HEATHROW

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Like state aid.

What?? State aid?! Tosh.
Have a look here for what state aid actually is State Aid in the EC (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html)

Heathrow's scheme is privately financed.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

What?? State aid?! Tosh.
Have a look here for what state aid actually is State Aid in the EC (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html)

Heathrow's scheme is privately financed.

A bald assertion. Nice try.

[Ringwayman]

I am also not going to mention the ME3 of which MAN is so dependent. Whoops!

The last set of figures released by MAN indicate approx 24.6 million passengers a year. In 2015, the ME3 had approximately 1.6 million passengers. So exactly HOW dependent is MAN on the ME3? They've not stopped HU, CX and NL introducing services and PK bolstering theirs.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

A bald assertion. Nice try.

Then tell me which page of the AC Report says the Heathrow expansion is being funded by the state. I missed it.

[Bagso]

P328

Fig 16.33 refers "nature and scale of financing ".

Airport Commission Final Report.

Incidentally if there is no public contribution can you confirm exactly what the chief of the treasury select committee is actually querying?

We would all love to know.

He has written to Chris Grayling 5 times asking for answers?

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Then tell me which page of the AC Report says the Heathrow expansion is being funded by the state. I missed it.

As a supporter of LHR expansion, it's your case to prove.

[rutankrd]

Then tell me which page of the AC Report says the Heathrow expansion is being funded by the state. I missed it.

Compulsory purchases will be born on the public purse.

Removals of utilities and roads on the public purse

Modifications to the surrounding roads and rail on the public purse.

Imported materials and expenses underwritten by the state.

This is several billions of PUBLIC money.

As others have said the R3 case does not pass the value for money test imo.

Ands i couldn't care less that people in the regions are changing to route through other hubs on the continent, in the desert or even actually using the increasing number of point to point options, because the disruptive forces at play with flexible fares and yes those ME3 +1 one options are changing the playing field with or without R3.
This is simple completion at work and if one rather well known LHR operator chooses to continue to offer little (nothing) from much of the regions combined with additional stops! on many global routes its their commercial decision isn't it ?

BTW the predicted and expected growth in aviation the next 40 years is within Asia and continued short haul not those lovely long hauls from London or others.

The developing economies aren't proving that reliable in generating global growth - They by definition aren't stable

I struggle to believe that a single UK airport runway space or not would reach 140 million .

Further i read many times that somewhere like Heathrow requires the Hub and Spoke model to support the thinner routes.

Well if a route is so precarious chop it imo - they do in the regions !

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Wow, I do hope they reopen the Manchester thread for you guys.

Page 328 doesn't say State Aid is being provided. On the contrary it says the airport should pay a significant part "if not all" of the surface access costs directly associated with expansion.

Check the link I provided because State Aid doesn't apply here.

Oh, compulsory purchase is funded by the developer.

[rutankrd]

Trash you do know i live less than 8 miles north of Heathrow

Compulsory purchase orders are indeed born by the State with defined compensation rates they are not funded by the developer.
The developer then acquires the land from the authority at what ever rates can be agreed.
So the public purse has the hit up front.

I have no doubt that there will be contracts placed to recover as much of the public costs of off HAL over time, however like it or not huge oceans of PUBLIC tax payers monies spent WILL accrue on this project and the bill will without doubt take thirty + years to recover.

The current voluntary system being offered is very generous through at 25% above commercial rates and any one in the effected area would be idiotic not to take advantage now but thats rather a different debate.

As for those projected employment gains again somewhat sceptical on several grounds not the least as where to house them if they ever materialise.

It further adds to local pressures on public services and continues the migration South .

Personally would rather see fewer jobs created however focused in the regions where levels of unemployment remain high wouldn't you ?

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Wow, I do hope they reopen the Manchester thread for you guys.

Page 328 doesn't say State Aid is being provided. On the contrary it says the airport should pay a significant part "if not all" of the surface access costs directly associated with expansion.

Check the link I provided because State Aid doesn't apply here.

Oh, compulsory purchase is funded by the developer.

Of course the report doesn't say state aid is being provided!!!

Firstly, it's not Heathrow's document setting out Heathrow's proposal and secondly, why would Heathrow admit to this when they are clearly trying to present this as a fait accompli with the taxpayer picking up a significant (tens of billions) part of the bill.

[True Blue]

It is Gatwick's view that the commission has got it completely wrong with regard to pax numbers and new routes. The commission stated it would take Lgw another 10 years to reach 40m pax p.a. yet they are already past that figure. The commission also stated it would take Lgw until 2050 to get to 50 long haul routes, a number now exceeded. Is Lgw correct in its claims? If they are, how are we then take this report as being completely accurate with such serious errors and use it to decide future policy for the country?

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Compulsory purchase - Heathrow is offering 25% above market rate and has a large allocation set aside in its costings. Should a commercial agreement not be achieved then yes, the state can compulsorily acquire it but would pass the cost straight on to the developer. This is what page 328 says.

AC forecasts - if the AC's methodology is flawed and they didn't predict LGW's growth, then the same must be true of LHR's growth. In which case, it's worse than first thought. The government is artificially influencing the market by preventing LHR from expanding and driving growth to LGW as there's no alternative. That sounds like State Aid in favour of GIP.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Compulsory purchase - Heathrow is offering 25% above market rate and has a large allocation set aside in its costings. Should a commercial agreement not be achieved then yes, the state can compulsorily acquire it but would pass the cost straight on to the developer. This is what page 328 says.

AC forecasts - if the AC's methodology is flawed and they didn't predict LGW's growth, then the same must be true of LHR's growth. In which case, it's worse than first thought. The government is artificially influencing the market by preventing LHR from expanding and driving growth to LGW as there's no alternative. That sounds like State Aid in favour of GIP.

Thats a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of commercial reality, let alone state aid.

If LHR are unable to expand (for example because they cannot afford to do so without significant support from public funds) then that is a commercial issue for LHR to address.

State aid is not a zero sum game. If LHR is allowed to grow, then that does not necessarily mean that it receives state aid. Likewise if LGW is allowed to grow. The issue is whether tens of billions of pounds of public money are being pumped into a private enterprise to give it an artificial competetive advantage over (in particular) AMS, FRA, CDG.

[Trinity 09L]

Does the CPO cover the cost of moving the waste to energy site to some other venue, or the BT data centre. Also the infrastructure of the A4 Bath Road.:uhoh:

[Skipness One Echo]

Heathrow is not a straightforward peice of private enterprise anymore than Hinckley Point is. There are obvious grey areas where HMG needs to support a business which is fudamental to national infrastructure and arguably should not have been sold off entirely in the way it was.
Gatwick are screaming "unfair" because the venture capitalists who bought it for a very good price need LHR to be constrained to flog it off for a much higher one so those at GIP can add to their yacht collection. By all means allow LGW to expand but not at the cost of the airport that airlines and customers would prefer and the one which supports the economy wayyyy more.


LGW does not have "50 long haul routes" without counting all those once a week TCX and TOM beach destinations. For purposes of business long haul they have :
HKG CX A359 not daily vs 5 B777s daily LHR
JFK BA B772 loss leader vs DY
DXB A388 high Y capacity with no F on many services

The rest is p2p leisure with almost no capacity for inbound investment.
The one recent change is DY and two based B787s but that's little acorns at the mo but is beginning to drive inbound US pax. No other major long hauler even uses LGW.

In the last decade, LGW has LOST : AA, DL, US, NW, CO, KE, CA, EY and QR !! No other airport comes close to losing so many major world airlines!

[rutankrd]

Compulsory purchase - Heathrow is offering 25% above market rate

Again this is a voluntary buy out scheme available today by HAL - It's not a CPO .

Only defined State agencies , regional development boards and utilities can apply for a CPO via an Act of Parliament or via an order under the terms of the Transport and Works Act 1992,

If and when a CPO is issued the compensation rates are set in law and it is criminal offence to receive monies such to make a profit.

All expenses require documentation and detailed explanation including relocation costs legal costs other professional fees etc....

As I said those thinking that they are sitting pretty at the moment Will/WOULD be sorely disappointed and very financially embarrassed !

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

LGW does not have "50 long haul routes" without counting all those once a week TCX and TOM beach destinations. For purposes of business long haul they have :

But Skip, you're missing the point here. TOM B788's and TCX A332's need to land on concrete runways just as CPA B77W's and BAW A388's do. This debate is about providing sufficient runway capacity to accommodate all flights serving London, regardless of whether we categorise the passengers onboard as business or leisure-orientated. LGW is absolutely fine for absorbing new leisure and no-frills traffic which is by far the largest growth sector. EasyJet, Norwegian, Ryanair, Vueling, Jet2, Wizz ... these are the carriers mopping up spare runway slots in the SE. Long-hauls on new thin prestige business routes generally require one slot-pair per day, maybe less.

By all means allow LGW to expand but not at the cost of the airport that airlines and customers would prefer and the one which supports the economy wayyyy more.

You are once again wilfully ignoring the financial cost involved here. GBP12-18Bn in public funds for support works in the vicinity of LHR, plus the risk of underwriting the privately-funded multiple-billions doesn't support the economy. It drains resources from it to a devastating extent in the way misallocated capital expenditure is prone to do. The sums involved are ruinous. They risk holing the economy, not supporting it.

LGW can provide the capacity needed to accommodate inherent SE demand-growth for air travel with considerably reduced risk to the public purse.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Heathrow is not a straightforward peice of private enterprise anymore than Hinckley Point is. There are obvious grey areas where HMG needs to support a business which is fudamental to national infrastructure and arguably should not have been sold off entirely in the way it was.


I agree, and the present argument is the case in point.

However, we are where we are and in any case the idea that it should be Heathrow at any cost is plainly not a winner. Increasing supply whilst raising prices is not likely to end well without public support.

It's a shame the pent up demand is not common knowledge, that would make it much easier to assess.

[rutankrd]

LGW is absolutely fine for absorbing new leisure and no-frills traffic which is by far the largest growth sector.

Nail and head as usual Shed.

Well said.

The debate is indeed about concrete and not the support of a particular business model which sees millions travel through London (CDG FRA and AMS similarly) to elsewhere adding little benefit the local economies - Don't even pay APD !

As said earlier the expected growth in air travel is within Asia and short haul not significant long haul over the next 40 years.

Its interesting isn't it that the only significant airline to have vocalised interest in LHR third runway is none other than a short haul flexible fare carrier rather orange in colour rather than some exotic from Mongolia or Sub-Saharan Africa !

[Walnut]

The debate is being held here rather than where it should be, ie Parliament

With such spectacular growth at both airport's then both projects should go ahead.

I am concerned that the Lhr project is going to cause major infrastructure problems to the M4/M25 network and thus airport access whilst its construction goes ahead. Can the airport cope with years of this potential chaos.

[Trinity 09L]

They are not concerned about any disruption for passengers, staff, supplier's or local residents. It is of course a hub airport where passengers just transit from one flight to another not leaving the airport.:ugh:

[c52]

Is HAL not regulated in such a way that their maximum permitted profit is proportional to their investment? That being why BAA built a "gold-plated" T5, but what looks and feels like a prefab at EDI.

What would the new runway cost if HAL's profits were damaged by spending unnecessary capital, like any other company?

[Skipness One Echo]

Actually the airports commision came the conclusion that it was the hub business model that made Heathrow the winner as Gatwick could not come close to delivering the economic benefits. That was the fundamental heart of the decision, to suggest the debate was a simple matter of additional runway capacity is wilfully wrong.

The Manchester Crowd really do love to be selective in when hub and spoke is a good thing offering connections i.e MAN and flybe feeding TCX, the ME3, VS building a hub. This is a good hub because it's their local hub. A bad hub is one in another part of the country which may impact the rate of growth at MAN.

[Ametyst1]

Edinburgh is not owned by BAA. It is owned by GIP, the owners of Gatwick.

[Ametyst1]

I would say that Manchester is a spoke rather than a hub! While it chases the likes of Ryanair, easyJet, Jet2 et al it will never became alternative to Heathrow.

The airport is already almost full to capacity at peak times so how would they expect to "accommodate" any overflow from Heathrow?

However, the truth is that any "overflow" would be directed to Dublin or Madrid by IAG and to Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris by the other alliances.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Actually the airports commision came the conclusion that it was the hub business model that made Heathrow the winner as Gatwick could not come close to delivering the economic benefits. That was the fundamental heart of the decision, to suggest the debate was a simple matter of additional runway capacity is wilfully wrong.

Ahhhh! So it was really all about competing busines models rather than runway capacity?!!

i must have missed that memo...

[DaveReidUK]

Edinburgh is not owned by BAA. It is owned by GIP, the owners of Gatwick.

EDI's current terminal was built soon after the start of its 40-year period under BAA ownership.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Actually the airports commision came the conclusion that it was the hub business model that made Heathrow the winner as Gatwick could not come close to delivering the economic benefits.

But Heathrow cannot come close to matching Gatwick's cost of project-delivery. Both sides of the ledger must be carefully considered.

The Manchester Crowd really do love to be selective

It is yourself who keeps conflating MAN's role with SE capacity debate. There is no logical reason for MAN to be central to this discussion.

MAN and flybe feeding TCX, the ME3, VS building a hub. This is a good hub because it's their local hub.

Please refer to my earlier comments about MAN being suitable to serve only as a niche-hub due to its geographical location on the western periphery of Europe and the absence of a major based hub-carrier. However, any transfer traffic which can be attracted within these limitations is a net positive ... icing on the cake, if you like. This would not apply if MAG needed to spend GBP2Bn to attract GBP100M of new business. The maths has to work. No exceptions.

A bad hub is one in another part of the country which may impact the rate of growth at MAN.

A bad hub is one at which the cost of attracting incremental business vastly outweighs the financial benefits of the new business so attracted. A good hub is one at which transfer traffic can be handled on a complementary basis with either no or modest additional investment required for supplementary facilities. In all cases, the value of new trade attracted must exceed that investment cost by a worthwhile profit margin.

I would say that Manchester is a spoke rather than a hub! While it chases the likes of Ryanair, easyJet, Jet2 et al it will never became alternative to Heathrow.


Yes, MAN is predominantly a P2P airport with scope for a modest niche-hub role at the margins (linking FlyBe destinations to points beyond MAN, for example). MAN is not a solution for passenger demand inherent to the SE market; it cannot serve as an alternative to LHR and has no pretensions of doing so. MAN's role is to serve as principal gateway airport for the 22 million people located within its own catchment area, and overseas customers visiting this hinterland. That role - accounting for some 25 million pax this year - is MAN's raison d'etre and growing this constitutes a suitably significant mission to be getting on with.

The airport is already almost full to capacity at peak times so how would they expect to "accommodate" any overflow from Heathrow?

Simple. They won't! And they have no aspiration to do so. Absolutely unrealistic. MAN's only relevance to this debate is that it is the optimal solution for North of England traffic, including that which was previously obliged to route involuntarily via LHR and other SE airports.

Finally, Skip / All ... May I suggest that it may be appreciated by readers of this SE airports capacity discussion if you stop pitching questions about Manchester Airport on this Heathrow thread. They don't belong here, and it is you, not those you refer to as the "Manchester Crowd" who is constantly manoeuvring to conflate the topics.

BTW, you'll be pleased to note that since our exchanges a couple of days back I've been inundated with pop-up ads for Subway. There's some darned clever technology monitoring the net! :-)

[Ametyst1]

That was a different BAA 40 years ago. GIP has owned Edinburgh long enough now to improve or replace the present terminal.

[Ametyst1]

Shed, I agree completely with you over Manchester's place in the UK Aviation scene. My comments were aimed at some of the other contributors within the M60 who do see Manchester as the answer.

At the end of the day, Heathrow is the only show in town with regards to increasing runway capacity in the South East. Regardless of cost, the environment, infrastructure, nimby's etx, the decision will be based on politics rather than other concerns.

To expand Heathrow is to send a message to the world that Britain is open for business after Brexit. It ties in with the political mantra of the day. Large infrastructure projects in the UK will send a powerful message.

[DaveReidUK]

GIP has owned Edinburgh long enough now to improve or replace the present terminal.

GIP have owned EDI for just over 4 years.

Whether they have succeeded in improving the terminal during that time is a moot point, and I think we'd have noticed if they'd pulled it down. :O

[NWSRG]

To expand Heathrow is to send a message to the world that Britain is open for business after Brexit. It ties in with the political mantra of the day. Large infrastructure projects in the UK will send a powerful message.

Totally agree.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

To expand Heathrow is to send a message to the world that Britain is open for business after Brexit.

