HEATHROW

[EastMids]

So lets get this straight...

The decision was passed to a committee of supposed exerts to come up with a recommendation, which it duly did more than a year ago. And it wasn't as if the conclusion was marginal, it was fairly unequivocal. It came back to government and the go ahead was delayed while ministers and/or civil servants - none of whom are presumably as expert as the committee of experts - supposedly ensured the recommendation had covered all the bases and was legally robust. And now with that work also seemingly done, opinion is being canvassed from other members of the cabinet, most of whom are presumably less expert than either the committee of experts or the ministers and civil servants dedicated to transport. And based on what they think, a decision may be made.

Definitely Jim Hacker-esque... If cabinet or MP opinion could sway the decision, why bother with all the expert committee investigations and reporting in the first place? Probably because we are now going through a period of delay and procrastination over a decision that is logical but which no one wants to stick their neck out and actually take?

[Navpi]

https://www.businesstraveller.com/airlines/2016/10/17/british-airways-cease-chengdu-route/

Oh bloody hell...British Airways are pulling Chengdu.

Absolutely impeccable timing.

This was one of those "emerging markets routes" on which the basis of Heathrow connectivity re rw3 was being sold.

Is it possible that "Hacker" got wind of this and called an "overshoot" , because clearly this would be "meat and drink" for the Heathrow opposition had an announcement come tomorrow!

Its only 3 days since the Chinese bilateral was expanded !

[bayer328]

Re Heathrow. I am concerned over the proposal to throw billions at Heathrow.
It's a uncoordinated place now. The idea of another runway being the answer to this countries problems never fails to amaze me. The economic benefits are all aimed at the SE, not any other part of the UK. If Heathrow, and Gatwick, get the nod from Whitehall then let those two airports provide the financial backing to cover the infrastructure costs. Manchester is raising it's own finance to cover future developments.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

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

Of course there's a reason.... politics!

Certain bye-election this week isn't there?

[Navpi]

Those billions amount to a mere £18,000,000,000m, chicken feed in terms of London infastructure spend.

There will be a significant major trickle down to the regions on completion of rw3 hence the support.

[Prophead]

Re Heathrow. I am concerned over the proposal to throw billions at Heathrow.
It's a uncoordinated place now.

It is in the middle of a complete rearrangement. The new terminals are world class and the airport will become a huge asset to the nation.

The economic benefits are all aimed at the SE, not any other part of the UK.

More direct flights from regional airports such as LBA, Teeside, Humberside, etc. all connecting onto a wide range of long haul flights. How does that only benefit the SE? I do not get your reasoning. The SE already has LHR, this is about opening it up to others.

Manchester is raising it's own finance to cover future developments.

Ah ok, another Manchester based Heathrow hater.

[johnnychips]

Those billions amount to a mere £18,000,000,000m, chicken feed in terms of London infastructure spend.

£18,000,000,000m is £18,000,000,000,000,000.

Any reasons given why BA is pulling Chengdu? It didn't seem to be a 'major' city in China (though I know it probably has a huge population), so I wonder why it was chosen in the first place.

[DaveReidUK]

Any reasons given why BA is pulling Chengdu? It didn't seem to be a 'major' city in China (though I know it probably has a huge population),

"We regret that we have decided to suspend the Heathrow to Chengdu route. We have a proud tradition of flying to China but despite operating this route for three years it is not commercially viable."

https://www.businesstraveller.com/airlines/2016/10/17/british-airways-cease-chengdu-route/

so I wonder why it was chosen in the first place.One assumes that they started it anticipating that it would become profitable.

[Logohu]

Those billions amount to a mere £18,000,000,000m, chicken feed in terms of London infastructure spend.

Great news !! Should be easy for London to pay for it then

significant major trickle down

Is that like a slow leak ? Or more of a drip ?

[Heathrow Harry]

stuffed again - she's kicked it back to end 2017.................. see other thread.............

[Trav a la]

Great news !! Should be easy for London to pay for it then



Is that like a slow leak ? Or more of a drip ?

With inflation on the rise, plus another year or two of delays, £18 Billion might end up looking like a bargain.

Who knows where the final figure could end up.

[Navpi]

Heathrow runway 3 R.I.P.

[trafficnotsighted]

We will look back in 20 years time and shake our heads on how we let the politicians shirk from their duty:ugh:. These delays have now gone on so long that we actually will need new runways at Heathrow and Gatwick. Although any forward thinking government would just build a new 4 runway airport in the South east.

[anothertyke]

And what would be your favoured location-- Cublington, Thurleigh, Nuthampstead or Foulness? Or would we need a study?

[canberra97]

You missed THE ISLE OF GRAIN where Lord Fosters proposed airport would have been situated!

Other than the transport and motorway infrastructure needed for this major project personally I think it is the best location if there was ever to be a brand new airport for London although obviously it won't see the light of day.

A lot of people get confused with the BorisAirport and the Isle of Grain project as there both the same not the artificial island as some including the media imply which would have been situated north of Margate and was discounted along time ago.

I'm now in mixed minds as to where the new runway should be situated but ideally both LGW and LHR should both be given permission to build a new runway each but I just can't get my head around all the mess that will created around the M25 and M4 if R3 is the only option, haven't we had enough of all this motorway chaos regarding Smart Motorways to end up with even more around LHR as I am a very frequent user of LHR and the M25.

LGW for me if I was asked and given just a second to think about it!

[Trinity 09L]

Canberra97

"I just can't get my head around all the mess that will created around the M25 and M4 if R3 is the only option, haven't we had enough of all this motorway chaos regarding Smart Motorways to end up with even more around LHR as I am a very frequent user of LHR and the M25."

Please do not forget the alternative routes for the M4 = A4, of course that is being diverted, and the M25 alternative is the A3044 Staines to Uxbridge is also being diverted.:eek:

[canberra97]

Trinity 09L

Yes I am aware of the other diversions I was just highlighting the M4 and M25.

[trafficnotsighted]

No study required the future prosperity of the UK is more important. Where - not Boris island as too far east and it would create major problems for the airspace design. It needs to be west or North west of London with high speed rail link and once built close Heathrow but keep Gatwick and use the Heathrow site for new houses and businesses

[yotty]

It's going to be difficult enough to add on an extra runway at LHR just think how much extra turmoil it will take to produce a whole new airport of that size to the "west or North west of London" :eek:

[PAXboy]

Of course, if the 3rd had been built at the right time, then the M25 would have happened AFTER it. Just like if they'd built T4 at Perry Oaks - then the access roads to the M25 would not have had to be so tortuous and confusing. Of course, that would have been if politicians had done the right thing 30 years ago. Or even 20 years ago.

Of course what this means is - as predicted - the 3rd will never be built.

[trafficnotsighted]

Yotty , yes turmoil but not as bad as a 3rd runway for Heathrow if built on a greenfield site. That's the price of progress (well not even progress it's now catch up) in order for the UK to be competitive in the global economy.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote:
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.This was my comment in post #4745 16-10-16.

Told you!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Navpi http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/200585-heathrow-238.html#post9543739)
Absolutely no reason to delay this any further, so why the delay!

Of course there's a reason.... politics!

Certain bye-election this week isn't there? It's not an election issue. In the two seats around Heathrow that changed hands in the last election both the losers and the winners were anti-Heathrow expansion.

In Brentford and Isleworth Labour had a narrow victory over the Conservatives; in Twickenham the Conservatives defeated Libdem Vince Cable.

Vince's "mansion tax" policy may have been a cause of his defeat. A cursory check on house prices would have informed him of the large number of houses selling for over £1,000,000. So much for the region being "blighted" by Heathrow!

[Prophead]

No study required the future prosperity of the UK is more important. Where - not Boris island as too far east and it would create major problems for the airspace design. It needs to be west or North west of London with high speed rail link and once built close Heathrow but keep Gatwick and use the Heathrow site for new houses and businesses

It's not just the airport that will need to relocate. Have a drive round the Heathrow area and you will see numerous businesses from hotels to logistics that all rely on the proximity of the airport. We are talking about tens of thousands of jobs here.

If you did close LHR you would wouldn't need to build houses or offices as the local workforce would have been decimated and there would be lots of commercial property available. You would however need to build them around the new airport location for all those who need to relocate.

The area for the third runway is actually mostly wasteground apart from the small area of housing of which BAA own quite a lot.

[Navpi]

Eagle Radio - News - Heathrow boss: PM 'showing leadership' on airport expansion (http://www.964eagle.co.uk/news/business-news/2128383/heathrow-boss-pm-showing-leadership-on-airport-expansion/)

Showing leadership. ......oh my giddy Aunt.

She has turned onto a heading re severe turbulence!

Never mind extolling the positives this will simply allow the naysayers to reinforce opposition re ;

Monumental costs
Political fall out
Scottish MPs dictating England infastructure policy for their own ends.

...IMO the delay is exactly what T MAY wants.

Don't forget she inherited this and never wanted expansion.

With everything else on her plate Heathrow is 99 of 100 problems and this pushes it back AGAIN !

[goldeneye]

British Airways to launch Dreamliner service to New Orleans, 4 x weekly from 27th March.

BA225 LHR1540 – 1940MSY 788 x247
BA224 MSY2120 – 1200+1LHR 788 x247

Source (http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/10/20/british-airways-launch-dreamliner-service-new-orleans/92454148/)

[bcn_boy]

[QUOTE=goldeneye;9547126]British Airways to launch Dreamliner service to New Orleans, 4 x weekly from 27th March.

A new route at LHR without the need of the third runway. Wow, thought that was not possible according to the spin that HAL put out to the media. It may be replacing Chengdu but just goes to show that beyond Beijing and shanghai, routes to China are difficult to make profitable.

[Trinity 09L]

Recently HAL have offered 25,000 ATM per annum subject to planning permission as a Brexit boost, so their is capacity. It will require TBS,TEAM etc.:bored:

[118.70]

Recently HAL have offered 25,000 ATM per annum subject to planning permission as a Brexit boost, so their is capacity. It will require TBS,TEAM etc.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/wbored.gifThe Planning permission probably comes at the end of the Development Consent Order process, so won't be until 2021 on an optimistic forecast !

[Navpi]

I sometimes wonder if the airport CEO is a liability!

Absolutely woeful performance this morning re Heathrow finances.

£225m for shareholders , fair enough, I guess keeps them on board but with public finances being squeezed this won't go down well with certain MPs who can actually add up.

Especially when it's now been dislosed thst tax take is only 4%. £2 billion profit but only £54m to treasury.

Offering a fraction of the cost for infastructure whilst keeping shareholders sweet won't go down well with Labour MPs that have just been won over.

The dithering when pressed was an embarrassment.

It needs strong management to take Heathrow over the top.

[Navpi]

And could we use slots for new and emerging business routes please BA ?

Lots of chat from New Orleans tourist agencies about 000s holiday makers from UK flocking to new route.

BA decision prompted by CONDOR!

ER.....Could this have gone to Gatwick ?

Not exactly a business route is it.

[toledoashley]

I think you would be surprised Navpi - lots of conferences happen in New Orleans.

[bcn_boy]

It's the same with Las Vegas route, that is mostly leisure, these kind of flights should be at Gatwick leaving Lhr as business only.

[Cazza_fly]

It's the same with Las Vegas route, that is mostly leisure, these kind of flights should be at Gatwick leaving Lhr as business only.

Not all. You might only see them as "leisure" but BA being the ones operating the routes see it differently. Put it this way, just look at the amount of additional in-house connections alone at LHR that make these routes work and enable them to be at such frequency.

While the load factors for CTU may have been slowly picking up, BA obviously didnt see fit to wait and see the potential future revenue come in from this route and see better, perhaps faster streams elsewhere.

Gatwick for BA is not so much leisure orientated as you call it but more point to point. I.e larger amounts of customers originating from that destination / the UK. Of course there are connecting customers at LGW too. Just not on the scale they are able to achieve ex LHR.

[vctenderness]

Quote: It's the same with Las Vegas route, that is mostly leisure, these kind of flights should be at Gatwick leaving Lhr as business only.

Not if you want to use a 787. BA don't have a 787 base at Gatwick. As for Las Vegas it is not a traditional business route but has possibilities of high premium traffic due to the gambling high roller type of customer.

[Wycombe]

As for Las Vegas it is not a traditional business route

Plenty of big business conventions happen in Vegas, at various times during the year.

[Skipness One Echo]

It's the same with Las Vegas route, that is mostly leisure, these kind of flights should be at Gatwick leaving Lhr as business only.
Fundamental misunderstanding. Do you recall the short lived LGW-LAS operation that was dropped? The limited options direct from EU-LAS mean LHR-LAS does very well on connecting traffic which is an essential part of the hub and spoke business model. LGW long haul with BA and VS is point to point, very little ex-EU to former UK Caribbean possessions, a Hell of a lot of ex-EU to Vegas, hence lack of feed a Gatters means this is a LHR route.

[canberra97]

BCN BOY

I don't think that British Airways refer to their 787 fleet as DREAMLINERS it's the same with most operators of the type although your find that the likes of Thomson do but more of a advertising gimmick than anything else, not even Boeing refer to them as DREAMLINERS anymore it was just an origional name given to the aircraft in it's initial design process.

