Heathrow Expansion

[Axionknight]

iphonedyou said:

I don't know - but I do wonder why people spend so much time telling us all how much they hate it. What is it with these people, are they hoping that if they repeat themselves enough times people from London will believe them?

Plenty of people believe us ;-)

[TroubledSoul]

Axionknight said:

Yeah, I used to live in Huddersfield and avoided flying from LBA if I could, getting there is crap, Manchester was a doddle - one train that takes 45 minutes, madness.

Yep, it's an absolute joke. They are also now charging something like £2 just to drop people off there!

Inside there are barely any facilities. It's like the 3rd world....

[Axionknight]

TroubledSoul said:

Yep, it's an absolute joke. They are also now charging something like £2 just to drop people off there!

Inside there are barely any facilities. It's like the 3rd world....

Aberdeen airport have just done the same thing - a quid a time, my girlfriend dropped me off there last Saturday and had an embarrassing moment at the barrier whilst she rummaged around in her handbag

[dcb]

truck71 said:

Sorry if my point sounds arrogant, fact is London is one of the most popular (if not the most)tourist city in the world and is a global business hub. Capacity has been reached for LHR and it needs addressing. Sending people up the country won't solve that, they want to be in London/ SE.

I imagine the airports you allude to are not at capacity, if there was a business case for airlines to use that capacity they would already be doing so.

Thank you for your polite answer. I take your points onboard about more
capacity required in SE England.

Given that M25 from M4 to M3 is already one of the most over-congested
roads in all Europe, can I suggest that doing more with Heathrow is a non-starter ?

Also, doing anything with Gatwick benefits relatively few.
It's the wrong side of the River Thames for most of the UK.

I now hear good things about Luton and Stanstead development.
I suspect either or both of these two have to be cheaper
than anything at Heathwick.

[Collectingbrass]

Sir Humphrey said:

If it is fully privately financed then why are they wanting the commission to look at different ways of funding it and why is it "less cost to the taxpayer" rather than "no cost to the taxpayer"?

Primarily because the Regulator (the CAA) is driving down the rate of return Heathrow are able to recover on the investment made and Heathrow's backers need this to change if they are to carry on investing. The permitted rate of return is already at the point where the returns are such that the 5 investors have better options, internationally, to get a decent rate of return. If the regulator's stated glide path for this rate of return comes to fruition by the time the runway starts being built the investors money will not keep place with global inflation, and there will be no incentive for them to invest.

Secondly it is to do with how Heathrow are paid by the airlines to make the investment. The 5 shareholders invest in the capital projects, and are repaid via the landing charges. Bear in mind that Heathrow compete internationally on landing charges. The landing charges make up one element of the fare charged to passengers, as does Air Passenger Duty set by Government. The less APD charged, the lower the fare. The lower the fare, the more passengers travelling internationally the airlines can attract to Heathrow. The more passengers passing through Heathrow, the greater the overall sum recovered from the landing charges.

Thirdly, and bringing 1 & 2 together, the rate of return in the settlement is based on an assumed number of passengers in the regulated period (usually 5 years). The actual passenger numbers, and therefore the revenue received by Heathrow, has never met this forecast since regulation started and there is no mechanism in the regulatory settlement to make up the shortfall.

It is these issues Heathrow (and Gatwick & Boris island etc) will need addressing if any investment is to go ahead.

The point I was making is that unlike HS2 & Crossrail, expansion at Heathrow is a fully private financed investment.

[davepoth]

Gatwick is the correct solution IMO. The infrastructure there is well developed for a single runway airport, has green fields in most directions and it would greatly benefit from a second runway. Heathrow is hemmed in on all sides and any expansion there is going to be hugely disruptive.

All it needs is a better transport link to central London and it'll be perfect.

[Collectingbrass]

dcb said:

truck71 said:

Sorry if my point sounds arrogant, fact is London is one of the most popular (if not the most)tourist city in the world and is a global business hub. Capacity has been reached for LHR and it needs addressing. Sending people up the country won't solve that, they want to be in London/ SE.

I imagine the airports you allude to are not at capacity, if there was a business case for airlines to use that capacity they would already be doing so.

Thank you for your polite answer. I take your points onboard about more
capacity required in SE England.

Given that M25 from M4 to M3 is already one of the most over-congested
roads in all Europe, can I suggest that doing more with Heathrow is a non-starter ?

Also, doing anything with Gatwick benefits relatively few.
It's the wrong side of the River Thames for most of the UK.

I now hear good things about Luton and Stanstead development.
I suspect either or both of these two have to be cheaper
than anything at Heathwick.

