Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5820503/

Topic: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: ThomasCook
Posted 2013-07-17 03:14:45 and read 20524 times.

Hi,

Heathrow has now released its counter proposal with three plans for a 3rd runway to the north, north west or south west;

http://your.heathrow.com/dossier/1-2...on-options-to-airports-commission/

The earliest any option could be ready would be 2025. Personally, I am backing the 3rd runway.

Thanks
ThomasCook

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-17 04:03:14 and read 20305 times.

Excellent, wasn't expecting this until Friday.

My opinion is still that a clean sheet airport would be best, but that an expanded LHR is all we are going to get. These plans are in line with what I expected and are very sensible in their approach to noise, environment and capacity planning. It is especially nice to see them considering a third runway allowing service to ten UK regional airports at three flights a day - the economic impact this would have in said regions is significant. But this would need to be a planning condition for a long duration (99 years or so) to be meaningful, otherwise the current situation would repeat itself.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: GCT64
Posted 2013-07-17 04:32:33 and read 20124 times.

Not sure of the rationale behind the new terminal buildings they show in each option. This will be another terminal that is remote from the central area and will suffer the same problems caused when T4 was located remotely. Surely the terminal capacity would be better added East of the new T2 or West of T5 but still along the central spine?

All three runway options have issues, I'm not even sure which is best for me (although the NW option brings the airport boundary a mile (+) closer to my house) let alone working out which is best (aka "least worst") for the populace as a whole.

And I still believe that the best solution for London is a 2nd runway at STN and 2nd runway at LGW, giving three high capacity airports arranged evenly around the city.

[Edited 2013-07-17 04:34:23]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: EnviableOne
Posted 2013-07-17 04:41:05 and read 20055 times.

Been looking through the plans, the outline looks good, Have to say the best option seems to be The North-West, it provides medium cost and complexity good possible timescales and highest possible capacity. Also when you look at the plans for a 4th runway, it decreases the complexity/cost of those options.

Personally I would look at going straight for the four runway North-West/South-West idea.

If you go for the north-west option, then look at the south west for runway four, then pencil in another two on the end of the current pair, does that not look like the plan for 6 runways at Estuary airport?

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: AIR MALTA
Posted 2013-07-17 04:50:01 and read 19983 times.

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 3):
Personally I would look at going straight for the four runway North-West/South-West idea.

My pick as well.

I am however astonished as to why it would take 10 years at least to build runways!!! They could build the runway faster and use it in the first stage as a back up to minize disruptions when they happen and add a handful of regional flights if needed.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: GCT64
Posted 2013-07-17 04:50:27 and read 19978 times.

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 3):
the best option seems to be The North-West,

It's in Green Belt land and the runway end would be about 3 miles from Eton (and in a direct line) - I can see problems with this option  

In my view: "going straight for the four runway North-West/South-West idea" has no hope of being adopted. This is a very difficult political decision (~10% of the UK population (so ~10% of the UK votes) live within 15 miles of LHR and they almost all have a view on LHR expansion - often negative). No politician is going to commit to any more than they absolutely have to and anything that can be pushed into the long grass, will be.

[Edited 2013-07-17 04:55:55]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: r2rho
Posted 2013-07-17 05:14:22 and read 19763 times.

Quoting ThomasCook (Thread starter):
three plans for a 3rd runway to the north, north west or south

by the looks of the proposals, it seems that LHR planners have been reading a.net threads these past years  
Quoting GCT64 (Reply 2):
This will be another terminal that is remote from the central area and will suffer the same problems caused when T4 was located remotely. Surely the terminal capacity would be better added East of the new T2 or West of T5 but still along the central spine?

Agree, but there is not much more room left along the central corridor to add concourses. If this plan goes through, I would just demolish T4 altogether as it would be horribly out of place and disfunctional with any of the proposals (and free up that space for more cargo or maintenance). Current T4 capacity should be moved to the new terminals created in-between the new runways.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 2):
And I still believe that the best solution for London is a 2nd runway at STN and 2nd runway at LGW, giving three high capacity airports arranged evenly around the city.

Fully agree... But given the state of things after 30 years of lack of infrastructure planning, and the political impossibility of getting any runway approved anywhere, we need to welcome any additional runway, anywhere in the LON area, that actually manages to get approved and built, whether it's the optimal solution or not.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: readytotaxi
Posted 2013-07-17 05:29:44 and read 19639 times.

I think I favour the the NorthWest runway, just hope someone remembers that they will need to buy some more snow ploughs.     

on a serious note with a new runway inplace would the fire service numbers need to be enlarged?

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-17 05:49:19 and read 19518 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 6):
by the looks of the proposals, it seems that LHR planners have been reading a.net threads these past years

Oh I think they do from time to time  
Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 7):
on a serious note with a new runway inplace would the fire service numbers need to be enlarged?

Yes and no. You don'e necessarily have to add more cover if you add a runway, you could have a situation like at MAN where you re-position the cover depending on runway usage. However at LHR you can bet the runway will be in operation all of the time, so they will have to add a new RFFS facility alongside any new runway to maintain response times.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-07-17 05:51:51 and read 19512 times.

Any new runway at LHR will be complicated to build, 2 of the proposals intrude on the M25 (which is 10 or 12 lanes wide at this point?), so moving this or putting it in tunnel would be a major task

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: slinky09
Posted 2013-07-17 05:56:44 and read 19452 times.

Even though I'm firmly in support of extending Heathrow I do think these proposals are useful, informative and very good.

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 3):
Personally I would look at going straight for the four runway North-West/South-West idea.

Yes, although get the NW one online first.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 5):
It's in Green Belt land and the runway end would be about 3 miles from Eton (and in a direct line) - I can see problems with this option

And I wonder, will HMtheQ have anything to say too - as urban legend has it that an American tourist once asked: "why did they build Windsor Castle on the approach to Heathrow" !!!

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 2):
Surely the terminal capacity would be better added East of the new T2 or West of T5 but still along the central spine?

I thought that too.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 6):
If this plan goes through, I would just demolish T4 altogether as it would be horribly out of place and disfunctional with any of the proposals (and free up that space for more cargo or maintenance).

Which seems to make better sense, then the new T2 can be extended with several more piers.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-17 05:57:21 and read 19454 times.

I have no doubt the NIMBYs will be able to block this.   
LHR has needed expansion for 20 years, yet there is no end in sight.

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 3):
Personally I would look at going straight for the four runway North-West/South-West idea.

Might as well grow it as it should be!

Quoting r2rho (Reply 6):
But given the state of things after 30 years of lack of infrastructure planning, and the political impossibility of getting any runway approved anywhere, we need to welcome any additional runway, anywhere in the LON area, that actually manages to get approved and built, whether it's the optimal solution or not.

   London can either take advantage of new smaller longer range aircraft or be bypassed by them. Their choice.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2013-07-17 06:04:46 and read 19399 times.

Meanwhile, 70 new airports will be built in China.  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-17 06:22:17 and read 19293 times.

Building both new runways at once isn't an option, the fourth runway will only be added when capacity dictates. Aside of demand, the costs would be huge.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 12):
Meanwhile, 70 new airports will be built in China.

Only 70? What has caused them to slow down?  


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: goosebayguy
Posted 2013-07-17 06:28:00 and read 19258 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 9):
Any new runway at LHR will be complicated to build, 2 of the proposals intrude on the M25 (which is 10 or 12 lanes wide at this point?), so moving this or putting it in tunnel would be a major task

I would suggest that any further enlargement of LHR will also require the motorway to be widened in order to cope with demand.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2013-07-17 06:28:36 and read 19236 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 13):

Even an environmentalist I know wishes they would make a decision and get on with it.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-17 06:32:29 and read 19204 times.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 15):
Even an environmentalist I know wishes they would make a decision and get on with it.

Perhaps they are one of the enlightened few who do not insist on comparing 737 classics to next generation electric trains.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: TC957
Posted 2013-07-17 06:36:40 and read 19166 times.

I'd personally favour the west runway plan, but angle it differently so it lies more SW / NE and keep it within the M25, and use it for take-offs heading SW towards the M25 only, similar to FRA's west runway in being a take-off only runway. That way only the spur road from the M25 to southern perimeter road needs to be tunnelled.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-07-17 06:44:33 and read 19108 times.

I back STN expansion all the way. The space is here, the transport links would be relatively easily upgraded and are already better than many here like to make out. The whole Heathrow area is a horrible mess and hugely congested. Give LGW another runway too.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: voodoo
Posted 2013-07-17 06:46:43 and read 19099 times.

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 10):
And I wonder, will HMtheQ have anything to say too - as urban legend has it that an American tourist once asked: "why did they build Windsor Castle on the approach to Heathrow" !!!

King Charles, never mind his Old Etonian son(s), will certainly have something to say. i.e. 'no'. And that will be that.
Lucky we have these unelected 'representatives' in our corner, eh?   

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: sassiciai
Posted 2013-07-17 06:49:29 and read 19062 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 9):
Any new runway at LHR will be complicated to build, 2 of the proposals intrude on the M25 (which is 10 or 12 lanes wide at this point?), so moving this or putting it in tunnel would be a major task

Not negligible, I agree, but on the scale of things, just another part of the job.

I reiterate what I said earlier when looking at the Hong Kong experience, the HK government was not put off by the costs of building the new HKG. OK, they had no motorway to move, because they first created an entirely new island, then the infrastructure from the city to the new airport - it's all just so impressive and on a massive scale, and it was completed in double quick time

Moving the M25 a bit, or tunneling part of it, is peanuts in comparison to the HKG project. No idea how much it cost, I suppose that was in the end not the tightest constraint!

I wish the UK government could learn from its former HK colonial government!

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: sxb
Posted 2013-07-17 06:51:25 and read 19054 times.

Interesting.
Isn't the NW option literally built over BA's current HQ?
I would be curious to hear their opinion on the different options.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: GCT64
Posted 2013-07-17 06:54:43 and read 19017 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 6):
Agree, but there is not much more room left along the central corridor to add concourses

Another terminal could be put on the central spine West of the M25 (or straddling the M25) - W of M25 is currently a rather uninspiring industrial estate (apologies to anyone who works there   ) and the north end of a reservoir.

PS - given London's already precarious water situation, I wonder what the solution is for the reservoir capacity lost in some of these proposals?
PS - the SW proposal also has an issue with SSSIs (including nationally important locations for specific birds). I'm not seeing the SW proposal as viable.

The Northern proposal seems to me to have the least issues but probably destroys more houses(?)

"King Charles, never mind his Old Etonian son(s), will certainly have something to say. i.e. 'no'."
Remember that DavCam and BoJo are also both Old Etonians and are elected and will have the final decision.

[Edited 2013-07-17 06:58:01]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: voodoo
Posted 2013-07-17 07:15:18 and read 18892 times.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 22):
"King Charles, never mind his Old Etonian son(s), will certainly have something to say. i.e. 'no'."
Remember that DavCam and BoJo are also both Old Etonians and are elected and will have the final decision.


The potential construction tender winners to build an Estuary airport... their CEOs wouldn't happen to have attended a certain school as well, perhaps?

[Edited 2013-07-17 07:22:59]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: b2319
Posted 2013-07-17 07:21:12 and read 18848 times.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 20):
I reiterate what I said earlier when looking at the Hong Kong experience, the HK government was not put off by the costs of building the new HKG. OK, they had no motorway to move, because they first created an entirely new island,

Whilst I am a huge fan of HKG as a city, entity, SAR, etc......the above and what is posted at reply 42 of the 'Boris' thread is frankly fantasy.

Chep Lak Kok was an island that was merged with the larger Lam Chau because of the airport project. Anyone who has either flown into or out of Chep Lak Kok cannot believe that the airport rests on an 'entirely new island'.

And the claim that some of bridges associated with Chep Lak Kok are 'some of the largest in the world' (aforementioned thread) is again, well off the mark. I am based at one end of the Danyang-Kunshan Grand Bridge; it's length? A mere 164.8 km. That's around double the distance from the railway clock in Tsim Sha Tsui to the customs and immigration post near Shenzhen.

Nevertheless, corrections aside, I do agree with your views. However, comparing pre-handover Hong Kong with present day UK is, in my mind, somewhat an apples and oranges comparison. The fact is that 'developing economies', no matter how they are governed have much less barriers to overcome with respect to the design and construction of entirely new airports. However, any of us who have used SHA, GMP and TSA may agree with me that neither of these places are in any way shabby places to catch a flight. All three, though, are very much secondary airports within their respective cities for international traffic.

I think someone (Dan?) has been suggesting a similar role for LHR should an entirely new London airport be built. Again, great. Can I see it functional in my lifetime? Sadly, no, due to the political situation and the workings of the UK government bureaucracy machine.

Rant over.....not that it's really been a rant!

Regards

B-2319

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: gingersnap
Posted 2013-07-17 07:39:08 and read 19331 times.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 2):
And I still believe that the best solution for London is a 2nd runway at STN and 2nd runway at LGW, giving three high capacity airports arranged evenly around the city.

I disagree.

I'm not entirely sure of the situation at LGW, but I know at STN there is heavy opposition to an expansion there as it is. Also when you consider a good proportion of traffic through LHR is connecting traffic, you have to accommodate for that and moving traffic to another airport doesn't allow for that.

Also, LHR has a good foundation on which to build what with its location and transport connections. STN and LGW whilst both having their railway stations, offer somewhat poorer connections into London itself (not so much LGW). Also both STN & LGW are in somewhat poor locations compared to LHR which is easily accessible for most people within 150 miles.

As far as LHR goes if it were me making the decision, I would bite the bullet and go with the 4 runway option to the north & south west of the current airport. Then a decision can be made further on as to whether a brand new airport needs constructed elsewhere.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-17 07:53:39 and read 19143 times.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 2):

And I still believe that the best solution for London is a 2nd runway at STN and 2nd runway at LGW, giving three high capacity airports arranged evenly around the city.

That's not the question that we're answering though is it? We're trying to arrange a working national hub airport, additional capacity serving London is not the same thing.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: sassiciai
Posted 2013-07-17 07:54:04 and read 19584 times.