To do so at the cost proposed is to send a message to the world that we've lost our marbles and our politicians can't cope with primary-school arithmetic.

Large infrastructure projects in the UK will send a powerful message.

Where the benefits exceed the cost of provision by a prudent margin, yes. Otherwise our 'powerful message' will be met with utter bemusement.

[Skipness One Echo]

Ahhhh! So it was really all about competing busines models rather than runway capacity?!!
i must have missed that memo...
Er.... yeah you did.
The question was around runway capacity and where to build it.
The answer was LHR and the reason a much greater ROI building on existing hub capacity without splitting between LHR/LGW. That was why LHR was recommended, the LGW ROI was way lower. The two business models are not the same, the LHR one got the nod as the commission did not see how LGW could ever become a competitive or complimentary hub (!)
But Heathrow cannot come close to matching Gatwick's cost of project-delivery. Both sides of the ledger must be carefully considered.
And GIP pitched a lower than credible bid let's be honest, the gatwickobviously figures are a joke. The current Gatwick rail links are on their knees *today*
There is no logical reason for MAN to be central to this discussion.

Tell bagso next time he bangs his daily anti LHR post on the MAN thread then :)
Finally, Skip / All ... May I suggest that it may be appreciated by readers of this SE airports capacity discussion if you stop pitching questions about Manchester Airport on this Heathrow thread. They don't belong here, and it is you, not those you refer to as the "Manchester Crowd" who is constantly manoeuvring to conflate the topics.

It's the central core of your argument Shed, you're the only one who can't see it, honestly. Continue to artificially constrain LHR to allow MAN and the regions to prosper.
To do so at the cost proposed is to send a message to the world that we've lost our marbles and our politicians can't cope with primary-school arithmetic.
Cost calculations at this level are not arithmetic. The likes of multi decade amoritisation of debt is hardly primary school stuff and both sides are bang on throwing around half baked stats. The stuff coming out of GIP shoes their afraid of making only a reasonable mutiple of their capital invetsment instead of a huge markup they'd get if LGW grows at the expense of LHR. Ironically both used to be public enterprises.

Oh and enjoy the sandwich, just avoid the £2000 one....

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Er.... yeah you did.
The question was around runway capacity and where to build it.
The answer was LHR and the reason a much greater ROI building on existing hub capacity without splitting between LHR/LGW. That was why LHR was recommended, the LGW ROI was way lower. The two business models are not the same, the LHR one got the nod as the commission did not see how LGW could ever become a competitive or complimentary hub (!)


Perhaps you can explain to me how (in an economy that is not centrally planned) an airport, as opposed to an airline, can have a "hub" business model.

[Ringwayman]

Continue to artificially constrain LHR to allow MAN and the regions to prosper.

Oh how DARE the regions want to prosper. Don't those silly people know that the only airport that has to expand and prosper is LHR and those in the regions should tug their forelocks when they get the mighty generous £5 or £6 per person per year spent on infrastrucure. That the regions are expanding by attracting passengers not using LHR seems totally irrelevant

[dave59]

It's the central core of your argument Shed, you're the only one who can't see it, honestly. Continue to artificially constrain LHR to allow MAN and the regions to prosper.

The regions have been (and continue to be) artificially constrained in favour of LHR and its incumbents. If UK government inaction and delay over LHR leads to greater focus from airlines on serving the UK outside SE England that is a good thing.

[Ametyst1]

Shed, I understand your concern on costs but the decision will be political. If everything any government is cost driven then we wouldn't have NHS managers earning £240,000 per year in a non-job.

The decision will be political. Which British government has ever been financially competent to deliver a cost effective.

Exhibit 1, m'lord Hinckley Point

[Ametyst1]

dave59, I don't see that Heathrow artificially constrains the reasons anymore than Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris do.

Where and how has Heathrow stifled growth in the regions?

[True Blue]

If the decision goes to Lhr, what reasonable legal challenges can we expect? What would be their likely impact?

[coathanger16]

Having observed this debate for several years, there certainly seems to be a feeling that all infrastructure (airports, rail, roads) can be invested either ONLY in the north or ONLY in the south - why can't say both airports in the SE AND the North expand? If regional airports are only growing because of capacity constraints in the SE, that would suggest there is little demand from the regions and that the only demand for aviation comes from the SE - an unlikely scenario.

In terms of the LHR vs LGW argument, I believe the appropriate course of action does indeed depend on business models.

If the hub model is valid for our aviation needs, then an efficient hub is whats needed - either at Heathrow requiring expansion, or at a new hub airport. A "split" or "virtual" hub between LHR and LGW wouldn't work - no matter how fast the train between the two airports were it would still be less attractive than transferring within the same airport in Paris say.

If however the hub model is dismissed in favor of a P2P model then really no new runways are needed, at least not immediately. Assuming LGW could accomodate 50mppa with a single runway, the same should be true for Stansted and Luton (after sufficient terminal and taxiway works were complete). The amount of capacity that would provide would be roughly equal to LHR's current throughput.

Whichever option is chosen though, the government needs to just make the decision and soon - the sooner a decision, the sooner any benefits will materialize.

[Ametyst1]

Zooker

Learn to read and understand please, I said at PEAK TIMES! I am aware Manchester has slot availability but not necessarily when the airlines want it.

[Bagso]

Unfortunately a severe work schedule means a brief reposte.

But again skip you add 2+2 and make 5.

For the hard of understanding. ....

MANCHESTER WILL NEVER BE A HEATHROW NEVER EVER. ..OK

Now where were we? Ah yes a "reasonable price point" re LHR.

Still waiting. 5bn 15bn 30bn 50bn 75bn 100bn. ?

All paid for by HAL.?

Pin the tail on the Donkey!

And while we are at it can we tear up ANY guilt edge assurance of a taxpayer bailout year 5 "IF HAL is somehow unable to raise the shareholder funds?

[dave59]

dave59, I don't see that Heathrow artificially constrains the reasons anymore than Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris do.

Where and how has Heathrow stifled growth in the regions?

Over-capacity and frequency undermine the sustainability of existing or potential new routes from other UK airports. Previously government bi-laterals favouring BA/LHR over passenger convenience.

[Ametyst1]

You do talk some rubbish dave59. Nothing now stops airlines expanding in the regions.

Heathrow serves one of 5 global cities. I work in the airline industry that airlines fly empty planes to New York, Barcelona, Madrid, Istanbul, Dubai etc is a myth which people wish to believe.

British Airways is one of the most profitable airlines in the world and they don't do that by flying half empty aircraft out of Heathrow.

You are relying on history to shore up your argument. If American Airlines or any other airline want to fly profitable services out of Manchester, Cardiff, Humberside or Birmingham there is nothing stopping them.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

It's the central core of your argument Shed, you're the only one who can't see it, honestly. Continue to artificially constrain LHR to allow MAN and the regions to prosper.


I've called you out on this before, Skip, and now I do so again. All my PPRuNe postings on this topic are archived and available for any and all to reference. I invite you to re-read them and quote any passage you can find in which I argue against LHR R3 from the perspective of protectionism towards MAN. Time to 'put up or shut up' on this nonsense. The problem with the LHR R3 proposal is the extraordinary costings associated with it, particularly those which will be drawn from scarce public funds. I have consistently argued the case on that basis. Finally, please explain my support for the LGW option (subject to strict cost oversight) if my agenda is to ensure that MAN alone can prosper.

Cost calculations at this level are not arithmetic

In this case I chose my wording carefully. A primary school class could quickly assess the chasmic value-for-money deficit presented by the crazy numbers associated with the LHR R3 proposals. "And by the way, kids, we plan to help pay for this with a large slice of your inheritance!" Let's hope that we have a sufficient number of MP's who can recognise the fiscal folly represented by this "investment opportunity". Then explain the concept of opportunity cost and examine the investments which could instead be made with those same GBP12-18Bn in public funds.

Finally, Skip, you've been quite withering in your various ripostes towards Bagso. But many times now he has posed his 'reasonable price point' question to you. A perfectly valid challenge. And you constantly evade providing an answer. How about facing up to the task this time? I'm sure many readers here await your response with interest.

[ZOOKER]

Ametyst1,
At peak times, EGCC has shedloads of capacity available. The constraints it often has to operate under are purely environmental.

[Ametyst1]

Manchester does not have shedful of slots at peak times at all particularly in the summer months. Have you ever been to Manchester between 7am and 9am?

It doesn't matter what the reason is, Manchester still has very few slots if any available at peak times. That is why both easyJet and Ryanair have not based anymore aircraft there.

Amsterdam has 6 runways but cannot operate to full capacity due to environmental issues.

[Mr A Tis]

Having got the Manchester thread locked, the "usual suspects" have now migrated to the Heathrow thread.Don't you guys get it ?
We are not interested in repetitive arguments intertwinned with snide and / or trolling posts. Pprune is the wrong place for this.
I expect the next padlock is heading this way...

[ZOOKER]

Ametyst1
Yes I have, and I've seen the queue of 8 or 9 at the 23L holding point.

[sparkysam]

Well said Mr Atis
Cheers Sam:D

[coathanger16]

I've seen many people many times pedal this argument about how airport X is full at peak times and that it should therefore be allowed to expand as airlines won't fly - or will to only non desirable destinations - at off peak times.

Might I remind those of you who follow that line of reasoning that LHR is full throughout the day - whilst demand drops off a little at off peak times it certainly isn't that noticeable. If a slot becomes available at LHR the airline will take it regardless of when it is, often paying huge sums of money for them (United once bought 4 slots for £40m each). This demonstrates just how much demand there is to fly from LHR.

If an airline can only make a route work out of Manchester say by flying it at peak times, then whilst there is clearly demand for it, it is not deemed essential - otherwise the airline would take an off peak slot.

[LAX_LHR]

It doesn't matter what the reason is, Manchester still has very few slots if any available at peak times. That is why both easyJet and Ryanair have not based anymore aircraft there.

I have no fight in the MAN vs LHR debate, but that statement is completely wrong.

Easyjet based 2 more aircraft there this year, Ryanair 1 (plus a 2nd extra based in the August peak).

Easyjet are to base at least 1 more aircraft next summer, and Ryanir only have not based extra in line with their 'no extra based aircraft in the U.K.' mantra that has befallen all of their UK airports.

And that's not even touching the 2 extra based Jet2 this summer, 2 more next summer including 1 A330, 2 extra based Virgin Atlantic A330, 2 extra Thomas Cook A330, the 2 A320 Vueling base that has been officially applied for next summer and one extra Monarch confirmed.

But then, why let the inconvenient truth get in the way of your argument.

[Skipness One Echo]

To get to a "reasonable" price point you'd need to avoid conflating what would need to happen anyway versus what's new. The main problem I have it that people are throwing the M4, M25 works BAU and changes due R3 together and mixing in T2/2 with R3 and T6. TFL have thrown a whole load of BAU costs under new work as well!

Let me have a proper look at some numbers and I'll try and do a laymans guide and come back.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I have no fight in the MAN vs LHR debate


You are quite right to correct the factual error concerning the statement about strength of based-fleets, L_L.

But, addressing all contributors on here: can we be clear that there is no MAN vs LHR debate. One regular contributor in particular has pursued a tactical strategy of drawing MAN into the discussion at every opportunity. His objective is to 'prove' that all those who oppose LHR R3 do so out of 'loyalty' to another airport rather than based upon the glaring deficiencies inherent within the case presented for LHR R3. And I don't apologise for stressing this once more: the case against LHR R3 is rooted within the insupportable costs associated with making it happen and the risks to the exchequer in terms of the public funding required. Both directly in terms of the GBP12Bn-18Bn for support works, and indirectly by underwriting (how much of?) the remainder. For a grand total approaching 36 Billion Pounds. Monstrous numbers. There are nation-states with less debt burden than this. And the taxpayers threatened by this gross misallocation of capital are distributed across the whole of the UK, so it is appropriate that the debate not be limited only to residents of the SE.

If there is a case for an airport vs airport angle to the SE capacity debate on here, then it has to be the LHR proposals versus the competing LGW proposal. With honourable mention to STN, LTN and LCY which affect the balance of the London air travel market. MAN has no place whatsoever being discussed within this context. Can we leave it out please.

Mr A Tis. I understand your frustration, but according to the media a decision on a new runway for the SE could be less than a month away now. This is a crucial national debate. It is the most significant discussion topic directly concerning LHR in a generation. If this is unsuitable discussion material for PPRuNe regulars on the LHR thread then what is the purpose of the forum continuing to exist at all?

[inOban]

The further N you are, the less likely long haul passengers are to use LHR to interchange, and therefore the less enthusiasm they will have for any public money being invested in either LHR or LGW. They use AMS or one of the ME hubs

[Ametyst1]

I had already taken the extra services and increases into account.

[Skipness One Echo]

Shed you're not getting that one. Any LHR R3 impacts direct non stop long haul out of MAN, it's not something that can be viewed in isolation. As MAN already has an existing long haul portfolio where growth going west may well be slowed due to existing LHR/MAN operators getting to grips with a changed trading environment, where the market share position on LHR-US would be impacted almost overnight with a 50% capacity change at LHR. That would likely concentrate minds on London for a while until things panned out. You can bet DY would have a go at LHR, another reason LGW/GIP are desperate to stop R3 lest EZY take the chance.

Oddly enough LBA wants R3 as it would make their connections to London and beyond likely safer, the government also has the option to ring fence further new slots to be used only for British Isles airports currently unserved.

If LPL got a LHR link again that would further impact MAN as would further growth on LBA-LHR as both are in MAN's catchment area. Your argument this is simply a matter of another runway in the SE is not borne out when you take a look at the wider picture.

InOban, um not really. Backtracking all the way to AMS is often not as attractive as a T5-T5 transfer, especially on the way back. AMS remains a good option but BA still has a huge amount of connecting traffic out of GLA/EDI/BHD/ABZ.

[inOban]

Skipness

I am always amazed by the number of people I know who backtrack to AMS if heading for LA or SF. The fact that Virgin abandoned their attempt at a feeder service into their LHR long haul confirms the reluctance of many, not all, to use LHR.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Any LHR R3 impacts direct non stop long haul out of MAN, it's not something that can be viewed in isolation.

When one makes a fundamental change to a node in a network, there is some effect on all the other nodes. This principle applies in the example you cite as well as in many others. Of course, it also applies if the node which changes is LGW, which as you know I endorse for expansion subject to prudent cost-oversight. However, you have accused me of arguing against LHR R3 motivated by the scenario which you outline here. I have never done so, and you have not responded to my challenge to quote any passage from my archived postings which support your persistent assertions to this effect. I argue against LHR R3 on the grounds of cost, especially that vast sum drawn against public funds. And there is certainly ample justification for opposing LHR R3 on that score. Also, my opposition to LHR R3 has never been framed from a Manchester perspective at all except in direct response to specific provocative questions from yourself. I do realise that your task would be much simpler if you could successfully convey the impression that all opponents of LHR R3 are motivated by misguided pro-MAN protectionism rather than by the national interest. Sorry to disappoint you.

Oddly enough LBA wants R3

If LPL got a LHR link again

Of course other airports want new or increased scheduled services to LHR. The question is whether the payback on this is worth anything like GBP18.5Bn private (taxpayer underwritten?) plus GBP12-18Bn in direct public funding. Very clearly, it is not. Now if you were to spend that GBP12-18Bn directly on infrastructure investment in the neglected Leeds-Bradford and Liverpool city regions, you could really see some dramatic effects on prosperity there! NPR (the re-branded HS3) would be a great start.

Your argument this is simply a matter of another runway in the SE is not borne out when you take a look at the wider picture.


I have never asserted that the SE's new runway should be dumped just anywhere. When you examine the largest source of air travel demand-growth in the SE - no-frills and leisure short-haul - it is evident that LGW constitutes an excellent solution to the most pressing problem. It's not just a matter of another runway in the SE. Its a matter of which sector of the airline industry most urgently requires it and where their business model can thrive.

Now, can we move along from your discredited Manchester protectionism narrative and discuss the issues actually being raised? Any answer from you yet on the 'reasonable price point' question? Or is there actually no ceiling on the sum which you consider worthwhile paying out to provide just a 50% increase in capacity at LHR?

[Prophead]

The figure of 12-18Bn for the access works is a huge amount and needs breaking down and putting into context. We are talking about a major intersection of two of the busiest motorways and access into the UK's busiest airport all within a square mile. The current setup requires upgrading now as anyone who has to negotiate that part of the M25 in rush hour knows. That won't come cheap.