It's either a Boeing 787-8, Boeing 787-9 or Boeing 787-10 in most airlines fleets, I personally dislike the term DREAMLINER.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote:
No study required the future prosperity of the UK is more important. Where - not Boris island as too far east and it would create major problems for the airspace design. It needs to be west or North west of London with high speed rail link and once built close Heathrow but keep Gatwick and use the Heathrow site for new houses and businesses
It's not just the airport that will need to relocate. Have a drive round the Heathrow area and you will see numerous businesses from hotels to logistics that all rely on the proximity of the airport. We are talking about tens of thousands of jobs here.

If you did close LHR you would wouldn't need to build houses or offices as the local workforce would have been decimated and there would be lots of commercial property available. You would however need to build them around the new airport location for all those who need to relocate.

The area for the third runway is actually mostly wasteground apart from the small area of housing of which BAA own quite a lot. Same argument as for Fantasy, oops sorry, Boris Island: apart from all the above, if it takes 50 years to NOT get a third rwy at Heathrow, how many centuries would it take a whole new 4-rwy airport.

Also, in the intervening centuries, it will still be necesary to expand Heathrow.

Also, which carriers would leave Heathrow for this proposed UK version of Montreal-Mirabel?

Time to wake up to the fact that replacement airport is not an option. That ship sailed in 1946.


Eagle Radio - News - Heathrow boss: PM 'showing leadership' on airport expansion (http://www.964eagle.co.uk/news/business-news/2128383/heathrow-boss-pm-showing-leadership-on-airport-expansion/)

Showing leadership. ......oh my giddy Aunt.

She has turned onto a heading re severe turbulence!

Never mind extolling the positives this will simply allow the naysayers to reinforce opposition re ;

Monumental costs
Political fall out
Scottish MPs dictating England infastructure policy for their own ends.

...IMO the delay is exactly what T MAY wants.

Don't forget she inherited this and never wanted expansion.

With everything else on her plate Heathrow is 99 of 100 problems and this pushes it back AGAIN ! Shows how important perceptions are.

One could counter-argue that the grass has grown very long and the noise of the cans being kicked down the road has become so deafening that one cannot hear the planes taking off at Colnbrook: Heathrow (again), brexit/article 50, general election.......

Tendency to indecision inherited from Call-Me-Dave, bottling it tendency from dear old Gordon (remember him?).


And could we use slots for new and emerging business routes please BA ?
Not the job of BA since it was privatised, it's job is to maximise returns for shareholders. If the carrier has to serve the national interest rather than business interests, then it needs to be in public ownership.



It's the same with Las Vegas route, that is mostly leisure, these kind of flights should be at Gatwick leaving Lhr as business only.
No, flights should be at Heathrow, capacity problems prevent this. Nothing to do with business v. leisure.

[Waldo1]

BCN BOY

I don't think that British Airways refer to their 787 fleet as DREAMLINERS it's the same with most operators of the type although your find that the likes of Thomson do but more of a advertising gimmick than anything else, not even Boeing refer to them as DREAMLINERS anymore it was just an origional name given to the aircraft in it's initial design process.

It's either a Boeing 787-8, Boeing 787-9 or Boeing 787-10 in most airlines fleets, I personally dislike the term DREAMLINER.

Yawn! Another pointless post from this fella....and you spelt original wrong too...

[canberra97]

That's because I was right wasn't I and you as well as others do not like comments like that do you.

Oh and your posts are SO interesting I do look forward to reading them why don't you just move on, I would have said more than that but the mods wouldn't have liked it but you know what you are anyway a total ....er!

Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake regarding 'ORIGIONAL' for some reason I always make that childish mistake regarding that word!

[Waldo1]

That's because I was right wasn't I and you as well as others do not like comments like that do you.

Oh and your posts are SO interesting I do look forward to reading them why don't you just move on, I would have said more than that but the mods wouldn't have liked it but you know what you are anyway a total ....er!

Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake regarding 'ORIGIONAL' for some reason I always make that childish mistake regarding that word!
Now the creepy fukwits private messaging me.....

[PAXboy]

Waldo1 You can use menu options to block the post of anyone. Then you simply don't see their posts. If not sure, ask a Mod for assistance.

[Waldo1]

Waldo1 You can use menu options to block the post of anyone. Then you simply don't see their posts. If not sure, ask a Mod for assistance.
Dead on, thanks paxboy

[canberra97]

'Creepy fukwit'

How dare you refer to me as that, you don't know me and I don't know you in fact we don't know anyone on here all we know are usernames you have no right to refer to me as such if it continues I too shall call the mods, YOU have no more rights on here than anyone else but it's obvious you want to call the shots. Your nothing on here just another poster so keep your comments to yourself and if you don't wish to read my posts I suggest as paxboy has pointed out just block me.

You don't bring as much to these forums as you think you do and to call me what you have on here is totally out of order and you know it, how dare you as your absolutely out of order!

Never in my life have I been called anything like you have just said and those close to me know exactly how I would react if someone even thought of saying anything like that to me!

So move on and enjoy your boring day!

[Waldo1]

'Creepy fukwit'

How dare you refer to me as that, you don't know me and I don't know you in fact we don't know anyone on here all we know are usernames you have no right to refer to me as such if it continues I too shall call the mods, YOU have no more rights on here than anyone else but it's obvious you want to call the shots. Your nothing on here just another poster so keep your comments to yourself and if you don't wish to read my posts I suggest as paxboy has pointed out just block me.

You don't bring as much to these forums as you think you do and to call me what you have on here is totally out of order and you know it, how dare you as your absolutely out of order!

Never in my life have I been called anything like you have just said and those close to me know exactly how I would react if someone even thought of saying anything like that to me!

So move on and enjoy your boring day!
Lol! Makes a change from you constantly correcting everyone on their spelling and how they refer to things, Eh! Dreamliner

[Navpi]

Whilst I didn't agree i did like to engage the Manchester mob in what "might" reasoned debate until they were all banned in a night if the long knives of course.

Manchester however never quite got as nonsensical call as this.

Somewhat staggering that you can say what you like and indeed swear on the Heathrow thread and appear to get away with it.

Can we curb this rubbish and get back to sensible discussion?

Anyone agree!

[MANFOD]

Somewhat staggering that you can say what you like and indeed swear on the Heathrow thread and appear to get away with it.

Can we curb this rubbish and get back to sensible discussion?

Anyone agree!

I certainly do agree. Give me reasoned debate anytime over some of this stuff.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

-----
Comparison of the four London airports by airline type – seat capacity: 17-Oct-2016 to 23-Oct-2016

Airports - % of seats
_____FSCs__LCCs__other
LHR___98_____2_____-
LGW__26.6__61.3___13.1
STN___0.3__95.5____4.2
LTN___2.1__94.5____3.4

Source: CAPA - Centre for Aviation and OAG.
-----

LGW, STN & LTN have much higher Regional, Commuter & Charter operations than LHR.

LHR dominates in UK & EU for FSC operations & has highest 1st & Business share.

[Gonzo]

What definition is used to determine the type of operator?

[Trash 'n' Navs]

FSC = Full Service / Legacy / Network carriers.

Top-5 market share at each:

LHR
BA (48.9%)
VS (4.5%)
UA (3.7%)
LH (2.8%)
EI (2.7%)

LGW
U2 (37.9%)
BA (14.6%)
DY (6.7%)
MT (5.5%)
ZB (5.3%)

STN
FR (80.1%)
U2 (11.4%)
MT (2.2%)
BY (1.8%)
PC (1.4%)

LTN
U2 (39.6%)
W6 (30.3%)
FR (12.3%)
ZB (5.9%)
BY (3.4%)

[Gonzo]

It still doesn't explain the differentiation. BA short haul has unbundled fares, and will shortly charge for food and drink. Does that mean that BA short haul will be classed as LCC?

My point is that classifying airlines according to a binary 'full service' V 'low cost' determination is completely useless.

[Navpi]

Tory MPs pledge to help sue Government if Heathrow?s third runway is approved (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/22/tory-mps-pledge-to-help-sue-government-if-heathrows-third-runway/)

[AndrewH52]

Tory MPs pledge to help sue Government if Heathrow?s third runway is approved (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/22/tory-mps-pledge-to-help-sue-government-if-heathrows-third-runway/)

No doubt the same Tory MPs telling those criticizing Brexit to stop challenging a democratic decision. The same ones trying to portray Britain as being 'open for business'. Idiots.

[Navpi]

I must confess hope HAL have deep pockets as the law courts are going to be kept busy with this for years.

I hope T May sticks the course although given the way the wind is blowing it may turn into a poison chalice!

[Trash 'n' Navs]

classifying airlines according to a binary 'full service' V 'low cost' determination is completely useless.

Probably why the definition includes legacy & network carriers. BA is clearly one of those.

Looking at the % share also suggests BA is considered FSC for that comparison.

[Trinity 09L]

HAL do have deep pockets, but me thinks the Judicial Review is directed at HMG on the process of reaching a decision based on information and advice from civil servants, not HAL. :=

[PAXboy]

Interesting reading in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday 23rd:

I ran the Airports Commission: Forget Gatwick. Expand Heathrow now and Birmingham later (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/i-ran-the-airports-commission-forget-gatwick-expand-heathrow-now/)

Howard Davies describes the ex-PM thus:
David Cameron remained an immovable objectWhich indicates that Cameron appointed the Commission and said all the usual words and might not have held true to all that.

[Navpi]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/05/independence-airports-commission-chair-prudential-howard-davies-properties-heathrow-report

I see this is being raked up again.
In my view the integrity of Davies could not be questioned other may disagree.

[Navpi]

Transport Chris Grayling is set to signal an appetite for new runways at UK regional airports this week, when he announces a government decision on expanding either Heathrow or Gatwick | City A.M. (http://www.cityam.com/252072/chris-grayling-set-signal-appetite-new-runways-uk-regional)

This is beyond barmy. Birmingham couldn't fill a second runway if you waited until 2116 !!!!!!!

And seemingly what Manchester wants is simple levels of connectivity / investment in antiquated road and rail not runways.


Offering something nobody
wants is a "perverse tactic " !

From £12bn there must be some small change left , why not give them a couple of million each. I doubt their MPs and media will know the difference!

[Mister Geezer]

QF to launch direct Perth in March 2018.

The Guardian - Qantas confirms non stop Perth to London flights from March 2018. (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/11/qantas-confirms-non-stop-perth-to-london-flights-from-march-2018)

[Fairdealfrank]

New Yorkers' 98-year wait for train over as new £3.6bn subway launches | London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/new-yorkers-98year-wait-for-train-over-as-new-36bn-subway-launches-a3431431.html)

Let's hope it won't be as long a wait for another Heathrow rwy!
It's already 48 years since Harold Wilson first mooted expansion.............

[davidjohnson6]

Croatia Airlines possibly to sell mid/late morning slot pair on 5 days per week to Delta effective 1 April. It seems the Croatian Govt are less than happy. Croatia will retain their late afternoon slots. OU have reportedly lost money heavily on their London-Zagreb route over the last 10 years

[canberra97]

Only yesterday on Ch-Aviation it states that the Croatian goverment has blocked Croatian Airlines selling any LHR slots.

[Skipness One Echo]

STAR ALLIANCE carrier Air India is finally moving into T2 today

[Trinity 09L]

HAL sent out 3,500 letters to either occupiers/land owners/land registry details etc as preliminary notice of Compulsory Orders for land and property etc, on 3rd January 2017.

This includes 750 dwellings, and at least 300 acres of land to be used for spoil/access.
Separately, a High Court judge dismissed an application for local boroughs to proceed at this time with a Judicial review.

The planning appeal decision ** - 18 months in waiting - for full departures ops on 09L now to come in the National Planning statement.

** This should not have occurred as it was a separate matter altogether and pre dates R3.:rolleyes:

[ETOPS]

Here's the just published consultation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589082/consultation-on-draft-airports-nps.pdf

[Prophead]

This part particularly is interesting.

The airport scheme promoters have pledged to meet the cost of surface access
schemes required to enable a runway to open. For Gatwick Airport, this covers the full
cost of the works (including the M23 and A23) needed to support expansion. The two
Heathrow schemes would pay for the full cost of M25, A4 and A3044 diversions and
local road works. They would make a contribution towards the cost of the proposed
Western Rail Access and Southern Rail Access schemes. Improvements which are
already underway, such as Thameslink and Crossrail, will be completed, and the
Government has not assumed any change to these schemes’ existing funding.

4.30 The majority of the surface access costs where a split of beneficiaries is expected (for
example, where multiple businesses and the public at large benefit from a new road
junction or rail scheme) are likely to be borne by Government, as the schemes provide
greater benefits for non-airport users. The airport contribution would be subject to a
negotiation, and review by regulators.

4.31 Because of the early stage of development, there is some uncertainty about surface
access costs, which are subject to more detailed development and, for example,
choices over precise routes. The additional public expenditure effects of the options
would likely be as follows:

• For both Heathrow schemes, there is no Government road spend directly linked
to expansion. The promoter would pay for changes to the M25, A4 and A3044
and any local roads. The Western and Southern Rail schemes are at different
levels of development and, based on current estimates, could cost between
£1.4 billion and £2.5 billion together. The Government would expect this cost to
be partly offset by airport contributions, which would be negotiated when the
schemes reach an appropriate level of development.

• For the Gatwick scheme, there would be no additional public expenditure solely
because of expansion, as all road enhancement costs for airport expansion
would be met by the scheme promoter. The Government has assumed that any
improvements to the Brighton Main Line that may be required would take place
regardless of expansion and would be publically funded.

[DaveReidUK]

4.31 Because of the early stage of development, there is some uncertainty about surface access costs, which are subject to more detailed development and, for example, choices over precise routes.

