HEATHROW

[Heathrow Harry]

(wow! no posts for nearly 3 weeks )

that fine bunch at Network Rail have delayed submission of Planning permission for the Langley T5 railway until 2017........ putting it off for 2 years - no doubt due to their current dreadful performance on electrification of the GWR

as you can imagine everyone west of LHR is less than happy...................

[Fairdealfrank]

W rail Access delayed
(wow! no posts for nearly 3 weeks )

that fine bunch at Network Rail have delayed submission of Planning permission for the Langley T5 railway until 2017........ putting it off for 2 years - no doubt due to their current dreadful performance on electrification of the GWR

as you can imagine everyone west of LHR is less than happy................... Indeed, actually NR needs to get it's collective finger out, crossrail is supposed to start in 2018 (allegedly), and the two schemes are linked, or should be if they're not.

[Wycombe]

Think NR have enough on their plate trying to get the wires up on the GWR at the moment ;-) That is Priority 1 after their recent public shaming.

[Currock Base]

The main reason for this delay is money. Network Rail like Heathrow work on fixed investment periods. The money / budget / cash-flow for these seems to be relatively fixed. The GWML project has gone over it's budget and is using money from other planned projects in that period. It means no money for the T5 link so the T5 project gets moved back into the next investment period.

Don't expect logic such as it would cost more to do separately to figure widely in that decision.

[nigel osborne]

Interesting that Finnair flew an A340 into Heathrow on Monday are these regular now or just subbing for an A350 ?

Nigel

[Heathrow Harry]

"NR needs to get it's collective finger out, crossrail is supposed to start in 2018 (allegedly), and the two schemes are linked, or should be if they're not."

that's not how they work they'll finish the electrification (with all the attendant delays) for CrossRail to Reading (noticed the GWR wires are starting to go up between Didcot & Reading at last)

then when it's opened they'll start digging up Langley for 2-3 years to get the delays back into the system

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Finnair are using the A340 for the most part on the wide body runs.

[Seljuk22]

New sixth daily LHR from 27MAR:

EK031 DXB LHR 1130 1610
EK032 LHR DXB 1950 0550+1

B77W from 27MAR
A388 from 01JUN

[AvGeek1]

It's so staggering how there are 6x daily flights with Emirates alone to Dubai!

Garuda Indonesia are also moving their route to Jakarta from Gatwick to Heathrow. Inbound flight will go via Singapore the outbound will be non-stop.

I was looking over at airliners.net and someone had produced some data that said MCO-LHR was the 9th largest unserved market from the US. I know the LON-MCO route mostly originates LGW due to the leisure market, but there is also potential business and transfer traffic with MCO and I think BA could operate this in the near future. Even VS could potentially give it a go as well. I think this route could be of good use to both of the airlines 787 fleet.

New routes for Heathrow so far in 2016:

Billund, Denmark (British Airways)
Inverness, United Kingdom (British Airways)
San Jose (CA), United States of America (British Airways)
Tehran, Iran (British Airways)
Biarritz, France (British Airways)
Chania, Greece (British Airways)
Kalamata, Greece (British Airways)
Menorca, Spain (British Airways)
Palermo, Italy (British Airways)
Salt Lake City, United States of America (Delta)
Jakarta, Indonesia (Garuda Indonesia)

[True Blue]

The Lhr definition of full must be different from that of the rest of the world.

TB

[Bagso]

To be fair LHR is fast becoming a spoke Eastbound dominated by the MEBs.

[DaveReidUK]

The Lhr definition of full must be different from that of the rest of the world.

Heathrow's definition of full is that it can't accommodate any more flights within the 480,000 pa ATM limit.

Routes come and go, as new ones get added, others are quietly dropped. A year ago you could fly direct from LHR to Almaty, Entebbe, Madeira and Rotterdam, for example - today you can't.

[AvGeek1]

Heathrow's definition of full is that it can't accommodate any more flights within the 480,000 pa ATM limit.

Routes come and go, as new ones get added, others are quietly dropped. A year ago you could fly direct from LHR to Almaty, Entebbe, Madeira and Rotterdam, for example - today you can't.

I have noticed this also, BA quietly drop routes, another one being Alicante, and big up new routes. But I don't understand how BA are adding so many routes this year after quoting that LHR was operating at capacity last year. There as also been a big increase in summer seasonal flights over last year and this year also with some, namely Corfu, adding more frequencies.

[DaveReidUK]

But I don't understand how BA are adding so many routes this year after quoting that LHR was operating at capacity last year. There as also been a big increase in summer seasonal flights over last year and this year also with some, namely Corfu, adding more frequencies.

We'll just have to wait and see what routes/frequencies get dropped to accommodate those additional services. One thing's for sure - BA aren't exempt from the ATM limit - so something will have to give.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Blimey! With Gatters going all A388, Emirates continue to rewrite conventional wisdom. Wonder if this might finally nudge Virgin out of DXB and redeploy an A330 onto the ATLANTIC.
MCO btw is volume driven with very small premium cabins on VS and no F on BA, it's a traditional LGW route that is very unlikely to move to LHR unless they build that third runway.

Slots at LHR churn between users with some gravitating towards heavy metal. This drives passenger volumes for roughly the same level of ATMs.

[Logohu]

But I don't understand how BA are adding so many routes this year after quoting that LHR was operating at capacity last year.

BA picked up a bunch of LHR slots this summer from the failure of Little Red, no doubt those are being used for some of the new routes.

It will be interesting to see how long BA/EI continue to offer 20 flights a day between LHR and DUB now they they are both part of IAG. Some flights are only 5 minutes apart !! Some consolidation onto larger aircraft would seem to be a logical way for BA to free up LHR slots in future for other uses. Or were there conditions imposed on IAG during the EI take over process which prevent them from consolidating flights ??

[canberra97]

Avgeek1

Good post regarding new routes ex LHR for S16 but one minor error,

Billund is in Denmark rather than Norway.

[AvGeek1]

Avgeek1

Good post regarding new routes ex LHR for S16 but one minor error,

Billund is in Denmark rather than Norway.

Well spotted. I apologise for my mistake! That made me look so stupid, but I do actually know where it is but just wasn't thinking, my bad.

[Heathrow Harry]

It would be just as exciting a destination if it were in Norway.............. ;)

[AvGeek1]

Another new route for Heathrow in S16. Iberia Express starting flights to Asturias, Spain three times a week (Tu, Th & Su) starting 24th April 2016.

Schedule as followed:

OVD1820 – 1915LHR 32S
LHR2030 – 2325OVD 32S

[Bagso]

Maybe one for you Skip. With your analyst hat on.

Serious question. Oman Air have just bought a daily slot into LHR from AF KL for $75m.

How long is the return on that investment given a reasonable yield and say a 75% load factor ?

Clearly there is a sell on value that can be clawed back but it seems a staggering amount minute of money even for an MEB..ish .

[True Blue]

Bagso

You have raised an interesting question. This is all about carriers trying to avoid using Lgw as they want access to higher yielding Lhr. But if they are having to pay 75 million to get the slots, surely this must stack against the case for buying Lhr slots over using Lgw? I really wonder if the higher yield does pay for this huge cost of buying slots at Lhr?

TB

[Logohu]

Apparently EK bought a slot pair from AF/KL as well for their 6th daily LHR-DXB. But their's "only" cost 60 million 😰

[Bagso]

Whilst demand is greater than supply clearly there will be a comparable sell on value so they only need to make their money over the life cycle they own the rights.

Of course if the 3rw does appear the dynamic changes and capacity will then outstrip demand, presumably slot values "if" held as a current/fixed asset will plunge ?

I say if because I understand not every airline holds them on the balance sheet.

Not sure how the complexities of this work as I cannot see that the cost would be w/o straight away as a purchase ?

[Fairdealfrank]

It will be interesting to see how long BA/EI continue to offer 20 flights a day between LHR and DUB now they they are both part of IAG. Some flights are only 5 minutes apart !! Some consolidation onto larger aircraft would seem to be a logical way for BA to free up LHR slots in future for other uses. Or were there conditions imposed on IAG during the EI take over process which prevent them from consolidating flights ??


Lack of LHR slots is no longer a problem for BA since the acquision and closure of BD, and the recent acquision of the 9 "remedy" slot pairs from VS. BA also has plenty of shorthaul aircraft from BD, hence the large number of new shorthaul routes. The problem is the current insufficient number of suitable longhaul aircraft.

[Bagso]

Gatwick boss urges airport expansion re-think amid report's 'spurious forecasts' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3450312/Gatwick-boss-urges-airport-expansion-think-amid-reports-spurious-forecasts.html)

The whole report was shambolic !

Zero emphasis on costs.

Zero emphasis on having to underwite WHOLE project
" just in case".
Zero emphasis on Manchester,
Centre of country,
As many domestic spokes as Amsterdam and capacity rising to 55m in a lessor timescale than it will take to put a runway in the South.

Manchester's problem is that it is too near 22m people but sadly not near London !

[jdcg]

Are there normally 3 flights to BKK with TG per day? TG9119 seems to be a random extra A380 departure. Wasn't available when I was booking flights and I nearly boarded it by mistake as I'm on the TG911 which leaves an hour later. Seasonal boost?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Thai remain less than twice daily, that was a delayed A380 from day before.

[Heathrow Harry]

Inside Heathrow?s ?immense? secret railway station - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35617315)

"Heathrow Airport has a secret underneath it: A huge, ghost railway station built to serve Terminal 5.

The empty station, which was completed in 2008, already has platforms but track and signals would need to be installed to make it operational.


Giving BBC Radio 5 live (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03k2wdy) an exclusive tour, Heathrow's head of surface access Chris Joyce said: “The scale is absolutely immense.


“For me, this is the biggest kept secret at Heathrow.”



Well you live and learn!!! ;)

[Peter47]

The station at T5 was built with six tracks of which four are currently in use, two for the LUL Piccadilly line and two for the Heathrow Express. (The Heathrow Connect also runs empty to T5). There are various schemes to expand rail access to Heathrow which will use these two platforms which you can find on the web. (Google SWELTRAC.)

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

The scheme to Staines is currently in abeyance, partly because of concerns about level crossings. There are also plans to run to Reading via the north.

[Heathrow Harry]

re the Reading?Slough service see earlier in this thread

NR have delayed their application for plannig permission so pushing it back almost a year..........................

[Bagso]

Has Brexit scuppered Heathrow?

With Boris coming out as a No is this more about a changing of the guard at number 10 ?

He does seem to be box office which somehow I simply don't get .

That said I'm inclined to think it will be a "no" vote as it's a simpler answer for your average singular brain cell, especially if focus is on race and immigration.

If that is the case is that then the end game for Cameron and indeed rw3?

Interesting times !

[Fairdealfrank]

Has Brexit scuppered Heathrow?

With Boris coming out as a No is this more about a changing of the guard at number 10 ?

He does seem to be box office which somehow I simply don't get .

That said I'm inclined to think it will be a "no" vote as it's a simpler answer for your average singular brain cell, especially if focus is on race and immigration.

If that is the case is that then the end game for Cameron and indeed rw3?

Interesting times !
Can guarantee that "remain" will win, it will be a repeat of 1975, but the result will be closer than the 65%-35% split of that time.

It's the establishment/metropolitan elite/big business/the "movers and shakers"/vested interests against the people, and the people cannot win. They never do.

Even with the anti-establishment feeling around at this time, it's not enough to derail the EU juggernaut (Syriza in Greece is a classic example, and even the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell are now on the pro-EU bandwagon after decades of opposition).

It will be the same in the referendum here, people will be frightened into remaining, despite the potentially bright future for the UK outside the EU.

It's nothing to do with "singular" brain cells, it's just that fear is the greatest motivator of all, and those with the power know how to use it!

[Heathrow Harry]

the key word Frank is "potentially"

Most people won't gve up what they have for a "potential" but unkown future

[anothertyke]

Bookies have Leave at 5/2. But if by some chance the bookies are proved wrong, can anyone on here point me to an article on what happens --- for example do we need to negotiate bilaterals with each EU member?

[Fairdealfrank]

the key word Frank is "potentially"

Most people won't gve up what they have for a "potential" but unkown future

Because they're motivated by fear, Harry. It's how religion controlled the people for thousands of years, now politicians do it. Look at general election campaigns, it's all about fear, fear of the other getting in.



Bookies have Leave at 5/2. But if by some chance the bookies are proved wrong, can anyone on here point me to an article on what happens --- for example do we need to negotiate bilaterals with each EU member?

Depending on the circumstances, yes, or in other circumstances, a single deal with the rump EU. The point is that we'd have the choice and the flexibility.

But it's academic, the public doesn't have the stomach to vote to leave.

[Heathrow Harry]

no one knows .... but this is serious thread drift......................

[Bagso]

Dublin...second runway go ahead £238m - 3 year delivery.

Heathrow £18 "billions".
10 year delivery.

The comparison with the last runway built in the UK (Manchester) , even allowing for inflation made the case that something is badly amiss with these figures.

Does Dublin on today's rates even allowing for acquisition costs not raise eyebrows?

It's 72 times the cost. Where is all the money going ?

EU aside its beyond belief that our MPs and more importantly HAL shareholders are not scratching their collective heads a wee bit.

This really is Emperors New Clothes Territory. .

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Oh dear Bagso, still going on about costs heh.

Just a quick comparison with your favourite airport:

MAN
Costs
Build cost - up to £1.2bn
Runway - £172m (including funding for trunk road improvements to cater for the extra traffic generated by the second runway & a £17 million package of environmental measures);
Other costs - £1bn (MAN-TP programme to expand and reconfigure Terminal 2, reconfigure Terminal 3 & demolish Terminal One and its car park)

Benefits
Pax - an extra 28 million passengers by 2030
Jobs - up to 18,000 jobs at the airport
Economic impact - up to an extra £1.2bn by 2030 (or £1 for every £1 invested)
Sources - Aviation: Manchester’s second runway, 1993-2001 (http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00101/SN00101.pdf); MEN: Airport set for huge expansion (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/airport-set-for-huge-expansion-1035177); Manchester airport granted planning consent for huge programme of building works on terminals (http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/03/manchester-airport-granted-planning-consent-for-huge-programme-of-building-works-on-terminals-etc/)

LHR
Costs
Build cost - £18.6bn
Runway, taxiways & aprons - £1.1bn
Other costs – £16.5bn (including £5bn for surface access)
Land & Buildings £8.8bn
Plant & equipment £3.6bn
Pax transit system £1.7bn


Benefits
Pax - an extra 43 million passengers by 2030
Jobs - up to 40,000 jobs at the airport
Economic impact. Up to an extra £100bn (or £5.38 for every £1 invested)
Source: Airport’s Commission (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/airports-commission-final-report)

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

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

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

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

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

T&N - You appear to have conveniently forgotten expert opinion pointing out that those LHR R3 ROI projections are fanciful. I have re-posted this excerpt from a late-September posting to refresh your memory. Dublin's R2 numbers make good sense. 72x that figure for LHR R3 renders the word outrageous hopelessly inadequate.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

And do you remember this bit?

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

[WHBM]

Because Heathrow is a "regulated charges" airport, there is mileage for HAL to inflate the "costs" as much as possible to put them into their asset base they present to the regulator, so they can be seen to be getting only a "reasonable" return on their capital investments.


For example, all the land costs, such as the purchase of Harmondsworth housing, is presented at current value. yet Heathrow has been progressively buying up houses there for years as they happen to come on to the market, and then transferring them to an arms-length property company they own who rent them out in the meantime. When it comes to actual build start they will be transferred back, without any difficulty of course, and the tenants will leave, but charged at then current greatly inflated value. The margin flows back to the shareholders by an alternative route.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

So Shed, why are your sources more reliable? Two disgruntled panel members or the full panel?

I'm sure you'll trade quotes all day long but in my opinion, I believe the Commission and I believe what MAG say.

Clearly you don't.

End of.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

So Shed, why are your sources more reliable?

I didn't claim that. We will only know the actual numbers with the benefit of hindsight. I have never suggested otherwise. Over the course of time, some forecasters will be vindicated and others will be proven inaccurate. But right now, neither of us can claim to know for sure how the future will unfold.

I don't present one convenient set of numbers as fact. The numbers put forward in the piece I quoted cover a range and allow for a generous margin of error. Those you quote are absolute and appear deeply unconvincing. My aim was to remind you that these numbers which you present confidently as established fact are actually highly controversial and subject to considerable doubt for the reasons outlined by two experts who were actually on the panel. Their dissent could hardly be more damning of the methodology deployed. You disbelieve that expert opinion, I don't. Fair enough. But please don't then present your preferred numbers as if they are incontovertible fact. I don't do that in my postings on this topic: I always acknowledge margin for error and an element of doubt. You just marry the cherry-picked projections which suit your narrative.

I believe the Commission and I believe what MAG say.


Blind faith is a wondrous thing. By the way, can you point me to the bit where MAG has opined that the LHR R3 forecasts make sense? Thanks.

[Bagso]

LHR
Costs
Build cost - £18.6bn
Runway, taxiways & aprons - £1.1bn
Other costs – £16.5bn (including £5bn for surface access)
Land & Buildings £8.8bn
Plant & equipment £3.6bn
Pax transit system £1.7bn
Benefits
Pax - an extra 43 million passengers by 2030
Jobs - up to 40,000 jobs at the airport
Economic impact. Up to an extra £100bn (or £5.38 for every £1 invested)


Source: Airport’s Commission

Hans Christian Andersen was apparently unavailable

[AndyH52]

LHR
Costs
Build cost - £18.6bn
Runway, taxiways & aprons - £1.1bn
Other costs – £16.5bn (including £5bn for surface access)
Land & Buildings £8.8bn
Plant & equipment £3.6bn
Pax transit system £1.7bn
Benefits
Pax - an extra 43 million passengers by 2030
Jobs - up to 40,000 jobs at the airport
Economic impact. Up to an extra £100bn (or £5.38 for every £1 invested)


Source: Airport’s Commission

Hans Christian Andersen was apparently unavailable

God, it's like Groundhog Day....

[Heathrow Harry]

A BILLION for the runway, taxiways Apron????

Someone is taking the proverbial......................

there's some guys in a white van around here who would do the whole lot for a million

[T250]

Sorry if this has been covered before, I'd be interested to see any actual properly evidenced forecast demand for such a third runway?

For example, how do you really know that you'd fill even 30% of a new runway.