I presume TFL have lumped in all sorts of works and contingency costs into this figure along with a huge amount of risk. I cannot believe the access works will be in that region. Without the project being allowed to move into the next design and tendering phase however we won't get further clarification.

One thing people need to understand is that a large amount of that figure will come straight back into the public purse from all the various taxes imposed on the project and the staff/companies involved. The project will likely be carried out by companies and workers from all over the UK who will take that money home and spend in in the local economy. Materials will be made in factories all over the UK. This goes for the privately financed amount as well as the portion from the taxpayer.

The same goes for projects like Hinckley and HS2 and is why it is possible to build out of a recession. Taking private finance and putting it into a large infrastructure project is a great way to put other peoples money into the economy. It also provides a countrywide benefit despite the final project being based in the SE. The money does not just disappear.

Which brings me to another point. An expanded LHR that allows people to fly from their regional airport to destinations all over the world does benefit the whole of the UK. It is wrong to think of it as another SE project that will only benefit London. The nation really should get behind this and it's a shame the MAN supporters feel so threatened.

If MAN or any other airport can support a direct flight then good for them. If MAN can only support it because people are having to travel all over the north to get there though then it is not really working and a LHR hub would be a better option as it will also allow more destinations that no airport, even LHR in it's current form could support. This in turn brings in people from further afield than the UK and that is worth a lot of money to our economy.

Hopefully the right decision will be made as for the majority of people an expanded LHR is a win win situation.

[DaveReidUK]

Which brings me to another point. An expanded LHR that allows people to fly from their regional airport to destinations all over the world does benefit the whole of the UK. It is wrong to think of it as another SE project that will only benefit London. The nation really should get behind this and it's a shame the MAN supporters feel so threatened.

There is no guarantee that expansion at Heathrow will improve its connectivity to UK regions, The Airports Commission forecasts the opposite - that the number of UK destinations served from LHR will shrink from the current 7 to 4 within the next 15 years, even with R3.

[Ametyst1]

The failure of Virgin Little Red's connection is not a reflection on the attraction of Heathrow it is more to do with the size of Virgin/Delta's offering from Heathrow.

Heathrow is operating on record passenger levels and is still the busiest airport in Europe so it must be doing something right.

I regularly travel through Heathrow and I find it delight to do so. I also like Amsterdam but not Paris CdG or Frankfurt.

[ZOOKER]

Heathrow = "Delight" = Shurely Shome Mishtake? :E

[Ametyst1]

No mistake Zooker.

Skytrax gives Heathrow a mere 4/10 but most of the complaints are about Border Control which the airport has no control over.

[ZOOKER]

Just read some of the 'Skytrax' reviews.....A hoot.

[Ametyst1]

Well, it is a lot better than other lower rated airports such as Gatwick, Stansted, Manchester, Bournemouth and East Midlands

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

The failure of Virgin Little Red's connection is not a reflection on the attraction of Heathrow it is more to do with the size of Virgin/Delta's offering from Heathrow

The BA shuttle numbers from across the UK have declined consistently for a number of years. Does this means BA's offering from Heathrow too small?

[AndrewH52]

Ametyst1,
At peak times, EGCC has shedloads of capacity available. The constraints it often has to operate under are purely environmental.

A constraint is a constraint, whether it be financial, legal or physical...

[Ametyst1]

BA Shuttle numbers have declined because BA does not carry so much point-to-point traffic on the Heathrow domestic services anymore, particularly from Manchester and Newcastle.

BA, through the takover of BMI, have re-introduced services from Heathrow to Belfast City, Inverness and Leeds-Bradford.

In addition a lot of the point-to-point traffic from Scotland now goes via London City. BA also operate 767's on selected services from Heathrow to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

I would say that BA's domestic traffic to all London airports has actually increased and freed up space for passengers connecting onto other BA services from Heathrow.

[Prophead]

There is no guarantee that expansion at Heathrow will improve its connectivity to UK regions, The Airports Commission forecasts the opposite - that the number of UK destinations served from LHR will shrink from the current 7 to 4 within the next 15 years, even with R3

Considering the runway, would not even be operational within that time they may well be right. I hardly think the likes of Flybe and Easyjet would not want to fly into an expanded LHR though carrying all that connecting traffic from the UK and Europe.

Also why do people keep putting down LHR based on it's current transfer connections. The whole point of this plan is to build and improve the airport. Something is already well underway and it has the potential to become a world leading facility.

But of course we can't have that can we.:rolleyes:

[DaveReidUK]

Considering the runway would not even be operational within that time they may well be right

The Airport Commission's forecast was for 2030. Heathrow is planning for R3 to be operational in late 2025. What makes you think there would be a 5-year delay ?

And be that as it may, the AC also forecasts the same number of domestic destinations (4) in 2040 and 2050.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

The current setup requires upgrading now as anyone who has to negotiate that part of the M25 in rush hour knows. That won't come cheap.


If something requires upgrading there is a presumption in the SE that funding will be waved through. Are you aware that this doesn't automatically happen re requires upgrading projects elsewhere in the UK?

I presume TFL have lumped in all sorts of works and contingency costs into this figure


We cannot progress funding of this magnitude based upon presumption. The level of drain required from public funds must be verified. TFL is well-qualified to make cost assessments on transport infrastructure projects, so their estimates must be taken seriously and examined.

One thing people need to understand is that a large amount of that figure will come straight back into the public purse from all the various taxes imposed

One could equally argue this for the LGW scheme and for alternative schemes of merit around the UK which represent far better value to the taxpayer. The vast costs associated with LHR R3 cannot be approved based on a flimsy excuse of this sort.

The project will likely be carried out by companies and workers from all over the UK who will take that money home and spend in in the local economy.

Ah, the infamous trickledown argument. Based upon this, the streets of Burnley, Bridgend, and Stanley should already be paved with gold trickled down from recent SE construction projects such as Crossrail, the Olympic Park, Thameslink remodelling and so many more. Curiously, that never quite seems to work out!

Materials will be made in factories all over the UK.

Also true in much larger volume if public funds are instead deployed on projects of merit located all around the UK where each pound spent buys so much more.

Taking private finance and putting it into a large infrastructure project is a great way to put other peoples money into the economy.

But if this is attempted on a scale so large that the host company risks default or failure to raise the capital required, default to the taxpayer becomes a huge concern. Will the taxpayer be underwriting the privately-funded element of LHR R3?

The same goes for projects like Hinckley

I thought the bulk of the money from Hinckley was destined for France and China. Where will the LHR R3 billions be off to?

and is why it is possible to build out of a recession.

A much more effective way to build out of recession would be to invest public funds directly into attractively-priced projects of merit located directly within depressed and neglected areas across the UK.

It also provides a countrywide benefit despite the final project being based in the SE.

Large-scale projects of merit around regional UK can also provide this. Unfortunately, I can't quote a real-world example, as during the last 50 years all multi-billion pound projects have been allocated to the SE exclusively. Time for some rebalancing?

The money does not just disappear.

Well the money from Crossrail, the Olympic Park and all the rest didn't find its way to my part of the world. Where did it go?

An expanded LHR that allows people to fly from their regional airport to destinations all over the world does benefit the whole of the UK.

Like a crumb from a large loaf benefits a mouse? The scale of funding required versus the underwhelming payback is beyond pitiful. Invest directly into those regions instead.

It is wrong to think of it as another SE project that will only benefit London.

But it will absolutely, overwhelmingly benefit London with only crumbs and empty promises trickling down to the rest of the UK.

The nation really should get behind this and it's a shame the MAN supporters feel so threatened.

The whole nation should feel threatened by another GBP12-18Bn of public funding glibly allocated to a project of very low merit within the charmed SE bubble. BTW, that cheap MAN Supporter jibe undermines your credibility as a serious contributor.

it will also allow more destinations that no airport, even LHR in it's current form could support. This in turn brings in people from further afield than the UK and that is worth a lot of money to our economy.

Have you seen some of the surprising destinations which carriers such as Ryanair and Wizz have introduced to the London airports portfolio? LHR has no monopoly on attracting new destinations. Even the Davies Report acknowledged that wasn't one of its strengths. A new runway at LGW can bring such people into the UK too.

Hopefully the right decision will be made as for the majority of people an expanded LHR is a win win situation.

Since it will cost many multiples the value it represents to make happen, LHR R3 is a win for selected lawyers, surveyors, engineers and very few others. Certainly not for the public. Absolutely not for the public. The right decision is LGW, subject to rigid cost oversight and the promised private funding being forthcoming.

I would say that BA's domestic traffic to all London airports has actually increased and freed up space for passengers connecting onto other BA services from Heathrow.

It is good to note real-world evidence that passengers are content to use London gateways other than LHR to meet their travel needs.

[Prophead]

Shed we have argued these points before and I am not going go through it again. If there are projects in other parts of the UK that can secure private investment and provide the same kind of benefit then let them go ahead too.

If foreign investment is not as forthcoming then that is hardly a reason to cancel projects in the SE. Yes there is also an element of public funding required at LHR but the result benefits non LHR users on the M25 and M4 also.

My argument is for a hub. Yours is for an expanded LGW. These are 2 different outcomes. We need to first decide whether we want a major UK hub or not and take into account the benefits this will bring. If we decide the hub arrangement isn't important and to concentrate on direct flights from wherever we can support them then that is a different matter. If it is just a case of putting an extra runway anywhere in the SE then you wouldn't choose LHR. If we do want to build a world class hub airport for a realistic amount then the only sensible option is LHR.

The Airport Commission's forecast was for 2030. Heathrow is planning for R3 to be operational in late 2025. What makes you think there would be a 5-year delay?

Is that a joke? I wouldn't be surprised if there is an extra 5 year delay in a decision being made let alone all the extra planning approvals and further consultations. Seriously though I think we are talking past 2030 now.


And be that as it may, the AC also forecasts the same number of domestic destinations (4) in 2040 and 2050.

The AC can say what it wants, it is the airlines who will decide and an expanded LHR open to SH traffic will be very attractive to the regionals plus LHR will also want a large flow of people through its 'shopping experience'.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Shed we have argued these points before and I am not going go through it again.

You just did. My post was a response to you doing exactly that.

If foreign investment is not as forthcoming then that is hardly a reason to cancel projects in the SE.

I have no desire to see worthwhile value-for-money projects cancelled in the SE or anywhere else. The problem lies with permitting one specific project at which the cost of provision vastly outweighs the benefits which will ultimately be delivered. And one which misallocates an enormous swathe of public investment resources in the process.

there is also an element of public funding required at LHR

That element of public funding is actually 12 to 18 times the sum which has ever been invested in a single public transport infrastructure project in the UK regions.

My argument is for a hub. Yours is for an expanded LGW.

My argument is for a solution to the SE runway capacity shortfall which does not jeopardise the finances of UK plc. The hub aspiration only makes sense if the payback exceeds the cost of facilitating it by a worthwhile profit margin. Providing capacity for inherent SE demand-growth for air travel is the key issue here. LGW can deliver that.

If we do want to build a world class hub airport for a realistic amount then the only sensible option is LHR.


In what way does GBP18.5Bn private plus between GBP12-18Bn in public funding for enabling works constitute a realistic amount for expanding LHR capacity by just 50%?

The AC can say what it wants, it is the airlines who will decide

So can we deduce that you have little confidence in the AC report as a whole, or is it just the sections which don't support your agenda which should be overlooked?

[DaveReidUK]

Is that a joke? I wouldn't be surprised if there is an extra 5 year delay in a decision being made let alone all the extra planning approvals and further consultations.

Nor would I be surprised, if indeed LHR R3 goes ahead at all. But with no R3, the Commission forecasts an even steeper decline in the number of domestic routes.

The AC can say what it wantsYes, that's the great thing about forecasts - anyone is free to agree or disagree with them, and only time will tell who got it right. :O

it is the airlines who will decide and an expanded LHR open to SH traffic will be very attractive to the regionalsYes, it's the airlines and not the airport who decide what routes and destinations they will serve. But a route only makes sense if it's profitable and that's partly dependent on the airport's user charges, particularly on regional routes and those flown by LCCs. Heathrow getting an adequate ROI on a third runway isn't EasyJet's problem.

plus LHR will also want a large flow of people through its 'shopping experience'.See above. Airlines don't start routes just to help the airport sell more duty-frees.

[Prophead]

Heathrow getting an adequate ROI on a third runway isn't EasyJet's problem.

Airlines don't start routes just to help the airport sell more duty-frees.

LHR will want that foot traffic through its terminals and won't, I imagine risk losing that traffic by charging high fees to the regionals.

When I worked there I was staggered to hear the income generated from the shopping and it is having that captive audience of bored people with nothing to do but shop that will offer the ROI.

[Heathrow Harry]

LHR charge High fees? who could believe such a thing??

they'll screw the last drop of blood out of the regionals if it improves their bonus by £1

[Ametyst1]

Ryanair and Wizz Air have indeed added some surprising destinations to the London portfolio but none of these are likely to be seen at an expanded Heathrow.

I can't see Ryanair or Wizz Air adding destinations such as Ankara, Nagoya, Osaka, Kolkata, Hangzhou, Dakar, Quito or Memphis.

[Ringwayman]

There is nothing stopping BA from adding those routes NOW. They don't need a runway added to do that.

[Ametyst1]

They could but other destinations and frequencies will have to be dropped such as Manchester.

[AndrewH52]

I have no desire to see worthwhile value-for-money projects cancelled in the SE or anywhere else. The problem lies with permitting one specific project at which the cost of provision vastly outweighs the benefits which will ultimately be delivered. And one which misallocates an enormous swathe of public investment resources in the process.



That element of public funding is actually 12 to 18 times the sum which has ever been invested in a single public transport infrastructure project in the UK regions.



My argument is for a solution to the SE runway capacity shortfall which does not jeopardise the finances of UK plc. The hub aspiration only makes sense if the payback exceeds the cost of facilitating it by a worthwhile profit margin. Providing capacity for inherent SE demand-growth for air travel is the key issue here. LGW can deliver that.



In what way does GBP18.5Bn private plus between GBP12-18Bn in public funding for enabling works constitute a realistic amount for expanding LHR capacity by just 50%?





Shed. You argue your case articulately as ever. Sadly you also undermine it by your dogged insistence on utilising figures for the public expenditure to support Heathrow's expansion that have little or no basis in fact. You have on many occasions cited TfL figures to justify the upper range of the cost envelope. These figures include every bit of TfL expenditure that it can possibly pin against Heathrow for 30 years worth of investment. To think that TfL won't be arguing the need for similar sums to support the capital's future transport needs if Heathrow doesn't get the green light is naive, and that's not a word I would associate with you.

You also seem to be focused on the cost of everything and the value of nothing. How much tax (in the form of APD) do Heathrow passengers contribute to the Treasury? How much additional revenue would a 50% increase in traffic generate over 15 or 20 years? How expensive is that public sector investment looking now?

Anyway, until the government of the day grows a paira nd actually makes a decision this debate is rather academic anyway, wouldn't you say?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

They could but other destinations and frequencies will have to be dropped such as Manchester.

A decade ago there were around 50 round-trips daily operating between four different London airports and MAN. Today there are just 8 serving LHR only and those are operated by A320-family aircraft rather than the larger B752/B763 types routinely used in the past. Such has been the decline in importance of airlinks to London, crushed by punitive taxation, WCML improvements and more competitive direct offerings by the airline industry itself. Rail and road have taken the P2P business; direct air services to end-destinations and routes via alternative hubs have claimed the rest. Yet despite this massive decline to London in particular, MAN is handling more business than ever before. So the threat of losing more frequencies to LHR is not the concern it once was. Unless British Airways wish to cut themselves off completely from the largest market in Northern England there is little left to cut. And that is a commercial decision for them to make. Life without BA is no longer unthinkable. The market has adapted.

your dogged insistence on utilising figures for the public expenditure to support Heathrow's expansion that have little or no basis in fact.

I use numbers produced by expert professionals published in the public domain. What other kind are available? Neither you nor I will know the final verified figures until many years from now.

You also seem to be focused on the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

As opposed to the value of everything and the cost of nothing as we see from so many other commentators? Both sides of the ledger must be carefully considered.

How much tax (in the form of APD) do Heathrow passengers contribute to the Treasury?

From hub transfer passengers - nothing. From London-originating passengers the same as if they were flying from LGW, STN, LTN or LCY.

How much additional revenue would a 50% increase in traffic generate over 15 or 20 years?

Not enough to justify upto 36 billion pounds in combined expenditure to make it a reality, when LGW can resolve the capacity shortfall for far, far less.