B-2319,

Thanks for your post - very informative. I followed up your bit about the world's longest bridges, and Wiki came up with an amazing table! Yes, there are some incredibly long bridges out there!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_bridges_in_the_world

Quoting voodoo (Reply 23):
the claim that some of bridges associated with Chep Lak Kok are 'some of the largest in the world' (aforementioned thread) is again, well off the mark

I see that many of these mega-long brides are actually "elevated roads" rather than spanning some very wide channel of water, a bit like the metro in New York or the road into Bangkok! In that light, the suspension bridges built as part of the Chep Lak Kok project are up there in terms of longest spans over deep water. I have driven over the bridge that spans the Tagus in Portugal from Lisbon - it is quite long and almost all over water, but its main span (allowing large ships to pass under it) is (according to Wiki) only 250m long!

Quoting b2319 (Reply 24):
Chep Lap Kok was an island that was merged with the larger Lam Chau because of the airport project. Anyone who has either flown into or out of Chep Lak Kok cannot believe that the airport rests on an 'entirely new island'

I have flown into/out of HKG many times. The best form of transport to/from the airport is the "E" series of buses, as they have a wander through the cargo/Cathy Pacific bits of the airport, and are clearly designed for use by local employees. It is quite evident on several stretches of the bus ride that the pancake-flat area on which the airport resides is built on a man-made structure. Witness the millions of concrete cubes shoring up the perimeter. Yes, it is built onto Lantau Island

There is a National Geographic documentary on the HKG project that I saw many years ago! Very interesting. I cant quickly find the link. It covers both the construction project, and the changeover!

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: b2319
Posted 2013-07-17 08:05:53 and read 19495 times.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 27):
I see that many of these mega-long brides are actually "elevated roads" rather than spanning some very wide channel of water, a bit like the metro in New York or the road into Bangkok! In that light, the suspension bridges built as part of the Chep Lak Kok project are up there in terms of longest spans over deep water. I have driven over the bridge that spans the Tagus in Portugal from Lisbon - it is quite long and almost all over water, but its main span (allowing large ships to pass under it) is (according to Wiki) only 250m long!

I happen to live next to Yangcheng Lake, and the span over the water there is 9 km on the railway line; >1.8 times the longest I could find for Hong Kong which was Shenzhen Bay, then Causeway Bay.

Don't misunderstand me: the overnight migration from Kai Tak to Chep Lak Kok was amazingly smooth.

Pre-Olympics: Could I think the UK could ever pull off such a similar operation; LHR> XXX? No
Post-Olympics, and not a sneer at our friends in BER: Maybe.  

I never want to be rude in my posts. As a Scot, who has lived in Switzerland for 4 four years.....enhanced Germanic behaviour....., I am glad you took my post in the spirit it was intended; so much credit to yourself....  

Regards

B-2319

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: art
Posted 2013-07-17 08:23:13 and read 19358 times.

I do not see a third runway at LHR as any more than a temporary solution so I would suggest that plans be submitted for 2 extra runways. For LHR to offer the required capacity to be London's hub airport up to 2050 onwards, it will require 4 runways.

Much of the time spent on realising large building projects in the UK is spent on obtaining approval for the project. For that reason I think approval should be sought for 2 more runways. If approval is not given for both I think the proposal should be abandoned - building a 3rd runway at LHR without knowing for certain that a 4th can be built when required makes no sense to me. You face the possibility of spending billions of pounds on a 3rd runway at LHR then having to build a new airport with the possibility of 5/6 runways somewhere else 20 or so years later.

Better to start on another airport now than to continue expanding LHR unless its long term future is assured IMO.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: VFRonTop
Posted 2013-07-17 08:28:03 and read 19291 times.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 20):
I reiterate what I said earlier when looking at the Hong Kong experience, the HK government was not put off by the costs of building the new HKG. OK, they had no motorway to move, because they first created an entirely new island, then the infrastructure from the city to the new airport - it's all just so impressive and on a massive scale, and it was completed in double quick time

I agree it was an amazing project on a monumental scale with amazingly integrated planning but wasn't new HKG completed in such a short time frame to empty the Hong Kong coffers pre-handover to China? I believe it was to ensure that Hong Kong money was spent to benefit the territory not just siphoned off to Beijing.

I doubt the UK has the funds nor the appetite to complete something on the same scale in the same timeframe.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: b2319
Posted 2013-07-17 08:41:02 and read 19213 times.

Quoting VFRonTop (Reply 30):

I alluded to some of this earlier, and whereas Wiki can be bollocks from time to time, it isn't going to be bollocks 16 years afterwards.....

In March 1979, the Governor of Hong Kong Murray MacLehose paid his first official visit to the People's Republic of China (PRC), taking the initiative to raise the question of Hong Kong's sovereignty with Deng Xiaoping. Without clarifying and establishing the official position of the PRC government, the arranging of real estate leases and loans agreements in Hong Kong within the next 18 years would be rather difficult. In fact, as early as the mid-1970s, Hong Kong had faced additional risks raising loans for large scale infrastructure projects such as its MTR system and a new airport. Caught unprepared, Deng asserted the necessity of Hong Kong's return to China, upon which Hong Kong would be given special status by the PRC government.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong

Regards

B-2319

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: sassiciai
Posted 2013-07-17 08:46:00 and read 19211 times.

Quoting VFRonTop (Reply 30):
to empty the Hong Kong coffers pre-handover to China? I believe it was to ensure that Hong Kong money was spent to benefit the territory not just siphoned off to Beijing

OK! The Chancellor of the last outgoing Labour government left a note on his desk for his successor saying "There's no money left in the kitty" or words to that effect. So that bit of the job has been done already!

Also consider that in the UK it takes years and years for planning permission to be examined (let alone granted) - so that's the timescale angle covered as well

Actually, even if we all blink at the money numbers (of £18B or so), in light of the annual UK government budget of almost £200B (which is what - 50% GDP?), £18B spread over a multi-year period is actually peanuts.

I'm sure the up-side of spending that £18B would be returned PDQ! With interest off into the future!

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: ThomasCook
Posted 2013-07-17 08:56:16 and read 18940 times.

Am I right in thinking that the northwest option would require the demolition of Waterside?

Thanks.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-07-17 08:58:34 and read 18904 times.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 20):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 9):
Any new runway at LHR will be complicated to build, 2 of the proposals intrude on the M25 (which is 10 or 12 lanes wide at this point?), so moving this or putting it in tunnel would be a major task

Not negligible, I agree, but on the scale of things, just another part of the job.

I reiterate what I said earlier when looking at the Hong Kong experience, the HK government was not put off by the costs of building the new HKG. OK, they had no motorway to move, because they first created an entirely new island, then the infrastructure from the city to the new airport - it's all just so impressive and on a massive scale, and it was completed in double quick time

Moving the M25 a bit, or tunneling part of it, is peanuts in comparison to the HKG project. No idea how much it cost, I suppose that was in the end not the tightest constraint!

I wish the UK government could learn from its former HK colonial government!

While a massive technical challenge, building a new airport and road connections on mainly virgin or empty land, is a lot easier than expanding a full to capacity airport, and rebuilding a 12 lane motorway (the busiest in Europe?) while keeping it all open is far far harder.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: anstar
Posted 2013-07-17 09:16:09 and read 18614 times.

Quoting ThomasCook (Thread starter):

The earliest any option could be ready would be 2025.

2025!!

They need a new runway NOW... not in 12 years time.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: OC2DC
Posted 2013-07-17 09:16:18 and read 18664 times.

A 3rd runway is just a band-aid on a massive open wound. The only way to make Heathrow better able to compete with the world is to have 4 runways. Although, with the cost of 2 additional runways upwards of 30 billion, wouldn't it be better to start fresh with a new airport?

Perhaps if BA didn't spend billions on T5 so recently then there would be more of a reason to start fresh elsewhere.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: sassiciai
Posted 2013-07-17 09:20:03 and read 18567 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 34):
While a massive technical challenge, building a new airport and road connections on mainly virgin or empty land, is a lot easier than expanding a full to capacity airport, and rebuilding a 12 lane motorway (the busiest in Europe?) while keeping it all open is far far harder.

I agree that any of the ways forward will be packed full of challenges!

The real decision that is needed is at a very high level with a long-term view, not merely a quickie "Yes" to a third runway at LHR (a relative quickie, if I may add, as it seems 10 years is the shortest option)

The act of implementing such a long-term view will be the difficult bit, and may include major amendments to existing infrastructure. If the view is well-founded and the goal is well-defined, the implementation should go ahead, despite the costly impact on existing infrastructure and the inevitable impact that it will have.

On the M25 specific issue: I spent some years living in The Netherlands, where I admire their ability to maintain (and expand) a large motorway network. Especially in the South West, where the ground is quite unstable, it is quite normal that while you drive on today's motorway, tomorrow's is being built on your left. Then there is a quite painless switchover from one moment to the next. So let the Dutch engineers join in the LON-project, by all means!

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: readytotaxi
Posted 2013-07-17 09:21:40 and read 18620 times.

Quoting ThomasCook (Reply 33):

I really think that it does.Compare Google Earth to the proposed runway and it comes right next to Saxon Lake, just before the Junction of the M4 M25 runoff towards T5.
Guess BA could sell it off and build a new HQ in the proposed SW site, and then 20 years later sell it off again.  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: VFRonTop
Posted 2013-07-17 09:23:05 and read 18501 times.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 32):
Actually, even if we all blink at the money numbers (of £18B or so), in light of the annual UK government budget of almost £200B (which is what - 50% GDP?), £18B spread over a multi-year period is actually peanuts.

I'm sure the up-side of spending that £18B would be returned PDQ! With interest off into the future!

You and I both know that here in the UK solid figures and sound economics have very little to do with the popularity of a project.

Right now the people of the UK are feeling a tight squeeze, they do not want to see their government spending £14bn-£60bn on an airport, whether its on LHR or Boris Island. Until the average person is better off and can start thinking of those two weeks holidays in Spain again there will be no movement on this.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-07-17 09:59:27 and read 17988 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1):
But this would need to be a planning condition for a long duration (99 years or so) to be meaningful, otherwise the current situation would repeat itself.

I think that 99 years is a bit on the long side. After all 99 years ago no one had flown on a commercial flight anywhere in the world. And today technology is developing at an ever increasing pace.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 2):
Surely the terminal capacity would be better added East of the new T2 or West of T5 but still along the central spine?

Wouldn't that make many passenger transfers longer?

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 2):
And I still believe that the best solution for London is a 2nd runway at STN and 2nd runway at LGW, giving three high capacity airports arranged evenly around the city.

STN is operating at around half its capacity. It does not need a second runway unless there is some factor that it is preventing airlines from filling it today that I have overlooked.

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 4):
I am however astonished as to why it would take 10 years at least to build runways!!!

The time scale covers a lot more than just building a new airport. What we are talking about here is a submission by Heathrow Airport Ltd to the Davies Commission. Sir Howard Davies has been directed to produce an interim report by yhe end of this year and a final report by the summer of 2015. This report will be published after the next General Election.

There will then be a public discussion and the new government t will subsequently make up its mind on the Davies Commission recommendation. There will then probably be a Public Inquiry.

The chances of anything being produced other than a lot of paper and an even larger amount of hot air before 2017 or '18 is pretty remote.

The older amongst us will recall this procedure around the Roskill Commission:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cublington

As its report coincided with my purchase of my current home 12 miles due south of the proposed Cublington Airport I do remember in some detail what was suggested. But with the recommendation of the Roskill Commission overturned by government do not necessarily expect the recommendation of the Davies Commission to ever be implemented. Politicians, whatever their colour, have a habit of avoiding awkward decisions that might upset voters.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 5):
10% of the UK population (so ~10% of the UK votes) live within 15 miles of LHR and they almost all have a view on LHR expansion - often negative).

Before I moved in 1971 I lived very close to LHR. My next door neighbour worked for PA and later UA. A BA employee lived opposite me. In those days there were not nearly as many flights but each flight was very much noisier. The worst noise was from piston engine aircraft like the Skyways Avro York freighters that really clawed their way off the runway and made everything in the house vibrate as they strived to gain altitude. The worst noise was a very low AC DC-8 on finals. It suddenly realised how low it was as it overflew my home and quickly tried to regain some height by applying more power. Agggh!

The point of this story? My neighbourhood was economically dependent on LHR and few if any would have wanted to see it closed down. I, however, comuted into London. But I chose a house near LHR because I could afford it.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 18):
I back STN expansion all the way.

See comment above. With 20 per cent spare capacity at LGW and 50 per cent spare capacity at STN plus significant spare capacity at LTN if passengers and airlines did not mind which LON airport they used there would be no urgent need to decide what to do about a future London hub airport.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: web500sjc
Posted 2013-07-17 10:59:45 and read 17142 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 40):
See comment above. With 20 per cent spare capacity at LGW and 50 per cent spare capacity at STN plus significant spare capacity at LTN if passengers and airlines did not mind which LON airport they used there would be no urgent need to decide what to do about a future London hub airport.

The problem isn't the lack of spare capacity in London, it is the lack of sufficient capacity at one airport. As it is the airlines and passengers have spoken that they prefer Heathrow.

For the airlines to change airports it would have to be a increase in capacity at one Airport such that one airport can handle the traffic and mandated movement to the airport, like in the case of HND-NRT, HKG, LGA-JFK EWR, LUV-DFW, MUC, and what will happen in Berlin.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Irishpower
Posted 2013-07-17 11:03:14 and read 17077 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 13):

Their strict environmental laws................ Said no one ever!

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: hotplane
Posted 2013-07-17 11:40:38 and read 16628 times.

Why can't we have a long haul only Heathrow and a short haul only Gatwick connected by a high-speed underground rail link? Thousands of homes saved and much less traffic on the poxy M25.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-07-17 11:50:23 and read 16490 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 26):
That's not the question that we're answering though is it? We're trying to arrange a working national hub airport, additional capacity serving London is not the same thing.

Is there a reason, that can't be accomplished by displacing more London O/D traffic to LGW, STN, LTN and LCY?

Serious question.

[Edited 2013-07-17 11:51:22]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: bennett123
Posted 2013-07-17 12:00:19 and read 16365 times.

Well LCY is not really built for LH.

Yes, I know about the BA A318's.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-07-17 12:13:01 and read 16169 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 40):
See comment above. With 20 per cent spare capacity at LGW and 50 per cent spare capacity at STN plus significant spare capacity at LTN if passengers and airlines did not mind which LON airport they used there would be no urgent need to decide what to do about a future London hub airport.

