HEATHROW [Archive] - Page 18

Bagso

9th Jun 2016, 06:02

Heathrow - Britain's Busiest Airport

Apols if my criticism was somewhat blinkered.

I think my disappointment centred on the usual dumbing down for the Xfactor generation.

There were some great air to air shots to be had but these were merely a glimpse. Perhaps following the brilliant work of ATC threading an A380 through the London TMA didn't cut the mustard ? Apologies if this was covered in part 1, I can only comment on Pt2 and what we were greeted with was the usual pastiche of human misery and misfortune.

We kicked off with "The Missing Child Round",always a good initial attention grabber seeing a Customer Service Assistant par excellence mobilise the troops to locate said child, this of course was followed by a hero moment when a fellow member of staff forensically tracked down said child 20 yards away.

"I was only doing my job" he said somewhat sheepishly as a microphone was forced down his throat, embarrassing for him (...and indeed us).

We moved onto an irate chap who turned up late and subsequently vented his spleen on camera, then some hilarity was introduced as we moved to the Bangladesh Biman check in area where a world record attempt at trying to cram 48,000 pieces of luggage onto a 777 "appeared" to be underway !

We of course need the "animal interest", so if the bird scarer was a bit dull, cue the introduction of the Alpaca, a somewhat amusing creature at the best of times made all the more so by watching Heathrow staff trying to manhandle 20 of the beast around the apron, as I mentioned previously the duller moments were interspersed with some superb imagery and of course the gap filling opportunity to reinforce those subliminal messages.

"full to bursting"
"an aircraft takes off or lands every 60 seconds"

Sadly for the Heathrow spin police I suspect this was lost on an audience more interested in what could go wrong next and of my goodness did it.....enter stage right the first flight of the BA787 Dreamliner to Kuala Lumpur.

Willie Walsh must have been apoplectic as some skilful editing coupled to a troublesome starter motor on a 3rd party fuel truck provided what can only be described as comedy gold.

With time ticking by and the narrator enforcing the need for "precision planning" and the criticality of an "on time departure", the somewhat chirpy cockney fuel truck driver breezily announces ......

"the fuel truck has broken down under the wing" or words to that effect.

As if this didn't sink in with the audience we then cut to the now somewhat jittery but ever smiling push back team leader....

"it seems the fuel truck won't start" he confirms in case we missed it earlier !

Fortunately the rapid response engineer is called and after much fiddling driver number 1 who reported the initial incident confirms that the rescue engineer

quote " ........doesn’t have a bloody clue"

Quite how the team leader managed a smile at this point is beyond me, as I suspect he wished he was in Kuala Lumpur himself, the camera consistently panned back and forth to him and his able assistant for a remedy that was out of their hands.

We now cut to some skilful editing with the pilot suggesting

"a lot of people have paid many 000s to be on this flight so we need to go on-time"

The narration of course becomes ever more sombre probably as dark as the mood at BA HQ by now !!!!

Eventually all ends well but for 10 minutes it was excruiatingly painful !

Maybe my propaganda observation was harsh, possibly more Dads Army than Big Brother !

DaveReidUK

9th Jun 2016, 06:59

Willie Walsh must have been apoplectic as some skilful editing coupled to a troublesome starter motor on a 3rd party fuel truck provided what can only be described as comedy gold.

Not forgetting that they couldn't get the tug attached to the NLG and so had to summon a replacement for that, too. :\

I suspect that BA, having granted the programme makers permission to film the inaugural, didn't then have a veto over broadcasting the ensuing c*ck-up..

Betablockeruk

9th Jun 2016, 09:38

Heathrow - Britain's Busiest Airport

Apols if my criticism was somewhat blinkered.

I think my disappointment centred on the usual dumbing down for the Xfactor generation................

My attention wandered back to my iPad after several references to "the Pakistan Air flight". Maybe the researcher got confused by the retro AP-BMG triple. Surely a new startup!

compton3bravo

10th Jun 2016, 04:30

Could not have summed it up any better Bagso.

kcockayne

10th Jun 2016, 08:17

Whilst agreeing with all the criticisms generally, I wouldn't be too harsh in the strength of my condemnation of the program. It is always the same when you view (or read) an article on a subject about which you have a particularly strong knowledge. Remember, it has to be "good television". I think, overall, that for the masses this program fulfills that criteria. And for the rest of us, it sometimes makes us cringe. Would I watch it again ? Yes, I would.

Trash 'n' Navs

10th Jun 2016, 10:22

I agree kcockayne.

I've been involved in planning similar programs and the producers only want interesting visuals and sound bites that appeal to the Gogglebox viewers. Nothing too technical or detailed as it turns off the mass audience.

Heathrow Harry

12th Jun 2016, 09:39

anyone who let s a TV crew into their operation deserves everything they get

these people are only interested in making a splash - or even better a stink - they have absolutely zero interest in the truth or a fair representation

Bagso

23rd Jun 2016, 12:29

Heathrow's third runway is 'rip off', says British Airways boss (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/22/heathrows-third-runway-is-rip-off-says-british-airways-boss/)

I can't help thinking somebody in BA accounts was asked to scrutiny the figures from the airport commission.

I'm still incredulous that shareholders of HAL meekly accept the premise whilst their largest customer is aghast at the figures !

AndrewH52

23rd Jun 2016, 12:41

I can't help thinking somebody in BA accounts was asked to scrutiny the figures from the airport commission.

I'm still incredulous that shareholders of HAL meekly accept the premise whilst their largest customer is aghast at the figures !

More likely their largest customer is sweating at the prospect of 'Fortress Heathrow' being opened up to more competition...

The figures for the project only start to become unreasonable if you accept without question the sums bandied about by TfL (i.e. the £20bn figure for transport infrastructure), which is pretty much TfL looking to mug any handy private sector developer into funding their transport wish list.

Trash 'n' Navs

23rd Jun 2016, 12:43

:ugh:
:ugh:

DaveReidUK

23rd Jun 2016, 12:51

Heathrow's third runway is 'rip off', says British Airways boss (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/22/heathrows-third-runway-is-rip-off-says-british-airways-boss/)

According to the Torygraph's helpful "Airport expansion - the options explained in 90 seconds" video:

Option 2 is a second runway at HeathrowGood to see that the DT has its usual incisive grasp of the situation.

Ametyst1

23rd Jun 2016, 13:26

British Airways are to commence a service from Heathrow to Innsbruck, operating 4 weekly in Winter and 2 weekly in Summer.

Heathrow Harry

23rd Jun 2016, 16:18

I though LHR was so full we couldn't add flights ot impoortant export destinations in China & India - but we can go to Innsbruck???

canberra97

23rd Jun 2016, 16:56

BA has plenty of spare slots and enough to swap about but short haul flights are different to long haul flights so the relevant slots are harder to find that's why your seeing more short haul expansion from BA at LHR as of late.

Bagso

24th Jun 2016, 07:40

Hmmmmm.... Prime Minister going October.

Runners / riders

Suspect that RW3 is now back at least another 12 months or indeed never.

DaveReidUK

24th Jun 2016, 07:55

Hmmmmm.... Prime Minister going October.

Runners / riders

Suspect that RW3 is now back at least another 12 months or indeed never.

Well clearly it's going to be Boris Island now, after all. :O

Trash 'n' Navs

24th Jun 2016, 08:18

Suspect that RW3 is now back at least another 12 months or indeed never.

I've seen press reports that an announcement might be out on Jul 7th.

With Brexit, I reckon LHR is the favourite now. Certainly believe the UK will need more long-haul connections for trade AND now short-haul with EU.

PAXboy

24th Jun 2016, 12:23

Heathrow Harry
I though LHR was so full we couldn't add flights ot impoortant export destinations in China & India - but we can go to Innsbruck??? The Telegraph reported a few days ago:
British Airways abandons flights to Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh resort 'indefinitely' amid terror fears So more slots to play with.

True Blue

24th Jun 2016, 12:27

Sharm was a Lgw route.

eye2eye5

24th Jun 2016, 12:29

Well clearly it's going to be Boris Island now, after all. :O
Yes, whatever net EU contributions were, they will suddenly be available for Boris island and the NHS will get nothing. Quelle surprise.

Heathrow Harry

24th Jun 2016, 15:51

Normal Govt will be on hold for the next 2 years - if there's ANY chance of Boris getting the top job then LHR3 will just disapear..........

Bagso

24th Jun 2016, 20:49

Bbc5live

"this is the worst day in Heathrow's history, on Wednesday they assumed they would get the nod on 7th July, now they could end up with Boris in the backyard "

Trash 'n' Navs

24th Jun 2016, 21:29

"this is the worst day in Heathrow's history"

Thought it was Snowmageddon in 2010...

c52

24th Jun 2016, 21:50

I can imagine that when Boris is PM of the whole country and not mayor of London, and "in full possession of all the facts" he could do a U-turn on Heathrow.

Itchin McCrevis

24th Jun 2016, 22:07

Not only will Boris be PM but eventually he will have £350m per month ;) of surplus cash to "invest" in vanity projects, let's guess shall we...

c52

24th Jun 2016, 22:16

Boris bikes for the unemployed, getting on for the purpose of?

canberra97

24th Jun 2016, 23:40

c52

You do realise Boris Johnson is no longer Mayor of London and hasn't been for a few weeks now, the 'new' Mayor is the Labour candidate Sadiq Khan.

Bagso

25th Jun 2016, 07:49

AndrewH52

Part of me wants to cry because of the inability of the wheels of government to knock some heads together and get this done for a sensible price

Well we do at least agree on that point !

He's backed up by the guy who runs the biggest airline user of Heathrow who has a vested interest in not opening the place up to competition ? I'm shocked....

But all those who knock BA are in effect criticising the only show in town re " Hub Capacity".

Your reference to investment is factually correct, none of us at this end of the country are suggesting vast subsidies, but by the same token you would have to be blind not to see the economic benefits of investing in by way of example, transport which at this end of the country is in places, on its knees !

Would £1bn each to the West country, midlands, Liverpool, Leeds , Hull and Newcastle and of course Manchester really break the bank when compared to the unending gravy train of spend in the South East ?

One of the most telling comments on referendum night was by the BBC luvvie consigned to cover the Newcastle result ...

“this area has benefited from £90m of investment over 7 years so is expected to be a remain“

Oh my goodness £90m, yep £90m, if ever there was a case of a BBC reporter not having a clue about the value of money….

So essentially the total sum invested from Central Government over 7 years buys "wait for it" 3 mile of dual carriageway !

SPECTACULAR !

Heathrow Harry

25th Jun 2016, 07:53

radio this morning reckons half the top Civil Service is being redeployed to handle Euro negotiations. the ecomnomy, trade deals etc etc

Heathrow goes to bottom of pile

Dockwell

25th Jun 2016, 13:57

radio this morning reckons half the top Civil Service is being redeployed to handle Euro negotiations. the ecomnomy, trade deals etc etc

Heathrow goes to bottom of pile

More ques at the control posts then .... A security gaurds jobs these days seems to involve the following......come out of security hut, Close the exit gate, go in for a chat, come out open entry gate,go in
Have a chat, come out shut the entry gate go in have a chat , come out search vehicle open exit gate, go in for a longer chat etc etc etc :-( and all this faffing around loses airlines money as due to the length of time it takes to get through to airside a lot off cargo Is offloaded for being
Late to aircraft side :-(

SWBKCB

25th Jun 2016, 15:01

radio this morning reckons half the top Civil Service is being redeployed to handle Euro negotiations. the economy, trade deals etc etc

Heathrow goes to bottom of pile

Only half? I think the amount of work to be done has been seriously under estimated.

Everything but the most basic functions of govt is going to be put on hold for the next few years while Brexit is sorted out.

c52

25th Jun 2016, 20:16

sorry, I wrote carelessly about Boris as "not mayor of London", so you might very well get the impression I thought he still was.

Heathrow Harry

26th Jun 2016, 08:14

papers reckon N Powerhouse, HS2, LHR R3 etc will all go - they are "Cameron/Osborn" schemes, they cost a lot of cash, there is a lot of opposition within the Tory Party (who will be voting on the next Leader shortly) and the cash will be needed to fill some of the mad pledges made during the OUT campaign

Bagso

26th Jun 2016, 12:06

Northern Powerhouse ?
Investment?

My God how impressionable people are !

It's like the BBC reporter on referendum night suggesting it will be a remain because of massive investment in the N East. ...

"£90m over 7 years" WOW.....

The general populus must have taken a collective deep sigh.

For balance that buys you about 2 mile of dual carriageway, massive investment indeed !!!!

So lets put this firmly to bed.

Here is a list of the Central Government investment in the NP below...
...
...
...
...
...

Yup one big fat zero !

HS2, RW3 should NOT be mentioned in same breath !

... lots of rhetoric and yes much welcome cajoling of business behind the seems but let's get the record straight on this one the investment from Central Government was crumbs.....

Some fiddling of cash for smart motorways, they being the ones so bloody smart we don't actually widen them...oh and a divert of £200m from the Highways Agency for a "consultation document " on a Sheffield -Manchester tunnel. No actual JCBs

That documentation is now in Sir Humphreys bottom draw I suspect!

Yes the initiatives were great, yes The North was mentioned in trade missions with the PM and Osborne holding the beacon, yes Manchester is now firmly on the map in China and the whole NorthernPowerhouse project has enough traction to be used as wipping stick if the next ministers don't start delivering up here...

but don't get carried away with any gravytrain of spend like the South East :

The Channel Tunnel
Elizabethan Tunnel
Olympic Village
Thameslink
BankUndergnd

This little Lot cost £80 billion YES that's billion NOT million!

Investment in infastructure up North compared to the SE is about 1%.

....maybe the peasants were misguided but THAT is partly the reason why both parties are now in the mire!

SWBKCB

26th Jun 2016, 14:23

Oh Bagso, you're being so unfair :=

the A1(M) has now been extended to Leeming - that's almost up to Teesside and only another 50 miles north to Newcastle. :D

And then there are the plans to upgrade a few more miles of the A1 North of Newcastle and south of the border to dual carriageway :D
(yes - that's upgrade TO dual carriageway).

We've also we've had a new franchisee appointed whose going to improve our local railways. :D
I know we aren't getting the new trains capable of doing 100mph for the Newcastle-Carlisle line (we're getting the re-furbished trains which are "as good as new"), but that would just be a waste, cos the lines still restricted to 60mph. Still, that's faster than you can do on the largely single carraigeway A69 (I find the alternative road to Carlisle quicker - you know, the one built by the Romans... :ok:)

Now, where's that "Yes, I am taking the p*ss" Emoticon? (there may be Southerner's reading :ok:)

highwideandugly

26th Jun 2016, 15:08

Vote Bagso for Pm. And Swbkcb deputy with special northern powers!