AMS has 6 runways, only 1 terminal and according to wikipedia, just shy of 55m pax in 2015.

My point being, if other European hubs have far greater infrastructure in terms of runway capacity, why are they not the leaders above and beyond LHR? Is it the case that even with 6 runways there just isn't really the demand to constantly fill it and likewise, a third runway at LHR would likely not be utilised above 30-50% making some of the arguments presented here about benefit to economy as slightly less rosy and perhaps more farcical? :yuk:

Dare I say.

[ETOPS]

Sorry T250

Having spent the last 26 years "holding over Bovingdon" for up to 40 minutes on bad days and never less than 10 mins in CAVOK I used to pray for another runway. I once took a note of all my holding in one year and it added up to 20 hours...............:bored:

[Ringwayman]

and AMS doesn't have all 6 in use at the same time. Believe it's only 3.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

This is becoming like LAMBOURNE on a busy evening.......

[LAX_LHR]

According to the Sunday times, flybe are to run the ex-little red flights from Heathrow to Manchester and Scotland.

Good luck with that one.....

[AndyH52]

According to the Sunday times, flybe are to run the ex-little red flights from Heathrow to Manchester and Scotland.

Good luck with that one.....

Who knows. If it's included in the new codeshare agreement with Virgin it might work?

[Suzeman]

According to the Sunday times, flybe are to run the ex-little red flights from Heathrow to Manchester and Scotland.

Good luck with that one.....

I thought the remedy slots that the Little Red flights used had returned to BA?

[rutankrd]

They have for the current season however the regulator is obliged to re-offer them for a number of seasons under the terms of the take over .

Reminder of routes that can be served (Also in Flybe thread)

Aberdeen/Edinburgh/Nice/Cairo and Riyadh for so many seasons (is it 6 ?) then any other EU city.

Manchester is not one of them and would require purchased/leased slots at a considerable cost

[Fairdealfrank]

According to the Sunday times, flybe are to run the ex-little red flights from Heathrow to Manchester and Scotland.

Good luck with that one.....
Wasn't the Sunday Times on April 1st by any chance? There's nothing on the internet.

Nice idea, unlikely to happen. Maybe if BE had the intention to do this it would have happened (1) when the remedy slots were first released, or (2) when VS came off the routes.

Doubt if BE will appear at LHR unless or until (pick the one you prefer) it has a third rwy and pigs are flying all over the place.






They have for the current season however the regulator is obliged to re-offer them for a number of seasons under the terms of the take over .

Reminder of routes that can be served (Also in Flybe thread)

Aberdeen/Edinburgh/Nice/Cairo and Riyadh for so many seasons (is it 6 ?) then any other EU city.

Manchester is not one of them and would require purchased/leased slots at a considerable cost

Does this mean they go unused for all those seasons if there are no takers? surely not!

[Ph1l1pncl]

I believe that BA can use them on any route for the summer season as the slots returned to the, and they have used them for the recently announced shorthaul routes such as Inverness, Billund, Palermo, Chania, and possibly for Tehran. The slots have to be reofferred for the winter season and they have to be on the specific routes, if no one takes them then they return back to BA and they can use them how they wish.

[nguba]

The Flybe/LHR story was in Thr Sunday Times:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Companies/article1686314.ece

I suspect there is an element of kite-flying on the part of Flybe or The Sunday Times indulging in speculation.

[Fairdealfrank]

According to the Sunday times, flybe are to run the ex-little red flights from Heathrow to Manchester and Scotland.

Good luck with that one.....


Maybe they're confused: BE is/will be code sharing with VS on domestic flights to/from RINGWAY, not HEATHROW.



The Flybe/LHR story was in Thr Sunday Times:

Flybe lands at Heathrow to take on BA | The Sunday Times (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Companies/article1686314.ece)

I suspect there is an element of kite-flying on the part of Flybe or The Sunday Times indulging in speculation.


The article stated that these slots are available free. That being the case, BE may be in a position to make better use of the remedy slots as shorthaul and domestic are BE's specialism whereas VS only knows longhaul.

Only read the first few paragraphs of the article as it disappears behind a pay-wall, so may miss quite a lot.

Funny that there's nothing on the "interweb" from BE, so it could be nonsense.

[Heathrow Harry]

anyone see the article in the Times yesterday that the biggest supporter of Leave is a guy living in the Isle of Man to avoid UK tax and that their Communications chief has some Russian connections of rather dubious background............

[Fairdealfrank]

Sorry T250

Having spent the last 26 years "holding over Bovingdon" for up to 40 minutes on bad days and never less than 10 mins in CAVOK I used to pray for another runway. I once took a note of all my holding in one year and it added up to 20 hours...............


....and that's not the entire story: after a 40 minute hold and finally landing, there is another wait to get onto the stand. The reason for this is that the previous aircraft cannot leave the stand.

The previous aircraft cannot leave the stand because the queue to take off is too long no more aircraft can join it. Once an aircraft is in the queue there's another 20-40 minute wait to takeoff.

Please can someone explain how is this making Heathrow "better not bigger" (to use the standard mantra of anti-LHR expansion MPs).

[Gonzo]

Fairdeal,

No, the usual reason is simply that the departure is not yet ready.

If it's a question of departure delay, then we usually push them when they are ready and then remote hold them, especially if there's an inbound waiting to park on that stand.

[litefoot1]

Plane strikes drone while approaching Heathrow. Landed safely.

Drone hit plane approaching Heathrow Airport - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36067591)

[Fairdealfrank]

Fairdeal,

No, the usual reason is simply that the departure is not yet ready.

If it's a question of departure delay, then we usually push them when they are ready and then remote hold them, especially if there's an inbound waiting to park on that stand.


Sometimes yes, but not always, Gonzo. On many occasions everyone is on board, the aircraft doors are closed and the aircraft is ready to leave, and the first officer or the captain is making apologetic announcements.

[Fairdealfrank]

The Green Party mayoral candidate, Sian Berry, was on "Sunday Politics London" yesterday. She came out with all the usual Green party platitudes and nonsense, but perhaps the most ridiculous comment was.....

.....that London City Airport would be closed and that all flights would be transferred to Heathrow.

She did not state, and regretably, she was not asked by how high much the rates precept would have to rise to pay for this.

Interestingly, the Green Party isn't suggesting the closure of Heathrow, but how on earth could Heathrow absorb all of London City's movements and pax?

[PAXboy]

I find many reporters now have no in depth knowledge and, it seems, no one behind the scenes to feed the key questions into their ear piece.

[DaveReidUK]

On many occasions everyone is on board, the aircraft doors are closed and the aircraft is ready to leave, and the first officer or the captain is making apologetic announcements.

On many occasions?

If an aircraft that's ready to go is held on stand due to departure delays, rather than being pushed back and then held remotely, doesn't that suggest that in those instances there probably isn't another aircraft waiting to use the stand?

Why don't we ask a controller? :O

[Gonzo]

Fairdeal,

Yes, so in those cases there probably wasn't anyone waiting for your gate.

And in my experience some flight crews blur the distinction between departure delay due to traffic at LHR, and departure delay to to an arrival or en-route restriction (slot time). Also in my experience, some blame 'ATC delays' for myriad other delays.

[Una Due Tfc]

Fairdeal,

Yes, so in those cases there probably wasn't anyone waiting for your gate.

And in my experience some flight crews blur the distinction between departure delay due to traffic at LHR, and departure delay to to an arrival or en-route restriction (slot time). Also in my experience, some blame 'ATC delays' for myriad other delays.

Exactly, if an aircraft flying within Europe misses their slot, ATC has to submit a new application to the central flow management unit in Brussels, who regulate slots to prevent high level sectors in Europe from becoming overloaded, so it's not always just a local (ie airport capacity) issue

[ETOPS]

Looks like TfL are beginning to baulk at the upgrade costs..

Heathrow runway will create £16bn burden for Transport for London (http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/newswire/heathrow-runway-will-create-16bn-burden-transport-london/)


I'm seeing a "softening-up" for an LGW decision.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

I don't really see it as a LHR or LGW decision. Clearly the airports commission was obliged to look at it as such (once the Thames airport was ruled out) but I think wider considerations are at work.

Yes there is significant demand to and from the London and South east. Yes there is also significant demand to and from other areas of the UK.

Why not develop significant capacity elsewhere? It looks like airlines, rather than routing via European Hubs (as had been the argument) are simply putting extra capacity into places like Manchester and Birmingham.

Yes, London is incredible and should be supported. But why not also seek to support other large cities with this type of investment. £16bn is a massive amount that would probably buy you a complete new airport and infrastructure outside of the south east. spending that on heathrow would be poor value for money.

If LHR wish to pay for it themselves - that's another question.

[Bagso]

Very few politicians and media folk actually understand how much £1 bn actually is. .....

A rough straw poll said 5m, 10m, and 100m !

Nobody I spoke to realised it was infact 1000million !

In real money £16,000,000,000

One thing I do agree on, it's current location is a blessing and a curse.

Heathrow has grown so big the surrounding infastructure is almost at a standstill. I'm suprised it's still so popular given the gridlock.

[Walnut]

I don't see how a decision can be made until after the Referendum result is digested, If we go Brexit then huge customs facilities will have to be set up at the channel tunnel and all airport facilities, since at the moment European goods/freight are Vat/duty free

[WHBM]

Heathrow has grown so big the surrounding infrastructure is almost at a standstill. I'm surprised it's still so popular given the gridlock.
That's a gross overstatement. Like many here our office is there and I drive constantly on the M4 and M25, use the Underground, etc, and the liability to delay is no more than you find in comparable areas. My journey time expectations are more reliable there than elsewhere. It's airside that it's gridlock.

You want to try the M6 from Coventry to Wigan (100 miles) on a Friday afternoon for infrastructure overloaded !

[WHBM]

Looks like TfL are beginning to baulk at the upgrade costs..

Heathrow runway will create £16bn burden for Transport for London (http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/newswire/heathrow-runway-will-create-16bn-burden-transport-london/)


I'm seeing a "softening-up" for an LGW decision.
I think this is more a political strike by TfL who have long coveted putting a "Congestion Charge" like they have in Central London onto the roads surrounding Heathrow. £11.50 per car per day would come in quite handy for their coffers to be squandered on Cycle Superhighways, expensive Borismaster buses, etc, because, of course, for many there's no alternative to a car, with so many reporting before public transport starts or finishing after midnight, plus all those exec cars who they know must be only used by multi-millionaires :(

[AvGeek1]

The fact is that Heathrow and Gatwick are both in desperate need of a new runway as they are both running at capacity (Heathrow more so they Gatwick), Heathrow is packed and Gatwick is like a cattle market especially in the school holidays. But no one else is to blame apart from the Government who should have planned ahead, Heathrow has been running at capacity for years now and it's getting ridiculous. It's all down to politics. Every other country with a major airport in Europe seem to get it right but the UK. It's an embarrassment and a disgrace. Even Manchester received a second runway well before any London airport. If Heathrow gets a new runway, there are 30 airlines waiting to operate out of Heathrow and any existing airline would like to increase frequency and introduce new services, and it will be too late. It will be running near capacity again very soon after the completion of the expansion. :ugh:

[DaveReidUK]

Even Manchester received a second runway well before any London airport.

I think you'll find that Heathrow has had parallel runways since the late 1940s, around 50 years before Manchester got its one.

[Heathrow Harry]

in fact LHR used to have 4 -6 runways until they closed the cross runways to expand the Terminals........................

[Guest 112233]

"In fact LHR used to have 4 -6 runways until they closed the cross runways to expand the Terminals........................"

With modern computing technology was this in part a mistake ? - Not all Six runways; but perhaps keeping two.

CAT III with 20/20 hindsight.

[DaveReidUK]

"In fact LHR used to have 4 -6 runways until they closed the cross runways to expand the Terminals........................"

With modern computing technology was this in part a mistake ? - Not all Six runways; but perhaps keeping two.

Hardly.

One of the cross runways was in use until about 15 years ago, but its existence made no difference whatsoever to runway capacity.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

The Telegraph reports

"Some of the work would be necessary even without the third runway, TfL admitted, while stressing that the development would accelerate the need for the upgrades.

"It is entirely in the realms of possibility that some of the schemes would be deemed necessary at some unspecified time in the future," said a spokesman for TfL."


Must be nice to get other people to pay for what one should.

[Heathrow Harry]

An oped in todays Times Business section reckons that TfL may be stretching things a bit at £18.4 Bn but reckons LHR is even worse - upgrading the rail links will only cost £ 800,000 - really?? They ask the question

"is it really conceivable that we can move another 70 million people around W London for £ 2.2 Bn? That looks as fanciful as Boris's fanatsy island.""

[Trash 'n' Navs]

I'm not sure I trust any figures quoted by the media. They depend on the base assumptions used and the media never provide that context preferring to go to 'sensational' headlines.

Such variance in figures (£2.2bn to £18.4bn with the independent view of £5.7bn) makes me question what growth assumptions they each use. A Times article suggested 20% growth used by TfL was an "optimism" bias. So what would the figure be for a "pessimism" bias or even the "base" case?

[Fairdealfrank]

I'm seeing a "softening-up" for an LGW decision.
Maybe, but that does not resolve the problem.



The fact is that Heathrow and Gatwick are both in desperate need of a new runway as they are both running at capacity (Heathrow more so they Gatwick), Heathrow is packed and Gatwick is like a cattle market especially in the school holidays. But no one else is to blame apart from the Government who should have planned ahead, Heathrow has been running at capacity for years now and it's getting ridiculous. It's all down to politics. Every other country with a major airport in Europe seem to get it right but the UK. It's an embarrassment and a disgrace. Even Manchester received a second runway well before any London airport. If Heathrow gets a new runway, there are 30 airlines waiting to operate out of Heathrow and any existing airline would like to increase frequency and introduce new services, and it will be too late. It will be running near capacity again very soon after the completion of the expansion.
A case for a third and fourth parallel rwy well made!



in fact LHR used to have 4 -6 runways until they closed the cross runways to expand the Terminals........................
.......because LHR was constructed when aircraft could not cope with crosswinds and capacity was not an issue. It had 6 rwys (3 pairs of 2 parallel rwys), of which only two could be used simulataneously.

These days capacity is very much an issue and crosswind movements are not, hence the need for more parallel rwys.


To HH

"In fact LHR used to have 4 -6 runways until they closed the cross runways to expand the Terminals........................"

With modern computing technology was this in part a mistake ? - Not all Six runways; but perhaps keeping two.

CAT III with 20/20 hindsight.
The mistake was not replacing them with new parallel rwys north of the A4 Bath Road back in the day.

[pax britanica]

The cross runways are as has been pointed out irrelevant because they are now under terminals and even before that intersected with each other making use of more than any two at a time difficult to say the elast although I am sure it has been done on occasion it would have probably only lead tyoa tiny increase in movements.

However the land north of LHR has never really been developed and there are surprising ly large areas of open ground between the A4 and the M4. development along the A4 is much the same as 50 years ago aside froma few hotels and isa sort of ribbon development parrlaleling the road. Problem is that there are three villages, Harlington, Harmondsworth and Sipson which are agin essentially ribbon developments and old lanes that cross the area north to south to north from what was the old Bath road and at least one, Sipson, would pretty much have to go to build a third runway but that is the History of Heathrow. named for the village sacrificed to the airport along with Hatton , parts of Stanwell and Stanwell Moor , Yeovany and Poyle . Sadly in a crowded country somethings have to go to make way for progress and my personal view ios that the victims are more afraid of being screwed over by biased compulsory purchase prices than the actual loss of habitat, although there are a few nice old buildings these places are not that desirable being in the middle of a flat desolate plain with poor public transport links and lots of the disadvantages of being very close to a huge airport.
But in Uk we just do not have the stomach to do anything at all like this, if the amount of Government and Civil service effort that was put into covering up the Hillsborough tragedy was directed at Heathrow expansion the runway would be ten years old by now.

The other ridiculous element in this is the idea that it could be Gatwick or Heathrow and of course it cannot. Airports are like railway junctions , lots of people need to interchange so building a second runway at Gatwick cannot effectively remove the case for expanding Heathrow, it will just see more and more and more people using AMS CDG and FRA instead.

But perhaps thats the Boris master pan, leave the EU to cut short haul travel and make it difficult for anyone to get to Britain at all to deal with immigration

[DaveReidUK]

The mistake was not replacing them with new parallel rwys north of the A4 Bath Road back in the day.

Interestingly, if you look at the A4 to the north of the airport you will see two open areas that have never been built on, either side of the Heathrow Hotel.

I don't know if it's an urban myth, but the story goes that those areas have been safeguarded for possible link taxiways ever since the original 9-runway proposal (3 of them north of the A4) back in the late 1940s.

[vctenderness]

As I understand it those fields belong to a farmer who has refused to sell to anyone.

BA tried to acquire them once when considering the replacement for Tristar House but it was a no go.

[Fairdealfrank]

The cross runways are as has been pointed out irrelevant because they are now under terminals and even before that intersected with each other making use of more than any two at a time difficult to say the elast although I am sure it has been done on occasion it would have probably only lead tyoa tiny increase in movements.

However the land north of LHR has never really been developed and there are surprising ly large areas of open ground between the A4 and the M4. development along the A4 is much the same as 50 years ago aside froma few hotels and isa sort of ribbon development parrlaleling the road. Problem is that there are three villages, Harlington, Harmondsworth and Sipson which are agin essentially ribbon developments and old lanes that cross the area north to south to north from what was the old Bath road and at least one, Sipson, would pretty much have to go to build a third runway but that is the History of Heathrow. named for the village sacrificed to the airport along with Hatton , parts of Stanwell and Stanwell Moor , Yeovany and Poyle . Sadly in a crowded country somethings have to go to make way for progress and my personal view ios that the victims are more afraid of being screwed over by biased compulsory purchase prices than the actual loss of habitat, although there are a few nice old buildings these places are not that desirable being in the middle of a flat desolate plain with poor public transport links and lots of the disadvantages of being very close to a huge airport.
But in Uk we just do not have the stomach to do anything at all like this, if the amount of Government and Civil service effort that was put into covering up the Hillsborough tragedy was directed at Heathrow expansion the runway would be ten years old by now.


Indeed it would! When the previous third rwy plan was mooted under the Labour government dithering, indecision and procrastination, as opposed to that of the coalition or Conservative governments (yawn!), much of Sipson and the surrounding area was bought up by the airport company and the houses rented out on short-term lets.