It certainly appears, based on the published plans to date, that not a lot of thought has been given to the implications of completely severing the A4 Colnbrook bypass, made necessary by moving the proposed R3 line further south to avoid compromising the M4/M25 interchange.

[Navpi]

Heathrow expansion 'less beneficial to UK residents than Gatwick Airport' | London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/government-study-heathrow-s-third-runway-less-beneficial-than-gatwick-a3386176.html)

There is no way that the cabinet could not have been told.

If they were indeed deliberately misled then even i would concede that is a sackable offence.

[Prophead]

How has Grayling got away with piggybacking Crossrail onto LHR surface EXPANSION when it was designed specifically for Londoners on local routes?

Crossrail is a separate project but always included a link into LHR. The owners of Heathrow were to put around £250m into the Crossrail project but then the third runway was cancelled and as a result I believe they refused to put the money forward. Because of this the Crossrail spur was not included in the construction works. I believe this will now go ahead however.

Regarding the surface works, pricing a job of this size costs quite a lot in itself so until a decision had been made I wouldn't expect anyone to commit. Hopefully now we can start narrowing down those figures.

[Trinity 09L]

Also released today was the decision to allow the appeal by HAL for the introduction of the current northern runway 09L to be used for departures.
This will allow respite for non London residents when aircraft are on easterly arrivals.
It will however, introduce more noise etc during departures to the London area that did not suffer departures on this runway (since circa 1955). In turn this will remind residents in the vicinity of the noise impact expected from the proposed R3.:uhoh:

[DaveReidUK]

Also released today was the decision to allow the appeal by HAL for the introduction of the current northern runway 09L to be used for departures.
This will allow respite for non London residents when aircraft are on easterly arrivals.
It will however, introduce more noise etc during departures to the London area that did not suffer departures on this runway (since circa 1955). In turn this will remind residents in the vicinity of the noise impact expected from the proposed R3.

Most of the 09L easterly NPRs merge with their 09R equivalents soon after takeoff, with the notable exception of the BUZAD 3K SID. That one will see communities like Norwood Green, Hanwell and West Ealing overflown far more frequently than at present (as well as Cranford, of course).

It will be interesting to see whether LB Hillingdon challenge the latest decision in the High Court, as they are entitled to do.

[Skipness One Echo]

There is no way that the cabinet could not have been told.

Please explain why no airline supported the expansion of Gatwick. Please explain that.

[HZ123]

Because BA at LHR would have to fund a percentage of the finance package to expand LHR and likewise resident airlines at LGW. Why would a company wish to finance a future expansion that will introduce more competition and presumably have little or no control over!

[Prophead]

Can't we just move on and build it now?

LHR will be part of a new and world class transport system that combines HS2, Crossrail, LHR and an upgraded motorway network. The passengers will benefit from multiple methods of travel into and out of the capital as well as having a modern hub enabling many new destinations to be flown to direct.

It's is time people stopped complaining about this long overdue modernisation of our infrastructure and got behind it. We will create a legacy for generations to come and this improvement of our transport network will extend to the whole of the UK.

Gatwick is of no use to anyone north of London. and is not part of any wider schemes. If they have their own case for a new runway then let them build it but it should not be allowed to impact Heathrow expansion. Neither should a few local nimbies who bought houses next to a major airport.

[WHBM]

How has Grayling got away with piggybacking Crossrail onto LHR surface EXPANSION when it was designed specifically for Londoners on local routes?Because it is fully relevant. Crossrail will be a key contributor to Heathrow surface access for all, well beyond Londoners on local routes, and was recognised from the start as such. It will reduce considerably all the Addison Lee etc executive cars which spend the day shuttling between Heathrow and Canary Wharf, because it will be way faster on that than anything by car.

The one thing still not bottomed out, I understand because of negotiating brinksmanship between Transport for London and HAL, is the future of the grossly overpriced (and thus underused) Heathrow Express, when Crossrail comes along potentially at a fraction of the cost and running right across London instead of just to an obscure corner of W2.


[Gatwick] Norwegian claimed they would base 50 787s there !Reminds me of somebody who based a dozen DC-10s there for a "low cost" operation 35 years ago.

[DaveReidUK]

Does doubling the size of the M4 bring air quality down?

LHR will be part of a new and world class transport system that combines HS2, Crossrail, LHR and an upgraded motorway network.

Leaving the rail developments aside, I'm not aware of any plans for more tarmac on the M4, other than the currently proposed scheme (whether R3 goes ahead or not) to turn it into a "smart" motorway à la M42/M3 by utilising the hard shoulder.

Whether the M25 tunnel plan represents an "upgrade" is a moot point. We're told it will gain a lane in each direction, but I wouldn't be surprised if that gets trimmed back once the infrastructure costs start to be firmed up.

[Prophead]

I was referring to the ongoing widening of the M1, M25 and proposed M4.

My point is all the expensive infrastructure work that has and will happen links together to provide easier access to LHR for a large part of the UK. Whether that is the north and Midlands via HS2/CRL or M1/M25. further north via short haul flights using the new runway. East and the London area via Crossrail or west via Crossrail and a (long proposed) M4 upgrade.

I do not see Gatwick blending in with these schemes as easily and have never seen the argument for either one or the other.

[Prophead]

No. The prohibitive cost means that challenges against this crazy proposal must continue.

So you think the costs should be pushed up further by continued challenges because you do not agree with the proposal?

[DaveReidUK]

Yesterday's consultation document contained a revised "3R MasterPlan" drawing which, given its publication date, it would be reasonable to assume represents the most recent thinking about the R3 layout.

It's not a very hi-res image, but it's possible to discern the following differences between that and previous versions:

a) T6A is moved further north to be more or less opposite T5A

b) T6B and T6C satellites are merged into a single, long satellite and moved further east. That, in turn, reduces the length of the M25 tunnel, which now only goes under two E-W taxiways and R3, whereas previously it also went under two N-S taxiways as well

c) Two new parallel N-S taxiways to the west of T6A

d) Removal of the proposed A4 tunnel, the roundabout at Poyle and the link road to M25 J14

e) Appropriation of the area between R3 and the former A4, i.e. everything westward from the end of Blunts Avenue

f) A new road from the A3044 Holloway Lane/Harmondsworth Road junction, running along the northern edge of R3 to join the old A4 roughly halfway along the Colnbrook bypass.

[pax britanica]

Just checked out this thread from ongoing interest and was mildly amazed to see that regarding Heathrow R 3 'Tony (Blair) would be etc etc...

Incredible isnt it that our biggest port of entry and one of the truly global airports on the planet we have got through four Prime Ministers and its still no where even close to getting built

[Skipness One Echo]

They did !

Norwegian claimed they would base 50 787s there !
Sorry, I wasn't too clear. Any serious supporters.

50 787s is more than the combined total of the based BA,VS, TCX, TOM and DY long haul fleets today. That's like Harry Gooman's Air Europe expansion plans on speed, and just as likely. Norwegian long haul have yet to make a real profit, the whole business is smoke and mirrors.
Gatwick's arguement was predicated on being allowed to expand with Heathrow constrained, Heathrow believes they could expand even if LGW got another runway, mainly because they could still fill LHR at a premium.
BA don't want the competition that a third runway would bring anymore than they wanted VS to be allowed to move from LGW or AA/UA to buy slots from TW/PA.

[Gonzo]

DR, take it from me, don't read too much into that masterplan.

[DaveReidUK]

DR, take it from me, don't read too much into that masterplan.

Quite so. The fact that it appears to be the 82nd iteration of the Masterplan would suggest that it's probably not going to be the final one. :O

I preferred the previously published version anyway, I was looking forward to seeing how the A4, in a tunnel under the airport, would get over/under the M25, also in a tunnel at that point.

Sadly, the A4 tunnel plan appears to have been superseded, so we'll never know ...

[Heathrow Harry]

Put a ski jump on the A4... the RN might have a few left over

[Andy_S]

No. I think that common sense should make a welcome appearance to secure cancellation of this wildly-overpriced LHR R3 vanity project in the national interest.

How is it a "vanity project" when there is clearly demand for a 3rd runway?

[SWBKCB]

How is it a "vanity project" when there is clearly demand for a 3rd runway?

Perhaps because those demanding won't be paying for it?

[pax britanica]

Nice try tears but the real world isnt about £100 boiled eggs and ego and vanity if you like come into it.
London is a worl d city no one would argue with that . It does however have very poor infrastructure in most respects compared with its competing cities in Europe. Paris Frankfurt Amsterdam all of whom have vastly more runway capacity. Like it or not London does need to compete with those places and having an airport that goes into meltdown because of an hour of fog isnt acceptable to the ever traveling global business comunity.

Also our self harm Brexit vote means that at least in theory we need more runway capacity to allow more destinations to be served on Long haul . Long haul flying needs hub type operations because witha few exceptions a fair proportion of passengers are going to transit the primary destination-thats just the way airlines work. So to meet that demand you need to expand at LHR because Gatwick is and never will be a hub , it is however ideal for the Easy Jets of the world

So because of competition and changing trade patterns we do, in the normal sense of the word, need a third runway at LHR.
The ludicrous rip off price is something else but thats just the Uk where private contractors rob the government and public services and therefore us at every turn

[Trinity 09L]

T.o.t.M
Excellent narrative of the vanity project. Do any of the pro R3 group, except those sponsored by Back Heathrow**, really understand the magnitude of the construction, road diversion x3, transport infrastructure for the benefit of UK business, and not HAL. All in the West of the airport, not in London.
The plans are changing all the time, and still not in a final form to be approved.
HAL is not a hub, ME3 flight overfly UK, ME3 flights pick up from all major cities in the UK, and US serve these cities as well.
One of the biggest growth industries, are cruises, and ME3 have offered these US owned companies, huge discounts to fly on these carriers, so they are not business pax.
I choose not to use ME3 flights.
** who is funding Back Heathrow?

[SWBKCB]

Also our self harm Brexit vote means that at least in theory we need more runway capacity to allow more destinations to be served on Long haul . Long haul flying needs hub type operations because witha few exceptions a fair proportion of passengers are going to transit the primary destination-thats just the way airlines work. So to meet that demand you need to expand at LHR because Gatwick is and never will be a hub , it is however ideal for the Easy Jets of the world


Remind me, how big an operation Easy want to open at LHR?

How much of the extra capacity will go on transporting our hard working businessmen to devdelop new markets and how much will go on transporting Londoners to the Costa and second homes? Nothing wrong with that, if they're prepared to pay for it just don't expect the rest of us to pay for it because its for the "national good"

[yotty]

Tears of the Moon you do remind me of Shed on a pole in a way:)

[Prophead]

Tears of the Moon you do remind me of Shed on a pole in a way

I was about to say the same thing.

Thanks for asking, Andy_S, because that was no throwaway remark. And perhaps you are right to request clarification because a few people appear to require a refresher on this.

What an arrogant comment. If you hadn't then gone on to write some claptrap about boiled eggs and various other waffle you would have appeared to be a right know it all.;)

You don't hail from the north west by any chance do you?

The high cost of large scale projects is the same whether it is the south east or the north. We are not talking about land prices here. All these projects are built the same way and that is not going to change. The longer we wait and kick it down the line the higher the cost will be.

If you want to see eye watering costs then also look at the amounts being spent on and because the various anti heathrow campaigns and continuous challenges. It is the same for HS2 and will be the same for all future large infrastructure schemes.

So what then? Do we not build anything any more? Do we settle for second best as that's all we should pay for?

Looking at the headline figure does not give the full picture. Much of this money will come straight back in various taxes. A huge part will be scattered around the country via all the suppliers and workers involved in the construction. If this money is coming in from outside investment then it can be a very good thing.

To say LHR expansion only benefits the south east is just wrong. The new runway is as much about giving the regions access to the airport as it is about being an international hub. his is why one of the conditions is the added regional connections. London will already have good access via Crossrail etc.

The Gatwick expansion is a different matter. There may be growth in the holiday sector but that has no bearing on whether the UK should build a hub or whether the regions should be given easier access to the UK's number 1 airport.

I do wonder though why, when we are constantly told that opposition to LHR, is because too much money is spent in the SE rather than the North. Those same people seem to be so behind Gatwick expansion.

[davidjohnson6]

New (very seasonal) route began today to Sion aimed (presumably) at taking Brits to the ski slopes. About 40 pax on board a Embraer 190 with (I think) 112 seats.
Maybe the outbound next Saturday might do better with half term, but a load factor below 40 % for a route like this is a little disappointing

Kudos to Swiss and the Valais tourist board for being brave and deciding to try something out though

[ZOOKER]

Hmm.
If Pangaea still existed, we wouldn't need all of these airports. You'd be able to drive everywhere, or get the train.

[DaveReidUK]

To say LHR expansion only benefits the south east is just wrong. The new runway is as much about giving the regions access to the airport as it is about being an international hub. This is why one of the conditions is the added regional connections.

The decision on Heathrow expansion isn't going to be conditional on the provison of additional regional connectivity. How could it be? Neither the Government, nor the Airports Commission, nor Heathrow is in a position to guarantee that will happen. Whether it does or not is going to be up to the airlines.

[Skipness One Echo]

Tears of the Moon - are you really Shed on a Pole? You lack the same ability to make a point in under a million words.....

HAL is not a hub
Thanks for that, we've all been completely wrong. Given all the routes that explicitly use LHR over LGW for connections, I thought LHR was some form of hub and spoke. Silly me.
Are you for real? What colour's the sky on your planet? I love debate but please make some effort to visit Planet Earth at least once.