What a mess we are in..however how interesting/exciting/worrying for the whole of the U.K...Lets see if PPRUNE can keep a balanced(some times..wonky) view on the coming months!!

Heathrow Harry

26th Jun 2016, 15:34

Bagso _ I agree with you - I'm just using the labels that politicaians and the papers use.....

anyway looks like LHR R3 is a dead duck (again)

PAXboy

26th Jun 2016, 15:48

I suggest many ducks are now dead because the toffs have shot them all. The good ducks, the bad ducks and the ...

Fairdealfrank

29th Jun 2016, 00:46

Bagso _ I agree with you - I'm just using the labels that politicaians and the papers use.....

anyway looks like LHR R3 is a dead duck (again)

Consequently how many billions wasted on the Airports Commission?

LGS6753

29th Jun 2016, 07:51

I wonder if Boris's perspective will change now that he's MP for Uxbridge. After all, many thousands of his constituents' livelihoods are tied to Heathrow.

And it wouldn't be the first time he's changed his mind :E

Heathrow Harry

29th Jun 2016, 08:40

he's been MP for Uxbridge for some time - and a lot of people in W London hate the idea of LHR expansion.....

Trash 'n' Navs

29th Jun 2016, 10:24

- and a lot of people in W London hate the idea of LHR expansion.....

a lot of people in W London are happy with the idea of LHR expansion...

Heathrow Harry

29th Jun 2016, 13:49

Agreed - but the political and finacial map is very different this Wedensday cp last Wednesday ...............

Trinity 09L

29th Jun 2016, 16:44

33% of landings over Berkshire, 66% of takeoffs, and only one runway in use 09L for majority of landings. Not all West London :=

Mr A Tis

30th Jun 2016, 06:49

Heathrow loses out as decision on runway is left to next leader | News | The Times & The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-loses-out-as-cameron-passes-buck-on-runway-decision-8pvttbm2p?#_=_)

Bagso

30th Jun 2016, 06:50

Rumours circulating Westminster that Transport Sec will announce PM has passed Heathrow decision to new leader.

Given that May and Johnson are 100% against Heathrow there is talk that the Gatwick CEO has ordered a bottle of Champagne to be given to one if his employees

Suggestion is that Gatwick has it in the bag.......

Bagso

30th Jun 2016, 06:50

Beat me to it Mr Tis

Wycombe

30th Jun 2016, 07:00

After so many years of procrastination that would be entirely the wrong decision.

They both need new runways ;-)

Gonzo

30th Jun 2016, 07:29

Why do people on this thread assume that being against something while a constituency MP or a local mayor means they will keep that view when campaigning for/being the leader of the country?

I guess it must be because politicians have never changed their views, or their publicly claimed views, in any way.

Oh...hang on.....

DaveReidUK

30th Jun 2016, 07:39

They both need new runways

Neither airport would contemplate building a new runway if they knew the competition was also doing so, for obvious reasons.

Though that's academic, as it's the one scenario that Davies specifically ruled out.

:ok:

True Blue

30th Jun 2016, 07:59

BBC reporting decision delayed until new PM appointed

Gonzo

30th Jun 2016, 08:29

DR,

It's not academic. Davies no more has the power to 'rule anything out' than you or I.

Govt can ignore him completely if they decide to.

Agree it's not likely at all, but it's not due to Davies saying so.

WHBM

30th Jun 2016, 08:36

BBC reporting decision delayed until new PM appointed
How many MORE excuses will there be for this indecision ?

MANFOD

30th Jun 2016, 08:52

As I recall, the special Cabinet team that Cameron set up to consider the Davies report was criticised for not including those opposed to LHR expansion.

Did that group ever report to the full Cabinet?

If either Boris or May is elected, and their not being involved in the original meetings, I suspect they will insist on giving the matter very careful consideration which could take weeks, months? And with so many other priorities .......

Seriously though, whatever the arguments for LHR, the case for LGW post BREXIT must be tempting if it doesn't involve money from the public purse.

c52

30th Jun 2016, 09:50

What happened, then, to the extra investigation into pollution etc? Did it even ever start?

Skipness One Echo

30th Jun 2016, 10:46

BREXIT is not going to change much, be honest, the sky will not fall in.
Nothing will become clear until the dust settles on the Tory leadership vote and Boris has been stabbed by Gove today and looks less likely.

willy wombat

30th Jun 2016, 11:24

Boris not standing for Tory leader. LHR RW3 could be on.

HOODED

30th Jun 2016, 12:11

Cameron should clear LHR R3 as a parting gift. Would be a good legacy.

Wycombe

30th Jun 2016, 15:18

DaveReidUK said:

Neither airport would contemplate building a new runway if they knew the competition was also doing so, for obvious reasons.

I don't think it is obvious:
Both airports now operating at or near capacity?
Look at what happens operationally to either if anything (even relatively minor, like strong winds dictating greater separation) affects the arr/dep rate?

DaveReidUK

30th Jun 2016, 15:41

Both airports now operating at or near capacity?
Look at what happens operationally to either if anything (even relatively minor, like strong winds dictating greater separation) affects the arr/dep rate?

All of those comments are perfectly correct.

But think about it. An additional runway, at either airport, only makes business sense if a decent ROI can be achieved, in other words if you can utilise it adequately by attracting sufficient new traffic. That's a lot easier to do if the other guy is still capacity-constrained.

If both airports were foolish enough to go ahead simultaneously with a new runway, they would be slugging it out for many years to come in competition with each other and both would struggle to get an adequate return on investment.

Both Gatwick and Heathrow CEOs have said as much in the past. You could argue that that's just posturing, but they aren't stupid.

Bagso

30th Jun 2016, 20:13

Well another day.

We will soon be in "failed state" territory at this rate.

Presume Gatwick CEO put that Champagne back on ice after the Johnson debacle.

And LHR re entered the fray with this interesting comment.

And at a time of uncertainty, a £16bn privately funded infrastructure investment will create jobs and growth across the UK."

Well bit late in the day but appears Heathrow CEO now indicating they pay for supporting infastructure themselves or has price of the runway gone up 4bn ?

I'm sure it was lower than this !

...hope sombody told the shareholders !

Guest 112233

30th Jun 2016, 21:19

The Dutch PM has already alluded to such a proposition.

Mussolini: said a fish rots frm the head down and in a political sense we are already chewing on last years tail. (Sorry Mods no offence )

Fairdealfrank

30th Jun 2016, 22:39

Rumours circulating Westminster that Transport Sec will announce PM has passed Heathrow decision to new leader. Ah, was wondering what that racket was, now it's clear: the noise of cans being kicked down the road, again (yawn).

They both need new runwaysIndeed both do need new rwys.

Neither airport would contemplate building a new runway if they knew the competition was also doing so, for obvious reasons.

Though that's academic, as it's the one scenario that Davies specifically ruled out.Not quite, LHR could go ahead knowing that there will be payback, they have some 40 carriers waiting for slots. A new rwy means slots for all - incumbents as well as newcomers. For LGW it is not as clear cut.

If both airports were allowed to build rwys, and amongst leadership candidates only Andrea Ledsom has suggested this, it's likely that LHR would start building immediately.

LGW would have to cope with the potential emptying of the "waiting room", with U2 starting an operation at LHR possibly at the cost of LGW expansion, and the possibility of BA and VS concentrating most (BA) or all (VS) of their operations at LHR.

DR,

It's not academic. Davies no more has the power to 'rule anything out' than you or I.

Govt can ignore him completely if they decide to. Looks like they already have, there's no rwy construction activity in my neck of the woods!

Cameron should clear LHR R3 as a parting gift. Would be a good legacy.
Exactly. Since the government appear to be having such a problem in making a decision, it is surprising that they did not slip an announcement out during the referendum campaign when attention was diverted.

I don't think it is obvious:
Both airports now operating at or near capacity?
Look at what happens operationally to either if anything (even relatively minor, like strong winds dictating greater separation) affects the arr/dep rate?
Or in the case of LHR, over capacity.

All of those comments are perfectly correct.

But think about it. An additional runway, at either airport, only makes business sense if a decent ROI can be achieved, in other words if you can utilise it adequately by attracting sufficient new traffic. That's a lot easier to do if the other guy is still capacity-constrained.

If both airports were foolish enough to go ahead simultaneously with a new runway, they would be slugging it out for many years to come in competition with each other and both would struggle to get an adequate return on investment.

Both Gatwick and Heathrow CEOs have said as much in the past. You could argue that that's just posturing, but they aren't stupid.

Yes, that is why, in the event of both getting the go-ahead, LHR could start building immediately, while LGW may be hesitant (see above).

DaveReidUK

30th Jun 2016, 23:09

Yes, that is why, in the event of both getting the go-ahead, LHR could start building immediately, while LGW may be hesitant (see above).

We'll never know, since that's not going to happen, so we can argue about it till the cows come home.

canberra97

1st Jul 2016, 09:54

Fairdealfrank

'They have some 40 carriers waiting for slots'

That was said before the likes of Avianca, Garuda Indonesian, Philippines Airlines and Vietnam Airlines gained slots at LHR!

I personally can't see how another 36 airlines are waiting for slots at LHR, maybe more like 10 at least.

Dobbo_Dobbo

1st Jul 2016, 10:04

Wycombe

1st Jul 2016, 13:14

....Easy for sure, and Flybe (they have both said they would come if Rwy 3 is built).

As for LGW, MAN built a second runway off the back of half the pax/movements that LGW currently handles. Being "the worlds busiest single runway Airport" cannot last forever. Not if they are serious about their position as the UK's no. 2.

Bagso

1st Jul 2016, 15:16

But if EZY, MON,FLYBE etc etc Move to Heathrow, Gatwick won't need a second runway. ...

Infact it won't even need one... surely all airlines would move over en mass.

It's USP as a charter/ overflow disappears in an instant!

Skipness One Echo

1st Jul 2016, 15:37

Heathrow remains a fairly pricey airport to use, LGW could complete on price but they've spent a small fortune on improvements themselves that need a decent ROI.

easyJet have already checked out T4 at LHR but they have their own issues to deal with with #brexit meaning G- aircraft based overseas won't be as er, easy as before.

Wycombe

1st Jul 2016, 15:49

But if EZY, MON,FLYBE etc etc Move to Heathrow, Gatwick won't need a second runway. ...

I believe that EZY have said that any flying from LHR would be complementary to that at LGW. BEE only fly to NQY from LGW these days, so that would also be complementary and they have openly stated that they are looking (although I can't see it in reality) at operating from NHT if they can't get into LHR.

Meanwhile, I expect Boris feels like being on an "island" far away right now.

Fairdealfrank

1st Jul 2016, 22:40

....Easy for sure, and Flybe (they have both said they would come if Rwy 3 is built).U2 stated as much in evidence to the Airports Commission and produced a list of potential routes.

BE requested permission for operations from NHT, which was refused, in the interim, or maybe permanently (hedging bets?).

BE could be ideally suited to provide feeder flights for the thin routes which need smaller aircraft than those owned by BA, U2, etc.. Could also see BD regional returning to LHR to undertake this function.

As for LGW, MAN built a second runway off the back of half the pax/movements that LGW currently handles. Being "the worlds busiest single runway Airport" cannot last forever. Not if they are serious about their position as the UK's no. 2.You would think so, and also that being "the worlds busiest two runway Airport" couldn't for ever.

Hardly an accolade is it?!

But if EZY, MON,FLYBE etc etc Move to Heathrow, Gatwick won't need a second runway. ...

Infact it won't even need one... surely all airlines would move over en mass.

It's USP as a charter/ overflow disappears in an instant! Better start organising a 4th rwy at LHR then.

Seriously, carriers that don't need to move accross, such as point-to-point leisure flights, charter ops, no frills, etc., would remain. Some carriers would do both airports. There could also be movement from LTN and/or STN, unless, of course, LGW wacks up its charges. LGW has form on this, hence BE's departure from there a couple of years ago, all that's left of BE is a PSO route (NQY).

Bagso

2nd Jul 2016, 09:52

The point about BEE was more about introduction of new service.

Yes they would be well suited to domestic thin routes but if they kicked LGW in touch based on its charges 2 years ago there is not a cat in hells chance of them being at a level that would attract them to LHR in 10 years time.....!

The taxes alone are likely to be 4 times BEEs cheapest fair NOW ...!

Trash 'n' Navs

3rd Jul 2016, 07:37

UK's EEF The Manufacturers Organisation responded (30-Jun-2016) to the government's deferral of a decision for capacity expansion in the South East. EEF research found:

78% of manufacturers with a business need for air freight access say that expansion of Heathrow would best support their company’s export ambitions;
53% of all manufacturers think that additional capacity at Heathrow would deliver the best economic benefits to the wider UK – compared to 13% saying the same of Gatwick;
Manufacturers also rate Heathrow more highly than Gatwick for its ability to attract airlines offering the best business connectivity to both traditional and emerging markets.

Given where manufacturing is mostly located, good to see some strong support for LHR.

rutankrd

3rd Jul 2016, 17:44

The EEF are a laughing joke of a trade association - they have about three members and with the exception of Terry Scuoler (of Feranti origin) my cat knows more about manufacturing- The rest of the executive team are bankers and the usual multiple boardroom members from the merger take over and asset stripping 30% equity venture capitalists companies including Capita.
They know nought about actually making tangible things (other than personal wealth) and probably know where Mansion House is , however less so Erdington or Trafford Park
Their endorsement is the usual London centric focus and most certainly unrepresentative of any specific regional industry support they claim to represent.

Trash 'n' Navs

3rd Jul 2016, 18:13

Wow rutankrd, clearly hit a sensitive spot.
London centric focus and most certainly unrepresentative of any specific regional industry support they claim to represent.

Is there a non-London centric industry association you do like?

Trash 'n' Navs

3rd Jul 2016, 18:29

rutankrd, I guess you're not a fan of the Manchester centric Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce then because Christian Spence, Head of Policy and Research at the Chamber, said:
"Whilst we remain neutral in the debate of where additional runway capacity in the South East should be delivered, it is clear that expansion needs to take place and we continue to push for a speedy decision from government in responding to the Davies Commission"

No objections then. And no mention of MAN.

pax britanica

3rd Jul 2016, 18:53

well M gove cannot be a disinterested party as his constituency Surrey Heath (Camberley and Environs) has a huge degree of interest in LHR with a great number of residents working there or employed by Big Airways .

Of course now hes revealed as Mr beans evil twin there is no telling what he will do since he changed sides on the EU referendum and that was a bigger deal than LHR expansion which he has indicated he favours.