How expensive is that public sector investment looking now?


Honest answer? VERY!!!

Anyway, until the government of the day grows a paira nd actually makes a decision this debate is rather academic anyway, wouldn't you say?

Much of the media believes that a decision will come in October. If borne out, this debate won't be academic for much longer. The decision-makers need to appraise themselves of the facts now. Time may be short.

[Ametyst1]

Seriously Shed? Gatwick is not a serious option you seem focused on low cost services and ignore the huge intercontinental market that is going to other European airports.

Are your professional experts the same as those professional experts that predicted immediate armageddon after the Brexit vote?

If an extra runway is approved then it will not be Gatwick.

[AndrewH52]

A decade ago there were around 50 round-trips daily operating between four different London airports and MAN. Today there are just 8 serving LHR only and those are operated by A320-family aircraft rather than the larger B752/B763 types routinely used in the past. Such has been the decline in importance of airlinks to London, crushed by punitive taxation, WCML improvements and more competitive direct offerings by the airline industry itself. Rail and road have taken the P2P business; direct air services to end-destinations and routes via alternative hubs have claimed the rest. Yet despite this massive decline to London in particular, MAN is handling more business than ever before. So the threat of losing more frequencies to LHR is not the concern it once was. Unless British Airways wish to cut themselves off completely from the largest market in Northern England there is little left to cut. And that is a commercial decision for them to make. Life without BA is no longer unthinkable. The market has adapted.



I use numbers produced by expert professionals published in the public domain. What other kind are available? Neither you nor I will know the final verified figures until many years from now.



As opposed to the value of everything and the cost of nothing as we see from so many other commentators? Both sides of the ledger must be carefully considered.



From hub transfer passengers - nothing. From London-originating passengers the same as if they were flying from LGW, STN, LTN or LCY.



Not enough to justify upto 36 billion pounds in combined expenditure to make it a reality, when LGW can resolve the capacity shortfall for far, far less.



Honest answer? VERY!!!



Much of the media believes that a decision will come in October. If borne out, this debate won't be academic for much longer. The decision-makers need to appraise themselves of the facts now. Time may be short.

Shed. Sorry, wrong on a number of levels.There is a significantly higher level of premium traffic ex LHR compared to the other London airports so APD receipts will not be the same. Not all London airports are equal.

A figure quoted by BoJo's 'transport guru' in TfL's submission to the Commission Inquiry doesn't rate as 'expert professionals' to me. No break down, no analysis, no transparency to his evidence.

It's also laughable to think that expansion at Gatwick won't require significant public funds to support it. It's just that it generally falls outside of the coverage of TfL.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Seriously Shed? Gatwick is not a serious option you seem focused on low cost services and ignore the huge intercontinental market that is going to other European airports.


The largest growth sector affecting demand for air travel from the SE catchment is leisure and no-frills. That's a fact, however off-message that may be. New long-haul requires a fraction of the slots needed to accommodate this. So LGW is perfectly suited to soak up that incremental business, and at a fraction of the cost cited for the LHR R3 proposals. London already copes just fine with its existing huge intercontinental market, but that sector is not where the serious growth in demand is coming from.

Are your professional experts the same as those professional experts that predicted immediate armageddon after Brexit?


We could make cynical comments such as this about all experts contributing to both sides of the debate. We will only know who got it right with the benefit of hindsight.

If an extra runway is approved then it will not be Gatwick.

So you're a prophet? Can you share next week's winning lottery numbers with us whilst you're on a roll? :-)

[Ametyst1]

Shed, I am a professional expert! My expert opinion is a good as anyone else's after all that is just what they are, opinions.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Shed. Sorry, wrong on a number of levels.

Nice soundbite. Please state your evidence!

There is a significantly higher level of premium traffic ex LHR compared to the other London airports so APD receipts will not be the same

You're talking about traffic volume based on current distribution of services. I was referencing actual APD charges per passenger which follow a set-scale according to route length and class of travel regardless of departure airport. Thus a passenger flying from LHR or LGW to Prague in economy can expect to pay the same amount in APD. Likewise a passenger in business flying from LHR or LGW to HKG.

Note for clarification that Scotland plans to move away from this system and that there is a special exemption for BFS-EWR (I believe). The APD system is under review and may change at some point in the future anyway.

Not all London airports are equal.

But the scale of APD charges levied per passenger at each of them is.

A figure quoted by BoJo's 'transport guru' in TfL's submission to the Commission Inquiry doesn't rate as 'expert professionals' to me.

You disagree with this specific commentator. I disagree with certain others. With so many different views being expressed these matters are subjective. We must make our own judgments.

It's also laughable to think that expansion at Gatwick won't require significant public funds to support it.

Hence my call for strict cost oversight to be applied with respect to their proposals.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Shed, I am a professional expert!

Good for you.

[AndrewH52]

Nice soundbite. Please state your evidence!



You're talking about traffic volume based on current distribution of services. I was referencing actual APD charges per passenger which follow a set-scale according to route length and class of travel regardless of departure airport. Thus a passenger flying from LHR or LGW to Prague in economy can expect to pay the same amount in APD. Likewise a passenger in business flying from LHR or LGW to HKG.

Note for clarification that Scotland plans to move away from this system and that there is a special exemption for BFS-EWR (I believe). The APD system is under review and may change at some point in the future anyway.



But the scale of APD charges levied per passenger at each of them is.



You disagree with this specific commentator. I disagree with certain others. With so many different views being expressed these matters are subjective. We must make our own judgments.



Hence my call for strict cost oversight to be applied with respect to their proposals.


Ahh. So your expert is now just a 'commentator'. That perhaps puts his 'expert opinion' into a more realistic context.

It's funny that you seem happy to take the figures provided in respect of Gatwick (£9.3billion, let's not forget) at face value but the c.£12bn figure provided by Heathrow with utter contempt. Gatwick expansion is almost 75% of the cost of the Heathrow proposals (discounting TfL's extortionate shopping list). One can be progressed with 'appropriate financial oversight' yet the other risks financial oblivion, it seems.

Scotland's plans for APD are irrelevant here. As really are suggestions that businesses and first class pax pay the same level of APD ex Gatwick and Heathrow. As has been demonstrated over a prolonged period of time, Gatwick has an absolute inability to support premium traffic compared to Heathrow. No contest.

Still, if the City of London loses passporting rights post Brexit we are probably all screwed anyway.

[T250]

Expand both, Runway 3 for LHR, Runway 2 for LGW.

Both are commercial enterprises, privately run and all future projects and construction should be privately funded. Government choosing one private company over another, involving public money is disgraceful. Approve both and allow them to fight it out! :ok::hmm:

Best man wins/loses.

Or, far more likely, neither get approved.


Still, if the City of London loses passporting rights post Brexit we are probably all screwed anyway.

Well you can consider us screwed then, don't be holding out for that! :rolleyes:

[DaveReidUK]

Or, far more likely, neither get approved.

Approving both would have the same outcome as approving neither. :O

[Skipness One Echo]

Both are commercial enterprises, privately run and all future projects and construction should be privately funded. Government choosing one private company over another, involving public money is disgraceful. Approve both and allow them to fight it out
Except the UK is almost unique in having quite so many major parts of "public" infrastructure wholly in private hands. Private probation services, prisons, rail network and airports. Well Railtrack went bust and privatised rail is a monopoly licence to print money at taxpayers expense. The UKs only major hub airport, our main gateway to the world isn't just any other private enterprise and interacts with a whole load of public sector assets. It's quite clearly not something that you'd rationally expect to expand in that part of the world and be cost neutral to the taxpayer. Remember who built all those airports in the first place?

If they approve LHR R3, the ROI for LGW R2 collapses overnight alas.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Remember who built all those airports in the first place?"

The military............. which is why they're in such bloody useless places for the 21st Century.............

[Prophead]

If they approve LHR R3, the ROI for LGW R2 collapses overnight alas.

Exactly, that does not work the other way around.

Let's not forget that the initial LHR proposal was made when both airports were owned by the same company. They chose LHR.

[DaveReidUK]

Exactly, that does not work the other way around.

We'll never know, because approval for two new runways is the one scenario that's not going to happen.

But it's clear from what Heathrow have said in the past that they would be unlikely to go ahead with R3 in the knowledge that Gatwick was also expanding.

Fortunately for both parties, that's not a decision they will be faced with, so speculation is pretty academic.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

PM's playing a straight bat repeating her Hinckley mantra "I'll look at the evidence and then make a decision". Not ruling out extra runway at both.


theresa-may-refuses-to-rule-out-new-runways-at-both-heathrow-and-gatwick-airports (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/theresa-may-refuses-to-rule-out-new-runways-at-both-heathrow-and-gatwick-airports-a3349886.html)

[Navpi]

Refusing to rule out two runways shows how much our politicians know....

In this case zero.

It would be quite humerous actually.

Would Heathrow shareholders support and pay for expansion if LGW went ahead?

Would GATWICK do likewise if Heathrow were given the green light.

[Boeing737-8]

Instead of trying to build a new runway which will never happen. Why don't there try to get the airport to run 24/7. All other major airports don't have limits on time of landings and take offs

[canberra97]

Boeing737-8

Your suggestion of LHR operating 24/7 will never happen unlike other major airports as you state, the position of LHR and the opposition to it I can assure you that it would never get approved.

[DaveReidUK]

Why don't there try to get the airport to run 24/7

You might find looking at a map helpful.

All other major airports don't have limits on time of landings and take offsI suspect that Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Zurich, Geneva, Sydney, Tokyo, etc might beg to differ. All have restrictions of some sort on night movements, as do over 150 more of the world's international airports.

[pax britanica]

If you wind the clock back to 1946 where else near London would you build an airport-
South and North are very hilly and to the east its all docks and mudflats and weather that would make operation of airliners of that era a challenge (ie its always foggy)

So LHR is a good almost the only choice for a big airport because its the only flat real estate for along way . The problem is that they should have aquired the land north of the airport to make provision for R3

[Navpi]

Looking art the AC report there is a suggestion that fees will increase to pay for the runway but isn't that penalising the airlines serving Heathrow now and specifically our own British Airways?

So charges go up THEN they let all comers in.

Willie Walsh won't wear that!

[Logohu]

BA has never been in favour of HAL's R3 proposal, at least publicly. The last thing WW wants to see is BA's profits being cannibalized by a combination of higher airport charges and increased competition at the main base. He's already got plenty of LHR slots thank you very much through his acquisitions of BMI and Aer Lingus.

Easyjet probably has similar concerns about the R2 proposals at LGW.

[coathanger16]

To say Willie Walsh is against expansion at LHR isn't entirely true:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/05/cheaper-heathrow-expansion-plan-willie-walsh-third-runway

BA and IAG are happy for LHR to expand as long as the cost is reasonable - clearly WW thinks Heathrow Hubs plans offer an acceptable cost.

Regardless of what WW thinks, should we let the dominate carrier at LHR dictate the market there. I'm sure many other airlines (both current and potential future users after expansion) would be happy to pay the cost of expansion if it meant increasing their flights there. The CEO of LHR has often stated he has 30 airlines wanting to set up new routes or increase frequencies on current ones.

[Dairyground]

The last thing WW wants to see is BA's profits being cannibalized by a combination of higher airport charges and increased competition at the main base.


But he doesn't seem worried about potential customers deserting BA and LHR for longhaul flights from elsewhere in the UK.

[DaveReidUK]

But he doesn't seem worried about potential customers deserting BA and LHR for longhaul flights from elsewhere in the UK.

Well I don't know what's going on in Willie Walsh's head any more than you do. :*

But perhaps he's more worried about potential customers deserting BA for additional longhaul flights from increased competition at LHR ?

[Navpi]

Out of curiosity does anybody know the proportion of BA transfer + long-haul pax as a % of total transfer +long haul pax.

[Heathrow Harry]

probably in the same place - but loading M&S food on the trolley instead of from Lidl

Scheduling, packing and loading food for air ops is a million miles from current M&S food business - they sell in stores. No-one is going to wait while they climb the learning curve so effectivly you use the same "consolidator" but change the supplier - and the money is in consolidation I 'd bet as you take no risk on sell-by-dates, food poisoning etc etc

[PAXboy]

Since M&S already have a country wide operation to supply food every day to main stores, food only stores and petrol stations - adding an airport delivery is easy. As HH says, someone who already knows the system and has all the airside passes and vehicles will be checking/loading and doing the paperwork.

[Navpi]

Just reported on Sky.

Apparently there is a train of thought that Heathrow has really shot itself in the foot big style re 3rd runway with the "no compromise from shareholders re Heathrow Hub".

Has gone down like a proverbial lead balloon !

plus HAL apparently not having any idea of cost left Grayling scratching head re costs of rest of project.

"How on earth can this not have been considered seems to be cabinet mantra "

plus and this is really incredible ....the emergence and emphasis that all ALL the shareholders are foreign.

How on earthdid they not know this ?

[Skipness One Echo]

How on earthdid they not know this ?
Well it's the Conservatives who sold it off, let's not pretend they don't know this stuff. The Civil Service certainly does.

HeathrowHub does not own Heathrow Airport, bit of a misleading name. Hence the best option remains the preferred commission view of a new third runway. #dejavu

Heathrow investors snub Grayling call for Hub commitment (http://news.sky.com/story/heathrow-investors-snub-chris-grayling-hub-plea-10596395)
This was the double length runway that the commision dismissed. Grayling is scrabbling for "another way", something to fix in two weeks which no one in 70 years has managed?
However, insiders said on Tuesday that Mr Holland-Kaye had been told by his shareholders that acknowledging any support for the rival scheme would be a tactical error so close to an announcement by the Government.
Quite clearly!

"An extended runway will deliver all the economic benefits and new capacity of a third runway but at lower environmental, social and financial cost."
It really won't deliver the same benefits IMHO, which is why it was the, in their own words, "the rank outsider"...

[pax britanica]

WW could care less about R3 at LHR, he will be back in Ireland retired before its operational and the world will be a different place. As for the comment about why should the national hub airport bee dominated by a 'national'carrier well look at FRA , CDG and AMS and see how long it takes to work out who the dominant players are.

only in the Uk does the competition mantra suggest the national asset (and it is despite the complex ownership) should be watered down by allowing new entrants and letting dubiously funded 'state' outfits like EK steal huge amounts of business .
In any event the whole issue is about providing a major international hub for the future and LGW isnt a hub and wont be with a second runway-just more bucket and spade and stag weekend EZ traffic . If its chosen London will end up not with two hubs in one place but no hubs at all so for all the flaws and errors and muddles there is only one choice -LHR.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Has gone down like a proverbial lead balloon!

With whom did it not go down well with?

Politicians - looking for an easy way to avoid a difficult decision?
HeathrowHub developer?
Airlines?
DfT?
CAA?
Residents?
Shareholders?

An extended northern runway IMHO, is a very risky option. The safety case would be a nightmare. Likewise the airspace redesign.

[Navpi]

I assume the treasury saw HeathrowHub as a cheap option compared to a 3rd runway.

Do we have any idea of the runway utilisation figures compared to runway3.

[coathanger16]

Heathrow Hub have long said their option can handle the same amount of traffic as Heathrow's own third runway (Press Releases : Heathrow Hub (http://www.heathrowhub.com/press-media.aspx#) - third article as of 28/9/16).

With regards to safety, operating what is two runways that are in line with each other is of course going to be riskier than operating parallel runways, however some would say loading 400 people onto a 400 tonne aircraft filled up with kerosene is risky.

In terms of aircraft go-arounds, the Heathrow Hub proposal is actually safer than operating from one runway as at Gatwick and many other airports across the UK. The risk I assume Trash 'n' Navs is referring to would be an aircraft over running from the landing runway onto the take off runway. Assuming the aircraft left the landing runway at 100mph and that the takeoff runway starts 650m after the landing runway (what Heathrow Hub have claimed the safety gap would be), it would take approximately 15 seconds to travel the "safety gap". Given how closely monitored LHR's runways currently are - landing aircraft are given clearance to land only when the aircraft in front has cleared the runway, which is often only seconds before the next aircraft touches down - the controllers would certainly notice an aircraft shooting along the landing runway towards the take off runway. Add in the fact that the safety gap may have some system in place to stop an aircraft that enters the safety gap and the chances of the landing aircraft reaching the takeoff runway whilst an aircraft is still there are very small.

As for the airspace redesign, whichever runway option is chosen (assuming any are) the airspace will have to be redesigned regardless. Even without any new runways, given the increasing pressure from communities around airports for respite, an airspace redesign would happen sooner or later.