[SWBKCB]

To say LHR expansion only benefits the south east is just wrong. The new runway is as much about giving the regions access to the airport as it is about being an international hub. This is why one of the conditions is the added regional connections.

I can respond to that in less than a million words - how about "Ha,Ha,Ha!"?
What will an expanded LHR give the regions that AMS/DXB (to name but two) doesn't give already? As others have mentioned, there are never any comments from airlines when this point is pushed.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

I have to agree with others that TOTM is remarkably like SOAP.


What will an expanded LHR give the regions that AMS/DXB (to name but two) doesn't give already?

It seems the regional airports know more about this than you do. LBA, for example, are highly supportive of R3 despite having other options.

[SWBKCB]

Of course they are - why wouldn't they be? But that is a different point.

The point I was laughing at was that additional regional connectivity is a major driver for Heathrow expansion, and that it will benefit the regions as much as it will the south east. Can you explain how?

[kcockayne]

It will certainly benefit this region, IF Jersey & Guernsey get connections to EGLL out of it.

[Skipness One Echo]

New name, same old soapbox for Shed on a Pole. Brevity aids getting a point over btw.
I was Skipness One Foxtrot (clearly) by necessity for a brief period. It was fairly obvious.

Given the SE has such a huge bulk of the population and a world city at it's centre, can we all please stop pretending to be shocked the region will benefit more from R3 than say Caithness and Sutherland? However the option to ENSURE more UK regional access to our one hub airport is now on the table and should be grasped. Unless you're more interested in seeinf more big planes at your local airport, say "Manchester" and you'll argue black is white in a million words to say so.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Of course they are - why wouldn't they be? But that is a different point.

How is it a different point? The question was of how R3 helps regional connectivity. LBA says it helps them. You say that AMS is already sufficient.

The point I was laughing at was that additional regional connectivity is a major driver for Heathrow expansion, and that it will benefit the regions as much as it will the south east. Can you explain how?

I could but not as eloquently as the Airport Commission's report so I suggest you start with that.

[SWBKCB]

However the option to ENSURE more UK regional access to our one hub airport is now on the table and should be grasped.

Nothing against more UK regional access to LHR but to say it is a major driver for expansion is laughable, and deeply suspicious that it will won't all the fine sentiments won't quietly disappear once all the concrete is poured.

The smaller regional airports like LBA are happy for LHR to expand as it is a customer not a competitor, and they know there isn't a cat in hells chance of any of the money coming their way if it isn't spent on Heathrow.

[DaveReidUK]

The smaller regional airports like LBA are happy for LHR to expand as it is a customer not a competitor, and they know there isn't a cat in hells chance of any of the money coming their way if it isn't spent on Heathrow.

Quite so. UK regional airports, apart from those with their own hub aspirations, have nothing to lose by coming out in support of Heathrow expansion.

Whether they stand to gain anything is a different question.

[Prophead]

Hello Shed!

Are you familiar with Bastiat's broken window fallacy?. Spending money on projects which make no financial sense is never a good idea however you spin it. Consider also the concept of opportunity cost. Whilst you waste funds on a project of low merit, those funds cannot be simultaneously be put to productive use elsewhere.

You seem to be under the impression that the government is footing the bill for this project. Investment is in place based on the sound business case of LHR expansion. I am sure you and a few others know better as you obviously have better business acumen and access to information than those more than wiling to put up the £bns to fund it.

Bastiat's fallacy does not come into play here as this money is coming from outside investment. You will also notice, Shed that the surface access works are set to be priced accordingly now.

So we have £bn's in outside investment coming into the country and the nations tax coffers in return for a public spend on infrastructure that is in need of upgrading anyway. That investment is then spread around the whole of the UK and we end with a world class hub airport.

As people are now transiting through LHR instead of AMS etc. we have further future income into the UK which you seem pleased to give away.

The above can also be said about any other project anywhere in the UK. There seems to be enough investment available from China and the Middle East. I would suggest investment opportunities come with a better business case when based in the SE and that is why funding is more forthcoming. These projects should not be cancelled out of sour grapes when the construction alone would be of so much benefit to the regions.

As this can be built now and easily linked in with Crossrail and HS2 it really is a once in a lifetime chance to get it right.

[inOban]

'That investment is then spread around the whole of the UK and we end with a world class hub airport. '

That is the national equivalent of trickle-down economics - the argument used by the wealthy to justify low taxes for them. This is generally recognised as garbage. If you give money to the less well off, they spend it, and the money goes round and round in their community. If you give money to the already rich, it disappears, since they cannot possibly spend it.

So the only way to increase the prosperity of the areas outwith London, is to invest there.

As for transit passengers using a hub airport, their value is mainly, I would have thought, is that they sustain routes which would not be viable on their own. This is vital for places like Iceland - how many routes could it sustain on its own? But I'm not sure how important it is to London. What proportion of LHR PAX are transit?

The trouble is that other countries see enormous airport facilities as sexy. How many third world countries have built fancy terminals rather than looking after their citizens? The idea that airport facilities should be paid for by the users strikes them as bizarre. But it seems quite reasonable to the rest of us.

[Prophead]

That is the national equivalent of trickle-down economics - the argument used by the wealthy to justify low taxes for them. This is generally recognised as garbage.

I didn't use the phrase 'Trickledown' as it tends to be associated with the economics of the finished project. I was specifically talking about the construction phase and the large firgures associated with the construction.

Go to any large construction site in London and you will hear regional accents from all over the UK. Have a look at the addresses on the sides of the lorries bringing in the supplies and machinery and you will see that hardly any of it comes from inside the M25.

Anyone that has travelled up the M1 on a Friday evening knows how many tradespeople there are going home, with a large pay packet in their pocket, to regions all over the country. This money is then spent in the local economies and benefits others not working one the project itself.

To think the money spent on Heathrow expansion or any other London based project is only staying within the M25 is ludicrous.

[inOban]

Of course some of the money spent in London trickles out, if only because it is impossible for any wage-earner (as opposed to a salary and bonuses person) to live anywhere inside the M25, and indeed some way outside it. However much of their pay will go on day to day living costs in London, and if these people were still living at home then all their wages would remain in their community. I don't know if there are any economists on this thread, but I'm sure they could elaborate on this.

Furthermore, one of the reasons these London projects are so expensive is the fat pay packets needed to bring these workers from all over the UK and beyond.

[DaveReidUK]

'As for transit passengers using a hub airport, their value is mainly, I would have thought, is that they sustain routes which would not be viable on their own. This is vital for places like Iceland - how many routes could it sustain on its own?

But I'm not sure how important it is to London. What proportion of LHR PAX are transit?

Roughly a third.

[rutankrd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inOban View Post
'As for transit passengers using a hub airport, their value is mainly, I would have thought, is that they sustain routes which would not be viable on their own. This is vital for places like Iceland - how many routes could it sustain on its own?

But I'm not sure how important it is to London. What proportion of LHR PAX are transit?
Roughly a third.

And declining

AND the airlines like this trajectory as it increases yield potential on the Point to point/foreign hub.

Heathrow produces some pretty strong returns in the middle cabins from/to London not replicated by feeders from anywhere else.

Those feeders are alleged to bleed rather dark claret in many/most cases.

This also belies the oft quoted Long Haul needs feed to support xyz marginal routes - No one ever gives an example because at thirty % and declining there are rather few routes where the feed makes the difference between operating or not a particular route to/from Heathrow.

[inOban]

Thanks for the information, Dave. What proportion stay within the airport, as opposed to overnighting in a hotel on site or in London?

[Prophead]

Shed,

You really need to take that chip off your shoulder.

I'm under the impression that taxpayers will foot the bill for the support works in the vicinity of LHR required to make the R3 project work. TfL puts that sum at £10Bn - £20Bn.

From the consultation
For both Heathrow schemes, there is no Government road spend directly linked
to expansion. The promoter would pay for changes to the M25, A4 and A3044
and any local roads. The Western and Southern Rail schemes are at different
levels of development and, based on current estimates, could cost between
£1.4 billion and £2.5 billion together. The Government would expect this cost to
be partly offset by airport contributions, which would be negotiated when the
schemes reach an appropriate level of development.

You also seem to think this will be paid in full upfront before construction begins. It would be over a series of staged payments spread over many years. In the meantime the privately funded works would be attracting 20%VAT, income taxes for workers, Corporation tax on business involved, etc. etc.


based on the sound business case of LHR expansion.

Now that is a fine piece of work which I must have missed!

Obviously you have. Luckily the teams of well qualified people working for the investors haven't though so the money is there.

Besides, how can we be so sure that customers will choose a stressful terminal transfer at LHR over a straightforward single-terminal transfer at AMS? AMS has every chance of continuing to be considered the preferred proposition for transit passengers.

Amazing, you already know what the transfer will be like? You are obvioulsy an airport design expert as well as business investment guru. Why hire all the consultants when they could just come up to the North West and ask you?

At the cost proposed it is not possible to get it right. A financial calamity is guaranteed at R3 prices.

Ahh, that's why.


The life has been sucked out of the regions. This imbalance must be redressed. There are stalled projects of merit just desperate for funding scattered right across regional UK.

Enough of the North/South claptrap please. Modern investment comes from international banks and funds with well researched risk assessments. If the investment is not forthcoming that is not because of anything happening in the south.

Direct investment into long-sidelined regional projects of merit would deliver substantial tangible benefits. Not just during a relatively brief construction phase but long afterwards too.

In that case lets build them too. What has that got to do with Heathrow?

Sending the hired-help home for the weekend? You appear to be under the impression that sucking talent out of the regions is a positive thing. It isn't. A policy of distributing public infrastructure investment equitably across the UK would see these hoardes deployed near to their homes with far greater economic benefit.

Stop banging that drum Shed, many of these people have learnt their skills and become very comfortable financially because of these large projects. There will always be the need to travel to work on these kinds of schemes. Many of the tunnellers on Crossrail came from a mining background in Yorkshire. Transport engineering is like that and always has been.

You're right. The Home Counties will do rather well out of it too.

:ugh::ugh::rolleyes:

[DaveReidUK]

This also belies the oft quoted Long Haul needs feed to support xyz marginal routes - No one ever gives an example because at thirty % and declining there are rather few routes where the feed makes the difference between operating or not a particular route to/from Heathrow.

That's an interesting assertion.

Clearly the proportion of transfer traffic varies by route. The only published stats I have for that breakdown are about 10 years old - if you have any more recent ones, perhaps you could share them ?

If we discount UK domestic transfer traffic (out of a total of 6% of LHR pax, it isn't going to skew the results much) then we are left with Europe-to-Europe transfer traffic and the balance where one or both legs involves a longhaul flight.

Given our location near the top left corner of Europe, it's not immediately obvious why intra-European transfer traffic should account for an overwhelming proportion of transfer traffic, particularly as almost half the seats out of LHR are on longhaul routes.

Logic would suggest that there must be a fair number of longhaul routes that contribute significantly to the 30%.

[Fairdealfrank]

Leaving the rail developments aside, I'm not aware of any plans for more tarmac on the M4, other than the currently proposed scheme (whether R3 goes ahead or not) to turn it into a "smart" motorway à la M42/M3 by utilising the hard shoulder.

Whether the M25 tunnel plan represents an "upgrade" is a moot point. We're told it will gain a lane in each direction, but I wouldn't be surprised if that gets trimmed back once the infrastructure costs start to be firmed up. The M4 cannot be widened to 4 lanes east of the A312 Hounslow/Hayes junction because it narrows from 3 to 2 lanes for the "elevated section". The bottleneck is bad enough as it is!

The M4 might get the so-called smart motorway treatment west of the M25.

The M3/M4/M25 motorways in the area will need junction improvements sooner or later, third rwy or not.

The so-called smart motorway on the M3 is an irrelevance and causing chaos and gridlock. What is needed is a serious upgrade to the M3/M25 junction rather than 20-odd miles of driving on the hard-shoulder.



Quote:
No. The prohibitive cost means that challenges against this crazy proposal must continue.
So you think the costs should be pushed up further by continued challenges because you do not agree with the proposal? Same nonsense as wealthy remainiacs using the courts to frustrate brexit.



Yesterday's consultation document contained a revised "3R MasterPlan" drawing which, given its publication date, it would be reasonable to assume represents the most recent thinking about the R3 layout.

It's not a very hi-res image, but it's possible to discern the following differences between that and previous versions:

a) T6A is moved further north to be more or less opposite T5A

b) T6B and T6C satellites are merged into a single, long satellite and moved further east. That, in turn, reduces the length of the M25 tunnel, which now only goes under two E-W taxiways and R3, whereas previously it also went under two N-S taxiways as well

c) Two new parallel N-S taxiways to the west of T6A

d) Removal of the proposed A4 tunnel, the roundabout at Poyle and the link road to M25 J14

e) Appropriation of the area between R3 and the former A4, i.e. everything westward from the end of Blunts Avenue

f) A new road from the A3044 Holloway Lane/Harmondsworth Road junction, running along the northern edge of R3 to join the old A4 roughly halfway along the Colnbrook bypass. Hope they've left some room for a 4th rwy!



Gatwick's arguement was predicated on being allowed to expand with Heathrow constrained, Heathrow believes they could expand even if LGW got another runway, mainly because they could still fill LHR at a premium.This exactly why LHR's business case is more credible than LGW's: LHR's expansion plans are not affected by developments at LGW or any other UK airport.