As to airlines moving to LHR from other London airports - Easy maybe for a few business type flights by Ryanair would never move as its just to pricey, same with the others. Also much of the 'new capcity' will in practice be taken up in turning LHR back intoa sustainable operation , ie one that doesn't fall to pieces with any delay due to lack of capacity reserve. Also I can see the owners focus being on more Long haul flights and more high value premium customers. I dont think they want the airport full of drunken hen party groups and blue rinse pensioners of Malta for a cheap winter hol

Trinity 09L

3rd Jul 2016, 19:23

So the EEF freight will arrive by road to be shipped from LHR and vv. Not clogging up any roads with trucks, as the A4 road is to be moved and the North/South rd at the West of the airport. JHK has visited the lorry parks and cannot find an answer at this time. Oh the M25 needs to be widened for lorries using the steeper gradients of the tunnel.

Trash 'n' Navs

5th Jul 2016, 07:05

Oh the M25 needs to be widened for lorries using the steeper gradients of the tunnel.

Never heard such rubbish!

UK's North East England Chamber of Commerce (NEECoC) stated (20-Jul-2016) it "firmly" believes the government will expand London Heathrow Airport because it is "the only logical decision – the question is how much UK competitiveness will be damaged by the repeated delays in reaching that point". NEECoC continued: "North East exporters play a vital role in the national economy. They need access to global markets and that has to come in large part via the UK’s hub airport. One thing we hope to see after the decision to leave the EU is the strengthening of trade links right around the globe. Businesses can only benefit from that if they can actually get there"

DaveReidUK

5th Jul 2016, 09:56

I don't know about lorry crawler lanes but (as has been remarked on here before) the plummet from the M4-eastbound-to-M25-southbound overbridge down into the tunnel sounds like it could be a lot of fun. :O

Trinity 09L

5th Jul 2016, 17:31

T&N thanks for your authorative assessment. The 3rd runway (to remain flat and no ski jump take offs) requires a tunnel for the M25. Hence travelling north on the M25 leaving the tunnel on the up gradient the trucks will continue their ascent over the current M4. It is proposed on such short steep gradients a crawler lane maybe required, though I suspect in the peak hours most traffic will be stationary. A tunnel also requires an alternative route so hazchem avoid the tunnel. What right does private company have to ask for a motorway, the A4, and a secondary road north/south to be moved for their profit?
Druk, thanks for your input on the other traffic flow.

Trash 'n' Navs

5th Jul 2016, 21:39

What right does private company have to ask for a motorway, the A4, and a secondary road north/south to be moved for their profit?

Just like any other infrastructure project then - HS2 being an example, the A538 at MAN another.

Rather than a negative, I reckon the M25/M4 junction improvements are a great result.

DaveReidUK

5th Jul 2016, 22:31

Rather than a negative, I reckon the M25/M4 junction improvements are a great result.

AFAIK, the revised NW runway proposal doesn't involve any changes to the junction itself.

Trinity 09L

6th Jul 2016, 11:28

T&N
As Druk explains, no change to M4/M25, other than a tunnel for M25 where the gradient will be enhanced to cross the M4. Also the A4 is moved and the land it occupied "given to LHR" or are they to pay the actual sq metre/yard rate for this valuable piece of real estate?
The HS2 will compensate landowners, LHR have not offered to pay for road alterations en masse, too expensive.

PQC

6th Jul 2016, 21:51

Think you are wrong there. MANs road tunnels - first one in '73 second circa '99 - were wholly funded my MA as part of their expansion projects.

Trash 'n' Navs

11th Jul 2016, 07:48

Local councils from around the UK have become the latest group to join the growing number of voices calling on the Government to be bold and back expansion at Heathrow to benefit the whole of the country.

The Leaders of 34 councils, including Oxfordshire, Harrow, Newcastle, Neath Port Talbot and Glasgow have all signed a letter to the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, urging the Government to make the right choice for the whole of Britain and expand Heathrow.

In the letter they say that in these uncertain economic times following the vote to leave the EU, investment in infrastructure is even more important to support growth across the country. They say a ‘green light’ for expansion at Heathrow would create skilled jobs and provide an economic boost to their local economy. They say that Heathrow as the national hub should be able to build on the success of Britain’s network of airports, helping to connect local exporters to growing markets overseas.

Chief Executive of Heathrow, John Holland-Kaye, said: “Council leaders from across the country recognise expansion at Heathrow will benefit their local economies by creating skilled jobs and connecting exporters to growing markets overseas. Their support is further evidence that the next Prime Minister has the opportunity to make the right choice in the whole of Britain’s interest by expanding Heathrow.”

Expansion of Heathrow is already backed by business, trade unions, politicians and airlines as the best solution to Britain’s aviation capacity crunch. Supporters include the CBI, Federation of Small Businesses, chambers of commerce across the country, Unite, the GMB, 37 British airports and airlines such as easyJet, which plans to operate from an expanded Heathrow. A large proportion of the community local to Heathrow also supports expansion.

Recent polling by ComRes shows that two thirds of MPs think greenlighting Heathrow expansion will strengthen Britain’s economy. MPs also ranked Heathrow expansion as the top infrastructure project for spreading growth across Britain – ahead of projects like HS2, HS3 and notably with Gatwick expansion last (Heathrow 41% vs Gatwick 3%).

But I'm sure the MAN Crew will label the 34 councils, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the many chambers of commerce across the country, Unite, GMB & the 37 British airports as unrepresentative...

Shed-on-a-Pole

11th Jul 2016, 08:29

But I'm sure the MAN Crew

I'm sure you mean 'the rest of UK crew', don't you T&N?

Seriously though, the whole point about the LHR/R3 expansion issue is that it is a hugely divisive topic. Neither camp can lay claim to a monopoly of expert-backing on the issue. One could quite easily compile a list of influential opponents, as you know. The list you quote is representative of one side of the debate only. All regulars on here know that isn't the whole story. And curiously, that article neglects to reference COST once again. Hmmmm ... now I wonder why that might be?

I have to note too that a list of '34 councils' - some of these in the SE anyway - strikes me as rather underwhelming considering how many there are around the UK. Lots of abstentions there, I'd say!

Trash 'n' Navs

11th Jul 2016, 11:55

I'm sure you mean 'the rest of UK crew', don't you T&N?

Nope.

Seriously though, One could quite easily compile a list of influential opponents,

OK, please do as I've only seen MAG, GIP, BHX, Boris' TfL & local resident action groups publically oppose it.

curiously, that article neglects to reference COST once again. Hmmmm ... now I wonder why that might be?

I don't want to send you in to yet another round of previously repeated opinions so I'll just say that a monocular focus on costs isn't the whole picture and in my business dealings a true measure of projects is value - something you've not referenced. I also note the Northern Powerhouse is set for it's own £15bn of investments - I hope you'll continue to argue that it should come from private investors too.

Dobbo_Dobbo

11th Jul 2016, 12:08

Where is the value in a multi billion pound subsidy to a private enterprise?

I say private, Heathrow Airport Holdings is partially state owned by Qatar (20%) Singapore (11.20%) and China (10%).

Why should the UK government subsidise a scheme to the tune of at least £15billion for the benefit of these government's investments?

Shed-on-a-Pole

11th Jul 2016, 12:49

I've only seen MAG, GIP, BHX, Boris' TfL & local resident action groups publically oppose it.

Selective vision is a wondrous thing!

a monocular focus on costs isn't the whole picture

Well it is a mighty big chunk of the whole picture and it is pretty obvious why the pro-R3 camp carefully avoid mentioning it.

in my business dealings a true measure of projects is value - something you've not referenced

Seriously? I don't want to make personal remarks ... but seriously???!!! You think I've not referenced value for money? That topic is at the heart of all my postings throughout this debate, and they're all archived right here on PPRuNe for you and anyone else to read. You say you don't want another round of previously repeated opinions and I don't see the point of digging up past exchanges either. But you really need to refresh your memory. Take a good look at our past exchanges.

the Northern Powerhouse is set for it's own £15bn of investments

Well that sounds great. But please itemise the amount of investment committed so far. I'm aware of a couple of hundred million for infrastucture feasibility reports. Will those underlying projects be funded? I can't wait to see the rest.

I hope you'll continue to argue that it should come from private investors too.

I unreservedly welcome private investment, but as you well know I have never argued against public sector investment. What I have argued for is equitable distribution of public infrastructure investment across the whole of the UK. I oppose the current situation which has seen London and the SE monopolise public infrastructure investment over the last five decades leaving the regions far behind. Another enormous public contribution to enable the LHR scheme can only exacerbate that divide. Don't forget, the pattern of voting in the Brexit referendum starkly set apart those regions which have enjoyed an investment boom from those which have been ignored and sidelined. Politicians have been delivered the bluntest warning that such division must be addressed without further delay. Another £15Bn slug of public investment allocated to yet another London project at this point sounds like a great way to tear the nation apart completely.

Ametyst1

11th Jul 2016, 13:25

Whatever the debate about cost and infrastructure etc, UKplc needs extra runway capacity in the UK. Unfortunately, neither Birmingham or Manchester are viable alternatives. Indeed, Manchester itself has precious little peak time slots available anyway.

Dobbo_Dobbo

11th Jul 2016, 13:32

Agreed - but the issue is who pays for it (and all that goes with it). It does not need to be and should not be the UK government.

Bagso

11th Jul 2016, 14:24

The cost of the A538 scheme is about 2% of the cost of the proposals here.....

Trinity 09L

11th Jul 2016, 20:27

I was only away for a day:ooh:
Please review the infrastructure plans for the 3rd runway.
1. M25 to move.
2. A4 disappears to a new venue
3. Stanwell Moor Road, main north/south access to airport for freight and supplies, + passengers, diverted.
4. New terminal alongside 3rd runway, but called a satellite for T5 not a T6.(solely for use by BA?)
5. Rail from the West coast line
6. New upgrade for tube
7. New rail line to the south, 4 level crossings to London, and 4 to the south west, which will delay traffic with extra trains.
Please consider the variable thousands of new jobs in the area, that require housing, schools, healthcare etc.
1-7 all proposed by Heathrow, with no plans from NATS or CAA on flight routing over noise sensitive West Lonndon, nor Berkshire (home of the PM :rolleyes:)

Bagso

11th Jul 2016, 21:21

KFlybe suspends Heathrow plans over costs - ch-aviation.com (http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/47628-flybe-suspends-heathrow-plans-over-costs)

So that's now FlyBe also out of the running alongside Virgin and BA.

So could HAL or indeed our esteemed experts on here who support rw3 confirm who exactly is left to set up this domestic network as the suitors seem to be dropping like flies.

I assume HAL will now set up a domestic operation themselves insofar as they seem to to think domestic feed is paved with gold, they keep telling us airlines will be rushing to set this up, hang on its not exactly a tsunami at the minute is it.

BA. NO
Virgin, NO,
Last throw of the dice FlyBe.... er now NO.

So come on who is going to move in on Teeside LHR, Liverpool LHR, Exeter LHR etc ?

Bagso

11th Jul 2016, 21:29

Oh, and where on earth is this £15bn of investment in the North.

Been away, have I missed something other than delusional comments !

Last budget stumped up about a couple of hundred million at best, can somebody produce a detailed list

seafire6b

11th Jul 2016, 22:11

Erm ... isn't the new Prime Minister's constituency *Maidenhead? So will she be taking heed of the voices for a 3rd runway or those of her voters? That's assuming they're anti-R3. We live in interesting times.

*safe Tory seat. Refer Google Earth to see proximity from LHR.

Skipness One Echo

12th Jul 2016, 10:49

Bagso, flybe were never going to be flying out of LHR, really. But fair play for your #hacan endeavours!

Bagso

12th Jul 2016, 11:59

To be fair , would they not be the obvious choice ?

If not FlyBe then who ?

A few on here have an answer to everything but a solution to nothing. Some tangible evidence of who will undertake these flights would be good. Lots of fanciful suggestions that airlines would be queuing up to serve these domestic points not one airline is supporting this.

Ps I have no truck with HACAN they would be equally vociferous re expansion at MAN !

Skipness One Echo

12th Jul 2016, 17:47

I don't believe domestic access between LHR and MME is what's driving the agenda here. HAL want more heavies with a lot of throughput through shops and high charges to pay for ROI on new capacity. A few daily Embraers to LPL and MME won't be the ideal. If runway three does go ahead, the same BA that brought back LBA and INV will be on the march to protect yields and market share. Consequently there might be some domestic capacity increases but likely not a step change.

What happened here is flybe asked HAL "Can we fly for almost nothing?" and HAL said "No, stop being silly."

Shed-on-a-Pole

12th Jul 2016, 18:19

Skipness - Whilst agreeing with everything you say there, I must point out that HAL is cynically using the notion of exactly this sort of UK regional connectivity to sell its case to the gullible. Quite disingenuous. It is their success in peddling this myth which has resulted in those elements of support from regional entities as mentioned in T&N's list.

Trash 'n' Navs

12th Jul 2016, 19:54

Don't see how you can say the plan to add domestic routes is a "disingenuous myth".

(Myth (n.) a traditional story accepted as history)

I've not seen any guarantees from the airport beyond a regional connectivity fund to support 5 domestic routes - even then they didn't nominate which routes.

Airlines not airports decide what routes they choose to operate - not even insistent (sometimes indignant) PPRUNERS can make airlines do it!

I've seen comments from EasyJet that they plan to open up domestic routes. Clearly BA don't give a damn about UK domestic routes so thank goodness someone does with AMS serving 27 UK destinations & CDG serving 16!

Bagso

12th Jul 2016, 20:40

Deary me....

"Naivety reaches dangerous levels shock..."

At best EasyJet might operate GLA EDI MAN.....

There is not a cat in hells chance they would consider Teeside, Doncaster, Exeter, Newquay et al. !

dsc810

13th Jul 2016, 10:16

@Trinity09L
What about the inevitable forthcoming claims by the elites that Heathrow will need a 4th runway if a 3rd is ever improved.
Indeed I know one such "captain of industry". He thinks Heathrow should have 4 runways plus extra terminals to suit. The locals can either move, go fk themselves or frankly be stuck up against a wall........he really does not care about them at all.

Needless to say he does not live near the place.

I did suggest a better alternative might be a new hub along the route of HS2 North West of London (Bucks/Northhants area) with the same sort of transport time H.Kong airport is from the city......knowing full well that this was rather closer to his home, Strange to report he did not like that suggestion at all........

Fairdealfrank

13th Jul 2016, 16:42

There is not a cat in hells chance they would consider Teeside, Doncaster, Exeter, Newquay et al. !Clearly not, like BA, U2 do not have small enough aircraft.