DfT clearly believes the Heathrow Hub is a safe option otherwise they wouldn't be asking Heathrow Ltd. if they would be prepared to implement it.

[DaveReidUK]

Add in the fact that the safety gap may have some system in place to stop an aircraft that enters the safety gap and the chances of the landing aircraft reaching the takeoff runway whilst an aircraft is still there are very small.

And if there was no such system planned ? (there isn't).

[Gonzo]

C'mon Dave, those localiser arrays are really tough.....:}

[Navpi]

My understanding on airspace is a fundamental realignment of the London TMA, scrapping the holds and moving to a gradual STRAIGHT LINE continuous descent from I think 18k although I'm sure Mr Reid can clarify.

I am sure I read this in a NATS DOC !

This would in effect make it parallel approaches straight in from somewhere just south of Southend.

The spokesperson suggested

"nobody has asked us about how we implement this yet , nor the impact on other airfields ".

Q. Does this not double the risk of terrorist attack?

Not only are you doubling the traffic over The Capital but increasing the footprint.

Would one cataclysmic event not stop this in its tracks ?

[DaveReidUK]

My understanding on airspace is a fundamental realignment of the London TMA, scrapping the holds and moving to a gradual STRAIGHT LINE continuous descent from I think 18k although I'm sure Mr Reid can clarify.

I am sure I read this in a NATS DOC !

This would in effect make it parallel approaches straight in from somewhere just south of Southend.

It would help if you could remember where you saw that. :O

The only document from NATS that I've seen discussing airspace usage with a third LHR runway (prepared by them for the Airports Commission) is this one, which says the precise opposite:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371854/14-operational-efficiency--airspace.pdf

It suggests that arrival routings would use an S-shaped "trombone" concept (not all that dissimilar to current practice) and that holds would still be required to cater for situations where short-term demand exceeds runway capacity.

[Trinity 09L]

From local information.

HAL have announced proposals today that could see the benefits of expansion start to be delivered four years early. This includes proposals for up to an additional 25,000 flights per year from 2021.

Any increase in flights before a third runway opens would go hand in hand with our community and environmental commitments. We would introduce a stricter night-flight regime, with a ban on arrivals until 5.30am – an extension of one hour from today - and would bring forward the noise insulation scheme to coincide with the start of the new flights. Additional flights would also mean additional jobs – we estimate up to 5000 jobs on-airport.

I understand there may be some concerns locally regarding this announcement. We are announcing this now in light of the decision to leave the EU to demonstrate how Heathrow can help deliver the Prime Minister’s vision of a strong and fair post-Brexit economy. Any plans to increase flights would be subject to public consultation and planning approval and should Heathrow be selected, we will of course work with you and your residents to ensure people are kept fully informed about how they can make their views known throughout the planning process.

[DaveReidUK]

We would introduce a stricter night-flight regime, with a ban on arrivals until 5.30am – an extension of one hour from today

Interesting that Heathrow's 6-page "Brexit Boost" press release this morning omits any mention of a pre-05:30 arrivals ban:

Heathrow - Heathrow?s Brexit Boost to help make Britain stronger and fairer - faster (http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Expansion-News-23/7311#)

[Navpi]

I'm sure it was based on a blog by a NATs controller.

The point they were making was that to get the absolute maximum efficiency from a 3rd rw you would be looking at a continous straight in parallel descent but with the straight in model starting at 18k. The impression I got was not one of closing the Microwave from left or right but actually being already lined up. I assume this compresses traffic on the glide.

The only article I could find is this which does indeed quote the model Dave Reid described but the blog I read definitely referenced this other model.

If you can get past the AirportWatch brigade this seems to be the model but the diagram I saw did specify the 25 mile+ long approach.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/05/nats-suggests-change-to-stacking-system-with-priority-given-to-the-largest-planes-with-transfer-passengers

[coathanger16]

DaveReid

I seem to recall the CAA have cleared the Heathrow Hub idea from a safety perspective - clearly they don't see the need for any "safety system" in the event of an overrun.

What are the chances of such an overrun happening anyway? And what are the chances that there is an aircraft on the departure portion of the extended runway when the overrun occurs?

The Heathrow Hub idea has been around for a while now. One would assume that any safety concerns have been addressed otherwise it would have been ruled out.

[DaveReidUK]

Here's a NATS blog from earlier this year that may be the one you mean:

Is this the end of stack holding? - NATS Blog (http://nats.aero/blog/2016/05/is-this-the-end-of-stack-holding/)

It talks about alternatives to vertical stacking. The "Linear Hold" concept comes in two flavours: Point Merge (which NATS say elsewhere can't be done at Heathrow because of the proximity of other airports) and Trombone (as per my previous post).

But neither of those involves lengthening the straight-in segment of the final approach:

http://nats.aero/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/PlaneHoldingsBlackV4-768x2005.png

[DaveReidUK]

I seem to recall the CAA have cleared the Heathrow Hub idea from a safety perspective - clearly they don't see the need for any "safety system" in the event of an overrun.

The most recent statement I can find from Heathrow Hub re the safety case is:

"We have submitted a detailed safety case to the CAA. Our proposal faces no major obstacles on safety and in fact we believe our proposal could be even safer than the other two shortlisted options."

The CAA, in turn, has stated:

"Safety assurance can only be accepted after the proposer provides a fully detailed concept of operations (encompassing the entire operation) for how it intends to meet the various safety requirements placed on it by the applicable rules and regulations. This can only happen following planning consent and potentially after a permit to operate is in place. In this case the scheme would need to be assessed against the requirements in place at the time."

If you have a more recent update confirming that the CAA have approved the scheme in the meantime, please post a link.

[coathanger16]

DaveReid - apologies, I seem to have jumped the gun. Any idea when that was from? Indeed the latest I've seen is:

"the safety zone between the runways is 650m, over twice the length required by international regulations. But, as our runway solution is a relatively new concept, we have completed a thorough independent safety review with aviation experts. This concludes that our proposal is safe and efficient and complies with all relevant regulatory requirements.The CAA is currently assessing our safety report."

What do you see to be the safety issues with the hub proposal? (I'm not trying to challenge or dismiss your claims - just interested in your opinion).

[DaveReidUK]

What do you see to be the safety issues with the hub proposal? (I'm not trying to challenge or dismiss your claims - just interested in your opinion).

The CAA document from which I took that quote contains their preliminary safety assessment of the three short-listed proposals (which they stress does not constitute any "approval").

It identifies 13 safety criteria against which each proposal has been assessed and marks each as Yes/No/TBC, together with amplifying comments. The Heathrow Hub option gets 4 Y, 6 N and 3 TBCs (the NW runway proposal also gets a No for failing to provide safe separation without needing airspace changes).

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1215_Preliminary_Safety_Assessment.pdf

[PAXboy]

The CAA, in turn, has stated:

"Safety assurance can only be accepted after the proposer provides a fully detailed concept of operations (encompassing the entire operation) for how it intends to meet the various safety requirements placed on it by the applicable rules and regulations. This can only happen following planning consent and potentially after a permit to operate is in place. In this case the scheme would need to be assessed against the requirements in place at the time."
So, am I right in reading that to mean:
Once planning permission has been given. We will then look at the plans as to how to operate it? Would such plans not be part and parcel of the application?

Perhaps I'm being too cynical but that looks like (either) another kick into the long grass or a way to make their jobs even more important ... possibly both.

[DaveReidUK]

Perhaps I'm being too cynical but that looks like (either) another kick into the long grass or a way to make their jobs even more important ... possibly both.

On the contrary, I suspect you're not being cynical enough. :O

The extended runway scheme has always been a makeweight, stalking-horse proposal designed to give the illusion of competition and pad out the short-list.

You would have to look hard to find anyone in the industry who takes the scheme seriously (including, I suspect, its backers) but apparently it's not considered polite to declare in public that it's a daft idea.

[coathanger16]

Often new concepts are considered to be daft until they are proven. Go back 100 years and try to explain to what extent aviation will develop between then and now and I imagine you'd probably be called insane.

Having read through that document, the CAA don't seem to have any presented any "showstoppers". Most of the issues that they flagged up were followed by a statement saying "the promoter needs to prove x,y,z" - worst case scenario the runways would be dependent thereby limiting capacity.

If the extended runway scheme was only included to, as you suggest, provide competition, why didn't the commission go for already proven concepts such as new runways at Stansted or Birmingham?

[DaveReidUK]

If the extended runway scheme was only included to, as you suggest, provide competition

I didn't say it was included in the short-list to provide competition. It's there to provide the illusion of such.

why didn't the commission go for already proven concepts such as new runways at Stansted or Birmingham?If you mean why didn't the Commission assess proposals for Stansted or Birmingham expansion - they did (in fact several different proposals, in the case of Stansted, out of the 52 that they considered).

If you mean why weren't they short-listed - the Commission's report and analysis is in the public domain for anyone to read the basis for their conclusions (and agree or disagree with).

[coathanger16]

I was already aware that Stansted and Birmingham were considered and then ruled out by the commission, and quite rightly so - I say that with Birmingham being my local airport.

Providing a second scheme at a site that has already been shortlisted doesn't to me at least provide the illusion of competition. If that was the sole reason for the commission including the extended runway proposal, it would have been much more convincing if they had chosen a third site besides Heathrow & Gatwick.

I don't mean to be rude but you seem to have a significant bias against the extended runway scheme - any particular reason?

[DaveReidUK]

Providing a second scheme at a site that has already been shortlisted doesn't to me at least provide the illusion of competition.

Fair enough, if you don't share my cynicism that's probably to your credit. :O

I don't mean to be rude but you seem to have a significant bias against the extended runway scheme - any particular reason?No offence taken.

Leaving aside technical and operational considerations, my biggest objection to the scheme is that both approach paths would need to be in continuous use during the airport's hours of operation in order to accommodate the planned number of arrivals and departures (in other words permanent mixed-mode operation on the northern and southern runways), meaning an end to scheduled respite for the communities under the arrival flightpath.

[EastMids]

Confused regarding Heathrow's Brexit Boost announced today...

Includes proposals for up to 25,000 a year on current operational levels, while the third runway is being built

How do they get 25,000 additional ATMs (that's 68 a day or around 4 per operational hour) from the existing runways? And why is the go-ahead for the third runway seemingly being linked to this extra capacity? If the extra movements can be accommodated while the new runway is being built, why should they not be enabled even if the decision goes to Gatwick?

[DaveReidUK]

How do they get 25,000 additional ATMs (that's 68 a day or around 4 per operational hour) from the existing runways?

There already exist measures that can be, and are, deployed at LHR to increase short-term runway capacity.

"Tactically Enhanced Arrivals Measures" (TEAM), and ditto for Departures (TED), involve short periods of mixed-mode use on the departure or arrival runway respectively, and can only currently be deployed to mitigate anticipated or actual delays subject to pre-defined triggers.

Relaxation of those triggers to allow extended periods of mixed-mode use would undoubtedly increase capacity by the stated amount. In fact increasing the arrival/departure rate per hour and/or extending the airport's hours of operation are the only two possible ways to generate more ATMs, and the latter has already been ruled out.

And why is the go-ahead for the third runway seemingly being linked to this extra capacity? If the extra movements can be accommodated while the new runway is being built, why should they not be enabled even if the decision goes to Gatwick?It's called negotiation. :O

[EastMids]

Thankyou for the very concise and easily understood explanation DaveReidUK! :D

So Heathrow are saying- not only would we like another runway, we'd also like to use TEAM and TED before the new runway is built... Hmmm... Not sure that concept will win friends and influence people in the locality!

[coathanger16]

I have been following this somewhat on twitter as well - somebody suggested that the only way the 25,000 extra movements could be achieved was through mixed mode ops. The reply from Heathrow was that wouldn't be the case:

https://twitter.com/yourHeathrow/status/781400192109187072

They state the extra movements would be from operational efficiencies. I'm sure I read elsewhere that they would implement time based separation continually (instead of just during strong headwinds) - in effect decreasing the gap between landing aircraft and thus increasing capacity.

I think the increase in capacity is being linked to expansion because of Heathrow's cap on flights (currently 480,000). If Heathrow expands they'll be applying to increase this to 720,000 anyway. If expansion doesn't go ahead, Heathrow are unlikely to want to have to deal with all the legal challenges of increasing capacity by just 25,000 movements.

I.e. its linked to expansion because the flight cap will have to be increased anyway to accommodate expansion.

[DaveReidUK]

I have been following this somewhat on twitter as well - somebody suggested that the only way the 25,000 extra movements could be achieved was through mixed mode ops. The reply from Heathrow was that wouldn't be the case:

https://twitter.com/yourHeathrow/status/781400192109187072


Bear in mind, though, that it emerged during the Operational Freedoms trials that Heathrow don't consider simultaneous arrivals and departures on one runway (TEAM or TED) to be "mixed-mode". They only use that term when TED or TEAM are deployed simultaneously on both runways, so either or both measures could still be deployed, just not at the same time.

They state the extra movements would be from operational efficiencies. I'm sure I read elsewhere that they would implement time based separation continually (instead of just during strong headwinds) - in effect decreasing the gap between landing aircraft and thus increasing capacity.Yes, it's looking likely that the TBS is set to become permanent at LHR following last year's trial. Strictly speaking it only partially mitigates the effect of strong headwinds on the approach by restoring the landing rate to something that's closer to, but still a bit short of, the zero-headwind capacity. But the additional resilience that it provides could certainly be traded for increased capacity if desired.

It's also possible that expanding the use of RNAV SIDs could produce increases in the departure rate.

[Gonzo]

East Mids,

So Heathrow are saying- not only would we like another runway, we'd also like to use TEAM and TED before the new runway is built...

No, you're the one saying that. They haven't mentioned any specifics.

....And there is no formal procedure for TEDs anyway.

DR,

Yes, it's looking likely that the TBS is set to become permanent at LHR following last year's trial. Strictly speaking it only partially mitigates the effect of strong headwinds on the approach by restoring the landing rate to something that's closer to, but still a bit short of, the zero-headwind capacity. But the additional resilience that it provides could certainly be traded for increased capacity if desired.

There was no trial of TBS. It was introduced into limited service in March 2015 and has been in full service since May 2015.

The underlying time separations are based on a headwind of around 5-7kts.

[coathanger16]

Heathrow have announced that they will announce proposals to bring forward the benefits on a new runway by 4 years - through these extra 25,000 movements - I imagine we'll hear more about how exactly they plan on creating those extra slots in the coming week as these proposals are published.

[EastMids]

No, you're the one saying that. They haven't mentioned any specifics

OK, to be more precise - Heathrow are saying they want a new runway and they'd like to increase the overall movement rate in the mean time by having 25,000 more arrivals / departures a year, ahead of the third runway becoming available. It amounts to the same thing - I can't see the locals being overjoyed.

[Gonzo]

It may not require the use of both runways for the same operation though, that's what I'm saying.

All that we know is that the movement rate would have to increase, and/or or ops would begin earlier and continue later.

One of those is probably less likely to happen than the other.

[DaveReidUK]

It amounts to the same thing - I can't see the locals being overjoyed.

That's putting it mildly. :O

I can't really see a proposal to overturn the T5 480,000 ATM planning constraint four years before R3 surviving a challenge in the courts, which could suggest that it's a throwaway negotiating ploy.

The related proposal to "ring-fence" 60% of the additional ATMs (21 daily rotations) for domestic routes, even if it doesn't turn out to be academic (see above), seems unlikely to have airlines rushing to (re)start services to the likes of Norwich, Liverpool, Teesside, IoM, etc.

But when the big prize is getting approval for R3, ancillary promises cost nothing.

[Navpi]

Is not the increase of ATMs a measure to increase revenue. If they can't get it from IAG would this be the solution?

Do we know yet how much the Government is stumping up. It seems odd that 6 months ago the Government were screaming austerity and there was enough pennies for a cake of the tea trolley at PMQS. Now it's spend spend spend!

[Fairdealfrank]

Just reported on Sky.

Apparently there is a train of thought that Heathrow has really shot itself in the foot big style re 3rd runway with the "no compromise from shareholders re Heathrow Hub".

Has gone down like a proverbial lead balloon !Maybe it's because the Heathrow Hub option requires "mixed mode" operations at all time with no "segregated mode" and no alternation, otherwise the number of movements cannot be increased sufficiently to have a return on investment, in which case there's no point.

If this scheme was implemented, there would be "a train of thought that Heathrow has really shot itself in the foot big style" re. the residents who live under the flightpaths.