I don't agree. The planning and building will take years probably, as will legal challenges, so now is precisely the right time to be making decisions. You don't wait until you reach 100% everywhere before then planning what the hell to do. The economic damage would be appalling.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-17 12:26:24 and read 16028 times.

I am astonished, actually astonished at people suggesting a long haul only LHR. Do so few of us understand how the business works? A long haul only LHR with little feed to long haul puts much of existing long haul into untenable. Try running a niche route with no feed. BA would go bust, for real, as a massive competitive advantage would be handed to KLM to feed from the regions and LONDON now. Lufthansa and Air France would cry with joy. I mean at least try and keep up......

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-17 12:46:14 and read 15746 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 44):
Is there a reason, that can't be accomplished by displacing more London O/D traffic to LGW, STN, LTN and LCY?

Excatly how are you going to do this? O&D is part and parcel of making a hub profitable, it's not practical.

Quoting hotplane (Reply 43):
Why can't we have a long haul only Heathrow and a short haul only Gatwick connected by a high-speed underground rail link?

Can you put a price onto extending the Victoria Line to Gatters? Or a whole new railway? A realistic price please.

Quoting OC2DC (Reply 36):
Although, with the cost of 2 additional runways upwards of 30 billion, wouldn't it be better to start fresh with a new airport?

Where's this $30 billion figure from?

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: hotplane
Posted 2013-07-17 12:54:10 and read 15622 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 47):
I mean at least try and keep up......

Just a suggestion.

I won't say another word.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: gingersnap
Posted 2013-07-17 12:55:54 and read 15649 times.

Quoting VFRonTop (Reply 39):
Until the average person is better off and can start thinking of those two weeks holidays in Spain again there will be no movement on this.

Well after travelling through LBA recently...I can safely say there were plenty of "average" people who were jetting off to Spain and the like.

Quoting OC2DC (Reply 36):
Perhaps if BA didn't spend billions on T5 so recently then there would be more of a reason to start fresh elsewhere.

You hold a valid point. Add to that all the money that is being spent on the new Queen's Terminal and it makes no sense to break ground on a brand new airport to replace LHR in that capacity. Really we need someone with the balls to bite the bullet and go for 2 brand new runways plus terminal capacity.

[Edited 2013-07-17 12:57:52]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-17 12:56:17 and read 15671 times.

Quoting hotplane (Reply 43):
Why can't we have a long haul only Heathrow and a short haul only Gatwick connected by a high-speed underground rail link? Thousands of homes saved and much less traffic on the poxy M25.

And a distruction of connections at LHR. Which means certain flights, such as BLR *must* be cancelled and others that are year round would have to go seasonal...

Name one split hub that has been viable? Without hubbing, BA and to a lesser extent VS would have to cut routes.   All you're doing is handing over the US to India market to the mid-east hubs. No one wants to take the time and risk of transferring airports to a connection. Japan forced that in the 1980s from NRT to HND... and helped promote the growth of ICN...

If you want London airports to be only London O&D, then just sit back and do nothing. And watch other business go elsewhere.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 13):
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 12):
Meanwhile, 70 new airports will be built in China.

Only 70? What has caused them to slow down?  

  

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-17 13:24:50 and read 15189 times.

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 41):
The problem isn't the lack of spare capacity in London, it is the lack of sufficient capacity at one airport. As it is the airlines and passengers have spoken that they prefer Heathrow.

The problem is exactly a lack of spare capacity in the London area. Heathrow is full, Gatwick is practically full, Luton is getting full, and this is right now with 10-15 years before we get any significant capacity increase. Stansted is big, but it's not going to be able to soak up that much demand.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 40):
See comment above. With 20 per cent spare capacity at LGW and 50 per cent spare capacity at STN plus significant spare capacity at LTN if passengers and airlines did not mind which LON airport they used there would be no urgent need to decide what to do about a future London hub airport.

Of course there would. Those figures do not stay stationary whilst a decision is made, available capacity keeps reducing.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 40):
I think that 99 years is a bit on the long side. After all 99 years ago no one had flown on a commercial flight anywhere in the world. And today technology is developing at an ever increasing pace.

I disagree. Something concrete and meaningful is needed to ensure that opening up Heathrow again to the regions doesn't simply become the grease which closes the deal, that is later squeezed out again.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 44):
Is there a reason, that can't be accomplished by displacing more London O/D traffic to LGW, STN, LTN and LCY?

Serious question.

There are airlines currently operating from Heathrow which the management would much rather see ousted to other London Airports. Doing so could add some short term extra slots to use for new longhaul services to emerging economies, but it would only be a token amount.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: SelseyBill
Posted 2013-07-17 13:40:57 and read 14950 times.

Quoting ThomasCook (Thread starter):
Quoting ThomasCook (Thread starter):
I am backing the 3rd runway

New 'a-netter' and first post, so treat me gently !!!!

(Many career years of experience in logistics and ground transport @ LHR and other UK airports, rail and road networks . Have spent many years reading and admiring the wonderful discussion and contributions to threads such as the A350 build and launch. Hope I can contribute positively).

With regard to the 'new' 3rd runway proposal, it of course makes sense on so many logical levels.

However, the reality of politics and funding means inaction and endless liigation/opposition for another decade. Heathrow cannot afford to keep losing its gravity and mass to other airports. Heathrow is the pulsating heart of UK business and it has to be taken care of.

I firmly believe that the practical answer to the capacity problem @ LHR is massive improvements to the existing rail network, some schemes could be achieved relatively cheaply and quickly; (within two years).

I estimate that around 80 slots per day are used @ LHR for short-haul destinations, such as ABZ, EDI, GLA, LBA, MAN and BRU, CDG/ORY, which with sensible planning could be slowly replaced by high-speed rail, freeing up slots for intercontinental expansion.

No extra runways or a £50+bn 'Boris Island' needed, just sensible development of the current rail network, and some legislation phasing in an eventual 'ban' on LHR to UK/ Paris/ Brussels flights under around 400 miles radius.

As the 'Davis Commission' mulls over this situation and contemplates multi-billion £ schemes, as far as I am concerned, the answer is obvious, relatively cheap, easily achievable; and most importantly of all perhaps; politically inert.

Rgds

SelseyBill

.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-17 13:50:14 and read 14828 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 52):
The problem is exactly a lack of spare capacity in the London area. Heathrow is full, Gatwick is practically full, Luton is getting full, and this is right now with 10-15 years before we get any significant capacity increase. Stansted is big, but it's not going to be able to soak up that much demand.

Be careful not to mix too linked yet seperate issues up. Hub capacity is essential to international business and we are struggling to make one strategic hub asset effective at LHR. Gatwick PLC are advocating what they call a "Constellatino" effect where London is surrounded by airports sharing the spoils. This is of course in the interests of Gatwick but undermines the case for one clear hub, which is what the open market against CDG, FRA and AMS need to compete. The only winner of death by a thousand cuts to LHR would be Lufthansa, Air France and KLM. easyJet at Gatters won't connect London with the world and at an Alliance level, airlines would feed over CDG, AMS and FRA before opening long haul direct to Gatters. AMS is a Skyteam hub as is CDG, FRA is a STAR hub.

As for runway capacity, I agree, allow a new runway at Gatwick and if and when Stansted is full, then one at STN.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-17 14:02:19 and read 14639 times.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 53):
I estimate that around 80 slots per day are used @ LHR for short-haul destinations, such as ABZ, EDI, GLA, LBA, MAN and BRU, CDG/ORY, which with sensible planning could be slowly replaced by high-speed rail, freeing up slots for intercontinental expansion.

For MAN and LBA, yes it may one day be a replacement. But beyond that no, HSR is not a viable alternative. Get to a rail journey of around the three hour mark and air travel is the clearly preferred option, whilst even with HSR all the way GLA and EDI would both be nearer four hours, and that does not account for the likely change of trains as HS2 will not run directly through Heathrow.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 53):
No extra runways or a £50+bn 'Boris Island' needed, just sensible development of the current rail network, and some legislation phasing in an eventual 'ban' on LHR to UK/ Paris/ Brussels flights under around 400 miles radius.

Think about how much that will cost - for a HSR network to replace all possible domestic flights to LHR that a third/fourth runway would facilitate. More than a couple of new runways, that is for sure, as you would be building HSR to locations where there is otherwise no economic case for it - ABZ, INV, NQY etc... Then you have the overwater airports; GCI, JER, IOM, and those currently served in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 53):
As the 'Davis Commission' mulls over this situation and contemplates multi-billion £ schemes, as far as I am concerned, the answer is obvious, relatively cheap, easily achievable; and most importantly of all perhaps; politically inert.

Unfortunately no solutions to the issue can be described as such, or they would have been implemented already. Irradiating domestic and other short haul flights would be political dynamite, as it would lead to serious economic issues.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-17 14:11:52 and read 14527 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 54):
Be careful not to mix too linked yet seperate issues up.

Intrinsically linked in my opinion. To get a truly workable solution I feel you need to consider it as a single problem with multiple contributing issues, with separate solutions. Only if a completely holistic view is taken will we end up with a workable and meaningful conclusion.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-17 14:16:04 and read 14455 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 56):
Intrinsically linked in my opinion. To get a truly workable solution I feel you need to consider it as a single problem with multiple contributing issues, with separate solutions. Only if a completely holistic view is taken will we end up with a workable and meaningful conclusion.

I have no idea what you just said.

How is hub capacity at LHR intrinsically linked with runway capacity at LTN? I genuinely think, and please don't feel I am getting at you. it's muddled thinking like that which is the problem. We need to focus with clear aims and objectives, tying the two issues up as intrinsically linked leads to "Why can't we have all short haul at Stansted? They have space there." Do that, and we'll be having the same conversation in another ten years.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-17 15:05:21 and read 13847 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 57):
I have no idea what you just said.

Sorry, but it really isn't rocket science.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 57):
How is hub capacity at LHR intrinsically linked with runway capacity at LTN?

The impact/implications of each possible hub scenario on LTN (for instance) needs to be assessed against multiple criteria, along with all other London Airports. You need to establish if there will be any change in demand through retaining/moving the hub, how that might affect required capacity, how both in turn would affect the economic and environmental impact, and how any changes to airspace would be implemented. Failing to at least consider this means you are not looking at the whole picture and are setting yourself up for a fall later.

One new runway at LHR is not going to solve the capacity problem, just the hub problem. To work out where it is best to add further runway/airport capacity the whole picture needs to be looked at (a holistic view) but it depends significantly on where said hub is located and until the AC reports we cannot presume it will definitely be LHR.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 57):
it's muddled thinking like that which is the problem. We need to focus with clear aims and objectives, tying the two issues up as intrinsically linked leads to "Why can't we have all short haul at Stansted?

No, it's a lack of doing anything which is the problem. The AC presents an opportunity to tie down all lose ends in a single comprehensive report. There will be no need to ask "Why can't we have all the short haul at Stansted", because if this process is carried out properly the question will have already been answered, one way or another.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 57):
Do that, and we'll be having the same conversation in another ten years.

Only if we look at issues in isolation and do not consider the whole picture.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: SelseyBill
Posted 2013-07-17 15:24:37 and read 13624 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 55):
HSR is not a viable alternative.

Hi 'PlymSpotter', good to talk.

Is not a viable alternative to what ? You're assuming domestic UK O&D is essential long-term from LHR. I do not. There are strategically other air services to other London airports for the fast 'O&D' customers.. The important domestic UK facilities to offer strategically from LHR are network connections, for which IMO, the existing rail network could be quickly developed to provide

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 55):

For MAN and LBA, yes it may one day be a replacement. But beyond that no, HSR is not a viable alternative. Get to a rail journey of around the three hour mark and air travel is the clearly preferred option, whilst even with HSR all the way GLA and EDI would both be nearer four hours, and that does not account for the likely change of trains as HS2 will not run directly through Heathrow.

Again, you're concerned with the O&D London market, which is being eaten alive by the current fast train service anyway, and we suspect that 'BA' make little or no margin in the domestic UK market.

LHR should IMO be a major part of the HS2 proposal, with a north south 'spur' being built off the current alignment at Denham, adding about 10 mins to a London-Birmingham journey.

High-Speed rail I maintain is the answer to LHR capacity.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 55):
Think about how much that will cost - for a HSR network to replace all possible domestic flights to LHR that a third/fourth runway would facilitate. More than a couple of new runways, that is for sure, as you would be building HSR to locations where there is otherwise no economic case for it - ABZ, INV, NQY etc... Then you have the overwater airports; GCI, JER, IOM, and those currently served in Ireland and Northern Ireland

You wouldn't need to develop a HS2 link to satisfy UK network connections @ LHR. Existing rails will do.

In terms of competitive travel times to LHR, you need to compare travel times to LHR via other London termini. Its unfair to suggest HS rail links to INV & NQY, as there are no current LHR flights to these ports, and I was talking about the UK, which does not include GCI, JER or IOM; (or BHD/BFS for that matter !)

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 55):
Unfortunately no solutions to the issue can be described as such, or they would have been implemented already. Irradiating domestic and other short haul flights would be political dynamite, as it would lead to serious economic issues

Dan, you obviously have more confidence in UK national transport planning than I do. I do not see that replacing short-haul at LHR with rail could possibly have any more political and economic issues than what we are facing now, and I do not accept for one minute that anyone has seriously looked at using rail development as a method of alleviating airport capacity.

For god sake, it was only the recent development of T5 that saw a fast national rail service into London !!!!

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-17 15:28:28 and read 13568 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 58):
One new runway at LHR is not going to solve the capacity problem, just the hub problem. To work out where it is best to add further runway/airport capacity the whole picture needs to be looked at (a holistic view) but it depends significantly on where said hub is located and until the AC reports we cannot presume it will definitely be LHR.

OK you've made that clearer now, I agree they are linked and I see you understand the difference, a lot of people simply don't get it though. If you spend billions moving the hub to Stansted that will probably close Luton, indeed I would say part of the deal of a four runway LHR is to close City. Playing devils advocate, honest  

Anyway watch what people do, not what they say....
*cough new Terminal 2 opening soon

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: ThomasCook
Posted 2013-07-17 15:48:17 and read 13390 times.