A second rwy at LGW without a third at LHR will resolve nothing.


But perhaps thats the Boris master pan, leave the EU to cut short haul travel and make it difficult for anyone to get to Britain at all to deal with immigration

People still need to travel, and the medium and long term growth in aviation will continue, with the usual short term blips.


Interestingly, if you look at the A4 to the north of the airport you will see two open areas that have never been built on, either side of the Heathrow Hotel.

I don't know if it's an urban myth, but the story goes that those areas have been safeguarded for possible link taxiways ever since the original 9-runway proposal (3 of them north of the A4) back in the late 1940s.


Yes, this is correct, but not the entire 2mi. length needed. Heathrow Ltd. has been buying up much of this land over the last 50 years or so.


As I understand it those fields belong to a farmer who has refused to sell to anyone.

BA tried to acquire them once when considering the replacement for Tristar House but it was a no go.


If the rwy gets the go ahead, the sale will proceed......everyone has their price, if not, there's good old compulsory purchase.

[DaveReidUK]

I don't know if it's an urban myth, but the story goes that those areas have been safeguarded for possible link taxiways ever since the original 9-runway proposal (3 of them north of the A4) back in the late 1940s.Yes, this is correct, but not the entire 2mi. length needed. Heathrow Ltd. has been buying up much of this land over the last 50 years or so.

If the rwy gets the go ahead, the sale will proceed......everyone has their price, if not, there's good old compulsory purchase.I'm confused. Are you saying that the reason those areas haven't been built on is that they are being safeguarded, or confirming that the owner simply wasn't prepared to sell ?

Just curious.

[pax britanica]

I had never heard the farmer story but it always struck me as odd that so much land close to LHR remained as open farmland for decades and I always assumed that it was somehow safeguarded perhaps by that rarest creature the far seeing bureaucrat.

The area south of the airport is pretty much a no no with a huge fuel farm lots more hosues and a hulking great reservoir to be disposed of before you even get to the listed status of Stanwell church , 1120 or similar so its north of LHR or nothing

[Logohu]

When the previous third rwy plan was mooted under the Labour government dithering, indecision and procrastination, as opposed to that of the coalition or Conservative governments (yawn!)

Speaking of which, surely it must almost be time for another Government inquiry ? We haven't had one for almost nine months already :)

[Fairdealfrank]

I'm confused. Are you saying that the reason those areas haven't been built on is that they are being safeguarded, or confirming that the owner simply wasn't prepared to sell ?

Just curious.



I had never heard the farmer story but it always struck me as odd that so much land close to LHR remained as open farmland for decades and I always assumed that it was somehow safeguarded perhaps by that rarest creature the far seeing bureaucrat.

The area south of the airport is pretty much a no no with a huge fuel farm lots more hosues and a hulking great reservoir to be disposed of before you even get to the listed status of Stanwell church , 1120 or similar so its north of LHR or nothing

AFAIK, the land north of LHR was safeguarded for the 3 extra intersecting rwys, but the area needed for 2 mi. long parallel rwy(s) and the adjacant terminal(s), other infrastructure, etc., is larger.


Speaking of which, surely it must almost be time for another Government inquiry ? We haven't had one for almost nine months already


Let's have a ROYAL commission this time, we haven't had one of those for ages......

[Gonzo]

Use of Runway 23 reduced overall movement rates.

[DaveReidUK]

Use of Runway 23 reduced overall movement rates.

Thanks for that. Hopefully we can lay the "should have kept a couple of the old runways" argument to rest.

[ETOPS]

Use of Runway 23 reduced overall movement rates.

Not suprisingly as 23 usually came into use with strong southerly winds and it was an SRA to half a mile when the cloudbase was low. Hard work for poor old me in the "Super" 1-11 trying to make 1 or 2 degree heading changes whilst being bounced about in 40kt gusts!!

[PAXboy]

Only landed on 23 once. In a Viscount from IOM, so must have been in the mid 1980s, When was it closed?

[DaveReidUK]

When was it closed?

It was WFU in 2002. Last movement was a landing by a SAA B743 on 27th October (thanks, HD!)

Although Heathrow continued to show a 3-runway diagram on their published alternation schedule until 2013. :O

[Musket90]

Ah - Runway 23 memories. Strong SSW wind. Most arrivals accepting 23 but the occasional requesting 27L. I seem to remember this scenario caused occasional problems for ATC having to quickly deal with potential loss of separation due different headwind components on the different runways.

[WHBM]

The cross runways ... intersected with each other making use of more than any two at a time difficult to say the least
I guess you've never been to the USA, where many major airports have intersecting runways and use them to INCREASE capacity. Most notable was Chicago O'Hare before the recent additional runway building, 6 runways in a star shape, 3 equilateral pairs, not unlike the original Heathrow arrangement, they used to use ALL SIX at once (co-ordinated, of course) in a spectacular bit of capacity management, and also to give some noise alleviation to the adjacent communities.

[DaveReidUK]

I guess you've never been to the USA, where many major airports have intersecting runways and use them to INCREASE capacity. Most notable was Chicago O'Hare before the recent additional runway building, 6 runways in a star shape, 3 equilateral pairs, not unlike the original Heathrow arrangement, they used to use ALL SIX at once (co-ordinated, of course) in a spectacular bit of capacity management, and also to give some noise alleviation to the adjacent communities.

You're not really comparing apples with apples here.

Heathrow was never designed with a view to simultaneous operations from intersecting runways. The star layout was intended to allow operation from any pair of parallel cross runways when the wind did not permit safe operation from the east-west runways (bearing in mind that aircraft crosswind limits were much lower in those days).

It's true, of course, that before 23 closed it was used from time to time for landings at the same time as takeoffs from the main runway(s) but, as Gonzo points out, no amount of "spectacular capacity management" could achieve the movement rate obtainable from the two main runways.

Chicago, on the other hand, with its (now) 9 runways spread over an area more than double the size of Heathrow has evolved its runway layout over years on the assumption that intersecting runway operations will be the norm.

Heathrow, incidentally, achieves almost two-and-a-half times as many movements per year per runway as O'Hare does ...

[kcockayne]

You're not really comparing apples with apples here.

Heathrow was never designed with a view to simultaneous operations from intersecting runways. The star layout was intended to allow operation from any pair of parallel cross runways when the wind did not permit safe operation from the east-west runways (bearing in mind that aircraft crosswind limits were much lower in those days).

It's true, of course, that before 23 closed it was used from time to time for landings at the same time as takeoffs from the main runway(s) but, as Gonzo points out, no amount of "spectacular capacity management" could achieve the movement rate obtainable from the two main runways.

Chicago, on the other hand, with its (now) 9 runways spread over an area more than double the size of Heathrow has evolved its runway layout over years on the assumption that intersecting runway operations will be the norm.

Heathrow, incidentally, achieves almost two-and-a-half times as many movements per year per runway as O'Hare does ...
Said "like it is", Dave. Or rather, like it was. Factual & to the point. End of story.

[PAXboy]

Heathrow third runway: Select committee urges action - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36195209)
The government must stop putting off the "difficult" decision to expand Heathrow Airport rather than Gatwick, a Commons select committee has said.

The arguments over increasing aviation capacity in South East England have "changed little in a quarter of a century", said the Transport Committee. It urged ministers to end "years of political dithering" and to set out a clear timetable.

The government said it was important to get the decision right.
That last line sums up the obfuscation and dithering of the last quarter of a century.

[Bagso]

Dithering indeed..........

Elected representatives who make not one reference to the absurd and eyewatering cost!

[vctenderness]

After the Mayoral elections if, as predicted, Saddiq Khan Labour wins the government will immediately speed the process up.

[Skipness One Echo]

Well Dave is going, wouldn't mind giving Bojo a kick after the Brexit vote fails and Zac loses London. Not the best of reasons to give the go-ahead but any port in a storm.

[T250]

After the Mayoral elections if, as predicted, Saddiq Khan Labour wins the government will immediately speed the process up.

Wishful thinking :hmm:

Business as usual will ensue, nothing will happen :oh:

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

So long as Heathrow remains a private company requiring £18 billion in taxpayers handouts to expand, nothing will happen.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

UK's North East Chamber Of Commerce (NECC) responded to the House of Commons Transport Committee report, which urges a government decision on expansion in the South East. NECC head of policy and campaigns Jonathan Walker said: "We wholeheartedly agree with the Transport Committee’s view that the uncertainty over whether or not Heathrow will be expanded cannot continue. The lack of clarity on this vital issue is undermining investment decisions by businesses who cannot plan ahead while such a key decision is outstanding. As part of our aim to build a global North East we are committed to championing Heathrow expansion to sustain further economic growth. This is the best option for the North East, allowing us to build on our existing connections and reach a wider range of destinations. We urge the Government to agree to the recommendations of the Airports Commission and permit Heathrow expansion as soon as possible".

[Bagso]

Everybody agrees there has to be a solution the problem is who is paying for it.

Everybody is asking the wrong question!

If you said to that same spokesperson do you want a 3rd runway at Heathrow with the possibility of a trickle down OR £1billion direct investment in infastructure what would he say then ?

I suspect the latter.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

The NECC could have said what you suggest. They've had ample opportunity to ask for that direct investment instead of calling for Heathrow expansion.

They haven't & didn't.

So I suspect not.

[T250]

Cause we all know just how fantastically well 'trickle down' investment works whether it be tax, charity funding or otherwise.... That's right, it doesn't work!

More fool the people/businesses of the north east :ugh:

[Skipness One Echo]

More fool the people/businesses of the north east
What's your view on the delight expressed by many businesses and indeed the airport in Inverness that LHR-INV has been restored? Your point is there is no financial gain on such an airfield having a LHR link?
So long as Heathrow remains a private company requiring £18 billion in taxpayers handouts to expand, nothing will happen.
Remind me where the £18 billion figure comes from, link please and over how many years it is spread? Are you suggesting we nationalise LHR btw?

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Skipness

I don't think we should nationalise heathrow, but I don't think we should subsidise it to the level it seems to require to expand.

The £18 billion is from TFL, and covers surface access schemes likely to be needed to alleviate increased demand to the airport.

As Bagso says, the argument is about who should pay for it, not whether it should happen. Whatever sum it is (and I don't want to get into an argument about a billion here or there) it is a huge sum of money.

[T250]

What's your view on the delight expressed by many businesses and indeed the airport in Inverness that LHR-INV has been restored? Your point is there is no financial gain on such an airfield having a LHR link?


'Delight' as you put it does not equal trickle down on this new Inverness route. At best some INV locals can access LHR easier than ever, and vice versa. The route already exists between LGW and has done for years.

And it would also seem that the 'investment' of this new LHR-INV is totally reliant upon the locals in INV themselves, rather than LHR as is clearly stated in this article:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/business/896675/inverness-heathrow-route-use-lose-says-ceo/

Or maybe his comments are also directed to the wider community to use this route or lose it, the people who will lose out most are obviously those in Inverness not at LHR, why would they care.

[Skipness One Echo]

The £18 billion is from TFL, and covers surface access schemes likely to be needed to alleviate increased demand to the airport.
How much of that is something TFL would need to invest anyway should LHR growth remain static?

At best some INV locals can access LHR easier than ever, and vice versa. The route already exists between LGW and has done for years.
There's a tiny fraction of the long haul connectivity avaialble over LGW compared to that over LHR. It allows a one stop connection for business to the world, easyJet to LGW is a different market entirely. So "at best" a fair bit of money will be inbound to the Highlands from overseas, even at one flight per day. Inbound tourism is a big money earner in pasts of Scotland, so in terms of getting US or Japanese tourists to that part of the world, LHR gives options LGW can only dream about. You might turn your nose up at one flight a day but GLA sings the praises of one B757 per day, from EWR. As does BFS, because they know the sort of importance they have to the economy.

Leeds and Inverness seem rather pleased to have a Heathrow connection again, maybe they should just shoosh and be thankful for what they have with easyJet and London. Say to the wider world, "Scotland's not for you"?

Sheesh!

[T250]

There's a tiny fraction of the long haul connectivity avaialble over LGW compared to that over LHR. It allows a one stop connection for business to the world, easyJet to LGW is a different market entirely. So "at best" a fair bit of money will be inbound to the Highlands from overseas, even at one flight per day. Inbound tourism is a big money earner in pasts of Scotland, so in terms of getting US or Japanese tourists to that part of the world, LHR gives options LGW can only dream about. You might turn your nose up at one flight a day but GLA sings the praises of one B757 per day, from EWR. As does BFS, because they know the sort of importance they have to the economy.

Leeds and Inverness seem rather pleased to have a Heathrow connection again, maybe they should just shoosh and be thankful for what they have with easyJet and London. Say to the wider world, "Scotland's not for you"?

There's no figures I have available to myself and I doubt you have figures either to substantiate what sort of market there is for both long haul connectivity from INV to LHR and then opposite, local tourism inbound to INV from LHR.

However, Inverness is not a major city in the likes of Glasgow or Belfast, as a simple Google search indicates an Inverness population of almost 47,000. I think it is slightly overstating the supposed 'importance' of LHR having regional routes again as well as overstating what a triumph this is for just 47,000 people. Do we really think even 10-20% of these people or those from surrounding areas will actually utilise this route. Obviously there is some doubt, hence the 'Use it or lose it' article! :=

If there is so much business to be tapped into in INV then it begs the question why all airlines till now (apart from EZY) have been seasonal schedules only?

Time will tell obviously, however this is a case of BA simply testing the waters and seeing an opportunity for short term. When it inevitably doesn't work out to the profits they desire they will shunt the slot to something far more lucrative. :yuk:

[PAXboy]

Unfortunately, INV is only one small spoke on the wheel. We need as many of the spokes as possible to have the option of going into LHR and/or LGW as the market sees fit. That's how it was before the politicians gave up.

As to the TFL costs. Irrespective of their current status, they are an organisation built on long standing government practice. Which means, that they will ask for MORE money than they think they will need. This allows the govt to cut back on the money (and show how tough they are) and yet leave enough dosh to get the job done.

As it happens, most commercial companies run their budget the same way, allowing the Director of Finance / MD / whoever to feel like they are in power because they knocked 15% off the budget plans. I learnt that lesson in The City of London 30 years ago.

[Bagso]

"Use it or lose it " hardly seems a robust vote of confidence?

[fjencl]

The population of Inverness as quoted earlier 47000, couldn't be further from the truth, it may have been 47000 people in the 1980's.

Inverness - Police Scotland (http://www.scotland.police.uk/your-community/highlands-and-islands/inverness/)

Population now is approximately 80000 people.

For Info

[Prophead]

Wow, I haven't visited this thread in a while but I see the North West Anti LHR campaign is still going strong.

Trickledown certainly does exist and many regionals will see the benefit from LHR hub expansion.

As for the whole TFL £5-18bn input, most of that will be spent anyway.

As for this comment

The £18 billion is from TFL, and covers surface access schemes likely to be needed to alleviate increased demand to the airport.

If the demand is set to increase that much then it is a no brainer. We need it. The argument seems to be we shouldn't build it, yet there will be so much demand it will require major access works??? Is MAN more important than the needs of all these extra people that will use an expanded Heathrow?

A new national hub airport opening up long haul routes to many regional airports financed by a private company? All we need to do is upgrade the transport infrastructure to allow easier access? Yes please.

[T250]

Trickle down does not work.

It will not work for people of the north east or even the country as a whole.

In no other sector does it work, like I said earlier, in charities the money goes to management and corporate bull****. Overall, these massive corporate entities hide their profits into secretive offshore accounts and keep it there, paying no or minimal corporation tax!

You really think that every company involved in anything to do with the future of LHR expansion will care about communities. It is all about bottom line profit for airlines and airport operators. Everything else comes next very low down the list such as paying fair share of tax (not avoiding it like recently shown by GAL at LGW who haven't paid any tax since acquiring the airport in 2009!), environment and noise. :ugh::mad:

More money, siphoned off to tax havens at the expense to society in the UK as a whole.

Sources for GAL reference:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gatwick-airport-corporation-tax-uk-profit-flights-482876
http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Gatwick-Airport-avoided-corporation-tax-6-years/story-29226020-detail/story.html

[Prophead]

What on earth are you talking about now?

Trickledown is not about the owners of LHR giving handouts to the poor people of the north east. It is about businesses in the NE being able to get a flight from Newcastle or Durham to China via an easy connecting flight through LHR. It is about foreign companies having an option to open offices and factories outside of the SE of the UK and therefore creating badly needed jobs and bringing wealth to the regions.

The construction alone will bring jobs and money to construction and manufacturing companies all over the UK.

[T250]

Trickledown is not about the owners of LHR giving handouts to the poor people of the north east.

I never stated that and that is not the definition of trickle down. (two words not one).

You totally ignore my point about what real benefit this has to society in the UK, all your arguments are based upon raw figures and profit :rolleyes:

It is about businesses in the NE being able to get a flight from Newcastle or Durham to China via an easy connecting flight through LHR. It is about foreign companies having an option to open offices and factories outside of the SE of the UK and therefore creating badly needed jobs and bringing wealth to the regions.

So why not get these routes to operate from MAN? Then the environmental impact and noise is far reduced than business people using 2 flights to achieve the same goal. Everything doesn't have to centre on LHR. Surely the business wanting to invest in NE England/China will do so regardless of LHR, if they can get to MAN. :confused: If the business is there, then they are the demand, they should be dictating the routes... Not the other way round. :ugh:


The construction alone will bring jobs and money to construction and manufacturing companies all over the UK. This I do agree with you!

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

If the demand is set to increase that much then it is a no brainer. We need it. The argument seems to be we shouldn't build it, yet there will be so much demand it will require major access works??? Is MAN more important than the needs of all these extra people that will use an expanded Heathrow?

A new national hub airport opening up long haul routes to many regional airports financed by a private company? All we need to do is upgrade the transport infrastructure to allow easier access? Yes please.

If it is a case of LHR paying its way then that's fine, have at it. But that is not the point.

The argument is that access to LHR should be paid for by the taxpayer, pretty much with a blank cheque. That is an argument that is quite clearly unsustainable.

If heathrow cannot finance it's ambitions, then the market (ie the passengers) will decide what happens next.

[Bagso]

The money we are talking about is not coming from Heathrow Plc , we are talking the "taxpayer " element..