[DaveReidUK]

Maybe it's because the Heathrow Hub option requires "mixed mode" operations at all time with no "segregated mode" and no alternation, otherwise the number of movements cannot be increased sufficiently to have a return on investment, otherwise there's no point.

Like wot I posted 6 hours ago, you mean ?

[Navpi]

As a supporter of Heathrow I don't see how you can simply tear up agreements re times of operation, mixed mode etc on a whim !

We will be heading for real public disorder here if we are not careful!

Meanwhile those pesky Northerners are getting peeved off as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/northern-powerhouse-at-risk-from-south-east-bias-says-airport-boss?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Manchester airport is the third-biggest in the UK and the only hub, other than Heathrow, with two runways. Twenty five million passengers travel through Manchester airport every year but it has the capacity to carry 55 million

So plenty of spare capacity already - not like LHR handling 75m!!

Navpi - you need to read the press release again. The added flights are an option and would be introduced after planning approval following extensive consultation. The Government doesn't have to agree to it.

[coathanger16]

Seeming as Heathrow will be applying to increase the flight cap anyway to 720,000 to make use of the third runway, why would "asking" for 25,000 extra flights to be allowed from 2021 be a problem?

Both Manchester and Birmingham airports have recently been putting out claims about how expansion in the SE (particularly at Heathrow) would harm their business. Birmingham seriously seems to fear losing flights to Heathrow if they get the third runway. If the only way these airports can secure flights is by constraining other airports, is there really a demand for them at those airports?

[Trinity 09L]

It is over a year since the planning inspector finished public comments on the use of the northern runway for departure's. No doubt the decision is parked until the "announcement". If given the go ahead will this allow part of the 25,000 extra ATMs to be available?

[DaveReidUK]

It is over a year since the planning inspector finished public comments on the use of the northern runway for departures. No doubt the decision is parked until the "announcement". If given the go ahead will this allow part of the 25,000 extra ATMs to be available?

No, making alternation on easterlies possible doesn't make any difference to runway capacity (otherwise we'd see big delays building up every day the wind was from the east).

[Heathrow Harry]

trying to keep the Tory Conference quiet??

Heathrow runway decision to be made 'shortly' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37533768)

A decision over where to site a new runway in the south east of England will be taken "shortly", Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has said.


Mr Grayling said he has spent the summer looking at the plans.
"They're all very well crafted proposals, they're all very interesting, they've all got great potential. We need to decide which is best for Britain," Mr Grayling told the BBC.
"You will get an announcement shortly. We haven't taken the decision yet," he said.
The transport secretary also refused to rule out granting a free vote to Conservative MPs on the issue of airport expansion, saying "decisions about parliamentary handling… have not yet been taken".

[Navpi]

Just out of curiosity as Heathrow is owned by shareholders is there anything to stop them selling up as soon as they get a Yes decision?

The railways at least have lock in for multiple years so how will this work with airport policy?

The airport could in effect have numerous different owners between now and opening date.

How will the Government protect any of there own investment in supporting infrastructure if the ownership keeps changing ?

[Prophead]

Well finally they have realised that a project which will become operational around 2030 needs to use vehicle pollution data based, not on today's levels but those predicted to be around at that time.

We may be getting somewhere.

[Prophead]

Just out of curiosity as Heathrow is owned by shareholders is there anything to stop them selling up as soon as they get a Yes decision?

The railways at least have lock in for multiple years so how will this work with airport policy?

The airport could in effect have numerous different owners between now and opening date.

How will the Government protect any of there own investment in supporting infrastructure if the ownership keeps changing ?

The airport is owned by BAA. That is unlikely to change. BAA may have various shareholders but that doesn't affect the plans or responsibilities regarding BAA.

[DaveReidUK]

This time last week we were being told by Heathrow:

The benefits of Heathrow expansion could be delivered four years early, giving the British economy a £1.5bn ‘Brexit boost’ whilst a third runway is built, according to new proposals to be launched on the first day of the upcoming Conservative Party ConferenceHeathrow - Heathrow?s Brexit Boost to help make Britain stronger and fairer - faster (http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Expansion-News-23/7311)

Did anyone witness this launch? Did we learn anything new?

[Navpi]

Heathrow is owned by who. ..��

My goodness I could be exchanging comments with an MP.

Who on earth are the BAA?

And as for C02 emissions!

Well to be honest it's hardly worth having a meaningful discussion if you have no clue about ownership ......

but basing emissions on what "might" happen in 30 years rather than now is really just bunkum.

Not sure even the most ardent supporter of Heathrow (me included) would believe the Your Heathrow propaganda machine. They have been done 4 times by the ASA this year. That is some going and I hate to say it all a bit desperate.

[DaveReidUK]

Who on earth are the BAA?

www.baa.com (http://www.baa.com)

LHR AIRPORTS LIMITED (UK Company No 01970855)

formerly BAA AIRPORTS LIMITED
formerly BAA LIMITED
formerly BAA PLC

[Prophead]

Well to be honest it's hardly worth having a meaningful discussion if you have no clue about ownership ......

but basing emissions on what "might" happen in 30 years rather than now is really just bunkum.

To anyone that has worked for them they will always be BAA no matter what they change their name to. I would hardly call that 'having no clue about ownership'. Same company with a new name.

So you believe that 15 years will not see further increases in electric vehicle technology and even lower emissions?

And you say I am not worth having a meaningful discussion with?

[Trinity 09L]

Our company, Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited (formerly BAA) owns and runs London Heathrow Airport, Britain's aviation hub.

Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited is in turn owned by FGP Topco Limited, a consortium owned and led by the infrastructure specialist Ferrovial S.A. (25.00%), Qatar Holding LLC (20.00%), Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (12.62%), the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (11.20%), Alinda Capital Partners (11.18%), China Investment Corporation (10.00%) and Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) (10.00%)

This may not include the recent Qatar wealth fund investment

[Piltdown Man]

Changing tack, do we have to worry about EU air pollution limits if we are no longer members of the EU? I think not because their laws will no longer apply. Yet another good reason to leave this corrupt, intellectual talking shop behind.

PM

[DaveReidUK]

Changing tack, do we have to worry about EU air pollution limits if we are no longer members of the EU? I think not because their laws will no longer apply.

The consensus is that many of the laws that originate from the EU are now so embedded in the fabric of UK law that there aren't enough lawyers in existence to be able to disentangle them all and so many, if not most, are highly likely to remain on the statute books.

[inOban]

I'm trying to decide on the significance of this choice of moniker. He was a fraud, wasn't he?

We have to worry about NOx and PM10 pollution not because of the EU, but because every year it is killing thousands of people in our cities.

[Trinity 09L]

EU pollution limits etc
Irrespective of EU law, current UK protesters will use these limits or increase them:rolleyes:

[AndrewH52]

Changing tack, do we have to worry about EU air pollution limits if we are no longer members of the EU? I think not because their laws will no longer apply. Yet another good reason to leave this corrupt, intellectual talking shop behind.

PM

Absolutely. Bring back the smogs I say, and whilst we're at it let's drop those pesky drinkinga nd bathing water standards too. 😷

[DaveReidUK]

Did anyone witness this launch? Did we learn anything new?

An email to Heathrow's press office elicited no response, but their website confirms that if the launch actually took place in Birmingham this week it wasn't deemed worthy of a press release.

Interestingly, it appears that there were two different version of last week's advance announcement by Heathrow summarising the "Brexit Boost" measures:

The version circulated to local media did include a reference, discussed on here earlier, to a ban on scheduled arrivals before 5:30 am, subject to getting the go-ahead for R3. Some of the local papers, the Maidenhead Advertiser for example, ran with that story.

But the national press were sent a different version of the release which omitted any mention of the proposed night flight changes.

Doubtless once all the ducks have been got in a row we'll find out which carrots have made the final cut.

[WHBM]

BBC Radio 4 said this morning that "PM Theresa May is expected by informed commentators to make an announcement about a go-ahead for R3 at Heathrow in the next few days".


Can this be true ?

[Trinity 09L]

An increase in ATMs before a new runway is built will require airspace changes that improve runway efficiency for both arriving and departing aircraft which will enable a small increase in runway capacity. Very simply, this will be achieved by reducing the gaps between aircraft. New technologies for arrivals are already being developed and progressed that could deliver this efficiency which would enable us to introduce the 5.30am start time at the same time as the additional ATMs. We know how important maintaining periods of respite is for people living near the airport. There are no plans to change the rules around TEAM. More efficient use of the runways means we could enable an increase in ATMs while maintaining runway alternation.

As we said in the newsletter, any increase above our planning cap of 480,000 flights per year would be subject to public consultation and planning permission.

[Walnut]

I have been wondering why the lengthening of the Northern R/W seems to be so out of favour
Surely if it was built entirely on the West side of the M25 all that would be needed then to connect to the main airport would be 2 taxiways over the M25, with all the new terminal infrastructure also on the West side
This would be a much simpler undertaking

[DaveReidUK]

An increase in ATMs before a new runway is built will require airspace changes that improve runway efficiency for both arriving and departing aircraft which will enable a small increase in runway capacity. Very simply, this will be achieved by reducing the gaps between aircraft. New technologies for arrivals are already being developed and progressed that could deliver this efficiency which would enable us to introduce the 5.30am start time at the same time as the additional ATMs. We know how important maintaining periods of respite is for people living near the airport. There are no plans to change the rules around TEAM. More efficient use of the runways means we could enable an increase in ATMs while maintaining runway alternation.

Thanks for that update - interesting.

There are on average about 10 daily landings before 5:30 am, so assuming they are pushed back until after the new start time, that would make a total of just under 80 additional ATMs during the (shorter) operational day. In other words about 4.5 movements per hour more than at present, with the increase split roughly equally between arrivals and departures.

[DaveReidUK]

I have been wondering why the lengthening of the Northern R/W seems to be so out of favour
Surely if it was built entirely on the West side of the M25 all that would be needed then to connect to the main airport would be 2 taxiways over the M25, with all the new terminal infrastructure also on the West side
This would be a much simpler undertaking

Have you looked on a map ?

How much do you think it would cost to move the Queen Mother Reservoir ?

[Heathrow Harry]

plus you'd put the end of the runway jsut by the front door of Windsor Castle, maybe with the approach lights in the middle of Eton College and final approach right over Maidenhead subburbs which just happens to be the Consituency of Mrs......................

[AndrewH52]

BBC Radio 4 said this morning that "PM Theresa May is expected by informed commentators to make an announcement about a go-ahead for R3 at Heathrow in the next few days".


Can this be true ?
Theresa May chairs a special Cabinet Sub-Committee (Economic Affairs (Airports) Sub Committee) which is due to meet on either 11th or 18th October, according to the FT (29th September, front page). Suggestions are that a decision will be made at that meeting and announced fairly soon after.

[kcockayne]

And, my suggestion is that it will be a deeply flawed decision based on political considerations alone (apart from fudge); & probably not worth the paper it is written on. After all this time (it has been discussed, & the decision has been pending, since before I entered the aviation scene - 1971), does anyone think that we will get an objective & decisive conclusion ? I know that I am not going to hold my breath whilst waiting for one !

[PAXboy]

Since May has renewed Trident, taken the close run (and deeply flawed) referendum as gospel, has just said that she is changing the country by doing all the usual Tory things - she could do anything ...:ooh:

[galaxy68]

One of the broad sheets today, said the decision is expected on the 18th.

[Navpi]

Must confess I do not think the PM and her cabinet have a clue about the complex situation re Heathrow.

I can see a situation where she gives the go ahead thinking that's it without any understanding of what she is actually saying yes too.

Details of whose paying for what need sorting and hopefully the government give an unequivocal yes to the huge spend, but what if this is sidestepped it becomes a yes withough any substance.

And what about raising funds in the markets to pay for the runway aside from the m25 work and railway lines.

In effect the shareholders are going to be expected to raise a sum which will be the highest amount of equity ever raised in this country.

Even this is fraught as the amount raised will be more than the value of the airport ! And this against a highly volatile and uncertain Brexit trading picture.

I hope somebody has asked them what they think.

In addition I do wonder if Greening and zac might resign, whilst not a disaster it will leave awkward questions.

Not sure what others think but I think personally we are light years from an easy solution.

[Heathrow Harry]

"if Greening and zac might resign, whilst not a disaster it will leave awkward questions"

worse than that - the Tories might lose thei seats and cut their majority from 12 to 8......... Harold Wilson approved the Humber Bridge at a cost of £ 150 million (in 1966) to save a seat in a by-election .....................

[Skipness One Echo]

Spoiled brat,Greeny Billionaire and catastrophic failure as a mayoral candidate? TBH they can throw their toys from the pram but Mrs May would then likely call an election and Jezza is planning to fight one before 2020. All signs point to a LHR approval, with conditions attached. We shall see...

[Trav a la]

If LHR gets the go ahead you can kiss goodby to the northern powerhouse and HS2.

[Navpi]

Well as if on........

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/07/zac-goldsmith-heathrow-third-runway-vows-quit-mp?CMP=share_btn_tw


Must say the points raised here are identical to the ones I raised previously.

[Fairdealfrank]

In addition I do wonder if Greening and zac might resign, whilst not a disaster it will leave awkward questions.

No loss if they did. Greening will probably cling to her cabinet post (and the kudos, perks and trappings) like grim death, they always do, no one resigns on principle any more. As for Goldsmith, he has the reputation as a damned good constituency MP, but apart from his constituents, he will not be missed.


"if Greening and zac might resign, whilst not a disaster it will leave awkward questions"

worse than that - the Tories might lose thei seats and cut their majority from 12 to 8......... Harold Wilson approved the Humber Bridge at a cost of £ 150 million (in 1966) to save a seat in a by-election .....................

How do you work that out Harry? Do you really expect Putney to fall to the Labour party and Richmond to the Libdems? Am about to die laughing!

Even if this happened, it's easily solved by a general election within the next month, unfortunately, just like Gordon in 2007,Theresa has bottled it.


If LHR gets the go ahead you can kiss goodby to the northern powerhouse and HS2.

because.......................?


Well as if on........

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...P=share_btn_tw (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/07/zac-goldsmith-heathrow-third-runway-vows-quit-mp?CMP=share_btn_tw)

Sounds more like abandoning his constituents.................unless he stands in the by-election as an independent and wins.

[Walnut]

I note someone said how much do you think it would take to move the Queen Mother Reservoir,? not a lot to drain it and you then end up with a large flat area perfect for building a runway and the associated infrastructure in relative peace. Water can easily be piped in from elsewhere
It was also said such a runway would be closer to Windsor and Maidenhead, however R3 is going to be partially on the other side of the M25, so maybe it would be 6000ft or 1 mile nearer so a/c would only be 300ft lower on the approach, plus it could be orientated with say a 10deg offset
If the connecting taxiways were built Singapore style as at Changi then the disruption to the M25 would be minimal and could be built last ie in about 7/8yrs
However R3 needs a tunnel at least 800mts long, with major earthworks and the potential for pollution within the tunnel when grid lock occurs
It is this major earthworks which causes R3 to be much more expensive
So I do believe that Jock Lowes plan an ex BA chief pilot to be sensible, why spend more when you dont have to, LGW plus a Northern runway could be built for the price of R3

[Trinity 09L]

Walnut.
From local knowledge the QM reservoir was the last to be built, for the anticipated increase in London's consumption of water. Where would you wish to build another reservoir in its place with the same capacity, and who would pay?:E

[DaveReidUK]

Water can easily be piped in from elsewhere


You're not related to Marie Antoinette, by any chance ? :O

The Airports Commission, who clearly lack your water supply expertise, concluded in relation to one of the other expansion proposals that also involved relocating reservoirs:

"This impact would require alternative storage capacity meaning a new reservoir would be required in a location unknown at this stage

To understand the implications of building over reservoirs, Heathrow Ltd commissioned Thames Water to undertake a feasibility study on reservoir replacement. Thames Water explained the importance of maintaining the water supply to London residents and not allowing any development that would potentially reduce that supply. An initial conclusion was that to replace the reservoir could take up to 14 years, and that replacement should take place before construction of any new airport infrastructure, in order to maintain supplies to London

Locating on this area would potentially cause flood plain loss requiring compensatory storage"

[Navpi]

Interesting article in The Sunday Times re Heathrow suggesting lawyers are lining up !

I do wonder if the yes decision is going thru the motions and a yes is in name only.

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting article in The Sunday Times re Heathrow suggesting lawyers are lining up !

