UK AIRPORTS COMISSION RESPONSE

[FlyingEagle21]

May I suggest a new thread dedicated the to UK Airports Commission Report and any relevant discussion.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf

[gordonroxburgh]

The key thing is that setting aside AIRPORT capacity, what we struggle from is a lack of RUNWAY capacity to further the national interest and provide resilience for operations show one of the two runways at LHR or the single runway at LGW become unusable.

It's should be a simple no brainier of a decision to add a new runway at each main airport then legislatively control normally available slot capacity to match agreed environmental and economic targets.

The extra runways would provide resilience for all operators in times of off-normal operations that harm our national interests when slot capacity is slashed due to the likes of weather or other incidents at the 2 airports.

We need to build and invest in our future now.

[Walnut]

Well now it has truly been put into the long grass, because it will follow the result of the London Mayoral election. Both candidates are strongly against the expansion of LHR and neither will dare to stand on a platform for the expansion of LHR. Imagine all the voters in London who are currently blighted by the noise pollution.
So that's it chaps.

[ATNotts]

Shouldn't this thread be retitled "London Airports Commission Response"?

The whole thing was set up to sort out extra capacity for London, and the southeast. The rest of the UK can, so far as all UK governments are concerned, go hang.

Leaving aside the effect of Scottish devolution, making Edinburgh a true "capital city" in the eyes of the world, every other airport and region has had to work for itself to get where it is today - and one, Manchester, has consistently succeeded, to it's great credit.

[DaveReidUK]

provide resilience for operations show [sic] one of the two runways at LHR or the single runway at LGW become unusable.

That's good to hear.

West London residents will be reassured to learn that LHR R3 is just intended as a "spare", to be used when the current northern or southern runway is out of action.

Strange that nobody has picked up on that before.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Interesting alliance of unions...
British Airline Pilots Association, TUC, Unite, GMB and Prospect trade unions called (29-Aug-2016) on UK Prime Minister Theresa May to give the go-ahead to a new Heathrow runway when parliament returns in the first week of Sep-2016. The unions have written to the Prime Minister urging her to support the recommendation of the Airports Commission noting: "We therefore urge the Government to announce a clear and final decision to build a new third runway at Heathrow based on the recommendations of the Airports Commission. Any further delay in the decision will harm the whole of UK Plc."

[Fairdealfrank]

It's should be a simple no brainier of a decision to add a new runway at each main airport then legislatively control normally available slot capacity to match agreed environmental and economic targets.


Indeed it would, and in the environment of privately owned airports, allow both and let's see which one the market will back.

One doesn't need to be a genius to see that the market would back Heathrow over Gatwick (obviously), and this is why Gatwick airport management are adamant that they should get the gig at the expense of Heathrow. Heathrow on the other hand doesn't give a monkeys whether Gatwick gets another rwy as well, provided that it is as well as, and not instead of, one at Heathrow.



That's good to hear.

West London residents will be reassured to learn that LHR R3 is just intended as a "spare", to be used when the current northern or southern runway is out of action.

Strange that nobody has picked up on that before.

Not enough return on investment for the airport owners if it cannot be used to provide additional capacity that is needed. That's why "nobody has picked up on that before". Most would agree that it is not a particularly sensible idea.

[DaveReidUK]

That's why "nobody has picked up on that before". Most would agree that it is not a particularly sensible idea.

I forgot the smiley when I posted that. :O

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Shouldn't this thread be retitled "London Airports Commission Response"?

The whole thing was set up to sort out extra capacity for London, and the southeast. The rest of the UK can, so far as all UK governments are concerned, go hang.


You clearly haven't read the Commission's terms of reference.

[Heathrow Harry]

Mrs May will probably launch another Commission to review things post-Brexit... to report in .... let's not rush matters .................... 2021 anyone??

[Trash 'n' Navs]

My money's on a runway each. After all, they serve different markets and what better way to show the world that we're open for business AND leisure.

[DaveReidUK]

My money's on a runway each. After all, they serve different markets and what better way to show the world that we're open for business AND leisure.

Nobody is going to invest in a second runway at Gatwick in the knowledge that Heathrow is getting a 50% increase in capacity.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

So Gatwick's business case is dependant on manipulating the market? Seems a weak case if it does.

They seem to be growing well with pax higher than originally forecast, they're gaining new routes and appear confident the growth is sustainable.

So focussing on their key market is doing well and they should keep that focus - grow the leisure market.

Leave Heathrow to focus on business and trade routes with the extra capacity its customers are calling for.

[DaveReidUK]

So Gatwick's business case is dependant on manipulating the market? Seems a weak case if it does.

No, Gatwick doesn't manipulate the market, hard to see how it could.

It simply benefits from the fact that Heathrow is capacity-constrained.

Remove that constraint from LHR and LGW's market changes significantly.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Remove that constraint from LHR and LGW's market changes significantly.

Exactly - constraining LHR is manipulating the market which benefits LGW. LGW's business case is based on that constraint remaining. Unfair to the customers.

[DaveReidUK]

LGW's business case is based on that constraint remaining.

Then we seem to be agreed that a third runway at Heathrow would significantly weaken the business case for Gatwick expansion.

My money's on a runway each

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly.

Gatwick (obviously) argue that they can provide the same benefits to the UK as LHR's 3rd (the 'Field of Dreams' philosophy). To make their investment viable (ie maximise shareholder return) they don't want LHR to expand - hence my comment on constraining the market which in my view is unfair.

LHR as I understand it, don't mind if LGW also expands - hence open market competition ensues.

So my money is on the Government giving approval to both for an extra runway. After all, the AC said they both had viable business cases (disputed by Willy Walsh) so then let the market decide.

[DaveReidUK]

So my money is on the Government giving approval to both for an extra runway.

Hmmm, why make things merely difficult for yourself as a Government when, with a little more work, you can double the pain - two public inquiries, two opposition campaigns, two sets of legal challenges ... ?

That's the one decision that's not going to happen.

[inOban]

I thought the viability of LHR 3 depended on the Government, ie you and me, paying much of the cost of the new or relocated infrastructure - roads etc.