But hang on anyway.

The £18bn of taxpayer spent on roads rail tunneling stations around Heathrow is an investment.

BUT If we divide that up and invest say £1bn in our top 18 cities its contrued as, wait for it

....."a handout to the poor people of the NE"

My God I could be at Eton !

[Prophead]

So it is about Manchester then.

People will not invest in the north east because they can fly to Manchester and get taxis from there. LHR expansion is about opening up every regional to long haul flights for both incoming and outgoing passengers.

People want to be able to buy a ticket from LBA to LA using a 45 minute shuttle down to LHR and then transfer onto their long haul flight. If there is a problem with the domestic flight the airline knows about it and can make arrangements. They do not leave the airport environment and the transfer will be as seemless as possible.

This is a much preferable option to using the train or M62 where anything can happen and luggage has to be hauled around. The fact the MAN supporters are so worried about losing flights just goes to show that you know people would prefer the LHR option.

I know you Manchester airport lovers can't accept this, I know you want everyone in the north to use your local airport and all future investment to be centred around there but the north is not just about Manchester. Please do not hide behind a north south investment divide, you want all northern investment to the north west which is what this is about.

Getting from York, north of Leeds and south Yorkshire is a pain. I did it many times as the only other option was the M1 or even worse the train and a slog through London. Once I started using the LBA to LHR flight there was no going back.

We also have the fact that more direct flights from the UK will be possible as one airport will cover the whole of the UK. However important you think Manchester is there are many destinations that will never be served as the traffic just isn't there. This will mean a connection down route. Bringing people from many regional's to one main hub will allow destinations to be served that otherwise will not.

[Skipness One Echo]

So why not get these routes to operate from MAN? Then the environmental impact and noise is far reduced than business people using 2 flights to achieve the same goal. Everything doesn't have to centre on LHR.
What are you on about? How? Have the Government tell Example Airways offer MAN-XYZ rather than LHR-XYZ? You understand that Emirates, Qatar and Etihad succeed at MAN by making flights affordable for people to fly MAN-hub-XYZ. Economies of scale allow A380s and other wide bodies to allow locals to avoid LHR.
Two flights rather than one, unless you really are headed to DOH,AUH or DXB, a minority of traffic on these routes.
You are against MAN being in this market I assume?

Sorry, but W T F ?

[Prophead]

You insist on using the £18bn figure and completely refuse to acknowledge the fact that this investment is needed anyway.

The country gets a world class hub airport which WILL benefit the whole of the UK and all the taxpayer has to do is pay for the access. It is a good deal and should have been given the go ahead long ago.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Prophead, Skipness

I for one don't doubt that there are advantages of expanding Heathrow. My objection is to the cost to the taxpayer when it is essentially state aid to one enterprise LHR over another (in reality this is LGW).

[Prophead]

But the benefits far outweigh the cost. LGW is not going to become a hub, building a new runway at LGW will not change anything regards to a LHR hub. Expansion at Heathrow however may solve Gatwick's problem.

Which ever way I look at it paying only for the access improvements THAT NEED UPGRADING ANYWAY is a bargain for the taxpayer.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Well, that's the point, but it is not a straightforward question. Do the benefits to society as a whole (I.e. The taxpayer) outweigh the costs.

In the case of TFL the point is that it is needed to cope with the extra traffic. The present solution is okay, and clearly there are desireables to improve what's there but those turn into necessaries with expansion.

Clearly for heathrow the answer is yes it is worth it because they are getting £[x]bn of benefit at the expense of the taxpayer. From the taxpayers perspective there is a genuine question.

I agree about LGW, if it is going to be anything in the South east, it should be Heathrow.

[Prophead]

The cost of the transport element financed by the taxpayer is small compared to the cost of the project itself. LHR is not getting something for nothing. The company is taking on massive risk financing a large scale project that will benefit the UK and bring in extra money for years to come.

Who will finance the alternative? Who will finance the access to Boris Island?

Lets be clear about the timescales here. If the project was given the go ahead tomorrow it would likely be 2030 before it became operational. The M25/M4 around Heathrow will see significant investment in that time.

Also lets remember that a huge chunk of that taxpayer funded portion and indeed the LHR financed element comes straight back to the taxpayer in the form of VAT and other taxes on the construction cost alone.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

You insist on using the £18bn figure and completely refuse to acknowledge the fact that this investment is needed anyway.


There are lots of far better-value essential projects spread around regional UK which also desperately need investment anyway. But they aren't seeing state-funding any time soon. Neither should this project until others have had a long-overdue opportunity to play catch-up. Do you ever stop to consider just how much money £18 Billion actually is? We've never had a £2 Billion state-funded infrastructure project in the North. Not even close. The SE must be well into double figures of such projects already delivered. Even the 'upgrade' of the Northern Line is costing £10Bn, never mind new-build projects. And that's the only 'Northern' project that has seen big league funding so far!

The country gets a world class hub airport which WILL benefit the whole of the UK

But those (underwhelming) benefits won't come remotely close to justifying the cost of providing it. Particularly for those regional communities urged to rely on mythical 'trickledown'.

all the taxpayer has to do is pay for the access

Just a snip at £18,000,000,000. Bargain!

It is a good deal and should have been given the go ahead long ago.

Wow, your posting has taken 36 days to appear on here. You did write it on April 1st, didn't you?

LGW is not going to become a hub, building a new runway at LGW will not change anything regards to a LHR hub

But London doesn't need additional hub capacity. It needs capacity to serve growth driven by the indigenous SE travel market, and that is primarily leisure-driven. That can be addressed perfectly well by expanding runway capacity at LGW. The bulk of air passenger growth in the SE is accounted for by the surge in demand for the LCC no-frills short haul leisure product. That is a fact. Niche business routes to the likes of Brazil and China are a vastly smaller market, and these few services (where economically justified) can easily be accommodated at LHR by swapping out afew pairs of short-haul slots (as so frequently happens in reality).

Which ever way I look at it paying only for the access improvements THAT NEED UPGRADING ANYWAY is a bargain for the taxpayer.

But how much more of a bargain for the taxpayer to fund all those long-neglected regional infrastructure priorities THAT ALSO NEED UPGRADING ANYWAY. And have been waiting half-a-century or more for their turn with state funding. And most of which will likely be kept waiting at least as long again. It's not OK for the South-East to gorge all of the cake all of the time. The presumptuous sense of entitlement we observe from some down there is nauseating.

[pabely]

So with Sadiq Khan elected as London Major, against 3rd runway and supporting LGW second runway, how does that leave the debate?

[ETOPS]

against 3rd runway and supporting LGW second runway, how does that leave the debate?

Doesn't change a thing - not his decision.

Now London City expansion - there's something he can influence.

[HOODED]

Maybe it makes the decision easier for the Tory government having a Labour London Mayor who supports Gatwick but is opposed to Heathrow expansion. Their candidate was also against Heathrow R3 too but as he didn't get in maybe it's easier for them to go with the best answer for the country for a change. Sadly I doubt it.

[c52]

What will an expansion of Heathrow give the north-east that AMS doesn't already give it? (Apart from an alternative to the train and car for people with London as their origin/destination).

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

The argument that £18bn of taxpayer investment for Heathrow = £18bn (or anything close that) of trickle down or wider benefit to society is a complete non-starter.

[T250]

And an unsubstantiated myth/lie/fantasy :hmm:

[pwalhx]

Maybe it is pertinent to explain to our friends in the South why we in the North are so cynical about the so called trickle down.

We have been sold so many times on how projects in the South benefit the whole country.

We were told that the Olympics would have a legacy for the whole country, I still am waiting 4 years later to see it.

However the Commonwealth games in Manchester was without doubt a fantastic boost to the economy of Greater Manchester, less so outside.

The Tour de France was also a massive boost for Yorkshire and has since spawned the Tour de Yorkshire.

The above two events are world events but where never 'sold' as being beneficial to the whole country to justify them

Lets also evidence the channel tunnel, which we were told in the North would be a wonderful opportunity to get on a train in Manchester through to Paris or Leeds to Brussels. What happened you may ask, after assuring us the benefit was national, as soon as it was built the northern links were cancelled because it was claimed there was no economic benefit.

That my friends is why we are cynical about the massive amounts being spent.

[Trinity 09L]

Below are the passenger figures published by HAL for 2014

Number of passengers arriving and departing per day: average 201,000 (split 50/50 between arriving and departing)
Number of passengers arriving and departing in 2014: 73.4 million
Busiest day ever recorded (passenger numbers): 17 August 2014 with 241,412
Busiest year ever recorded (passenger numbers): 2014 with 73.4 million
Percentage of international passengers in 2014: 93% (68.1 million)
Percentage of domestic passengers in 2014: 7% (5.3 million)
Percentage of business travellers in 2014: 30% (22.2 million)
Percentage of other leisure travellers in 2014: 70% (51.2 million)
Percentage of transfer passengers in 2014: 36% (26.3 million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only 30% are business travellers, but there are more = 36% as transfer pax, and 70% pax are leisure travellers.
No individual breakdown of domestic or business travellers as transfer passengers.
Is it really a "hub".:rolleyes:

[T250]

Below are the passenger figures published by HAL for 2014

Number of passengers arriving and departing per day: average 201,000 (split 50/50 between arriving and departing)
Number of passengers arriving and departing in 2014: 73.4 million
Busiest day ever recorded (passenger numbers): 17 August 2014 with 241,412
Busiest year ever recorded (passenger numbers): 2014 with 73.4 million
Percentage of international passengers in 2014: 93% (68.1 million)
Percentage of domestic passengers in 2014: 7% (5.3 million)
Percentage of business travellers in 2014: 30% (22.2 million)
Percentage of other leisure travellers in 2014: 70% (51.2 million)
Percentage of transfer passengers in 2014: 36% (26.3 million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only 30% are business travellers, but there are more = 36% as transfer pax, and 70% pax are leisure travellers.
No individual breakdown of domestic or business travellers as transfer passengers.
Is it really a "hub".

That says it all really doesn't it! :D:p

If we want to expand LHR let's do it for the right and correct reasons, not some unsubstantiated 'hub' bull****...

At least LGW's campaign for expansion has been slightly more accurate focusing more on accurate facts and figures and costs which GAL themselves are apparently prepared to pay (albeit at the expense of pax and airlines).

[Bagso]

Presumably at 30% Davies and friends still believe it's significant to call it a hub, unless of course this evidence was missed by the "experts".

They certainly dismissed the "cost" element as insignificant as to did the other burks running the transport select comittee!

Some proper forensic scrutiny would be welcome.

[Ametyst1]

Well, the whole idea of the third runway is for Heathrow to further it's hub traffic. The airport needs to be effective in competing with the Middle East hubs, Istanbul, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris CdG.

If BA were able to have a single London hub operation (moving Gatwick ops to Heathrow) and develop new routes to new destinations in USA, South America, India and China then Heathrow would become a more attractive proposition to hub through. Add to this more UK domestic destinations and frequencies.

Setting cost and regional ambitions aside I am afraid it is the Heathrow way or no way!

[DaveReidUK]

Is it really a "hub"

With well over 1 in every 3 passengers arriving at Heathrow subsequently departing on a connecting flight, that sounds like a pretty good definition of a hub to me.

For comparison, LHR's 37% of connecting pax is midway between CDG's 33% and AMS's 41%.

Are you suggesting that FRA is Europe's only hub airport?

[rutankrd]

For the umpteenth time in the last five years lets define the meaning of a transport hub viz a Hub and Spoke Airline business model - they are NOT the same thing !

Heathrow is most certainly a Global/National and Regional transport Hub transfer point however there is just One Hub and Spoke airline base - That of IAG Group carrier BA and JV partners AA and JAL supported by a few other One Airlines friends and relatives.

Heathrow is declining as a transfer/connection point on the global stage - this is undoubted however fact is the airlines would rather see this decline continue to accelerate after all this strengthens the yield potential and bottom line doesn't it ?

London - Point to point fare yields will always out perform those from say Bologna via LHR to Austin for instance.

This whole debate is based on the wrong question imo and specifically the framework was about RUNWAY capacity not the bl**dy preference of Hub and Spoke.

It misses the point on where much/most of the aviation growth projected by esteemed analysts is expected to be in the next decades and is NOT over the EU golden triangle !

Most will be Chinese domestic and regionally. India has equal domestic potential if corruption and local politic interference is broken !

South America again needs an end to political favouritism to expand with most growth again rather local.

Almost all growth within Europe will continue to be with the disruptive forces of the flexible fare operators - Point to point based business models.

And a select number of regional airports WILL see an up take of longer haul particularly leisure based.

The ME3 have been an added disruptive force in the UK market however i believe already rather close to a point of consolidation from now on.

From a personal perspective i am rather sceptical of the numbers used to estimate aviation growth over the next quarter of a millennium - they just seem way too high in a straight line !

The projections have been wrong before .

Seriously is there really a Birmingham sized demand just waiting for a new strip of concrete and expenditure of a medium sized nation in the boroughs of Slough and Windsor, Spelthorne and Hounslow ?

As for the regions need Heathrow and trickle down - Call boloney - the regions need to access to the global stage can be via anywhere Amsterdam/Newark /Dubai already provide a far better experience for many and those that choose BA - well Newcastle Leeds and Manchester do have multiple daily flights to Heathrow already.

Based on whats been said it should be of little surprise that the airline that would like to see R3/T6 the most would be you guessed it a Flexible fares carrier somewhat orange operating point to point short haul at the expense of an other base !

Not those oft talked of X'ian or Trivandrum services !

[PAXboy]

One of the main reasons that it is not the hub is could have been - is because of the lack of R3+4. That and, since the changes of Thatcher and the abandoning of responsibility, that BA have been allowed to monopolise the place. It has been stated loudly that BA do not want R3 as it's all nice and cosy for them. Exactly the sort of thing the Conservaties say they are against.

[rutankrd]

One of the main reasons that it is not the hub is could have been - is because of the lack of R3+4.

Couldn't disagree more !

There is no case to answer for multiple runway regional jet type airport operations in Europe .

They simply can't compete with rail and road for domestic travel and do you really think many would think LPL-LHR-NCL as anything but an expensive hassle because thats exactly the type of journey many stateside do make on those bazilian RJs every day !

Simply put those domestics went away on pure economical grounds.

bmi couldn't make even Glasgow pay because too many were interlines at nought in the pound - Without sufficient peoples paying £350 -£400 they simply don't work.

As for the likes of amethyst its largely sour grapes from this Liverpublican.

Fact is even when offered one-stop global links as recently as by KLM the Scousers wouldn't pay enough . Would they via Heathrow again probably not.

Speke does what it does best via the flexible fares operators - Far better range than anything BA/BE/BZ or CS and BD ever offered locally!

[Prophead]

So the argument for not turning LHR into a major hub airport is that it isn't one already? Well there is common sense thinking for you.

Yes people can transfer via AMS. Heathrow wants to bring that traffic and income via the UK which will bring money into the economy.

This £18bn figure is the very top estimate and it is more likely to be much much less than that.

As for an expanded LHR being of benefit to the whole of the uk? Of course it is. In case you haven't noticed the people of the south east already have access to Heathrow. This is about giving access to the rest of the UK and Europe. Moving short haul to another runway will free up the longer runways for more long haul routes too.

I was waiting for shed to chime in with his north/south chip on his shoulder but the reality is an expanded LHR benefits all the UK as much as it already does the south.

[Prophead]

Couldn't disagree more !

There is no case to answer for multiple runway regional jet type airport operations in Europe .

Tell that to all the people that fly from Leeds, Humberside, Durham, Norwich etc. to Amsterdam and onto long haul flights as it is far easier that driving or taking the train plus luggage to Manchester or London.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes people can transfer via AMS. Heathrow wants to bring that traffic and income via the UK which will bring money into the economy.

With a third runway, expanded UK connectivity is by no means a given.

The Airports Commission recognised this in their final report:

"The Commission's forecasts reflect these [competing] pressures and suggest that without specific measures to support domestic connectivity even an expanded Heathrow may accommodate fewer domestic routes than the 7 served currently."

[rutankrd]

Tell that to all the people that fly from Leeds, Humberside, Durham, Norwich etc. to Amsterdam

Was actually going to caveat Schipol being probably to only exception and its bl**dy good at it too.

However remember this is a purpose built airport on reclaimed land and whilst has six yes that right six runways only three are ever used at any one time - morning peak two arrivals and one departure reverse later departure peaks.

The use of the East West runways are very much avoided as far as possible due noise abatement procedures.

So for much of the time landing rates actually aren't too different to Heathrow which has industries beating and excellent flow management.

Those holds do more than just filter they manage the approach slots grouping heavies as necessary . So its rather more complicated than simply first come first served.

Back to KLM Cityhopper be aware that the three East Coasters actual take substantial local high paying gas/oil traffic that support the services .

Oh and remember Leeds and Newcastle do retain a Competing Heathrow offering.

Norwich well i simply can't see it working to Heathrow R3 or no

Teeside might as well close as passenger airport imo and Humberside really is the Oil worker shuttle.

[rutankrd]

With a third runway, expanded UK connectivity is by no means a given.


Agreed nor is it a god given right to expect it to be so.

And it has nothing to do with the primary reason for the commissioned report which was about once again RUNWAY capacity .

The airline business models can be taken in evidence however the report should have been devoid of potential favouritism imo.

[Prophead]

Agreed nor is it a god given right to expect it to be so.

Nobody says it is, hence the risk being almost completely taken on by the owners of LHR, which is another reason it is such a good deal for the UK.


And it has nothing to do with the primary reason for the commissioned report which was about once again RUNWAY capacity

The whole SE runway capacity argument came a long time after Heathrow announced plans to expand. The whole idea that you can build a runway anywhere in the SE no matter where was just a political escape route out of Heathrow expansion that had already been given the green light. The arguments for expanding LHR and LGW are separate cases and giving LGW a new runway doesn't change Heathrows expansion plans.

Remember that when the idea was first formed LHR and LGW were owned by the same company. They chose to expand/modernise LHR and have pretty much been doing so continually ever since.

[DaveReidUK]

giving LGW a new runway doesn't change Heathrow's expansion plans

Of course it does.

