw the line between a hobby and a serious debate. Those who have engaged in objecting to R3 on PPRuNe have done so on the issues. It is disingenuous to drop regular hints that their true motivation is a desire to see more tails at their local airport. It demeans the integrity of the whole discussion and invites descent to the lowest common denominator. You are well capable of debating the core issues at a respectful and professional level. I urge you to stick with that.

Bagso

14th Oct 2015, 09:11

But Skip that is the point we are not going round in circles.

The main opposition who supported RW3 are now against and whilst many Labour MPs support expansion they are not going to appear to be devisive. This could have a major impact and was not widely reported, hence my link. ?

In other news...

The SNP conference starts today, Alex Salmond was scathing about what he saw as more billions being poured into SE. As an SNP grandee his voice is likely to resonate with SNP MPs.

Hence not sure why you suggest SNP 100% behind RW3.

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)

Una Due Tfc

14th Oct 2015, 09:24

Here's an idea....

Take the average APD paid in LHR, multiply by number of passengers, add a third (to be conservative)

Take number of tonnes of fuel uplifted by airlines each year in LHR, do the same. Fuel normally runs at roughly 800 GBP a tonne, of which between 60 and 70% goes to the government on duty depending on country (68% here in Ireland I believe, not sure what yours is).

With those 2 numbers alone you should get SOME indication when you would all get your money back. Obviously it's not including growth in staff, growth in tourism, business etc but it's a start

PAXboy

14th Oct 2015, 11:20

I am now repeating myself (many times over). R3 will not be built. No one has the cohonies to do it. Across the last 45 years, all politicians have failed on this point.

Heathrow Harry

14th Oct 2015, 14:20

and only the lawyers benifit.............

Bagso

14th Oct 2015, 18:34

This appears to have just been "sneaked" out.

Wonder how long it will be before it is picked up by mainstream media ?

Parliamentary Written Answer from Transport Minister published this evening.

"The surface access costs for Heathrow expansion are estimated at £5 billion by the Airports Commission, although Transport for London had put the predicted figure at £15-20 billion.

In response to a parliamentary question tabled by Conservative MP and prominent Third Runway opponent Adam Afriyie, Transport Minister Robert Goodwill said:

“In terms of surface access proposals, the Government has been clear that it expects the scheme promoter to meet the costs of any surface access proposals that are required as a direct result of airport expansion and from which they will directly benefit.”

Fairdealfrank

14th Oct 2015, 22:05

Labour has now done an about turn......and crucially he expects all Labour MPs to oppose!
It's the 1980s again, Conservatives enacting vindictive anti-trade union legislation and Labour tearing itself apart.

As the leader, Corbyn can expect the kind of loyalty from MPs that he showed to Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Miliband, etc. when a humble back-bencher. It appears to be a "poacher turned gamekeeper" situation, what goes round comes around, you reap what you sow.

Judging by the antics of Shadow Chancellor McDonnell, one could be forgiven for thinking that wheels are coming off already!

The SNP conference starts today, Alex Salmond was scathing about what he saw as more billions being poured into SE. As an SNP grandee his voice is likely to resonate with SNP MPs.

Hence not sure why you suggest SNP 100% behind RW3.
Not sure why you think that the SNP 100% against a third rwy.

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)

In the article, Salmond is quoted as saying:

"...However, if new capacity is needed in London then at least Heathrow’s rival Gatwick have pledged they would build a new runway there at no cost to the public purse and guarantee proper access to the capital from Scottish airports..."

LGW managers cannot guarantee anything of the sort, to do so would fall foul of the all-powerful European Union.

This appears to have just been "sneaked" out.

Wonder how long it will be before it is picked up by mainstream media ?

Parliamentary Written Answer from Transport Minister published this evening.

"The surface access costs for Heathrow expansion are estimated at £5 billion by the Airports Commission, although Transport for London had put the predicted figure at £15-20 billion.
Transport for London is a tool of the anti-Heathrow expansion Boris, so it's natural that it would want to put his spin on things and inflate the figures.

Unfortunately, it looks like it has over-played its hand (four times more than the official estimate is frankly beyond credibility).

However, it has nothing to do with Transport for London or Boris.

The road and motorway enhancements, etc., are the responsibility of the Dept of Transport/Highways Agency, the railway enhancements that of the Dept of Transport/Network Rail.

In response to a parliamentary question tabled by Conservative MP and prominent Third Runway opponent Adam Afriyie, Transport Minister Robert Goodwill said:

“In terms of surface access proposals, the Government has been clear that it expects the scheme promoter to meet the costs of any surface access proposals that are required as a direct result of airport expansion and from which they will directly benefit.”
There, you have your answer..........................

Prophead

15th Oct 2015, 10:57

Great, can we please just get on and build it now?

PAXboy

15th Oct 2015, 11:03

Robert Goodwill said:

“... the scheme promoter to meet the costs of any surface access proposals that are required as a direct result of airport expansion and from which they will directly benefit.” The price of everything and the value of nothing (as above) just like the 1980s.

One has a distinct suspicion that the expansion of CDG, AMS, FRA, MUC benefit more than just local jobs ...

Walnut

15th Oct 2015, 12:37

In the last few days it was announced the NHS lost £1B in the first quarter, so projecting that for 2015 that amounts to £4B. So if you just take a mid point cost of the surface transport provision for R3 then that's 3yrs of NHS overspend
Clearly the 60M people in the UK will not care a fig for LHR expansion if they can't get their health needs met

Heathrow Harry

15th Oct 2015, 15:39

"four times more than the official estimate is frankly beyond credibility)"

and how many large public investments come in on cost Frank?

Olympics
Scottish Parliament
British Library
Guy's House
Portcullis House
Channel Tunnel
HS2
Crossrail
Jubilee Line extension

I know which way the bookies would bet..................

ETOPS

16th Oct 2015, 10:15

Just spotted this very clear graphic on the internet..

http://photodesk.chicagotribune.com.s3.amazonaws.com/Graphics/runway-diagram-update-1015.png

Does make you wonder.........

rutankrd

16th Oct 2015, 11:02

Makes you wonder what exactly ?

O'Hare is a US domestic Hub and Spoke airport with a bazillion regional jets servicing many small cities and towns in a country the size of the EU with dire rail networks in main.

The US3 invented and promoted the idea of Hub and Spoke as a commercial network alternative what Europe uses rail for.

As a wider Global Hub many indeed most US airports are way behind the volumes passing through European Airports and much of that traffic is indeed tied to their domestic hub and spoke networks.

Heathrow and indeed most European airports (Amsterdam excepted) do not have anywhere near a similar model.

Heathrow remains predominantly high yield point to point you do know this !

The largest carrier BA and partners in IAG and One World handle about 30% of over hub transfer traffic much being US-EU or US-Sub continent this is a magnitude different and therefore doesn't need quite so many strips of concrete.

ETOPS

16th Oct 2015, 11:19

Heathrow remains predominantly high yield point to point you do know this !

I disagree for the following reason. For over a quarter of a century I was a BA Capt flying from LHR. One of my favourite routes was LHR-PHX and I took a keen interest in the mix of passengers as a cursory glance at the passenger list showed, at times, very few UK passengers but generally full loads. On numerous occasions I was able to do my "Willkommen an Bord" in German as the majority were connecting from a variety of start points such as FRA, DUS, MUC etc.

In the same vein most passengers on the YVR - LHR were connecting on to India - Namascar- and large numbers of Scandinavians of LHR - GIG/GRU

Thus I contend LHR is exactly a hub and spoke airport like ORD.

pax britanica

16th Oct 2015, 11:39

Having more hours than I care to remember Paxing all over the place from LHR I agree with ETOPS on the issue that there is a huge amount of interline traffic at LHR. If there is less now than there was it is entirely because the capacity is limited in terms of runway slots and thus more flights.

Also while LHR has a very strong premium element the cachement area includes some of the countries most affluent areas and there is still huge demand for Y class travel. Firstly from the London area itself as none of the other airports offer anything remotely comparable for LH and all those BA card holders do have holidays and they along with all of west London N Surrey and East Berks want to fly Y from LHR and not travel 100 miles to STN however cheap Ryan air are. Equally Gatwick isn't exactly easy given that most of the journey is M25

LHR isn't ORD though because that place does have zillions of RJs and TPs serving a huge cachement area around Chicago and the upper mid west as well as being major hub and therefore it needs to separate traffic and run almost two airports inside one boundary hence all the runways.

So, LHR does need a third runway badly and building it at LGW would be almost criminal negligence on the part of the Govt. because it wont raise LGW status much and will ensure LHRs continued decline compared to AMS.CDG and FRA.

But then sadly decline is what we seem to do best in the UK with endless short term gain decisions either financial or political constantly winning out over long term strategy

Una Due Tfc

16th Oct 2015, 12:14

ORD can only get those volumes into that runway layout using LAHSO. Over 60% of LHR's traffic is heavy/super. Can't see many 744/388 skippers accepting LAHSO clearances. In fact it specifically mentions in BA flightplans that they will not accept them.

Wycombe

16th Oct 2015, 12:15

Also while LHR has a very strong premium element the cachement area includes some of the countries most affluent areas and there is still huge demand for Y class travel.

As a case in point I'm travelling with my family of 4 for a week's break in Malta, the week after next.

After hunting high and low, looking at all carriers who fly to MLA from airports within 100 miles of where we live (West Berks), the cheapest was Air Malta from LHR!

DaveReidUK

16th Oct 2015, 12:18

Heathrow remains predominantly high yield point to point you do know this !

In 2014, 36% of the 73.4 million passengers passing through Heathrow were transferring from one flight to another.

Bagso

16th Oct 2015, 12:29

Salmond: SNP won?t back runway in South-East unless Scotland gets cash | Politics | News | London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/salmond-snp-won-t-back-runway-in-southeast-unless-scotland-gets-cash-a3092236.html)

Skip. Here is that unwavering and wholesome support from the SNP you referred to.

It would appear Scotland is prepared to back Heathrow but only on the basis of a nice wedge of cash.

Something the North of England should be fighting for with a tad more vigour !

On a theme could we not promote and indeed expand Manchester in exactly the same manner the Germans did with Munich or is that too complicated for us Brits?

rutankrd

16th Oct 2015, 15:16

I disagree for the following reason. For over a quarter of a century I was a BA Capt flying from LHR. One of my favourite routes was LHR-PHX and I took a keen interest in the mix of passengers as a cursory glance at the passenger list showed, at times, very few UK passengers but generally full loads. On numerous occasions I was able to do my "Willkommen an Bord" in German as the majority were connecting from a variety of start points such as FRA, DUS, MUC etc.

In the same vein most passengers on the YVR - LHR were connecting on to India - Namascar- and large numbers of Scandinavians of LHR - GIG/GRU

Thus I contend LHR is exactly a hub and spoke airport like ORD.

What is it in my critique you are disagreeing with ?

Is it just the factoid that Heathrow is predominantly an O & D operation - 60% and increasing of traffic is of such make up.

Now the figure quoted by David - with thanks does include interlines but not self connects so if those add a further 5-10% - It remains that most traffic is point to point or O and D or I concede perhaps connecting elsewhere - Dubai for instance.

Contrary to myth its not primarily a Hub and Spoke operation - The large US Hub and Spoke airports are quite the opposite with 60% plus being transfers (Mostly regional domestic in nature)

I do accept that for BA (IAG) by definition their Heathrow operations are designed with Hub and Spoke capabilities , however even BA would prefer more point to point traffic starting/terminating at Heathrow than feeders for the bottom line !
Yield from those fares are far superior than any from for say FCO-LHR-JFK.
That EU sector will almost certainly book a loss !

Now is Heathrow a Hub airport (as opposed to a Hub and Spoke operation) the pendent in me says yes yet whilst similar the two terms are not necessarily the same thing.

Skipness One Echo

16th Oct 2015, 15:18

Heathrow remains predominantly high yield point to point you do know this !
Many of the point to point routes need the feed to survive though.
Skip. Here is that unwavering and wholesome support from the SNP you referred to.
Give it up Bagso, I never said "wholesome" and "unwavering" as well you know. The SNP will get their pound of flesh and likely fall into line behind LHR as HIAL in INV wants a LHR link and it would be a boon for the region. This is politics after all.
Something the North of England should be fighting for with a tad more vigour !
You talk a lot but what does that mean bagso? The local MP for MME should do what? You do want more connectivity to the regions or not? Or is only the "right" connectivity when it's on the ME3 who last time I checked, weren't signed up to a left wing liberal green agenda? So LHR = bad but DXB = good? That's the English localism and self loathing mix through and through IMHO, never understand this country.
"Not having more jobs in the horrid polluting SE of England" and also "Ooooh big A380 from Dubai shoing "faith in Manchester as a region" #facepalm

rutankrd

16th Oct 2015, 15:23

As a case in point I'm travelling with my family of 4 for a week's break in Malta, the week after next.

After hunting high and low, looking at all carriers who fly to MLA from airports within 100 miles of where we live (West Berks), the cheapest was Air Malta from LHR!

And case in point your travel plans are point to point and O & D -just like the majority of travellers through Heathrow - No one suggests there are only ties and suits traversing the corridors - That said Air Malta twice daily services are not the most typical, and i would suggest they are actually somewhat squeezed by the flexible fare carriers at the moment so you may have secured a deal on the prices.

rutankrd

16th Oct 2015, 15:36

Many of the point to point routes need the feed to survive though.

Skip-

Really ??

London as you know is in the top 3 of Global Cities with both inward and outward travel both business and leisure.

Its always said on here and in other flavours and colours that the consensus is if you can't fill flights (and preferably make money) out of Heathrow give up.

I have yet to see the evidence that any particular route only operates because of feed yet the statement is almost rhetorical in nature.

True Heathrow as Hub (as opposed to Hub and Spoke operation) has a dynamic and that leads legacy and long haul carriers to congregate but it more complicated i think- Your own analysis must show this.

Heathrow Harry

16th Oct 2015, 16:50

according to the Times this morning the Govt aren't paying for any road or rail improvements for LHR expansion - the airport will have to pay..............

Another £ 6 Billion to find................

pax britanica

16th Oct 2015, 17:05

You cannot compare UK and Germany on this issue because of the distributed nature of the German economy (buggers got this right as well) London dwarfs all other UK cities and that isnt diluted if you add in the contiguous counties and areas . In Germany the main hub airport is Frankfurt and that is because it was the main US military base after WW2 Frankfurt is not a big city at all , Munich is much much bigger.
It would be like having East Midlands as the countries main airport just because its in the middle of the country and expanding Manchester as a number 2.

Where a comparison can be made is Paris which has CDG as the main hub -four runways and a viable and important airport in Orly .

The whole problem in the UK aside from the usual political cowardice and civil service indifference and incompetence is that you cannot divide hubs into two. You either expand LHR or build a new one once you split the load you go not from one hub to two but from one to none and for a city like London that just wont cut it.

That is obvious from the start and yet we have to suffer years of delay and dithering and even now interference from influential politicians like Zak and Boris who are basically chancers and cowboys solely focussed on what is good for them personally in their political careers.

Bagso

16th Oct 2015, 17:31

Skip

Must be my imagination, your post 3763 suggests SNP support as a given !

Must confess when you mentioned this I never realised we had another potential invoice to cover.

At least that will evaporate if The Times is correct.

...not usually right and wrong again Skip !

Bagso

17th Oct 2015, 10:48

One thing that puzzles me is the support on the one hand for expansion of Heathrow and “The Hub”, but outright criticism on the other with reference to British Airways, who after all provide the “where with all” in terms of a significant part of the actual connectivity.

Clearly if hub is key, it seems odd to be so dismissive of the BA contribution.

If you support Heathrow expansion the most important plank of that is their connectivity to other UK points in their long haul network is it not.

It seems an odd contradiction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s equally odd that a country seeking independence and indeed could be independent by the time RW3 opens should be holding such sway regarding sovereign decisions made elsewhere ?
Yes they are in the Union now but still seems odd.

Heathrow Harry

17th Oct 2015, 17:10

the Vile Salmond wasn't just asking for cash - he wants a cast -iron guarantee of an increased connectivity to LHR from Scotland that will last for years or else he'll vote against

Fairdealfrank

18th Oct 2015, 00:59

Heathrow remains predominantly high yield point to point you do know this !

The largest carrier BA and partners in IAG and One World handle about 30% of over hub transfer traffic much being US-EU or US-Sub continent this is a magnitude different and therefore doesn't need quite so many strips of concrete.

Some routes need transfer pax to be viable for the O and D traffic, it's not that difficult a concept to understand. About 35% of LHR pax are connecting compared to about 75% at AMS.

Not only Oneworld handling transfer pax, also Star and Skyteam, that's why their respective carriers are housed together: Oneworld in LHR-5 and LHR-3, Skyteam in LHR-4 and Star in LHR-2.

I disagree for the following reason. For over a quarter of a century I was a BA Capt flying from LHR. One of my favourite routes was LHR-PHX and I took a keen interest in the mix of passengers as a cursory glance at the passenger list showed, at times, very few UK passengers but generally full loads. On numerous occasions I was able to do my "Willkommen an Bord" in German as the majority were connecting from a variety of start points such as FRA, DUS, MUC etc.

In the same vein most passengers on the YVR - LHR were connecting on to India - Namascar- and large numbers of Scandinavians of LHR - GIG/GRU

Thus I contend LHR is exactly a hub and spoke airport like ORD.

Exactly, the only difference is that ORD is 95+% domestic/transborder.

Also while LHR has a very strong premium element the cachement area includes some of the countries most affluent areas and there is still huge demand for Y class travel. Firstly from the London area itself as none of the other airports offer anything remotely comparable for LH and all those BA card holders do have holidays and they along with all of west London N Surrey and East Berks want to fly Y from LHR and not travel 100 miles to STN however cheap Ryan air are. Equally Gatwick isn't exactly easy given that most of the journey is M25

For these folks, SOU is nearer than STN. The cost, hassle, time and aggavation involved getting to/from STN (or LTN for that matter) more than wipes out the advantage of lower fares.

o, LHR does need a third runway badly and building it at LGW would be almost criminal negligence on the part of the Govt. because it wont raise LGW status much and will ensure LHRs continued decline compared to AMS.CDG and FRA.

A good and accurate way of putting it.

But then sadly decline is what we seem to do best in the UK with endless short term gain decisions either financial or political constantly winning out over long term strategy

Suppose we have to be good at something, why does it have to be decline?

On a theme could we not promote and indeed expand Manchester in exactly the same manner the Germans did with Munich or is that too complicated for us Brits?

You cannot compare UK and Germany on this issue because of the distributed nature of the German economy (buggers got this right as well) London dwarfs all other UK cities and that isnt diluted if you add in the contiguous counties and areas . In Germany the main hub airport is Frankfurt and that is because it was the main US military base after WW2 Frankfurt is not a big city at all , Munich is much much bigger.
It would be like having East Midlands as the countries main airport just because its in the middle of the country and expanding Manchester as a number 2.

Where a comparison can be made is Paris which has CDG as the main hub -four runways and a viable and important airport in Orly .

Yes, France not Germany is comparable: similar population, similar sized economies, largest conurbation several times bigger than the second, both permanent UN security council members, both are the only significant European military powers.

So LHR 2 parallel rwys, CDG 4 parallel rwys; LGW 1 rwy, ORY 2 parallel rwys. Says it all.

If we're talking number 2 compare MAN with LYS not MUC, and it's a case of expanding LYS to be like MAN.

Berlin, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Hamburg and Munich are all bigger than Frankfurt. When the Federal Republic was set up in 1949, Frankfurt was planned as the capital, but it ended up at Bonn.

It’s equally odd that a country seeking independence and indeed could be independent by the time RW3 opens should be holding such sway regarding sovereign decisions made elsewhere ?
Yes they are in the Union now but still seems odd.

One of the consequences of very stupid and ill-thought out devolution arrangements and an utter failure to properly answer the West Lothian Question.

the Vile Salmond wasn't just asking for cash - he wants a cast -iron guarantee of an increased connectivity to LHR from Scotland that will last for years or else he'll vote against

The SNP now have 55 seats at Westminster and is the third largest party, so what do you expect?

It's sticking up for Scotland, or appearing to, something Labour conspicuously failed to do and suffered the consequences.

rutankrd

18th Oct 2015, 08:00

Some routes need transfer pax to be viable for the O and D traffic, it's not that difficult a concept to understand. About 35% of LHR pax are connecting compared to about 75% at AMS.