On the subject of rail infrastructure to ease capacity constraints at LHR; I was watching the news earlier today which mentioned that consultations had begun in Manchester regarding HS2. The newsreader continued to mention that the line is expected to reach Manchester in 21 years. It literally made me laugh out loud. Heathrow could potentially have had a 3rd runway in operation for 9 years by then.

This countries biggest issues seem to be the amount of time it takes for people to pull their fingers out and take action.

I am in favour of a 3rd runway at Heathrow however am concerned that whichever option wins (clean sheet or 3rd runway), it will be too little, too late by the time it is finally ready.

Thanks.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-17 16:10:35 and read 13190 times.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 59):
Is not a viable alternative to what ? You're assuming domestic UK O&D is essential long-term from LHR. I do not. There are strategically other air services to other London airports for the fast 'O&D' customers.. The important domestic UK facilities to offer strategically from LHR are network connections, for which IMO, the existing rail network could be quickly developed to provide

Where on Earth are you getting my assumption about O&D from - I've not mentioned any traffic split. For the record I am talking primarily about connecting traffic, not O&D. But this point comes down in part to critical mass - it is the connecting traffic which provides the critical mass to offer a high frequency of services for O&D traffic. There is no comparison between flying and taking the train on these routes, the train simply isn't an option.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 59):
Again, you're concerned with the O&D London market, which is being eaten alive by the current fast train service anyway, and we suspect that 'BA' make little or no margin in the domestic UK market.

Refer to my points above, I've not made mention of O&D. How are you going to sell it to regions that their multiple daily links to LHR will be replaced by considerably longer rail journeys. Sorry, but it's just not going to happen.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 59):
LHR should IMO be a major part of the HS2 proposal, with a north south 'spur' being built off the current alignment at Denham, adding about 10 mins to a London-Birmingham journey.

It will be, but not all trains will serve LHR.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 59):
You wouldn't need to develop a HS2 link to satisfy UK network connections @ LHR. Existing rails will do.

No, no they most certainly would not. The overland contingent of these journeys would be so long that it would significantly limit the available connections. Even with HSR the journey times to locations like EDI and GLA would not be remotely attractive.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 59):
Its unfair to suggest HS rail links to INV & NQY, as there are no current LHR flights to these ports,

It is entirely fair - allowing the UK regions access to LHR is part of the rational for adding runway capacity. Therefore a direct comparison needs to be made with your proposal, which doesn't have an equivalent solution other than the status quo at best.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 59):
and I was talking about the UK, which does not include GCI, JER or IOM; (or BHD/BFS for that matter !)

You said "LHR to UK/ Paris/ Brussels flights under around 400 miles radius" Flights to GCI, JER and IOM are considered as being UK domestic, whilst Northern Ireland is one of the four constituent countries which make up the UK.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 59):
I do not see that replacing short-haul at LHR with rail could possibly have any more political and economic issues than what we are facing now

I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of BA and the regions which you are suggesting can forgo airlinks and take the train instead. The political fallout would be enormous, government is already accused of being London centric in terms of infrastructure planning/spending, closing air access to the UK hub airport would drive a wedge through already fractured relations.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 59):
and I do not accept for one minute that anyone has seriously looked at using rail development as a method of alleviating airport capacity.

Yes they have, I've read the reports. The arguments don't add up however and that is why it is not being considered as a UK wide solution.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 59):
For god sake, it was only the recent development of T5 that saw a fast national rail service into London !!!!

So, errr, what was the Heathrow Express?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 60):
OK you've made that clearer now, I agree they are linked and I see you understand the difference, a lot of people simply don't get it though. If you spend billions moving the hub to Stansted that will probably close Luton, indeed I would say part of the deal of a four runway LHR is to close City. Playing devils advocate, honest

Lets just say it is an issue I have an interest in and have written several reports about.  Smile
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 60):
If you spend billions moving the hub to Stansted that will probably close Luton, indeed I would say part of the deal of a four runway LHR is to close City. Playing devils advocate, honest

I don't think city is going anywhere - it is niche and very well supported. In fact I can't see any airport closing, just being reduced to business/executive traffic.


Dan  

[Edited 2013-07-17 16:15:39]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-17 16:51:28 and read 12878 times.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 53):
New 'a-netter' and first post, so treat me gently !!!!

Welcome! I remember those days fondly. (I lurked for a long time though...)

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 53):
Heathrow cannot afford to keep losing its gravity and mass to other airports.

The do nothing option does just that.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 53):
I firmly believe that the practical answer to the capacity problem @ LHR is massive improvements to the existing rail network

For domestic O&D, that works. For long haul, it will leave LHR less competitive in a decade.

1. Passengers demand frequency so that they may travel at convenient times. The higher the RASM (premium) the passenger, the more time matters and airlines live and die off the premium passengers. LHR lacks capacity to significantly increase long haul frequency. For hubbing, LHR has such low frequency the connections are often 'you can have any color as long as it is black' and not at a preferred flight time for some customers. Look at how often BA flies LHR-JFK. That isn't for fun, that is what is required to capture the high RASM customers!
2. Fragmentation. LHR isn't in the market for too many destinations in India, Indonesia, Africa, and China. Why? Lack of connections. We now have newer longer range aircraft hitting the market in most of the size categories. LHR won't be able to fragment as much as many competing airports.

HSR will solve some issues, but not enough. For many routes, its more expensive than flying! So customers would just book a mid-east or US carrier and then connect to their final destination from Britain.

And rail only solves connections 'on the island.' For everything else, you are handing the competitive advantage to the expanding hub.

Take a customer flying from a non-hub city in France, Spain, Italy, or Greece to the Americas. How is BA going to compete once the CS100 is here with its TATL capability? I fully expect some smart airline to set up in BOS or other 'near-Europe' North American airport. Or maybe this is Iceland air's big chance with the NEO? The competition will improve faster over the next 15 years than ever before.

Without capturing connecting traffic too many destinations are not viable on just O&D from even London. As new cities open up, is London just going to watch as other hubs provide the connections and profit off London O&D passengers? {Yes}   

The C-series, MAX, NEO, 787, and A350 will change the market dramatically. To participate LHR needs another two runways minimum. Or... Let US based or Mid-East based hubs do the job for them. Game on.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-07-17 16:51:48 and read 12873 times.

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 10):
And I wonder, will HMtheQ have anything to say too - as urban legend has it that an American tourist once asked: "why did they build Windsor Castle on the approach to Heathrow" !!!

I don't think that the Royals would mind or care if the approach to the Northwest were to proceed as that might just be the runway that takes the majority of the landings and thusly would direct flights away from Windsor Castle.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 6):
Agree, but there is not much more room left along the central corridor to add concourses. If this plan goes through, I would just demolish T4 altogether as it would be horribly out of place and dysfunctional with any of the proposals (and free up that space for more cargo or maintenance). Current T4 capacity should be moved to the new terminals created in-between the new runways.

I would demolish T5 and put a third runway there and tear down T4 and redevelop T4 into a mega-terminal that would serve the airlines in T4 plus move BA into the redeveloped T4. I have always thought that T5 was a mistake and should have been developed into an expanded and redeveloped T1 for the other airlines except BA. That would give you two super terminals like what they have in China and allow for more apron and runway capacity.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-17 16:57:41 and read 12830 times.

Brilondon, do you know Heathrow well? Curious as to how you think demolishing T5 allows you to build a runway. Anyway back in the real world, no one is suggesting we demolish Terminal 5, let alone make Terminal 4 any bigger, constrained as it is by houses behind it. Anyhoo......

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: art
Posted 2013-07-17 18:38:51 and read 12170 times.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 53):
I firmly believe that the practical answer to the capacity problem @ LHR is massive improvements to the existing rail network, some schemes could be achieved relatively cheaply and quickly; (within two years).

I estimate that around 80 slots per day are used @ LHR for short-haul destinations, such as ABZ, EDI, GLA, LBA, MAN and BRU, CDG/ORY, which with sensible planning could be slowly replaced by high-speed rail, freeing up slots for intercontinental expansion.

I don't think that freeing 80 slots would make much difference. According to the heathrowairport.com website average daily aircraft movements in 2012 was 1288.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 55):
Think about how much that will cost - for a HSR network to replace all possible domestic flights to LHR that a third/fourth runway would facilitate. More than a couple of new runways, that is for sure, as you would be building HSR to locations where there is otherwise no economic case for it - ABZ, INV, NQY etc...

All the same you could build HSR to locations where there was an economic case for it. Once done it may well be that the plane simply cannot compete with the train. I believe that booking an Air France ticket to a number of destinations results in you being issued with a TGV ticket for that very reason.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: bristolflyer
Posted 2013-07-17 21:10:54 and read 11354 times.

One thing I've never heard any mention of is the fact the BA just built their huge new home at LHR. They must have had a lot of confidence that LHR s going to be around for a while when they built T5.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: seahawk
Posted 2013-07-17 22:17:10 and read 11042 times.

giving up water reservoirs is never a good idea. Especially as I failed to notice anything about replacing them.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: slinky09
Posted 2013-07-17 23:36:47 and read 10618 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 62):
It will be, but not all trains will serve LHR.

Noting that the HS2 connection to LHR is now kicked into phase 2 which is currently not scheduled to complete until 2033 (I can't beleive I'm writing that!).

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 53):
I firmly believe that the practical answer to the capacity problem @ LHR is massive improvements to the existing rail network, some schemes could be achieved relatively cheaply and quickly; (within two years).

I estimate that around 80 slots per day are used @ LHR for short-haul destinations, such as ABZ, EDI, GLA, LBA, MAN and BRU, CDG/ORY, which with sensible planning could be slowly replaced by high-speed rail, freeing up slots for intercontinental expansion.

I don't see railway improvement as an either / or - both are necessary but just improving railways will not solve a problem that as stated above is largely related to connections, not O&D. Look at Paris-Bordeaux, AF has 16 faily departures on that route yet the TGV takes just 3 1/2 hrs. We can probably agree that France has a better, larger high speed rail network than the UK but it obviously is not negating the need for flights. The issue is that we can't connect all large airports to all destinations on high speed rail.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: SelseyBill
Posted 2013-07-18 02:42:08 and read 9621 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 62):
No, no they most certainly would not. The overland contingent of these journeys would be so long that it would significantly limit the available connections. Even with HSR the journey times to locations like EDI and GLA would not be remotely attractive

I agree with much of what you say 'PlymSpotter'.

My over-arching point is that despite 30 years of planning procrastination there is still no sign of real additional runway capacity and it is unlikely for another decade. Can Heathrow wait that long ?

What in practicality can we realistically do NOW to increase capacity ? Not in 10 years, right now

Lets just take Manchester as one example. 'BA' flies up to 12 (?) times a day, and 'Virgin/Little Red' have a few flights in addition to their 3 franchised trains per hour from Euston to Manchester (with journey times at just over 2 hours). Travelling by air from Heathrow to Manchester city centre also takes around 2 hours.

The 'Heathrow Connect' stopping rail service to Paddington is strategically wasteful IMO, and I would authorize the immediate electrification of a short one mile section of rail route; (between Wembley-Acton Canal Jnc-Acton Wells Jnc-Acton Mainline); in West London (maybe costing £10M), so electric trains can run direct from the 'West Coast' main rail line to Heathrow.

I would then re-jig the Class 350/ 360 train diagrams to release rail stock, and run trains non-stop Manchester Piccadilly-MAN-(non-stop)-LHR via Acton and using the 'Heathrow Connect' rail slots between Acton and LHR in around 2 1/2 hours. An hourly 'round the clock' service with 200+ seat trains would be very 'competitive' with the staus quo, and add additional capacity on LHR-Manchester itself. Blocks of seats could be available to airlines or alliances.to offer the on-train customer service airlines desire.

This plan could be actioned very cheaply and quickly; is politically neutral; and would free-up around 15 daily slots for intercontinental expansion.

I agree that we need additional runway capacity @ LHR, but it just aint happening anytime soon. Practical quick solutions to add capacity are needed now.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-18 03:04:39 and read 9494 times.

This thread is being hijacked by trainspotters. LHR competes with CDG/FRA/AMS on a one stop connection basis from region to the workd over a hub. No amount of mucking about with trains is going to fix the issue that if you pull domestic air connectivity, you just gift it to your competitiors.

There is no more inefficient and expensive way of getting about the UK than by train, the fixed costs are horrendous, the infrastructure is straining and the recent answer, of the Heathrow Express and Javelin from Stratford are toys of the rich.

Please can we maintain a degree of business acumen and realism? For the UK to remain competitive we need LHR (or ONE a.n.other airport) to function as a one stop hub, like Atlanta, like Frankfurt, like Dubai. Anyone putting forward Gatwick or "Heath-wick" or fast rail past all those cows to the Highlands is just talking more and more and more and still more taxpayer subsidy. In all seriuosness, we need to start paying our own bills, not run more credit and debt up on grandiose schemes that cannot and never will pay for themselves in any terms.

Ina competitve environment, you are asking our people to compete with oe hand tied behind their backs. I live in Docklands, there's no commercial shipping anymore because of crass decision making in the past. That's exactly what's going to happen if we don't stop mucking about with crackpot schemes that only make entrenched interests wealthy.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: b2319
Posted 2013-07-18 03:20:06 and read 9394 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 51):
Name one split hub that has been viable?

Lightsaber,

I've yet to visit HND, so won't comment on that. However, I have used GMP & ICN, TSA & TPE and 40% of this year's flights have been through SHA & PVG. All, completely viable.

What makes these split hubs viable, in my opinion, is the supporting infrastructure. All of the above airports are connected to the cities suburban rail/metro/MRT networks. Something, London doesn't particularly have; at least not as comprehensively.

Some people may cite Victorian railways and difficult terrain as the reason why London/SE England cannot easily and quickly improve supporting transport for the various airport. Such arguments don't hold when one considers Taiwan and it's High Speed Railway, navigating much more difficult terrain than the South Downs. For want of a better phrase, Taiwan's 'legal sophistication' is probably on a par with the UK. I cannot easily verify this as I cannot read Traditional Chinese. However, in the UK, I feel there is a 'collective malaise' regarding certain types of strategic change projects. For me, this extends beyond the NIMBYs, and descends far deeper into UK society.