@Trinity09L
What about the inevitable forthcoming claims by the elites that Heathrow will need a 4th runway if a 3rd is ever improved.
Indeed I know one such "captain of industry". He thinks Heathrow should have 4 runways plus extra terminals to suit. The locals can either move, go fk themselves or frankly be stuck up against a wall........he really does not care about them at all.

Needless to say he does not live near the place.As a local flightpath resident, would say that this is a good idea and neccesary.

Four rwys: two for take offs two for landings would allow segregated mode, alternation, and the present level of respite for residents to continue, so no question of residents having to "go fk themselves or frankly be stuck up against a wall".

Also bear in mind how quiet and clean aircraft will be by the time 2 rwys were built and that most of us will be dead.

I did suggest a better alternative might be a new hub along the route of HS2 North West of London (Bucks/Northhants area) with the same sort of transport time H.Kong airport is from the city......knowing full well that this was rather closer to his home, Strange to report he did not like that suggestion at all........ Been here before, in 1971, it was called "Cublington".

HKG is about as far from Hong Kong as LHR is from London. The train takes 25 minutes with two stops en route. Need to be realistic, no train will do the journey to/from your proposed Bucks/Northhants (Milton Keynes?) airport in 25 minutes, and forget about HS2, that's headed for the chop.

What you don't explain is:
(1) why it is justified to waste public money (the private sector won't touch it) on a brand new airport some 60-70 mi. north west of London when the infrastructure already exists just 20 mi. west and can be expanded;
(2) how does one cope with airport capacity increases in the 50 or more intervening years before this white elephant airport could open;
(3) how does one overcome the simple fact that Heathrow cannot be closed because the government doesn't own it and its owners would be unlikely to take such a kamikaze course of action, so there is no way that carriers would leave Heathrow.

Sounds like a reheated equivelant of Boris Island.

Trinity 09L

13th Jul 2016, 20:10

Frank, none of your replies should be attributable to my original post.

rogera

13th Jul 2016, 21:43

In my humble opinion the government should grasp the nettle and say now that they are planning for a 3rd and 4th runway at Heathrow ; this should provide sufficient capacity for the next 50 years and will resolve the issue once and for all

Shed-on-a-Pole

13th Jul 2016, 22:04

It's not just about capacity though. That would be simple. It is about delivering that capacity at a price-tag which makes economic sense for UK plc. That seems light-years away in the case of LHR. And that's for a third runway, let alone a fourth.

DaveReidUK

13th Jul 2016, 22:12

Interesting suggestion on BBC South this evening that the combination of the Maidenhead MP as PM, plus Boris in a senior Cabinet position could mean Heathrow expansion was no longer an option ...

Skipness One Echo

14th Jul 2016, 00:59

The absence of Justine Greening is interesting though.
Maidenhead isn't THAT close to LHR in comparison to Putney. May knows she needs strategic decision making in the national interest rather than what works as a local MP. She's also got Boris by the Johnson IMHO.

Gatwick makes no commercial sense realistically and do nothing is not a realistic option. However predictions are a losers game in this weather.

Boris Johnson, Secretary of State for Foreign AFFAIRS #geddit

Bagso

14th Jul 2016, 05:48

What about Justine Greening for Transport ? Hasn't that remit still to be announeed ?

That really would by a cabinet Royal Flush against LHR !

I notice the "YourHeathrow" barrage on social media has also dried up..... I hope they didn't sign those building contracts!

compton3bravo

14th Jul 2016, 08:26

John Holland-Kaye was on the TV last night spouting on about getting a decision about the third runway at Heathrow. Looking a little worried about his large bonus he and his directors are due if the decision goes there way - what an old cynic I am.

Prophead

14th Jul 2016, 10:43

Interesting suggestion on BBC South this evening that the combination of the Maidenhead MP as PM, plus Boris in a senior Cabinet position could mean Heathrow expansion was no longer an option

The idea that anyone living within a short distance of LHR is against expansion is just wrong. Many of the people that rely on Heathrow for income live in Maidenhead and the surrounding areas.

Boris has been given the job and will do as he is told. Why didn't he run for the top job you have to wonder?

DaveReidUK

14th Jul 2016, 10:56

What about Justine Greening for Transport ? Hasn't that remit still to be announeed ?

BBC are reporting that Greening is expected at No 10 this morning, so she's going to get something, but I can't see it being Transport for a second time.

There's speculation that Sajid Javid will be moved sideways, so that's a possibility ...

Edit: Greening's just got Education.

DaveReidUK

14th Jul 2016, 13:53

Chris Grayling is the new Transport Secretary.

Romaro

14th Jul 2016, 15:09

has Grayling ever said anything about runways, airport infrastructure, any hints at his position?

rogera

14th Jul 2016, 15:17

He was a leading member of the brevity campaign

DaveReidUK

14th Jul 2016, 15:32

He was a leading member of the brevity campaign

Yes, he's the soul of wit, succinct and to the point ...

Trash 'n' Navs

14th Jul 2016, 16:16

In the shadow cabinet he expressed concerns about the environmental impact but more recently he's hinted at pro- Heathrow.

LGS6753

14th Jul 2016, 16:24

He's MP for Epsom and Ewell, so has a constituency interest in Heathrow.

pax britanica

14th Jul 2016, 16:33

Well Loony Boris and Machievellian may both have lots of LHR workers in their constituencies. Plus lots and lots of corp execs and IT people who live in those areas and work there and are not going to want to go to Gatwick to fly to AMS so in my opinion representing a constituency near LHR makes them much more likely to be pro LHR.

Of course this forum often made the point that LHR expansion taking decades made UK laughing stock of the world , well it s got quite bit of competion at the moment with brexit, Boris and England 1-iceland 2, the latter being a perfect metaphor for our place in the world at the moment . Very bloody sad.

Can the third runway argument be delayed again ?

DaveReidUK

14th Jul 2016, 16:35

From 2009:

"newly appointed shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling [is] said to have privately voiced concerns over the party's opposition to expansion over Heathrow"

Tories at odds over plans for third runway at Heathrow | UK Politics | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-at-odds-over-plans-for-third-runway-at-heathrow-1514518.html)

Fairdealfrank

14th Jul 2016, 20:39

The absence of Justine Greening is interesting though.She caused too much trouble in the past as transport secretary (2011-2012) and was moved sideways.

Maidenhead isn't THAT close to LHR in comparison to Putney. Maidenhead is not that much further away from Heathrow than Putney. The difference is that Putney is on the flightpath for arrivals on 27L/27R. Maidenhead is not on the flightpath for arrivals on 09L/09R, it's too far north and would also not be in the event of a 3rd rwy. For departures on 27L/27R, Maidenhead is sometimes overflown when aircraft turn north.

May knows she needs strategic decision making in the national interest rather than what works as a local MP. She's also got Boris by the Johnson IMHO.Indeed she does, and she won't get any stick from her constituents for doing so.

Gatwick makes no commercial sense realistically and do nothing is not a realistic option. However predictions are a losers game in this weather.Eaxactly and exactly.

Boris Johnson, Secretary of State for Foreign AFFAIRS #geddit Very good!!

What about Justine Greening for Transport ? Hasn't that remit still to be announeed ?She caused too much trouble in the past as transport secretary (2011-2012) and was moved sideways.

The idea that anyone living within a short distance of LHR is against expansion is just wrong. Many of the people that rely on Heathrow for income live in Maidenhead and the surrounding areas.
A recent survey in areas surrounding Heathrow (listed by constituencies) showed a majority of varying sizes in all except Twickenham.

Richmond Park wasn't included, maybe too far from the airport, but the opinion there is well known thanks to Zac Goldsmith.

Can the third runway argument be delayed again ?
Probably.

From 2009:

"newly appointed shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling [is] said to have privately voiced concerns over the party's opposition to expansion over Heathrow"

Tories at odds over plans for third runway at Heathrow | UK Politics | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-at-odds-over-plans-for-third-runway-at-heathrow-1514518.html)Wasn't this when New Labour eventually gave permission for a 3rd rwy after years of dithering, indecision and procrastination?

DaveReidUK

14th Jul 2016, 21:27

For departures on 27L/27R, Maidenhead is sometimes overflown when aircraft turn north.

But very rarely. Northbound WOBUN departures (Scottish routes and some transatlantics) turn right before reaching the NDB at Burnham. Compton departures (Ireland and other transatlantics) pass well to the south of the town.

Gonzo

15th Jul 2016, 04:30

Well, it depends on which bit of Maidenhead. I used to live in eastern Maidenhead, and WOBs went right over my house, BPKs just to the east.

DaveReidUK

15th Jul 2016, 08:58

Well, it depends on which bit of Maidenhead. I used to live in eastern Maidenhead, and WOBs went right over my house, BPKs just to the east.

OK, but they would have been off the NPR by that point, so presumably above 4000'.

The western edge of the WOBUN NPR swathe runs through Taplow and up towards Bourne End, so nowadays anything outbound over Maidenhead under 4000' would be one of the 2% or so departures on that SID that are classed as off-track.

Trinity 09L

15th Jul 2016, 15:39

Maidenhead - is a large area to the border of Windsor, so it is under 09L for arrivals, and if you draw a straight line from say 09N westwards, it will be under the easterly ops arrivals and departures, assuming NATS & CAA can work out a plan to indicate flight paths, other than LHR plan which I have to rely on.:bored:

DaveReidUK

15th Jul 2016, 19:05

assuming NATS & CAA can work out a plan to indicate flight paths, other than LHR plan which I have to rely on.:bored:

Departures are easy, they follow SIDs/NPRs below 4000 feet (mostly), but you will search in vain for a map showing precise arrival routes, the reason being that they don't exist. The flightpath between the arrival point (Bovingdon, Lambourne, Biggin or Ockham), with or without holding there, and the final approach to the runway is determined by the controller handling each flight, the object being to integrate arrivals from various directions efficiently and thereby maximize the landing rate.

All that can reasonably be predicted is that the flightpath will follow an S- or U-shaped curve, depending on which arrival point and which runway direction is in use.

Trinity 09L

15th Jul 2016, 20:17

DRuk
What I was trying to explain is that Maidenhead will receive more aircraft from a new northern runway (northern as in the south east:sad:), on arrivals, and on departures SID to Dover will probably go from 27L and others to disperse either west or north, 09N is closer to Berkshire = Maidenhead. If ever departures go eastwards then a whole new bunch of residents will get new noise in NW London = less votes;)

Heathrow Harry

17th Jul 2016, 11:26

talking to Tory folk in Maidenhead yesterday - they were all against R3 and they believe their MP is as well.............................

vctenderness

18th Jul 2016, 08:35

....and then they went on to discuss their forthcoming holiday in Tuscany and looking forward to the winter ski break and the family Christmas in Barbados!

When it comes to airport expansion 90% of people are hypocrites.

Heathrow Harry

18th Jul 2016, 14:54

as they are on HS2, shale gas, new houses, wind farms, new roads, taxes and pensions...................

ETOPS

19th Jul 2016, 13:59

I have seen the future :p

https://thedesignair.net/2016/07/19/grimshaw-picked-to-take-heathrow-to-the-future/

WHBM

19th Jul 2016, 17:55

Heathrow Harry

20th Jul 2016, 13:38

according to todays "Times" any decision has been put back until "October at the earliest..."

WHBM

20th Jul 2016, 20:41

according to todays "Times" any decision has been put back until "October at the earliest..."
Which decade ?

Fairdealfrank

20th Jul 2016, 20:58

Surely by the time any new runway is up and running, and overflying anywhere, any current politicians will be long gone from the scene.

As for the inhabitants of Maidenhead voting in Corbyn's party instead, that is just NOT going to happen ...

according to todays "Times" any decision has been put back until "October at the earliest..."

Which decade ?

Well they can't reconvene the Airports Commission crew again for some spurious investigation concerning Heathrow, its members are now a Royal Commission considering the implications of triggering article 50 and have been not to report until after the next general election.

Trash 'n' Navs

23rd Jul 2016, 10:03

Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor

The Telegraph | 2016-07-22

Britain should push ahead with airport expansion in the South East to show the world that it is "open for business", a Cabinet minister who has campaigned for a third runway at Heathrow has said.

Liam Fox, the new Trade Secretary, told The Telegraph that that after the European Union referendum Britain is facing a "very competitive economic climate" and cannot afford to "put off big decisions on infrastructure".

The decision over airport expansion is likely to be one of the most controversial of Mrs May's early premiership and has the potential to open significant splits in her new Cabinet.

The decision on whether to build a new runway at Heathrow or Gatwick, which is expected in September, comes after more than 15 years of delays by both Labour and Conservative governments.

Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, and Justine Greening the Education Secretary, have both warned that they will fight any decision to build a third runway. Mrs May herself also opposed expanding Heathrow while the Conservatives were in opposition and Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, has also criticised the plans in the past.

By contrast Dr Fox last year organised a letter from more than 30 Tory MPs urging David Cameron to "push ahead" with plans for a third runway at Heathrow.

He said "We can build infrastructure capacity which is itself a springboard to improved international trade performance, like airport expansion. We are in a very competitive economic climate and we can't put off big decisions for infrastructure."

Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary, has said he wants to "move rapidly" with a decision on Heathrow in order to provide "certainty" to businesses. A decision is expected when MPs return from recess in September.

What a mess!

Shed-on-a-Pole

23rd Jul 2016, 12:30

I must write to Dr Fox and invite him to buy my ten pound note for just one hundred pounds. Surely he must realise the amazing advantages spending that tenner will bring to the economy. And the positive signal it would send out to the world. I'll go fetch my pen ...

Bagso

23rd Jul 2016, 13:18

Liam Fox has zero credibility!

Trash 'n' Navs

23rd Jul 2016, 14:06

Yawn!
😫😫

Would've bet you two would be first to post and it'd be a broken record...

rutankrd

23rd Jul 2016, 15:00

Yep truly "great" Britain is Mr Fox - Destroyed the UK military capability single handedly.

The Tory back bench maverick with his mate Gove about as trust worthy as snakes in long grass.

Heathrow Harry

23rd Jul 2016, 16:05

Three local authorities have written to the Government promising legal action if they give the go-ahead to R3.......

canberra97

23rd Jul 2016, 16:09

The Heathrow forum has definitely turned into a political arena, can we stop continuing in this matter and discuss the actual airport itself as it's becoming rather tedious with the same members CONTINOUSLY debating politics. Surely we can discuss what's happening at the UK's largest airport without it drifting towards politics purely for people's own grievances.

rutankrd

23rd Jul 2016, 16:53

Surely we can discuss what's happening at the UK's largest airport without it drifting towards politics purely for people's own grievances.

No you can't when the future developments of the said airport is one of the national political issues of the time.