Not only Oneworld handling transfer pax, also Star and Skyteam, that's why their respective carriers are housed together: Oneworld in LHR-5 and LHR-3, Skyteam in LHR-4 and Star in LHR-2.

Sorry Frank

This is rhetoric - What is the real evidence especially through Heathrow and with relation to the London markets - One of the top 3 on the planet.

Again what are these LHR routes that survive ONLY because of connections.

Names please.

Again the fares on O & M SUBSIDiSE connects NOT the other way round !

The carriers are housed together (in the main) for alliance convenience not disputed.

I did not distribute that LHR is a HUB airport either and in the case of the ONLY HUB and SPOKE (similar words differing meaning) carrier i specifically mentioned the two largest market flows US- EU and US- Sub-continent.

rutankrd

18th Oct 2015, 08:12

About 35% of LHR pax are connecting compared to about 75% at AMS.

Frank also noted and stated with reference to the ONLY EU HUB that come close to the US model and yes that is Amsterdam .

Yes an airport with a million, billion little planes and concrete to match combined with a warehousing industry developed over centuries to serve those boxes right across Northern Europe , oh and the fresh food and flowers businesses.

The Dutch and West Germans still make things (Tangible physical items as opposed to etherial products and financial services- Don't get me wrong these are money makers for the few) don't they !

DaveReidUK

18th Oct 2015, 09:09

Again what are these LHR routes that survive ONLY because of connections.

Names please.

It might be quicker to name those routes that could survive unscathed if 35% of their passengers, on average, disappeared.

Bagso

18th Oct 2015, 09:36

Bound to say I do think the term “vile” is a bit unsavoury.
Firstly and foremost Alex Salmond represents Scottish interests, you may not agree, but good luck to him, that is after all what he was voted in for, and what his own constituents clearly want.
I would welcome some of that passion from our own MPs up here in Greater Manchester who suffer complete amnesia and a failure to do some basic maths when they step into the hallowed corridors of Westminster.
Extricating any Government investment in The North is like pulling teeth compared to monies seen as a given in the South East. We may get all watery eyed when the relative pitence of a few million is spent on the Manchester – Leeds railway line but it is as nothing to the billions signed off on a whim for projects down South.
That said, If as reported the Government are not prepared to bank roll the surrounding infrastructure it will be somewhat academic.
If there is a suspicion of “smoke and mirrors” and LHR does indeed have to pay for earthworks beyond the M25 I’m not sure where that leaves the project anyway. HAL might have a seemingly endless pot of money but would that extend to what is currently an unaccounted budget figure of a min’ £5Bn on roads /rail etc OR like a few us do they think these costs might fall into an open ended bottom less pit, hence the CEOs insistence on getting the Government to fully underwrite this particular part of the project ? ….oh not forgetting that extra £500m heading North of the border !
Scots telling the English what to do….no wonder The Daily Mail is so exercised.

GrahamK

18th Oct 2015, 10:18

Air India introducing a 3rd daily Delhi flight from 1st November, flight operates using a 777-200LR, early morning arrival and departure

eggc

18th Oct 2015, 10:23

..and the soon to be announced MAN route by AI cancelled, but hey, LHR expansion will be good for regional airports :rolleyes:

GrahamK

18th Oct 2015, 10:39

LHR expansion is good for regional airports :ok:

eggc

18th Oct 2015, 10:45

We'll have to agree to disagree on that Graham. Maybe for Liverpool and a couple of others that may get the odd shuttle to connect from, but I cannot see a single benefit for BHX, MAN, and maybe GLA and EDI, but never mind they are north of Watford anyway :}

MANFOD

18th Oct 2015, 11:27

Air India introducing a 3rd daily Delhi flight from 1st November, flight operates using a 777-200LR, early morning arrival and departure

And LHR is full. Still, there seems to be a good trade in slots. What puzzles me slightly is if there are slots to purchase, why are some airlines keen to sell?

Maybe for Liverpool and a couple of others that may get the odd shuttle to connect from, but I cannot see a single benefit for BHX, MAN, and maybe GLA and EDI, but never mind they are north of Watford anyway

No, me neither, but hey, don't forget the trickle-down effect, and we might even get an extra shuttle to help feed those new long haul routes that need our feed to make them viable:ugh:

Logohu

18th Oct 2015, 11:47

why are some airlines keen to sell?

Airlines that sell their LHR slots are generally those in the "last chance saloon". Airlines who have been unable (or unwilling) to adapt to the new era of competition, who's backers have basically given up on them, and have therefore resorted to selling off the family silver to try and stay afloat. In LHR's case think Pan Am, TWA, Cyprus Airways, Balkan, Malev, BMI - anyone remember them ? They all sold off or leased out LHR slots in their later years, and the rest is history.

Another source of slots is from airlines who have worked out they can make more money from leasing out their slots to another airline, instead of operating their own flights with them. A fairly recent example there would be Qantas who lease out at least two pairs of LHR slots to another airline (can't remember which - either BA or Emirates maybe ?). SAS has recently been selling LHR slots, as did Air Serbia (formerly JAT).

LN-KGL

18th Oct 2015, 12:36

What puzzles me slightly is if there are slots to purchase, why are some airlines keen to sell?
Some airlines may need the money to keep afloat, and with the price war now going on between CPH and LON we may see more SAS slots for sale.

Fairdealfrank

19th Oct 2015, 02:02

Sorry Frank

This is rhetoric - What is the real evidence especially through Heathrow and with relation to the London markets - One of the top 3 on the planet.

Again what are these LHR routes that survive ONLY because of connections.

Names please.
Probably commercially sensitive information for each carrier, but could speculate: most of the north American routes apart from the major cities, ditto European routes, most african routes. Additionally, BLR, HYD, MAA, MEX are often mentioned. Judging by the way BA shifts some routes between terminals, maybe the routes depending on connections vary over time and possibly seasons. The point is that the presence of these routes benefits O&D pax.

The carriers are housed together (in the main) for alliance convenience not disputed.
Only necessary and convenient if there is a significant amount of transferring pax.

Frank also noted and stated with reference to the ONLY EU HUB that come close to the US model and yes that is Amsterdam .
Wrong again, did not mention "EU hub" or "US model". Just made the comparison between LHR and AMS for numbers of transfer pax.

It might be quicker to name those routes that could survive unscathed if 35% of their passengers, on average, disappeared.
Indeed, though did a little speculation above.

Extricating any Government investment in The North is like pulling teeth compared to monies seen as a given in the South East. We may get all watery eyed when the relative pitence of a few million is spent on the Manchester – Leeds railway line but it is as nothing to the billions signed off on a whim for projects down South.
That said, If as reported the Government are not prepared to bank roll the surrounding infrastructure it will be somewhat academic.
Despite being obviously correct on the need for more spending in the north, you are always selective with the information, Bagso. You never mention that infrastructure projects in and around London are part funded by business rates supplements and/or by the "mayoral community levy", plus, in the case of rail, much higher fares generally. This is not the case in the rest of the UK. Also ratepayers in Greater London will be paying a precept for the Olympics for the next 50 years.

If there is a suspicion of “smoke and mirrors” and LHR does indeed have to pay for earthworks beyond the M25 I’m not sure where that leaves the project anyway. HAL might have a seemingly endless pot of money but would that extend to what is currently an unaccounted budget figure of a min’ £5Bn on roads /rail etc OR like a few us do they think these costs might fall into an open ended bottom less pit, hence the CEOs insistence on getting the Government to fully underwrite this particular part of the project ? ….oh not forgetting that extra £500m heading North of the border !
Scots telling the English what to do….no wonder The Daily Mail is so exercised.
Heathrow management has the money to invest (or can attract it) and it will bring returns over time and well over the initial outlay, so this is a very good business proposition.

As for the "earthworks" on the M25, this will be required anyway, as will similar be required on the M60, when traffic reaches a certain level. All that won't happen without a third rwy is the tunnel. The A4 tunnels will happen because even without a third rwy the airport has to expand accross the A4, for LHR-6 for example, which will be needed when LHR-3 is demolished and not rebuilt.

The rail infastructure improvements will go ahead anyway as people need to be encouraged onto public transport, third rwy or not, and rail travellers other than airline pax and airport workers will benefit.

As for the SNP MPs, they now have some leverage, of course they'll use it! especially as all this appearance of "standing up for Scotland" cleverly diverts attention from the "horlicks" being made at by the Holyrood government.

..and the soon to be announced MAN route by AI cancelled, but hey, LHR expansion will be good for regional airports
[MAN's (and LBA's) links with the subcontinent are with Pakistan not India, so there's not enough O&D for a MAN-DEL route. What little there is would be very low yield VFR and that travels with EK. There was never a question of a MAN-DEL route. A business/commercial MAN-BOM route might just possibly be a different matter, but don't hold your breath.

As for AI, it gets plenty of O&D and low yield VFR on BHX-DEL, which is doing well. Had wrongly predicted that AI would mess it up and had to eat my hat as a consequence, the hat tasted good.

Airlines that sell their LHR slots are generally those in the "last chance saloon". Airlines who have been unable (or unwilling) to adapt to the new era of competition, who's backers have basically given up on them, and have therefore resorted to selling off the family silver to try and stay afloat. In LHR's case think Pan Am, TWA, Cyprus Airways, Balkan, Malev, BMI - anyone remember them ? They all sold off or leased out LHR slots in their later years, and the rest is history.

Another source of slots is from airlines who have worked out they can make more money from leasing out their slots to another airline, instead of operating their own flights with them. A fairly recent example there would be Qantas who lease out at least two pairs of LHR slots to another airline (can't remember which - either BA or Emirates maybe ?). SAS has recently been selling LHR slots, as did Air Serbia (formerly JAT).
Exactly, it's called the "secondary slot market" and based on demand outstripping supply. It keeps many carriers out of LHR to the detriment of most. A third rwy would eliminate this nonsense.

Ringwayman

19th Oct 2015, 05:55

[MAN's (and LBA's) links with the subcontinent are with Pakistan not India, so there's not enough O&D for a MAN-DEL route. What little there is would be very low yield VFR and that travels with EK. There was never a question of a MAN-DEL route. A business/commercial MAN-BOM route might just possibly be a different matter, but don't hold your breath.

Going off The Delhi route shop (http://www.therouteshop.com/profiles/delhi-airport/), there are 54000 O+D passengers on the route. The Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/lets-fly-away-manchester-airport-1316161) quotes airport bosses thus:

"They estimate that of the four million people from within it who fly from London, 100,000 go to Hong Kong, as well as 60,000 to Beijing, 113,000 to Bangkok, 50,000 to Delhi and 70,000 to Mumbai.".

It's the reticence of airlines to even THINK of not having to serve London to meet the UK market that hinders regional UK growth. It appears that having a non-stop CX service at MAN has not held back any operator offering connecting service there from either MAN or LHR.

Of the 5 destinations quoted in the article:

Hong Kong - on course for that
Beijing - to be announced Friday per hints in the FT
Bangkok - would probably need a low-cost long-haul operator as Thai isn't really in a fit position with appropriate aircraft to launch such a route

But combined 120,000 for Mumbai-Delhi? 328 passengers per day. Seems a very good starting point for a service knowing that launching a route normally stimulates more demand.

It's the reticence of airlines to even THINK of not having to serve London to meet the UK market that hinders regional UK growth. It appears that having a non-stop CX service at MAN has not held back any operator offering connecting service there from either MAN or LHR.

Bagso

19th Oct 2015, 06:04

Heathrow Airport expansion: A 'toxic dilemma for ministers - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34568530?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa)

Sssssssshh. ............

Walnut

19th Oct 2015, 06:25

Looking at the footprint of the land needed for R3 will IAG now move their headquarters from Waterside to a site in Spain, Madrid?

DaveReidUK

19th Oct 2015, 06:36

All that won't happen without a third rwy is the tunnel. The A4 tunnels will happen because even without a third rwy the airport has to expand across the A4, for LHR-6 for example, which will be needed when LHR-3 is demolished and not rebuilt.

That's a novel concept.

It's nonsense, of course - the T3 footprint will be replaced by the final bunch of T2 satellites to complete the "toast-rack" configuration.

Unless you're suggesting that all Heathrow's operators are going to switch to A380s, terminal capacity south of the Bath Road will be more than enough to handle all the traffic that a 2-runway airport would generate.

eggc

19th Oct 2015, 07:11

Frank, AI at MAN was loaded into GDS, flight numbers, days and times. It disappeared some days ago, obviously when they secured the addition LHR slots instead.

MANFOD

19th Oct 2015, 08:06

o there's not enough O&D for a MAN-DEL route. What little there is would be very low yield VFR and that travels with EK. There was never a question of a MAN-DEL route. A business/commercial MAN-BOM route might just possibly be a different matter, but don't hold your breath.

Frank, just to back up Ringwayman's point, at a presentation I attended about 2 years ago, Mumbai and Delhi were 6th and 7th in a list of underserved or unserved long haul destinations from MAN. In fact, they were a few positions above Jeddah which now has a 4 x weekly service. I'd be surprised if that situation has changed dramatically since then.

Again, to support Ringwayman's point that new services stimulate demand, Saudia have averaged 230 pax per flight over the last 3 months. CX has already clocked up over 101,000 pax in the 9 and a half months since the 4 x weekly flights commenced during December last year with some very impressive LFs.

New York was top of the list as an underserved long haul route and the new services provided by Delta and TCX plus extra capacity from AA this summer has produced 76,000 pax to JFK & EWR in the last 2 months.

So yes, I'm disappointed if it turns out that AI has cancelled plans for MAN because it has got slots at LHR for a third daily flight.

Prophead

19th Oct 2015, 09:17

Many of the passengers using Manchester are coming from areas all over the north as it has such a large catchment area for long haul flights. The choice for many people in the north is Manchester or Heathrow.

These people will choose to use a shuttle service from the likes of LBA and connect at LHR rather than drive to MAN once R3 is built. People are already using the BA flights from LBA rather than going to MAN. Anyone that has had to slog over the M62 in winter in the early hours will know this is a preferred option.

It is simple supply and demand. The airlines spend a lot of money researching new routes and if they choose LHR over MAN then that should tell you everything you need to know.

The fact that the Manchester Airport management and enthusiasts are so worried about the effect R3 will have shows that it will be successful in providing for those in the northern regions.

This thread seems to be more about Manchester than Heathrow lately.

MANFOD

19th Oct 2015, 09:46

These people will choose to use a shuttle service from the likes of LBA and connect at LHR rather than drive to MAN once R3 is built. People are already using the BA flights from LBA rather than going to MAN. Anyone that has had to slog over the M62 in winter in the early hours will know this is a preferred option.

That's an interesting assertion although it may well be partially correct.

Firstly, if you read the Leeds thread, you will see that LBA is not considered the most easily accessible of airports, especially in winter and with its overall weather record.

Secondly, there is actually quite a good train service from Leeds, Huddersfield and York direct to MAN which seem to do pretty good business, so driving across the M62 is not necessarily the only option.

Thirdly, MAN 's long haul passenger figures at the moment continue to grow, and I suspect a fair few come from Yorkshire despite the availability of shuttles to LHR from LBA.

All that said, I am a little concerned at the potential risks R3 at LHR would pose for MAN in terms of restricting growth or even reducing some long haul services or frequencies, unlike those who claim it would have no or negligible effect.

However, I don't see how you can assert MAN management "are so worried" about R3, as they have adopted a fairly restrained approach in public comment during the Davies Commission and in its aftermath to-date.

eggc

19th Oct 2015, 09:56

I understand what your saying prophead - to a point, but what we are looking at is solution to LHR overcrowding. MAN can provide a part solution to this, as can Birmingham too, as in the case of the above mentioned now cancelled AI. That could have easily flown from MAN, freeing up that pair of slots at LHR, and MAN handling the hundreds of pax per day that would use it, and also giving people of the north a chance to use a northern airport rather than treck to LHR / AMS / FRA or CDG. Same could be said of other routes, each one that flew from MAN/BHX would ease LHR just a little. LHR is full, MAN/BHX are not, there is demand from north of Watford, but we add to the weight placed on LHR by forcing folk through it. It just makes no sense, to me anyway.

Prophead

19th Oct 2015, 11:04

Firstly, if you read the Leeds thread, you will see that LBA is not considered the most easily accessible of airports, especially in winter and with its overall weather record.

I would say it is more easily accessible than Manchester for the catchment area it would serve if there are also domestic flights from the likes of Doncaster, Humberside and Teeside. The areas from Bradford to York and Ripon to Leeds all have fairly easy access to LBA.

Secondly, there is actually quite a good train service from Leeds, Huddersfield and York direct to MAN which seem to do pretty good business, so driving across the M62 is not necessarily the only option.

The train service is quite good and I used it a few times but you need to be near the train line to make it work. Otherwise its a change at Leeds. When you have just come off a long haul flight the last thing you need is to be lugging suitcases around and changing trains Most people would rather get a taxi to/from the local airport then a 45 minute flight.

The shuttle has been around a while now, I used it every week last year and there seemed to be more and more people going through to connecting flights. I'm not sure how its been doing lately as I don't use it any more. I would say however that should R3 go ahead the shuttle service connection will be streamlined and tickets probably sold within the long haul ticket enabling flights form say LBA to LAX to be advertised at one price rather than the package being put together separately.

For this to be a success it would need to be opened up to operators other than BA and would suit someone such as Flybe.

Fairdealfrank

19th Oct 2015, 20:12

Going off The Delhi route shop, there are 54000 O+D passengers on the route. The Manchester Evening News quotes airport bosses thus:

"They estimate that of the four million people from within it who fly from London, 100,000 go to Hong Kong, as well as 60,000 to Beijing, 113,000 to Bangkok, 50,000 to Delhi and 70,000 to Mumbai.".
Got that wrong then!

Frank, just to back up Ringwayman's point, at a presentation I attended about 2 years ago, Mumbai and Delhi were 6th and 7th in a list of underserved or unserved long haul destinations from MAN. In fact, they were a few positions above Jeddah which now has a 4 x weekly service. I'd be surprised if that situation has changed dramatically since then.

Hong Kong - on course for that
Beijing - to be announced Friday per hints in the FT
Bangkok - would probably need a low-cost long-haul operator as Thai isn't really in a fit position with appropriate aircraft to launch such a route

But combined 120,000 for Mumbai-Delhi? 328 passengers per day. Seems a very good starting point for a service knowing that launching a route normally stimulates more demand.
Two questions have to be asked:
(1) of the 50,000 to Delhi and 70,000 to Bombay how much of this is NOT low yield VFR traffic?
(2) can this traffic be tempted away from EK, EY, QR, TK, etc.?

If there's serious money to be made on the route(s), do you not think that at least one carrier would be doing non-stop/direct flights by now, especially where bi-lateral restrictions have been liberalised or scrapped? Ringway certainly does not have a rwy capacity problem!

It's the reticence of airlines to even THINK of not having to serve London to meet the UK market that hinders regional UK growth. It appears that having a non-stop CX service at MAN has not held back any operator offering connecting service there from either MAN or LHR.
The trouble with rwy capacity restrictions at Heathrow is that routes are lost to the entire UK. If unable to access LHR carriers use AMS, CDG, FRA instead in order to access comparable levels of high yield traffic. Maybe an inconvenient truth, but it is the reality.

Looking at the footprint of the land needed for R3 will IAG now move their headquarters from Waterside to a site in Spain, Madrid?
Or Dublin?

That's a novel concept.

It's nonsense, of course - the T3 footprint will be replaced by the final bunch of T2 satellites to complete the "toast-rack" configuration.

Unless you're suggesting that all Heathrow's operators are going to switch to A380s, terminal capacity south of the Bath Road will be more than enough to handle all the traffic that a 2-runway airport would generate.Not nonsense. As you state, "the T3 footprint will be replaced by the final bunch of T2 satellites to complete the "toast-rack" configuration." So the current occupants have to go somewhere, and that is the sixth terminal which will have an airside section accross the A4, and doubtless other infrastructure will be needed over there. Not tomorrow, but within a reasonable timescale. Without a third rwy, some of LHR's movements will involve some increasingly larger aircraft over time, obviously.

This thread seems to be more about Manchester than Heathrow lately. Indeed it does!