Totally agree with the poster who stated for implementation in 2025, decisions need to be taken now. That's the pace of change in the UK, sadly.

Regards

B-2319

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: LGWGate49
Posted 2013-07-18 03:35:36 and read 9370 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 71):
For the UK to remain competitive we need LHR (or ONE a.n.other airport) to function as a one stop hub, like Atlanta, like Frankfurt, like Dubai.

Really? With only 10% of all London passengers transferring elsewhere, who other than British Airways and Heathrow Airport Holdings seriously benefits from the expansion of Heathrow as a hub? If either were serious about global expansion they would be happy to re-allocate a very small amount of frequency from domestic and short haul Europe.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 71):
That's exactly what's going to happen if we don't stop mucking about with crackpot schemes that only make entrenched interests wealthy.

Hmmm, like British Airways and Heathrow Airport Holdings.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: EnviableOne
Posted 2013-07-18 03:53:54 and read 9309 times.

The timescales on the new runways are based on the current planning process and construction starting in 2018/19 this could be sped up by act of parliament, and knock 3/4 years off this with a planning act allowing construction to start 2015/16 or even 2014. I still think that just green lighting a 3rd runway is not a solution, a clear roadmap has to be provided for the building and commissioning of a fourth and possibly a fifth and sixth, with T6 and possibly 7 and 8 and a relocated T4 forming part of the plan. This would produce a layout not unlike DFW.

The Expansion of LHR has to come with associated expansion in the ground transport network around and towards LHR.This is all part of the plans outlined by the airport and is part of the HS2 and Crossrail plans as well.


No one in this thread is saying that trains are an alternative to runway expansion at LHR, in fact I think what Slinky is saying is rail approval and completion can be finished faster and form a short term solution to release the capacity needed to start serving the far-east and other emerging markets, until the major works of the expansion are completed.

Regional to London, rail is in direct competition with Air, I know the main reason there is no service from NCL to LCY is The East coast mainline.

With the HS2 Heathrow interchange and the HS2-HS1 link you can take high-speed rail direct from LHR to mainland Europe.

High-speed rail competes well with air on land routes as any travel time difference is usually swallowed up by check-in and post 9/11 security procedures at airports along with rails un-enviable position in the centre of most urban centres.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-18 03:58:39 and read 9300 times.

Quoting LGWGate49 (Reply 73):

Really? With only 10% of all London passengers transferring elsewhere, who other than British Airways and Heathrow Airport Holdings seriously benefits from the expansion of Heathrow as a hub?

Um anyone using LHR or flying with BA? i.e. me?  
They're services, people use them to get from A to B which without a hub, they'll need to connect via C !
Your username hints at your objections methinks.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-07-18 04:04:51 and read 9266 times.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 46):
I don't agree. The planning and building will take years probably
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 52):

Of course there would. Those figures do not stay stationary whilst a decision is made, available capacity keeps reducing.

Sorry. I obviously did not make my point clear.

What I was trying to say is that today LHR has no spare capacity. But there is 20 per cent spare capacity at LGW and 50 per cent at STN. Yet none of the major airlines are addressing the shortage of LHR capacity by operating new flights from the single runways at LGW and STN even though slots for such flights are available and are free. Instead they have often paid apparently absurd sums to buy slots at LHR . Indeed AA threatened legal action when what was then BAA tried to force them to operate a new flight from STN instead of LHR back in the '90s and AA, CO, DL and US deserted LGW en masse in the last decade just as soon as the opportunity arose despite the very high cost of those moves.

My question is that under the above circumstances why would any of these airlines voluntarily relocate from LHR to LGW or STN (selling their LHR slots) or move some flights from LHR to LGW and STN or even start new totally flights to LGW or STN simply because both of these airports then had two instead of one runway? I could not see this happening so was suggesting the proposal to solve this problem by building a second runway at both LGW and STN probably would not work. Am I missing something?

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: LGWGate49
Posted 2013-07-18 04:30:42 and read 9184 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 75):
They're services, people use them to get from A to B which without a hub, they'll need to connect via C !

Yes but we are talking about changes that make best sense for London as a city, and the UK as a whole. For both business and leisure. That means that the Davies Commsion needs to look deeper than simply BA and LHR.

It must be good thing for the south-east that if I want to travel to Amsterdam I can now choose from Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, London City, Southend, Cambridge, Southampton, Norwich, and Manston on 6 different airlines. Surely spreading that choice around the region makes more economic sense than creating one particularly plump airport on the wrong side of London.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 75):
Your username hints at your objections methinks.

Interesting assumption  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-07-18 04:31:55 and read 9199 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 64):
I would demolish T5 and put a third runway there and tear down T4 and redevelop T4 into a mega-terminal that would serve the airlines in T4 plus move BA into the redeveloped T4. I have always thought that T5 was a mistake

Firstly a 3rd runway on the T5 site is an impossibility, the approach would be over T1, T2, T3 and the control tower. Secondly if anything T4 was the mistake, stuck on the South side of the airfield with every plane having to either cross an active runway on taxi out or taxi in. A BA pilot told me that the use of T5 rather than T4 saved an immediate 5 - 10 minutes on every trip due to there being no need to ever cross an active runway.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 67):
One thing I've never heard any mention of is the fact the BA just built their huge new home at LHR. They must have had a lot of confidence that LHR s going to be around for a while when they built T5.

BA never built T5, BAA (now Heathrow Holdings) own and build all the LHR infrastructure, BA just managed to persuade them that they should occupy it.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-18 04:40:46 and read 9145 times.

Quoting LGWGate49 (Reply 77):
Surely spreading that choice around the region makes more economic sense than creating one particularly plump airport on the wrong side of London.

No one is suggesting we remove choice from any other London airport, what is clear is that where the greatest demand exists, it ought to be met for a greater economic good. That's at LHR in the main, and yes it does suck long haul away from all nearby airportts but that's the nature of the market and there is no sensible way to regulate this without adding massive revenue loss or costs to certain airlines by forcing them to move airport. That in itself is a market distortion and probably illegal nowadays. You say "wrong side" which is subjective, there's a load of businesses located nearby for that very reason. Your team is LGW which is fine, but what's best for LGW is not in the best interests of overall hub connectivity clearly. How's LGW-JFK performing btw? Oh wait..... free market  

[Edited 2013-07-18 04:41:24]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-18 04:54:23 and read 9090 times.

I don't know why you're all getting your knickers in such a twist. As much as I want it to happen I don't think there is an answer.

- The Greens won't be happy until we're all inflicted with rolling blackouts let alone a third runway at Heathrow.

- The NIMBYS are a selfish bunch of hypocrites who can't see further than the sky over their own over priced back yards.

- The political parties are all so sh*t scared of alienating misguided desperately fought over voters that they all are now constantly kicking the issue into the long grass.

On the upside BA has enough slack according to the CEO to see it through until 2030 so it's not all bad.

Bigger aircraft on certain long-haul routes should also help a little at least.

Just my 2 cents.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-07-18 05:18:29 and read 9032 times.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 78):
BA never built T5, BAA (now Heathrow Holdings) own and build all the LHR infrastructure,

Excepting all the area at the east end of the airport in (and around?) what is the BA Maintenance Base.

BA (or BOAC) built and updated the infrastructure on land where BA hold a very long term lease from Heathrow Airport Holdings. So, for example, the recent conversion of hangar space to enable it to take the 380 was implemented and paid for by BA.

Nearby there is the VS Maintenance facility. It was built by VS working with BAA at a cost to of £25 million. The ownership of this facility is not entirely clear to me:

http://www.asiatraveltips.com/travelnews2002/1110Virgin.shtml

Between the BA and the VS Bases there is the ex-bmi Maintenance Base. Again I am not sure if this is now a BA owned facility built on land leased from Heathrow Airport Holdings or if it is a building owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings leased by BA,

Aircraft belonging to third party airlines on long stopovers are regularly parked on both the BA Maintenance Area ramp and the former BD Maintenance Area ramp. This is because the land is leased and controlled by its occupier that charges less than Heathrow Airport Ltd would charge for parking on a remote stand on land they control,.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-18 05:25:46 and read 9010 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 81):
Aircraft belonging to third party airlines on long stopovers are regularly parked on both the BA Maintenance Area ramp and the former BD Maintenance Area ramp.

This was mostly stopped a few years back, Cathay now park on the 450s and 580s/590s and QANTAS on the 590s.
The only airline who does nowadays is South African although I did see a Singapore B77W at the BeaLine base last year one day.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-18 06:17:44 and read 8902 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 71):
LHR competes with CDG/FRA/AMS on a one stop connection basis

And DXB/DOH/AUH/IAD and a dozen other hubs. They need to be competitive.

Quoting b2319 (Reply 72):
I've yet to visit HND, so won't comment on that. However, I have used GMP & ICN, TSA & TPE and 40% of this year's flights have been through SHA & PVG. All, completely viable.

Your list is the case studies used to show why a single hub is *far* more viable. In order to improve connections and be more competitive PVG is adding two runways. ICN/GMP has hurt ICN growth due to the inconvenience of connections.

Look at figure 3 on how a single hub expands connection opportunities:
http://www.internationaltransportfor...jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP201305.pdf


This is what LHR will have to compete against. There is a reason BA dismantled their hub at LGW and focused on hubbing at LHR and P2P at LGW. Split hubs have low RASM.

Let's compare. Pick a flight USA to India, a route LHR competes on. But LHR may only compete on routes it flies to. Premium passengers will pick the timings best for them. If they want an excuse to visit a favorite city, they will. e.g., I know quite a few people who stop in London, Paris, Tokyo, and Bangkok on their flights... But that is because they want to re-visit a favorite city. Most of the growth has been at the consolidated hubs.

Split hubs mean inherently fewer possible connections. I'm sure both BA and VS would love to be 'topping off' their LGW flights with LHR connections. Some passengers will transfer... Most will take the direct.

When I book flights, I look at departure, arrival, and total trip times as well as the cost. The more premium the passenger, the more that look at the experience and times instead of the price. Since a split hub has a *large* time penalty for transfers over a consolidated hub, that will hurt CASM.

Personally, I will not utilize a split hub in a region where I do not speak the native language. Mostly as I've found the concentration of English speakers is at the main international airport. Oh, I speak other languages... But there are so many spoken languages in this world it simply isn't possible to be fluent in more than a few (unless you are my brother and his wife, who have the 'gift for languages.')

I love rail travel too. But for connections... Get me through and I'm done. If I'm going to visit a city, I'll visit that city. But for example, it looks like I'll go to a wedding in India and LHR isn't even an option for a one stop connection. Since I'll only be able to take a week off from work, I want to spend as much time at the destination as possible. So a split-hub connection has zero appeal to me.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 80):
- The Greens won't be happy until we're all inflicted with rolling blackouts let alone a third runway at Heathrow.

I'm convinced they think we can return to the 'good old days' if they impede progress. That won't happen, but I believe they think that way.


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: LGWGate49
Posted 2013-07-18 06:31:18 and read 8846 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 79):
Your team is LGW which is fine

In which case you must be team LHR  

Actually I don't hold a candle for LGW, I simply don't believe that, given its geography that already pollutes swathes of the city, doubling LHR is the best solution for London over the next 40+ years.

To quote the mayor, 'There will be more pigs flying than aircraft if we are to believe that three runways will make less noise than two.'  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: b2319
Posted 2013-07-18 06:34:31 and read 8837 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 83):

I am sorry, Lightsaber, I was replying to your point using the very English that you quoted.

You used the word 'viable', NOT the word 'optimal'. These three cities show that split hubs aren't necessarily a major inconvience, if the surrounding infrastructure is in place. Unfortunately, in my view, we do not live in an 'optimal' world; at least I certainly don't.  

Having lived in China for a while, I see decisions of the Chinese Government daily, and at firsthand. In many cases, China does things, just because it can in the same way that your pet Hooch will lick his nuts from time to time.....

We clearly have differing 'risk appetites' as I certainly aren't fluent in Mandarin. I would hope you consider rethinking your policy, as I am guessing there are swathes of the world that may be out of bounds for you. And, that would be a shame, for someone as respected and knowledgable as yourself.....  

Regards

B-2319

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: r2rho
Posted 2013-07-18 06:37:59 and read 8835 times.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 14):
I would suggest that any further enlargement of LHR will also require the motorway to be widened in order to cope with demand.

If LHR were decently linked up with national rail, including linking it up with southern rail, that could effectively be offset.

Quoting ThomasCook (Thread starter):
The earliest any option could be ready would be 2025.

While I realize that is more of a political-bureacratic than a technical constraint, by then LHR will have been well bypassed by other hubs and be primarily an O&D airport. After 2025, LHR can only try to fight and win back some of the market.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 40):
The chances of anything being produced other than a lot of paper and an even larger amount of hot air before 2017 or '18 is pretty remote.

And it will also produce a good amount of a-net threads during that period  But it will likely not produce a new runway...

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 41):
The problem isn't the lack of spare capacity in London, it is the lack of sufficient capacity at one airport.
For the airlines to change airports it would have to be a increase in capacity at one Airport such that one airport can handle the traffic and mandated movement to the airport, like in the case of HND-NRT, HKG, LGA-JFK EWR, LUV-DFW, MUC, and what will happen in Berlin.

Agree - currently capacity does not exist for an airline alliance (a single airline would never do it) to leave LHR for another LON airport.
Just a small correction about BER: although airlines will move there as they are given no other choice (shut down of TXL), the new airport is in fact sized too small to serve current & future demand. So I would not mention it as an example to follow.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 46):
now is precisely the right time to be making decisions. You don't wait until you reach 100% everywhere before then planning what the hell to do. The economic damage would be appalling.

No, 20-30 years ago was the time to make decisions. Now we are seeing the consequences of not taking them.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 53):
I firmly believe that the practical answer to the capacity problem @ LHR is massive improvements to the existing rail network, some schemes could be achieved relatively cheaply and quickly; (within two years).

I agree that national rail & HSR connections into LHR would help improve the situation and free up some slots, but I disagree that they are the solution. They are a perfect complement to additional rwy capacity, but not a full substitute.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 55):
HS2 will not run directly through Heathrow.

Which is a huge short-sighted mistake, as it negates any slot-freeing advantages that HSR could have brought...