BA don't want the competition that a third runway would bring anymore than they wanted VS to be allowed to move from LGW or AA/UA to buy slots from TW/PA. It's also posturing. As the largest carrier at LHR, and 1 of only 2 carriers based there, it is much more affected by the operational constraints and extra expense caused by delays: queues to take off, queues to land, and the fact that at flights to/from LHR take at least 30 minutes longer than they should. Its competitors don't have this nonsense at their bases. A third rwy ends this problem for BA.

It's less critical since it bought BD of course, but as 50% of the new slots go to incumbent carriers, BA could obtain quite a few for itself, and realise its expansion plans, without having to spend billions in the "secondary slot market".



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tears of the Moon http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/200585-heathrow-242.html#post9663439)
No. I think that common sense should make a welcome appearance to secure cancellation of this wildly-overpriced LHR R3 vanity project in the national interest.

How is it a "vanity project" when there is clearly demand for a 3rd runway? How is the LHR third rwy a vanity project and HS2 isn't?



Quote:
How is it a "vanity project" when there is clearly demand for a 3rd runway?
Perhaps because those demanding won't be paying for it?
See above, HS2 will be for the elite who can afford the fares, paid for the by ordinary taxpayers who can't.



Quote:
Tears of the Moon you do remind me of Shed on a pole in a way
I was about to say the same thing.Tears of the Moon - are you really Shed on a Pole? You lack the same ability to make a point in under a million words.....
Me too!

Pages 242-244 have been quite nostalgic, but nostalgia is not what it used to be!

[DaveReidUK]

The M4 might get the so-called smart motorway treatment west of the M25.

There's no might about it.



Secretary of State announced final decision: 2 September 2016
High Court Challenge period ended: 15 October 2016
Start of enabling works: by end March 2017
Start of main works: Late autumn 2017
End of works: End of March 2022


Improvements and major road projects | M4 junctions 3-12: smart motorway (http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/m4-junctions-3-12-smart-motorway/)

[Prophead]

Shed,

Where are you getting your figure of £10bn+ from? Have you read the latest consultation or are you just cherry picking whatever suits you agenda.

Ah yes. You never quite grasp this bit. Public funds spent on support infrastructure to make LHR R3 work cannot be simultaneously allocated to other projects. The money is gone.

The government has already made millions from this project and continues to do so. Every part of the consultation, design and construction is liable for a variety of taxation.

So now tell us shed, what exactly are these projects you are so sure provide such a sound business case over and abover LHR? Are they struggling to get investment purely because it is all being spent in the SE?

[DaveReidUK]

** who is funding Back Heathrow?

HAL reportedly acknowledged a couple of years ago, at one of its public meetings, that it had set up Back Heathrow and was funding it on an ongoing basis.

Presumably Heathrow has tightened the reins on its astroturf campaigning offshoot, as we haven't seen any more claims like this one lately:

"the [Airports] Commission agreed that [a second runway at Gatwick] could lead to the decline or even closure of Heathrow"

[Skipness One Echo]

Shed did you just rejoin pprune to go over old ground for the umpteenth time? There's nothing new being added here. LHR expansion is now government policy and Labour is nowhere and even the SNP are on board as they recognise it will have some tangible benefits in linking Scotland to the wider world. If the SNP can agree with Theresa May on the regional benefits of having a proper functioning hub airport then we can finally see some progress.
Many short haul feeders bleed red, however many of those long haul money makers would be smaller and less competitive if that short haul feed went away. Many of us will be familiar about how money can be made to look wasted if we drop it into a different budget.

The core reasons airlines continue to choose LHR over LGW is the ability to connect. Whilst LHR may not be the dominant hub it once was in some markets, it was enough for Delta, American and every other major legacy long haul with the exception of Emirates to drop LGW for LHR. The only long haul BA/VS have at LGW is beach fleet leisure and assorted strategic Norwegian spoilers like LGW-JFK (for the 3rd time).
Even easyJet are investigating the possibility of using T4 at LHR once R3 is built. What an economic asset and driver this can be if we get it right.

btw Shed you'd really be more at home here :
Jet Blast - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)

[Wycombe]

The so-called smart motorway on the M3 is an irrelevance and causing chaos and gridlock

The construction of it (which seems to be taking years) is, but it's not finished yet, so impossible to judge the "in-service" impact yet.

The M42 smart M-way seems to work quite well to me.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inOban What proportion of LHR PAX are transit?
Roughly a third.

And declining

AND the airlines like this trajectory as it increases yield potential on the Point to point/foreign hub.

You're assuming it's a linear negative trend. In reality, it's cyclical. Airlines yield manage so when point-to-point loads/yields are strong you see transfers decline & vice versa. The recent decline in transfer volumes is starting to reverse again to a growing share.

[M62]

Skipness, your comment that Easyjet are looking at LHR ops from T4 just backs up the argument that extra runway capacity in the south east is necessary to meet point to point short haul demand. Why does that have to be at Heathrow?

[Fairdealfrank]

Shed did you just rejoin PPRuNe to go over old ground for the umpteenth time? There's nothing new being added here. LHR expansion is now government policy and Labour is nowhere and even the SNP are on board as they recognise it will have some tangible benefits in linking Scotland to the wider world. If the SNP can agree with Theresa May on the regional benefits of having a proper functioning hub airport then we can finally see some progress.Are we back to 2003 when the Labour government produced a "white paper"? or back to 2006 when the Labour government gave its backing? Don't think we're back to 2009 yet, when the Labour government gave its permission.

Who knows why we need another 4 months of consultations, one would have thought that almost 50 years of dithering should be long enough for all options and all the pros and cons to have been explored!

Many short haul feeders bleed red, however many of those long haul money makers would be smaller and less competitive if that short haul feed went away. Many of us will be familiar about how money can be made to look wasted if we drop it into a different budget. Bean counters can fiddle the accounts to make any case they like, it's called creative accounting.

The core reasons airlines continue to choose LHR over LGW is the ability to connect. Whilst LHR may not be the dominant hub it once was in some markets, it was enough for Delta, American and every other major legacy long haul with the exception of Emirates to drop LGW for LHR. The only long haul BA/VS have at LGW is beach fleet leisure and assorted strategic Norwegian spoilers like LGW-JFK (for the 3rd time).LGW is, and always will be, the LHR "waiting room" for new longhaul until/unless expansion takes place. Expect that with a third rwy, all LGW VS and all LGW BA longhaul (except the above-mentioned Norwegian spoilers perhaps) would transfer accross to LHR.

Even easyJet are investigating the possibility of using T4 at LHR once R3 is built. What an economic asset and driver this can be if we get it right.U2 will do well at LHR-4. There'a huge wealthy catchment area with its name on!

With a third rwy the main obstacles and disincentives to it being at LHR now (eye-watering slot prices plus chronic congestion and delays) will disappear. The same could apply to BE and others who operate the thinner domestic/shorthaul feeder routes.

btw Shed you'd really be more at home here :
Jet Blast - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)Ha ha, it's good fun over there.



Quote:
The so-called smart motorway on the M3 is an irrelevance and causing chaos and gridlock
The construction of it (which seems to be taking years) is, but it's not finished yet, so impossible to judge the "in-service" impact yet.

The M42 smart M-way seems to work quite well to me. They're quite different motorways: the M3 is the main route to the west country, the M42 is part of an orbital route for Birmingham.

The M3 is not proned to major bottlenecks apart from the area around the M3/M25 junction where the slip roads aren't long enough. A couple of miles of 5 lanes is needed on the M3 to allow joining traffic to merge and leaving traffic to move into the correct lanes, 20-odd miles of hard shoulder driving is not. As for one lane only westbound under the M25 bridge, that's asking for trouble!

Too late now.



Yes I scratched my head regarding the EasyJet reference as well.


What price triple daily connectivity to Liverpool, Teeside, IOM etc or 3 a day to Palma, Malaga and ibiza? U2 are planning 19 routes including ABZ, BFS, EDI, GLA, INV, IOM, JER, etc..
U2 are unlikely to do the likes of LPL, MME, IOM, etc., it will be on the thicker routes giving BA a run for its money. IAG might retalliate with more VY routes to/from LHR in order to give U2 a run for its money, who can say.

Like BA, U2 does not have small enough aircraft for these thinner routes. Expect to see the likes of BE and BD regional on the thinner routes, as they have suitable aicraft for these.

[Skipness One Echo]

Why does that have to be at Heathrow?
It does not, but for point to point. LHR is the place serving West London and every business to Bristol via Reading along the M4 corridor. easyJet want a part of that market I understand, and why not.
Hub connectivity is useless without a strong p2p market with some possible exceptions like DXB and Emirates where postion and critical mass win the deal. It's a free market guys, if we expand LHR we improve regional connectivity to the world as well as improve P2P options to local business and leisure. They come together, easyJet and BA, sitting alongside Aer Lingus strong on London terminating as well as feeding Air Canada.
Flybe is the best bet for the likes of LPL which could offer business a good deal for a premium.

[Prophead]

You asked why I was quoting £10Bn+ and whether I was cherry-picking a number to suit my agenda. Well, the range quoted by TfL was £10Bn - £20Bn.

When exactly were those figures given out and what do they include for.

I prefer to work from the latest consultation which states

For both Heathrow schemes, there is no Government road spend directly linked
to expansion. The promoter would pay for changes to the M25, A4 and A3044
and any local roads. The Western and Southern Rail schemes are at different
levels of development and, based on current estimates, could cost between
£1.4 billion and £2.5 billion together. The Government would expect this cost to
be partly offset by airport contributions, which would be negotiated when the
schemes reach an appropriate level of development.

Gross misallocation of capital is actually a good thing because the exchequer will collect afew pence in the pound as tax! The word desperation leaps to mind.


So you term expansion of LHR as Gross misallocation of funds now? Get a grip Shed. That's a bit extreme even for you. The tax will be much more than a few pence in the pound. (20% VAT, 20% Corporation Tax) At the current cost of the project the government can expect to recoup more that the figures quoted above in the consultation. Money which would then be available for other projects such as you state in you post (which I am all for by the way).

The estimate for the jobs created alone from expansion is 77,000. That's a lot of income tax. It is not desperation but economics. The project has a sound business case and should go ahead.

[Prophead]

A friend of mine was looking for a house to rent after relocating to Heathrow. He found a really nice detached place between Maidenhead and Windsor. The garden backed onto the M4 but the bottom of the garden included a wooded area so you would never know the M4 was there.

Anyway, the rent was unbelievably cheap and when he asked why was told that it was owned by the Highways Agency who had apparently bought lots of similar properties all along the motorway so they could widen the M4. The deal was as soon as it was agreed you had 3 months notice to relocate. This was around 2008 and he is still there.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Meanwhile the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee is STILL pressing for answers . He has only asked 3 times !

And he's a Tory !

Oh dear! I wonder why the learned member for Chichester is so interested? Could it be that his constituency is in the LGW catchment?

As for using NPV, I don't see the benefit of using a rarely used measure. What's the point - rarely used suggests it's of no use in these projects.

[MANFOD]

As for using NPV, I don't see the benefit of using a rarely used measure. What's the point - rarely used suggests it's of no use in these projects.

Wasn't that the point the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee was making?

[Trash 'n' Navs]

I thought he was arguing for ‘net public value’ to be used?

[MANFOD]

My reading of it is that it was the Treasury who used it and the Select Committee were questioning why, as it was rarely used, but also pointing out that the demand scenario adopted happened to be the one that gave the best result for Heathrow.

"Of the four investment measures used to evaluate the proposals, only this seldom-used net public value measure presents a clear case for a third runway at Heathrow, Mr Tyrie said."

Isn't he suggesting that the method was only used because it gave the result the government wanted?

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Ah OK, I'm with you now. Yes, that's what he seems to be arguing but I don't believe it's for altruistic reasons - his bias taints his challenge.

So what about DfT bias? Well, I severely doubt HMG set out with a "LHR or bust" mentality - in fact the AC TOR specifically opened it to consider UK capacity.

[Gonzo]

2011 CAA Passenger Survey Data for LHR

All airlines.

Transfer traffic (assume that means overnight stays, not just connecting 'on the day', but not sure).

A random sample:
Manchester: 79%
Los Angeles: 52%
Belfast: 48%
Chicago: 42%
Paris CDG 35%
NY JFK: 35%
Amsterdam: 20%
Dubai: 20%

You can request more up to date stats from CAA.

[Seljuk22]

China Southern goes double daily to CAN starting 1st June
China Southern increases London Heathrow service from June 2017 :: Routesonline (http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/271788/china-southern-increases-london-heathrow-service-from-june-2017/)

Anyone knows where those slots coming from?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote:
You asked why I was quoting £10Bn+ and whether I was cherry-picking a number to suit my agenda. Well, the range quoted by TfL was £10Bn - £20Bn.
When exactly were those figures given out and what do they include for.

I prefer to work from the latest consultation which states

For both Heathrow schemes, there is no Government road spend directly linked
to expansion. The promoter would pay for changes to the M25, A4 and A3044
and any local roads. The Western and Southern Rail schemes are at different
levels of development and, based on current estimates, could cost between
£1.4 billion and £2.5 billion together. The Government would expect this cost to
be partly offset by airport contributions, which would be negotiated when the
schemes reach an appropriate level of development. Was at the Department of Transport (DoT) consultation events. It turns out that Heathrow is paying for all the road diversions, tunnels, etc..