There is no scenario on the horizon that sees LHR and LGW each building a new runway.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I was waiting for shed to chime in with his north/south chip on his shoulder

Oh dear. Is that really the best you can do? And by the way, I refer to the UK regions in general (not just my own). The imbalance of state-funded infrastructure spending between the SE and all other regions of the UK is a matter of public record however much you may wish to dismiss that fact from consideration with derogatory remarks.

the reality is an expanded LHR benefits all the UK as much as it already does the south.

Repeating this mantra ad infinitum doesn't make it true. You have form for ignoring inconvenient data throughout this debate.

This £18bn figure is the very top estimate and it is more likely to be much much less than that.


If you adjudge this 'likely' presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where TfL's calculations are in error.

to Amsterdam and onto long haul flights as it is far easier that driving or taking the train plus luggage to Manchester or London.

AMS is a competitive option, hence the widespread offering of regional connections by KLM and others. However, Manchester Airport Rail Station is located at the heart of the terminals complex and is well connected across the North of England and lowland Scotland. It is also a very convenient option for many travellers.

hence the risk being almost completely taken on by the owners of LHR

Except for the small matter of £18Bn which isn't. And the rest may yet be underwritten by the taxpayer too.

another reason it is such a good deal for the UK.

You are becoming an increasingly desperate voice in your quest to solicit general acceptance for this absurd notion.

[Walnut]

One of the considerations of any LHR expansion is the large number of extra stands that would be needed At the moment BA have their a/c scattered all over the place. Low cost carriers whose a/c traditionally don't night stop have got round the problem by opening overseas bases. To have all your eggs (a/c) in one place usually leads to chaos when an a/p suffers delays due to w/x or strikes etc, BA always canx a large proportion of their S/H flts in these situations so I question whether an even a larger hub would really make their operation run any more smoothly.

[Ametyst1]

Rutankrd, please do not be so insulting towards me!

I did not even mention Liverpool in my post, nor did I contemplate avlink between Liverpool and Heathrow.

However, now that you mention it. Liverpool is a different city now than it was in the days when British Midland operated between Liverpool and Heathrow. And, the problem with BMA in those days is that the code-share phenomenon was in its infancy and the airline interlined with only a handful of airlines at Heathrow.

So, no sour grapes hear I am quite happy to use the train to get to London and Heathrow, or use Aer Lingus via Dublin when the need arises.

Incidentally, I would not agree that the Manchester Airport railway station is well positioned if you are using Terminal 3.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

So Shed, as you adjudge the Airport Commission's £5bn estimate as unlikely, presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where the AC's calculations are in error?

That's if you can post anything in the LHR forum without hyperbole or conjecture.

[Prophead]

Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
giving LGW a new runway doesn't change Heathrow's expansion plans
Of course it does.

There is no scenario on the horizon that sees LHR and LGW each building a new runway.

I meant it doesn't alter the fact that there is still a business case to expand LHR as a hub airport. Build a runway at Gatwick and you still have a case for the hub expansion at LHR even though I agree they will not give the go ahead to both.

This £18bn figure is the very top estimate and it is more likely to be much much less than that.
If you adjudge this 'likely' presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where TfL's calculations are in error.

Not in error as such, just inclusive of a whole load of works that will need doing anyway by 2030 even without expansion.

There is a lot of confusion over the exact figure required as this shows.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-04-28/debates/16042846000016/HeathrowExpansion(TransportInfrastructureCosts)

AMS is a competitive option, hence the widespread offering of regional connections by KLM and others. However, Manchester Airport Rail Station is located at the heart of the terminals complex and is well connected across the North of England and lowland Scotland. It is also a very convenient option for many travellers.

Please, it is used as the only other option is an expensive taxi ride on busy motorways. I have done it many times out of necessity and it is not convenient at all when you have an early morning flight, lots of luggage, kids and do not live on the actual direct rail route.

A short taxi ride, bags checked and gone then be sat with a coffee in T5 in 45 minutes is much more convenient believe me.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

So Shed, as you adjudge the Airport Commission's £5bn estimate as unlikely, presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where the AC's calculations are in error?

That's if you can post anything in the LHR forum without hyperbole or conjecture.


I don't think Shed needs to do that - public bodies are doing just that - all you need to do is Google them...

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Other than TfL, which public bodies are you referring to?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where the AC's calculations are in error?

I am very happy to do so, T&N - thanks for asking. But rather than type up archived material again I refer you to my posting of 8th April on this thread (Number 4040). This should spare the anguish of readers who note that this debate tends to go round in circles. If you're interested, direct yourself also to a series of postings I made on this topic in September 2015. They're all archived on PPRuNe.

That's if you can post anything in the LHR forum without hyperbole or conjecture.

A degree of conjecture is unavoidable from all parties in a debate such as this one because of the imprecise nature of the data made available. However, I studiously avoid hyperbole preferring to stick to the facts as known.

I meant it doesn't alter the fact that there is still a business case to expand LHR as a hub airport

The cost of making it happen negates the business case for this.

a whole load of works that will need doing anyway by 2030 even without expansion.

I remind you once more that there are numerous essential works already required on public infrastructure across regional UK. There is no justification for those in the vicinity of LHR to jump the queue for scarce public funds.

Please, it is used as the only other option is an expensive taxi ride on busy motorways.

Incorrect. Besides mainline rail, Manchester Airport is accessible by light rail (Metrolink), National Express coaches, independent coach operators, regional and local bus services, and (of course) by private cars and taxis. The bulk of MAN's catchment area is well-served by at least one of the public transport alternatives listed here. Such are the facts (since you raise the topic). However, note that I only reference Manchester Airport in this context in answer to you raising the subject. I have never argued the LHR R3 debate from a Manchester Airport perspective, although I'm sure you would like to portray that notion as some kind of ulterior motive on my part.

A short taxi ride, bags checked and gone then be sat with a coffee in T5 in 45 minutes is much more convenient believe me.

The LHR transfer option exists because it is considered useful by a proportion of the market. However, many customers prefer alternatives for a multitude of reasons. Each individual customer makes a travel choice appropriate to their own circumstances, location and budget. BTW, congratulations on reaching the T5 seating inside 45 minutes. You obviously caught the duplicated full security check at a very quiet time and didn't require an airside transfer to one of the other LHR terminals (so tedious).

I don't think Shed needs to do that - public bodies are doing just that - all you need to do is Google them...

Thanks for the support, Dobbo, but I think it would be a very useful exercise for T&N to refresh his memory concerning the flawed methodology reported as having been used by the AC. The postings I referenced at the beginning of this answer address the issue.

[Heathrow Harry]

"If BA were able to have a single London hub operation (moving Gatwick ops to Heathrow) and develop new routes to new destinations in USA, South America, India and China then Heathrow would become a more attractive proposition to hub through. Add to this more UK domestic destinations and frequencies."

believe it or not there are other airlines and a lot of people prefer them to BA - why should the taxpayer pay for a benifits for a multi-national company just beacuse they stick a flag on their tail???

And anyone who thinks BA will up internal UK flights is away with the birdies - it'll be juts more flights to NY

[PAXboy]

rutankrd
... however the report should have been devoid of potential favouritism imo. If we could have avoided the favouritism of the last 30 years, we would have a better airport and better competition amongst the carriers. Wider choice of ALL destinations which is what the politicians say they want.

Oh yes, and because HAL was limited in how it could make money it came up with the wheeze of a single handling fee, irrespective of whether it was an RJ or a 747. That really helped the domestic routes.

[Prophead]

The cost of making it happen negates the business case for this.

Until an accurate figure can be agreed upon for the taxpayer funded portion and this can be compared to projected income I really don't see how that can be correct.

There will also be significant income to the taxpayer and the economy from the main airport construction works in the form of VAT and other taxes paid by workers and companies involved in the expansion. After construction a larger Heathrow means more employment therefore more taxed income. Expanding Gatwick may need less from the taxpayer but will also bring in less income.

I remind you once more that there are numerous essential works already required on public infrastructure across regional UK. There is no justification for those in the vicinity of LHR to jump the queue for scarce public funds.

We need to remember this project was pretty much given the go ahead 7 years ago with a completion date of 2015. Due to political wrangling and who knows how much taxpayers money spent on consultations and delays it is likely to run beyond 2030. Jumping the queue it is not.

Incorrect. Besides mainline rail, Manchester Airport is accessible by light rail (Metrolink), National Express coaches, independent coach operators, regional and local bus services, and (of course) by private cars and taxis. The bulk of MAN's catchment area is well-served by at least one of the public transport alternatives listed here. Such are the facts (since you raise the topic). However, note that I only reference Manchester Airport in this context in answer to you raising the subject. I have never argued the LHR R3 debate from a Manchester Airport perspective, although I'm sure you would like to portray that notion as some kind of ulterior motive on my part.

National express?? Are you serious? It is no coincidence that a large percentage of the people on this thread that are against the project are based within easy access to Manchester airport. For too long people in the north have been only given Manchester as their long haul option (And paid a premium for it). Those with easy access have enjoyed having these flights at the expense of the people in the other northern regions that are expected to use the methods you outline above to get there. Nobody wants to use the coach or light rail when they have bags to cart around.

The LHR transfer option exists because it is considered useful by a proportion of the market. However, many customers prefer alternatives for a multitude of reasons. Each individual customer makes a travel choice appropriate to their own circumstances, location and budget. BTW, congratulations on reaching the T5 seating inside 45 minutes. You obviously caught the duplicated full security check at a very quiet time and didn't require an airside transfer to one of the other LHR terminals (so tedious).

So once again you are talking about a future development that will not be operational until after 2030 from first hand experience. Even that is just wrong by the way. Getting on the BA shuttle at LBA you can go straight down the fast lane to security avoiding the queue and walk directly onto the aircraft. At LHR you are out the door and down the escalator onto the train to one of the other terminals. All this will be improved further as part of the project and will be without your luggage that is making its own way to your long haul flight. Nowhere near as tedious as waiting for a train on a cold platform with all your bags, especially after a long haul night flight.

Than again, who cares about the majority of the north as long as the people of the Lancashire and Cheshire can have local direct flights.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Until an accurate figure can be agreed upon for the taxpayer funded portion and this can be compared to projected income I really don't see how that can be correct.


But we already know the range of projected estimates and can make preliminary judgments accordingly.

There will also be significant income to the taxpayer and the economy from the main airport construction works in the form of VAT and other taxes

This argument applies equally to all other backlogged infrastructure projects which could share £18Bn of scarce public funding. Many of these offer far better value to the taxpayer than LHR R3.

After construction a larger Heathrow means more employment therefore more taxed income.

This also applies to alternative infrastructure proposals of merit all around the UK which await their turn for public funds but which offer far greater value to the taxpayer.

National express?? Are you serious?

Totally serious. Do you have a genuine problem with National Express or are you exhibiting snobbery?

For too long people in the north have been only given Manchester as their long haul option (And paid a premium for it)

Outside London, regular long-haul flights are on sale from BFS, GLA, EDI, NCL, MAN, BHX, EMA and BRS. Other airports offer connections via European hubs. All are free to compete for long-haul business within their physical capabilities. Fares from regionals are often higher than corresponding offers from London but must be set against the cost of travel to London and incidental costs such as an overnight hotel stay. In the North specifically, passenger airports available are NCL, MME, LBA, HUY, LPL, MAN and DSA. NCL and MAN both offer regular long-hauls. DSA offers occasional long-haul charters to MCO etc. LPL has offered JFK and YYZ flights in the past but the market didn't sustain these. LBA has runway length limitations. MME and HUY are small niche operations. What other alternatives do you envisage?

Those with easy access have enjoyed having these flights at the expense of the people in the other northern regions that are expected to use the methods you outline above to get there

So your complaint is that people who live close to an international airport are better placed for air travel than those who live more distantly from the airport? Is that not equally true everywhere?

Since you express dissatisfaction with the surface travel options available to those wishing to access MAN, you no doubt by implication recognise the importance of funding and constructing Northern Powerhouse Rail (formerly known as HS3) and a transpennine motorway linking Sheffield and South Yorkshire with the road network to the West. Both of these proposals deserve funding as a higher priority than LHR R3 and both will benefit UKplc as a whole and not just the immediate region. Plus, it is high time that a major new infrastructure project actually got funded outside the South-East.

Nobody wants to use the coach or light rail when they have bags to cart around.

Coaches are actually particularly well-suited for luggage handling. Light rail less so, but tram journeys tend to be of short duration.

So once again you are talking about a future development that will not be operational until after 2030 from first hand experience

No, I was talking about LHR transfer arrangements in place at the present time from first-hand experience. Neither of us could know what to expect in 2030.

Getting on the BA shuttle at LBA you can go straight down the fast lane to security avoiding the queue and walk directly onto the aircraft

Well that option wasn't offered to me using the Shuttle from MAN. Were you on a special ticket? Anyway, what about the people who do have to join the queue? Do we just ignore their implied transit times? They're passengers too. All part of the equation.

EDIT: I've just realised that you're referring to flight boarding arrangements at Leeds-Bradford Airport. All my comments relate to the arrivals experience for domestic to international flights at LHR itself.

Nowhere near as tedious as waiting for a train on a cold platform with all your bags, especially after a long haul night flight.


Last time I looked, LHR, LGW, STN and LTN all had well-used rail platforms associated with their operation. Plane-to-train is a consideration at many airport locations. At MAN specifically the rail station is well-sheltered and has a decent waiting room with abundant seating. Magazines, newspapers, hot drinks and snacks are on sale there for if you need to wait.

Than again, who cares about the majority of the north as long as the people of the Lancashire and Cheshire can have local direct flights.

OK, you've got me with this one. What on Earth are you on about here? Certainly nothing I've ever alluded to.

[Prophead]

But we already know the range of projected estimates and can make preliminary judgments accordingly.

Really? Then why do we have 3 different figures put forward for the access works.

Fares from regionals are often higher than corresponding offers from London but must be set against the cost of travel to London and incidental costs such as an overnight hotel stay.

At the moment yes, that's my point. If the train to London, tube transfer and hotel room was replaced by a 45 minute cheap shuttle flight though?


National express?? Are you serious?
Totally serious. Do you have a genuine problem with National Express or are you exhibiting snobbery?

It's not snobbery. The last thing people want is to have to get on a coach after a long flight and sit on the motorway. You have already mentioned that people pay a premium to fly from Manchester. Add that to a coach/train ticket or expensive taxi fare and it is not even cheaper than the LHR option. Certainly a lot more hassle though.

So your complaint is that people who live close to an international airport are better placed for air travel than those who live more distantly from the airport? Is that not equally true everywhere?

It is, which is why connecting regionals that could never hope to have LH flights with LHR is such a good thing.

NCL and MAN both offer regular long-hauls. DSA offers occasional long-haul charters to MCO etc. LPL has offered JFK and YYZ flights in the past but the market didn't sustain these. LBA has runway length limitations. MME and HUY are small niche operations. What other alternatives do you envisage?


And long may all these continue, LBA also does a NY flight in December.

I am not expecting the NY, MCO etc. flights to disappear from regional airports. If any airport can give the pax numbers then an airline is likely to fly the route. Thats supply and demand. The fact remains however that even Manchester doesn't have the demand for a large number of international locations that an expanded LHR connected to multiple regionals would.

This is more about routes that currently require a change elsewhere and bringing the connection in to the UK. It's about routes that will only work when they are servicing the whole of the UK market. These routes then bring in connecting traffic from elsewhere outside the UK. The numbers of people flying to Amsterdam to connect show the market is there.

It is also not just about domestic connections even though I have been concentrating on that. There is a lot of money spent whilst waiting for a connecting flight. That's income direct into the UK which otherwise would not be there.

So once again you are talking about a future development that will not be operational until after 2030 from first hand experience
No, I was talking about LHR transfer arrangements in place at the present time from first-hand experience. Neither of us could know what to expect in 2030.

Well we could if they can get on and spend some money designing it. Talking about the setup in place at the moment though is pointless.

Well that option wasn't offered to me using the Shuttle from MAN. Were you on a special ticket? Anyway, what about the people who do have to join the queue? Do we just ignore their implied transit times? They're passengers too. All part of the equation.

EDIT: I've just realised that you're referring to flight boarding arrangements at Leeds-Bradford Airport. All my comments relate to the arrivals experience for domestic to international flights at LHR itself.

As above. It is pointless debating about the current arrangement to argue against a proposed development that's aim is to improve things.

As for the funding argument and HS2/3, Northern powerhouse etc. I am all for it. I hope to be working on it. If any project can give a return on investment to UK PLC then lets do it. You could build LHR, HS2, HS3, the Sheffield to Manchester tunnel and a new runway at LGW for less than the amount given to bail out the banks. All of these would pay for themselves and more in the long run IMO.

[Trinity 09L]

Mining into the figures of passenger traffic at HAL.
1 in 3 are transfer pax, are these business or leisure travellers, HAL does not declare. How is a business traveller defined? I have travelled on business numerous times of behalf of the UK Govt on economy fares, so it cannot be just on the declared business fare class. I have had to use the Dubai hub to visit the far east, and an Asian carrier to NYC, both offering cheaper fares to save HMG money, both as a business traveller.
On a recent leisure trip to Barcelona for a cruise I was offered BA outbound and Vuelling in bound (both IAG group) from LHR, cheaper than gong to Gatwick (with car parking costs). Speaking to other travellers - one from Inverness, booked a cheaper fare to Gatwick, and used the agent to book the holiday from there to BCN, one took a coach from Glasgow to Manchester but discovered the flight was via AMS, the Belfast pax drove to Dublin as it was cheaper (IAG partner).
A large volume of leisure travellers throughout the UK have a wide choice of journey routes, and only the travel agents know which is the cheaper fare/route.
Middle East wealth funds have holdings in HAL, IAG and their own airline(s), the airlines part own NATS - conflict?
I recently had the opportunity of challenging HAL on why they only quote export figures of over £110bn in their promotion, how much is the import value? There reluctant reply was nearly half that value were imports.:rolleyes:

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Really? Then why do we have 3 different figures put forward for the access works.


Pause to consider what the term range of projected estimates actually means.

If the train to London, tube transfer and hotel room was replaced by a 45 minute cheap shuttle flight though?


Shuttle services already exist from certain airports and are the solution of choice for a proportion of the market. Other customers consider alternative choices preferable. It is an individual decision based upon personal circumstance. However, forget the notion of a cheap Shuttle flight. The Shuttle isn't cheap now and certainly won't be when airlines are additionally loaded with the exorbitant costs of the proposed LHR R3 expansion.