I understand what your saying prophead - to a point, but what we are looking at is solution to LHR overcrowding. MAN can provide a part solution to this, as can Birmingham too, as in the case of the above mentioned now cancelled AI. That could have easily flown from MAN, freeing up that pair of slots at LHR, and MAN handling the hundreds of pax per day that would use it, and also giving people of the north a chance to use a northern airport rather than treck to LHR / AMS / FRA or CDG. Same could be said of other routes, each one that flew from MAN/BHX would ease LHR just a little. LHR is full, MAN/BHX are not, there is demand from north of Watford, but we add to the weight placed on LHR by forcing folk through it. It just makes no sense, to me anyway.
Two points:
(1) this would only relieve LHR up to a point, it could also generate entirely new journeys just as the no frills have done with their new routes;
(2) flights to/from BHX/MAN need sufficient premium business pax to make a profit, low yield VFR doesn't cut the mustard and the "ME4" already have that business stitched up despite being the long way round in most cases;
(3) BHX/MAN are not hubs for longhaul, they are at the end of spokes, so they need to have carriers linking them to their respective hubs. That's what BA does at LHR (though not to/from BHX).

DaveReidUK

19th Oct 2015, 20:37

Not nonsense. As you state, "the T3 footprint will be replaced by the final bunch of T2 satellites to complete the "toast-rack" configuration." So the current occupants have to go somewhere, and that is the sixth terminal which will have an airside section across the A4, and doubtless other infrastructure will be needed over there. Not tomorrow, but within a reasonable timescale. Without a third rwy, some of LHR's movements will involve some increasingly larger aircraft over time, obviously.

Sorry, but simply repeating your assertion, still without any evidence, doesn't make it any more true.

T6 would clearly be necessary to support the ~700,000 ATMs that a third runway would allow. Please provide some evidential basis for your argument that traffic with two runways, even allowing for a gradual increase in average aircraft size, would necessitate additional terminal capacity over and above that of the proposed East/West toast-rack configuration.

Porky Speedpig

20th Oct 2015, 14:22

reported to be Biarritz, Mahon, Palermo. Seems like the ghost of DanAir lives on?

Skipness One Echo

20th Oct 2015, 16:16

It's the reticence of airlines to even THINK of not having to serve London to meet the UK market that hinders regional UK growth. It appears that having a non-stop CX service at MAN has not held back any operator offering connecting service there from either MAN or LHR.
Very good point, however it's maybe worth considering the terms of what you're saying. If you want to serve the UK market via long haul, LHR has both historically and currently performed better than anywhere else. No one would seek to serve "the UK market" from MAN *only*, whereas loads serve the UK market from LHR only.
Compare LHR:MAN like for like in terms of frequency of those carriers offering service from both airports.(if someone wants to do capacity feel free)
It's skewed way beyond population density I think?

Eastbound
CX 5:1
SQ 4:1 (split with MUC)
EK 5:3
EY 2:3
QR 6:2

Westbound
UA 17:2
AA 17:3
DL 12:1
DL / VS 29:4 ** amended for Westbound only
AC 12: 1 (MAN = Rouge and seasonal)
FI 2:1
BA well......maybe not.

Fairdealfrank

20th Oct 2015, 21:27

Sorry, but simply repeating your assertion, still without any evidence, doesn't make it any more true.

T6 would clearly be necessary to support the ~700,000 ATMs that a third runway would allow. Please provide some evidential basis for your argument that traffic with two runways, even allowing for a gradual increase in average aircraft size, would necessitate additional terminal capacity over and above that of the proposed East/West toast-rack configuration.Apology accepted. BTW, it's 740,000 movements in total with a third rwy.

LHR-3 will eventually be demolished to make way for extra "toastracks" for completed LHR-1/2 and for LHR-5. The existing occupants of LHR-3 (mostly Oneworld carriers) have to go somewhere and this will LHR-6, which will be located adjacant to LHR-5 (BA and IB and maybe EI by then(?)) thus locating all of One world near eachother.

Unfortunately, the airside of LHR-6 cannot be to the west because of the M25 and the Poyle trading estate, so it would probably go north as per the plans with a third rwy.

Sooner or later, probably later, this will be needed. Speculation at this time, and will be until December, when the government runs away from a decison in favour of a third rwy.

It was always said that there would be no LHR-4, then later, no LHR-5, but both terminals were built without rwy expansion, and after the government had declared LHR "full" (1977).

Very good point, however it's maybe worth considering the terms of what you're saying. If you want to serve the UK market via long haul, LHR has both historically and currently performed better than anywhere else. No one would seek to serve "the UK market" from MAN *only*, whereas loads serve the UK market from LHR only.
Compare LHR:MAN like for like in terms of frequency of those carriers offering service from both airports.(if someone wants to do capacity feel free)
It's skewed way beyond population density I think?

Eastbound
CX 5:1
SQ 4:1 (split with MUC)
EK 5:3
EY 2:3
QR 6:2

Westbound
UA 17:2
AA 17:3
DL 12:1
DL / VS 35:4
AC 12: 1 (MAN = Rouge and seasonal)
FI 2:1
BA well......maybe not.
Also check out the aircraft size in each case and number of seats on offer.......

DaveReidUK

20th Oct 2015, 22:51

Unfortunately, the airside of LHR-6 cannot be to the west because of the M25 and the Poyle trading estate, so it would probably go north as per the plans with a third rwy.

Again, an assertion accompanied by absolutely no evidence.

Please provide a link to anything published that shows a plan for T6 if R3 is not built.

roverman

20th Oct 2015, 23:11

Skipness,

If what is currently on the MAN thread is to be believed, and that seems to have some basis, then a long-haul carrier will indeed serve the UK from MAN only.

Shed-on-a-Pole

20th Oct 2015, 23:34

Skipness - You missed a key Westbound scheduled TA operator: MAN's largest.

TCX 0:5 [Summer 2016]. Also TSC 0:1.5 - if we're counting ACA then TSC qualifies too. Eastbound MAN also offers SVA, PIA, IAW and (coming soon) Shaheen Air plus the hotly tipped Hainan services. Thomson long-haul is also 0:2.

Of course, we all know that LHR offers a far larger long-haul programme than MAN ... is that really the point you're trying to make? Why? But if you are going to engage in this exercise, then you must play fair and not exclude those carriers whose operations favour MAN's side of the calculation.

Trash 'n' Navs

21st Oct 2015, 06:04

The existing occupants of LHR-3 (mostly Oneworld carriers) have to go somewhere and this will LHR-6, which will be located adjacant to LHR-5 (BA and IB and maybe EI by then(?)) thus locating all of One world near each other.

Wrong Frank.

T3 airlines will move in to an expanded T2.

Trash 'n' Navs

21st Oct 2015, 06:24

if you are going to engage in this exercise, then you must play fair and not exclude those carriers whose operations favour MAN's side of the calculation.

Equally Shed, if you're going to introduce airlines that only operate from MAN, then you have to include those only operating from LHR.

But as Skip said:
Compare LHR:MAN like for like in terms of frequency of those carriers offering service from both airports

It was comparing LHR:MAN like for like in terms of frequency of those carriers offering service from both airports.

Shed-on-a-Pole

21st Oct 2015, 07:56

Equally Shed, if you're going to introduce airlines that only operate from MAN, then you have to include those only operating from LHR.

T&N: This may surprise you, but for once I completely agree with you. If you're going to conduct a statistical exercise, then you must include all the data affecting both subject airports to yield meaningful results.

Skipness may do better to stick with the raw passenger stats per route or such like. Or even compare total long-haul pax per airport. But again, this only proves that LHR has a far stronger long-haul market than MAN which nobody here is disputing. What is the point of even arguing over this?

Skipness One Echo

21st Oct 2015, 09:34

If what is currently on the MAN thread is to be believed, and that seems to have some basis, then a long-haul carrier will indeed serve the UK from MAN only.
Hainan of course and well done to MAN. However this is old school bilateral routing rather than commercially driven open market profit seeking.
The schedule is, not the best in terms of timings, let's hope it does better than their sister company's LGW-HKG.

FFHKG

21st Oct 2015, 11:49

In the past, used to fly regularly from out of PEK, PVG & HKG and was always surprised at the number of passengers connecting onto to MAN (and the regions) on these flights. With CX getting a LF of 90%+ out of MAN, it does suggest that there is indeed a market and that HN's MAN/PEK route will not suffer the same fate as their sister company did with its HKG/LGW flights. If they get their price structure right, they might even make an impact on the ME3's connecting traffic from the N of E to East Asia!

DaveReidUK

21st Oct 2015, 11:54

Wrong Frank.

T3 airlines will move in to an expanded T2.Correct, the long-term plan is for several phases of expansion, to provide the following total ballpark capacities:

Current T2A/T2B: 20 mppa
+T2E: 30 mppa
+T2D: 40 mppa
+T2C: 50 mppa

Whether and when those all happen is obviously dependent on R3 going ahead. With no R3, the suggestion that T6 needs to be built to accommodate displaced carriers while T3 disappears under the toast-rack is, frankly, ludicrous.

Prophead

21st Oct 2015, 12:32

There is no need for T6 without R3. The current construction work at LHR is all about aligning everything with the East/West runways rather than around the old star shaped system.

Can't we forget any Manchester talk now and keep this thread about turning the UK's premium airport into a major hub? The customers are already waiting, we don't need to worry about that. The money is waiting to be invested we have no issues there.

It really should be a no brainer and I am only glad the nimby's never had as much power in the days of the railway boom or the construction of the motorway network or we would be well and truly scuppered.

Shed-on-a-Pole

21st Oct 2015, 12:39

keep this thread about turning the UK's premium airport into a major hub?

But I thought you said you didn't want to talk about MAN! :-)

The money is waiting to be invested we have no issues there.

Errr ... Hang on a minute. You haven't really been paying attention, have you?

It really should be a no brainer

For folks who don't know how to work a calculator, maybe!

Prophead

21st Oct 2015, 13:03

Errr ... Hang on a minute. You haven't really been paying attention, have you?

I have been paying attention for years, I worked on R3 related infrastructure 8 years ago. The money from investors has never been a problem and I doubt it ever will be as the business case is so good.

For folks who don't know how to work a calculator, maybe!

Maybe you can enlighten me? Why don't the figures stack up? What is it that the people ready to invest megabucks have missed that you seem to know about?

Any legitimate issues need to be looked at but I get really annoyed when these things are just kicked further down the road for political reasons.

Shed-on-a-Pole

21st Oct 2015, 13:48

The money from investors has never been a problem

And the money required from taxpayer funds?

I doubt it ever will be as the business case is so good.

Re-read from Post 3662 for alternative interpretations of this.

Maybe you can enlighten me? Why don't the figures stack up?

Where has the anguished facepalm emoticon gone? Seriously, in planning this answer I recalled a poster criticising this thread for going round in circles. I found that comment in Post No. 3664. Turns out it was posted by you!

Post 3662 addresses your question directly. Subsequent postings debate matters arising. You may have been "paying attention for years". But apparently you weren't paying attention when all this was discussed in depth a couple of weeks ago.

Prophead

21st Oct 2015, 14:32

And the money required from taxpayer funds?

£5bn? For upgraded M4, M25 (Which needs doing anyway) and a national hub airport benefiting the whole of the UK? Over £18bn total cost, mostly from foreign investment which will itself possibly generate tax equal to most of the initial £5bn?

Do it.

And what's more, should any project anywhere else provide the same benefit and have attracted the outside investment then build that too.

I am not against investment in the North the same way you're against further investment in the south but if I were paying for it and hoping for a good return then I know where I would be putting my money.

If the large scale infrastructure projects in the north can attract the investment and provide a similar business case to that of R3 then great. I would see no reason not to go ahead. Again, it's not me that has to be convinced. Hopefully the Chinese will go away from their visit with some good plans for further investment.

Re-read from Post 3662 for alternative interpretations of this

YOUR post by any chance? Sorry, but I will accept the findings of the government and those who are willing to put billions of £££ on the line over your own.

You have still not acknowledged the fact that much of the infrastructure included in the surface works needs investment anyway. Being where it is the M25/M4 in that area is a major asset that needs attention and investment should the runway go ahead or not.

Shed-on-a-Pole

21st Oct 2015, 15:15

£5bn?

Or is it £10Bn (Sir Peter Hendy). Or £20Bn (TfL). Which everybody is saying they will not pay up for.

you're against further investment in the south

I've always been completely clear that I do not oppose investment in the south. But I do endorse fair and equitable distribution of public infrastructure funding nationwide. And that means that the SE is due for a pause after 30 years of monopolising the kitty to give other regions a chance to get their turn and play catch-up.

I know where I would be putting my money.

If you personally can provide the £5Bn - £20Bn required to eliminate the public funding requirement then feel free to put your money into LHR R3. However, if that funding is actually to be provided by the rest of us then deeper concerns must be addressed.

YOUR post by any chance? Sorry, but I will accept the findings of the government and those who are willing to put billions of £££ on the line over your own.

My post(s) which cited several expert sources and which were not a simple personal opinion piece. You can accept whatever findings you like, but don't then insist to the rest of us that the R3 proposals are a "no brainer" just because you contemptuously ignore alternative expert opinion which does not support your pre-conceived preferred outcome.

You have still not acknowledged the fact that much of the infrastructure included in the surface works needs investment anyway.

I acknowledge that there are priority infrastructure projects nationwide which require a combined public funding total far exceeding what is actually available. It is a matter of allocating scarce public resources. And those projects of merit around the regions which have been on hold for 30+ years deserve their turn with no further delay. And yes, they benefit UKplc as a whole too. London does not have a monopoly on the national interest.

Prophead

21st Oct 2015, 15:37

I would agree with your comments were we talking about the surface works in isolation and not as part of a larger project.

This is not a matter of deciding which projects to put taxpayers money into and the need to provide equal funding around the UK.

It is to do with a private company with a strong business case to upgrade its asset and provide the UK with billions of extra income. As part of this plan there is also the need to upgrade the transport infrastructure around the site.

To do this at the same time as the project will benefit those driving straight past LHR along the M25 or M4 as well as those going to/from the airport. It will be sensible to carry out this work as part of the larger expansion scheme than separately further down the line.

Yes, that money could also be spent elsewhere but without the same return the UK plc will get from R3.

I acknowledge that there are priority infrastructure projects nationwide which require a combined public funding total far exceeding what is actually available. It is a matter of allocating scarce public resources. And those projects of merit around the regions which have been on hold for 30+ years deserve their turn with no further delay. And yes, they benefit UKplc as a whole too. London does not have a monopoly on the national interest.

No it doesn't but it does attract the foreign investment. Maybe we should tell them they need to put their money into alternative projects that have been waiting for funding for 30+ years and see how fast they run.

It is not about where we put our money unfortunately but about where the outside money wants to be and how we can benefit from that.

Shed-on-a-Pole

21st Oct 2015, 16:07

but without the same return the UK plc will get from R3

Far too much conjecture in that reply, Prophead. Opinion, not fact. The finances relating to this project are far from the "no brainer" you would have us believe. There is a serious debate to be had and our politicians need to engage on that level. Funding issues have not been subjected to the necessary scrutiny.

Maybe we should tell them they need to put their money into alternative projects that have been waiting for funding for 30+ years and see how fast they run.

Nice soundbite. Ferrovial will invest only in their own business. Nobody will be dictating to them what to do with internal company funds. But on the subject of foreign investment generally, I suspect that we will see on Friday that regional projects of merit can be attractive based upon competent planning and the full support of government. Let's see how fast the Chinese run then. And ADUG [Abu Dhabi United Group] don't appear to be running away too quickly either.

Trash 'n' Navs

21st Oct 2015, 19:03

The finances relating to this project are far from the "no brainer" you would have us believe.

Far too much conjecture in that reply, Shed. Opinion, not fact.

There is a serious debate to be had and our politicians need to engage on that level. Funding issues have not been subjected to the necessary scrutiny.

Nice soundbite.

Shed-on-a-Pole

21st Oct 2015, 19:07

Hilarious coming from you, T&N. Well done!!!

Trash 'n' Navs

21st Oct 2015, 19:08

Hilarious coming from you, T&N. Well done!!!

I'm glad you find your own words hilarious.

Trash 'n' Navs

21st Oct 2015, 19:15

Check out Highways England for an announcement in 2014 about planned upgrades to the M25 & M4 near Heathrow.

They're working through scheme design now. So public funding will already be allocated. Don't see how Heathrow can be billed for work that's already planned for and required regardless of any additional runway.

Fairdealfrank

22nd Oct 2015, 00:49

Please provide a link to anything published that shows a plan for T6 if R3 is not built.

Wrong Frank.

T3 airlines will move in to an expanded T2.

Correct, the long-term plan is for several phases of expansion, to provide the following total ballpark capacities:

Current T2A/T2B: 20 mppa
+T2E: 30 mppa
+T2D: 40 mppa
+T2C: 50 mppa

Whether and when those all happen is obviously dependent on R3 going ahead. With no R3, the suggestion that T6 needs to be built to accommodate displaced carriers while T3 disappears under the toast-rack is, frankly, ludicrous.

Don't gorget, 5D and 5E have to go somewhere as well. Speculation on my part but wait and see, things change, especially over such a long timespan. Would say more likely than not.

This is a rumour network, the clue's in the name.

Trash 'n' Navs

22nd Oct 2015, 08:09

Rumour = a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth

Conjecture = an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information

Supposition = a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis

Prophead

22nd Oct 2015, 08:10

Nice soundbite. Ferrovial will invest only in their own business. Nobody will be dictating to them what to do with internal company funds.

Ferrovial only own around 25% of BAA. They won't be paying for it all and will probably borrow the money they do put in. Most of the funding will be from the various other owners which are a mixture of wealth funds and investment groups and finance raised from other overseas investors.

All this money is coming out of the same few pots. (Ming Vases).

Dannyboy39

22nd Oct 2015, 18:29

Don't forget, 5D and 5E have to go somewhere as well.There isn't going to be a 5D/5E is there? Anything between 2A/5C will be T2/T3 satellites.

Something I don't understand and seems to be ignored in the current plans - the future of T4. It's already a bit of an anomaly; on the south side of the airport, which causes operational issues and is mainly manned by those airlines that aren't part of an alliance club. The new train that will connect passengers from T6-T5-T2 seems to miss T4 altogether.

DaveReidUK

22nd Oct 2015, 21:22

There isn't going to be a 5D/5E is there?

No, that's more nonsense/rumour/conjecture/supposition. :O

The proposed final configuration for the "toast rack" (reading from west to east) is:

T6A T5A T5B T5C T2D T2E T2A T2B T2C

Bagso

8th Nov 2015, 07:33

Heathrow: Cameron 'preparing to drop opposition to third runway' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11981863/Heathrow-Cameron-preparing-to-drop-opposition-to-third-runway.html)

Good news for Heathrow RW3 this morning.

MANFOD

8th Nov 2015, 08:14

Yes, it probably is, especially as it's expecting the pro-Heathrow George Osborne to make the announcement. The article did include this however.

Justine Greening, the Tory MP for Putney and International Development Secretary, has promised to continue fighting against expansion at Heathrow.
She has told her constituents that she has been assured by Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, that there will be a new public consultation on plans before a final decision is taken.
The high costs of expanding Heathrow and the impact on the environment, including noise and air pollution, remain the subjects of considerable argument.

Not sure what McLoughlin's alleged assurance refers to or 'final decision' means. There is an impression perhaps from this and previous comments he remains to be convinced.

Sounds like it might be approved in principle subject to various qualifications that will drag the thing out.

DaveReidUK

8th Nov 2015, 08:40

Soundslike it might be approved in principle subject to various qualifications that will drag the thing out.

Time to board over the swimming pool again. :O

FlyingEagle21

8th Nov 2015, 10:22

Something I don't understand and seems to be ignored in the current plans - the future of T4. It's already a bit of an anomaly; on the south side of the airport, which causes operational issues and is mainly manned by those airlines that aren't part of an alliance club. The new train that will connect passengers from T6-T5-T2 seems to miss T4 altogether.