Heathrow will pay for part of the western and southern rail links. Only part because these will have other non airport-related pax as well.

The DoT will pay for the conversion to smart (sic) motorways on the M3/M4/M25 as this happens whether Heathrow expands or not. The M3 conversion has been underway for a year and is causing chaos.



China Southern goes double daily to CAN starting 1st June
China Southern increases London Heathrow service from June 2017 :: Routesonline (http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/271788/china-southern-increases-london-heathrow-service-from-june-2017/)

Anyone knows where those slots coming from? The route is obviously doing well, maybe BA should have gotten on this route rather than CTU. Probably too late now.

[jdcg]

I'm not sure that the route is doing that well, having just flown it. Light loads in economy coming back although the front end wasn't bad. Probably about 50% LF. Outward to CAN was maybe closer to 75 - 85%. So it's a bit mixed. I was connecting through to AKL. Fares are VERY low.
Service was excellent although food / inflight entertainment were pretty average. Connecting in CAN was very easy.
They fly the 787 but the seats are quite cramped. Not a problem at 50% though.
My impression was that CZ / CAN are very keen to grow their reputation for hubbing around Asia / Oceania and so are investing in capacity. I suspect that they are currently making very little money on the route.

[Heathrow Harry]

A question - which was last answered in 2002 on here

How much fuel does Heathrow use in a year?

[DaveReidUK]

A question - which was last answered in 2002 on here

How much fuel does Heathrow use in a year?

Except that it wasn't actually answered then ...

How much fuel does Heathrow use each day ?? (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/61374-how-much-fuel-does-heathrow-use-each-day.html)

I've heard figures of 20 million litres per day quoted, which sounds in the right ballpark.

[Heathrow Harry]

thats a lot of oil........ according to the refiners industry body the UK used about 12 mm tonnes (15+ Bn litres) of JET fuel in 2014 (around 68 mm litres a day) of which only 4.8 was produced in the UK so it may be a higher at LHR

[ETOPS]

It's how much is wasted - by people like me - in the four holding patterns every day for the past 5 decades that is a scandal. I tried some maths, based on my career mix of short and Longhaul, but ran out of zeros on the calculator. And that was using conservative estimates of usual inbound delays....

[DaveReidUK]

You need to go to the current DfT roadshows, where they are telling everyone that airborne holding will be a thing of the past. Apparently it's a simple matter of adjusting your enroute speed so that you reach the STAR just in time for your arrival slot.

What could possibly go wrong ...

[KelvinD]

Dave, weren't they telling us the same thing on Tomorrow's World when MLS was first being promoted? Complete with natty little diagrams showing aircraft arriving from all angles and all just swooping in the last minute approach.
I remember in Jeddah, inbound aircraft were often told to be at Point X by a specific time. I presumed at the time this was to smooth the flow. The truth was that frequently pilots of different airlines would talk to each other on the approach and arrange things sensibly!

[ETOPS]

it's a simple matter of adjusting your enroute speed so that you reach the STAR

I took part in those trials - in 1996 ! The type was B737-436 and the route was Aldergrove to Heathrow. The reason was the Boeing FMC had an "extra" page titled RTA - Required Time of Arrival. Departure clearance from BFS contained a time over BNN which was entered as RTA/BNN which would automatically adjust the cruise Mach number. We found the problem from the outset as cruise speeds below or above normal limits were being demanded and thus the percentage of arrivals within the 4 minute window was low - binned by ATC fairly quickly.

[TopBunk]

ETOPS

I was down at EOG in '96 so didn't partake in that trial, but was on the B737-436 from introduction until 1995 and remember using the RTA function for DANDI timings over the North Sea to/from Scandinavia. Worked well, but screwed other aircraft on the same routes who suddenly found a B737 flying anywhere between M0.68 and M0.76!

RTA's are a crude tool, at best.

[VickersVicount]

how did the first BE LHR service go? If fares are low, punters will lap it up, even if its slow, very little cabin baggage and bound to be delayed!

[Cloud1]

Not sure but there is currently Dash 8 cruising at 24,000ft 390kts and a flight time to EDI of 1hr 20. Getting in 20 mins early.

[DaveReidUK]

Not sure but there is currently Dash 8 cruising at 24,000ft 390kts and a flight time to EDI of 1hr 20. Getting in 20 mins early.

That's what a 40 kt tailwind does for you. :O

[Wycombe]

a flight time to EDI of 1hr 20

SOU to EDI on the Dash is regularly around this length, or a few mins less, so not that surprising. Plenty of padding for LHR holding (southbound) and queuing to depart (northbound) one would suspect.

[davidjohnson6]

Scandinavian Airlines has sold two slot pairs at Heathrow for US$75m
Anyone know who the buyer is ?

[LAX_LHR]

I know China southern are increasing flights, could they be one buyer?

[WHBM]

I took part in those trials - in 1996 ! The type was B737-436 and the route was Aldergrove to Heathrow. The reason was the Boeing FMC had an "extra" page titled RTA - Required Time of Arrival. Departure clearance from BFS contained a time over BNN which was entered as RTA/BNN which would automatically adjust the cruise Mach number. We found the problem from the outset as cruise speeds below or above normal limits were being demanded
I understand the Lockheed Tristar had that feature from 25 years beforehand, although it could be set for all the limits to be complied with as well. It was apparently accurate for arrival time at a fix to the second. Designed, by the way, principally by someone from Hatfield who Burbank tempted away when Hawker Siddeley gave up developing the Trident further.

Not sure but there is currently Dash 8 cruising at 24,000ft 390kts and a flight time to EDI of 1hr 20. Getting in 20 mins early.I once left Belfast City on consecutive runway departures with a colleague, he to Heathrow on a super-whizzy jet A320, me to London City on a trundling propeller Q400. I landed, exited, got in car, drove the short distance home, walked into house, phoned him up ... he was just waiting to disembark at LHR, after what sounded like n times round Bovingdon.

[Seljuk22]

Scandinavian Airlines has sold two slot pairs at Heathrow for US$75m
Anyone know who the buyer is ?
...it is agreed that SAS can continue to use these two slot-pairs for up to three years and maintain its present network.
http://www.sasgroup.net/en/sas-transfers-two-landing-and-take-off-rights-slot-pairs-at-london-heathrow-and-generates-a-positive-earnings-impact-of-musd-75/

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote:
a flight time to EDI of 1hr 20
SOU to EDI on the Dash is regularly around this length, or a few mins less, so not that surprising. Plenty of padding for LHR holding (southbound) and queuing to depart (northbound) one would suspect.

Almost certainly the block times are padded: a flight to/from LHR always takes at least 20-30 minutes longer than it should.

[johnnychips]

Almost certainly the block times are padded: a flight to/from LHR always takes at least 20-30 minutes longer than it should.

Quite. If you ever spend time looking at FlightRadar24, flights from places like Brussels can do the journey in about half the allocated time if they are lucky or at an off-peak time and get 'straight in' - I'm sure there must be a technical term for this - yet at busy times there are planes doing three or four rotations in the queue before landing.

[Navpi]

Have the FlyBe service been a success. I'm hoping to go to EDI in May but will be sticking with BA as the fares were priced to bury Flybe.

[Dairyground]

Back in the 1970s, the printed BEA timetable always said LHR-EDI took 70 minutes; as we taxied out the captain came on the PA and said that out flight time would be 60 minutes; and we were in the air for 50 minutes.

[DaveReidUK]

Scheduled (timetable) block time will almost always be less than the actual flight time, not least because the latter doesn't include the time taken for pushback, taxi out and taxi in.

And in the 70s the LHR/EDI flight time was often much less than planned on those occasions where BEA substituted a Trident instead of the scheduled Vanguard. :O

[Super VC-10]

Heathrow T3 has been closed due to a security alert. Armed police officers searching aircraft.

Heathrow Terminal 3 flights suspended due to 'security issue' | Metro News (http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/05/all-flights-suspended-from-heathrow-terminal-3-over-security-issue-6617375/)

[G-CPTN]

Still ongoing?

[2Planks]

Link in post one updated and ops resumed shortly after they were suspended.

[DaveReidUK]

New series of the fly-on-the-wall documentary starts Wednesday 21:00 on ITV.

[G-ARZG]

Getting ready to play 'Airport Bingo':-

- pets reunited,
- Mr/Mrs/Ms Angry,
- minor medic.emergency
- 'you're holding up the flight'.
- add your own cliches

Extra points for continuity gaffes...

[DaveReidUK]

Transfer passenger who fails to understand that LGW doesn't mean Heathrow. :O

[G-ARZG]

Maximum points if they get wrong 'and an aircraft takes off or lands every xx seconds'...

[PAXboy]

Lost Child (the camera crew get extra brownie points if it's holding a fluffy animal)
Someone madly repacking their overweight luggage
Accusations that no one told them they could not bring <fill in the blank> on board
Delays on the Tube/M4/M25 but they are still not allowed to run down the taxiway after the aircraft

Well that saves me the trouble of watching the programme. :ok:

[DaveReidUK]

Maximum points if they get wrong 'and an aircraft takes off or lands every xx seconds'...

"Every 45 seconds" says the trailer.

Which isn't a million miles from the truth,

[G-ARZG]

...or, if you're a Times reader, their Saturday TV listing says "one lands or takes off every four seconds" I knew LHR controllers were good, but....

[PAXboy]

You're not suggesting, G-ARZG, that The Times sometimes overstates the figures to give false news ...? :hmm:

[G-ARZG]

"You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment!"

[DaveReidUK]

Or a demonstration of how common sense is no longer a prerequisite for a journalist on a national daily. :O

[Heathrow Harry]

it never was.................. at leas days they're reasonably sober some of the time

[DaveReidUK]

...or, if you're a Times reader, their Saturday TV listing says "one lands or takes off every four seconds" I knew LHR controllers were good, but....

Rest assured, the programme itself contained some typical gems. :O

Within the first couple of minutes, we learned that "Heathrow is operating at capacity" and then, almost in the same breath, that "numbers [of planes] are rising". Go figure.

Somewhat worryingly, we were then told (by a fireman) that "aviation fuel burns with twice the calorific value of petrol" (it doesn't) and a bit later in the programme that "every plane needs an engine run to check its oil levels before takeoff". Hmmm.

But by far the best part was two airport policemen meeting an incoming flight from Turkey to arrest a wanted woman.

TK clearly decided that they didn't want TV viewers thinking they regularly transported such shady characters, so we ended up with this:


http://www.pprune.org/www.avgen.com/THY.jpg

[Wycombe]

TK clearly decided that they didn't want TV viewers thinking that they regularly transported such shady characters

...or that they could make a 773 turn into a 333 and back again a few times, which was a bit of continuity gaffe for those as observant as me.

[bcn_boy]

It is not like TK are busy ferrying jihadi's back and forth from Turkey is it? What do they have to be ashamed of?

[Navpi]

Isn't this all part of the PR upsell for runway 3 infastructure hence the opening line re capacity?

Personally I would rather we spend the £18bn and indeed the rocketing costs of HS2 on our OAPS most of whom "appear" to be being CULLED by cut after cut.

I really don't understand why there is taxpayer money for Heathrow whilst the NHS and social care is disintegrating.

We will all be old or indeed ill some day!

By all means build a new runway but fund all of the support with private money. It's scandalous using taxpayer dosh.

See also HS2.

[Trinity 09L]

Oh, do not forget those poor dogs, the cabin baggage of near 30kgs, getting £10 from the staff, and of course all early flights at 6am on Easterlies not to disturb West London. :ugh: One big advert for R3.

[Twiglet1]

Flew into LHR Friday arrived 0602 bags well past 7 am left rentacar office Bath road 0805at third attempt car wise
Lesson learned - take a carry on bag. Felt sorry for BA crew waiting for their bags after a long flight

[DaveReidUK]

Flew into LHR Friday arrived 0602 bags well past 7 am

Arriving at Heathrow then, you will have been preceded by a dozen or so other widebody landings, including 4 A380s, so it's not altogether surprising that the baggage system couldn't keep up.

[edi_local]

Flew into LHR Friday arrived 0602 bags well past 7 am left rentacar office Bath road 0805at third attempt car wise
Lesson learned - take a carry on bag. Felt sorry for BA crew waiting for their bags after a long flight

That is pretty standard.

Up until last year I was a frequent flyer between LHR and EDI/GLA. Never any problems Northwards waiting for bags when I had to take one, but coming back I regularly waited over 1 hour for my bags on the last flight of the night. On one occasion it was just over 90 minutes. On pretty much every occasion my wait for baggage more than doubled my journey time compared to the actual flight! One night I asked if I could go airside myself and get it. I had my LHR airside pass with me and my hi-viz, sadly they said no! := :}

[Trinity 09L]

Heathrow still holding Crossrail (aka Elizabethan line) to ransom for access just to the central terminal. Heathrow have sole access to T5 until 2023.
Lawyers on the case (big fees all round) :*

[DaveReidUK]

IAG have reportedly submitted a counter-proposal as part of their submission to the Government consultation on the draft Airports National Policy Statement.

Citing the quoted costs of bridging the M25 for R3, IAG have proposed shortening the proposed 3500m runway by 300m, so that it would stop short of the M25, apparently overlooking the fact that the published plans show nearly 1000m of R3 (not including the RESA) extending to the west of the motorway.

It's a shame that IAG couldn't afford the cost of an up-to-date OS map that has the line of the M25 shown on it. :O

International Airlines Group issues Heathrow M25 warning (http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/international-airlines-group-issues-heathrow-m25-warning/)

[Heathrow Harry]

not very professional.................