The last thing people want is to have to get on a coach after a long flight and sit on the motorway

Let's be clear here. You evidently dislike coach travel. But you don't speak for the whole market. Many customers consider taking a coach to the airport to be an excellent solution. And when I've used coaches to and from airports I have rarely ended up having to "sit on the motorway".

You have already mentioned that people pay a premium to fly from Manchester. Add that to a coach/train ticket or expensive taxi fare and it is not even cheaper than the LHR option. Certainly a lot more hassle though.


You are over-generalising. Each journey is unique with its own combination of air fare and associated costs for ground travel to/from the airport at each end of the journey. Some journeys are cheaper from Airport A, others from Airport B. Hence the market fragments as customers identify the best option for their own needs. As for alternatives to using LHR being "certainly a lot more hassle", well, let's just say that is a very subjective statement. I and many others would profoundly disagree.

It is, which is why connecting regionals that could never hope to have LH flights with LHR is such a good thing.


We have established in previous exchanges that LHR expansion would bring certain operational advantages if it could be delivered cost-effectively. Our problem has always been that the cost of the proposed R3 project is many multiples higher than what could ever be considered a reasonable sum. The marginal increase in utility provided by additional shuttle frequencies is monstrously outweighed by the mammoth cost of the scheme.

The fact remains however that even Manchester doesn't have the demand for a large number of international locations that an expanded LHR connected to multiple regionals would.

And the solution to that is to change flights at an en route hub such as DXB, ATL or IST. That's not so difficult. Works a treat, actually. And it averts the need for irrational overspending in the course of expanding LHR. Indeed, even if LHR were extended at vast expense much of the market would still choose to do their flight transfers elsewhere.

This is more about routes that currently require a change elsewhere and bringing the connection in to the UK.

Why is this the Holy Grail? If such connections cannot be facilitated cost-effectively then UKplc is better off persevering with one-stop services to marginal niche destinations via overseas hubs. A 90 minute aircraft change in DXB really doesn't kill off the lure of profitable business travel. Remember too that a customer flying (for example) GLA-DXB-BKK is effectively gaining nothing by switching to GLA-LHR-BKK instead. What is the compelling USP of LHR in cases such as this?

The numbers of people flying to Amsterdam to connect show the market is there.


The numbers of people connecting through Amsterdam show that UK travellers are coping just fine without a LHR expanded at eyewatering cost.

There is a lot of money spent whilst waiting for a connecting flight.

You need to sell a helluva lot of sandwiches to offset £18Bn of public money. Remember too that we're talking only about the tax portion of products sold, not 100% of the price-tag.

Talking about the setup in place at the moment though is pointless.


On the contrary, it is highly relevant in establishing the relative attractiveness of competing passenger transfer options.

You could build LHR, HS2, HS3, the Sheffield to Manchester tunnel and a new runway at LGW for less than the amount given to bail out the banks.

Agreed, but we both know that the Treasury will not in reality fund all comers. Tough choices must be made. The nation must prioritise.

All of these would pay for themselves and more in the long run IMO.

Only if they are funded at a price-point which makes economic sense. Sadly, the LHR R3 proposals don't even come close.

[DaveReidUK]

How is a business traveller defined?

Strangely enough, by asking passengers.

Not everyone, obviously, but a representative sample by means of a regular survey. If you use Heathrow often enough, sooner or later you will be accosted by an eager person with a clipboard on behalf of either Heathrow Airport or the CAA. Among the questions they will ask is your reason for travel.

[AndyH52]

This argument applies equally to all other backlogged infrastructure projects which could share £18Bn of scarce public funding. Many of these offer far better value to the taxpayer than LHR R3.

Since you express dissatisfaction with the surface travel options available to those wishing to access MAN, you no doubt by implication recognise the importance of funding and constructing Northern Powerhouse Rail (formerly known as HS3) and a transpennine motorway linking Sheffield and South Yorkshire with the road network to the West. Both of these proposals deserve funding as a higher priority than LHR R3 and both will benefit UKplc as a whole and not just the immediate region.



Seeing as you are so keen to deal only in facts Shed, I suggest you wait until any kind of business case has been done into these projects before declaring how much value they offer to UK plc, no matter how good your instincts may be.

For all its faults R3 (I do wish they would come up with a better name for it that captures the sheer scale of this project) does at least have a business case that has been subject to some economic modelling.

You also seem to overlook that increasingly TfL will have to fund its own projects so the taxpayers and service users affected will be those living and working (and running businesses) in London, not the rest of the U.K. In that case it is only natural that it will try to lump as much of its future project costs on to the back of any major development that gets put forward. There is no magic £18bn pot of money sat in the Treasury to fund the wish list of those wanting to secure investment for the regions. As you rightly say there are limited resources at the present time so investment will flow to those projects that generate the most growth (principally in the form of GVA and tax revenue).

Airports rightly are expected under State Aid rules to meet the costs of infrastructure from which they directly benefit. So far TfL (I suspect partly driven by their former political master) have been stretching the definition of direct benefit beyond reason and have included any and every project that is linked to Heathrow that might require investment in the next couple of decades.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Andy- well said.

Shed - I've read the earlier post again and I'm still none the wiser about the public bodies you claim have demonstrated the AC methodology is flawed. Quoting an obscure website & 2 ex-members of the AC isn't solid evidence. I've quoted from mainstream media sources, various industry associations & the evidence based AC report. Even your neighbours in Liverpool favour LHR expansion over connecting through their closest international airport.

I'd also question your assertion that investing £18bn across the regions would generate the same ROI to UK plc. As Andy points out, the only published business cases relate to LHR & LGW so please provide reputable sources of the ROI for the schemes you have in mind.

[Trinity 09L]

"If you use Heathrow often enough, sooner or later you will be accosted by an eager person with a clipboard on behalf of either Heathrow Airport or the CAA. Among the questions they will ask is your reason for travel"

Most business travellers go straight to the lounges and ignore them. Not a very authorative way to assess business travellers. Personally I shimmy past them like chuggers in the High St.:ok:

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I've answered your many repetitive questions ad infinitum, T&N, as readers here can testify. Likewise those of Prophead. Those earlier postings do address the relevant issues as other readers are free to check. The onus is now on you to back up your suppositions.

As for your point about Liverpool, bear in mind that I have argued this whole debate from a national (not Manchester) perspective. Prophead introduced the Manchester angle in the course of postings discussing his travel preferences.

Opinions in Liverpool are actually divided (although in some extreme cases driven by bitter historic rivalry). Liverpudlians are free to make whatever journey choices they like. However, urging another massive overspend on SE transport infrastructure at the expense of their own city's renaissance is a source of some bemusement. Are those R3 cheerleaders unable to cope with the maths, or does their hatred for all things Manchester override everything else? From my own perspective, I continue to lobby for a fair deal for Merseyside's own transport infrastucture along with that in other regional centres long deprived of transformational public funding.

By the way, whilst I'm flattered by your confidence in my extra-temporal abilities, producing documents (reputable or otherwise) which haven't been written yet is beyond my skill-set. Surprising, I know! If you have learned the secret of time travel I will be interested to read such future documents as you propose to retrieve.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Shed, thanks for confirming your posts are based on your opinion and not evidence-based as you often imply. Nothing wrong with posting an opinion on a rumour forum after all.

[Ametyst1]

Liverpool, along with its sister airports, Doncaster Sheffield and Durham Tees Valley, support the 3rd runway at Heathrow. All three airports are majority owned by Manchester-based Peel Holdings who also support the Heathrow expansion.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Shed, thanks for confirming your posts are based on your opinion and not evidence-based as you often imply.

So your tactic is to challenge me to quote from documents which do not yet exist, then dismiss the entirety of my arguments when I remind you that I can't time-travel. Genius. I'm amazed you haven't made QC yet.

Liverpool, along with its sister airports, Doncaster Sheffield and Durham Tees Valley, support the 3rd runway at Heathrow. All three airports are majority owned by Manchester-based Peel Holdings who also support the Heathrow expansion.

Vested interests in support of undermining competition shocker. Hold the front page!!!

Oh, and 3 x A319 per day to LHR at the [considerable] expense of OPM would be lovely too!

[Ametyst1]

And of course, Manchester's opposition to R3 at Heathrow is not a vested intereste

[Prophead]

So your tactic is to challenge me to quote from documents which do not yet exist, then dismiss the entirety of my arguments when I remind you that I can't time-travel. Genius. I'm amazed you haven't made QC yet.

Yet you seem to know exactly how the transfer will work once the LHR expansion is completed sometime after 2030.

And of course, Manchester's opposition to R3 at Heathrow is not a vested intereste

Of course not, the fact there are so many on this thread arguing against expansion at LHR that hail from the north west is just coincidence.;)

The rest of the north should be happy with National Express travel to MAN for their flights and stop all this snobbery about luggage free connecting flights from over the hills.:ok:

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

And of course, Manchester's opposition to R3 at Heathrow is not a vested intereste

Of course businesses lobby in their own best interests. I have never argued otherwise here or elsewhere. The point is that you presented Peel's stance as some kind of astonishing game-changer. I would fully expect those managing all UK airport businesses to lobby in accordance with the interests of their own bottom line. It is part of their duty as a management team.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Yet you seem to know exactly how the transfer will work once the LHR expansion is completed sometime after 2030.


You really are clutching at straws now. I have commented only about the LHR transfer experience as it exists at the present time. I have made no reference whatsoever to how it would work in 2030 or beyond.

If I were drawn to speculate about LHR transfers post-2030 I'd say they should be bloomin' fantastic in light of how much facilitating them is forecast to cost!


And of course, Manchester's opposition to R3 at Heathrow is not a vested intereste
Of course not, the fact there are so many on this thread arguing against expansion at LHR that hail from the north west is just coincidence.


Erm ... I think you'll find that I expressed the opinion that all airport operators, including MAG, lobby in accordance with their own best interests. By the way, did you note that some of the voices actively supporting LHR R3 hail from the NW too [Ametyst, AndyH52 etc.]. But maybe highlighting that doesn't flatter your agenda?

The rest of the north should be happy with National Express travel to MAN for their flights and stop all this snobbery about luggage free connecting flights from over the hills.

What??? Is this bizarre comment supposed to add value to the LHR R3 debate? You have become desperate.

[Homo Simpson]

To suggest that Manchester airport is not easy to access is nonsense. In the same way getting to Heathrow can be very easy but for many also involves a bit of a trek. They have pluses and minuses in that regard.
I don't think people have an issue with Heathrow getting another runway but they do when it comes to potentially billions of public money being spent around it.
Heathrow is an asset but let's not kid ourselves that it's the be all and end all. It isn't.
Airports like Manchester offer an alternative for millions of passengers and rightly so. That will only grow year after year and the owners of Heathrow know it. They are a business and they want to keep their market share so anything they can do to secure that is understandable.
However it should not be given any preference over any other airport just because it's Heathrow and in London.

[Ametyst1]

I don't think it matters where I am from.

I travel regularly and happen to like flying through Heathrow. So, why should I not wish for it to be expanded just because I am from the North West of England.

If Manchester was the alternative to Heathrow, which as we know is operating at full capacity, then the Airlines would already be at Manchester or any other UK Regional Airport.

United could easily have added UK capacity by adding Flights from Manchester to Chicago, Houston and San Francisco but they have not. After all, they no longer have a UK feed to their Heathrow routes. A deal with Flybe at Manchester would be perfect.

Delta/Virgin could have added Manchester to Detroit, Minneapolis St Paul or Los Angeles and American could have added Manchester to Charlotte, Dallas or Miami, but neither have!

[Homo Simpson]

Manchester airport isn't trying to beat Heathrow but it offers a credible alternative. The Heathrow bubble has been burst and there is no turning back. It's a gateway to the world but the nonsense that it's that or nothing is just guff. Passengers will go where they want and Heathrow isn't the choice for millions any more.
I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.

[Prophead]

Manchester airport isn't trying to beat Heathrow but it offers a credible alternative. The Heathrow bubble has been burst and there is no turning back. It's a gateway to the world but the nonsense that it's that or nothing is just guff. Passengers will go where they want and Heathrow isn't the choice for millions any more.
I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.

Nobody is saying any of that. What are you talking about a bubble being burst?

Yes, passengers will go where they want and for parts of the country that is Amsterdam.

Manchester does not offer an alternative to LHR and never will. It is used by people flying to/from the north who find it more convenient than Heathrow and pay a penalty for that. Even with this in it's favour it will never be able to attract the destinations that Heathrow can and people are then forced to travel there via train and a transfer through London with luggage or fly from a northern airport and transfer elsewhere out of the UK.

An expanded LHR will mean more transfers with the UK and more money coming back to the taxpayer.

London airports already contribute around £1bn a year just in APD. A not insignificant figure which would likely pay for the access works before the expanded portion even became operational.

[Fairdealfrank]

You also seem to overlook that increasingly TfL will have to fund its own projects so the taxpayers and service users affected will be those living and working (and running businesses) in London, not the rest of the U.K. In that case it is only natural that it will try to lump as much of its future project costs on to the back of any major development that gets put forward. There is no magic £18bn pot of money sat in the Treasury to fund the wish list of those wanting to secure investment for the regions. As you rightly say there are limited resources at the present time so investment will flow to those projects that generate the most growth (principally in the form of GVA and tax revenue).

Airports rightly are expected under State Aid rules to meet the costs of infrastructure from which they directly benefit. So far TfL (I suspect partly driven by their former political master) have been stretching the definition of direct benefit beyond reason and have included any and every project that is linked to Heathrow that might require investment in the next couple of decades.
Why are you so obsessed with TFL? It's involvement with LHR surface infrastructure enhancements are minimal. Motorway/trunk road tunnels and/or diversions and junction improvements plus the new railways are part of the remit of the Dept. of Transport, and that's where most of the spending will go.

Also, these infrastructure and connectivity improvements will be beneficial to others apart from airport staff and passengers so government involvement is justified.

TFL may operate some new bus routes perhaps and that would help, but no new tube extensions are planned, so its role would be marginal. TFL was doing its master's bidding by inflating figures and getting involved with issues beyond its remit at the time when Mayor Boris was banging on about "fantasy island".

Boris MP now has bigger fish to fry, plus many constituents who either work on the airport, or for organisations closely linked to it and dependent on its continued success.



Liverpool, along with its sister airports, Doncaster Sheffield and Durham Tees Valley, support the 3rd runway at Heathrow. All three airports are majority owned by Manchester-based Peel Holdings who also support the Heathrow expansion.
This should really not come as a surprise, it's common sense!


I don't think it matters where I am from.

I travel regularly and happen to like flying through Heathrow. So, why should I not wish for it to be expanded just because I am from the North West of England.


If Manchester was the alternative to Heathrow, which as we know is operating at full capacity, then the Airlines would already be at Manchester or any other UK Regional Airport.

United could easily have added UK capacity by adding Flights from Manchester to Chicago, Houston and San Francisco but they have not. After all, they no longer have a UK feed to their Heathrow routes. A deal with Flybe at Manchester would be perfect.

Delta/Virgin could have added Manchester to Detroit, Minneapolis St Paul or Los Angeles and American could have added Manchester to Charlotte, Dallas or Miami, but neither have!
Exactly.


Manchester airport isn't trying to beat Heathrow but it offers a credible alternative. The Heathrow bubble has been burst and there is no turning back. It's a gateway to the world but the nonsense that it's that or nothing is just guff. Passengers will go where they want and Heathrow isn't the choice for millions any more.
I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.
Think there's a lot of missing the point here. It is really quite simple.

Where the market can support just one route between the UK and another country that route will be (with a handful of exceptions) to/from LHR (e.g. Vietnam, Indonesia, Kenya, Colombia, Brazil, etc.). This has always been the case, and in recent years, it has sometimes had to be via the LGW waiting room.

Where the market can support two routes between the UK and another country those routes will usually be to/from LHR and MAN (e.g. Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Egypt, etc.).

Where the market can support multiple routes between the UK and another country the other UK airports get a look in, (e.g. Ireland, USA, Canada, UAE, most of Europe, etc.).

Therefore LHR will always be the main UK airport and there is a pecking order for the rest. Pax, especially premium pax, want to use LHR, so carriers want to be there. The evidence is the willingness of carriers to pay millions for LHR slots!

The more connectivity the better, and more routes to/from more airports is clearly desirable and necessary, but in some cases there will always be a need to change planes at LHR (or AMS, DUB, etc.), and the presence of transfer pax at LHR makes more routes viable, especially thinner ones.

So win-win all round, and the alleged "potentially massive hand out" could turn out to be excellent value for money.

[Homo Simpson]

Prophead

Manchester is already an alternative to Heathrow for millions of passengers and not just from ooop North.
But we are being told that Heathrow is the saviour of the UK and if we don't expand it then we will all be using Ansterdam/Frankfurt etc.
We already do and Manchester too. That's passenger choice and it should not be dictated by the government or the owners of Heathrow or indeed Manchester airport group.
I have no issue with it having ten runways but not potentially billions of tax money spent on it because it's Heathrow.

[Prophead]

Because this whole argument about the spending is just a smokescreen. Nowhere has Shed and co argued against the figure put forward by Tfl and questioned what it consist of. If that was the real issue then we would all be arguing about and dissecting that. They are all gladly using the highest figure put out in order to push their own agenda which is keeping their local airport as 'Gateway to the North'.

The north is a large place and people are sick and tired of having to travel to Manchester. Shed himself has said repeatedly that he would prefer to fly from Man and change down route onto a connecting flight rather than travel to LHR. (The National Express goes directly to T5 you know) As would I if I lived in Cheshire.

He doesn't however believe those in other northern regions should have the same choice and connect at LHR.

[Prophead]

But we are being told that Heathrow is the saviour of the UK and if we don't expand it then we will all be using Ansterdam/Frankfurt etc.
We already do and Manchester too. That's passenger choice and should not be dictated by the government or the owners of Heathrow.

Heathrow isn't trying to be the saviour of anything. It is merely doing what businesses do and trying to capture the extra income from thos who as you say are transferring via Amsterdam and elsewhere The benefit to the UK is the extra income generated as well as extra routes that then become viable.

If there are enough passengers coming down from Newcastle for a flight to Salt Lake City then an Airline will fly direct. That is supply and demand. Nobody is dictating anything.