Looks like EZY have their eyes on a T4 operation of around 30 aircraft if R3 is given the go ahead and it seems they have the backing from HAL..

easyJet and HAL agreed that the suitability of Heathrow for easyJet’s operations would be tested against Terminal 4. easyJet toured Terminal 4 and discussed operational issues around the terminal with HAL.
easyJet indicated that they would be interested in basing between 15 and 30 aircraft at Heathrow and carry between 5 and 9 million passengers annually on around 30-55,000 Air Traffic Movements per year. This was based on easyJet’s modelling of market demand and operational business case. easyJet clarified that the exact scale of the fleet and passenger numbers would be based on a number of factors, including the economic environment at the time, opportunities in other markets and the like.
The potential to depart all easyJet home based aircraft from between 6am and 8am was assessed. HAL noted based on initial analysis that this was feasible. easyJet believed this aligned well with predominantly foreign based carriers that arrive early morning in Terminal 4 (leaving stands available after easyJet’s early morning departures) and depart in the evening (thereby freeing up stands for easyJet to park overnight).
Stands
The number of stands available at Terminal 4 and any potential fit for an easyJet operation was assessed. HAL confirmed that Terminal 4 has 35 stands today. easyJet believes this is sufficient for its scale of future operation. Heathrow noted that it would provide stands for as many aircraft as possible based on all airlines’ requirements and not on preference alone as consistent with the stand allocation process today. Heathrow also noted that its aim is for stands to be utilised in the most efficient manner possible.
HAL also noted that the stands in Terminal 4 are, or could be converted to, MARS stands that can accommodate easyJet’s narrow body fleet (Code C) as well as the wide body fleet of foreign based carriers that could also operate out of Terminal 4.
Walk-in-walk-out
easyJet assessed the extent to which Terminal 4 is suitable for walk-in-walk-out operations. HAL believed that easyJet could physically use Terminal 4’s existing facility for walk-in-walk-out operations, allowing boarding of aircraft using both front and back doors.

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

Bagso

8th Nov 2015, 14:12

Will be interesting to see if EZY get a foot in the the door

It will certainly have a massive impact on BA ops and Heathrows hub status.

Must confess I thought that was the whole point of maintaining the hub in the first place ?

It's has always confused me that many supporters of RW3 have suggested their support is because they want a hub and yet at the same time they seem somewhat oblivious to the fact that an airline like EZY could impact a number of routes and make them commercially vulnerable thus undermining the whole hub philosophy!

It will also be curtains for many LGW routes.

canberra97

8th Nov 2015, 14:45

Although a very interesting and detailed account of Easyjet and their preference for a third runway at Heathrow the article does date from January 2015 and not recently commissioned, although I assume nothing has changed since then except for a few potential destinations they have listed.

Skipness One Echo

8th Nov 2015, 15:27

Yet again Bagso, you're mistaken. All the major operators at LHR are keen to grab as many interlining passengers as possible, it's not just BA who use LHR as a connection opportunity. This is why all the STAR airlines (come on Air India!!) are under one roof and most of Skyteam as well. It's not just a hub for one airline, it's a major spoke and connecting on point for loads more.
It is now contrary to IAG's commercial interests for LHR to be opened up again as they've just dragged BA short haul into profit and EZY would impact that profit centre massively.
However the consumer would likely win as BA would be forced to drop point to point fares in Europe at the same time as opening up new long haul. The down side is you bet everyone will be driving staff costs even further down to pay for it all.

Bagso

8th Nov 2015, 17:40

But surely you want BA to be running the majority of that hub !

Yes there us an upside for the consumer but are you not driving The Words Favourite into the ground ?

Trash 'n' Navs

8th Nov 2015, 19:40

I'm sure that's what WW will claim with a heavy dose of veracity...

However propping up a commercial organisation to the detriment of the entire economy isn't the best idea I've heard lately.

wallp

8th Nov 2015, 20:27

How many hotels are there on site at Heathrow - what and where are they?

DaveReidUK

8th Nov 2015, 21:55

How many hotels are there on site at Heathrow - what and where are they?

Depends what you mean by "on site".

If you restrict yourself to within the airport boundary, there are only a handful, but plenty more just outside it, along the Bath Road on the northside for example.

Bagso

9th Nov 2015, 06:09

Trash N Navs

...but it's BA that are providing the connectivity to the regional points in the UK !!!!!

I don't agree with RW3 I think the ship has sailed BUT if we are going ahead let's not throw out the main basis on which it is being sold.

ie connectivity to the region's and the tsunami of wealth which will wash over us.(..not)

It's BA that provide that connectivity not STAR.

Trash 'n' Navs

9th Nov 2015, 20:42

...but it's BA that are providing the connectivity to the regional points in the UK !!!!!

At the moment - but it doesn't always have to be that way. With the extra slots R3 will open up, I hope pax get better choice.

It's BA that provide that connectivity not STAR.
STAR will feed anyone that has domestic connections - all about consumer choice.

But surely you want BA to be running the majority of that hub !

Why? What's wrong with competition? Protectionism is not the right way to develop the UK's regional connectivity.

Fairdealfrank

10th Nov 2015, 21:25

...but it's BA that are providing the connectivity to the regional points in the UK !!!!!

I don't agree with RW3 I think the ship has sailed BUT if we are going ahead let's not throw out the main basis on which it is being sold.

ie connectivity to the region's and the tsunami of wealth which will wash over us.(..not)

It's BA that provide that connectivity not STAR.
Not quite as simple as that. The third rwy is "being sold" on many aspects and most realise how vital and badly needed it is. Domestic connectivity is just one, albeit an important one.

Only BA provide domestic connectivity at present since the demise of BD, but with a third rwy there will be other carriers. U2 plan to use LHR-4 for their future operations which will also include some domestic connectivity.

U2 are unlikely to be the only ones, would expect BD regional and BE to be present at LHR plus some of the holiday-focused companies. Many UK carriers and others would probably want a share of pax in the Thames Valley, the wealthy catchment area around LHR, and to be able to offer them an alternative to travelling accross or around London to other airports.

Plus there are the business travellers to/from the many companies (300+?) that have their headquarters locally, mainly because of proximity to LHR.

Star carriers do offer connectivity at present at LHR as do those of Oneworld and Skyteam, that's the reason the alliances are grouped together by terminal.

At the moment - but it doesn't always have to be that way. With the extra slots R3 will open up, I hope pax get better choice.
Yes, this will happen with with a third rwy. Slots will become available for free and the secondary slot market will disappear, allowing new carriers realistic access to LHR. 50% of the new slots will be allocated to new entrants.

Why? What's wrong with competition? Protectionism is not the right way to develop the UK's regional connectivity.
Indeed.

BHX5DME

11th Nov 2015, 06:30

A record 6.56 million passengers chose to travel through Heathrow in October (+3.9% on October 2014), making it the busiest October to date
Larger, fuller, quieter aircraft continued to drive passenger growth at Heathrow. Seats per aircraft increased 2.1% to 209.3 while load factors increased 2.3% to 77.9% and passengers per aircraft rose 4.5% to 162.9
Within emerging markets, passenger volumes were particularly strong to Mexico which was up 28%, China up 18% and to the Middle East which was up 7% as carriers continue to benefit from new aircraft including A380s
Emerging market cargo volumes at Heathrow, the UK’s largest port by value, increased 3.4% over the past 12 months – notably to Turkey up 26% and Brazil up 7% - underlining the export growth potential an expanded Heathrow with up to 40 new long-haul connections would deliver
Giving evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, Chief Executive John Holland-Kaye announced a “triple lock” guarantee that will enable Heathrow expansion to be delivered within EU air quality limits
Heathrow is beginning engagement with the freight industry on a cargo blueprint that will double Heathrow’s cargo capacity and boost the UK’s global export competitiveness by enabling faster, more efficient cargo movements
Strong momentum for expansion continued to build amongst business leaders and key politicians. CBI President Paul Drechsler urged “strong political leadership and decisive action” from Government in his address to the business group’s annual conference and 26 Northern Labour MPs wrote an open letter declaring their support and demonstrating that expansion remains a nationwide issue

Heathrow CEO John Holland-Kaye said:
“Another record month for passenger growth, particularly to emerging economies, shows the urgent need for expansion at Heathrow. We can create the world's best connected and most sustainable hub airport, ensuring Britain remains at the heart of the global economy for future generations. Let's build it.”

Red Four

11th Nov 2015, 13:00

Good article in the Evening Standard today, in my opinion it accurately reflects the opinion of the majority of ordinary Londoner's and the reasons why expanding LHR with a 3rd runway would be wrong.

Simon Jenkins: Don?t buy the idea that Heathrow expansion is ?good for the nation? | Comment | London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/simon-jenkins-don-t-buy-the-idea-that-heathrow-expansion-is-good-for-the-nation-a3111111.html)

PAXboy

11th Nov 2015, 15:27

Mr Jenkins is getting old and an old fashioned 'rant' is no substitute for the reasoned journalism he used to write. Setting that aside, he does himself no favours by saying,Endless pledges from the airlines of new, clean and silent planes are never delivered. As I have lived under the paths of LHR (West and now North) for some 30 years, I can tell him that the A380 is a lot quieter than a 707 and even some of the smaller Airbus machines. Also, he knows that no one ever said 'silent' but 'quieter' - which has happened.

At least he is correct: New York, Paris, Moscow and Hong Kong don’t do it. Heathrow was only allowed to grow because gutless ministers dared not stand up to the airlines lobby. But fails to point out that physical space allowed those four places to have more options. But, having then railed about pollution, he fails to talk about the current problem of pollution caused by the long taxi waits and the long holding patterns for landing.

Lastly, I think a lot of Londoners just don't care. There are far more pressing problems and since we have four airports (and even SEN taking some Essex traffic) to choose from, they don't see the problem one way or the other.

Porky Speedpig

11th Nov 2015, 16:29

I agree with you PAXboy, having lived under the north, west and now southerly tracks. For those currently under flight paths, things will improve overnight if/when R3 opens as more or less the same traffic will be distributed over 3 areas and not 2. There will not suddenly be a 50pc increase in demand.
By the time the runway fills up, at the current rate of progress, aircraft will be virtually silent. People are judging this by historic standards and the airport PR machine is very poor in this respect. An A380 rotated next to my car the other night and in no way could the noise be considered at nuisance value. Similarly a 787 on final approach is almost literally silent any more than a couple of hundred yards away. Any doubters can hear for themselves in any of the local pub car parks.

DaveReidUK

11th Nov 2015, 21:29

For those currently under flight paths, things will improve overnight if/when R3 opens as more or less the same traffic will be distributed over 3 areas and not 2. There will not suddenly be a 50pc increase in demand.

It's not quite as simple as that.

While movements will be shared across three runways rather than two, only communities under the current 27R flightpath are likely to notice that there are, initially, longer gaps between arrivals until traffic increases to fill the additional runway capacity.

While those under the 27L approach will also get fewer movements, initially, those movements will be spread over 75% of the day, cutting alternation respite from the current 50% to 25%. The same will apply to communities under the new northern runway arrival flightpath.

Needless to say, opposition to that prospect is one of central planks of the current anti-R3 campaign.

AerRyan

11th Nov 2015, 21:46

I still find it quite funny that Heathrow actually has alot more capacity they are just not allowed to use it! Takeoffs and landings should be allowed simultaneously from both runways, adding alot more capacity and cutting the cost by alot! Heathrow has been there long enough for the originally concerned residents to have moved or died. Anyone one who moved in after should have been aware of the consequences.

DaveReidUK

11th Nov 2015, 22:16

I still find it quite funny that Heathrow actually has alot more capacity they are just not allowed to use it! Takeoffs and landings should be allowed simultaneously from both runways, adding alot more capacity and cutting the cost by alot!

Studies and simulations showed that mixed mode on Heathrow's current runways would only produce a fairly modest increase in capacity of about 60,000 ATMs pa on top of the current limit of 480,000.

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/252159-mixed-mode-heathrow.html

eggc

11th Nov 2015, 22:44

12.5% is modest ? It's fairly substantial considering no physical expansion required to gain it ! Must read that link and read why that should not be implemented like yesterday...

kcockayne

11th Nov 2015, 23:01

Mixed Mode . Another "Tunnels In The Sky" ???

Fairdealfrank

12th Nov 2015, 02:12

Good article in the Evening Standard today, in my opinion it accurately reflects the opinion of the majority of ordinary Londoner's and the reasons why expanding LHR with a 3rd runway would be wrong.
But does it? How do you know? Would imagine that the majority of Londoners have more important things to worry about, such as housing, jobs, woefully inadequate wages for many, cost of living, kids getting into debt, etc., etc..

LHR expansion has never been an election issue and no seats have changed hands because of it, and because of this, and no independent specifically anti-LHR expansion candidate has ever stood for election.

As I have lived under the paths of LHR (West and now North) for some 30 years, I can tell him that the A380 is a lot quieter than a 707 and even some of the smaller Airbus machines. Also, he knows that no one ever said 'silent' but 'quieter' - which has happened.
Very much quieter in fact. Have lived under the LHR flightpath for even longer than PAXboy's 30 years, and can confirm that his comment is 100% accurate.

With reference to New York, Paris and Hong Kong, Jenkins is wrong again. New York has three airports all nearer the city than LHR is to London, the same applies to Paris's two airports, and all those airports are located well within those cities' conurbations and not in open countryside. In the case of Hong Kong, the airport had to be relocated for obvious physical reasons and that airport, too, is within the Hong Kong conurbation.

But fails to point out that physical space allowed those four places to have more options. But, having then railed about pollution, he fails to talk about the current problem of pollution caused by the long taxi waits and the long holding patterns for landing.
Jenkins also fails to mention the pollution caused by diesel vehicles generally and that pollution on busy roads up in London is far worse than out at Heathrow. The same can be said for noise!

Of course the anti-expansion lobby are happy with the status quo and the pollution caused by the all-day congestion at LHR which means 20 minute queues to takeoff and 20 minutes of circling before landing. They have no answers.

All in all, a pretty rubbish article.

It's not quite as simple as that.

While movements will be shared across three runways rather than two, only communities under the current 27R flightpath are likely to notice that there are, initially, longer gaps between arrivals until traffic increases to fill the additional runway capacity.

While those under the 27L approach will also get fewer movements, initially, those movements will be spread over 75% of the day, cutting alternation respite from the current 50% to 25%. The same will apply to communities under the new northern runway arrival flightpath.

Needless to say, opposition to that prospect is one of central planks of the current anti-R3 campaign.
As it was explained to me at a Heathrow public consultation in Richmond, with three rwys, one is for takeoffs, one for landing and one for both. This would rotate through the three rwys over a three day period. Good job then that aircraft are increasingly quieter and cleaner.

For the present levels of respite to be maintained with expansion, four rwys would be necessary.

I still find it quite funny that Heathrow actually has alot more capacity they are just not allowed to use it! Takeoffs and landings should be allowed simultaneously from both runways, adding alot more capacity and cutting the cost by alot! Heathrow has been there long enough for the originally concerned residents to have moved or died. Anyone one who moved in after should have been aware of the consequences.
Apparently, permanent mixed mode on two rwys would create less than 10% extra movements, with no respite whatsoever for flightpath residents.

Heathrow management are against permanent mixed mode and that's probably the reason why.

Of course "anyone who moved in after should have been aware of the consequences" but those consequences were, and are, rwy alternation.

PerryOaks

12th Nov 2015, 12:17

LHR expansion has never been an election issue and no seats have changed hands because of it, and because of this, and no independent specifically anti-LHR expansion candidate has ever stood for election.

Sorry but I must thoroughly disagree with that! Heathrow expansion has been a massive electoral issue in many constituencies, and was probably the key reason why the Tories came out against the third runway before the 2010 election (David Cameron's "no ifs, no buts" stance). It's also a key political issue in terms of London Mayoral (and Assembly) politics, and there's an election for the London Mayor and Assembly coming up in May '16.

DaveReidUK

12th Nov 2015, 16:22

As it was explained to me at a Heathrow public consultation in Richmond, with three rwys, one is for takeoffs, one for landing and one for both. This would rotate through the three rwys over a three day period.

Close, but no cigar.

The proposed alternation scheme would have four, rather than three, phases.

The reason is that the centre runway (the current northern one) can't be used in mixed mode for ATC reasons, so it would continue to operate in segregated mode with landings 50% of the time and takeoffs the other 50% (as at present).

The proposed new northern runway and the current southern one would operate in mixed mode 50% of the time, segregated arrivals-only mode 25% of the time and departures-only mode the remaining 25%.

So the Arrivals/Mixed-mode/Departures pattern would look like

09L/27R: M D A M
09C/27C: D A D A
09R/27L: A M M D

I don't recall seeing any statement about how frequently the runway roles would switch, it might well be daily but other options including the current 3pm changeover would obviously be feasible as well.

Bagso

12th Nov 2015, 16:51

I suspect those who have swallowed the BackHeathrow line have done so based on the simple expansion of the robust model that operates "as at today" with BA a "UK" airline continuing to shuttle pax and provide service to various UK domestic points !

Very nice and all very fluffy but not quite the reality of what may happen 10 years down the line !!!!!!!

I cannot for the life of me think that any of these groups are offering support for RW3 based on the wholesale change being promoted here.

Or the premise of BA pulling GLA, EDI, LBA, etc only to be replaced by the likes of BMI regional Flybe or EZY...
They won't be dancing in the streets of Auchtermuchty based on that notion !

AND using the EZY model as a positive for expansion from T4 really does beggar belief. Yes 100% great for the consumer flying say Scotland to London ...and back ! Point to point all housed in one terminal but totally useless for domestic / long haul connectivity which is after all the primary basis on which this is being sold!

EZY will cherry pick prime routes "supposedly" some of these will almost crucially be those which make the whole "UK" hub concept viable, on the other hand it is of course possible they may even create a mini hub themselves "Inverness to Paris, is an example but that isn't Edinburgh to Melbourne via LHR on BA is it and that is after all what BackHeathrow are pumping out as the lead headline!

Providing a new runway just for routes such as JFK - Prague pax isn't really helping the UK !

And what of cost?

Heathrow will be sinking under the weight of new debt so will pass that on, they are already talking about slashing wages by 30% and renogotiating contracts, are we seriously suggesting an airline like FlyBe who have recently pulled out of Gatwick and who have witnessed the demise of Virgin would contemplate taking on BA routes?

I mean really ?

Gonzo

12th Nov 2015, 17:25

As far as I'm aware, HAL's submission only outlined the four modes, and did not state anything about what proportion they would operate in each mode, nor how often they rotate modes.

Indeed, the submission states:

By rotating these three uses around
the three runways

Which is not too far from what Fdf was told. Someone has just conflated that to mean three modes, operated equally.

DaveReidUK

12th Nov 2015, 18:48

did not state anything about what proportion they would operate in each mode

How would you interpret "provide those living near the airport with periods of respite ... distributed on as equitable a basis as possible", other than meaning that each of the 4 phases would apply for the same amount of time, on average ?

nor how often they rotate modesYes, that was my point.

Personally, I think they should rotate modes every hour to keep the controllers on their toes. :O

goldeneye

13th Nov 2015, 13:50

Are there any plans for Aer Lingus to relocate to T5 with BA and Iberia, or are they going to remain at T2 for the foreseeable future.

Libertine Winno

15th Nov 2015, 12:32

Given that a) Aer Lingus have only just moved to T2 and b) BA are currently having to split operations into T3 as well as T5 given that there's not enough space in T5 alone, I think we can safely assume the shamrocks will be staying put for the time being!

BAladdy

17th Nov 2015, 10:12

Vueling will operate a daily A320 service to BCN from LHR between 17DEC15 and 25FEB16 according to airlineroute.net

VY7842 BCN 09:50 LHR 11:15 320 D
VY7843 LHR 12:25 BCN 15:40 320 D

Vueling Adds Barcelona ? London Heathrow Service Dec 2015 ? Feb 2016 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2015/11/17/vy-bcnlhr-dec15/)

Prophead

17th Nov 2015, 15:02

I suspect those who have swallowed the BackHeathrow line have done so based on the simple expansion of the robust model that operates "as at today" with BA a "UK" airline continuing to shuttle pax and provide service to various UK domestic points !

Actually no, why do you assume everyone is so eager to use BA?

The long haul portion of the flight will be chosen by airline with the initial departure being from a local airport. I doubt anyone will care who provides the shuttle down to LHR and different airlines or alliances may use different carriers.

Heathrow will be sinking under the weight of new debt so will pass that on, they are already talking about slashing wages by 30% and renogotiating contracts, are we seriously suggesting an airline like FlyBe who have recently pulled out of Gatwick and who have witnessed the demise of Virgin would contemplate taking on BA routes?