The ST reported several months ago that Richmond, Hillingdon and Wandsworth councils had written to the Transport Secretary warning that they mount a legal challenge in the event of a go-ahead for Heathrow expansion.

They, along with Windsor & Maidenhead, have appointed the lawyers who successfully challenged the previous Labour government's Heathrow expansion plans in the High Court in 2010.

[Trinity 09L]

Mrs M of Maidenhead is fully aware that the RBWM will challenge a decision in favour of Heathrow.

[Walnut]

No one is going to invest in a plan that could be locked in litigation for years, as for the idea that the M25 could be diverted around the airport or put on a bridge is fanciful, are planes going to fly under this bridge,? I did it once on the Sim under the Lantau bridge at HKG and reckoned I knocked the Fin off!!

[pax britanica]

But it all comes back to the inescapable conclusion that
LHR plus one Runway equals retaining global hub for London
LHR as is plus one runway at LGW means no global hub for London

However as it seems as a country we are hell bent on retreating into obscurity maybe thats what will happen. I think alot of the council objections are pretty flaky because , especially in the case of Mrs May or Maynot constituency she has a lot of LHR workers and users living there

[PAXboy]

I see it reported that Boris has indicated he will NOT resign if R3 gets the go ahead. OF COURSE HE WON'T. :mad: :hmm: :ugh:

[rutankrd]

However as it seems as a country we are hell bent on retreating into obscurity maybe thats what will happen. I think alot of the council objections are pretty flaky because , especially in the case of Mrs May or Maynot constituency she has a lot of LHR workers and users living there

And all those jobs and an airport handling 70,000,000 + remain just 30 minutes drive away whilst Heathrow WILL remain one of the Worlds largest and busiest International airports serving one of the so call five Global cities with or without R3 !

Heathrow doesn't fade into obscurity hell no the O & D traffic markets are more yield beneficial and remain steadfastly routed through the airport as it is now and the airport and airlines continue to rake in rather nice profits.

There actually aren't that many particularly long destinations to be added now or even in the next two decades its a marketing myth imo

Most/much of expected global aviation growth is in Asia regionally inter China, inter India and Indonesia.

Whilst within Europe the flexible fares (so called LCC or ULCC what ever that means) will continue to be the main drivers for growth.

Why else are Easyjet wanting to base 40 aircraft at Heathrow with possible consequences for current Gatwick , Luton and even Bristol operations do you suppose.

I have said before that I couldn't care less if some Texan or Italian miraculously finds in easier to route via somewhere else it not of my concern nor should it be the concern of any elected or appointed commissioner in this thorny debate about runway capacity particularly in the South East and those utterly obscene estimated cost projections.

[MANFOD]

LHR as is plus one runway at LGW means no global hub for LondonThank you rutankrd for very effectively knocking down this absurd propaganda that is pushed out. To claim that LHR stops being a global hub if it doesn't get R3 is quite plainly daft in my view. And I'm sure you're right that R3 would predominantly provide more O&D short haul traffic and the impact on the other London airports shouldn't be underestimated.

[DaveReidUK]

as for the idea that the M25 could be diverted around the airport or put on a bridge is fanciful, are planes going to fly under this bridge?

I think you'll find that the bridge is intended to take the runway over the M25, not vice versa. :ugh:

[Red Four]

Good post rutankrd. :ok:
The effect of opening a 3rd runway at LHR on the other London airports, their serving airlines and workers, has been consistently underplayed/ ignored by the pro LHR lobbyists; greater resilience (by that I mean ability to cope with extreme WX events/ aircraft incidents/ acts of terrorism) of the total LON airport system provided by having a better diversified runway distribution has also been largely ignored-having 2 airports with 2 runways is better than having 1 airport with 3, and one with 1, when events conspire against air travel.

For the majority of the UK population (and even a fair proportion from the areas in and around London), the use of Dublin as a western gateway, and Amsterdam as an eastern gateway for onward travel setting off from an airport that is not LHR, is now pretty well established and often felt to be less hassle than trying to do anything from LHR.

There is still massive capacity available throughout the non-London UK airports; there is even a fair bit left within the LON airport system to accommodate the growth of UK and European shorter-haul flights.

[Trinity 09L]

Mrs M also has more than equal constituents that object to a new runway, as all constituents will be affected by overflying from a new runway, either landing or departing.
Flaky? The borough will need to provide housing, doctors, schools etc to accommodate extra staff, who will all travel in electric cars:ugh:

[Trash 'n' Navs]

For the majority of the UK population (and even a fair proportion from the areas in and around London), the use of Dublin as a western gateway, and Amsterdam as an eastern gateway for onward travel setting off from an airport that is not LHR, is now pretty well established

How did you reach that conclusion?

Last I heard, 75million pax used LHR - most are not using DUB or AMS - so where's your evidence?


often felt to be less hassle than trying to do anything from LHR.

Personal opinion as I have flown through all 3 & avoid AMS & DUB whenever possible. LHR is rated the best in Western Europe.

[Hotel Tango]

Personal opinion as I have flown through all 3 & avoid AMS & DUB whenever possible. LHR is rated the best in Western Europe.

Rated best in Western Europe by who?

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Rated best in Western Europe by who?

Airport Council International.
Best-Airport-by-Size-and-Region/Europe (http://www.aci.aero/Airport-Service-Quality/ASQ-Awards/Current-Winners/Best-Airport-by-Size-and-Region/Europe)

[inOban]

It's one of these bizarre things which says a lot about the British. Those who fly a lot, and who are familiar with various hubs, rate LHR highly. ( I remember T5 winning awards.) Those who rarely fly seem to only remember the bad publicity from several years ago and avoid it on the principle that things are always better elsewhere. Hence KLM have feeder flights from almost every UK airport, and Air Lingus from many.

[Hotel Tango]

I think a lot avoid LHR in favour of AMS simply because it's cheaper to fly via AMS. That includes a high percentage of westbound travellers.

[rutankrd]

It's one of these bizarre things which says a lot about the British. Those who fly a lot, and who are familiar with various hubs, rate LHR highly. ( I remember T5 winning awards.) Those who rarely fly seem to only remember the bad publicity from several years ago and avoid it on the principle that things are always better elsewhere. Hence KLM have feeder flights from almost every UK airport, and Air Lingus from many.

The industry is rather more complex and there are many disruptive forces at play these days.

Reference the ME3 Turkish and the EU golden triangle alliance hubs (For clarity that is defined as FRA/AMS/CDG) all offering global one stop long haul access from the regions at frequencies way above the historical levels of the late twentieth century.

Whilst the flexible fares (so called LCC or ULCC what ever that means) carriers are providing levels of EU and Mediterranean flight opportunities never ever offered by the legacies equally from the regions.
Though these have almost killed off the traditional independent charter companies as the traditional package tour goes the way of the dodo.

Many many more people of differing economic classes fly today from/to the UK multiple times a year and simply have no need to transit Heathrow, after all most of these will be inter Europe both leisure or small business trips where unless you are chasing mileage or for some other commercial reason LBA- LHR- DUS for instance is simple barmy.

As for both KLM and Aer Lingus they have been operating into the UK regions for just about as long as commercial passenger flying has existed !

And both have very substantial O & D traffic levels in addition to the feed.

Indeed the KLM east coast routes from Norwich/Humberside/Tees-side/Newcastle and Aberdeen can be some of the most expensive routes for point to point as much is petrochemical related traffic.

As for Aer Lingus they have offered US transits through Dublin since the fifties yet most of the traffic remains point to point commuters for most of the day.

[rutankrd]

I think a lot avoid LHR in favour of AMS simply because it's cheaper to fly via AMS

Certainly not always especially if your are trying to tax avoid as separate KLM tickets in particular can lead to some ludicrous UK-AMS sector fares.

That said Easyjet Jet2 and even Flybe can be rather helpful in tax avoidance opportunities.

[inOban]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm more of a transport geek than a frequent flyer, with a particular interest in EDI. I had assumed that O&D passengers to AMS or Dublin used the LCCs (EJ or Ry) and only the feeder PAX used KLM or Aer Lingus. Obviously the airports you mention don't have the same LCC opportunities, so if the company is paying....., but if you are, you may choose to trek to an airport which offers the choice.

[Hotel Tango]

rutankrd, that is another story. I'm talking through ticketing with KLM and partners. Depending on destination, it's cheaper to fly KLM via AMS than with BAW and partners through LHR.

[rutankrd]

rutankrd, that is another story. I'm talking through ticketing with KLM and partners. Depending on destination, it's cheaper to fly KLM via AMS than with BAW and partners through LHR.

True indeed many consolidators in particular can offer attractive fares UK-AMS- The World whilst the very same consolidators might be offering Rome- LHR - the world at rates Rome- The world can't compete on but thats exactly how the Hub and Spoke system is supported, along with the bribes offered to premium cabin customers for up front multiple of X2 X5 and up X10 of base fares for benefits such as lounge access "free sandwiches cakes and booze" oh and award/mileage/avios or what ever points redeemable at some future time at rates determined by the said carrier.

Its funny and potentially corrupt industry when analysed in detail.

[01475]

It's one of these bizarre things which says a lot about the British. Those who fly a lot, and who are familiar with various hubs, rate LHR highly. ( I remember T5 winning awards.) Those who rarely fly seem to only remember the bad publicity from several years ago and avoid it on the principle that things are always better elsewhere. Hence KLM have feeder flights from almost every UK airport, and Air Lingus from many.

It's not my most convenient airport to get to, but the only inherent thing I have against LHR is the delays. I don't enjoy sitting in the terminal watching the arriving flight do 20 circles over Middx on flightradar while wondering if I'm still going to make my connection at wherever. In particular, the terminal experience is much better than STN (my nearest airport).

So in short... the only thing I have against LHR is that it doesn't have a third runway...

[Fairdealfrank]

I note someone said how much do you think it would take to move the Queen Mother Reservoir,? not a lot to drain it and you then end up with a large flat area perfect for building a runway and the associated infrastructure in relative peace. Water can easily be piped in from elsewhereProblem with this: As DaveReidUK states in #4684, the Airports Commission looked at this, but even more simple than that is the fact that Heathrow Airport Ltd. doesn't own the reservoir. Would the owners sell it? In the unlikely event, it would cost Heathrow Airport Ltd.a fortune and consequently not be a good return on its investment.

So I do believe that Jock Lowes plan an ex BA chief pilot to be sensible, why spend more when you dont have to, LGW plus a Northern runway could be built for the price of R3 Problem with this: it requires permanent mixed mode to increase capacity and provide any return on investment. Unfortunately this will alienate flightpath residents who will lose all the respite that segregated mode and alternation currently provides.

Sorry to sound so negative but these are the realities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Walnut http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/200585-heathrow-235.html#post9535107)
as for the idea that the M25 could be diverted around the airport or put on a bridge is fanciful, are planes going to fly under this bridge?

I think you'll find that the bridge is intended to take the runway over the M25, not vice versaOr, as they say at Gatwick, "obviously".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotel Tango http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/200585-heathrow-235.html#post9535309)
Rated best in Western Europe by who?

Airport Council International.
Best-Airport-by-Size-and-Region/Europe (http://www.aci.aero/Airport-Service-Quality/ASQ-Awards/Current-Winners/Best-Airport-by-Size-and-Region/Europe)Interesting that 3 of the 5 are in the Russian Federation?





Quote:
It's one of these bizarre things which says a lot about the British. Those who fly a lot, and who are familiar with various hubs, rate LHR highly. ( I remember T5 winning awards.) Those who rarely fly seem to only remember the bad publicity from several years ago and avoid it on the principle that things are always better elsewhere. Hence KLM have feeder flights from almost every UK airport, and Air Lingus from many.
It's not my most convenient airport to get to, but the only inherent thing I have against LHR is the delays. I don't enjoy sitting in the terminal watching the arriving flight do 20 circles over Middx on flightradar while wondering if I'm still going to make my connection at wherever. In particular, the terminal experience is much better than STN (my nearest airport).

So in short... the only thing I have against LHR is that it doesn't have a third runway...



Yeah, me too!!

[Navpi]

What tosh from Gatwick this morning that they will build a 2nd runway if LHR gets green light . If Heathrow does ever get built the only thing landing at Gatwick will be tumbleweed.

BA move over
IAG routes move over
EasyJet 40+

Leaves a scattering of charters overnight!

Simon Calder who also commented on this has a answer for everything and a solution to nothing.

Zero mention of how LHR navigates taxpayer costs which are gathering real traction. Not sure how even May will handle that one.


.....And we still await W Walsh and his trap door!

[brianj]

Interesting theories but any new runway at Heathrow (or little old Gatwick) is going to take years to bring into use so:-
1. Will Easyjet (or RYR even) still be around by then?
2. Even BAW may not be as we know it , maybe IAG will be a feeder for QATAR AW by then
3. Brexit effect
4. Trump may have killed us by then!

Suggest we wait and speculate more accurately in 5 years time when the cement is ordered and the "anti-brigade" have been placated.

The world and aviation change too quickly for accurate predictions.

[mwm991]

Rumours of LHR-MSY to be announced?

[Skipness One Echo]

Fleet planning runs up to 7 years ahead, BA will have (in my view) a plan to move the totality of Gatwick long haul and much of short haul to shore up market share at LHR.

They were killed at LGW by downsizing and allowing easyJet a foothold. Given LHR is the only game in town for real money, they dare not allow that market share to fall too far. If Runway 3 is built, easyJet (UK) will come calling, indeed plans are affoot already at T4.

[Navpi]

London MPs quiz airport chiefs amid split over Heathrow third runway | London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-mps-quiz-airport-chiefs-amid-split-over-heathrow-runway-a3366056.html)

Whilst supportive of Heathrow it seems bizarre that ALL London labour MPs support rw3. They should be voting on its merit and not base their voting intentions on an anti Corbyn stance which seems to be the intention, that is simply ridiculous logic.

Meanwhile it seems the SNP will now support LHR as well again based on dubious rationale, although there stance is more to do with the Barnett Formula.

For every £10bn spent in London those plucky Scots negotiated a juicy 10% spend up North, thats Holyrod not Manchester Leeds Liverpool or Sheffield.

" everyones a winner babe and thats ok"

If they simply vote for the project with the highest spend ie the mega spend on Heathrow they come up trumps

Right result for RW3 of course but how we get there is going to open up some massive divisons and questions is it not?

I can't help thinking that basing decisons on political rather than a solid understanding of the facts might be flawed further up the taxiway!

[anothertyke]

Well, Navpi, the way I see it is a bit different.

For facts, or rather for a relatively comprehensive analysis, the Airports Commission did the job, not perfectly, but to a reasonable level given the amount of uncertainty and change which is out there in the world. Also, Davies and his Commissioners reached a judgement on a set of recommendations. Now eighteen months later (much to the disgust of several on this forum) and with a lot more behind the scenes activity the subject has been moved along to political decision time.

What is the nature of the decision? It is that the Government will support a set of actions
A B and C intended to lead to outcome X. This is bound to be subject to a debate and motion in the House, probably it will be crawled over by the Treasury or Transport Select Committee and there will be many JRs just like HS2. That's the system.

By the way, if it is Heathrow NW and £18bn is to be financed ultimately from air travellers via airport charges, that component of the funding has nothing whatever to do with the Barnett Formula. Surely what the Scots have primarily in their minds is that from their point of view strengthening the hub does something for them while expanding P to P capacity in the London system does nothing for them. Of course that is only one of many dimensions in this decision.

[DaveReidUK]

Whilst supportive of Heathrow it seems bizarre that ALL London labour MPs support rw3.

According to the article, 8 Labour MPs wrote to the PM expressing support for R3.

It doesn't make any claim that they are also speaking on behalf of the other 37 Labour MP elected in London constituencies, so how do you know that?

[Navpi]

Apols

Original Evening Standard headline suggested "all of Londons 8 Labour MPs".....

Must confess it did seem a tad light. I should have checked.......

That said I suspect Anti Corbyn. Whilst the man is a buffoon that is not criteria on which to base a national infastructure decison.

[compton3bravo]

I think that is rather unfair on buffoons!

[Navpi]

Heathrow faces £16bn "gaping hole" to upgrade road and rail links to the airport if third runway gets approval | City A.M. (http://www.cityam.com/239572/heathrow-faces-16bn-gaping-hole-to-upgrade-road-and-rail-links-to-the-airport-if-third-runway-gets-approval)


Ouch... didn't realise it was this much !!!

Even the lower figure is going to need some nifty footwork by ministers given austerity is the order of the day. Double whammy with NHS on its knees!