The trouble is that the airlines only want expansion at Heathrow, or a whole new hub airport. They do not want a split centre operation; Heathwick or Lust or any other combination of them do not and will not provide this, as shown by the consistent move of airlines from Gatwick and elsewhere to Heathrow when slots become available - eg Vietnam Air have just moved in.

Expanding Heathrow on the ground is the most difficult option on the ground, however it is the only solution that meets the needs of the airline industry and gives the UK access to the BRIC countries that we do not currently have. This isn't about increasing the number of runways the country has, the RAF have enough disused airbases across the UK for that; it's about meeting the needs of the airline industry who have options across the globe and going anywhere else means the UK becomes disconnected.

[Talksteer]

This answers a lot of the arguments for why you would do the hub airport at Heathrow or at a push Luton.

Heathrow ultimately used this to steer their eventual proposals for two further runways located to the west.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publicatio...

[Halb]

Manchester airport is so fantastically easy to get to.
If they do expand Heathrow I hope they stick in a super rail link to both the rest of the country and that London.

[onyx39]

Halb said:

Manchester airport is so fantastically easy to get to.
If they do expand Heathrow I hope they stick in a super rail link to both the rest of the country and that London.

Hs2

[hidetheelephants]

They already binned the Heathrow spur for cost reasons.

[Stevanos]

There is no point in Gatwick doing anything, they can't do anything good with what they have got and even then the whole road network in Sussex would need almost a billion spending on it, it needs millions as it stands, then you get the green weirdos out in force too.

Heathrow, well they will need to fix the M25, considering that road has been expanded twice now since it was made, are they going to make it double decker?? That is what is needed in the next few years if not already.

So, Borris Island it is then, it will need a bullet train service but that is what the economy needs anyway, why can't we just do this, build the mother of all airports and totally do it well, oh I know, we are British!!

[Thankyou4calling]

When I said about taking six months to build new terminals and a runway I knew some would deride that but I am not of that way of thinking.

Firstly, in the UK planning takes an absolute eternity, everybody has to be allowed to put their opinion in and that results in delays and false dawns, meanwhile other countries simply get on with it.

I know it upsets some but it's about attitude and whether you have a "Can and will do attitude" or the usual UK.

Now, if by some miracle permission was granted for another terminal at Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton or wherever the strong likelihood is that the likes of Norman Foster and Richard Rogers would get involved designing some architectural masterpiece in stainless steel and glass with sculptures and taking advantage of the light and so on.

The final edifice will cost billions and no doubt draw gasps from those that care about such things.

I for one don't!

A terminal for me needs to be a big box to process people as quickly as possible, get them on their plane and off to where they wan't to be, and they don't want to be admiring the features of the building which cost 10 times what is needed.

I'm all for good design, i love a nice theatre or gallery. enjoy looking at sculptures but an airport terminal? Jeez.

All i need is a box, a big box like a storage building where i walk in, walk to a desk, check in and get on my plane.

I'm not bothered about gourmet restaurants, overpriced shops, or water features, I don't want to be there, I want to be somewhere else.

But of course this will never happen because firstly the powers that be won't reach a decision and if by some miracle they did the build would be inordinately complicated and long winded to the point that most will die of boredom.

[onyx39]

Thankyou4calling said:

When I said about taking six months to build new terminals and a runway I knew some would deride that but I am not of that way of thinking.

Firstly, in the UK planning takes an absolute eternity, everybody has to be allowed to put their opinion in and that results in delays and false dawns, meanwhile other countries simply get on with it.

I know it upsets some but it's about attitude and whether you have a "Can and will do attitude" or the usual UK.

Now, if by some miracle permission was granted for another terminal at Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton or wherever the strong likelihood is that the likes of Norman Foster and Richard Rogers would get involved designing some architectural masterpiece in stainless steel and glass with sculptures and taking advantage of the light and so on.

The final edifice will cost billions and no doubt draw gasps from those that care about such things.

I for one don't!

A terminal for me needs to be a big box to process people as quickly as possible, get them on their plane and off to where they wan't to be, and they don't want to be admiring the features of the building which cost 10 times what is needed.

I'm all for good design, i love a nice theatre or gallery. enjoy looking at sculptures but an airport terminal? Jeez.

All i need is a box, a big box like a storage building where i walk in, walk to a desk, check in and get on my plane.

I'm not bothered about gourmet restaurants, overpriced shops, or water features, I don't want to be there, I want to be somewhere else.

But of course this will never happen because firstly the powers that be won't reach a decision and if by some miracle they did the build would be inordinately complicated and long winded to the point that most will die of boredom.