Heathrow is currently being unfairly held back by the inability of the politicians to make the decision.

As for Flybe not taking on the routes, why not? Again, just because BA are providing the domestic routes today does not mean it will stay that way. It will also not be seen as competition as such if BA are feeding their own flights. They may be happy to let somebody else feed people onto the long haul competition. The third runway will change things and open up this market to others. If Flybe don't want it then somebody will.

anothertyke

17th Nov 2015, 16:02

As for Flybe not taking on the routes, why not? Again, just because BA are providing the domestic routes today does not mean it will stay that way. It will also not be seen as competition as such if BA are feeding their own flights. They may be happy to let somebody else feed people onto the long haul competition. The third runway will change things and open up this market to others. If Flybe don't want it then somebody will.

Tend to agree. Flybe does a good job in my experience on Manchester-Paris with 75 or 90 seaters codesharing with AF. No reason why it couldn't do the same to LHR with BA. Isn't that the way most hubs work in the US? In a more competitive LHR environment, will BA really want to be running its own spoke regional routes?

CabinCrewe

17th Nov 2015, 16:23

Kalamata and Chania added for BA ex LHR.

WHBM

17th Nov 2015, 16:24

Providing a new runway just for routes such as JFK - Prague pax isn't really helping the UK !

And what of cost?

Heathrow will be sinking under the weight of new debt so will pass that on
In the regulated environment that Heathrow operate in, it serves you well to exaggerate your costs with creative accounting so you can get a higher base to measure your rate of return on.

For example, all the suggestions of costs for the new runway include the land at "current value". As property prices increase in London so the project gets progressively more expensive. However, much of the land, houses in Harmondsworth, etc, has been bought up by Heathrow over many years as it comes onto the market, it is then rented out short term (not directly, of course, but passed through a series of companies), but can be recovered without further cost when desired. But when it comes to measuring their asset base value, it will all go in at current cost.

Regarding JFK to Prague, that is just the sort of traffic you do need for a "world hub". Dubai didn't become the centre of Gulf commerce just through its own businesses, it did it because the huge range of air services to everywhere and every continent, hauling connecting passengers, also made it possible for the business community to share those flights. So yes, if connecting passengers mean BA can do 6x daily to Prague and hourly to JFK, likewise across all other destinations, that reinforces London, and Britain, as a European centre of commerce and international trade using all those flights. In recent times BA have started Belfast and Leeds, are about to start Inverness, and have reinforced Edinburgh etc. This has benefitted all those places, who can now make better connections than before to the world, and all on a UK carrier who typically buys UK goods, builds hangars in the UK with UK contractors and then employs UK engineers, gives jobs to our UK flight crew colleagues, etc.

Fairdealfrank

17th Nov 2015, 22:02

Sorry but I must thoroughly disagree with that! Heathrow expansion has been a massive electoral issue in many constituencies, and was probably the key reason why the Tories came out against the third runway before the 2010 election (David Cameron's "no ifs, no buts" stance). It's also a key political issue in terms of London Mayoral (and Assembly) politics, and there's an election for the London Mayor and Assembly coming up in May '16.
Some MPs near Heathrow have made a big deal out of opposing expansion with varying degrees of success, most haven't and won't. So to repeat, at the risk of being boring, there are many more important issues on which seats will change hands. Heathrow expansion is not one of them.

As for the mayoralty, Goldsmith is a well known opponent, Khan is a flip-flopper: presently against, formerly in favour, and who knows what in six months. No other candidates matter. That election will probably be decided on housing or national issues.

I suspect those who have swallowed the BackHeathrow line have done so based on the simple expansion of the robust model that operates "as at today" with BA a "UK" airline continuing to shuttle pax and provide service to various UK domestic points !

Very nice and all very fluffy but not quite the reality of what may happen 10 years down the line !!!!!!!

I cannot for the life of me think that any of these groups are offering support for RW3 based on the wholesale change being promoted here.

Or the premise of BA pulling GLA, EDI, LBA, etc only to be replaced by the likes of BMI regional Flybe or EZY...
They won't be dancing in the streets of Auchtermuchty based on that notion !
Why do you assume that BA will be the only carrier on domestic if there are 3 rwys? There could be several, not just BA, VY and U2 (which has stated an intention to base 30 aircraft at LHR). Of course if thinner routes are started, carriers with smaller aircraft than A319s will be needed, maybe BD reg, BE, T3, who can say?

Why do you also assume that there would be only one carrier (BA) on domestic routes?

AND using the EZY model as a positive for expansion from T4 really does beggar belief. Yes 100% great for the consumer flying say Scotland to London ...and back ! Point to point all housed in one terminal but totally useless for domestic / long haul connectivity which is after all the primary basis on which this is being sold!
U2 doesn't do interlining so it does not matter. Any carrier on a feed arrangement with one or more long haul carriers may be co-sited. There may even be more UK carriers based at LHR, shock horror.

Expansion is so far into the future or never, so one can use imaginative thinking. Try it.

EZY will cherry pick prime routes "supposedly" some of these will almost crucially be those which make the whole "UK" hub concept viable, on the other hand it is of course possible they may even create a mini hub themselves "Inverness to Paris, is an example but that isn't Edinburgh to Melbourne via LHR on BA is it and that is after all what BackHeathrow are pumping out as the lead headline!

Providing a new runway just for routes such as JFK - Prague pax isn't really helping the UK !

And what of cost?
It's not only about JFK-PRG. It's for the present as much as the future. At present there is a need to eliminate the congestion.

At present aircraft landing have to stack, then on arrival have to wait to access the stand because it is still occupied. It is still occupied because the departing aircraft cannot even join the queue for take off because it's too long. Eventually the departing aircraft joins the queue and 20 minutes passes before it's in the air.

Then there's the issue of the elimination of the secondary slot market so that costs come down and carriers can access LHR. Consequently more destinations become available and fares come down.

Actually no, why do you assume everyone is so eager to use BA?

The long haul portion of the flight will be chosen by airline with the initial departure being from a local airport. I doubt anyone will care who provides the shuttle down to LHR and different airlines or alliances may use different carriers.
Indeed.

Tend to agree. Flybe does a good job in my experience on Manchester-Paris with 75 or 90 seaters codesharing with AF. No reason why it couldn't do the same to LHR with BA. Isn't that the way most hubs work in the US? In a more competitive LHR environment, will BA really want to be running its own spoke regional routes?
Yes, given the size of its smallest aircraft, BA would probably stick to the trunk routes(?).

Baltasound

22nd Nov 2015, 22:14

The surest sign that a runway expansion in the 9th Circle of Hell is about to be given the green light:

A £130m Network Rail scheme to create a direct rail link from Reading to Heathrow airport has been confirmed as going ahead - despite an ongoing review into the infrastructure client’s spending programme.

All projects in Network Rail’s Control Period 5 (CP5) spending plan are currently on hold while its new chairman Peter Hendy carries out a review of its investment, which is due to be published in November.

However, Building can reveal that the Western Rail Access to Heathrow scheme - which will enable passengers from the west of England to travel by rail directly to Heathrow without having to change at London Paddington - is one of the schemes in the CP5 programme that has been spared the axe.

The plans will see a 5km tunnel built under the M4 and M25, which will connect with the Great Western main line at a new junction built between the Langley and Iver train stations.

The new rail line would travel above ground for 250m before entering the tunnel, and would then connect with existing platforms at Heathrow’s terminal five.

Speaking to Building, Jane Mason, economic partnership officer at Slough council and lead on the rail programme, said the project “is confirmed” subject to planning permission - due to be submitted by spring 2016.

Mason admitted there was “a bit of a slippage” with the programme due to the Hendy review, with a full stakeholder consultation yet to come.

But she said: “The scheme will go ahead. What we are unsure about is the timetable Network Rail originally committed to.

“We’re looking to see what can be done to catch up a bit and we are hoping to be as close to the original timetable as possible.”

Heathrow Airport has started the tendering process for consultancy work on a third runway, despite the project not yet receiving the go-ahead from government.

Heathrow Airport Holdings has called for expressions of interest in four key areas: programme management, information management, construction advice, and technical and design advice.

Interested firms have until 16 October to respond, after which Heathrow will draw up a shortlist.

Shortlisted companies will be formally invited to tender in November. A decision on preferred bidders is expected in early 2016

DaveReidUK

23rd Nov 2015, 08:37

The surest sign that a runway expansion in the 9th Circle of Hell is about to be given the green lightIt's generally agreed that WRATH is likely to go ahead whether or not Heathrow expansion happens, so the implication that Network Rail has somehow been given the nod doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

The article appeared in Construction News 6 weeks ago, by the way, so their prediction that R3 is "about to be given the green light" seems to have been a tad premature.

Fairdealfrank

23rd Nov 2015, 22:36

The surest sign that a runway expansion in the 9th Circle of Hell is about to be given the green light:
The western rail access to/from Heathrow is not dependent on the third rwy, it has more to with crossrail although not necessarily officially.

It is also unfinished business because of the failure to provide this access at Airport Junction.

Indeed the western rail access is likely to be in operation long before a third rwy is built (if it ever is).

DaveReidUK

24th Nov 2015, 07:06

It is also unfinished business because of the failure to provide this access at Airport Junction.

Providing access to the junction at Hayes for trains on the GWR to/from the west would have involved demolishing almost as many houses as R3.

That's why the planned junction is about 4 miles further west, between Iver and Langley stations.

Bagso

25th Nov 2015, 11:29

British Airways chief: build toll roads to help foot 'outrageous' Heathrow bill | Business | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/23/british-airways-chief-toll-roads-heathrow-third-runway)

At least the "locals" will be footing the bill.

Frank...note that reference to "outrageous costs"!
Or does WW know nothing.

Just a footnote from the spending review.

Chancellor mentioned expansion of infastructure in road, rail, energy, rivers and flood defences..... interestingly no mention of runways!

I would have thought they would have made political capital from mentioning Heathrow and
"expanding our airports".

felixflyer

25th Nov 2015, 14:02

Just a footnote from the spending review.

Chancellor mentioned expansion of infastructure in road, rail, energy, rivers and flood defences..... interestingly no mention of runways!

I would have thought they would have made political capital from mentioning Heathrow and
"expanding our airports"

Well it's the government spending review. How much do you think the government is spending on 'runways'?

Please keep up.

You seem to be clutching at straws now in your eagerness for the project not to go ahead. You must be one of the Manchester airport appreciation society members;)

Heathrow Harry

25th Nov 2015, 17:35

LHR are already talking about changing the curfew - before they even have the thrid runway

Really brilliant idea a few weeks before the announcement................

DaveReidUK

25th Nov 2015, 17:45

LHR are already talking about changing the curfew - before they even have the thrid runway

Wrong. There isn't a curfew, never has been, so the question of changing it doesn't arise.

rutankrd

25th Nov 2015, 19:34

Correct in a very technical way !

There are approximately 18 slots available after 23.01 and 06.00 every night .

Almost all were at one time used by freighters but these days are repurposed to long haul arrivals.

Depending on season the earliest arrival are 04.40 from Boston or 04.50 from Hong Kong !

What is in force is very strict slot control and noise abatement procedures.

That said when there are advantagous winds over the atlantic early arrivals are held in the air until after 06.00 .

Between 06.00 and 07.00 the runways are used in mixed mode with near parallel lands as well.

DaveReidUK

25th Nov 2015, 21:11

I think the word you are looking for is "quota".

There are approximately 18 slots available after 23.01 and 06.00 every nightThere is indeed a Night Quota of 5,800 movements per year during the night period (which actually starts at 23:30). That's 16 per day on average (in practice about 14 in the summer and 18 in the winter).

But regardless of what you call it, the OP's assertion that Heathrow are seeking to make changes to the quota/curfew any time soon is incorrect.

Instead, the issue is what happens if and when R3 is approved.

The Davies Commission has recommended that when a third runway is built it should be accompanied by a complete ban on night flights. Heathrow is refusing to accept such a ban and is pressing the Government to relax that precondition so that some night flights would still be allowed if R3 goes ahead.

Bagso

25th Nov 2015, 22:07

FelixFlyer

...well unless you have been on another planet, the taxpayer was down for £6bn but it "now" seems HAL will have to find the money for all the road/rail infastructure unless it's buried in that juicy £11bn transport for London budget!

£11bn.....

Maybe it's you that need to keep up.

lasernigel

26th Nov 2015, 06:07

Flew to Singapore last Friday. My friend who used to work at T5 has now been relocated to T3, he is definitely not happy. Looks that T5 cannot sustain the growth in BA traffic.
The other bad thing is that with the introduction of A380's into the fleet, these all go from T5 C. There is no business lounge there. With the attitude that passengers only need to know a gate number about 50 mins before take off makes things a bit of a rush from the lounge in T5 main. About time BA got a lounge in T5 C.

Trash 'n' Navs

26th Nov 2015, 06:10

And how much of that "£11bn" is already planned versus additional as a direct result of the 3rd runway?

From what I've read, a fair chunk is already planned therefore shouldn't be included.

(Note: Most plans are still being developed so final figures are hard to establish)

felixflyer

26th Nov 2015, 08:46

Bagso, I I don't know whether you are being purposely cryptic or what. You initial comment was.

Chancellor mentioned expansion of infastructure in road, rail, energy, rivers and flood defences..... interestingly no mention of runways!
Infrastructure of road and rail indeed. Runways no.

You then wrote

FelixFlyer

...well unless you have been on another planet, the taxpayer was down for £6bn but it "now" seems HAL will have to find the money for all the road/rail infastructure unless it's buried in that juicy £11bn transport for London budget!

£11bn.....

Maybe it's you that need to keep up.

You see now why I found you comment confusing?

Runways, terminals, taxiways etc. are all paid for by BAA and will not be in the governments spending review.

Transport infrastructure paid by the taxpayer will be.

Bagso

26th Nov 2015, 11:32

I never said the actual "runways" would be, clearly that is nonsense.

The taxpayer was however earmarked for surrounding roads rail and tunnels but I'm clear that recent comments by ministers have indicated that the government would not be footing the bill.

Note - nothing was referenced specifically in the Autumn Spending review in the same way as HS2. Other major projects were also detailed at a lesser cost, at 6bn I would have expected this to have appeared.

That "suggested" the treasurey was indeed playing hardball although I remain sceptical.

The reference to Transport To London was incase the cost was being submerged in the general costs of transport within London!

AndyH52

26th Nov 2015, 12:49

Note - nothing was referenced specifically in the Autumn Spending review in the same way as HS2. Other major projects were also detailed at a lesser cost, at 6bn I would have expected this to have appeared.

Bagso, work on any of the relevant transport schemes is unlikely to start in the current spending review period (i.e. to 2020/21) it should therefore not come as a surprise that it wasn't referenced by the Chancellor. Work on HS2 will start and the next steps in relation to the later phases (i.e. to Manchester and Leeds) will start their parliamentary journey in the lifetime of the current government - hence the overall funding envelope for the project being confirmed in the Autumn Statement.

Heathrow Harry

26th Nov 2015, 14:12

OK "Quota"

But LHR are already talking about more night flights - no wonder no-one trusts anything they say....................

Bagso

26th Nov 2015, 16:24

Yes I had factored in the time line but working on say 10 12 years and the current spending review taking us to 2021.

That only leaves 4 - 5 years to both start and indeed complete the widening of the M25 , new tunneling plus additional rail connectivity etc.

That seems a massive undertaking but maybe the infastructure would lag behind the runway opening.

Fairdealfrank

26th Nov 2015, 17:10

At least the "locals" will be footing the bill.

Frank...note that reference to "outrageous costs"!
Or does WW know nothing.

Just a footnote from the spending review.

Chancellor mentioned expansion of infastructure in road, rail, energy, rivers and flood defences..... interestingly no mention of runways!

I would have thought they would have made political capital from mentioning Heathrow and
"expanding our airports".
Dear oh dear, Bagso, are you really still banging on about infrastructure costs? Haven't we done this to death? Move on!

Willie Walsh obviously knows a lot, clearly a lot more than us. Try and see it from his point of view: his bosses, the shareholders expect dividends. Higher costs for IAG could mean lower dividends for shareholders.

Higher airport charges will pay for the rwy not UK taxpayers (this is a consequence of privately owned airports) and IAG will pay a large proportion of these although this will not significantly effect IAG's viability.

Walsh also knows that IAG has nowhere else to go and that, in reality, IAG will have to "suck it up". So for shareholders' benefit, he has to go through the motions. Of course if the third rwy ever materialises, we'll all be long gone, or at least retired.

George Osborne did not mention rwys perhaps because the decision has not been made public as no announcements have been made. Allegedly, a decision is imminent, but don't hold your breath.

As for M4 widening, as mentioned in the Guardian article, it will be necessary anyway, those who drive on it regularly may argue that it already needs widening. The reason is simple, between junction 3 (Hounslow) and junction 8 (Maidenhead) there are 7 junctions in about 16 mi. - that's an average of one every 2 mi. near enough.

Junctions close together = lots of lane-changing = slowing down to a crawl = congestion. It's the same on the M25 in the area. So "improvements" will happen anyway. Only the M25 and A4 tunnels are rwy related.

As for the EU-funded Irish motorways, also mentioned in the Guardian article, EU bribes helped obtain "yes" votes in the various "second time" referendums on further EU integration. These were held because the "first time" referendums produced the "wrong" answer.

If it looks like the UK may vote to leave the EU, expect a load of bribes from Brussels, a good opportunity to get all UK infrastructure paid for by the EU.

The other bad thing is that with the introduction of A380's into the fleet, these all go from T5 C. There is no business lounge there. With the attitude that passengers only need to know a gate number about 50 mins before take off makes things a bit of a rush from the lounge in T5 main. About time BA got a lounge in T5 C.
Good luck with that!

It's taken 7 years to get a lounge in LHR-5 for those not allowed in the BA lounges (i.e economy and premium economy pax, blue and bronze Executive Club members). Very fair point nonetheless!

WHBM

26th Nov 2015, 17:19

There are approximately 18 slots available after 23.01 and 06.00 every night .

Almost all were at one time used by freighters but these days are repurposed to long haul arrivals.

Depending on season the earliest arrival are 04.40 from Boston or 04.50 from Hong Kong .
This is correct for scheduling but in practice any delayed late departures or very late arrivals are able to be handled, and the balance is maintained by bringing in one or more of those due before 0600 in just after 0600. Because the limit is a global one across a season rather than a fixed amount per day this can be done when convenient. So you do get the odd 4 hours late 0200 arrival. As regularly has to be reinforced, Heathrow is a proper H24 airport, just with a night movements quota.

It is extraordinary to look at a timetable from the 1960s, when in summer there were very considerable movements in the small hours by 707s, Comets, etc, off to Mediterranean points, plus all the freighters mentioned above.

Fairdealfrank

26th Nov 2015, 17:34

Plane Stupid, an anti-Heathrow expansion group parked a transit-style van in the middle of the airport tunnel this morning. Cynically, the entry tunnel to the airport was blocked rather than the exit tunnel for maximum disruption, causing misery and aggravation for many. This caused gridlock throughout the area so it wasn't just airport-related traffic affected.

On radio and television interviews, Plane Stupid spokesmen stated that they opposed the rwy on grounds of pollution. How much pollution did they cause by bringing traffic to a standstill, idling and/or in low gear, especially all those diesel vehicles? Touch of hypocrisy there no doubt. That really is stupid.

But perhaps even more stupid is doing it a time of high threat alert, a few days after the Paris and Bamako atrocities, when everyone is very twitchy.

Stupid and reckless! They were very lucky that this stunt was not mistaken for an attack and that they are still alive. Yes, it is as serious as that, a van blocking the tunnel (probably parked directly under the rwy), what are the authorities expected to think?

Plane stupid or plain stupid?

Reckless? No question.

WHBM

26th Nov 2015, 18:00

Reckless? No question.
Well you would think so. But the radio carried reports of the van still being across the road (with 5 protesters padlocked to it) several hours after they put it there.

So much for "heightened security". Quite why the bolt cutters were not produced 5 minutes after it went in place, and the van pushed out of the way by an excavator a couple of minutes later, one can't understand. According to the news reports, no arrests were made either.