[Homo Simpson]

There is not a single airport that will cater perfectly for everyone. People have to travel to an airport and it will always involve a degree of hassle. Heathrow has connections to it and for some that's easy for others it isn't. Same for Manchester.
If Leeds went to 8 a day to Heathrow then good for them. Why not if it makes money but it doesn't mean that Manchester should then sit back and not offer flights around the world as well. For many in Yorkshire it's not really that hard to get to Manchester and it gives them an alternative to London.
The amount of tax payers money is unknown but it will be in the billions and when you have the majority of the country desperate for investment then it's not difficult to see why people are pissed about Heathrow getting money because we are told that there are no alternatives when in fact there are.

[Homo Simpson]

We are being fed the line that Heathrow is it and that's that.
You contradict yourself constantly by saying that Heathrow is just being a business in doing or wanting what it does but yet Manchester doing the same is just a hassle for people.
Manchester offering routes brings money into the exchequer too.

[Prophead]

Homo,

I have never stated that Manchester should not offer whatever flights it wants to. It is however down to airlines to choose where to fly from/to not airports.

All I have said is that those in the north who live nowhere near Manchester, (which included myself for most of my life) should not be forced to have to use Man or AMS. LHR should also be encouraged to try and take the non UK connection traffic that will bring money into the UK.

If the income generated by an expanded LHR can pay back the taxpayer funded portion and then go on to return a healthy profit then it has a business case.

Manchester can do whatever it likes.

[Homo Simpson]

Forced to use Manchester or Ansterdam?
That will be the same logic you use to force people to use Heathrow then.
Heathrow is not the be all and end all anymore.
In fact Manchester is easier to get to with more domestic connections than Heathrow. It's a moot point but it blows your notion that it's a trek to get to out the water.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I don't think it matters where I am from.


I am in full agreement with you on this, Ametyst. Prophead was suggesting that posters located in the NW were ganging up against LHR R3. I was reminding him that there is diversity of opinion. It doesn't matter where you are posting from and it doesn't matter where I am posting from either. Our respective opinions are held irrespective of geographical location.

I travel regularly and happen to like flying through Heathrow

And that's fine. We are all free to make the journey choice which best suits our personal needs. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' right answer.

So, why should I not wish for it to be expanded just because I am from the North West of England.


Your geographical location should not be an issue at all. However, the extraordinary proposed cost to the taxpayer of developing LHR R3 should make you think twice. Merseyside is amongst those metropolitan areas which has been starved of large-scale transport infrastructure investment because the vast majority of state funding is being monopolised by projects located exclusively in the South-East.

If Manchester was the alternative to Heathrow

MAN is not the alternative to LHR. It has no role to play in serving passengers travelling internationally from the SE. But it is the most popular solution for fulfilling the international travel needs of people located in or visiting the North.

United could easily have added UK capacity by adding Flights from Manchester to Chicago, Houston and San Francisco but they have not. After all, they no longer have a UK feed to their Heathrow routes. A deal with Flybe at Manchester would be perfect.

Delta/Virgin could have added Manchester to Detroit, Minneapolis St Paul or Los Angeles and American could have added Manchester to Charlotte, Dallas or Miami, but neither have!

MAN offers scheduled flights to thirteen US cities (including one announced but yet to launch). These are JFK, EWR, PHL, IAD, ATL, MCO, SFB, MIA, BOS, LAS, LAX, ORD and SFO. This is a very respectable portfolio of routes which compares well with offerings available from major airports in Continental Europe. It has given MAN the critical mass required to apply for US PDC which will bring added convenience to passengers. If the carriers mentioned above were to launch the routes you suggest they would find themselves entering an already very competitive environment, in many cases as the second carrier on the route. Airlines select MAN based upon the market dynamics there, not because of what they can / can't do at an unrelated airport.

I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.

Hallelujah! At last a poster who gets it!

It is used by people flying to/from the north who find it more convenient than Heathrow and pay a penalty for that

Some flights are more expensive from MAN, some are cheaper. Ground transportation costs vary according the the circumstances of each individual traveller. You cannot generalise in this way.

Even with this in it's favour it will never be able to attract the destinations that Heathrow can

As it happens, MAN offers a very large portfolio of destinations worldwide. And most major population centres not covered non-stop can be reached with one flight change over an existing major hub. For travellers within the catchment, MAN-LHR-XXX offers no discernible advantage over routing MAN-Overseas Hub-XXX. In fact, the latter is often a far more reliable option due to the unreliability of the Shuttle and stressful ground transfer arrangements at LHR.

London airports already contribute around £1bn a year just in APD

HM Treasury gets the money whichever UK gateway is used.

Because this whole argument about the spending is just a smokescreen

There are eighteen billion good reasons why it isn't.

Nowhere has Shed and co argued against the figure put forward by Tfl and questioned what it consist of.

GOTCHA!!! Remember those archived postings of mine which you can easily reference on this site? Well look again very closely. I routinely used Sir Peter Hendy's estimate of £10Bn public contribution requirement to allow for the possibility that TfL's then estimate of £20Bn was inflated for political reasons. I think that going with just half the highest quote available out there was extremely generous of me. This new £18Bn number has entered the fray much more recently.

If that was the real issue then we would all be arguing about and dissecting that

The contribution required from the taxpayer is exactly the issue I've been arguing about throughout this R3 debate. Many on here are absolutely fed up of me labouring this point. Few would claim I hadn't done so!

They are all gladly using the highest figure put out in order to push their own agenda which is keeping their local airport as 'Gateway to the North'.


Afraid not. I routinely used Sir Peter Hendy's £10Bn estimate when £20Bn was the highest quote out there. And you introduced MAN to the debate, not I. I simply corrected your spurious claims regarding public transport access there.

The north is a large place and people are sick and tired of having to travel to Manchester.

You may be, but this is a minority view in the extreme.

Shed himself has said repeatedly that he would prefer to fly from Man and change down route onto a connecting flight rather than travel to LHR

Correct. Frequent cancellations of the MAN Shuttle, the very slow duplicate security search on arrival at LHR and the stressful terminal transfer process make LHR an undesirable travel choice for me. However, I have consistently championed the right of each individual traveller to make their own journey choices, including in postings made on this thread over the last couple of days.

The National Express goes directly to T5 you know

You seem to harbour a burning hatred of National Express. I've actually used them from Heathrow Central to Bournemouth and Southampton, and from LHR T5 to Luton. They're absolutely fine. Just what is your issue with them?

He doesn't however believe those in other northern regions should have the same choice and connect at LHR.

Please quote where I've written anything remotely resembling this.

If there are enough passengers coming down from Newcastle for a flight to Salt Lake City then an Airline will fly direct. That is supply and demand. Nobody is dictating anything.

But if the cost of making that SLC link happen is a taxpayer contribution of £18Bn, they're better served by flying NCL-EWR-SLC instead. In fact, come to think of it ...

And finally, Prophead, can I remind you to debate me on what I actually have said rather than what you'd like me to have said. Please don't put words in my mouth. It is very poor form. Thanks.

[Prophead]

HM Treasury gets the money whichever UK gateway is used.


And they get a lot more when it is a London based airport. Obviously when the money is coming in the north/south divide is just fine.

I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.
Hallelujah! At last a poster who gets it!

Where has anyone said LHR is the saviour of anything??? It is a ridiculous notion.

It should be given funding because it has the potential to give back an even greater amount. You obviously cannot comprehend this due to that massive chip on your shoulder about spending in the Capital. Your posts on the Manchester thread show almost a willingness on your part for the government to cancel the northern part of HS2 just so you can keep banging on about the unfairness of it.

MAN offers scheduled flights to blah blah blah...

And long may it do so. People in the south east really don't care about what goes on at Manchester. If Heathrow expansion goes ahead then many people in the north won't either.

GOTCHA!!! Remember those archived postings of mine........

Shed, talking to you is like arguing with a child.

You have never once questioned the actual works quoted by Tfl and what they consist of. You have repeatedly refused to even acknowledge or do not know that the infrastructure concerned is in need of upgrading now never mind by 2030. You complain about unfair spending in and around London yet one of the outcomes of this project will be easy access to/from the regions for foreign investment. None of this matters though as once again that huge chip of yours gets in the way.

You seem to harbour a burning hatred of National Express.

Not if that forms the main part of your journey. As a way of just getting to an airport or home after a long flight though I do not think I am alone in dismissing that option.

Correct. Frequent cancellations of the MAN Shuttle, the very slow duplicate security search on arrival at LHR and the stressful terminal transfer process make LHR an undesirable travel choice for me.

Why do you keep insisting on using the current setup as a reason not to improve it. That's like saying the whole northern powerhouse idea should be scrapped because Bradford Interchange is a dump.

If there are enough passengers coming down from Newcastle for a flight to Salt Lake City then an Airline will fly direct. That is supply and demand. Nobody is dictating anything.
But if the cost of making that SLC link happen is a taxpayer contribution of £18Bn, they're better served by flying NCL-EWR-SLC instead. In fact, come to think of it

You missed my point completely.

Many on here are absolutely fed up of me labouring this point. Few would claim I hadn't done so!

Well on that we can agree

And I have been banging on about the better domestic connections too. Therefore I will stop arguing about MAN. I am sure you won't be able to not have the last word though so will leave that to you.

Hopefully this project will go ahead and we can actually see the benefits throughout the UK.

[HOODED]

Despite being from the North I would like to see R3 at LHR. Never flown from MAN but have from LBA LTN LGW LHR BHX STN. For longer flights like a lot from Yorkshire I prefer AMS or even CDG to trogging across to MAN. Whilst LBA now has BA to LHR I haven't used it due to flight timings. This is precisely what R3 could fix. There are 2 early flights ex LBA to AMS a Jet 2 and a KLM this is where most folks go for Long Haul connections and LBA isn't alone. LHR as a proper hub could easily mop up most of these pax if the connections from all the regions were available. Bring on R3 and let's fly the flag.

[Prophead]

You should try the BA connection when the times suit, it really is very easy and a lot of people were going down for connecting flights. I used it weekly to get to London as it was preferable to taking the train and also cheaper.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

HM Treasury gets the money whichever UK gateway is used.

And they get a lot more when it is a London based airport.

Aside from a waiver for transatlantic services from BFS, APD rates are uniformly levied across the country.

Obviously when the money is coming in the north/south divide is just fine.

What are you talking about?

You obviously cannot comprehend this due to that massive chip on your shoulder about spending in the Capital

I do object to the SE monopolising scarce funding for public transport infrastructure investment. Comprehension doesn't come into it.

Your posts on the Manchester thread show almost a willingness on your part for the government to cancel the northern part of HS2 just so you can keep banging on about the unfairness of it.

You're making it up as you go along again. Please quote any passage in which I have expressed a wish to see HS2 cancelled.

People in the south east really don't care about what goes on at Manchester.

No reason why they should. But based on your postings you clearly do. I consistently have to correct misleading claims made about MAN on this thread by yourself.

Shed, talking to you is like arguing with a child.


Well I'm not the one making wild claims, talking about a "giant chip on the shoulder", attributing all manner of spurious arguments which I've never made to me, and much more. I also don't criticise contributors based on their posting location.

You have repeatedly refused to even acknowledge or do not know that the infrastructure concerned is in need of upgrading now never mind by 2030

Again, you are wrong. I have merely pointed out that a substantial amount of infrastructure around the UK also requires upgrading, and that works required in the vicinity of LHR should take their place in the queue for public funding rather than exuding an air of automatic entitlement ahead of the rest.

You complain about unfair spending in and around London yet one of the outcomes of this project will be easy access to/from the regions for foreign investment.

Long overdue direct investment in regional infrastructure priorities will bring vastly greater benefits in this respect.

None of this matters though as once again that huge chip of yours gets in the way.


Remind me again ... which one of us is being childish?

Why do you keep insisting on using the current setup as a reason not to improve it

I'd be delighted to see them improve it provided that it doesn't require £18Bn in taxpayer funding to achieve.

You missed my point completely.


No, you just disliked me pointing out that NCL-EWR-[US onward city] is preferable to routing via LHR anyway!

Many on here are absolutely fed up of me labouring this point. Few would claim I hadn't done so!
Well on that we can agree

Excellent. So you finally acknowledge that I have argued against LHR R3 solely based upon the magnitude of proposed taxpayer funding.

I am sure you won't be able to not have the last word though so will leave that to you.

I didn't notice you shying away from one-for-one replies?

Hopefully this project will go ahead and we can actually see the benefits throughout the UK.

Hopefully taxpayer funding for infrastructure innovations can at last be spread fairly around regional UK rather than concentrated exclusively in the SE yet again, such that benefits can be directly shared by the whole country.

[1-11days]

"You have repeatedly refused to even acknowledge or do not know that the infrastructure concerned is in need of upgrading now never mind by 2030. "


A very valid point about infrastructure, one that many outside the favoured south east are made aware of through their daily experience of creaking transport networks which have had precious little investment over the years. The point is that if this public investment goes into the south east yet again the national economic imbalance continues and areas of potential growth elsewhere continue to be starved.


Heathrow should pay its fair share of infrastructure work which enables any extra runway - be it rail or road provision. At the moment it looks as though this is not going to be the case with the subsidy dressed up as for national economic benefit when in reality it will merely improve south east infrastructure primarily for the benefit of the south east.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Despite being from the North I would like to see R3 at LHR. Never flown from MAN but have from LBA LTN LGW LHR BHX STN. For longer flights like a lot from Yorkshire I prefer AMS or even CDG to trogging across to MAN. Whilst LBA now has BA to LHR I haven't used it due to flight timings. This is precisely what R3 could fix. There are 2 early flights ex LBA to AMS a Jet 2 and a KLM this is where most folks go for Long Haul connections and LBA isn't alone. LHR as a proper hub could easily mop up most of these pax if the connections from all the regions were available. Bring on R3 and let's fly the flag.

With the best will in the world, that is simply no justification for the level of taxpayer subsidy for an airport that is a private company.

That money (however much it is it is clearly vast) could better serve UK plc elsewhere.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Except that £2.2bn-£18bn spread across the regions won't generate £100bn of GDP growth let alone the scale indicated by the Commission.

(I'm quoting the low & high claims as no-one seems prepared to accept the independent view of £5.5bn suggested by the AC)

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Fixed it for you. When LHR can get over the impediment below they have a chance of they are willing to fund it. As you say they have been trying for 30 years without sucess. I doubt your assertions will change that fact.


"Except that £2.2bn-£18bn spent at Heathrow hasn't a chance of generating anything close £100bn of GDP growth, but is likely to redistribute GDP to the South East at the taxpayers expense."

[vctenderness]

Listened to a debate on radio this morning re Heathrow. One bright spark was complaining at how low aircraft were when landing! I kid you not!

[Walnut]

Just heard PMQs 11/5 where the Prime Minister was asked by I think a Labour MP when did he think he would be able to give the go ahead for the expansion of the airport.
He gave no date but said one thing that needs to be completed is the air quality assessment. A very brief answer No mention of finance
Further I have just heard the question was prompted by HAL promising to start Night flights 1hr later at 0530

[PAXboy]

And there is the real shortcoming of such phone ins. The caller needs to be asked:


Where are you standing when making this observation?
If at your own house - did you know the airport was there when you rented/bought?
How often do you use the airport?
Do you know how many jobs relay on the airport?
Are you aware of how the politicians have failed the UK airports in the last 30 years?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

BBC News - Heathrow offers to curb night flights as it fights to build third runway (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/36262479)

So, afew titbits on night-flying and nice words about limiting air pollution. No offer to put up more of the funding!

[T250]

Instead of restricting night flights more, why not do the opposite!

Make LHR 24/7 airport like any other leading major hubs, DXB for example.

That's who we're aiming to compete against as a great 'hub' aren't we.

And as for the noise/environmental concerns, well... you're happy to intensify them with R3 but to spread them out into a 24 hour operation that's a big no no? Strange logic! :ugh::hmm:

Why can't we maximise what we have now. In reality you have 2 under-utilised runways at LHR! In this 24/7 globalised world of which aviation and so called 'hubs' are crucial, I think the immediate concern should be the incredibly restrictive operating hours not the actual infrastructure currently present. :=

[Walnut]

The 0530LT landing restriction could only be got round by persuading Far East airports to allow T/Os after midnight, or maybe allowing these flights to route to LGW where the restrictions are less onerous

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Instead of restricting night flights more, why not do the opposite!

Make LHR 24/7 airport like any other leading major hubs, DXB for example.

I actually suggested exactly this directly to Sir Howard Davies during one of the AC consultation meetings. I reminded him that the noise footprints generated by contemporary airliners were tiny compared with those of their 1960's/1970's counterparts for which the night-flying restrictions were implemented. Technology has significantly reduced the decibels and increased the climb rates since then. Yet the rules still afford no recognition to these advances and the investment operators have made in re-equipping fleets with less-intrusive aircraft types. I pointed out that even if full night-flying could not be approved, relaxation of rules for compliant types would yield many additional slots which could be allocated to priority long-haul routes. And minimal new investment at LHR would be required to achieve this.

I also advised him that public perceptions of aircraft noise in the vicinity of 24/7 commercial airports is way overblown and based upon memories of aircraft types withdrawn long ago. Modern airliners don't ruin your sleep. And that is not just an expedient claim on my part. Few are better located than me to comment on such matters! ;-)

At the time, SHD replied that this was an interesting proposal which nobody had suggested to him before. He would take it away and discuss it with his team. And when the report was eventually published ... it proposed a reduction in night-flying. So much for common sense!

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Shed

One of the terms of reference to the airport commission was to maintain the UKs position as Europes most important aviation hub.

The only viable means of delivering this is via LHR.

Against this background it is obvious what conclusion would be formed by the airports commission - Heathrow expansion. The solution of night flying would not meet this outcome and would be even more politically toxic than the third runway is!

[DaveReidUK]

I pointed out that even if full night-flying could not be approved, relaxation of rules for compliant types would yield many additional slots which could be allocated to priority long-haul routes.

That's happens anyway.

Four A380 landings consume the same noise quota as a single arriving 747-400. Similarly a 777-300ER uses 4 times as many quota points as a 787. And the GTF-powered A320neo isn't subject to any night noise restrictions at all.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

And the GTF-powered A320neo isn't subject to any night noise restrictions at all.

So just to be clear ... are you saying that HAL would allow these to operate unrestricted throughout the night at LHR? Surely not?

[DaveReidUK]

So just to be clear ... are you saying that HAL would allow these to operate unrestricted throughout the night at LHR? Surely not?