Trash 'n' Navs

23rd Jul 2016, 19:07

I'm with you Canberra.

Sadly, the MAN crew won't let you.

Shed-on-a-Pole

23rd Jul 2016, 19:31

I see no party-political discussion on here. No contributor is promoting one political party above another. Indeed, Westminster MPs' views concerning new runway capacity options in the SE are not defined by party lines. Opinion differs from one MP to the next regardless of affiliation. However, a group of MP's is being called upon to make a fundamental strategic decision concerning the future of LHR / LGW in the near-term. Quite how you think that impending decision irrelevant to discussion on the LHR thread baffles me.

rutankrd

23rd Jul 2016, 19:34

I'm with you Canberra.

Sadly, the MAN crew won't let you.

Sorry Trav your can't be, seems to me it's precisely you that trawls for all those "endorsements from paid lobbyists and friends of HAL"!

c52

23rd Jul 2016, 21:11

Away from politics, and whatever can have happened to the baggage system at T3 this week?

ETOPS

24th Jul 2016, 09:44

Flybe still smarting from HAL refusing to cut a deal..........

https://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/2226000-flybe-calls-opening-raf-northolt-ease-heathrow-capacity-crunch

Shed-on-a-Pole

24th Jul 2016, 12:53

I can confirm that FlyBe's DH8D's and E175's / E195's create remarkably little noise disturbance on approach. However, it is very disappointing to note that Saad Hammad's angle on negotiating access to Northolt is to attack "noisy executive jets". FlyBe have some genuine positives to offer in support of their case. One has to wonder about the management skills of an executive who instead of promoting these prefers to demonise a problem which doesn't exist. And by the way, I suspect that those executive jets he despises so much make quite a contribution to UKplc in their own right. Somebody get this man an adviser with an ounce of common sense.

Trash 'n' Navs

25th Jul 2016, 10:45

Not sure about baggage issues but pax & cargo volumes are up...

HAL reported for the 1st half of 2016:

Airport Service Quality score of 4.16 & received the ACI Europe’s ‘Best Major Airport’ award (3rd time);
Pax volumes up 200k or 0.6% (35.7m pax 1st half);
Cargo volumes up 1.7%;
Total Revenue up 1.0% to £1.3bn
Adjusted EBITDA up 4.4% to £781 million

PAXboy

25th Jul 2016, 17:17

"Stressed" Border Force staff are struggling to cope with queues to check passports at Heathrow Airport, according to a whistleblower.
New figures (http://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/performance/airport-operations/border-force) show target times for some passengers to clear immigration were missed in the last two months.

Heathrow passport queues: Staff brought in from ports - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36868585)

Friends of mine sailed trhough last night at T5 - only to have to wait 30 mins for the bags.

Ametyst1

25th Jul 2016, 17:24

This story is boring it comes out every July and August!

Ametyst1

25th Jul 2016, 17:26

Ethiopian Airlines will introduce the Airbus A350-900 on the daily Heathrow to Addis Ababa route from 15th August, replacing a mixture of Boeing 777/787s which currently fly the route.

Heathrow Harry

26th Jul 2016, 09:06

never understood how they can't KNOW how many pax are arriving at LHR several hours ahead of time

It's just bloody awful management by the Home Office

WHBM

26th Jul 2016, 09:45

never understood how they can't KNOW how many pax are arriving at LHR several hours ahead of time

It's just bloody awful management ...
I too find it completely unbelievable. Not only do they have a very good idea of how many are coming in, not just hours ahead but months or even years in advance, but as we all know the Heathrow slots are all saturated, all year. There isn't any substantial increase in flights in summer because there can't be.

PAXboy

26th Jul 2016, 10:15

Ametyst1
This story is boring it comes out every July and August! Well there's an indictment of the highest level! I know that the UK govt do not see it as their job to help UK citizens but HAL and BA do have that job.

DaveReidUK

28th Jul 2016, 07:30

There isn't any substantial increase in flights in summer because there can't be.

Yes, but that can't be said for the number of passengers. July and August typically see around 30% more daily pax than Jan/Feb.

Though I agree that shouldn't really come as any surprise to Border Force management.

Suzeman

28th Jul 2016, 08:29

Is Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) in operation at LHR? If so the Border Force should be able to see potential problems on the day before they might happen and arrange their contingency planning in conjunction with all the other agencies such as the airlines and airport.

But it seems to me that their flexible response isn't that flexible if people have to drive up from Dover, park up, get to the work area and start. What's that? 2-3 hours to get into position at LHR? A situation can easily develop within that time period. Everything is on a knife edge and one delay can have a ripple effect that goes on for hours. And you've just had a stressful commute and then are under continuing stress when you are there.

And what happens then at Dover at peak periods with staff redeployed where I guess they are much less able to predict demand?

It seems to me that all the cuts that have taken place in recent years (in this area and others) have meant that the flexibilty to respond to unusual peak demand is almost non existent and one solution is to have more trained staff. But that costs more money, so I guess the travelling public will have to get used to longer processing times as it becomes the norm. You could always downgrade the declared capacity to maintain service standards but that will never happen; it's too complicated.

As this is at Heathrow of course, the issue has a high profile but these delays are happening at other airports too.

PAXboy

28th Jul 2016, 14:31

It has been govt policy - of both main parties - to cut staffing across the board for the last 25+ years. The results show in the daily experience of us with the: NHS (all sections, inc Ambulance), Police, Fire Service, HMRC, Border staff, etcetera.

In my adult life, the Brits have continually voted for more public services at less cost to them. Well, they now have the result ....

WHBM

28th Jul 2016, 18:13

In my adult life, the Brits have continually voted for more public services at less cost to them. Well, they now have the result ....
However, the costs have not really lessened. What progressively happens is that an ever greater percentage of the costs, and the man-hours available, is squandered on things which do not provide service. here are plenty of examples of front line staff numbers being halved while the back office stays at former strength. Aviation passengers go up, revenue from APD seems to rise exponentially, and yet there's a complete disconnect with the resources required to handle it.

Part of the issue is the current fad for "Targets". I see that the passport management at Heathrow have set themselves a target that "90% of passengers must be processed in 45 minutes". That is a ludicrous target in the first place, the real target should be about 5 minutes, but it leads to the ludicrous complacency that as long as you can keep your wait times just under 45 minutes you have somehow "done your job".

Incidentally, the officers will process passengers at the same rate per hour regardless of whether the queue for them is 5 or 45 minutes.

DaveReidUK

28th Jul 2016, 19:14

Part of the issue is the current fad for "Targets". I see that the passport management at Heathrow have set themselves a target that "90% of passengers must be processed in 45 minutes". That is a ludicrous target in the first place, the real target should be about 5 minutes, but it leads to the ludicrous complacency that as long as you can keep your wait times just under 45 minutes you have somehow "done your job".

To paraphrase the apochryphal school report - the Border Force set themselves incredibly low standards, which they consistently fail to maintain. :O

And, to answer a previous poster's question - yes, Heathrow prides itself on its use of Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM).

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/HeathrowAirsideandbaggage/Static/PDF/A-CDM-user-manual-daily-operations.pdf

PAXboy

29th Jul 2016, 22:35

Collaborative Decision Making???? Eeer, that sounds like routine, dog plain management? Any management that I have been involved in, or received tuition in, had collaboration at it's core. Without it, you are a military person shouting directions.

So when I hear of folks shouting the odds around three letter acronyms ...? It's just more 21st century so called 'management'.

Gonzo

30th Jul 2016, 06:12

It's an awful term for what it represents.

It's basically a system that forces airlines to be far more accurate in terms of telling ATC when they will be ready for start. From that, the system will build an ideal departure sequence; and from that output a Target Start Approval Time (having taken into account all sorts of things such as slot times, departure route and wake separations etc) to ATC.

The ATC network will have more accurate data on when flights are departing, as well as other users on the airport. The theory is that all the users who are involved in aircraft/passenger ops at an airport should be arranging their duties around the data from their CDM portal, including things like stand planning and immigration.

DaveReidUK

30th Jul 2016, 06:39

It's basically a system that forces airlines to be far more accurate in terms of telling ATC when they will be ready for start. From that, the system will build an ideal departure sequence; and from that output a Target Start Approval Time (having taken into account all sorts of things such as slot times, departure route and wake separations etc) to ATC.

So it sounds like it doesn't have a lot of relevance to arriving flights, apart from which it would need to know inbound passenger loads to be of much use for planning immigration resource requirements.

Gonzo

30th Jul 2016, 20:10

Well, part of the system is a series of updates sent when certain milestones are reached for inbound flights, so non-ATC organisations at the airport have a more accurate picture of when a certain flight will arrive.

The theory is also that as those responsible for stand allocation know the delays of each departure before the crew call ATC, they should be able to allocate stands to inbound flights according to actual forecast start times, rather than the scheduled start times.

Porky Speedpig

31st Jul 2016, 07:27

ACDM for inbound flights works best when the departure airport is CDM compliant. The majority still are not. One of the issues is that Europe failed to apply a common standard and set of procedures though so airlines (pilots and ops) have to learn a slightly different process for each airport. In any event there is a representative from the UK Border embedded within the master Heathrow Airport Operational Control Centre so they have forewarning of all movements and expected loads etc.

WHBM

1st Aug 2016, 09:04

In any event there is a representative from the UK Border embedded within the master Heathrow Airport Operational Control Centre so they have forewarning of all movements and expected loads etc.
I fear the only use made of this information is to reduce the officer numbers even more to just meet the "90% through in 45 minutes" target.

Certainly a rail industry similar "target" of 99% of trains will run, which meant 1% cancelled, which was quite a lot given the number of trains in question, was being well beaten by the operations side until they were challenged by the accountants that in doing better than the cancellations target they must be overstaffed, and incurring too high costs.

I believe that the first 12 inbounds that arrive before the 0600 end of night quota are particularly prone to immigration delays because the staff agreement is that anybody on duty before 0600 is paid night shift rate for their whole shift, so hardly anyone is got in at that time. As shift starts at the reporting point and it can be 30 minutes or so before they are at a desk, this has a big effect on early morning arrivals.

GLAEDI

1st Aug 2016, 12:14

Border Force are represented in the management meetings at LHR and other airports. The problem is not so much when the aircraft come in (although between the terminals there's peak and troughs). Lets say at TN3 there's 30 officers for primary (passport) and secondary (customs) so ideally twenty desks are open & 10 staff are in the lanes but once passengers start arriving this is reduced by cases. So now we have 5 turn up no documents claim asylum, 2 who are on forged documents who are foreign criminals that were deported two weeks ago and then an American adult turns up with 14 year old boy, he's a registered sex offender how many officers are now checking passports. So the manager asks for some to come from customs but they can't leave as they have a stuffer & swaller (why they called that as the have 40 condoms of cocaine in their arse, 40 up their vagina and 80 in their stomach which one has burst) so they're short staffed so passengers may have to weight an extra 15 mins to get their passports checked. Yes Border Force are short staffed & lack funds but that's not the officer dealing with yourself fault that the Government of the day. This isn't a made up list this happens nearly ever day at an airport in the UK. Border Force primary function is law enforcement not making people get through an airport quickly. If they can they will process you as fast as they can but hey if that 15 year girl they're talking to is saved from being a prostitute then I think that's more important.

Service targets are 25 mins for EU and 45 mins for others. That's taken from when the queue starts in the arrivals hall.

nigel osborne

1st Aug 2016, 20:13

Hi folks is there any route news for Heathrow ?

WHBM

3rd Aug 2016, 18:06

This isn't a made up list this happens nearly ever day
Well in that case they can staff for what are everyday experiences. Other countries/airports have comparable issues and yet constant queues and delays are not a feature of their operation.

ETOPS

5th Aug 2016, 08:35

Allow extra time for check-in this morning...

Black Lives Matter protesters block motorway route into Heathrow Airport as part of 'nationwide shutdown' - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-08-05/black-lives-matter-block-motorway-route-into-heathrow-airport/)

alserire

6th Aug 2016, 10:52

Anyone answer the following.

If you're transferring through Heathrow to an EU country from Dublin on BA do you have to do security again?

Shed-on-a-Pole

6th Aug 2016, 11:55

LHR make you do security again even if you arrive on a BA domestic connection from MAN / GLA / EDI etc. It is extremely frustrating and time-consuming. And it only makes the travel experience 'safer' if you presume 1) that screeners at MAN / GLA / EDI perform their own thorough security search incompetently, and 2) that anybody with ill-intent would sit placidly through their first flight having successfully breached security and made it on board an airliner, then attack their onward connecting flight instead. But apparently those who organise things at LHR know better.

So the answer to you is YES. Expect a time-consuming duplicate security check, often performed by a scowling member of staff. LHR security specialises in these. Allow time to completely re-pack your bag after they've unnecessarily emptied everything out and left it in a pile.

AndrewH52

6th Aug 2016, 12:00

Shed, you're only partly correct. You do not have to go through a full security search when arriving on a BA domestic with an onward connection in T5. You get off the domestic flight, have an id check then head up the escalators straight in to departures.

Skipness One Echo

6th Aug 2016, 12:05

Shed, if you are connecting from one UK DfT regulated major airport to another, you don't need to reclear security. Exceptions apply when flying in from certain minor airports with no xray on site obviously.
As you are well aware, Heathrow don't make the rules.

Shed-on-a-Pole

6th Aug 2016, 12:06

Maybe its because my onward connection was from T3 then. Why do they do that?

alserire

6th Aug 2016, 12:33

Coming from Dublin on BA and staying with them so staying in T5. Anyone any experience of that?

MANFOD

6th Aug 2016, 13:34

What's the procedure on return to T5 International to connect with an onward domestic from T5?
My recollection from 3 years ago was that on arrival at T5, we went through Passport Control (bags were ticketed through to MAN) but then had to join a long queue for security despite the check in the US. Has that changed?

Skipness One Echo

6th Aug 2016, 15:03

All international arrivals need to reclear security, no exceptions.
Shed if you're going T5 domestic to T3 international connection it may be the case that you end up sharing the transfer bus with others who have not been cleared to DfT standards and hence will be recleared at T3 security again.
There's no sterile transfer route from T5 domestic to the other terminals, it might be that.

WHBM

8th Aug 2016, 16:42

had to join a long queue for security despite the check in the US.

This is a UK Foreign Office (not aviation) decision. There are other countries where they accept inbound arrivals from certain other countries, like the USA, to be adequately secure. The Foreign Office however feel that to give this credence to some countries but not others would offend the more touchy diplomats from certain places asking for this dispensation and being told "No", so the easiest solution for them was to have nowhere regarded as acceptable, and so to re-screen everyone other than those from domestics.