[WHBM]

Arriving at Heathrow then, you will have been preceded by a dozen or so other widebody landings, including 4 A380s, so it's not altogether surprising that the baggage system couldn't keep up.
It is altogether surprising, that after many years of exactly these schedules, things cannot be organised better.

I understood, for immigration staff, that if anyone is rostered on duty one minute before 0600 then night shift rate applies for the whole shift, so only the minimum skeleton are so, regardless of passenger numbers, to shave someone's budget a bit more. Of course an 0600 report, after all the security stuff and distant reporting points, means people not in position until well after 0630. Does the same apply to handling staff ?

[ETOPS]

I'm given to understand ;) that HAL are about to withdraw the Microwave landing system. Overtaken by GPS based systems I guess.

Confirmation to come in due course....

[Seljuk22]

Jet Airways will introsuce a 3rd daily flight from 29th October to BOM
Jet Airways - Press Releases (http://www.jetairways.com/EN/IN/JetExperience/Press-Releases.aspx#pressRelease) (news from 24th May)

[DaveReidUK]

Heathrow still holding Crossrail (aka Elizabethan line) to ransom for access just to the central terminal. Heathrow have sole access to T5 until 2023.
Lawyers on the case (big fees all round) :*

Heathrow loses Crossrail access charge case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40059659)

[Trinity 09L]

DRUK
Thanks for the update, no doubt money in the bank for an appeal:rolleyes:
If BA cannot cope with 2 runway ops, then three is a bigger problem :ooh:

[Skipness One Echo]

The number of runways has nothing to do with today's fiasco.

[Trinity 09L]

Skip
I know that, but more space to park their fleet :rolleyes:

[Navpi]

My nephew drove to Heathrow from Stamford sat in terminal 6 hours and then told to go home. Cancelled.

"Can we fly Sunday "
"No chance, even if we have systems we will have massive backlog"

Customer service will get in touch next week.

And that as they say was that. 2 weeks holiday cancelled.

I do not understand how loss of power can effectively lose the database? I have worked on numerous IT system and you have mirror back ups so as soon as the power supply is restored you are back on. You then need a couple if hours to recheck.

Do we have any airline IT people on this forum who would concur.

A power outage just doesn't seem to hang together and would not cause everything to be off for 18 hours unless there was indeed NO POWER AT SOURCE.

And where is this loss of power located?

Heathrow, Germany ?

[compton3bravo]

I would hazard a guess at Bangalore or somewhere else in India!

[DaveReidUK]

I would hazard a guess at Bangalore or somewhere else in India!

According to media reports, it's "near Heathrow".

It's not clear whether that's a reference to Waterside, though I suspect not.

[Heathrow Harry]

lots of informed comment on the"issue" at

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/595169-ba-delays-lhr-computer-issue-7.html#post9784995

[Trinity 09L]

Now Heathrow airport has come up with a new cut-price solution for its £17bn third runway — a series of “viaducts” across the M25. The airport, which started out with plans for a 14-lane tunnel, then switched to a “very gentle hill”, is now considering building three parallel bridges across the M25. According to plans presented to an engineering conference, the widest viaduct would be the runway itself, while two thinner viaducts would be built as taxiways for planes.

The plans presented by Phil Wilbraham, who oversaw the construction of Heathrows terminals 2 and 5, reflect the cost and complexities of building a landing strip on densely populated land…

"Populated land?" :rolleyes:

[Skipness One Echo]

Link please?

[DaveReidUK]

Link please?

Sunday Times article yesterday.

Heathrow plan to build third runway — on stilts over M25 (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/heathrow-plan-to-build-third-runway-on-stilts-over-m25-ps6f2p382)

[Walnut]

Is Zac Goldsmiths re election to Richmond upon Thames a further problem to R3?
He has resigned once over it and now with an ultra tight UK Parliament, can the Cons risk it?

[Skipness One Echo]

Good point, especially with Boris on the prowl and John McDonnell still a power in Labour but if it goes to a free vote, probably. Depends if Labour decide to play politics.

[Heathrow Harry]

Business section of the Times today reports 31 of the 73 elected London MP's are known, public opponents of LHR R3.

That plus BREXIT negotiations (plus voting for more hospitals and roads for N Ireland) almsot certainly means the Govt won't risk it

Gone for another generation probably

[Navpi]

"Mayday mayday"

Theresa May’s election gamble has failed which results in less, not more certainty on many, many issues in British politics, including on Heathrow expansion, as well as an increased number of MPs who are opposed to the project being elected in London.

The Government were relying on a large parliamentary majority – including many new and loyal backbenchers, to push through a third runway. Now that Theresa May’s gamble has left her in an unstable position the future of the project unfortunately looks much less certain and potentially in dire jeopardy.

[AndrewH52]

"Mayday mayday"

Theresa May’s election gamble has failed which results in less, not more certainty on many, many issues in British politics, including on Heathrow expansion, as well as an increased number of MPs who are opposed to the project being elected in London.

The Government were relying on a large parliamentary majority – including many new and loyal backbenchers, to push through a third runway. Now that Theresa May’s gamble has left her in an unstable position the future of the project unfortunately looks much less certain and potentially in dire jeopardy.

Not necessarily. There was / is significant cross party support for Heathrow expansion so TM not solely reliant on her own MPs.

[Heathrow Harry]

Not necessarily. There was / is significant cross party support for Heathrow expansion so TM not solely reliant on her own MPs.

you really think any Labour MP will go anywhere near the Tories now? get real.......................................

they'll want to run them ragged - long nights, laods of delay - eventaully the Grim Reaper will even remove the small majority she has with the DUP

and remember there are quite a few antis on the Tory side...............

[Aero Mad]

Lots of support from unions and the TUC. I would suspect that in the event of whips giving a free vote (which Corbyn has hinted at (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/boost-for-third-runway-at-heathrow-as-jeremy-corbyn-suggests-lab/)) you'd see about 230 Tories in favour (remember also that the Scottish contingent which now holds some sway and is vociferously pro-Heathrow), along with at least 200 Labour + 35 SNP + 10 DUP + 4 PC = 479-162 in favour. That leaves some wiggle room. If Labour U-turned and Plaid (whose position is ambiguous) voted against you'd probably end up with 275-353 against. But I don't see why Corbyn would deny his MPs a free vote on this, especially given union support.

[Navpi]

I think you may be clutching at straws.

I don't think there is a cat in hells chance of any Labour MP supporting anything related to the Tories now.

Labour will stick public interest and go for the jugular. Corbyn and McDonell hate it and they now have the whip hand.

Plus why would TM put herself in that position?

Personally I think it will be quietly dropped.

Priority is now in other areas ! Assuming she lasts that long :) !

Look out HS2.

[Heathrow Harry]

Also the young and the activists are generally anti LHR - and that's where the PLP votes are coming from right now

[Alanwsg]

From the BBC ...

Heathrow Airport Terminals 3 and 5 baggage system failure - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40285170)

[Heathrow Harry]

People heading out of Heathrow are facing flights without their luggage after the airport's baggage system failed.

Passengers have been advised to pack essential items in their hand luggage.

Heathrow said the system had failed at Terminals 3 and 5 but said other terminals were unaffected.

British Airways, Lufthansa and American Airlines flights to Europe and the US are among those affected.

It comes three weeks after an IT system failure caused chaos for thousands of British Airways passengers.
In a statement posted on Twitter, the airport warned passengers they may have to travel without their bags.
It added it was investigating why the baggage system at both terminals had failed and was working hard to get the system running again as soon as possible.

[Basil]

I have family travelling out of LHR today. Aren't they lucky they chose the Airline Which Must Not Be Mentioned? ;)

[SpringHeeledJack]

What are the compensation rules when you get to fly out, but your suitcase doesn't ? Bad enough for those going on holiday, but what of those going on a business trip with much needed clothing and misc items left behind ?

[wiggy]

Aren't they lucky they chose the Airline Which Must Not Be Mentioned?

I guess mud was bound to stick but would it be churlish to point out that the BAA run system also failed at Terminal 3, hence the comment in the Heathrow Airport press release about " British Airways, Lufthansa and American Airlines flights to Europe and the US are among those affected." (my emphasis)


Anyhow "Rumour" has it (at around 0920 UK local) that it's been fixed, at least for now..

[Basil]

TAWMNBM uses T4.

[Navpi]

“in approving it, MPs will effectively be asked to sign a blank cheque for a foreign owned monopoly"

Hang on, Heathrow is 100% British company so this would be a bone fide taxpayer subsidy in a leading world class product would it not.

Can MPs not just in London but Norwich Darlington Invergordon Swansea Redruth and Londonderry not see the benefits to their constituents of such a massive investment!

To me this looks as though it's the first uttering that it is about to be dropped with "persons unknown" briefing the press albeit The Sun.

I thought the Heathrow CEO had signed contracts ?
-------------------------


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3810494/planned-third-runway-at-heathrow-airport-thrown-into-doubt-by-post-election-hung-parliament/

[DaveReidUK]

To me this looks as though it's the first uttering that it is about to be dropped with "persons unknown" briefing the press albeit The Sun.

The Torygraph put it even more categorically in an article yesterday:

Tory MPs warn Heathrow expansion 'not going to happen' following hung parliament (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/tory-mps-warn-heathrow-expansion-not-going-happen-following/)

I thought the Heathrow CEO had signed contracts ?Quite possibly, in respect of preliminary planning work, but contracts that involve breaking ground for R3, if it goes ahead, are still years away.

[galaxy68]

This is the first bit of good post election news I have heard.

[pax britanica]

Right so lets not expand the only global hub airport in UK or one that will ever be such just when we are going to scale back trading with the people a few hours drive or train ride away.

At the moment as a country we are being portrayed in foreign media as a complete clusterf==k with literally everything going wrong at the same time.

If you are pro Brexit you have to be pro Heathrow otherwise you cannot get to all these new frontier trading opportunities. But then again Brexit is liable to be a catastrophe too as this governments in charge of it so maybe we wont need any airports in 2020 and can go back to sailing ships when Britain really was Great Britain

[Heathrow Harry]

"Can MPs not just in London but Norwich Darlington Invergordon Swansea Redruth and Londonderry not see the benefits to their constituents of such a massive investment!"

Oddly they'd rather see the money spent on a decent broadband network, schools and rail links in their areas rather than even more money being spent inside the M25..........

[canberra97]

"Can MPs not just in London but Norwich Darlington Invergordon Swansea Redruth and Londonderry not see the benefits to their constituents of such a massive investment!"

Oddly they'd rather see the money spent on a decent broadband network, schools and rail links in their areas rather than even more money being spent inside the M25..........

Because 'oddly' enough the constituents of those said places would prefer to see money spent on a decent broadband network, schools and rail links as most of them wouldn't feel any benefit of even more money being spent inside the M25 and the MPs are there to represent their constituents.

A ridiculous statement really and a selfish one too but that's not to say that I'm against a third runway as I am all for it but to suggest such things that you did regarding MPs and there constituents needs is personally rather arrogant.

[pilot9249]

Because 'oddly' enough the constituents of those said places would prefer to see money spent on a decent broadband network, schools and rail links as most of them wouldn't feel any benefit of even more money being spent inside the M25 and the MPs are there to represent their constituents.

A ridiculous statement really and a selfish one too but that's not to say that I'm against a third runway as I am all for it but to suggest such things that you did regarding MPs and there constituents needs is personally rather arrogant.

There is a runway capacity crunch in London because Billy from Fulham increasingly wants to take a family of four to Magaluf.

A new runway in London benefits Billy and he should have access to it. No question.

There is no way this is a business travel problem.

Per CAA surveys, about 70% of the traffic at Heathrow is leisure traffic.

If anchor airlines at Heathrow could actually find any new premium heavy business routes, they would drop rotations to Magaluf in a heartbeat.

This problem needs solving for Londoners who want to go on holiday overseas.

It is of no practical concern to anyone who isn't in London, and shouldn't be portrayed as a priority for their MP, or indeed as a "national" project.

[True Blue]

And yet we are fed a constant diet of propaganda that expansion of Lhr is all about new business routes that can't be started due lack of slots. This is all about ensuring that Lhr maintains it's almost monopoly position with long haul and with it high fares on the user airlines, especially in business or first class. Hope it never happens and Lgw now gets the nod instead.

[Skipness One Echo]

What are you banging on about? You claim Heathrow has a monopoly in long haul which is clearly false. Actually does not stand up to scrutiny. LHR does very well on long haul, much better than LGW. Your solution is to build another runway at Gatwick so that all the long haul that could have been flying there since it opened, can now fly from there.

There is NOTHING stopping you flying long haul from LGW. AA, DL, US, NW, WR, EY, KE in recent years all tried and moved out. The reason why? LGW couldn't fill enough seats in business.

[True Blue]

Skipness, I accept you are a big supporter of expansion of Lhr. Some of us have different views and I see Lhr as a near monopoly. Why have airlines kept moving from Lgw to Lhr, because fares are higher. And that becomes a self- fulfilling result. Are you telling me that it does not suit the whole travel establishment to ensure the 3rd runway is at Lhr? The big airline alliances, the big business travel agencies, the big corporations with big travel deals, rewards schemes etc. All feeding each other but also a need to ensure there isn't a serious competitor down the road. There is a serious effort to ensure Lgw never succeeds long-haul so that fares at the front end can be kept high by then restricting as much as possible to Lhr. I've said before, if there are a whole bunch of new long haul routes that airlines want to serve, then they would be doing it by now. So yes, my vote goes firmly to Lgw as I do not want to see Lhr get any more dominant than it is already.