DaveReidUK

26th Nov 2015, 18:22

This is correct for scheduling but in practice any delayed late departures or very late arrivals are able to be handled, and the balance is maintained by bringing in one or more of those due before 0600 in just after 0600. Because the limit is a global one across a season rather than a fixed amount per day this can be done when convenient. So you do get the odd 4 hours late 0200 arrival.

It's rarely, if ever, necessary to displace morning arrivals as a result of delayed late-night flights.

In summer there is always sufficient unused movement quota to accommodate them, in fact it's not unknown to see some flights with an STA after 0600 that are ahead of schedule being allowed to land before 6.

In winter, while actual movements are always over the season quota limit, there is provision to carry over some unused quota from the previous summer, which is normally sufficient.

And of course during periods of prolonged disruption, flights aren't counted against the night quota at all.

Heathrow Harry

28th Nov 2015, 12:38

Like WHBM I'm pretty concerned that there was no plan in place for someone blocking the LHR tunnels - they've been an obvious target for demonstrators/terrorists ever since teh they were opened

If that had been 10 tons of explosive we'd have been down to a single runway in a few milliseconds.......................... and no way of getting to T2 & T3 except by rail or the cargo tunnel from the south...................

AndyH52

28th Nov 2015, 12:57

Bagso, one other thing to factor in is that any reference to allocating funding for projects associated with R3 would potentially have been seen as pre-determining the outcome of the Government's decision on the matter and leave the door wide open for a legal challenge (even though there are likely to be plenty of them when the decision is finally made!)

Suzeman

28th Nov 2015, 13:43

Interesting radio "interview"

'Plane Stupid' Heathrow protester ripped to shreds live on radio | London | News | London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/heathrow-protester-ripped-to-shreds-live-on-radio-a3123636.html)

And three charged

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2015/11/27/58502/three+charged+after+plane+stupid+heathrow+protest.html

bermudatriangle

28th Nov 2015, 15:44

the problem with a democracy is that nothing gets done. if and when a 3rd runway ever gets the go ahead, it will be 25 years out of date.
at least in china, if they need a new airport, they bulldoze the villages , lay the tarmac and it's up and running in 18 months.
if only the residents of sipson could be relocated and move the JCB's in, then heathrow might just be able to cope with demand. let's face it, that's not going to happen !!

DaveReidUK

28th Nov 2015, 18:16

Like WHBM I'm pretty concerned that there was no plan in place for someone blocking the LHR tunnels - they've been an obvious target for demonstrators/terrorists ever since teh they were opened

Of course there are contingency plans for a tunnel being blocked - as it has been on several previous occasions due to road accidents, no need for terrorists.

If that had been 10 tons of explosive we'd have been down to a single runway in a few milliseconds.......................... and no way of getting to T2 & T3 except by rail or the cargo tunnel from the south...................If a runway had been put out of action with a crater halfway along it, the question of access to the CTA would be a bit academic.

Bagso

30th Nov 2015, 13:02

Looming decision on Heathrow threatens to send Tories into tailspin | The Sunday Times (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1638798.ece)

For good or bad we will know this week with opening in about 20 years....

But then maybe not

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34971277

Interesting that this report which looks at environmental issues again says HAL must foot the bill for the surface transport!

Heathrow Harry

7th Dec 2015, 09:37

Story in the "Times" that the Cabinet will defer the decision on LHR 3rd runway "into 2016" due to concerns about air pollution

and so it starts.....................

Bagso

7th Dec 2015, 10:38

And not just 2016 but..... "late" 2016 !

Having said that the government could hardly sign up to the "Paris accord" then announce a 3rd runway 48 hours later!

Ironically it's actually bad news for Gatwick as well.

The long grass gets longer!

They seem to have done a good job on the BBC dressing up a substantial deferrement as the firm hand of government!

Sir Humphrey would be delighted!

Suzeman

7th Dec 2015, 17:07

BBC story here

'Six-month delay' for Heathrow decision - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35027559)

Suggests at least 6 month delay

Will then be after London Mayoral election where the two main candidates are against

Looks like they will order another Environmental review.

Likely announcement of this on Thursday

Politics at work - or not as the case may be :rolleyes:

Dannyboy39

7th Dec 2015, 18:01

That may mean demanding that Heathrow bans staff from driving to work.

Or saying that all "airside" vehicles (that is vehicles that operate within the airport's perimeter) have to be electric.

:Banghead :Banghead :Banghead

1 airport expansion being prevented won't stop global warming. Telling Americans not to use 4.6 litre "gas guzzlers" might help and stopping the Chinese building 10s of new airports every year would be a good start. Apologies for singling out two nations, but this environmental excuse is just that.

hampshireandy

7th Dec 2015, 18:35

Why cant anyone in this godforsaken country of ours ever make a damn decision!

Shed-on-a-Pole

7th Dec 2015, 18:36

Better still, let's acknowledge the real science which confirms that 'global warming' isn't happening. Climate is functioning entirely within normal historic parameters. CO2 is not evil; it is essential to plant life on Earth. The global warming scare is driven by vested-interests making money from the whole nonsense and the IPCC is a purely political beast which buries inconvenient science and ridicules well-informed critics. True debate is stifled with pretentious 'justification' in the manner of "the science is settled." Whatever the rights and wrongs of LHR expansion, climate-doom scaremongering delivered with religious fervour by the wilfully deluded should not be the determining factor in the final decision.

Demanding that Heathrow bans staff from driving to work. Well that should be quite the spectacle to behold. Good luck getting that one through. Maybe they should try it after similar measures have been imposed on all MP's, civil servants, Met Office and BBC staff!

giblets

7th Dec 2015, 19:13

Beginning to wonder if the Cameron quote was actually " no ifs, no buts, no 3rd runway at Heathrow...decision"

The today programme reported no10 as still claiming the decision would be made before the end of the year.
Perhaps they will push the decision, and then force the review?

PAXboy

7th Dec 2015, 19:41

I repeat myself: It won't get built and the airport will continue it's steady slide down the scale.

anothertyke

7th Dec 2015, 20:01

I'd be surprised if this turns out to have anything whatever to do with global warming. The carbon emissions were fully costed in the AC report. A number of contributors suggested in the 'Another runway...' thread that local air quality in semi-permanent breach of emissions standards in the Heathrow zone would be the biggest single hurdle the scheme would have to jump. Of course they said that months ago, so if the decision is postponed, the timing is interesting.

Walnut

8th Dec 2015, 12:49

Who knows whether the Politician's will summon up enough courage to make a decision but surely competition is in the best interests of everyone. So to give LGW the ability to compete must be better for society in the long run.
Its a mistake to put all your transport nodes in one area as was witnessed recently when the LHR central area tunnels closed for a short period, causing absolute chaos.

Fairdealfrank

8th Dec 2015, 21:09

Ho ho ho, even more indecision, delay, dither and procrastination!

Wasn't the Davis commission comprehensive and detailed enough?

How much taxpayers' money has been wasted on the various commissions, studies, reviews, etc. going back to the 1970s?

Bagso, have you nothing to say about this shocking waste of public money over 40 years?

Aren't "difficult" decisions supposed to be made early in a parliament, just after a general election? Doesn't the cabinet know anything?

Heathrow Harry

9th Dec 2015, 06:59

They do and they also know the old Sir Humphrey quote - a Bold decision could cost you your seat, a BRAVE decision could cost you the next election

Oddly this is OK - of all the issues facing Govt a new London runway is probably 99th out of 100 in importance (I know most people on here disagree but this IS a flying forum)

if it isn't built we'll all find a way round it - larger aircraft using the slots at LHR & LGW, more use of the Chunned to near-Europe, more flights from Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle etc, more interconnections in Dubai, AMS etc etc

The overall cost may be higher but it will be spread over a much longer period and more people

True Blue

9th Dec 2015, 08:44

maybe that is the problem when you start with " what is the answer we need" then your case starts to be pulled apart.

Skipness One Foxtrot

9th Dec 2015, 10:17

So to give LGW the ability to compete must be better for society in the long run.
Its a mistake to put all your transport nodes in one area as was witnessed recently when the LHR central area tunnels closed for a short period, causing absolute chaos.
Gatwick has competed for years with LHR, what you're asking is for one business where more airlines want to use (LHR) to be held back to allow a second business that many airlines shun (LGW) to compete more effectively. Except the key point is that the routes we need are choosing to use AMS, FRA et al rather than LGW, which is available today. I reiterate recent history.
AA/DL/US/CO/NW all left LGW for LHR of their own free will, with CO/DL/NW/US having said they'd happily serve both. In the end, they walked away from LGW as it was less competitive. The same goes for recent history with CA/KE/GA/VN. No long haul foreign airline will shoose LGW over LHR if they can avoid it with the exception of the likes of loco long haul of Norwegian.
LGW can't compete on alevel playing field with LHR because LHR is a world airport and LGW simply isn't in that league. In terms of connectivity they are miles apart.

Shed-on-a-Pole

9th Dec 2015, 11:21

I'm not disagreeing with the points you make about long-haul appeal, Skipness. But like it or not, much of the growth from the SE will come from short-haul demand to established bucket-and-spade favourites such as Spain, Portugal and the Canaries. The vast bulk of near-term demand increases will be to less glamorous destinations such as these, not to Chongqing and Chennai. LGW should - subject to not tapping public funds - be allowed to develop the runway infrastructure necessary to service this large leisure-orientated niche. The airport has amply demonstrated its suitability for that market. We're talking additional journey demand in the multiple millions per annum to destinations of this type.

Trash 'n' Navs

9th Dec 2015, 12:49

I don't see how "short-haul demand to established bucket-and-spade favourites" helps the UK economy or grows jobs across all of the UK.

What's more important for the national interest?

Like many, I thought the Davies report was very conclusive. Dithering isn't exclusively a UK political skill but you do seem to set the benchmark.

Bagso

9th Dec 2015, 12:55

You are quite right Frank the Davies report WAS and still remains a complete waste of money, when it comes to Heathrow nobody is going to make a decision.

I think we need to get used to it and move on.

Cameron has been blessed with a relatively pain free tenure. In 2 years, halfway thru this Parliament he will be gone, clearly he is not minded to have a "poll tax" moment with fellow colleagues propelling a subject to ministerial level, which quite frankly might be pivotal to our interest in aviation but sadly Frank, is of supreme disinterest to the "I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here Generation".

Why create an uneccessary but possibly disastrous side show ?

Leader writers and indeed business leaders can gnash their teeth with dismay, as indeed can some here, but it won't make a blind bit of difference. Politicians in my view only make awkward U turns when they are sufficiently embarrassed by possible political fallout. If building a runway came into this category then despite CO2 emissions , despite outrageous cost , it would be signed off tomorrow, it doesnt, infact in this instance quite the opposite prevails.

And who are the big hitters waiting to pounce on number10 , and possibly inherit this poisonous chalice down the line ?

Well don't hold your breath if you support RW3 !

May, Emphatic NO
Johnson, Empthatic NO

And the favourite Osbourne, now savvy enough to how shall we say be 100% resolute in private but tepid to luke warm in public.

When he is not flying the somewhat tattered flag for Northern England it is only G.O. who has shown the slightest inkling toward supporting Heathrow, due no doubt to some long lunches in the City, but even he has gained enough nous to see the prize ahead and not jeapodise that with any "loose talk" especially if its .....toxic !

But let's be clear, if as a previous poster suggested no runway is built at Heathrow the World will not stop turning, the UK will not stop trading with the World and the World will not stop trading with us ! Don't contemplate the paracetmol and that bottle of Bells just yet Frank, Heathrow will be around for a long time yet, albeit even more creative in adapting to change.... or in this case lack of !

Ps something is only conclusive if it provides the answer YOU might want!

Shed-on-a-Pole

9th Dec 2015, 15:59

I don't see how "short-haul demand to established bucket-and-spade favourites" helps the UK economy or grows jobs across all of the UK.

Well, you are entitled to harbour a personal dislike of the leisure travel sector if you wish but the market exists in volume regardless of your disdain. Companies such as TUI, Thomas Cook, EasyJet and Ryanair are major employers and support further employment across the wider economy. Leisure travel encompasses inbound traffic as well as 'Brits abroad'. The hospitality and tourism industries support substantial employment in the UK. These are labour-intensive sectors.

The flights associated with these sectors require runway capacity too. Quite alot of it actually. To extend your logic, London requires no new runway. In fact, you could close afew. Just ban foreign holidays and there will be plenty of airport capacity for the 'suits' to fly wherever they need. But this is the real world, and the healthy, growing leisure travel market is a major part of the demand equation. Demand which an expanded LGW is well-placed to address on behalf of the SE.

Skipness One Foxtrot

9th Dec 2015, 16:13

LGW should - subject to not tapping public funds - be allowed to develop the runway infrastructure necessary to service this large leisure-orientated niche. The airport has amply demonstrated its suitability for that market. We're talking additional journey demand in the multiple millions per annum to destinations of this type. Good point.

Growth in terms of volume looks like it will be around that segment, this is partially why easyJet were sniffing around Terminal 4 with a view to a medium term LHR presence should Runway 3 go ahead. In terms of the strategic growth around investment and overseas trade then that's always LHR, LGW has nothing to say here. I do not disagree that LGW really ought to be allowed a second runway to make a good airport even better however. What worries the money men at GIP is that any runway three at LHR will see EZY at LHR and suddenly the dynamics of the market flip. Not only do they risk EZY bleeding across to LHR but, and feel free to disagree, BA would be greatly tempted to shift those ten daily long haul movements out to LHR as would VS for the sake of six B744 / A330s. Overnight they could slash the cost of their London handling and Engineering cover with little risk that the LGW market would not follow them to LHR.
Just ban foreign holidays and there will be plenty of airport capacity for the 'suits'Much of (most?) short haul business travel is in Economy nowadays, and only b(w)ankers and car salesman tend to wear suits to work :)

HOODED

9th Dec 2015, 16:28

Is it just me? Air quality is alleged to be the issue here. What about all the aircraft stacking going round and round burning fuel over London because there isn't enough runway capacity to land from a streight in approach. That clearly doesn't add to the pollution then..
I despair of this country, think it's time to get some politicians that actually do what's best for the Country not what's easiest for their own careers.

Trash 'n' Navs

9th Dec 2015, 18:06

SOAP,
you are entitled to harbour a personal dislike of the leisure travel sector if you wish

Yet again you presume too much - I said nothing of the sort.

Far more knowledgeable people than I have identified bigger economic & employment benefits from an expanded LHR than any of the alternatives. Holiday makers, whilst spending a little in the UK on their holiday, spend most of it abroad - and none of it benefits UK exports. None of the airlines you mention carry export goods. And no, SLF don't count.

Shed-on-a-Pole

9th Dec 2015, 18:43

Holiday makers, whilst spending a little in the UK on their holiday, spend most of it abroad

This isn't the issue here. Holidaymakers travel by air and will continue to do so, probably in increasing numbers. The SE airport system must accommodate them. LGW is ideal for this role.

None of the airlines you mention carry export goods.

So are you suggesting that EasyJet, Ryanair and the like don't require runway slots in the course of their daily operations? That is the point here, not the UK balance of payments.

And no, SLF don't count.

Afraid they do! Take a good look at the holding point at LGW. Their flights must be accommodated within the system.

yotty

9th Dec 2015, 19:17

Shed, give a new runway to LHR which will free up capacity for the leisure travel sector you claim is needed at LGW :ok:

Shed-on-a-Pole

9th Dec 2015, 19:49

Shed, give a new runway to LHR which will free up capacity for the leisure travel sector you claim is needed at LGW

So do you think that the SE will not need additional capacity for the growth in leisure travel? Do you consider my 'claim' that this sector is likely to grow an outlandish suggestion?

I would actually be quite happy for both LHR and LGW airports to build a new runway from a purely operational perspective. But unfortunately, there is no "give" about it. They will be extraordinarily expensive to deliver, particularly the LHR option. And I am very keen to ensure that the successful project is entirely privately funded, including all support works required to upgrade surrounding general infrastructure in consequence. And privately financed in a watertight manner such that the project cannot default back to taxpayer responsibility in the future due to some loose state-underwritten guarantee.

By the way, increased capacity for leisure travel is needed across the SE airports system generally. But LGW appears to offer the most logical solution for addressing this need.

Trash 'n' Navs

9th Dec 2015, 20:08

Good grief SOAP, you do like to take quotes out of context don't you.

Shed-on-a-Pole

9th Dec 2015, 20:38

Good grief T&N, you do like to trivialise important issues don't you.

Itchin McCrevis

9th Dec 2015, 21:15

By the way, increased capacity for leisure travel is needed across the SE airports system generally. But LGW appears to offer the most logical solution for addressing this need.

Stansted alone has at least 10m, possibly 15m, of unsold capacity available for the growth of point to point leisure/vfr travel - something it already serves very well.

Bagso

9th Dec 2015, 21:36

Rw 3

Terminal 4

EasyJet

....careful Holmes

Rivet Joint

9th Dec 2015, 22:00

Listen, the fact of the matter is that airlines only fly from LGW because they can't fly from LHR. Look at the long list of airlines that start of at LGW and then move to LHR at the first chance. VN and GA being the most recent cases. The rest of LGW's operation is just overflow. If you told BA tomorrow that they had to stop operating from LGW they wouldn't even give it a second thought.

LTN and STN are also just overflow. EZY wanting to open a base at LHR says it all. Even the cheap seats want to get a piece of LHR.

Why does no one listen to the experts, i.e. The airlines, the people who's business it is to make money from transporting people by air. Millions of pounds being paid for slots and airlines queuing up for their chance to operate only happens at one airport in the world. It is genuinely laughable that second runways at STN or LGW are considered as options. A third runway at LHR is the right decision and is wanted by the people that matter. The sad thing is that this country has long been at the mercy of the minorities so chances are the rest of us will just give in for an easy life. Stick your head in the sand and wait for the moaning to stop whilst a once great country crumbles to insignificance.

Shed-on-a-Pole

9th Dec 2015, 22:01

Stansted alone has at least 10m, possibly 15m, of unsold capacity available for the growth of point to point leisure/vfr travel - something it already serves very well.

Completely agree with this point, IM. This spare capacity is available immediately. However, it is reasonable to consider the probability that air travel demand will continue to grow between now and the earliest reasonable in-service date for a new runway in the SE. Both LHR and LGW can only grow from todays levels at the margins in terms of runway capacity and by encouraging use of larger aircraft types. So STN and to a lesser extent Luton are the only reasonable release valves for SE growth between now and a new runway opening. Barring a massive economic recession, that 15m at STN will be swallowed up well before then. And new demand will extend beyond the leisure sector alone. That isn't much headroom for accommodating 10-15 years of interim SE market growth.

Shed-on-a-Pole

9th Dec 2015, 22:27

the fact of the matter is that airlines only fly from LGW because they can't fly from LHR

This gross generalisation does not stand up to scrutiny. There is a section of the market that craves access to LHR - notably business-orientated long-haul - but the suggestion that all airlines at LGW, STN and LTN would rather operate everything from LHR is complete nonsense. All three of those airports have distinct, prosperous, heavily-populated catchments of their own. And many of the airlines which call them home wouldn't dream of switching their operations to LHR en masse. Companies such as Thomas Cook, Thomson, Ryanair, Monarch and many others could be relied upon to operate the bulk of their programmes from the gateways they already choose today. Some traffic at these airports may be LHR overflow, but the vast majority is not. Note that EasyJet proposes a supplementary base at LHR. The company has never contemplated abandoning LGW, they would be crazy to do so. And they serve distinct markets at LTN, STN and SEN too.

Why does no one listen to the experts, i.e. The airlines, the people who's business it is to make money from transporting people by air.

Excellent suggestion. Let's follow the advice of Willie Walsh on all this.

It is genuinely laughable that second runways at STN or LGW are considered as options.

Not to anybody who does the maths without getting hung up on glamorous niche long-haul routes in isolation.

A third runway at LHR is the right decision and is wanted by the people that matter.

And not wanted in equal measure by many influential people who also matter. [Who doesn't matter, anyway?]. And LHR R3 is not the right decision for as long as the proposed costings associated with delivering it make no financial sense.

wait for the moaning to stop whilst a once great country crumbles to insignificance.

Is that really how you see the UK today? You need to travel abroad more!