Presume the truth is slap bank in the middle. Thus it comes back to an earlier post

MAY "yes no problem there we go its a yes but we ain't paying a penny "

[Skipness One Echo]

Can you link to an article where Theresa May suggests this enormous investment will be private only? It touches on way more public-infrastructure so HMG will be cloesly involved up to a point.

[Navpi]

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/heathrow-gatwick-and-birmingham-set-to-get-go-ahead/10012673.article#.V_4DZ5rCg3N.twitter

Skipness

The article here refers. 11th Oct.

Maybe the Government has changed its mind and the spokesperson is second guessing. Maybe they will give a guarantee in terms of a bail out but I suspect there will he a ceiling.

Would that satisfy Heathrow ?

Not sure where Birmingham falls in the equation with zero interest from long haul airlines.

[DaveReidUK]

Bad link.

I assume it's this article here: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/heathrow-gatwick-and-birmingham-set-to-get-go-ahead/10012673.article

which in turn recounts the comments of Andrew Haines, CAA Chief Executive, made at NCE's Airport Conference back in May:

The real warning shot came from regulator Civil Aviation Authority chief executive Andrew Haines. Government making a decision between Heathrow and Gatwick is just “the beginning of the beginning”, he warned. The big challenge, he said, will be to regulate an investment of this size: whether it is Gatwick and its £8bn plans or Heathrow and its £22bn plans.

“There is no track record of regulation being applied to something of this size,” he said.

It is genuinely unprecedented for there to be a major multi-billion infrastructure investment of this scale with absolutely no government guarantee or assistance. The nearest to it is Hinkley Point C. That even comes with government guarantee and look where that’s at. The nearest transport project to it was the Tube PPP. And look how that ended up. His point had resonance.

[anothertyke]

Mr Haines's point does indeed have resonance. Surely one of the acid tests is--- can the scheme inside the airport fence be financed commercially and what ultimate funding mechanism (RAB plus etc) will be used to create the revenue stream? If the project can't pass that test, it's a very different situation from if it can. If the Govt gives a conditional green light to both schemes, I think that increases the chances of ending up with neither. More credible would be to say that market development in the Government's view requires one additional runway by 2030 and a second by 2040 and the first priority is X.

[Navpi]

Well everyone is agreed it's an emphatic yes
to Heathrow.....everybody is unanimous 👍

HAL "We ain't footing the biill"
Cabinet "We ain't footing the bill '
WWalsh "We ain't footing the bill"

[Fairdealfrank]

What tosh from Gatwick this morning that they will build a 2nd runway if LHR gets green light . If Heathrow does ever get built the only thing landing at Gatwick will be tumbleweed.

BA move over
IAG routes move over
EasyJet 40+

Leaves a scattering of charters overnight! VS will move accross, just like BA, there's no point having a split longhaul operation if there's capacity at LHR.

Carriers in the LGW "waiting room" will also move accross to LHR.

Unlike U2, it is unlikely that FR will start operations at LHR-4, but may move more to LGW from STN(?).


Rumours of LHR-MSY to be announced? Which carrier(s)?


Whilst supportive of Heathrow it seems bizarre that ALL London labour MPs support rw3.Why is it bizarre?


Meanwhile it seems the SNP will now support LHR as well again based on dubious rationale, although there stance is more to do with the Barnett Formula. The SNP always have supported LHR expansion, even when there was only a handful of them.

Scotland needs the connectivity just like the rest of the UK.


Well everyone is agreed it's an emphatic yes
to Heathrow.....everybody is unanimous

HAL "We ain't footing the biill"
Cabinet "We ain't footing the bill '
WWalsh "We ain't footing the bill" Of course they're not, it will end up in a fudge of some sort, if the decision is ever made of course.

[01475]

It's not at all bizarre for Labour MPs, or anyone else, to support RW3.

We need to remember that the people it negatively impacts are a relatively small number of people who live in West London, plus Schipol airport & etc. The people it benefits are pretty much the whole of the rest of the country and, in many respects, also the people who live in West London.

Having witnessed decades of economy harming paralysis one might be easily mislead into thinking that there was a deeper reason for it. There isn't. It's little more than Not Above My Back Yard-ism, with only a tiny touch of additional Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything-ism.

As for the potential users... well... it'd be full the day it opened, wouldn't it?

[Trinity 09L]

Large editorial (advert) in a major newspaper this morning pro R3. Also TM has been given the go-ahead by govt officials - so that's alright - no free vote.:*

BBC is now posting the last. Chancellor s request for R3. With R3 more North than planned elsewhere.

[PAXboy]

Why would MPs be allowed to exercise their own opinions? Their only purpose is be lobby fodder for the fabulous elite Cabinet - not the people who elected them or their own opinions. :ugh:

[DaveReidUK]

Why would MPs be allowed to exercise their own opinions? Their only purpose is be lobby fodder for the fabulous elite Cabinet - not the people who elected them or their own opinions.

But it's some of those fabulous elite Cabinet members that the free vote is intended as a sop to ...

[KelvinD]

Well, how about this then?
Heathrow expansion to go ahead.
Gatwick expansion to go ahead.
And, as a bonus, Birmingham expansion to go ahead!
Yep! All 3, according to an according to an article in New Civil Engineer.
The article says an announcement is expected 18th October, giving Heathrow immediate approval and Gatwick within 2 years.
To be fair, the article doesn't say approval for Birmingham is to be announced but the forthcoming announcement is expected to urge Birmingham to press ahead with their plans.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/heathrow-gatwick-and-birmingham-set-to-get-go-ahead/10012673.article?utm_campaign=AvGeek%2BWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_source=AvGeek_Weekly_106

[Navpi]

Gatwick would be a nonsense, as stated ad nauseum it will lose 50% of traffic as soon as rw3 appears.

As for Birmingham. Words fail me.

[AndrewH52]

Gatwick would be a nonsense, as stated ad nauseum it will lose 50% of traffic as soon as rw3 appears.

As for Birmingham. Words fail me.

Why not? Birmingham Interchange will be around 50 minutes from Old Oak Common, a similar journey time from central London to Heathrow on the tube...

[Navpi]

"Why not Birmigham ...."

LGW - Airlines move to LHR quicker than the speed of a bullet when slots appear.

There are zero long haul flights of substance at Stansted BUT apparently we are seriously expecting BHX to come through on the rails past both options and mount a challenge?

Deluded is not the word.

Meanwhile it does seem MAG are stirring , on the face of it they may be protecting STN although it does say "airports" so maybe they are more worried about Manchester which I hate to admit is seeing meteoric rises. See comments below

[Navpi]

//www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/14/anti-heathrow-mps-plan-undermine-government-third-runway-approval

[Haven't a clue]

Just wondering what the difference in ticket price between say the West End to LHR on the tube and the same West End to BHX on HS2 and tube or taxi. My guess would be a multiple of at least 4 for the latter, and given the vagaries of air travel timings you'd better have a more flexible ticket for the return at the usual much higher price. First Class on the very expensive Heathrow Express would probably be much cheaper!

[Navpi]

PM could 'clash with senior Tories' over Heathrow Airport - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-15/pm-could-clash-with-senior-tories-over-heathrow-airport/)

Apalled at suggestion that Heathrow could be mired in courts for a minimum of 5 years but betting is more and more likely to be 10.

I cannot see how funds can be raised in the interim if the whole project is mired in sinking sand.

[nigel osborne]

Fairdealfrank.

I think we also have to throw into the mix that its been reported frequently that the Govt may allow LHR and LGW to get new runways.However they will not be stumping up any cash.

LHR may be ok to raise their own Gatwick perhaps slightly harder.

However very likely the airports would then have to recoup their money by raising landing charges.

So not sure Ryan Air or Easy Jet would be that keen to have to pay higher landing fees and move from their cheaper current bases.

[Navpi]

I think you may be right here Frank. Rumours suggest no money.

"MAYDAY, MAYDAY"

Is it possible we are all being had here, with the Government playing a very shrewd canny game ?

Say Yes to everything but commit absolutely zero money and on that basis the project is finally in the fast lane, sadly the furthest it gets is V1 down a cul de sac.

They gain the headlines they desperately need from the BBC who will swallow the line.

"It's a YES to Heathrow and Gatwick"

Only the more experienced journalists will raise an eyebrow once the detail unravels and that will be long after the headlines have been written.

Job done !

May sneaks away with the kudos of not sitting on the fence and appearing at last to be decisive on this issue and even swerve Gatwick so that doesn't rear it's head down the line as the approval is given now.

Everything is approved but nothing is ever built.

They get years of attrition finally off their back BUT and its a big BUT they walk away and leave outside factors and lawyers to unravel and pick up the mess long after it becomes a non story.

The shareholders of Heathrow and Gatwick will need 5+ years in a sanitarium to agree to give penny to either project!

[Skipness One Echo]

They get years of attrition finally off their back BUT and its a big BUT they walk away and leave outside factors and lawyers to unravel and pick up the mess long after it becomes a non story.
Utter tosh, how does a running story that refuses to go away become a "non story" when more time passes and things get worse. Back to Planet Earth please.

Security has been stepped up markedly around the perimeter in the last few days, almost as if they're expecting trouble coming their way......

[Trinity 09L]

At last security is mentioned. Now who is going to pay? The MPS can only respond, the cost of Policing is already funded by HAL, in part, but they cannot provide 24 hour cover for the whole perimeter. Already two instances in the past, plus LCY. The other projects required which can be disrupted are not part of the Heathrow estate so HM govt pays.

[Navpi]

Utter tosh indeed !

Well you are entitled to your opinion as indeed am I. It just happens to me by view.

Maybe you live and breath aviation and Heathrow but for May this is one problem amongst many. Heathrow is 3rd divison compared to a colossal mountain of issues re Brexit.

There may be some huffing and puffing but economically the world will keep turning and as I said if she can get away with a YES when infact monetarily it's a NO i just happen to think she will.

The papers are interested because it's a story that has been there for years but once it's a yes it will simply rumble on as and when there is a hiccup.

Yes It will make the headlines on Tuesday but: it wither away again as it always does.

I cannot see it bringing the government down !

[Navpi]

Investors beware, I will never let a third runway be built at Heathrow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/15/zac-goldsmith-investors-beware-i-will-never-let-a-third-runway-b/)

[Navpi]

Tory revolt over Heathrow third runway as 60 MPs oppose plans and warn of ?catastrophe? for party (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/15/tory-revolt-over-heathrow-third-runway-as-60-mps-oppose-plans-an/)

[anothertyke]

Just two interesting things in that article.

Possibility of a one week delay from this week to next.

Likelihood of three consultation exercises prior to the revised National Policy Statement --timetable awaited but my guess is that could be a year away.

[Navpi]

Yes lots of chit chat that it may now be end of the month?

I hope we ate not being marched up the hill....... and then down again !

Hope May isn't getting windy .........

[Trash 'n' Navs]

60 NIMBY MPs does not a policy make.

With 600+ MPs the story is all about headlines and not about contributing to the debate.

The Sunday Telegraph reported today that up to 60 Tory MPs could defy the Government’s recommendation – if a third runway at the west London airport is approved.

But Kwasi Kwarteng, who criticised the “paralysis” shown by successive governments on new airport capacity, said the actual number of rebels was likely to be far lower.

“I think 60 is way off the mark. I think it’s way too many,” the PPS to the leader of the House of Lords told the BBC’s Sunday Politics show.


Let's just get on with those 3 committees so we can get some decent debate and clear up any mistruths. Personally, I found the AC report very persuasive and thought it set out the case for expanding Heathrow.

[Fairdealfrank]

It's not at all bizarre for Labour MPs, or anyone else, to support RW3.

We need to remember that the people it negatively impacts are a relatively small number of people who live in West London, plus Schipol airport & etc. The people it benefits are pretty much the whole of the rest of the country and, in many respects, also the people who live in West London.

Having witnessed decades of economy harming paralysis one might be easily mislead into thinking that there was a deeper reason for it. There isn't. It's little more than Not Above My Back Yard-ism, with only a tiny touch of additional Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything-ism.What people forget about those who live around Heathrow and other areas to the west of London is that there is a great deal of resentment that it is necssary to travel to Gatwick, and/or other airports, to access destinations that are not available from Heathrow simply because of capacity constraints. It would not matter if there was no local airport, but Heathrow is either easily accessible or very close by.

It's only a well-off vocal minority that oppose Heathrow expansion. The problem is that they are very vocal and very rich. The silent majority may well think differently.

It is also neccesary to be aware of the fact that the area under the flightpath has some of the highest house prices in the UK. This would not be the case if the area was blighted by the presence of Heathrow.


Why not? Birmingham Interchange will be around 50 minutes from Old Oak Common, a similar journey time from central London to Heathrow on the tube...Forget it, the premium passengers who pay a fortune to fly (first and business class) will not go to Birmingham if they are in the south. These pax want Heathrow, and consequently, so do the airlines. This is also the reason why Gatwick is the "waiting room" for Heathrow, and why carriers will pay several millions for a Heathrow slot pair.

Forget about 50 minutes, the time taken faffing about between Birmingham Interchange and Elmdon (the HS2 station won't be on the airport) and the time faffing around accessing Old Oak will add considerable time to the journey, including copious amounts of walking with luggage involved at both interchanges. Also don't forget the likely fare supplements. Convenient it will not be.

All this, of course, assumes that HS2 is built, and that is by no means a given.

Sorry to sound negative, but this is the reality.


PM could 'clash with senior Tories' over Heathrow Airport - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-15/pm-could-clash-with-senior-tories-over-heathrow-airport/)
Not a problem, when the vote is due send Greening to Finland to learn how to run an effective comprehensive school system and/or to Germany to learn how to run an effective selective school system. Also Boris could be sent anywhere in the world at the same time.

As for Goldsmith, who cares? He can throw his tantrum and resign, the seat is not going to fall to the Libdems!


Fairdealfrank.

I think we also have to throw into the mix that its been reported frequently that the Govt may allow LHR and LGW to get new runways.However they will not be stumping up any cash.

LHR may be ok to raise their own Gatwick perhaps slightly harder.

However very likely the airports would then have to recoup their money by raising landing charges.

So not sure Ryan Air or Easy Jet would be that keen to have to pay higher landing fees and move from their cheaper current bases. Agreed, don't think FR would go to LHR under any circumstances. U2 might, it has already stated that they intend to start operations from LHR-4 if LHR has a third rwy. Maybe it assumed that LGW would not have a second as well.



The papers are interested because it's a story that has been there for years but once it's a yes it will simply rumble on as and when there is a hiccup.

Yes It will make the headlines on Tuesday but: it wither away again as it always does.The only headline will be about "long grass" and "cans being kicked" AGAIN. Yawn.



I cannot see it bringing the government down ! Probably not, but perhaps the government would not mind being brought down: it gives Theresa an excellent opportunity to increase her majority, and to go to the country before the **** hits the fan, without being accused of opportunism or doing a "cut and run".


Investors beware, I will never let a third runway be built at HeathrowOh really?

[01475]

Three more committees? Oh good lord :-(

There is no amount of investigation or enquiry that can make go away the fact that an airport is a) necessary in the greater public interest but b) undesirable to surrounding residents.

Why as a country can we not get over it and get on with it?

No committee is ever going to be able to come up with a magical solution that everyone else missed for the last decades, whereby an invisible runway taking no land can accommodate silent aircraft bringing trade and investment without any passengers that require onward journeys.

[DaveReidUK]

"Sources in Whitehall told the BBC that expansion at Heathrow is the clear front runner.

However, the prime minister has made it clear she wants to hear the wide-ranging opinions of colleagues.

The BBC has been told the Cabinet will discuss the issue tomorrow but no final decision is expected.

It will then be left to the Economic Affairs (Transport) sub-committee, chaired by Mrs May, to make the final choice on whether to back Heathrow or Gatwick.

One option being looked at is for that committee to meet next Tuesday, 25 October, with an announcement on the same day.

Government officials believe that a third runway at Heathrow or an expansion of the existing runways are now the leading options, although it has been made very clear to me that no final decision has been taken."

Heathrow decision to await Cabinet view - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37678115)

[Navpi]

Is this delay going to bounce the decision back to "another" dept ?

This is a worry the decision was nailed on for Tuesday 18th so what on earth has changed ?

Is TM recalculating;

Is the mega money not there ?

Are cabinet ministers threatening to walk ?

Has Willie Walsh put the boot in ?

Are there more backbenchers than 1st imagined prepared to kick up a fuss?

Absolutely no reason to delay this any further, so why the delay!