[commit aviation]

The decision process has taken so long that we now surely need to approve both not decide on one or the other.
The reality is more likely that by the time they do actually get round to it STN will probably need a third runway too

[Heathrow Harry]

Camberra - I think you reposted ny point twice which rather confused me but I don't see what is ridiculous or selfish about wanting to spend money outside London rather than in it (see sptravellers point as well)

Well over half of UK spending on transport infrastructure is in the London & SE area - no wonder people outside are kicking back

[Skipness One Echo]

Skipness, I accept you are a big supporter of expansion of Lhr. Some of us have different views and I see Lhr as a near monopoly. Why have airlines kept moving from Lgw to Lhr, because fares are higher. And that becomes a self- fulfilling result. Are you telling me that it does not suit the whole travel establishment to ensure the 3rd runway is at Lhr? The big airline alliances, the big business travel agencies, the big corporations with big travel deals, rewards schemes etc. All feeding each other but also a need to ensure there isn't a serious competitor down the road. There is a serious effort to ensure Lgw never succeeds long-haul so that fares at the front end can be kept high by then restricting as much as possible to Lhr. I've said before, if there are a whole bunch of new long haul routes that airlines want to serve, then they would be doing it by now. So yes, my vote goes firmly to Lgw as I do not want to see Lhr get any more dominant than it is already.
By all means build another runway at Gatwick. You can get some incredibly cheap fares out of LHR if you know where to look, but you will be paying a premium for flying out of actual real airport facilities with very little bussing and finally (almost) enough parking stands. Even LHR decided to save on spending by cutting back on T5B/C structure but T2 is world class. None of that comes free.
Gatwick is a great option for cheap flights as you say, look at Laker or Norwegian. But what TrueBlue is asking is for the market to be artificially constricted at LHR to favour LGW, for LGW to expand at the expense of LHR. It's not that big a cartel,it's really not a huge conspiracy. I support expansion and jobs where there's a business case, so that's LGW and LHR. Airlines then make a decision, with the public being super sensitive in price, if you are right, Norwegian will win massively and LHR will wither and die.
Your assertion that the industry is afraid of a real competitor airport to bust a cosy cartel is ludicrous. If one of the major players thought they'd do better with a discount deal out of Gatwick rather than overpay for LHR, they'd move tomorrow and screw their alliance "loyalty". The truth is if they move to Gatwick, their existing traffic will stay at LHR. BA learned this when they moved major parts of their South American and African networks to LGW, their competitors who remained at LHR had a field day.


Well over half of UK spending on transport infrastructure is in the London & SE area
Mainly because that's where the population is concentrated (!)

[Trav a la]

Actually it's only 33% of the population who live in the SE.

[Navpi]

Sadly I fear Heathrow is now dead.

Just watch Queens speech and no mention. This marks the formal start of the parliamentary year and sets out the government’s legislative agenda for the coming session.

There is no way the Government can present a bill before Parliament in this session based on discussion in a previous one.

That is totally unconstitutional so even I have to admit.

It's DEAD

TM would be a fool to go looking for problems with so much else on her plate.

[True Blue]

The pressure is still there for more capacity. So might they now look again at Lgw on the basis there is less opposition in some important quarters, like London Mayor?

[Navpi]

Again it would have to be presented and then voted on. Our constitution doesn't allow "slight of hand".

And the simple truth us there is simply no time to devote to aviation policy.

It is of course top of the agenda for posters here, it is however bottom when you consider the dozen or so bills needed to get Brexit through. Each of those are so weighty it leaves no room for anything else.

Grammar schools social care jettisoned by way of example. And rightly or wrongly Heathrow was division four compared to both these issues.

Transport infastructure will stagger on as it does now creaking ever more at the seams.

[DaveReidUK]

Sadly I fear Heathrow is now dead.

I suspect you mean that LHR R3 is dead, which isn't quite the same thing.

Even Heathrow's own PR machine gave up peddling the "if we don't expand, we'll die" line a couple of years ago.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Actually it's only 33% of the population who live in the SE.

yes - and they're already the by far the richest - no country in W Europe has such a concentration of wealth in one areaa cp the rest of the country (see various Economist articles over the last 6 months)

No wonder there is little support for spending more taxpayers cash there............

[WHBM]

Per CAA surveys, about 70% of the traffic at Heathrow is leisure traffic.

If anchor airlines at Heathrow could actually find any new premium heavy business routes, they would drop rotations to Magaluf in a heartbeat.

This problem needs solving for Londoners who want to go on holiday overseas.

It is of no practical concern to anyone who isn't in London, and shouldn't be portrayed as a priority for their MP, or indeed as a "national" project.
Long haul works with business in the front, leisure in the back, cargo underneath, connecting passengers filling in the cabin spaces, and such like. From both ends. There isn't that much of a destination division between categories. Even if not many Europeans go on holiday to Washington, many from Washington come on holiday to Europe.

All this supports a UK major hub, which in turn encourages international businesses to set up in the UK. EU membership is just a fraction of it. Speaking English, now the international language, is far more significant. Not many Japanese or even Portuguese execs speak German, say, but most nowadays speak English. Even the 1 hour less time difference with the USA is a considerable advantage to the UK.

Politicians generally cannot see the overall market mix of services. Not everywhere is like Palma.

[anothertyke]

Again it would have to be presented and then voted on. Our constitution doesn't allow "slight of hand".

And the simple truth us there is simply no time to devote to aviation policy.





On the contrary, on the basis of the Government's stated Brexit strategy, there are 27 air services agreements to be concluded in 20 months. Aviation policy will be in the newspapers as never before.

[Trinity 09L]

Borough local plans are now being submitted with the housing need assessment a focal point. The locals are do not wish these plans to go ahead, with expansion in the green belt.
All boroughs to the West of LHR are to provide housing and related infrastructure in these plans, without considering R3 needs.
Boroughs in West London have no space or brown fields for housing +.

[Trinity 09L]

So
business in the front, leisure in the back, cargo underneath, connecting passengers filling in the cabin spaces

Cargo is sent to LHR by road from all over the UK, and a small number of connecting passengers to fill in the cabin spaces = does not make it very big hub.

[Heathrow Harry]

no it'll all go to Manston... (takes coat and flees....)

[01475]

no it'll all go to Manston... (takes coat and flees....)

Aye, you just keep running mate!

:= :D

[pilot9249]

Long haul works with business in the front, leisure in the back, cargo underneath, connecting passengers filling in

Indeed it does. And if more of those long haul routes could operate profitably today, BA would make more money and Billy would find it harder to get to Magaluf.

Look, lots is talked about connectivity with China but BA couldn't make a fourth route (to Chengdu) work, and that's the sixth wealthiest conurbation in the country.

If they could make more long haul routes with premium traffic work today they would.

It isn't capacity at Heathrow that stops them.

[Navpi]

News now getting into the mainstream media.

If TM is ousted nobody will go near it.

If there is an election and Labour win likewise.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4626954/Heathrow-runway-expansion-threat.html

And yes reference was to runway 3 not Heathrow itself !

[canberra97]

British Airways have announced that from 28 October 2017 two Norwegian destinations will be removed from its network.

London Heathrow to Bergen
London Heathrow to Stavanger

I would have thought there would be other destinations that would be axed before these two, even though the oil industry has had a down turn I am rather surprised by Stavanger.

[inOban]

I would have thought that neither could justify the price of a slot at LHR unless the route provided valuable transfer PAX.

[canberra97]

The same could be said about a lot of routes from Heathrow but I would have thought that Stavanger had a high proportion of transfer passengers to justify it remaining in the British Airways network.

[NWSRG]

Folks,

A query on LHR security.

Recently flew BHD-LHR-SFO with BA, all via T5. Return was LAX-LHR-BHD, again all BA through T5.

So why on the outbound flight was I able to go through T5 Flight Connections without any additional security check, whereas inbound we had to go through security in T5? Obviously I expected to go through Border Control, but not security...

Just curious...

[edi_local]

Folks,

A query on LHR security.

Recently flew BHD-LHR-SFO with BA, all via T5. Return was LAX-LHR-BHD, again all BA through T5.

So why on the outbound flight was I able to go through T5 Flight Connections without any additional security check, whereas inbound we had to go through security in T5? Obviously I expected to go through Border Control, but not security...

Just curious...

You flew in on a UK domestic flight, so have already cleared security to UK standards. Clearing again in LHR, as you remained entirely airside, would have been pointless. On the way back you had only met US security requirements, so in order to board a Uk domestic flight, you had to be re-screened to UK standards.

[The96er]

Folks,

A query on LHR security.

Recently flew BHD-LHR-SFO with BA, all via T5. Return was LAX-LHR-BHD, again all BA through T5.

So why on the outbound flight was I able to go through T5 Flight Connections without any additional security check, whereas inbound we had to go through security in T5? Obviously I expected to go through Border Control, but not security...

Just curious...

On your outbound, when you went through BHD security, you are deemed to have been screened to U.K standards, so no need to pass through LHR security. However, on your return, you were screened to U.S standards, and therefore needed to be re-screened.
As far as I know, the U.K will not accept security screening from any other country.

[NWSRG]

You flew in on a UK domestic flight, so have already cleared security to UK standards. Clearing again in LHR, as you remained entirely airside, would have been pointless. On the way back you had only met US security requirements, so in order to board a Uk domestic flight, you had to be re-screened to UK standards.

Thanks for that...I see the logic. But it does beg the question, if we don't trust the security standards from other nations airports, then why on earth are we permitting flights from them?

[strawberry Ribena]

On the inbound, LHR is the first point of entry into the uk. Therefore you are clearing customs and immigration there and then carrying on your journey within the UK. When landing at bhd you'd have noticed you get off the plane , collect your bag and have no questions to answer. Had you done lhr-lax-sfo as a connecting flight you'll have done the same at lax because that's the first point of entry. Same for australia and new Zealand

[WHBM]

Thanks for that...I see the logic. But it does beg the question, if we don't trust the security standards from other nations airports, then why on earth are we permitting flights from them?
It's all at the behest of the Foreign Office.

Most places round the world have adequate airport security. But some don't. This includes some that the Foreign Office were keen not to annoy, and/or those who take affront at being classed in any way inferior. There was an initial list of these, which the FO flipped over. Eventually there was a typical civil service compromise. Every nation would be treated the same. And that means passengers from every nation have to be rescreened.

There was some aviation logic to it, in that some of the nations which were deemed inadequate were acceptable to others. So passengers from such a place could transfer at a friendly intermediate point, then transfer again at London, and overcome the rules.

[Heathrow Harry]

Arora Heathrow ? Arora (http://heathrow.thearoragroup.com/)
'Cheaper' Heathrow airport third runway plans proposed - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40546225)

A wealthy businessman has submitted plans for a third runway at Heathrow which he says would be £5bn cheaper than the airport's current scheme.
Hotel tycoon Surinder Arora has put his proposal to the government's public consultation on Heathrow.

Ministers have expressed a preference for the airport's plans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37760187) for a new runway and terminal costing £17.5bn. Heathrow said it was already considering some of the ideas, and wanted to lower the cost too.

Arora Group's proposals include changing the design of terminal buildings and taxiways, and reducing the amount of land it is built on.Mr Arora said: "We want passengers to be at the heart of our plans and the current monopoly at Heathrow, which over-charges airlines and in turn raises fares for passengers, is not the right model for the future.
"Heathrow needs competition and innovation which puts passengers and airlines at the heart of the expansion project."

He added: "One of the options we have proposed to government includes a possible shift of the runway so that it does not impact on the M25 and M4, as we know the M25 junction being affected threatens the deliverability of the whole project. We appreciate this is a politically sensitive issue but it is merely an option with additional savings of £1.5bn, whereas the rest of our proposals save up to £5.2bn without the need to amend the runway location."

Willie Walsh, chief executive of British Airways' owner IAG, welcomed the proposals. He said: "The government should look closely at Arora's proposal as it would significantly reduce costs.

An airport spokeswoman said: "Heathrow's expansion proposals are supported by the government and have widespread cross-party political, business and union support.
"We continue to develop our plans to improve passenger experience, reduce the impact on local communities and lower the cost so we deliver expansion at close to current charges.
Some of the options we are looking at sound similar to those suggested in this submission, and we will welcome views on these in the public consultation later this year."

Construction will not begin for at least three years, and it could be delayed by legal challenges over the runway's environmental impact.

[Logohu]

Arora Group's proposals include changing the design of terminal buildings and taxiways, and reducing the amount of land it is built on.

Cue another set of expensive public enquiries, environmental impact studies, legal challenges etc etc ....

[Trinity 09L]

"so that it does not impact on the M25 and M4":ooh:
A shorter runway? or one with a curve, a hump or a tunnel for the runway :eek: so no "impact" into the M25. To avoid the M4 it needs to be further South. Of course no mention of the A4 and A3044 roads to be diverted.

[ETOPS]

Here's a picture to help with visualisation...

Smarter runway modifications ? Arora Heathrow (http://heathrow.thearoragroup.com/proposal/smarter-runway-modifications/)

[Trinity 09L]

Thanks ETOPS
So three new road tunnels, and the A3044 does not reappear once it joins the A4 (lost alongside T5 and M25). Longford village should enjoy its environment runways on either side.:D