JuJuMonkey

10th Aug 2016, 11:47

Hi does anyone know how much the band 5 salary at lhr is please

yotty

10th Aug 2016, 12:01

JuJu in what "discipline" are you referring to?

Homo Simpson

10th Aug 2016, 12:13

If he means controllers then it's a very emotive subject.
Unfortunately there is a gap between Swanwick/Heathrow and the old Manchester and Prestwick centre.
It's ok though they deserve it!

JuJuMonkey

10th Aug 2016, 16:58

It's a job they have advertised on their website but it just says band 5. It's for ramp Assurance officer

JuJu in what "discipline" are you referring to?

yotty

10th Aug 2016, 19:42

Probably this job https://heathrow.csod.com/ats/careersite/JobDetails.aspx?id=305 I think you might need a clipboard for this one! ;)

Seljuk22

26th Aug 2016, 16:31

PIA will use A333 to Islamabad and Lahore

Kuwait will increase their flights from daily to 10 weekly

Ethiopian will continue to use the A359

Qatar will introduce the A359 on QR015/016 followed by QR001/002 from 16th December

Aeroflot will increase SVO to 25 weekly

AeroMexico will go daily from 4th April

Skipness One Echo

9th Sep 2016, 22:10

What do you mean "BHX fights its corner"? What does BHX gain by stopping LHR expand? Seriously, because American Airlines just walked away from there for the second time. Perhaps they were making too much money? What's the real world gain?

MPs won't be "unaware" as it will come up in a heated debate and a decision will be made afterwards. The local region will benefit from an expanded LHR, an expanded BHX clearly has no traction in some markets.

Dobbo_Dobbo

10th Sep 2016, 00:18

Heathrow and Gatwick should be free to expand, but they must pay their own way.

Heathrow Harry

10th Sep 2016, 11:43

Channel 4 News reported that a document carried on the London Underground by a civil servant was filmed by another passenger.

It discussed the "potential waiving of collective responsibility" ahead of a decision on airport capacity. The government has said it will make a decision on Heathrow "in due course".

The document photographed on the Underground was a printout of an email to Sue Gray, the director general of the Cabinet Office's propriety and ethics team.
It states that lawyers and members of the Cabinet Office's economic and domestic affairs secretariat "are seeking specific input from us on how to handle potential waiving of collective responsibility".

The document suggests that "one route for waiving collective responsibility would be a free..." with the next word hidden by the thumb of the woman holding it. The sentence continues "... allowing ministers to speak against the government's position in the House".

looks like a free vote to get them off the LHR hook..................

Navpi

10th Sep 2016, 21:52

The Thick Of It....returns brilliant 😃

NWSRG

10th Sep 2016, 22:49

Absolutely staggering that a government refuses to take a considered stance on something that is so critical a part of national infrastructure. A free vote is a cowards way out. This is something that the government should back, put in place generous compensation for the residents who will lose their homes, and get on with it. We're becoming a laughing stock...

The Thick Of It....returns brilliant ��

Yep...Yes Minister sprung to mind too!

Heathrow Harry

11th Sep 2016, 17:10

Unfortunately they want to be re-elected ...................... and Mrs May's constituency is right under the flight-path...........................

pax britanica

12th Sep 2016, 10:26

HH

You are right to be worried about any decision taken by a politician of course but an awful lot of LHR/Airline staff live on Mrs May's patch too.

Bagso

13th Sep 2016, 16:49

Anthony Hilton | London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/author/anthony-hilton)

Are the three H's about to get canned ?

Heathrow Harry

13th Sep 2016, 17:55

my mate who lives in Maidenhead (and is pro R3) reckons the local opinion is pretty clear and has often been taken up with Mrs M - she has always agreed with them that it would be a BAD THING....

Trash 'n' Navs

13th Sep 2016, 17:59

Oh dear Bagso, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel in your anti-Heathrow dogma.

Quoting an ill-informed journo who's starting point is a an even less informed, self-interested financier? Seriously?

The article regurgitates old & widely discredited ideas. Raising the ideas again now doesn't make them any more viable.

So in short, doubt it.

True Blue

13th Sep 2016, 18:58

Why is he an ill-informed jorno? Think you might find that what he says about L & G's opinion might be close to the mark. And they will carry a lot of weight behind the scenes. I think this and the other 2 big projects are in trouble, this government seems to be heading off in a different direction. Hopefully they will see through the establishment view that it must be all things Heathrow and give the runway to Lgw. Then we might see some real competition on fares on long haul rather ran what we have now from monopoly Lhr.

Skipness One Echo

13th Sep 2016, 19:12

What monopoly are you talking about? There's no bar on opening new routes from LGW, certain routes just work better out of LHR.
See also LPL/MAN, MME/NCL, PIK/GLA.

As for building more council houses instead? Well that's conflating two distinct and unconnected issues due to a political narritive.

pax britanica

13th Sep 2016, 21:06

I expect the government will make the wrong decision but from a practical business point of view it has to be expand LHR. London needs a global class hub airport. Thats always been Heathrow ,

Giving LGW a second runway just creates two substandard hubs - you cannot provide the interchange needed to support a wide diversity fo destinations by splitting the traffic into two airports . expanding LGW is just throwing money away as it wont grow much and LHR will start to shrink as it cannot compete with AMS CDG and FRA .

Navpi

14th Sep 2016, 05:58

Neither should the taxpayer be throwing money into a pit the size of the Isle Of White for the road rail interchange which would be needed to make Heathrow work without proper and forensic scrutiny.

We have quite a few gobby characters in the TUC and a few MPs plus others who are happy to read the banner headline but could not understand an income expenditure account of the local parish church if it hit them in the face !

Just before the issue is debated Heathrow are now also going to put forward what "appear" to be fag packet proposals to amend all there plans with no tunnels, a missing rail station and some other bits.

This a complete joke. At least IF you are going to do it do it properly without recourse to knee jerk reaction
How on earth can you put forward a plan 5 years in the making and then rewrite it a week before the decision.

It's completely devoid of common sense!

One other issue which has raised its head are guarantees re shareholder value.

Suppose it gets the go ahead ?

Current shareholders see their very short term investment triple BUT can then simply sell on within months of the decision taking all the gain of a YES but not the pain of 15 years wrangling that will follow.

Must confess I never saw that one coming and couldn't understand why regardless of capacity constraints you would want to dilute down what is currently a high value monopoly / premium product.

DaveReidUK

14th Sep 2016, 06:34

Just before the issue is debated Heathrow are now also going to put forward what "appear" to be fag packet proposals to amend all there plans with no tunnels, a missing rail station and some other bits.

This a complete joke. At least IF you are going to do it do it properly without recourse to knee jerk reaction
How on earth can you put forward a plan 5 years in the making and then rewrite it a week before the decision.

It's completely devoid of common sense!

I'm not a civil engineer, and I'm struggling to understand the difference between the M25 going under R3 in a tunnel, and the runway going over the M25 on a bridge ...

Prophead

15th Sep 2016, 11:03

DaveReidUK

15th Sep 2016, 12:37

It's all to do with ground levels really. You can take the runway over the M25 if there is sufficient difference in runway level and road level. I don't know what the levels are in that area but I am guessing it will be the road level that is graded down but rather than a wide cut and cover tunnel they will just put the actual runway width over on supports.

Ah, right. Something similar to where the KFLL runway extension goes over US1, then:

https://www.parsons.com/SiteCollectionImages/content/2012-12-FLL-northeastern-view.jpg

Bagso

16th Sep 2016, 07:54

Leaving Boris out of the airport sub vomit tee has back fired spectacularly.

Boris Johnson says Heathrow should be 'consigned to the dustbin' ahead of decision on airport expansion (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/boris-johnson-says-heathrow-should-be-consigned-to-the-dustbin-a/)

Front page of the Telegraph.

I'm still aghast that nobody has suggested the taxpayer is stumping up for a runway where 25% of the passengers fly in then out with the sum contribution to the UK kitty being the opportunity to snatch a quarter pounder.

Some are not even paying any APD !

DaveReidUK

16th Sep 2016, 08:39

Link to last week's Heathrow APPG report, which attempts to identify the risk factors associated with each of the Airports Commission's three options:

http://www.heathrowappg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Heathrow-Expansion-A-Risk-Assessment.pdf

Skipness One Echo

16th Sep 2016, 10:17

I'm still aghast that nobody has suggested the taxpayer is stumping up for a runway where 25% of the passengers fly in then out with the sum contribution to the UK kitty being the opportunity to snatch a quarter pounder.
Aghast? You intentionally miss the point that a whole load of long haul routes are successful only because of the feed? This is true of airlines other than BA. This is why Delta, American, US Airways, NWA, and the rest of the list we all know so well left LGW for LHR. You continually cite connection traffic as a negative at LHR whilst championing flybe at your own local airport, MAN. Double standards bagso?
Bet you support Emirates flying three daily A380s to MAN and pretend you're unaware they do exactly the same thing to Dubai. But that's different 'cos that's big planes at your local airport?

LHR is not just another airport. It's a fundamental part of UK PLCs infrastructure which due to our own short sighted-ness in terms of greed and lack of transport strategy is wholly owned by a private company! So to say that simply because LHR is private they need to pony up enough cash on their own for what is something crucial to the UK economy is naive in the extreme.
Do you think all those Boeings and Airbuses would have been built without the taxpayer digging deep? Hardly!
How many jobs do all those annoying transfer passengers support? How many routes would be lost without them?
Why is MAG so keen to repeat that self same business model at MAN?

People being super selective isn't helpful, the Commission took a holistic view and recommended a third runway at LHR. Boris Island was COMPREHENSIVELY rejected again, LGW has never been more than a bucket and spade leisure focussed airport, more so now than ever before, there are of course risks at LHR but LGW gives you more runway capacity with zero connectivity growth which as bagos claims is a BAD thing. So bad, it's the whole driving force behind the rebuild and redesign of a certain Manchester based airfield..... #notbarton

This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the
House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its
Committees. All-Party Groups are informal groups of members of
both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views
expressed in this report are those of the group.
The report was compiled with input by Daniel Moylan, until recently
Deputy Chairman of Transport for London and Mayoral Adviser on
Aviation. Cllr Moylan is currently undertaking a consultancy assignment
for Global Infrastructure Partners, lead investors in Gatwick Airport
Moylan is a millionaire Tory Boris wannabe clone who is anti Heathrow as one of his many homes is under the existing flightpath. Very close to Boris and working for GIP? Not credibly independent is it?
Mr Moylan has been an anti LHR campaigner for many years, hence why he's suggesting it'll end up like Berlin Brandenburg.......yet another "adviser on aviation" with ZERO industry experience.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/if-theresa-may-wants-britain-to-soar-she-should-grant-a-new-runw/
Pro Gatwick peeps coming out guns blazing today! Theresa Villiers MP claims the Commission Report says :
A new runway at Gatwick would deliver broadly equivalent economic benefits, but at a fraction of the environmental, social and financial costs of expanding Heathrow
Actually it says the opposite, the bang for your buck expanding LHR was the clincher, the environmental challenges were NOT a deal breaker if managed properly. Essentially Gatters is desperate for any road block to stop LHR expansion so they can change their own business model. GIP can sell Gatwick for way more if LHR remains constrained. They're a group of venture capitalists after all, go figure why they're so keen to block another business expanding. Gatwick Obviously

WHBM

16th Sep 2016, 12:41

You intentionally miss the point that a whole load of long haul routes are successful only because of the feed?Indeed. One of the greatest economic developers and supporters you can have is an international aviation hub. Dubai became not only an airport with people connecting but also the main economic centre of The Gulf, despite having hardly any oil. If it wasn't for connecting passengers Dubai would still be back with a few buildings around The Creek and a scatter of flights. Frankfurt managed to develop as the German financial centre and international business location, despite having by no means the largest population or economic base. It was a pretty small place 30 years ago.

Shed-on-a-Pole

16th Sep 2016, 15:14

Welcome back to the fray, Skipness. As you may expect, I must take issue with a number of your contentions.

Firstly, I must remind occasional readers here that whenever a contributor domiciled in the NW makes a post, you immediately introduce Manchester Airport into the discussion. You then run with a narrative which suggests that we oppose LHR R3 on the grounds of some notional Heathrow Airport versus Manchester Airport competition. Let's be crystal clear here. I for one have never done so, and it would be incongruous for me to support LGW expansion as I do (subject to rigid cost oversight) were that the case. MAN is a solution for the North, and can play a role in soaking up regional demand which in years past was obliged to route via LHR. But in this particular context MAN is not a core issue.

Bet you support Emirates flying three daily A380s to MAN and pretend you're unaware they do exactly the same thing to Dubai. But that's different 'cos that's big planes at your local airport?

Let's examine this quote. Let us acknowledge that connecting traffic is a net positive at most airports. However, whilst it is nice to have, it is not essential. At a highly congested airport such as LHR, there is an argument that connecting traffic may be better directed elsewhere. The key point which you fail to draw attention to is the financial cost of facilitating that connecting traffic. There comes a point at which it does not make economic sense to do so. I would argue that the eyewatering numbers quoted in the case of LHR R3 place it very substantially beyond that threshold. The benefits of this particular LHR feed to UK plc is outweighed by the cost of provision many times over.

So to say that simply because LHR is private they need to pony up enough cash on their own for what is something crucial to the UK economy is naive in the extreme.

The issue isn't the principle of providing a public finance contribution to LHR R3. It is the question of how much. It is suggested by TfL that the public contribution required for LHR support works alone falls between GBP12-18Bn. To put that into perspective, a recent report indicated that proposals for an 18-mile long Trans-Pennine road tunnel (one of the longest land road-tunnel projects yet considered in Europe) could be delivered for approximately GBP6Bn. The LHR publicly-funded support works alone would cost between two and three times this sum. And that is before the underlying cost of the core project itself - GBP18Bn-plus - which could yet default to the taxpayer if private funding initiatives fail. Quite extraordinary. Frightening, actually. Think about this: you could build FIVE 18-mile Transpennine road tunnels for the inclusive cost of increasing Heathrow's capacity by just one-third. Staggering, isn't it?

Let me remind you also of international comparisons which we have previously discussed. Istanbul Arnavutkoy: a new-build airport with three parallel runways, two terminals and capacity for 90m pax per annum (more than LHR) at a projected cost of EUR7Bn. New York La Guardia - in a high-cost city - to be "essentially torn down and rebuilt" for USD4Bn. Our own Channel Tunnel - around GBP13Bn at today's prices - could be built almost three times over for price of LHR R3 plus associated support works. And let's recall that this stellar LHR budget delivers just a 50% increase in the existing airport's capability, not a new-build mega-airport.

How many jobs do all those annoying transfer passengers support? How many routes would be lost without them?