True Blue

9th Dec 2015, 22:27

A point that seems to be very conveniently overlooked on here, why do airlines want to transfer from Lgw to Lhr. It is due to the fact that yields are higher at Lhr. Why is that? Because Lhr has a virtual monopoly on long haul and business travel from the UK, never mind London. Slots etc scarce, and that scarcity is used to drive up prices/yields. A few months back, this point was made by another poster either on this thread or the thread that ran about the commission report. And let us not forget that Lhr, the airlines and all the other companies involved with the Lhr project have a major vested interest to ensure Lgw never gets a look in so that the high fares situation can continue. Why should we help them all succeed in that aim? And why are so many on here prepared to accept all these projections about economic benefits when the truth is, they have no idea. Who knows what 5 years will bring in terms of growth etc never mind projecting 30 years out in the multiple billions. It is complete pie in the sky stuff that a lot of people with very vested interests are determined to see through. We, the tax payer will be asked to pay, and years down the road, we will learn that we were sold a complete pup. I hope government sees sense, denies Lhr their ambition to seal their dominant position and give the decision to Lgw. Then we will see some real competition. And not for one minute do I accept that an airline, faced with going to Lgw or not starting/expanding in London, will walk away because they can't get Lhr. Lhr is the big attraction due to the fact their almost monopoly position enables airlines and Lhr to charge us all more, no other reason. Wake up to the darker side of capitalism! And I am a capitalist believer, but sometimes it is not good for the consumer.

Skipness One Foxtrot

9th Dec 2015, 22:58

True Blue you're failing to see how the dynamics of this market work.
Compare the number of non stop far east and Chinese routes out of CDG/FRA/AMS and then LHR. London lags behind hugely, now by your impeccable logic, if they can't get LHR, they'll be at LGW. How come so many of them aren't in London at all?

LHR works well due to a critical mass of connections due to legacy BOAC/BEA and empire routes history as well as being round a whole lot longer than LGW. Hence your concept of a level playing field in certain markets os flawed as the existing market is so skewed to LHR.

Also, your assertion that LHR has a monopoly on business travel is quite far from true.

So you can regulate and disadvantage some at your discretion, or allow the market to function freely and support it. Either way, China fly A380s from Amsterdam, not Gatwick. Gatwick is in London and has slots. Worth considering why the capacity is in the Netherlands.

Logohu

10th Dec 2015, 03:29

Compare the number of non stop far east and Chinese routes out of CDG/FRA/AMS and then LHR. London lags behind hugely, now by your impeccable logic, if they can't get LHR, they'll be at LGW. How come so many of them aren't in London at all?

Not necessarily because of slot shortage. For a start LHR has around eleven MEB3 A380s heading east every day, plus other aircraft types, not to mention more A380s from LGW, all offering better schedules and service than the Chinese carriers and BA. Netherlands and Germany on the other hand have capped the capacity of the MEB3 in order to protect the likes of KLM and LH.

Secondly CZ is with Skyteam, and AMS is a major Skyteam hub, so perhaps easier for them to fill the A380 there. Or it could simply be that it's still harder for Chinese to get visas for the UK than for the rest of Europe. Regardless, CZ has a daily 787 to LHR and I'm sure if the demand was there they would substitute an A380 on the route.

c52

10th Dec 2015, 10:06

Are there businesses that say, we would do billions of pounds' worth of business in Xville, if only we could fly there direct from LHR?

I believe HAL when they say there's a correlation between business done between two cities and direct flights, but which is cause and which is effect? LHR supporters seem to think that business will happen if the flights are in place. I imagine the flights will be scheduled if the demand is there.

Walnut

10th Dec 2015, 10:35

In a truly capitalistic society prices are driven down by more choice, if more space was available at LGW then the likes of Norwegian I believe would offer more US flights at low prices and you would have EasyJet acting as their feed.
This in turn would lead to BA competing with lower fares to stop a drift of PAX to LGW. New York has 4 airports spaced around the city all fiercely competing,
This would be a much better model than putting all your eggs in one basket.

Bagso

10th Dec 2015, 13:33

Sir Bufton Tufton from the Air Ministry is briefing ministers this afternoon.

Decision to be announced 1830

Transport Minster is then briefing press at 1900, except of course certain members of the BBC nudge, nudge who know the answer already !

yotty

10th Dec 2015, 14:46

Ministers prepare for Heathrow decision - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35062739) :ok:

Dannyboy39

10th Dec 2015, 18:10

Deferred until AT LEAST next summer.

Quelle surprise.

T250

10th Dec 2015, 18:25

A.ka. It's never going to happen :hmm:

Prophead

10th Dec 2015, 18:33

Lets remember how this started. BAA, the owners of Heathrow want to expand their airport in order to create a hub. This would allow people from smaller airports around the UK and europe to fly into the airport and connect to a larger number of international flights. People are already doing this but via places like Amsterdam. It would also free up capacity on the main runways.

Somehow along the lines this was turned into a need for an extra runway being needed somewhere in the south east. This is like me asking for permission to extend my house as my family has grown and being told they will allow the guy across the road to do his instead.

Gatwick may or may not need a new runway. It would certainly like one as any airport would. It is a completely different matter however to the LHR plan. Gatwick knows that should LHR expansion go ahead they will likely not be granted permission to build one for decades and this is the reason they have started the whole Gatwick vs Heathrow debate.

Gatwick will never be allowed to grow into the hub that LHR wants to be so the debate should really be about whether or not the UK wants this hub and spoke approach. From speaking to my friends and family in the north I would say that once people realise that they will be able to go from their local airport to pretty much anywhere in the world with just a short flight and easy connection at LHR they change their mind from being totally disinterested in the third runway to being all in favour.

I would actually be quite happy for both LHR and LGW airports to build a new runway from a purely operational perspective. But unfortunately, there is no "give" about it. They will be extraordinarily expensive to deliver, particularly the LHR option. And I am very keen to ensure that the successful project is entirely privately funded, including all support works required to upgrade surrounding general infrastructure in consequence. And privately financed in a watertight manner such that the project cannot default back to taxpayer responsibility in the future due to some loose state-underwritten guarantee

Given the benefit to the UK from the above I really do not understand why you are so against any of the taxpayers money being used to finance at least the transport works. LHR is the UK's premier airport and brings in billions of pounds to the economy. To be against government investment just because it is in the south is just sour grapes. Look at the timescale. As has been said over and over the roads in that area are in need of upgrading now so a redevelopment would likely be done anyway.

Regarding the air pollution argument. We are talking about 10-15 years down the line when it will become operational. The A380's and dreamliners will be old aircraft by then. A newer era of aircraft and engines will be both quieter and greener compared to what we have now.

Trains cars and buses etc. will all be more efficient and less harmfull to the environment.

The hub and spoke arrangement will also mean less numbers of aircraft flying long haul out of the UK, less stacking of aircraft and less road/rail journeys to LHR and Man etc.

Bagso

10th Dec 2015, 18:40

Prophead

"Once my friends in The North realised they could fly practically anywhere from MANCHESTER they became totally disinterested in Heathrow " see above

PS where does this contribution of "billions of pounds to the economy come from"?

A) No corporation tax was paid last year !

B) Heathrow has foriegn owners, It is not a UK company!

Itchin McCrevis

10th Dec 2015, 19:26

the fact of the matter is that airlines only fly from LGW because they can't fly from LHR

That is an exageration, only about 45% of Gatwick traffic would gravitate to Heathrow and only if the appropriate service types and fare levels were made available there. easyJet clearly recognise this and I've always reckoned Norwegian would grab some of the Heathrow action as well to properly take on SAS if they ever got the chance.

This still leaves a substantial market for Gatwick drawing from South London to the South Coast - something similar in size to that of Stansted.

Barling Magna

10th Dec 2015, 19:32

Hell's bells, can't these old Etonians ever make a decision on this.......? What's the point of having an elite establishment if they can't tell us what to do?

Itchin McCrevis

10th Dec 2015, 19:57

It's quite evident the political will to make this decision does not exist.

c52

10th Dec 2015, 22:48

I imagine they think a decision now would be open to judicial review so getting more evidence that they've done everything properly might be a time-saver.

I wonder if there would be a majority in the Commons for the runway.

PAXboy

11th Dec 2015, 00:27

True Blue
Who knows what 5 years will bring in terms of growth etc never mind projecting 30 years out in the multiple billions.But if the go ahead was given when it was first asked for, we would not have this problem. When was it first asked for? Oh a mere 40 years ago.

Barling Magna
Hell's bells, can't these old Etonians ever make a decision on this.......?Oh but they DID make a decision. They decided to never have LHR 3. It's just that the short term need for the Conservatives to get their favoured candidate established as the next london Mayor is far, far, far more important than any silly business decision that affects the UK. If they get their boy into the job, they can THEN announce not to have it or any other excuse they have had Sir Humphrey think up.

Shed-on-a-Pole

11th Dec 2015, 00:31

Heathrow want to expand their airport in order to create a hub.

Somehow along the lines this was turned into a need for an extra runway being needed somewhere in the south east.

That is because traffic growth originating in the SE itself is the business which London's airports system must continue to accommodate, and there are multiple options for dealing with this. Hub transfer business is just icing on the cake, and many argue that London shouldn't even be pursuing this, especially at the prices quoted for making it possible. Even LHR's principal hub airline, British Airways, opposes R3 on the grounds of cost.

Gatwick will never be allowed to grow into the hub that LHR wants to be

See previous answer. Forget the hub paradigm. LGW's second runway would be deployed in satisfying soaring indigenous SE demand to all those unglamorous short-haul leisure destinations which many here want to conveniently ignore. The SE's runways will need to accommodate far more additional movements to Lanzarote and Alicante than to Chongqing and Suzhou. Short-haul leisure travel will continue to make up the largest proportion of SE growth going forward.

in the north I would say that once people realise that they will be able to go from their local airport to pretty much anywhere in the world with just a short flight and easy connection at LHR they change their mind from being totally disinterested in the third runway to being all in favour.

As a resident of said North, I truly struggle to take this comment seriously! Firstly, those located in the North have an impressive and growing list of non-stop long-haul flights to choose from already, straight from their own region. However, for destinations where a connection is required, the choice is quite simple. For example, a one hour flight to LHR followed by a fifteen hour connecting flight to final destination. Or a seven hour flight to a state-of-the-art MEB3 hub with a nine hour onward sector. It is much better to break one's journey close to the half-way point than right at the start. And as for the "easy connection at LHR" ... that would be the one with the aggressive second full security search complete with lengthy queues, followed by a nightmare terminal transfer to reach around 50% of the connecting flights. We'll pass on that, thanks!

I really do not understand why you are so against any of the taxpayers money being used to finance at least the transport works.

To be against government investment just because it is in the south is just sour grapes.

Deary me. Rather than repeat my full reasoning in depth yet again, may I invite you to re-read earlier detailed answers posted by myself on this topic. Because it is in the South? Sour grapes? It is easy - but very lazy - to dismiss opposing arguments with a sly dig like that. I remind you that the works which you refer to require between £5Bn and £20Bn in public funding (dependent on source). I run with Sir Peter Hendy's estimate of £10Bn which is less than half the difference between the two extremes (very generous of me) but this is still an OUTRAGEOUS SUM. The problem is that such funds cannot be allocated twice. Public investment on that scale concentrated in the SE yet again results in an investment nuclear winter for the rest of the UK. We know ... we've had thirty years of it already. For comparison purposes, the North has just been granted its first £1Bn (one billion) public infrastructure investment ever. And that goes on creating 'smart motorways' ... not the new roads we really need. The SE has enjoyed a veritable conveyor-belt of multi-billion pound projects with more bids on the way. World-class infrastructure for London; great, good luck with it. But it is now time to pause for some rebalancing of investment priorities across the rest of the country.

The hub and spoke arrangement will also mean less numbers of aircraft flying long haul out of the UK

So let me get this right. We want LHR R3 so that there will be fewer long-haul flights out of the UK? Though presumably not at the expense of LHR. Is this what you would have us aspire to? Wonderful prospect for any UK business not located in the immediate hinterland of LHR! One suspects that your reasoning here is not altogether impartial!!!

Dannyboy39

11th Dec 2015, 06:20

There is only 1 reason why British Airways is opposed to RWY3 and that's because of 1 stakeholder - British Airways.

BA already get somewhat preferential treatment over other airlines; heck they get their own exclusive airport terminal and a high proportion of the slots. Should the additional capacity (eventually) get the go-ahead, it would open it up to all-comers, such as the LCCs.

Every decision is fuelled by their own self interest. The Davies Commission came up with the wrong answer for the government, so it became a whitewash and waste of money!

dc9-32

11th Dec 2015, 06:27

This delay just keeps a bunch of old gits in work for a bit longer whilst the UK tax payer covers their no doubt huge salary.

kcockayne

11th Dec 2015, 08:17

Dc9

A very cynical comment; but so VERY true !

Prophead

11th Dec 2015, 09:03

bagso

"
PS where does this contribution of "billions of pounds to the economy come from"?

A) No corporation tax was paid last year !

B) Heathrow has foriegn owners, It is not a UK company!

I was of course talking about the boost to the whole of the UK with better access to the rest of the world not that billions of pound would be paid in tax by BAA.:rolleyes:

Just because you may not be able to/want to see how this will be generated that doesn't mean it is not true.

I am well aware that BAA is owned by a variety of foreign investment companies.

"Once my friends in The North realised they could fly practically anywhere from MANCHESTER they became totally disinterested in Heathrow " see above

As a resident of said North, I truly struggle to take this comment seriously! Firstly, those located in the North have an impressive and growing list of non-stop long-haul flights to choose from already, straight from their own region.

Well I thought that would ruffle the feathers of the Manchester airport enthusiasts.

The north is a large place, Manchester may be convenient to you but if you lived in Humberside, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Lincolnshire etc. then Manchester isn't that convenient at all. I could pay less than a tenner for a taxi to LBA from my house up there and be in LHR 45 minutes later. For a large part of the north that will always be a preferred option to 2 train journeys often in the early hours of the morning, maybe on a sunday when trains are not running frequently.

Shuttle flights from Humberside, Durham, LBA , Doncaster etc. down to LHR will open up more routes for less hassle. Thats just the way it is I am afraid.

If you think Manchester was the best option then how do you explain the numbers travelling from these airports to Amsterdam for better long haul options?

That is because traffic growth originating in the SE itself is the business which London's airports system must continue to accommodate, and there are multiple options for dealing with this. Hub transfer business is just icing on the cake, and many argue that London shouldn't even be pursuing this, especially at the prices quoted for making it possible. Even LHR's principal hub airline, British Airways, opposes R3 on the grounds of cost.

The hub is not the icing on the cake it was the reason LHR wanted a new runway in the first place. My point was because this decision seems so hard to make it needs to be broken down and the hub vs no hub argument decided first. If the hub idea is a non starter then the LHR case is not as strong. If it is decided that a hub an spoke operation would bebeneficial to the UK then LHR expansion is the only real answer. This idea that you can just build a new runway at any airport in the south east and fix the problem shows a lack of understanding by the government or more likely the need to create an easy political fix.

Deary me. Rather than repeat my full reasoning in depth yet again, may I invite you to re-read earlier detailed answers posted by myself on this topic. Because it is in the South? Sour grapes? It is easy - but very lazy - to dismiss opposing arguments with a sly dig like that. I remind you that the works which you refer to require between £5Bn and £20Bn in public funding (dependent on source). I run with Sir Peter Hendy's estimate of £10Bn which is less than half the difference between the two extremes (very generous of me) but this is still an OUTRAGEOUS SUM. The problem is that such funds cannot be allocated twice. Public investment on that scale concentrated in the SE yet again results in an investment nuclear winter for the rest of the UK. We know ... we've had thirty years of it already. For comparison purposes, the North has just been granted its first £1Bn (one billion) public infrastructure investment ever. And that goes on creating 'smart motorways' ... not the new roads we really need. The SE has enjoyed a veritable conveyor-belt of multi-billion pound projects with more bids on the way. World-class infrastructure for London; great, good luck with it. But it is now time to pause for some rebalancing of investment priorities across the rest of the country.

You really don't get what people have been trying to tell you for pages and pages now. The road system around that area needs upgrading and will be upgraded anyway so you will be paying for that whether LHR expansion goes ahead or not. You do not seem to want to acknowledge this.

As with Bagso you seem either unable or unwilling to see how this will benefit the whole of the UK. A hub at LHR would be a national asset bring growth and income to the whole country and should not be seen as a south east only project.

And as for the "easy connection at LHR" ... that would be the one with the aggressive second full security search complete with lengthy queues, followed by a nightmare terminal transfer to reach around 50% of the connecting flights. We'll pass on that, thanks!

You keep doing this, please tell me how you know what the connection will be like at a terminal that has not even been designed yet never mind the fact that it wont be operational until maybe 2030?

One suspects that your reasoning here is not altogether impartial!!

Well thats rich, why don't you come clean and tell us all the real reason for being against the hub idea. You see it as a threat to any new direct routes from Manchester which happens to be your local airport.

j636

11th Dec 2015, 10:00

BA threatens to move abroad if Heathrow runway goes ahead - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2015-12-11/ba-threatens-to-move-abroad-if-heathrow-runway-goes-ahead/)

Lot of Hot Air I expext!

Peter47

11th Dec 2015, 10:12

Dublin & Madrid are not much good for me as I live a few miles north of Heathrow. More relevently is not much good for two thirds of BA's Heathrow traffic.

BA had just over 40% of LHR slots prior to the merger with BMI now its 50%. They could stop flying their own metal to DUB & still be guaranteed feed. They don't need more slots at the moment.

EU legislation would, I understand, give 50% of the slots created to new entrants. More competition for BA (& IAG). Go figure!

Its interesting that if an airline decides to expand capacity it doesn't raise fares for existing passengers - or at least the EU3 & TK aren't - its financed by borrowing which is (hopefully) repaid by future revenues. Should this apply to LHR? Okay, we live in the real world.

WHBM

11th Dec 2015, 10:27

We need some aviation/business heavyweight to call for David Cameron to resign over this. It was explicitly stated that a decision would be announced before the end of 2015.

Shed-on-a-Pole

11th Dec 2015, 11:58

Well I thought that would ruffle the feathers of the Manchester airport enthusiasts.

This is not a school playground, Prophead. Lines like this reflect on you, not those who engage in respectful debate with you on the core issues.

2 train journeys often in the early hours of the morning, maybe on a sunday when trains are not running frequently.

Good news for you on Sunday trains. The newly-awarded Northern and Transpennine franchises come with substantial upgrades to Sunday services.

Shuttle flights from Humberside, Durham, LBA , Doncaster etc. down to LHR will open up more routes for less hassle.

I welcome a broad range of travel choices for the public, subject to them being made available at a cost which makes sense. Your claim that travel via LHR represents "less hassle" is sadly very far removed from the truth unless the user-experience there is radically improved.

If you think Manchester was the best option then how do you explain the numbers travelling from these airports to Amsterdam for better long haul options

I do not make any broad claim of this sort. 'The best option' varies from one individual traveller to the next. Indeed, it actually varies from one journey to the next. AMS is one good choice amongst many and I have never argued to the contrary.

The hub is not the icing on the cake it was the reason LHR wanted a new runway in the first place.

The hub is indeed the icing on the cake. Dealing with air travel growth indigenous to the SE market should be the primary focus of this decision. LGW is well-suited to fulfilment of this need.

This idea that you can just build a new runway at any airport in the south east and fix the problem shows a lack of understanding

On the contrary, a new runway at LGW demonstrates understanding that the bulk of additional growth affecting the SE airports system will derive from short-haul leisure travel, not long thin hub-dependent routes.

You really don't get what people have been trying to tell you for pages and pages now.

I get your argument perfectly well. I just profoundly disagree with it.

The road system around that area needs upgrading and will be upgraded anyway so you will be paying for that whether LHR expansion goes ahead or not.

So will a new M25 road-tunnel be required beneath a runway which isn't there? Some upgrades may be required regardless but not the whole package associated with major expansion of LHR. Remember, the sums quoted for this support work are not trifling amounts. They alone constitute between 5x and 20x the cost of the largest single public infrastructure project ever sanctioned in the North. We are not talking a rounding error here. Besides, essential infrastructure upgrades outside the SE have been made to await their turn for years. This London work should take its due place in the queue, not expect to be catapulted to the front as some divine right. There really is an air of entitlement surrounding this whole issue of SE infrastructure upgrades.

A hub at LHR would be a national asset bring growth and income to the whole country and should not be seen as a south east only project.