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-18 06:55:28 and read 8807 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 71):
There is no more inefficient and expensive way of getting about the UK than by train, the fixed costs are horrendous, the infrastructure is straining and the recent answer, of the Heathrow Express and Javelin from Stratford are toys of the rich.

Take France 35 years ago. Trains were slow and considered to be crap. France spent billions on new rails and new trains. Nowadays trains compete handily with air travel and are considered a brilliant long term investment.

Take Japan 50 years ago. Mountainous terrain. All the challenges of eminent domain laws that to this day keep NRT from having all the runways long enough. And yet, the Shinkansen is a transport system that the world envies.

The problem is not "train". The problem is "train in the UK". With the same political clout that pushing through a third runway of LHR will take, you might easily build a decent high speed rail network to Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff and so forth.

Having said that, the third and fourth runways at LHR are brilliant ideas and should go ahead, unless by some miracle a very high speed railway is constructed that connects LHR and LGW with a sub-30 minute railways link that includes sealed "outside customs" carriages.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-18 07:17:09 and read 8765 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 87):

Take France 35 years ago. Trains were slow and considered to be crap. France spent billions on new rails and new trains. Nowadays trains compete handily with air travel and are considered a brilliant long term investment.

The population density and distribution is very different, already the UK (England actually) has the most expensive and most fragmented of railways. In Scotland it's a private monopoly but way more cohesive. I've been on a train to Birmingham, it was fine. There's a shed load more needing pressing investment than a rich man's toy train to shave minutes of an existing service. You're comparing apples and pears.

Quoting LGWGate49 (Reply 84):

To quote the mayor, 'There will be more pigs flying than aircraft if we are to believe that three runways will make less noise than two.'

Except Boris and Jon Stewart and HACAN don't deal with numbers. Will LHR in 20 years time with three runways be quiter than two today? Stupid question? Or take away all those B744s and replace them with A350s and B787s. So confident now? Is a LHR of half the capacity of decades ago quieter or noisier than today? VC10s and Tridents versus A380s? Capacity and volume do not equate with noise, we need to seperate the politics (lies) from the facts.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-07-18 07:37:53 and read 8718 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 75):
Um anyone using LHR or flying with BA? i.e. me?  
They're services, people use them to get from A to B which without a hub, they'll need to connect via C !
Your username hints at your objections methinks.

I think that he would like the LGW v. LHR debate again.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 78):
Firstly a 3rd runway on the T5 site is an impossibility, the approach would be over T1, T2, T3 and the control tower. Secondly if anything T4 was the mistake, stuck on the South side of the airfield with every plane having to either cross an active runway on taxi out or taxi in. A BA pilot told me that the use of T5 rather than T4 saved an immediate 5 - 10 minutes on every trip due to there being no need to ever cross an active runway.

I was thinking not a parallel runway but a North/South runway. Although I think that the brain trust who keep thinking up this tripe is never going to be satisfied with any proposal. The Northwest proposal, the Southwest proposal, Boris Island, expand LGW which would be my least favourite.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 86):
If LHR were decently linked up with national rail, including linking it up with southern rail, that could effectively be offset.

I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be expanded rail connections at LHR. Although the one rail link with Paddington is a good one some people find it a little expensive. What would benefit LHR maybe would be a direct link with the Tunnel and you could eliminate air travel to some extent and have better connections with AMS and CDG.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 86):
Quoting VV701 (Reply 40):
The chances of anything being produced other than a lot of paper and an even larger amount of hot air before 2017 or '18 is pretty remote.

And it will also produce a good amount of a-net threads during that period  But it will likely not produce a new runway...

I would bet that it would be alot of paper and announcements and people smiling for the cameras until at least 2030. Then alot of hearings and studies so I doubt that we will ever see a third runway until at least 2050.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: LGWGate49
Posted 2013-07-18 08:17:49 and read 8654 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 89):
I think that he would like the LGW v. LHR debate again

What is it with these assumptions? I've not specifically supported LGW in any of my posts!!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 88):
Or take away all those B744s and replace them with A350s and B787s. So confident now? Is a LHR of half the capacity of decades ago quieter or noisier than today? VC10s and Tridents versus A380s? Capacity and volume do not equate with noise, we need to seperate the politics (lies) from the facts.

Okay so I liked Boris' quote. But if you're going to mention B744s and want facts, you might find this study interesting comparing B744 / A388 / B77W noise levels taken at LHR:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati...-Final_ERCD_A380_Report_1106_2.pdf

There is not an enormous noise step change between B744, A380 and B77W that you seem to be implying.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: EnviableOne
Posted 2013-07-18 09:04:01 and read 8583 times.

Come on people, this is supposed to be a debate about which of Heathrow Holdings proposals are the best, or other alternatives they haven't considered, not a re-hash of the should we expand LHR debate.

I skimmed the report and it comes up with some good solutions to the current situation from the LHR point of view.

From there wording and the way they choose to present the results, it seems they are leaning towards the north-west option and planning for the 4th in the process, if not making it at the same time.

The timescales they include cover the inherent bureaucracy of the UK system, but accept the fact that by act of parliament they can be decreased.

On Other issues, the ultimate Shape of the HS2 Heathrow link has not been decided yet, but the recommendation is to run all traffic through the Heathrow interchange. This along with the HS1-Hs2 link will create a High-speed rail link running from MAN-BHX-LHR-CDG/AMS.

Crossrail and HS2 should improve transport links to LHR from the centre of London, but from the point of view of a HUB, this makes little difference.

The point of the report was a kind of Masterplan for LHR and it makes some good points, also it takes the view that the current proposal (the north option) is not the best in terms of impact.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-18 09:10:31 and read 8579 times.

Quoting LGWGate49 (Reply 90):
There is not an enormous noise step change between B744, A380 and B77W that you seem to be implying.

That's rather surprising and unexpected as on take off, the BA B744s are markedly noisier than frankly anything else still in common usage. the A380 by comparison is much quieter in my experience. I also live under the flight path at 15 miles out where the A380 almost passes silently over head, something the B744 couldn't do  

Btw why gate 49 at Gatters?

[Edited 2013-07-18 09:11:54]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: LGWGate49
Posted 2013-07-18 10:38:58 and read 8457 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 92):
Btw why gate 49 at Gatters

Hmmm, wish you'd not asked! Shouldn't really share on such a public forum!

Before pier 4 was extended, gate 49 was at the far end with the entrance hidden out of view. So when in the summer of 1993 (as an 18 year old working for Gatwick Handling in their PHU) I was sent to the gate with my then girlfriend (who I'd met through GH) to work a flight, before it was called we... well....  

Sorry way too much information, but I always have a little wry smile when I travel through it now  

Mods - for once I'm very happy if you delete this post!

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-07-18 11:01:10 and read 8434 times.

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 91):
Come on people, this is supposed to be a debate about which of Heathrow Holdings proposals are the best

All IMHO are non-starters. Cost is >2x of the London Olympics and similar to the cost for HKG and Boston's Big Dig. The proportions are epic. It seems to me as aviation fans we've perhaps lost context. Step back and ask yourself how society is going to be convinced that this is a good investment? Two of the plans knock down hundreds of homes, the third knocks down thousands.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-18 11:44:17 and read 8375 times.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 70):
My over-arching point is that despite 30 years of planning procrastination there is still no sign of real additional runway capacity and it is unlikely for another decade. Can Heathrow wait that long ?

Heathrow can, but in my opinion the UK can't. The lack of hub/London Airport capacity is causing serious economic problems in the UK's more peripheral regions.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 70):
What in practicality can we realistically do NOW to increase capacity ? Not in 10 years, right now

Price smaller operators out of the market (think smaller national airlines) and open up Northolt to scheduled services as a LCY west type airport for the UK regions. I really can't say any more in a public forum.

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 74):
The timescales on the new runways are based on the current planning process and construction starting in 2018/19 this could be sped up by act of parliament, and knock 3/4 years off this with a planning act allowing construction to start 2015/16 or even 2014.

Nothing will start before the Airports Commission reports in 2015. You can expect the timescale to be glacial, although not quite as bad as previous major infrastructure projects.

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 74):
High-speed rail competes well with air on land routes as any travel time difference is usually swallowed up by check-in and post 9/11 security procedures at airports along with rails un-enviable position in the centre of most urban centres.

This argument is very weak for transfer pax, as the check in process takes place regardless of whether it is at NCL or LHR.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 76):
My question is that under the above circumstances why would any of these airlines voluntarily relocate from LHR to LGW or STN (selling their LHR slots) or move some flights from LHR to LGW and STN or even start new totally flights to LGW or STN simply because both of these airports then had two instead of one runway? I could not see this happening so was suggesting the proposal to solve this problem by building a second runway at both LGW and STN probably would not work. Am I missing something?

You set a schedule of fees which encourage/force carriers to 'voluntarily' move. A great example of this in action can be seen at LCW and LCY.

Quoting LGWGate49 (Reply 90):
There is not an enormous noise step change between B744, A380 and B77W that you seem to be implying.

I have to disagree with that - as do EASA noise certification data sets. For example, as the crow flies I live 180 miles from Heathrow, but I can still hear the evening 744 departure to Sao Paulo rumble overhead with my windows closed - it passes overhead at ~28,000-32,000ft. Not so for the 77W which is quieter, and the A388 doesn't fly overhead to make a comparison.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-18 12:36:33 and read 8300 times.

Quoting b2319 (Reply 85):
These three cities show that split hubs aren't necessarily a major inconvience, if the surrounding infrastructure is in place. Unfortunately, in my view, we do not live in an 'optimal' world; at least I certainly don't.

   That we can agree on. But I think we're also looking at viable different between short and long term. The competition in hubbing is going to heat up. With new aircraft that can go further, hubs will extend their reach (e.g., thanks to the C-series, NEO, MAX, 787, and A350). Thus what was working before won't long term with split hubs.

Let's take ICN as the example. By having a separate domestic airport that is really the only option to certain Korean cities:
1. Frequency is reduced at ICN. As I already noted, some cities will not be served by the hub. This reduces the attractiveness to business. While I don't expect life to be optimal, I have friends in the outsourcing business and they just do not outsource *anywhere* reachable with a one stub hubbing. They simply have too much business to audit.
2. Service must be duplicated between the split hubs. This likely means a reduction in gauge and thus a per-passenger cost increase.
3. Competition is looking for opportunities. With the upcoming growth in Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia, there will be more demand for one stop hubbing.

But BA ceased hubbing at LGW for a reason. What was viable wasn't... after improved competition. Some of the competition doesn't even fly to the same destination (e.g., EK has tremendously improved the map of one stop vacation destinations available to *all* the UK airports they serve).

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 87):
Having said that, the third and fourth runways at LHR are brilliant ideas and should go ahead, unless by some miracle a very high speed railway is constructed that connects LHR and LGW with a sub-30 minute railways link that includes sealed "outside customs" carriages.
Quoting b2319 (Reply 85):
We clearly have differing 'risk appetites' as I certainly aren't fluent in Mandarin.

I used to have much more of a risk appetite. But on one of those trips I made the connection and a friend and his girlfriend didn't... It screwed up the last 2/3rds of his vacation with us. But then again, I spoke the local language and so did others in the sub-group I was with.

Also, risk appetite on connections has no place in business. I've *never* worked for a company that allowed split hub transfers unless it was the only option. All others required same hub-transfers even if it doubled (or more) the fare *and* made for a longer flight time. Risk=cost$.

In my humble opinion, I believe that unavoidable split-hub transfers drove premium passengers to business jets. Not the sole reason, but I'm sure a decent number of business jets were sold to reduce connection risk.

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 91):
The timescales they include cover the inherent bureaucracy of the UK system, but accept the fact that by act of parliament they can be decreased.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 94):
It seems to me as aviation fans we've perhaps lost context. Step back and ask yourself how society is going to be convinced that this is a good investment? Two of the plans knock down hundreds of homes, the third knocks down thousands.

The context is simple, does London (LHR or Borris Island) remain a hub or not? Without more runways, the Americas to India/mid-east simply will not have competitive connections at LHR (or Borris Island, either would work); that would be a win by the mid-east airlines.

Connections from the US to Europe would be a fail too. With the CS-100 and later NEO/MAX providing more direct connections, I see a huge opportunity on TATL. The winner will be the large O&D market that expands to provide connections. Either London can participate or be bypassed.

Take NRT as the example. That used to be *the* Asian side TPAC hub. But as planes gained range and ICN/PEK/PVG/CAN came into their own, NRT became a sideshow. No one under the age of forty talks about it being a major airport anymore. It is just one of many large airports. The opportunity for Japan to grab that business has gone. Now they will compete for *new* business (there will be growth for a long time).

Another perspective is that the global middle class is expected to *double* in a mere 13 years. Air travel should grow at about the same rate. Either London grows and participates in that fast growth (e.g., new flights to Indonesia) or they don't. I would like to see LHR participate.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 95):
You set a schedule of fees which encourage/force carriers to 'voluntarily' move. A great example of this in action can be seen at LCW and LCY.

Which reduces the number of cities connected. It also drives the 'game' in favor of the big hubbing airlines that can make the most out of premium O&D traffic. All that does is make greater London a less competitive business market. Yes, some flights will go to the secondary airports of London.    Without those flights and connections LHR becomes *far* more susceptible to the local O&D seasonal demand. That means in the *next* recession, VS and BA will be far harder hit. Cest la vie, there will be new airlines to take their place.

Or... the traffic will just be connected at MAD with the associated jobs. BA could just fly large gauge airframes on the MAD-LHR sector all day with the distribution (hubbing) occurring at MAD. The downside of that strategy is that once customers are forced to move, the customer chooses where they go. Often that means business relocation. e.g., California tried to push a business inland via higher taxes that I was doing an internship at. The company made it clear to the state either they received tax breaks or they would be operating out of Phoenix within the year. The company signed a decade long tax break package shortly thereafter. Businesses that *need* air travel and are located in London locate near LHR for a reason. Make it tougher on them and I bet enough branches are opened elsewhere for the politicians to take notice.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-18 13:34:53 and read 8193 times.

Quoting LGWGate49 (Reply 84):
In which case you must be team LHR

I'm team UK and against local interests before national ones, firmly against daft ideas like "Heathwick" floating island airports.