An excellent question, Skipness. Enough to justify upto GBP18Bn in public funding for support works? Funding which could be deployed elsewhere in the UK to far greater effect? I suggest not. Absolutely not.

Why is MAG so keen to repeat that self same business model at MAN?

Since you insist on drawing MAN into the debate again, I'll answer you. MAN's investment programme - the TP (Transformation Programme) - is actually a modernisation initiative. It provides little change to airport capacity in its current form. And it is wholly privately-financed ... no begging bowl to HM Treasury. The price-tag is GBP850M in direct costs with a GBP150M contingency for a total budget of GBP1Bn. That is between 1/12 and 1/18 of the projected public contribution alone to LHR R3, and around 1/36 of the projected LHR R3 combined private/public cost. And for perspective, MAN handles 1/3 the passenger volume of LHR so it is no minnow itself. On that basis, perhaps MAN should be looking to spend GBP6Bn privately-funded and demand GBP4-6Bn in public support funding to match those LHR ratios? It is after all crucial to the UK economy in its own right! But realism applies outside the South-East bubble, does it not?

And the reason MAN would like to attract connecting traffic (since you asked)? Because it is nice to have. It is helpful for the reasons you outlined, a bit of icing on the cake. But it is not essential. Connecting traffic will only play a modest but welcome supporting role at an airport such as this. And of course, MAN has spare capacity. It doesn't need to spend 12 to 18 billion in public funds to support its hub aspirations. MAN will never pay GBP1Bn for GBP100M of new business. The sums have to add up.

LGW has never been more than a bucket and spade leisure focussed airport

Yes indeed. But consider this (because nobody seems to want to). The bulk of London's airport demand growth will come from the leisure sector. From Tenerife, Palma, Faro, Malaga, Ibiza, Barbados, Prague, Krakow. Not from niche long-haul business cities currently unserved by non-stop flights. Growth from these will be a modest proportion of the whole, despite the impression the decision-makers are urged to believe.

We are told that UK plc is "losing GBP100M per day" because certain niche business destinations are not served non-stop from LHR. Seriously??? Has anybody stopped to consider that if a GBP100M contract is up for grabs in Bhopal, UK executives will get there to submit their bids even if that means changing flights in DXB? That is the way commerce works in the real world. It isn't hard to do and it isn't rocket science. Regional business travellers change flights at en route hubs on a routine basis. They still win valuable new export contracts for UK plc. They aren't saying: "Nah ... we'd have to change flights in Beijing. Let's just stay at home!" If we are to believe that GBP100M per day LHR publicity stat, we'd have to believe that SE-based executives are saying exactly that. Are they?

It is the growth in leisure traffic which is bulking-out the SE airports system. That is why LGW is an eminently suitable solution to the problem (subject to private-funding of development and carefully-scrutinised costs).

it's the whole driving force behind the rebuild and redesign of a certain Manchester based airfield

Actually, it isn't. The TP replaces obsolete time-expired terminal infrastructure with new-build state-of-the-art terminal infrastructure. It doesn't currently provide for growth in passenger throughput. Hopefully that will follow, because as you rightly insinuate, growth is a good thing at the right cost.

Moylan is a millionaire Tory Boris wannabe clone who is anti Heathrow as one of his many homes is under the existing flightpath. Very close to Boris and working for GIP? Not credibly independent is it?

Since you highlight this claim, can I take it that you similarly condemn the CEBR report, commissioned by Heathrow, which was splashed across the media a couple of weeks ago? Telegraph readers (amongst others) were advised that R3 will benefit every family in Britain to the tune of GBP24500 per family. How nice, bring it on! Only later are we advised that this alleged sum ... supposedly GBP24480 per family ... will accrue over 60 years! And the margin for error re this suggestion? Is this mentioned? Well, there will be few of us around to call them out on this nonsense 60 years from now. Oh, and apparently there will be GBP56Bn in GDP benefits to the regions too. How encouraging. Not credibly independent is it?

But there will be a whole lot more than GBP56Bn GDP benefit over 60 years in the regions if public infrastructure spending is at last distributed equitably nationwide instead of being concentrated exclusively in the SE. Maybe I should come up with some CERB-style projections in support of my own arguments? I'm pretty sure I'll be dead in sixty years from now, so how embarrassing can it be?

Meanwhile, the Moylan report which you dismiss does raise a number of entirely valid concerns. Who actually is paying for the relocation of the energy-from-waste plant and the BT Data Centre? This little detail alone will equal in cost the price of MAN's privately-funded TP with which you are keen to have us compare LHR R3. And what about the much-criticised financial-methodology pointed out by Prof Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce? Any answers on that?

As decision-day (apparently) approaches, it is disappointing to note that public discussion in the media has again shifted back to a purely operational perspective. Which is better ... LHR or LGW development ... as if they were both cost-free. They aren't cost free. They are both extraordinarily expensive, in LHR's case to a stratospheric extent, and they stand to draw monstrously on the public purse.

Prohibitive cost. GBP18.5Bn+ in private funding (publicly underwritten?) plus between GBP12-18Bn in public funding for associated support works. All concentrated in the South East bubble (again). Never mind operational niceties. This alone is the reason why LHR R3 should be summarily dismissed in the public interest. It doesn't make sense to pay two thousand pounds for a two pound sandwich, however tasty that sandwich may be. Especially with scarce public funds required for more compelling investments distributed across the whole of the UK.

NOTE: This reply was based upon Skipness One Echo's pre-edited post, before new text about LGW was added.

Shed-on-a-Pole

16th Sep 2016, 15:53

One of the greatest economic developers and supporters you can have is an international aviation hub. Dubai became not only an airport with people connecting but also the main economic centre of The Gulf, despite having hardly any oil. If it wasn't for connecting passengers Dubai would still be back with a few buildings around The Creek and a scatter of flights. Frankfurt managed to develop as the German financial centre and international business location, despite having by no means the largest population or economic base. It was a pretty small place 30 years ago.

Heathrow is excellently-placed to serve as an East-West hub connecting Transatlantic traffic with points East, a role which it already serves admirably within existing constraints. However, it is not geographically well-placed to serve as an all-points-of-the-compass hub. Dubai is. Frankfurt is. Istanbul is. Munich is. But London isn't. Look at the map. Britain lies on the western periphery of Europe, great as an Atlantic airbridge, not so good for intra-European transfers (amongst others). London stands to lose much of its connecting business as new long-haul flights are introduced direct to cities across Europe and beyond, regardless of whether LHR's physical infrastructure is expanded or not. Passengers will prefer the growing selection of non-stop flights from their own local airports, or the simpler routings these new services may offer where a change is still required.

The prime concern now must be to develop a London Airports system designed to serve demand inherent to the SE, both business and leisure derived. An incremental hub role is a luxury aspiration which London should not pursue in the light of the extraordinary costs quoted to make it happen. The cost is not justified by the potential reward. Even the CEO of British Airways - LHR's largest hub operator by far - argues against the project on the grounds of cost.

Contrasting LHR with DXB / FRA as a hub choice is not a valid comparison. Apples and oranges. And before Skipness points it out, let me be quite clear. Neither is Manchester or any other UK airport! MAN can serve as a hub at the margins - in a niche-role linking FlyBe-type destinations with the wider world, for example - but not as an all-points-of-the-compass mega-hub. Dubai it isn't. Dubai it can never be. Neither MAN nor LHR. Geography mitigates against the UK in this. That's a fact of life.

Skipness One Echo

16th Sep 2016, 16:20

Firstly, I must remind occasional readers here that whenever a contributor domiciled in the NW makes a post, you immediately introduce Manchester Airport into the discussion
No, it's Bagso, who is well known and not "anyone". It's very easy to link him to being pro MAN as he's at least consistent.
Let us acknowledge that connecting traffic is a net positive at most airports. However, whilst it is nice to have, it is not essential. At a highly congested airport such as LHR, there is an argument that connecting traffic may be better directed elsewhere. The key point which you fail to draw attention to is the financial cost of facilitating that connecting traffic. There comes a point at which it does not make economic sense to do so. I would argue that the eyewatering numbers quoted in the case of LHR R3 place it very substantially beyond that threshold. The benefits of this particular LHR feed to UK plc is outweighed by the cost of provision many times over.
It's a piece of national infrastructure that's going to be costly but needs to be done. There are no easy answers here. As to your point of directing traffic elsewhere, they tried that with Gatwick, it failed once the regulatory environment changed. In a free market, this scenario is not a goer. I disagree with your view on the cost benefit analysis as do many others, so no meeting of minds. By elsewhere, be honest, youn mean MAN, and your "fair share".
Yes indeed. But consider this (because nobody seems to want to). The bulk of London's airport demand growth will come from the leisure sector. From Tenerife, Palma, Faro, Malaga, Ibiza, Barbados, Prague, Krakow. Not from niche long-haul business cities currently unserved by non-stop flights. Growth from these will be a modest proportion of the whole, despite the impression the decision-makers are urged to believe.
Yet again you willfully conflate London's capacity growth with hub capacity at our one national hub, a mistake other countries continue to find laughable.
It doesn't make sense to pay two thousand pounds for a two pound sandwich, however tasty that sandwich may be. Especially with scarce public funds required for more compelling investments distributed across the whole of the UK.
No one is suggesting this. Also, please stay away from Subway for your own sanity.

It is the growth in leisure traffic which is bulking-out the SE airports system. That is why LGW is an eminently suitable solution to the problem (subject to private-funding of development and carefully-scrutinised costs).
By all means build another runway at Gatwick, if people wish to fly from there then all good. However business and inward investment do not come in via Gatters in the same way they do at LHR. Your "solution" of allowing LHR to stagnate does not address hub issues and it's folly to claim it's a mere "nice to have". One cannot take that claim remotely seriously in such a ferociously competitive commercial environment.
Your core issue is you don't want any benefits of this to come via London, it's all predicated on coming in via MAN and your local airport, at which you work(ed) I believe?
It provides little change to airport capacity in its current form.
That's dumb surely?

two terminals and capacity for 90m pax per annum (more than LHR) at a projected cost of EUR7Bn.
You realise 7Bn Euro will buy a lot more in Turkey? It's the cost of doing business Shed, pretty basic stuff. The South East is a high cost place to be yet strangely popular (!)

It is suggested by TfL that the public contribution required for LHR support works alone falls between GBP12-18Bn.
Formerly run by Boris and Moylan? That TFL? Is that the TFL portion or did TFL do analysis on the M4 works and surrounding infrastructure? Again, politically charged stats if you see who is the messenger.

The Commission report was a good effort to be an honest broker and recommended LHR acknowledging higher costs but much higher benefits in terms of inbound investment. I won't bet too much on this, but it looks like LHR will get the nod on a free vote of MPs. Not before time.

Skipness One Echo

16th Sep 2016, 16:28

The prime concern now must be to develop a London Airports system designed to serve demand inherent to the SE, both business and leisure derived.
Which puts UK PLC at a fundamental competitve disadvantage with our competitors, see AMS, CDG, FRA, ZRH also DXB, DOH,AUH etc. No one in the industry thinks that this should be the "prime concern".
Passengers will prefer the growing selection of non-stop flights from their own local airports, or the simpler routings these new services may offer where a change is still required.
Said the flyer when the first AA055 departed MAN-ORD in 1986. Seen Dubai lately?

Contrasting LHR with DXB / FRA as a hub choice is not a valid comparison. Apples and oranges.
It's invalid to compare LHR with FRA? Good point, Germany still has ambition.....

The cost is not justified by the potential reward. Even the CEO of British Airways - LHR's largest hub operator by far - argues against the project on the grounds of cost
Willie Walsh is terrified of his inflated prices being squeezed as easyJet are in first stage talks about using T4 at LHR post expansion. As head of IAG, he needs to do what's right for the IAG share price and artificially keep more competition out of LHR. It's a no brainer and all about keeping BA sweet, all about the context of who is the messenger once again.

Dobbo_Dobbo

16th Sep 2016, 16:59

If Heathrow are able and willing to pay for their expansion, I'm all for it.

If they are unable or unwilling to pay for it, there is better value at LGW - particularly if the LHR expansion would open the door for Easyjet (whose customers are clearly unlikely to pay for it).

Bagso

16th Sep 2016, 17:17

Skipness

I have absolutely zero issue with expansion of Heathrow. I have indicated as much on countless occasions, I do however have a problem with the "price point" of government support propping up such a venture, especially when the taxiway is littered with real obstacles which nobody who supports this proposition is actually able to counter!

My frustration is with m'learned friends in cabinet who seem to be sleepwalking toward this without countering any of the objections happy to read the banner headline.

Heathrow is full
Solution new runway
The End

You seem happy to go off piste when appropriate to attack the messenger but not the message ?

I totally accept that Moylan may have a nice garden under 27R and quite possibly has an agenda......BUT the points raised are excellent in my view.

Why not itemise this analysis and rebuke the points made one by one ? that would give the "Mancunian Mafia" no room to manoeuvre if your points are well made.

Incidentally the points contained in that report have appeared here in one form or another so well done prune

Trash 'n' Navs

16th Sep 2016, 17:23

Skipness One Echo - great posts.

Those supporting LGW on cost grounds are naively gullible. LGW have not costed any surface access improvements. Nada. The rail service is already appalling and the motorway incapable of adequately handling current traffic levels. They'll have to increase capacity of both - so who's going to pay for that? GIP or the taxpayer? At least LHR has included surface access improvements. TfL have added up all their desired improvements for the next 20 years and want LHR to pay - even though most traffic on the M25, M4, Crossrail and tube is NOT airport related!

So if the anti-LHR argument is because of costs, it's not so clear cut.

If the argument is based on benefits then LHR is the clear winner - whatever measure you use (GVA, GDP, jobs, apprenticeships, frequency & spread of long-haul routes).

The Davis Commission did a very admiral job of being the honest broker and took out the parochial noise.

Well, in my opinion.

Shed-on-a-Pole

16th Sep 2016, 18:08

Which puts UK PLC at a fundamental competitve disadvantage with our competitors, see AMS, CDG, FRA, ZRH also DXB, DOH,AUH etc. No one in the industry thinks that this should be the "prime concern".

Those who will be asked to foot the bill, such as Willie Walsh and many UK taxpayers, disagree with you. A LHR mega-airport would be wonderful to have if it could be provided affordably. The problem is it can't be.

Said the flyer when the first AA055 departed MAN-ORD in 1986. Seen Dubai lately?

New offerings are being added all the time (and I never mentioned MAN in this context, although it is true of that airport as well). You are right that AAL55 and DXB in some respects illustrate the point, however.

It's invalid to compare LHR with FRA? Good point, Germany still has ambition.....