Even so. Would still take years. They are currently turning 2 junctions of the M3 into a managed motorway.
Put up a few signs, widen the motorway a bit, 24 months... FFS??? why??

[Johnnytheboy]

Thankyou4calling said:

I'm not bothered about gourmet restaurants, overpriced shops, or water features, I don't want to be there, I want to be somewhere else.

The airport would disagree. they want to get you to spend as much as they can while you are trying to be somewhere else.

[neilr]

Isn't the point of expanding LHR is to have a large hub that competes with the likes of airports like Schipol? Not just increase capacity for the hell of it?

If thats the case how can so many people have missed the point that if they expand another airport such as Gatwick it wont attract routes and business our way. Who the hell wants to fly into the UK en route to somewhere else to then have to travel 45mins to your connecting airport for the next flight when you can fly to Schipol for example and just walk to the connecting gate in the same building. (albeit a long walk sometimes there). The answer is of course no one.

I rather think the solution will depend on who lines whos pockets with the most bribes. legitimate bids for high quality construction contracts.

[oyster]

dcb said:

JagLover said:

Heathrow is actually well placed for the rest of the country.

Really ?

Tens of millions of folks live in the UK, yet are more than 100 miles from Heathrow.
Both Birmingham and Manchester are more central.

More Heathrow or Gatwick expansion would only make a bad situation worse
for London & SE England dominating the UK.

For a lot less money, one of the Scottish airports could be expanded, a
Northern Airport (Manchester ?) could be expanded *AND* somewhere in the
Midlands could be expanded too.

It would load balance air traffic nicely across the country and
save millions of journeys of folks from Scotland, the North and the
Midlands downto pesky Heathrow for international journeys.

So let's say there's some big trade expansion happening in Recife, Brazil.

And UK businesses to take advantage of this trade are based:
50% London & SE
30% Manchester & NW
10% Midlands
10% Scotland
Are you proposing that for the UK to benefit from that trade we should have new flights to there from Scotland, Manchester, Midlands AND London? 4 separate flights on big, long-haul aircraft. The Scotland flight 10% full?

Or do you have 3 regional flights and a single, connecting, long-haul flight from London where the largest market remains? For which we need a bigger hub airport near London.

[dcb]

oyster said:

So let's say there's some big trade expansion happening in Recife, Brazil.

And UK businesses to take advantage of this trade are based:
50% London & SE
30% Manchester & NW
10% Midlands
10% Scotland
Are you proposing that for the UK to benefit from that trade we should have new flights to there from Scotland, Manchester, Midlands AND London? 4

No. Your example not representative. Trade expansion happens across the world.

I'm saying balance UK airports development across the country.

Instead of having one very very big hub that's one of the busiest and biggest in the world,
have 4-5 smaller medium or merely large hubs across the UK to spread the load.

The Germans do this. Not all German flights go through Frankfurt.
There's Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart and Munich for example.

[zygalski]

Thankyou4calling said:

The final edifice will cost billions and no doubt draw gasps from those that care about such things.

I for one don't!

A terminal for me needs to be a big box to process people as quickly as possible, get them on their plane and off to where they wan't to be, and they don't want to be admiring the features of the building which cost 10 times what is needed.

You just reminded me why I never travel from Heathrow. Place is a st hole. If you've been to pretty much any Far eastern airport then it's just totally embarrassing that we live in a country with a major airport as bad as it is.
Give me cleanliness & a semblance of style over a rat infested dump any day. Even if it adds to the ticket price.
Even Gatwick is far better as a travelling experience.

[oyster]

dcb said:

oyster said:

So let's say there's some big trade expansion happening in Recife, Brazil.

And UK businesses to take advantage of this trade are based:
50% London & SE
30% Manchester & NW
10% Midlands
10% Scotland
Are you proposing that for the UK to benefit from that trade we should have new flights to there from Scotland, Manchester, Midlands AND London? 4

No. Your example not representative. Trade expansion happens across the world.

I'm saying balance UK airports development across the country.

Instead of having one very very big hub that's one of the busiest and biggest in the world,
have 4-5 smaller medium or merely large hubs across the UK to spread the load.

The Germans do this. Not all German flights go through Frankfurt.
There's Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart and Munich for example.

You still haven't answered the point though. Which of those regions should be chosen for flights to new areas of trade expansion (for example BRICS nations)? Or do you think London-based travellers should have to travel to Glasgow to catch a flight to such places?

And if they have to do that, they may as well travel to Amsterdam. And if they have to do that, then they may as well base themselves in Amsterdam instead of the UK. And we lose the jobs and tax revenue.

Do you not see that?


As to your German example, it doesn't match because German cities have a much broader spread of population and commercial importance.