Quoting LGWGate49 (Reply 84):

Actually I don't hold a candle for LGW, I simply don't believe that, given its geography that already pollutes swathes of the city, doubling LHR is the best solution for London over the next 40+ years.

I agree, it's far from the best. It's the only practical solution for a rather cash strapped nation. Anything better is beyond expensive, it really is. I'll have 80% of something rather than all of nothing please.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 95):
Price smaller operators out of the market (think smaller national airlines) and open up Northolt to scheduled services as a LCY west type airport for the UK regions. I really can't say any more in a public forum.

What problem are you solving in opening up Northolt "to the regions"? easyJet have good flights to existing airports and anyone not able to use LGW has LTN/STN/LCY options. Northolt is much too close to LHR to compete on it's own, is actually pretty far from any decent public transport and is too far from LHR to be of any use connecting. It's Heathwick by any other name. How on Earth can you persuade a travelling public that gets really upset being BUSSED at Terninal 3 to an aeroplane in sight, they need to get on a bus over the horizon to make a connection? Or are you saying that with BA flying multiple daily flights to UK regions at T5, there's a gap on the point to point market? Which is it?

[Edited 2013-07-18 13:36:31]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-18 13:46:21 and read 8169 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 96):
Which reduces the number of cities connected. It also drives the 'game' in favor of the big hubbing airlines that can make the most out of premium O&D traffic.

Not necessarily. If one route, say a short haul route, was lost to LTN/STN/LGW only to be replaced by a new long haul route to an emerging market then there would be a net gain to the UK economy.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 96):
Or... the traffic will just be connected at MAD with the associated jobs. BA could just fly large gauge airframes on the MAD-LHR sector all day with the distribution (hubbing) occurring at MAD.

Once IB's ducks are in order I think we will see this more.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-18 14:56:04 and read 8060 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 98):

Not necessarily. If one route, say a short haul route, was lost to LTN/STN/LGW only to be replaced by a new long haul route to an emerging market then there would be a net gain to the UK economy.

Can you back that up with any stats? Not sure how you're planning on filling this new long haul having lost your feed. Business question for you, does that make it easier or harder to compete with LH/KL/AF?

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-18 17:46:13 and read 7932 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 98):
Not necessarily. If one route, say a short haul route, was lost to LTN/STN/LGW only to be replaced by a new long haul route to an emerging market then there would be a net gain to the UK economy.

Unless that connecting flight was expected by the international passengers. You've now cut off a UK city (assuming the small city was in the UK) to BA's long haul network. Since the flight was on a small gauge, the small city will not see a replacement.

Thus, business people in other regions, when trying to book a flight, will be surprised to find out they can no longer get a connection. Like many small US cities, that small UK city will loose access to international markets and business will decline.


Now overall, the UK would benefit from such a move.
But why not add a runway and thus add more frequency to that small city *and* more international frequency?


Eventually, more flights will need to be allocated to the top O&D markets. LHR has been losing small destinations for decades and will continue to do so. If another hub is able to provide the connection (FRA, PHL, MAD, DXB, or wherever...) the demand will be met. If not, as it usually isn't, bummer for the local business.

Or grow. London's call...

There are hundreds of runways that will be built globally over the next decades. If business needs to move elsewhere, it doesn't fret about it, it doesn't even think twice, it just does it. Business moves with the emotion of a mouse click. Its up to the UK to lay the groundwork to make it happen there...

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 99):
Can you back that up with any stats? Not sure how you're planning on filling this new long haul having lost your feed. Business question for you, does that make it easier or harder to compete with LH/KL/AF?

That too... as each connecting flight is cut, the existing long haul network will have less feed.

Or one can expand and the new flights strengthen the existing flights...

And it should be compete with LH/KL/AF/AA/DL/UA/EK/QR/EY and every potential competitor. Including new LCCs TATL.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-19 01:09:49 and read 7729 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 100):
Including new LCCs TATL.

Lightsaber

Is that really an issue here ? I don't see how a LCC TATL could offer cheaper fares considering the matching power of the giants. In the UK for a start they cannot circumnavigate high tax. With no premium cabins to subsidize them the massive TATL JV's of AA/BA and now VS/DL would one way or another price them into oblivion. (No point banging on about it not being fair either. That's just business.) God knows the legacies have taken enough of a hit over the years one way or the other ! Fuel is also too expensive and many long-haul costs are non-negotiable.

Todays news is tomorrows fish & chips wrapping. Within weeks of a new runway opening at LHR this whole ridiculous debacle would be forgotten. This independent body (whatever its called) is the way forward)

Tantrums and toys being thrown from prams never wins out in the end.

$$$$$ does.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: SelseyBill
Posted 2013-07-19 04:11:49 and read 7618 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 71):
This thread is being hijacked by trainspotters.

I assume that 'low blow; was aimed at my comments regarding potential rail developments in West London. (No offence taken).

I was merely suggesting that there is a real quick practical solution to provide additional development capacity by running fast London-Manchester trains that doesn't have to cost billions.

There are examples of where rail has taken over air sectors; (notably Paris-Brussels); and other airports we all know of (AMS, CDG, FRA), where rail offers substantial 'feeder' facilities. To dismiss rail out of hand as a potential Heathrow capacity solution is as unrealistic to me as expecting a 3rd runway at Heathrow before 2022.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: b2319
Posted 2013-07-19 04:37:48 and read 7566 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 96):
Let's take ICN as the example.

Fine. The distance between ICN and GMP is 32 km. There are five metro stops between the airports; same line.

There are 1-3 flights per day between ICN and CJU. Whereas there are 96-104 flights a day betwen GMP and CJU. [source: just google 'flights from ICN/GMP to CJU'].

So, should you be an international arrival into ICN, headed for GMP, you are stating you wouldn't consider one of the many GMP flights? If so, very enlightening. What kind of premium do you think the 1-3%, versus total, of ICN departures are paying?

To go back to an ealier point on 'risk', pre-Olympics, I admit, there was a significant risk that a 120 minute commenction wouldn't be sufficient time for a non-EU national headed onto a domestic flight at LHR. This is at least double the transer time between ICN and GMP on the metro today. (Note: I have had one International>Domestic LHR transfer in the last 5 years: 45 minutes, all within T5, EU passport holder)

Forgive me just picking up on this point at the moment. At 1930, it is time for my weekend to start = I am off to the pub.....  

Regards

B-2319

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-19 05:04:28 and read 7525 times.

I've never read before such a load of waffle.

With projected population growth being described as exponential (to put it mildly) LHR even with a 3rd runway will not match the hubs of the east. It's just daft to use projections in these areas as the benchmark. Let'em get on with it and good luck.

I wouldn't want LHR to go down that route.

What is important is that LHR be able to meet the demands of the UK economy and also provide non-stop service to new long-haul destinations. Having to sacrifice a profitable route or reducing its frequency/potential for a more profitable route is not a desired scenario. Any O&D that makes money directly/indirectly should be able to be exploited to the full.

A 3rd runway will address this until hopefully (one day) a new location is agreed upon.

Gunking up the system with connecting traffic just to keep up with Jones's is not a realistic option for LHR in its present location.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-19 05:44:10 and read 7471 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 97):
What problem are you solving in opening up Northolt "to the regions"? easyJet have good flights to existing airports and anyone not able to use LGW has LTN/STN/LCY options.

The point is de-facto hub access as a stop-gap solution before a third runway is added at LHR.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 97):
Northolt is much too close to LHR to compete on it's own, is actually pretty far from any decent public transport and is too far from LHR to be of any use connecting. It's Heathwick by any other name. How on Earth can you persuade a travelling public that gets really upset being BUSSED at Terninal 3 to an aeroplane in sight, they need to get on a bus over the horizon to make a connection?

You need to put this in perspective. The current options for UK regions not served by LHR is a self made connection via another London airport, an overland journey of many hours, and/or using an EU hub - which is not always an option. Suddenly a 15 minute bus ride from Northolt to Heathrow is the quick and easy short term option before runway capacity is added at LHR. In addition there would be a reasonable O&D demand and, if the idea is developed, public transport to Northolt would be pretty darn good.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 99):
Can you back that up with any stats? Not sure how you're planning on filling this new long haul having lost your feed.

What I said in the same post was:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 95):
Price smaller operators out of the market (think smaller national airlines)

There would be no meaningful loss of feed to BA's hub, you are talking a handful of pax per day who would be interlining.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 99):
Business question for you, does that make it easier or harder to compete with LH/KL/AF?

Slightly more competitive in terms of destinations offered, but in terms of airlines competing as businesses a third runway is not needed at Heathrow, it is the UK economy as a whole which needs the extra capacity.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 100):
Now overall, the UK would benefit from such a move.
But why not add a runway and thus add more frequency to that small city *and* more international frequency?

Absolutely, that is essential. But it can in part be achieved within 2-3 years by using Northolt as a short term capacity solution for UK regions not currently connected, before a third runway is added.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 104):
With projected population growth being described as exponential (to put it mildly) LHR even with a 3rd runway will not match the hubs of the east. It's just daft to use projections in these areas as the benchmark. Let'em get on with it and good luck.

Define 'hubs of the East'? If you are meaning IST/DOH/DWC etc... then I agree, you can't match those levels of infrastructure planning and investment with a third runway. But if you mean AMS/CDG/FRA then I disagree, as a third runway will provide more movement capacity than they currently have.

The often favored public argument is that CDG has four runways, FRA has four runways and AMS has millions of runways and is the best thing since sliced bread. But this overlooks their physical/environmental design and movement limitations, which would see LHR surpass them all in terms of available capacity with a third runway.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-19 06:02:46 and read 7448 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 104):
Gunking up the system with connecting traffic just to keep up with Jones's is not a realistic option for LHR in its present location.
Quoting 1400mph (Reply 104):
I've never read before such a load of waffle.

OK I'm sorry but you're fundamentally not understanding the business model you're commenting on. It's a hub, a hub requires feed, which requires a mix of O&D and connections to make money. Your hub will not work without all of the component parts.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 104):
With projected population growth being described as exponential (to put it mildly)

Population growth is nowhere near exponential, with the greatest of respect, you honestly don't know what the word means if you honestly believe the human population is growing exponentially. Please, words and meanings are important here.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 104):
Any O&D that makes money directly/indirectly should be able to be exploited to the full.

You cannot sensibly separate out O&D and connections at LHR. The whole reason the US airlines moved out of Gatwick was to get more connections, yet you are advocating a scenario where that is somehow "gunking" things up? You don't seem to get that connections are fundamental to making some routes pay their way, as that connectivity bleeds off, they become less viable and the number of direct services will decrease.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 105):

Slightly more competitive in terms of destinations offered, but in terms of airlines competing as businesses a third runway is not needed at Heathrow, it is the UK economy as a whole which needs the extra capacity.

Funny how the business at LHR would disagree with that. BA said just the other day "Yes it's just a perfect size, we're jolly happy with matters" - not. Again, seeing the good of the UK economy as a separate matter is wrong, what's good for business here is good for the economy. Let them make some money so they can pay some tax to pay off our debt.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-19 06:31:59 and read 7382 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 106):
OK I'm sorry but you're fundamentally not understanding the business model you're commenting on. It's a hub, a hub requires feed, which requires a mix of O&D and connections to make money. Your hub will not work without all of the component parts.

Of course it needs feed and a mix of O&D. Who said it didn't ? Where LHR is located though means there has to be limit. You cannot have traffic on the scale of airports like a future Dubai airport on the flight path over central London.

I'm sorry I'm on your side but until the airport is relocated (which may never happen) we have to make the best use of what we have. LHR is not reliant on connecting traffic to the extent that some others are and neither is BA or VS. LHR may go down the rankings and lose business but that is going to happen anyway even with 2 more runways let alone 1.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 106):
Population growth is nowhere near exponential, with the greatest of respect, you honestly don't know what the word means if you honestly believe the human population is growing exponentially. Please, words and meanings are important here.



9 billion up by 2 billion from present is the projection for 2050 and I think you know what I mean skipness and any amount of respect does not conceal condescension. Relative to the past I'd call that pretty damn exponential.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 106):
The whole reason the US airlines moved out of Gatwick was to get more connections, yet you are advocating a scenario where that is somehow "gunking" things up? You don't seem to get that connections are fundamental to making some routes pay their way, as that connectivity bleeds off, they become less viable and the number of direct services will decrease.

No one is denying the importance of connections skipness but an airport like LHR there is going to have to be a balance. There is a reason why EK has ordered 90 A380's and BA, LH and AF have ordered a handful.

Being smaller is not an indication of less success.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-19 06:33:18 and read 7393 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 101):
I don't see how a LCC TATL could offer cheaper fares considering the matching power of the giants.
Quoting b2319 (Reply 103):
you are stating you wouldn't consider one of the many GMP flights? If so, very enlightening. What kind of premium do you think the 1-3%, versus total, of ICN departures are paying?

I have a cousin who does transportation planning. The 'rule of thumb' is for every seat change, the number of passengers considering an option drops 75%. Will I switch for the right money? Sure. But for every inconvenience, the number of people willing to take an option drops.

But I have no need to connect to a city via GMP. That would just be for tourism. So I'll just select a different destination with better transfers. A botched transfer is far more expensive than switching which hub I transfer at or changing where I visit.

Or if this is business related, travel costs go into the spreadsheet in picking a vendor. The split hub adds hours *and* cab fare in case the connection is missed. That goes into the decision and is a negative for the vendor who doesn't have a direct flight. Or in the case of one site in Coventry, its LAX-LHR and just pay for a day to drive up. Its not worth the hassle of a transfer. For vendors further north, we actually work with that site to 'sub manage.' That adds an expense and thus less work is outsourced to the UK then if the connections were better.

Do you really have the time when traveling to waste on such a transfer? For business? Never. For pleasure? Due to child custody rules I only get vacation in 1 week increments right now.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 105):
Absolutely, that is essential. But it can in part be achieved within 2-3 years by using Northolt as a short term capacity solution for UK regions not currently connected, before a third runway is added

Who would use that airport? Not enough would do the transfer... It would just be duplicating LHR connections.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-19 06:33:25 and read 7391 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 106):
Funny how the business at LHR would disagree with that. BA said just the other day "Yes it's just a perfect size, we're jolly happy with matters" - not. Again, seeing the good of the UK economy as a separate matter is wrong, what's good for business here is good for the economy.