Well it's a bit academic, as we're talking mostly about long-haul routes, and about what HAL could do, not necessarily what they would do.

But yes, the current LHR/LGW/STN night restrictions (which are the Government's, not HAL's) exempt the P&W powered A320neo (not sure about the CFM-powered one) from counting against either the movements limit or the night noise quota.

[Trinity 09L]

The letter from J Holland- Kaye & quotes from press release today.

"delivering up to £211 bn in economic benefit and 180,000 jobs by approving a third runway"

"Measures include support for an early introduction of ban on scheduled flight for six and half hours every night after expansion planning consent received and the necessary airspace is modernised"

"to ensure that as many as possible of the 40,000 new jobs at the airport go to those living nearby"

and finally to get there they will get the following support

"our support for local cycling will mean that there will be no more airport related traffic on the roads after the new runway opens than today"

[DaveReidUK]

The video accompanying the press release also contains the following statement from JH-K:

"We will commit to providing times when local residents have respite from all noise"which appears to imply a cessation of respite-busting, out-of-alternation landings (TEAM) on whichever runway isn't designated for arrivals in the alternation schedule.

I'm surprised more noise (npi) isn't being made about that as it's currently one of the most common complaints from local residents.

[Trinity 09L]

In his press release no mention is made of departures on 09L, when all arrivals will be on 09R waking more residents who have had noise respite.
When the residents to the North East of LHR hear these aircraft off 09L it will change their opinion.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

"delivering up to £211 bn in economic benefit and 180,000 jobs by approving a third runway"


"our support for local cycling will mean that there will be no more airport related traffic on the roads after the new runway opens than today"

A nomination for the British Comedy Awards is in order! Although in fairness those two accommodating little words up to render the first statement correct in literal terms.

[DaveReidUK]

In his press release no mention is made of departures on 09L, when all arrivals will be on 09R waking more residents who have had noise respite.
When the residents to the North East of LHR hear these aircraft off 09L it will change their opinion.

There have never been any guarantees of respite under the departure flightpath, the alternation schedule applies to arrivals only.

On the subject of using 09L for easterly departures, it all seems to have gone quiet lately (so to speak). Does anyone know the current status of the battle between HAL and LB Hillingdon re planning permission for the changes to allow easterly alternation?

[Bagso]

Whilst I'm no fan of Heathrow but trying to remain impartial I would have thought limiting arrivals from Asia to a later time would be commercially quite toxic?

Incidentally we did have Mrs Marple from the tree huggers given uneccessary airtime on 5 live this morning.

"We have relatIves in Sheffield and they have to travel down to Heathrow because Manchester has no US flights
..."

Really shows stupidity of some folk !

[DaveReidUK]

Whilst I'm no fan of Heathrow but trying to remain impartial I would have thought limiting arrivals from Asia to a later time would be commercially quite toxic?

JH-K explains that the reason for those early-morning landings is so that Chinese businessmen can arrive from Shanghai(?) and Hong Kong in time to catch the 07:10 flight to Newcastle and do a full day's work there:

Heathrow Airport Vows To Ban Night Flights (http://news.sky.com/story/1694057/heathrow-airport-vows-to-ban-night-flights)

[Trinity 09L]

DR UK
I am aware that it does not effect departures for 09L, but alas if & when easterly departures start, thats then it will awaken those in the North East quarter to noise not heard before. Atlantic departures may (?) require a left turn to head West.
As to a decision, I would only suggest that it would be easy to bury this with the R3 decision. However what work is required to allow ops, ie noise baffles and taxiways etc would have to destroyed again to allow aircraft to reach R3.:rolleyes:

[DaveReidUK]

I am aware that it does not effect departures for 09L, but alas if & when easterly departures start, thats then it will awaken those in the North East quarter to noise not heard before.

Well noise that's not been heard very often - 09L departures are rare, but not unknown (just under 400 of them last year). But I agree that's rather different from the 35,000 or so 09L departures per year that would likely result from full easterly alternation.

Atlantic departures may (?) require a left turn to head West.The SIDs for 09L departures already exist - Transatlantics make either a right or left turn depending on whether they are on a Compton or WOBUN SID, respectively (which in turn is determined by their destination and the day's NAT tracks).

Edit: here is an example of each:

Departure to JFK on an 09L Compton SID: WebTrak My Neighbourhood - Home Locator: London Heathrow Airport (http://myneighbourhood.bksv.com/lhr/home/webtrak/10064148)
Departure to IAH on an 09L WOBUN SID: WebTrak My Neighbourhood - Home Locator: London Heathrow Airport (http://myneighbourhood.bksv.com/lhr/home/webtrak/3621842)

As to a decision, I would only suggest that it would be easy to bury this with the R3 decision. However what work is required to allow ops, ie noise baffles and taxiways etc would have to destroyed again to allow aircraft to reach R3.:rolleyes:Quite so. The noise mitigation measures are designed to reduce sound levels at the western end of 09L, primarily to benefit the residents of Longford (which is due to disappear under the T6 satellites).

[Skipness One Echo]

09L departures are now common in the overnight period, they rotate with the other three options.

[DaveReidUK]

09L departures are now common in the overnight period, they rotate with the other three options.

The 4-weekly night-time rotation has operated for many years, but it only applies after the last scheduled departure when single-runway operations begin, so "common" is a bit of an exaggeration - just over one 09L departure per day on average last year, as per my previous post, and fewer than 20 to date for this year.

[118.70]

DR UK
Does anyone know the current status of the battle between HAL and LB Hillingdon re planning permission for the changes to allow easterly alternation?

I would have thought the Planning Inspectors had submitted their Enquiry report /recommendations to the Secretaries of State and we are awaiting their deliberations.......

[compton3bravo]

If ever John Holland-Kaye ever left his job at Heathrow I am sure he would be a hit on the comedy circuit with some of the comments he made when talking to media outlets yesterday especially the one about bicycles!

[DaveReidUK]

I would have thought the Planning Inspectors had submitted their Enquiry report /recommendations to the Secretaries of State and we are awaiting their deliberations.......

Yes, answering my own lazy question with a bit of Googling comes up with a Government decision being "imminent" - a fairly elastic term in the context of decisions relating to Heathrow. :O

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Only in the UK could one airport get given a runway with less than ideal characteristics that is not needed now and will be needed even less in future years whereas the most important airport in the world and in critical need of runway capacity, can't get one. Nowhere else on the planet.

[Trinity 09L]

DR UK
You have published an error - there is no Terminal 6, this is a planning application for a new 3rd runway and ancillary taxiways.

To assist if you look at the plans there are a string of piers fixed to a building where it is likely passengers will board and leave an aircraft. This building will be named the Sipson - Harlington - International Terminus building.:ooh:

[T250]

whereas the most important airport in the world

Since when? On what basis? :confused::\

[chaps1954]

Leeds App we know who you are talking about and suggest you pay us a visit
between 06.00 and 10.30, mid afternoon and evening and you might just change your mind about it not been needed and April was 12% up for movements which is 500
mvemens a day
Sorry if a bit of topic but he is trolling anything to but his local drome up north

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

the most important airport in the world and in critical need of runway capacity, can't get one.

The most important airport in the world at the present time is Hartsfield Atlanta International [101 million pax in 2015] which has five parallel runways in a great layout. Probably sufficient for its needs. If you mean Beijing Capital Airport [90 million pax in 2015] which is catching up rapidly, it has three parallel runways. It probably won't require more, as a new airport for Beijing is under construction at Da Xing. However, it is likely that the Chinese would construct an additional runway if it was deemed necessary. Costs appear to be under control there.

Meanwhile, I cannot think of any UK airport which has been given a new runway in recent times. They usually cost alot of money. That's the problem.

[compton3bravo]

Manchester perhaps!

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Manchester perhaps!

Manchester paid the full cost of theirs. Nothing was gifted to them.

[DaveReidUK]

DR UK
You have published an error - there is no Terminal 6, this is a planning application for a new 3rd runway and ancillary taxiways.

To assist if you look at the plans there are a string of piers fixed to a building where it is likely passengers will board and leave an aircraft. This building will be named the Sipson - Harlington - International Terminus building.:ooh:

Love it !! :O

Joking aside, there have actually been two different plans published for the R3/T6 option - the original "northwest R3" and a variation labelled "potential optimisation".

Both show T6 in its planned location west of T5, to the south of where the Sofitel is at present.

The original plan shows 3 satellites, aligned N-S (i.e. with east/west-facing aircraft stands) roughly midway between the new runway and the current 09L/27R extended centreline.

The "optimised" plan has R3 moved southeast by around 300m. This moves the airport boundary clear of the M4/M25 interchange (though that would still need a grade change to get the M25 under the runway) and replaces the 3 N-S satellites with two oriented E-W (so the stands face north/south).

The various artists impressions of the Northwest option published so far all appear to show the original (3-satellite) configuration with the runway located closer to J4A.

[Bagso]

Early day motion 1162 - FINAL DECISION ON AIRPORT EXPANSION IN LONDON AND THE SOUTH EAST - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/1162)

Some great support from GrahamBradyMP Sale in Gtr Manchester although I am not sure London MPs would be so embroiled in Mancunian issues.

I wonder why he is so keen ?

[BAladdy]

BA are launching a new 4 x weekly service from LHR too SCL on 3rd January 2017

BA251 LHR 22:00 SCL 09:40+1 789 x146
BA250 SCL 18:45 LHR 12:05+1 789 x257

Once it begin this will be BA's longest non stop flight, with westbound flights scheduled for 14hrs 40min and eastbound 14hrs 20mins

[WHBM]

Manchester paid the full cost of theirs. Nothing was gifted to them.
That's because Manchester paid £172m for it, which was a straightforward and reasonable construction cost (including acquisition of land). In contrast the stratospheric costs quoted for Heathrow are a mystery to the construction world for what they are going to do.

One explanation is that Heathrow, unlike Manchester, is an airport with charges controlled by the Regulator, and that adding to the approved asset base is one way to get an increase in authorised charges. By gaming the system you can get the new high cost estimates added to your asset base and this can lead to an increase in authorised charges.

Heathrow is part-owned by Ferrovial, who also own UK mainstream contractor Amey, and the "costs" of the project will be whatever Amey manage to publish.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Interesting, WHBM. That sounds like sharp practice at its finest!

[Ringwayman]

Manchester was still being regulated at time - it was only the late 2000s when it was deregulated

[Fairdealfrank]

BA are launching a new 4 x weekly service from LHR too SCL on 3rd January 2017

BA251 LHR 22:00 SCL 09:40+1 789 x146
BA250 SCL 18:45 LHR 12:05+1 789 x257

Once it begin this will be BA's longest non stop flight, with westbound flights scheduled for 14hrs 40min and eastbound 14hrs 20mins
Excellent stuff, and not an "add-on", about time! Good to see some of the BD acquired slots being used for new long haul at last.

Particularly good as LA doesn't do SCL-LHR, this will eliminate changing at MAD (or GRU/EZE).

[Heathrow Harry]

Heathrow Airport communities wary of more promises - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36315344)

Heathrow Airport communities wary of more promises

By Richard Westcott BBC Transport correspondent


18 May 2016

"Dear Neighbour, Our position could not be clearer, nor could it be more formally placed upon the record. Terminal 5 will not lead to a third runway." (Sir John Egan, chief executive of Heathrow's then owner BAA Ltd, April 1999)."

It's not surprising that Heathrow Airport has some trust issues with its neighbours. In the fiery battle to build a brand new fifth terminal (T5) in the 1990s, the man who used to run Heathrow's parent company made a series of promises to ease concerns.

The biggest was a commitment to permanently rule out a third runway.

It might be 17 years since that neighbourly letter was sent out, but the memory still smarts for local opponents. That's why many people have told me they simply don't believe the new package of promises unveiled last week by Heathrow's current boss, John Holland-Kaye (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36264483). Some look remarkably similar to the 1999 list, including pledges to limit noise, night flights, new runways and a vow to get more than half of passengers arriving on public transport.

The new boss has learnt from his predecessor's errors. Just look at last week's talk about laying down new asphalt: Heathrow will "accept a commitment from government ruling out any fourth runway". In other words, we're not going to pretend we'll never want it. But if the government blocks it we won't make a fuss.

The Heathrow CEO also recently said sorry for abandoning the pledge on a third runway, "I am shocked by that commitment. It should never have been made. And it could never be kept... It has hung over the relationship with local communities, and has led to a deficit of trust that can only be repaired by demonstrating we are a different company from the past," he said.

But the letter still comes up in conversation when I talk to people. Trust is hard won, easily squandered.

Promises

Did they keep any of the old promises?

I dug out the old letter from 1999 (http://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BAA-1999-letter-to-residents.pdf). It was written at the end of the public inquiry into T5, a couple of years before the final approval came through. It's full of commitments. So how did they do?

Promise 1: "An additional Heathrow runway should be ruled out forever." Promise broken.

Promise 2: "A legal freeze on the night flight quota... at today's (1999) levels."
This one isn't straightforward, so bear with me. The number of actual planes flying overhead between 11:30pm and 6am has stayed roughly the same since 1999. It averages around 16 a night.
In fact, in 1999, it was 5,666 airliners in total. Last year it was 5,498. (That doesn't include exemptions for bad weather and emergencies). But, that's not the only way things are measured. They also use a points system called the quota count. It's a formula that combines the number of aircraft with the type used. Because some are noisier than others. The upper limit is set by the government. In 1999, Heathrow was allowed 11,140 noise points. They only used 9,312. In 2015 they were allowed 9,180 points. They only used 5,322. (Those figures come from Heathrow).
So, the number of aircraft is the same, but they have cut right down on their government allocated "noise budget", because the planes are quieter. Promise kept.

Protesters have spent years fighting against Heathrow expansion Heathrow's current, third runway proposal would stop flights between 11pm and 5:30am. That's the biggest change for decades. In reality, it would mean the six flights that now touch down between 4:30am and 5:30am would be pushed a little later, to arrive between 5:30am and 6am. So, you'd still get 16 early flights, they'd just all arrive in the half-hour before 6am, give or take a few minutes.

Promise 3: "We have proposed that if T5 is allowed there should be a legally-binding cap on noise levels at 1994 levels."
Noise is complex. Different things irritate different people. For some it's peak noise. For others it's about getting a regular break. The government currently says that 57 decibels (dB) is the point at which people start getting annoyed. Ministers set a noise contour, based on 57dB on a summer's day between 7am and 11pm. It's a maximum area where the airport can be noisy.
Heathrow's noise contour is limited to 145 sq km. The latest Civil Aviation Authority figures show the actual, current 57dB contour is 104.9 sq km. The retirement of Concorde in 2004 had a significant impact, cutting the noise envelope down from 126.9 sq km to 117.9 sq km. But far more significant was the global phasing out of noisier, Chapter 2 aircraft, which began in 2002, coupled with the continued introduction of quieter planes. Promise kept.

Promise 4: "We promise to take steps to reduce the impact of cars travelling to the airport by setting a long-term vision of 50% of passengers using public transport to Heathrow." It doesn't say how long "long-term" is, but 17 years on, the current level is just 40%. Promise broken.

Interestingly, the current proposal for a third runway includes a claim that "over 55% of passengers" will arrive on public transport. To be clear, there are many, many people who live near Heathrow who want to see it expand. They rely on the airport for jobs. They've got used to the noise. They knew it was noisy when they moved there.

I spent an hour or so in Hounslow market the other day, chatting to people. Views were split right down the middle, half for and half against. But if the government does pick Heathrow rather than Gatwick when it finally decides where to build a new runway, it faces a torrid time trying to get the plans through. Part of the reason for that is concern that promises on growth and noise will simply be broken.

[DaveReidUK]

Protesters have spent years fighting against Heathrow expansion Heathrow's current, third runway proposal would stop flights between 11pm and 5:30am. That's the biggest change for decades. In reality, it would mean the six flights that now touch down between 4:30am and 5:30am would be pushed a little later, to arrive between 5:30am and 6am. So, you'd still get 16 early flights, they'd just all arrive in the half-hour before 6am, give or take a few minutes.

The BBC have failed to allow for the variation between summer and winter schedules.

It's true that in summer there are only half-a-dozen flights scheduled up to 5:30am (out of the 14 or so pre-06:00 arrivals). But it's a completely different story in winter, with 14 out of the 18 night quota flights being scheduled to arrive between 4:30am and 5:30am (because our clocks go back, but they don't in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, etc).

You can't land 18 heavies in 30 minutes during night-time single-runway operations, and if the plan is to start TEAM (dual-runway approaches) from 5:30am, that will go down like a lead balloon among local communities, presumably why they are keeping very quiet about it.

[Skipness One Echo]

No Parliament is bound by the previous one, no business is bound by previous policy unless it's legally binding. LCY was built for a few DHC7s per day and would never see jets.....

[Trinity 09L]

Referring to the BBC plan in their link. The road in red known as the A4, disappears to the North (somewhere), this of course is an example of reducing road traffic.

[DaveReidUK]

Referring to the BBC plan in their link. The road in red known as the A4, disappears to the North (somewhere), this of course is an example of reducing road traffic.

Funny that you should say that. :O

The original NW runway plans published showed the A4 Colnbrook bypass curving south to a new roundabout just east of Poyle, from where it would continue east in a tunnel on more-or-less its original course past the northside to Hounslow and points beyond.

The revised ("optimised") NW layout, with the runway moved further southwest, doesn't leave room for the bypass. It still shows the roundabout, and the A4 east from that point under the taxiways, but the implication is that Poyle and Colnbrook are no longer bypassed but have the A4 running through them, as they had before the bypass was built in 1929.

[Trinity 09L]

At recent meeting I attended in the presence of JHK, an authorative person explained that vehicles carrying hazchem cannot use tunnels, HAL maybe did not understand this issue.

[Heathrow Harry]

"No Parliament is bound by the previous one, no business is bound by previous policy unless it's legally binding."

Which is why the protestors trust nobody and will have their day (or years) in court...............

Watch out - if Dave thinks ditching LHR R3 will help win him the referendum it'll be dead in hours..................

[Trash 'n' Navs]

vehicles carrying hazchem cannot use tunnels

Not entirely correct. EU ADR applies on public roads and road tunnels and there's a lot of hazchem that can use tunnels under certain conditions or with certain controls in place. After all, they get hazchem through the Dartmouth Tunnel.