Both have ambition. But their geographical locations differ. In the context of travel planning that matters quite alot. LHR also has a financial cost problem which FRA does not appear to share.

As head of IAG, he needs to do what's right for the IAG share price and artificially keep more competition out of LHR.

Well being asked to stump up towards the super-inflated cost of developing LHR on behalf of IAG's competitors isn't great for the IAG share price either. And BA's post-R3 inflated fares will erode their cost advantage going forward too. Higher operating costs, increased access for competition. What are you trying to do to British Airways?

It's a piece of national infrastructure that's going to be costly but needs to be done.

At the right price, ideally so. At many multiples of the right price, categorically not. There are more economically-viable solutions to provide for demand growth for air travel inherent to the SE.

By elsewhere, be honest, youn mean MAN, and your "fair share".

No, that's not what I mean and that's not what I have argued. Verify that by reading any and all of my archived PPRuNe postings on this topic. Note that I do acknowledge that I wish to see MAN prosper - why wouldn't I? - but I have never argued the SE capacity debate from that standpoint.

As to your point of directing traffic elsewhere, they tried that with Gatwick, it failed once the regulatory environment changed

I have never argued for air traffic distribution by government decree. As you say (and I agree) it doesn't work. The free market will decide optimal transit routings in the absence of a (cost-prohibitively provided) LHR option. In fact, the free market will decide even if LHR is available as a choice.

Yet again you willfully conflate London's capacity growth with hub capacity at our one national hub, a mistake other countries continue to find laughable.

You continue to conflate London's hub aspirations with the need to provide for the inherent growth of air travel demand within the SE region. Inherent SE demand must be provided for. Transfer traffic attracted at way beyond economic cost is a luxury which it doesn't make sense to pursue. Spending GBP18.5Bn directly plus GBP12-18Bn in publicly-funded support works to increase LHR throughput by just 50% is the laughable notion in this debate.

Also, please stay away from Subway for your own sanity.

Your best quote of the day! My one and only Subway purchase was in Mexico about twelve years ago!

Your "solution" of allowing LHR to stagnate does not address hub issues and it's folly to claim it's a mere "nice to have".

Your "solution" of spending a combined sum of upto 36 Billion Pounds to increase LHR capability by just 50% is the true folly here.

One cannot take that claim remotely seriously in such a ferociously competitive commercial environment.

If it could all be delivered for five billion tops I'd agree with you.

Your core issue is you don't want any benefits of this to come via London, it's all predicated on coming in via MAN and your local airport, at which you work(ed) I believe?

It would be so convenient for your case if I had argued on this basis, wouldn't it? My PPRuNe archived postings testify that I have never done so. Please feel free to quote them. I do, however, argue strongly in favour of an equitable distribution of public infrastructure spend across the whole of the UK, not just within the charmed SE bubble. The London & SE conveyor belt of multi-billion pound infrastructure enhancements spanning half a century are distinctly absent across the rest of the UK. I don't begrudge London these stunning showpieces, but I do call unapologetically for the rest of the nation to share fully in the largesse going forward. Starting right now.

It provides little change to airport capacity in its current form.
That's dumb surely?

You think that replacing obsolete time-expired terminal buildings with a new state-of-the-art replacement is dumb? I respectfully disagree. Future measures to accommodate growth based upon a sound business case will of course be welcome as well.

You realise 7Bn Euro will buy a lot more in Turkey?

Yes, that's why I quoted high-cost New York La Guardia in the next sentence!

Again, politically charged stats if you see who is the messenger.

Can we at least agree that there is no shortage of politically-charged data in the media on both sides of this debate? It's reminiscent of the BREXIT campaign.

it looks like LHR will get the nod on a free vote of MPs. Not before time.

If so, I'll enthusiastically endorse taxpayer-funded refresher lessons in basic arithmetic for our 650 Westminster MP's. How many millions to each billion again, Minister?

Right. Time for my conflated breakfast / dinner / tea. Where the heck's my nearest Subway? Conflated eh ... see how I worked your favourite word in again, Skip! ;-)

Skipness One Echo

16th Sep 2016, 18:22

I have absolutely zero issue with expansion of Heathrow. I have indicated as much on countless occasions, I do however have a problem with the "price point" of government support propping up such a venture, especially when the taxiway is littered with real obstacles which nobody who supports this proposition is actually able to counter!
So you have no objection to the expansion of LHR except the objections you then list?

A LHR mega-airport would be wonderful to have if it could be provided affordably. The problem is it can't be.
It'll be expensive but we disagree on how much, I strongly believe it needs doing, you believe we should spend money in your local area of Manchester instead. One is a national infrastructure piece connecting the UK to the world, the other is <insert local project here>> However worthy option 2 is, option 1 still needs doing, and right now people are inflating and conflating handy statistics to prevent this happening.

Both have ambition. But their geographical locations differ. In the context of travel planning that matters quite alot.
So we agree Heathrow is not in Germany, but Frankfurt being in Germany makes something different somehow. This is not the clearest point you have ever made.....
In fact, the free market will decide even if LHR is available as a choice.The free market would have built a third runway years ago if it were not for the stupidity of politicians and localist NIMBY-ism trumping the national interest.
Spending GBP18.5Bn directly plus GBP12-18Bn in publicly-funded support works to increase LHR throughput by just 50% is the laughable notion in this debate.

Except the figures you quote are scaremongering worst case scenario conflated numbers.
Your "solution" of spending a combined sum of upto 36 Billion Pounds to increase LHR capability by just 50% is the true folly here.
What % of that huge figure would be spent anyway Shed? Get real, I work as an analyst and spend days with people and their BS made up numbers. This is classic worst case scenario.
You think that replacing obsolete time-expired terminal buildings with a new stat-of-the-art replacement is dumb? I respectfully disagree. Future measures to accommodate growth based upon a sound business case will of course be welcome as well.
Perhaps I am being thick, but MAN's rebuild has no growth budget for whatsoever? It'll be capacity neutral on completion even though it will be completed years from now when growth will have outstripped existing caapcity? That's how LHR and MAN got into such a mess in the first place.
Conflated eh ... see how I worked your favourite word in again, Skip! ;-)
Well if you make an effort to stop doing it, I can stop saying it :)

inOban

16th Sep 2016, 18:32

I'm loving this!
Can I toss in my tuppence worth from 500 miles away?

1. Part of IAG's assets are the value of its Heathrow slots. Lossmaking airlines have been bought purely for them. Building a third runway will reduce the value of their slots. No wonder they aren't keen.

2. It is extraordinarily difficult to find some way of getting those who benefit from infrastructure investment to pay for it. Even with Crossrail, where there have been developer contributions, there are thousands of individuals and organisations who will benefit without any contribution.

Trash 'n' Navs

16th Sep 2016, 18:56

VAA must be more worried after using their slot value as collateral...

For those who confuse LHR being at capacity and not being able to grow so divert transfer pax and cargo to other airports, the constraint is on aircraft movements not passenger numbers.

Bigger aircraft can operate the existing slots to grow passenger numbers. But with yields starting to fall, I expect airlines to start turning on transfers to grow volume. Easier & quicker than shaking loose the local market.

That only works if you have a hub. Even 30% transfers makes thin routes viable. Get rid of that & the local market will have less destinations to choose from & pay higher fares.

Shed-on-a-Pole

16th Sep 2016, 19:16

you believe we should spend money in your local area of Manchester instead

Come on, Skip. I'd like to believe you're better than that. Cheap shot. Debate me on the arguments I have presented. Trying to plant words in my mouth diminishes your credibility.

option 1 still needs doing,

Every desirable project has a financial cut-off point at which it no longer makes economic sense. LHR R3 is many multiples beyond that threshold.

So we agree Heathrow is not in Germany, but Frankfurt being in Germany makes something different somehow. This is not the clearest point you have ever made.....

So you didn't get the bit about Britain being geographically located on the western periphery of Europe whilst Germany lies rather more central?

Except the figures you quote are scaremongering worst case scenario conflated numbers.

According to you. Some experts argue that costs are under-stated and will rise still further.

What % of that huge figure would be spent anyway Shed?

According to some very well-informed professionals, the full 100%. With the door left open for more on top before final delivery some 10-15 years hence. See Channel Tunnel for an example of how this can happen.

Perhaps I am being thick, but MAN's rebuild has no growth budget for whatsoever?

The TP as currently permitted is a project to replace old with new. That is what it does. Naturally, one hopes that MAG will be making plans to accommodate growth down the line, but that will need to be addressed by future proposals not yet disclosed to the public. I suspect that the prime vacant site left behind by the demolition of T1 will not be left undeveloped for long. And expansion of T3 is desperately needed.

Well if you make an effort to stop doing it, I can stop saying it

Holy conflating, Batman! This is too much! :-)

Skipness One Echo

16th Sep 2016, 19:40

Come on, Skip. I'd like to believe you're better than that. Cheap shot. Debate me on the arguments I have presented. Trying to plant words in my mouth diminishes your credibility.

Your core argument, presented time after time, is LHR R3 is overpriced and taking too much taxpayer subsidy, consequently that taxpayer money should be spread more evenly out of the congested SE and there are many deserving causes in your own region. You also support the ME3 at your local airport whilst saying minimising the need for en effective hub in the UK. At core, IMHO that's localism vs national interest and being selective your rationale for what's good for one airfield versus another.
LHR R3 is many multiples beyond that threshold.
In your worst case scenario view, this was not the view of the independent commission employed to make a difficult yet fair decision.
Some experts argue that costs are under-stated and will rise still further. Mr Moylan being one :) See up.
According to some very well-informed professionals, the full 100%. With the door left open for more on top before final delivery some 10-15 years hence. See Channel Tunnel for an example of how this can happen.

Good analogy, you clearly think it should never have been built to be consistent? Perhaps we should close the Chunnel and build a new one from Manchester to Calais, in interests of "fairness"? Also, let's be honest, lack of fairness is your core arguement, and I have sympathy. It isn't fair, business isn't fair.

It is suggested by TfL that the public contribution required for LHR support works alone falls between GBP12-18Bn.
These experts? They pay blue collar peeps £50K to open and close train doors on trains that don't need drivers.
You think TFL honestly budget this at EIGHTEEN BILLION pounds.
Is that per month? My daily experience of TFL suggests it just might be. Again, they just need managing to prevent (further) stupidity

True Blue

16th Sep 2016, 20:01

Skipness

At what point cost wise would you say R3 is not worth it because cost is out of control?

I think it is long past that point.

Skipness One Echo

16th Sep 2016, 20:27

How can it be out of control in terms of cost when the project has not been approved?
I agree strong project management and cost controls need to be strictly maintained.
I do not believe it will cost £18Bn to put some concrete down between my office and LHR over what is overwhelmingly fields ready owned by HAL. Sipson will go but that's the painful price of progress IMHO. The M4 and M25 need fixing and updating anyway, ask anyone who has to use them. Attaching those substantial costs to LHR expansion is, and I do apologise to Shed, "conflation".

But good answers all and in good spirits of debate :)

Shed-on-a-Pole

16th Sep 2016, 22:24

Your core argument, presented time after time, is LHR R3 is overpriced and taking too much taxpayer subsidy,

You're doing very well so far ...

consequently that taxpayer money should be spread more evenly out of the congested SE and there are many deserving causes in your own region

and in the UK regions as a whole, not the NW alone ...

You also support the ME3 at your local airport

I wish success upon all carriers serving both my local airport and others which link the UK public with the wider world safely and cost-effectively ...

whilst saying minimising the need for en effective hub in the UK.

An effective hub in the UK is a commendable aspiration. LHR already is a highly-effective hub primarily linking markets on either side of the North Atlantic. That's where we are now. The caveat I place upon developing hub potential from this point forward is that the cost of attracting additional connecting traffic must not outweigh the value of business so attracted. Especially not by order of multiple times the value of that new business. Refer also to my earlier comments regarding the reduced need for hub connections as other airports increase direct offerings of their own.

At core, IMHO that's localism vs national interest and being selective your rationale for what's good for one airfield versus another.

And this is where we differ. I don't accept the logic of financing any infrastructure project at a price-point which grossly outweighs the value of the benefits delivered following completion. And I apply this principle across the board. If you trawl back through the Manchester thread, you will find me opposing calls to build a full-length parallel taxiway alongside 23L/05R for exactly this reason. If funds are available for a project which adds little value to the business they should be redeployed to more compelling projects instead. [For clarification, this was a hypothetical discussion ... MAG has not to my knowledge proposed funding a white-elephant taxiway at MAN]. So it's not a selective rationale of what's good for one airfield versus another. It's a simple matter of robust economics versus fantasy economics. Whatever the location.

In your worst case scenario view, this was not the view of the independent commission employed to make a difficult yet fair decision.

But it is the view of highly-qualified academics who criticised the methodology deployed by PWC in producing the financial data which underpins the recommendation. According to them, the more widely accepted WebTAG methodology produces a far less-flattering business case. I don't question the good faith of Davies and his commission partners, but I do doubt the credibility of certain data points which were put before them as evidence during the course of compiling the report.

Perhaps we should close the Chunnel and build a new one from Manchester to Calais, in interests of "fairness"?

No, but in the interests of fairness our politicians should ensure the roll-out of cross-channel rail services linking the continent directly with major cities across the UK, as was promised by government right at the outset. The Channel Tunnel is a huge investment, we were told, but it will be worth it because services operating through it will serve major trunk routes across the UK. It's not just for the South-East. We're still waiting ...

If you're wondering why regional folks have such a cynical view of Westminster promises on transport infrastructure delivery, the Channel Tunnel debacle is exhibit number one. Indeed, the most disgraceful episode of the HS2 saga to date was the decision to axe the short spur which would have linked HS2 to HS1 enabling trains from Scotland, the North and the Midlands direct rail access to the continent. The saving represented by this cut was 2% of the overall project cost. If you need evidence of Whitehall contempt for regional connectivity, look no further. You think we distrust Westminster politicians on transport infrastructure decisions? Then you're right. In the light of their lamentable track record, show me a reason why we should trust them. George Osborne was a rare ray of hope ... and look where he's been shunted now. Londoncentric dogma and contempt for the regions is alive and thriving in Whitehall.

Now here's an interesting thought to ponder. I wonder whether your eccentric idea of building a Manchester to Calais tunnel would actually come in cheaper than the LHR R3 proposals. I think it just might! There's plenty of leeway to work with after all! ;-)

You think TFL honestly budget this at EIGHTEEN BILLION pounds.

You apparently hold TFL in low-regard. As the previous paragraph shows, I hold certain other public bodies in low regard based upon their track-record to date. Only with the benefit of hindsight will we know which organisations were deserving of our trust.