Ah, back to the old 'trickledown' argument. As Sir Richard Leese so aptly put it: "In my experience, trickledown really does mean a trickle." Just think through - honestly - how much benefit communities like Workington, Burnley, Barnsley, Dudley, Grimsby and Middlesbrough will truly benefit from throwing ten billion pounds of public money at LHR support works. Then consider how they could be transformed beyond recognition with a small fraction of that invested directly on infrastructure in their own immediate area. We need to be honest here. An expanded LHR will overwhelmingly benefit the SE alone and will further broaden the North-South divide. Besides, remember your own earlier assertion that one of the 'benefits' of an expanded LHR will be fewer long-haul flights from other UK airports. The regions would really benefit from that, wouldn't they?

please tell me how you know what the connection will be like at a terminal that has not even been designed yet never mind the fact that it wont be operational until maybe 2030?

I can tell you that the transfers from T5 to new T2 and relatively-new T4 are already dire. I am aware of no plans to demolish these? As for additional new-build terminals, the jury is out.

why don't you come clean and tell us all the real reason for being against the hub idea.

I have done so repeatedly, but will happily remind you once more. The sum of between five and twenty billion pounds of public money (probably around ten billion in the final reckoning) will reinforce the nuclear winter in public infrastructure investment suffered by the rest of the UK for years to come. Public funding is tight, and it only gets allocated once. Financing LHR support works to this extent will be another disaster for proposed infrastructure investment beyond the SE region.

You see it as a threat to any new direct routes from Manchester which happens to be your local airport.

I do wish Manchester Airport a successful future. But if you see this as my motive, can you explain to us all why I have been arguing for a new runway at LGW and maximisation of capacity at STN and LTN? Surely, airports in the regions would benefit to a greater extent if airport capacity in the SE were to be strangled? You can't just argue that all opponents of this very controversial LHR R3 proposal are motivated by planespotting opportunities at [insert name of regional airport]. That is childish stuff. Stick to arguing the issues.

Shed-on-a-Pole

11th Dec 2015, 12:00

We need some aviation/business heavyweight to call for David Cameron to resign over this.

But equally he could face calls to resign if he backtracks on his "no ifs, no buts" pledge.

BHX5DME

11th Dec 2015, 12:15

Paul Kehoe, CEO of Birmingham Airport, has today urged the Government to put forward a strategy for making best use of existing airport capacity, in the wake of the Government’s delay on a new South East runway.

The Government has spent the past five months reviewing the conclusions of the Airports Commission, after the Commission itself spent three years looking into the future of UK aviation. The Government has now announced that it will not be making a final decision until summer 2016, rather than late 2015 as originally planned. On 1 July, the Airports Commission, led by Sir Howard Davies, recommended that the Heathrow northwest third runway scheme be taken forward.

Birmingham Airport has argued for a strategic network of long-haul airports throughout the UK, each supporting the comparative economic advantage of that region, rather than all focus being on a hub airport.

Paul Kehoe, CEO of Birmingham Airport said in reaction:

“The UK needs a proper aviation strategy if we are going to succeed in plugging every region into global business opportunities. We have said throughout the Airports Commission process that the review was failing to consider the whole UK economy, the changes that HS2 will bring, or any policies for making best use of existing capacity in the 10 to 15 years it will take to build a new South East runway.

“This fresh delay is making a new South East runway look more distant than ever. It is therefore vital that the Government comes forward with plans to support the UK’s network of long-haul airports now, to relieve pressure on the congested South East.

“The Midlands is a powerful engine of growth at the heart of our country and needs direct aviation to succeed. With our £300 million investment in the Airport, including our runway extension allowing for this summer’s extended series of direct flights to Beijing, we look forward to continuing to expand our long-haul offering in support of the region’s economy”.

Over the course of the past three and half years, Birmingham Airport has presented the Airports Commission and Government with evidence of the role that new road and rail investment, HS2 and changes to taxation can play in making best use of existing UK runway capacity, as an alternative to Heathrow expansion.

Independent research published in October 2015 found that cutting Air Passenger Duty by 100% at Birmingham Airport would attract 2.9 million additional passengers, delivering £521 million more per year and 12,000 new jobs across the UK. The reform would also enable Birmingham Airport to clawback demand that is currently putting pressure on South East airports.

The report also found that HS2 can help attract 750,000 additional passengers to Birmingham Airport per year by enlarging its catchment area to London and the north. This will enable the Airport to deliver £52 million more per year and 1,300 new jobs across the UK.

Prophead

11th Dec 2015, 14:51

I welcome a broad range of travel choices for the public, subject to them being made available at a cost which makes sense. Your claim that travel via LHR represents "less hassle" is sadly very far removed from the truth unless the user-experience there is radically improved.

Yes, such as a new runway and terminal perhaps.

The hub is indeed the icing on the cake. Dealing with air travel growth indigenous to the SE market should be the primary focus of this decision. LGW is well-suited to fulfilment of this need.

On the contrary, a new runway at LGW demonstrates understanding that the bulk of additional growth affecting the SE airports system will derive from short-haul leisure travel, not long thin hub-dependent routes.

This is precisely why the decision needs to be made first on whether the hub idea will be moved forward. Environmentally and financially it makes sense. If the UK does go down that route then its LHR, if not then the decision becomes one of just freeing up capacity.

Ah, back to the old 'trickledown' argument. As Sir Richard Leese so aptly put it: "In my experience, trickledown really does mean a trickle." Just think through - honestly - how much benefit communities like Workington, Burnley, Barnsley, Dudley, Grimsby and Middlesbrough will truly benefit from throwing ten billion pounds of public money at LHR support works. Then consider how they could be transformed beyond recognition with a small fraction of that invested directly on infrastructure in their own immediate area. We need to be honest here

transformed how? What these areas need is jobs and industry. You will attract that from abroad if the access is there. Being able to get to these places easily form China, India and the USA will bring the investment. There will likely never be a direct flight from Humberside to china and I cannot see potential investors getting on the transpennine express and changing at Leeds or slogging over the M62.

This is why the whole Northern Powerhouse idea is being based on upgrading the transport links. Build that and investment will come.

Besides, remember your own earlier assertion that one of the 'benefits' of an expanded LHR will be fewer long-haul flights from other UK airports. The regions would really benefit from that, wouldn't they?

Because they would have access to many more flights from LHR? more than any airport in the north will ever have including Manchester.

Shed-on-a-Pole

11th Dec 2015, 17:03

Yes, such as a new runway and terminal perhaps.

Absolutely. Subject to provision of these at a cost which makes sense. As I said. Unfortunately, in the case of LHR R3 the proposed cost does not make sense. Just ask Willie Walsh.

What these areas need is jobs and industry. You will attract that from abroad if the access is there. Being able to get to these places easily form China, India and the USA will bring the investment.

That is exactly what these areas need. And direct investment there is the answer. No Chinese or Indian business investor is going to say: "Yes! Now I can reach Middlesbrough changing planes at Heathrow instead of Amsterdam! Time to establish a new factory in NE England!!!" We need to keep the alleged benefits of LHR expansion in perspective here. But make fundamental infrastructure improvements to Middlesbrough directly and the place will have a fighting-chance to compete.

or slogging over the M62.

Good point. The inadequacy of our Transpennine motorways is a major cause for concern. There isn't one to Sheffield at all. 40 years overdue and counting. These are exactly the sort of new road initiatives which should be publicly-funded ahead of £5Bn to £20Bn of surface access upgrades in the area immediately surrounding Heathrow. That is how you really bring new jobs and industry to the North. And benefit the whole of UKplc in the process.

This is why the whole Northern Powerhouse idea is being based on upgrading the transport links. Build that and investment will come.

Agreed, but it is all just a concept at the moment. No large-scale (£1Bn+) infrastructure innovations have been funded so far aside from the 'Smart Motorways' initiative which is more a mechanism for avoiding much-needed road building expenditure. However, Mr Osborne does appear generally committed to the NP initiative, so we will see what follows in due course.

Because they would have access to many more flights from LHR? more than any airport in the north will ever have including Manchester.

Of course LHR offers more flights than MAN. No change there. LHR offers more flights than most other airports in Europe. But that does not render the contribution of regional airports irrelevant. Long-haul flights from airports such as MAN, BHX, NCL, GLA and EDI are of immense significance to their respective catchment areas. The benefits of these should not be dismissed lightly. Long-haul services direct from the regions should be encouraged and nurtured.

Trash 'n' Navs

11th Dec 2015, 19:24

No Chinese or Indian business investor is going to say: "Yes! Now I can reach Middlesbrough changing planes at Heathrow instead of Amsterdam! Time to establish a new factory in NE England!!!"

you do like to trivialise important issues don't you.

Hmm, it seems you do.

Prophead

11th Dec 2015, 19:29

Long-haul services direct from the regions should be encouraged and nurtured.

Thats all very well within an aviation based forum, we would probably all on here like to see that but there is serious opposition to increased air traffic due to environmental issues. Filtering people onto larger aircraft rather than having numerous smaller aircraft flying direct from the regionals is one answer to this.

You also have the chicken and egg situation whereby businesses may not want to invest in areas that do not have easy access. The flights are not there due to no demand. What begins with a connecting service via an expanded LHR may indeed grow to a direct service if the demand grows.

This is another reason why I think a hub/no hub decision needs to be made primarily.

Trash 'n' Navs

11th Dec 2015, 20:09

Great post Prophead.

Bagso

12th Dec 2015, 08:39

I can't speak for Edinburgh and Birmingham but the load factors Ex Manchester long haul are full.

This of course is unlike the situation at Heathrow where i admit they tend to be full in first but half empty in the back.

You could argue that there s/b financial penalties for flying half empty planes in / out of a slot limited airport!

It's presicely the sort of thing Davies should have looked.

Meanwhile it looks as though it's a dead duck anyway!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/12046765/david-cameron-abandons-heathrow-third-runway-plans.html

SWBKCB

12th Dec 2015, 09:08

Haven't those pushing the "access for the regions" angle realised they've missed the boat - AMS is now the regions hub, followed by CDG, DUB, DXB, etc.

DaveReidUK

12th Dec 2015, 09:31

This of course is unlike the situation at Heathrow where i admit they tend to be full in first but half empty in the back.

You could argue that there s/b financial penalties for flying half empty planes in / out of a slot limited airport!

Average pax load factor for 2014 was 73.2% on routes between LHR and EU destinations and 79.7% on non-EU routes (76.6% overall).

That's a bit below the ICAO 2014 global average of 79.8%, but hardly "half empty".

Gatwick's PLF is well over 80%, but of course that includes LCCs.

Bagso

12th Dec 2015, 11:32

That's true Dave but given its highly unlikely every flight runs at that level some flights will be very full but there will certainly be others less so.

Difficult to accommodate in a free market but still something that Davies should have considered where slots are at an absolute premium !

chaps1954

12th Dec 2015, 11:36

Bagso
That will be true of anywhere

Ian

Bagso

12th Dec 2015, 12:45

Of course it would...... but none of the other airports face the problems that Heathrow does!

Skipness One Foxtrot

12th Dec 2015, 14:00

There's been nothing new or insightful recently, we're going round in circles.

If Cameron is serious about increasing hub access he will choose LHR and screw over Zac, but not until after the mayoral elections which frankly, he's going to lose.
If he fudges yet again and pretends that LGW has anything to do with inbound trade and ub connectivity he screws over Osbourne.
However, as the vociferous nature of the anti-LHR expansion camp is self evident, and some of the genuine environmental concerns will be open to challenge then if they can nail them down and reluctantly approve LHR then so be it.
For all the sound and fury and billionaire smugness of Zac "getting the wink" from his old chum, Gatwick are getting increasingly vocal and aggressive and Heathrow are currently pressing ahead with contract negotiations regardless. Politics is a dirty business but either way, by the summer, we should finally see a decision for a third runway. Any nod to Gatwick would not be supported by Osbourne, Cameron's likely successor. And please, no one seriously thinks Boris will be PM and more than Corbyn.

compton3bravo

12th Dec 2015, 15:10

You are not serious about a decision being made next summer are you? There will be no 3rd runway at Heathrow or second runway at Gatwick. I go back to the Roskill Commission of 1968 to decide where the third London Airport was to be situated. They came out with the old RAF airfield at Cublington, near Aylesbury and look at what has happened since. People can huff and puff as much as they like but can we get real here.

Skipness One Foxtrot

12th Dec 2015, 16:08

I am perfectly serious, follow the money.

Shed-on-a-Pole

12th Dec 2015, 21:36

there is serious opposition to increased air traffic due to environmental issues. Filtering people onto larger aircraft rather than having numerous smaller aircraft flying direct from the regionals is one answer to this.

This idea has been promoted by the green lobby. If you're contemplating allying yourself with the eco-extremist agenda in the hope of crushing regional long-haul services in favour of LHR dominance then you'd better be careful what you wish for. Firstly, the eco-extremist lobby does not desire an expanded / dominant LHR; they want it reduced and capped.

Secondly, you need to take a closer look at those regional long-haul services. Have you checked up on them lately? Where are all these "smaller aircraft" you speak of? At MAN, around 32 long-haul departures will operate each day in Summer 2016. Only two of these are scheduled as narrow-body types [2 x UAL B752] - and they fly pretty full. All the other flights are programmed as widebodies and historic load factors are strong. Services are only sustainable at airports like MAN if they are profitable. No airline feels the need to be seen flying the flag there. I don't have the full long-haul schedules to hand for BHX, NCL, GLA and EDI but the same principle applies.

Now, consider the situation if the eco-extremist lobby were to succeed in getting long-haul flights from the UK capped. Do you think LHR would get the full quota? Well, think again. London and the SE has roughly one-third of the population; the rest of the UK has two-thirds. But L&SE has the vast majority of long-haul departures already. Are politicians outside London going to stand meekly by as regional airports are stripped of their relatively meagre share of economically vital long-haul links in favour of more concentrated LHR dominance? Or might LHR instead be forced to trim its phenomenal frequency of multiple-hourly departures to New York, for example? Those regional long-hauls are not "smaller aircraft", they are large aircraft just like those at LHR and their load factors are strong. All hypothetical at this point, but never assume that LHR will get all the cake if a cap on flights were to be introduced.

As I said, be very careful what you wish for.

You also have the chicken and egg situation whereby businesses may not want to invest in areas that do not have easy access

Quite so. Another reason why regional political interests will not allow themselves to be asset-stripped of their portfolio of essential long-haul schedules in favour of even greater concentration at LHR.

Heathrow Harry

13th Dec 2015, 16:31

Skipness - the lawyers will keep this in play for YEARS especially as the environmentalists can and will drag the European Courts into it - and they take at least two years to come to a decision

By next summer there will be approx 3 years before the next general election campaign kicks off at which point some politicians/parties will undoubedly campaign on a "no more runways" platform

In 2016/17 the politicos will be up to their necks in the EU referendum and the fallout from whatever the decision is

the biggest customer at LHR doesn't want to pay for it and there is no way you could sell this to the Treasury or the tax-payer

As compton points out this is just another re-run of every other attempt to expand LHR over the last 40 years - none have succeeded and these days the opponents are better organised, better funded and have more legal rights than they ever had in Roskill days

It's a dead dog

Walnut

13th Dec 2015, 17:51

The one thing which will kill R3 will be the voters of London next May. Both Mayoral candidates are dead against the proposal, and as such will campaign against it. When the results are in the Government will then turn round and say "its the will of the people" which we have to accept in a democracy (sic)

sparkysam

13th Dec 2015, 21:07

Which in my view will be Heathrow's loss, but the rest of the country's gain.

Cheers Sam

Bagso

14th Dec 2015, 17:05

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/aviation-capacity

Transport Minister statement on Airports !

Trash 'n' Navs

14th Dec 2015, 17:21

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/aviation-capacity

Transport Minister statement on Airports !

"yes there are opportunities in the network of national airports, with global connections from cities such as Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle.

But growth (t)here will come alongside growth in the south-east not instead of it.

So not ruling out allowing regional airports to make their own commercial case for expansion but even with that, still need LHR/LGW to expand.

Ethiopia

18th Dec 2015, 15:04

Sir Nigel Rudd to step down as Heathrow Chairman in 2016 (http://aviationtribune.com/airports-atc/item/3032-sir-nigel-rudd-to-step-down-as-heathrow-chairman-in-2016)

Peter47

21st Dec 2015, 13:29

I see in yesterday's Sunday Times that BA has been selecting cancelling flights as it does not have enough aircraft to operate flights to fill all the slots that it does have following the return of the remedy slots from Virgin Red. By operating at least 80% of the scheduled services it gets to keep the slot.

I don't think that it is a new phenomenon and answers a question that I never got around to posting some time back - why does BA have gaps of around four weeks when certain flights are not operated resulting in a "lumpy" schedule?

Of course its not just BA that babysits slots, other airlines do it by using smaller aircraft. Does KLM really need 12 flights to/from AMS with some operated by F70s? (Its Skyteam partners well welcome some of them in the future.) It also ties in with the separate issue of frequency and the airline with the most flights on a route winning market share. UA has finally replaced its 757s with 767s to Newark (route operated 5x per day) whilst LH operates 12 narrow bodies a day to Frankfurt.

I've got a couple of questions someone may be able to answer.

If BA did operate its slots everyday would it have a significant effect on punctuality (of all airlines) at LHR?

Obviously it may not make sense to operate through the IATA traffic season where traffic is seasonal - BA only operates its second Vancouver flight from June - Sept (although it won't operate it at all next summer going to single daily A380 I understand) whilst AC operates routes such as Halifax daily at the height of the summer but only on selected days during shoulder months. Do the slots get re-allocated to other airlines in advance or does AC take care that it operates at least 80% of the time?

Fairdealfrank

21st Dec 2015, 21:08

That is an exageration, only about 45% of Gatwick traffic would gravitate to Heathrow and only if the appropriate service types and fare levels were made available there.
That is a hell of a lot of traffic for LGW to lose!

I wonder if there would be a majority in the Commons for the runway.
Probably.

But if the go ahead was given when it was first asked for, we would not have this problem. When was it first asked for? Oh a mere 40 years ago.
Yes, good point. 40 years ago they were banging on about a "third" London airport and wasting public money on commissions and then ignoring their recommendations (it's deja vu all over again).

Then came the "second force" nonsense, building LGW up as a competitor hub to LHR with a UK private carrier based there to take on BOAC/BEA and later BA at LHR. That policy was such a resounding success that BUA, BCAL, Laker, etc., all went belly-up. VS only survived as it was able to shift it's hub to LHR.

For example, a one hour flight to LHR followed by a fifteen hour connecting flight to final destination.
15-hour connecting flight? You're having a laugh! Even flights to/from SIN and EZE are not that long.

Or a seven hour flight to a state-of-the-art MEB3 hub with a nine hour onward sector. It is much better to break one's journey close to the half-way point than right at the start.
Can be, but not always, especially if it means going the long way around. People have different preferences, and price, timings, convenience also play a part. One cannot generalise.

The hub is not the icing on the cake it was the reason LHR wanted a new runway in the first place. My point was because this decision seems so hard to make it needs to be broken down and the hub vs no hub argument decided first. If the hub idea is a non starter then the LHR case is not as strong. If it is decided that a hub an spoke operation would bebeneficial to the UK then LHR expansion is the only real answer. This idea that you can just build a new runway at any airport in the south east and fix the problem shows a lack of understanding by the government or more likely the need to create an easy political fix.
The hub-and-spoke model can be discussed, however, irrespective of the conclusion, a third (and fourth) rwy is still needed. The reason is very simple:
(1) landing aircraft need to waste time and fuel stacking;
(2) once landed, aircraft have to wait for a stand to become available so more delay;
(3) the aircraft occupying the stand that the landed aircraft wants cannot leave because the queue to take off is so long that no more aircraft can join it, even more delay;
(4) once finally in the queue to take off, an aircraft can have a 20-30 minute wait to be airborne.

This is the reality of Heathrow operations in normal times when there's no bad weather and no incidents. It's called operating at 100+% capacity.

Do the anti-expansion brigade really think that this state of affairs is acceptable? Apparently so.

BA threatens to move abroad if Heathrow runway goes ahead - ITV News
Clearly a load of b****cks! Give up LHR and move to DUB? Someone else having a laugh! IAG know that BA have nowhere else to go and so does everyone else.