In response to your specific question BA does not need a third runway to compete against AFKLM/LH as a business, they can compete effectively on their strengths with the current infrastructure. They want a third runway to grow, which is fair enough, but without it the major loser here is the UK economy through fewer connections, not BA's competitiveness with other airlines.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-19 06:46:50 and read 7366 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 108):
Who would use that airport? Not enough would do the transfer... It would just be duplicating LHR connections.

With respect, I think you have missed the point. The idea behind using Northolt is to accept flights from UK regions which currently have no access to Heathrow and limited/uncertain access to London. There would be no duplication of domestic connections already present at LHR. There is unserved demand for LHR access from a large number of UK regional airports, in the region of 1.8 mppa, just from the airports I am familiar with. The current options involve long overland journeys or a transfer to LHR from LGW/LCY/STN/LTN. So by comparison a dedicated Northolt-LHR transfer would be significantly quicker and easier.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-19 07:00:22 and read 7328 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 109):
In response to your specific question BA does not need a third runway to compete against AFKLM/LH as a business, they can compete effectively on their strengths with the current infrastructure. They want a third runway to grow, which is fair enough, but without it the major loser here is the UK economy through fewer connections, not BA's competitiveness with other airlines.

You're suggesting they can compete as a business with no prospect to grow? That's a very interesting concept, straight from local government.... That's not how a business works.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 107):
I'm sorry I'm on your side but until the airport is relocated (which may never happen) we have to make the best use of what we have. LHR is not reliant on connecting traffic to the extent that some others are and neither is BA or VS. LHR may go down the rankings and lose business but that is going to happen anyway even with 2 more runways let alone

I disagree with this sentiment strongly, BA's whole business model is predicated on feed, not tot he same extent asd Emirates but unless you maintain and grow that, it withers and dies. The trading environment is too dynamic to stand still with your hands in your pockets thinking things will stay the same.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 107):
Being smaller is not an indication of less success.

It's not about size, it's about progress and growth and not being left behind as your competitors innovate. The UK needs access to emerging markets which are only viable with maxiumum feed and point to point to get into profit. To connect London to more trading centres requires enough feed to make the route viable otherwise to survive for another year, airlines are forced to put more capacity into existing markets, an easier option.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 107):
9 billion up by 2 billion from present is the projection for 2050 and I think you know what I mean skipness and any amount of respect does not conceal condescension. Relative to the past I'd call that pretty damn exponential.

Source of the scary graph please? Projections of population I tend to file next to stock market projections and the weather tbh. *cough hockey stick :p

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: sassiciai
Posted 2013-07-19 07:01:10 and read 7337 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 89):
What would benefit LHR maybe would be a direct link with the Tunnel and you could eliminate air travel to some extent and have better connections with AMS and CDG.

Hey, what about BRU (my local airport for a good few years now)! LOL!

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 102):
There are examples of where rail has taken over air sectors; (notably Paris-Brussels)

SN BA still flies BRU - CDG. On a random return flight (return 1 week after departure) in August, I'm quoted today 154.10EUR. If you have any experience with Thalys, a monopoly on the rails between Brussels and Paris, you will know how "cheap" this rail service really is!

Apples and pears? Probably! I would only take the SN flight if I was flying on from CDG! But I do hate Thalys fare structure! Eurostar is not much better!

But centre to centre is great!

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-19 07:15:55 and read 7319 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 111):
You're suggesting they can compete as a business with no prospect to grow?

Specifically talking about competition with LH and AFKLM, I see enough growth potential for BA to remain competitive as a business. I am not talking about competitiveness in general.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: gingersnap
Posted 2013-07-19 07:39:48 and read 7275 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 110):

Out of interest, where is the demand?

I wonder whether it's concentrated enough in certain areas to justify the cost of a slot or two on those potential routes.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-19 07:57:34 and read 7254 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 111):
It's not about size, it's about progress and growth and not being left behind as your competitors innovate. The UK needs access to emerging markets which are only viable with maxiumum feed and point to point to get into profit. To connect London to more trading centres requires enough feed to make the route viable otherwise to survive for another year, airlines are forced to put more capacity into existing markets, an easier option.

I agree and I hope like you there will be a third runway to sate the UK's needs.

However beyond this the truth of the matter is that :

- LHR is not in a location where it can expand without limits physically or concerning its flight paths.

- LHR is not located in a part of the world experiencing massive surges in growth of both population or economy

- Many countries in these parts are developing their own airlines and airport infrastructure to accommodate the growth.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 111):
I disagree with this sentiment strongly, BA's whole business model is predicated on feed, not tot he same extent asd Emirates but unless you maintain and grow that, it withers and dies. The trading environment is too dynamic to stand still with your hands in your pockets thinking things will stay the same.

BA's business model is in no immediate or medium term danger. I have every faith in the powers that be to 'eventually' provide the 'appropriate' infrastructure. It just won't be on the scale that we see in places like the middle east.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 111):
Source of the scary graph please? Projections of population I tend to file next to stock market projections and the weather tbh. *cough hockey stick :p

Yes it is scary.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-19 08:22:32 and read 7242 times.

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 114):
Out of interest, where is the demand?

GCI, JER, IOM, NQY, HUY, MME, INV, DND etc...

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 114):
I wonder whether it's concentrated enough in certain areas to justify the cost of a slot or two on those potential routes.

Unlikely, these markets require ideally a triple daily frequency - as outlined in Heathrow's proposal with a third runway.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: art
Posted 2013-07-19 09:00:24 and read 7182 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 115):
I have every faith in the powers that be to 'eventually' provide the 'appropriate' infrastructure.

It's warming to hear of your faith. The powers that be have so far spent 40+ years getting no closer to providing the solution to the problem that needed addressing. Personally I see a delay of that magnitude as reason not to trust those concerned.

I want to see the powers that be to put their weight behind expansion of LHR to 4 runways ASAP (completion within 10 years) or to back the Borisport proposal.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: OC2DC
Posted 2013-07-19 10:48:50 and read 7067 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 48):
Where's this $30 billion figure from?

Open the link at the top of the thread and read the article. The costs of each runway project is listed. 14 billion for the north runway, 17 billion for the north west runway and 18 billion for the south west runway.

These runways are expensive but are necessary for future economic growth in the region. Just think about the ROI on these runways after 10 years. It will definitely be worth it.

Move the NIMBY's and start construction.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-19 12:08:01 and read 7024 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 110):
The idea behind using Northolt is to accept flights from UK regions which currently have no access to Heathrow and limited/uncertain access to London.

Is there really that much unmet demand for the UK market? Most passengers do not want another seat transfer...

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 110):
The current options involve long overland journeys or a transfer to LHR from LGW/LCY/STN/LTN. So by comparison a dedicated Northolt-LHR transfer would be significantly quicker and easier.

No argument it would be quicker and easier. I just think most people would look at those flights and take the 'do nothing' option. There si room at STN/LTN for more London O&D traffic. So if there was the demand, the flights would be happening and all that was missed is the LHR connections. But for all that hassle, might as well fly the passengers to FRA for a connection... (it should have room to expand once a terminal expansion completes).

Quoting OC2DC (Reply 118):
These runways are expensive but are necessary for future economic growth in the region. Just think about the ROI on these runways after 10 years. It will definitely be worth it.

   The half solutions aren't even that. Its time to make the commitment to expand LHR or else build 'Borris Island.'

At some time there will be enough O&D demand from LTN and STN for flights to the USA and mid-east (not O&D, but as hub feed.) There will always be other options. Without a hub, its likely to be on non-British metal.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-19 12:29:21 and read 6977 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 119):
Is there really that much unmet demand for the UK market?

Yes, and it is a huge issue stifling economic activity in said regions.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 119):
There si room at STN/LTN for more London O&D traffic. So if there was the demand, the flights would be happening and all that was missed is the LHR connections.

Not necessarily (although most already have connections) - it depends on the breakdown of O&D and connecting passengers. On some routes it may be 50% O&D on a hypothetical LHR service, on others 10%.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 119):
But for all that hassle, might as well fly the passengers to FRA for a connection... (it should have room to expand once a terminal expansion completes).

Without the strong O&D contingent these flights would not work to every location. Most of those where a continental hub does work already have service by KLM.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-19 23:37:34 and read 6689 times.

Quoting art (Reply 117):
It's warming to hear of your faith. The powers that be have so far spent 40+ years getting no closer to providing the solution to the problem that needed addressing. Personally I see a delay of that magnitude as reason not to trust those concerned.

I want to see the powers that be to put their weight behind expansion of LHR to 4 runways ASAP (completion within 10 years) or to back the Borisport proposal.

Ha. You'll be lucky to see any of that in 10 years. A 3rd runway maybe.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Humberside
Posted 2013-07-20 11:36:29 and read 6351 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 116):
Quoting gingersnap (Reply 114):
Out of interest, where is the demand?

GCI, JER, IOM, NQY, HUY, MME, INV, DND etc...

The other markets are different, but HUY and MME? I don't see how a Northolt-bus-Heathrow connection would be appealing compared to KLM via AMS (and HUY will have some limited SAS connections through CPH from October). Not going to attract much connecting traffic, and the trains deal with the 'local' traffic.

I can see the benefit of Northolt in providing extra runway capacity close to central London to help maintain London links to more remote domestic airports, but I don't see how a change of airports is going to be attractive for onward connections to communities with alternative hub airport access. And even then options like INV-Northolt-LHR-XXX would have to compete with INV-MAN-AUH-XXX or INV-MAN-EWR-XXX.

[Edited 2013-07-20 11:39:41]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-20 12:30:55 and read 6273 times.

Quoting Humberside (Reply 122):
I don't see how a Northolt-bus-Heathrow connection would be appealing compared to KLM via AMS

AMS would be a tough nut to crack in places like HUY, but the usability of the Northolt proposal depends on what is implemented to get people between the two:

Would the transport be on demand, or run to a set timetable and at what frequency?
Will it be a landside transfer, or would you remain airside?
Would you have to reclaim checked bags, or would they be through booked?

Various combinations of the above have been proposed. Personally I think an airside to airside executive style bus is the best option, essentially treating Northolt as an independent satellite terminal of T5. Anything else would require a significant investment in infrastructure for what is a stop-gap solution

Passengers arriving at Northolt would disembark their aircraft and board a bus waiting on the ramp for transfer to T5. Those travelling to London would exit through the terminal at Northolt. On arriving at T5 transfer pax are re-screened, similarly luggage goes by road and is re-screened before entering the system. Much the same in the opposite direction.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-20 15:46:43 and read 6166 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 123):
Passengers arriving at Northolt would disembark their aircraft and board a bus waiting on the ramp for transfer to T5.

There are the same passengers who can
1) Choose which hub they can use
2) HATE with a passion being bussed 100 yards from Gate 24 to a waiting A320 at Terminal 3.

There's a lot of opinions on here about what "could" be done but very little marketing know how. The customer is already compaining loudly, and rightly in my view, that single terminal transfers at LHR are driving traffic away due to the complexity of reclearing security and meeting conformance. The answer to exisiting issues of this nature is not a bus ride to an airport in another county. We can be sure people will find other options that are simpler.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-20 18:06:51 and read 6055 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 124):
There are the same passengers who can
1) Choose which hub they can use
2) HATE with a passion being bussed 100 yards from Gate 24 to a waiting A320 at Terminal 3.

You appear to be thinking of a different set of passengers. The ones who would use a potential Northolt facility predominantly have no hub airport connection in the first place and are used to changing airports, not just changing terminals, or making long overland journeys to reach LHR. Unsurprisingly there is some very solid evidence that a Northolt connection would be an attractive alternative to this market.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 124):
The answer to exisiting issues of this nature is not a bus ride to an airport in another county. We can be sure people will find other options that are simpler.

Other long term solutions yes, this is an alternative to create capacity quickly before extra hub capacity is (hopefully) delivered. As I have mentioned I understand this only to be a temporary stop gap facility until a third runway opens. What happens at Northolt then, well I have a very good idea but that is not for discussion on a public forum...


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-20 18:34:06 and read 6030 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 125):
The ones who would use a potential Northolt facility predominantly have no hub airport connection in the first place and are used to changing airports, not just changing terminals, or making long overland journeys to reach LHR. Unsurprisingly there is some very solid evidence that a Northolt connection would be an attractive alternative to this market.

From where? You want point to point to use Northolt? You baffle me as you hint at being some sort of insider and writing reports but your schemes have zero credibility from a marketing and operational standpoint. Hww big is the idenitifed subset of travellers who are used to changing airports? What's the propostion you're taking to market and how do you sell this to the consumer? Can you share some sourced and credible numbers or is it all conveniently hush hush?

From a competitive standpoint, how does this scheme compare with existing alternatives in the market?

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 125):
What happens at Northolt then, well I have a very good idea but that is not for discussion on a public forum...

Yeah sure.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-20 18:39:06 and read 6112 times.

Sorry hang on, you say these people are used to changing airports then you say you want to attract connections to T5??? I'm sorry, but come on mate. How do you identify this market segment? Let's be practical, name three route / carrier combos you would see benefiting from this?

For example, airline x flying abc-NHT bus LHR-xyz

Just who on Earth do you see doing this and how do you sell this in a competitve trading environment where time is money and use of lounge facilities are part and parcel of the transfer experience?

[Edited 2013-07-20 18:39:42]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-21 06:18:05 and read 5850 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 126):
From where? You want point to point to use Northolt?

You would have a mixture of traffic, no doubt. The O&D contingent would be stronger where access to other London airports is more limited.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 126):
your schemes have zero credibility from a marketing and operational standpoint.

They are not my schemes, they are my comment on proposals I am aware of and I repeat/post nothing which I have not seen elsewhere in the public domain. Call it convenient or whatever you like, I will not be digging into privileged information just to 'win' a debate on a forum or satisfy your curiosity.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 126):
Hww big is the idenitifed subset of travellers who are used to changing airports?

The overall market size from the UK regions is 1.8 mppa, as I mentioned further up this thread.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 126):
What's the propostion you're taking to market and how do you sell this to the consumer? Can you share some sourced and credible numbers or is it all conveniently hush hush?

Yes, nice try, but no banana - I'm not going to be cajoled into presenting confidential details, I would expect you to understand that. IIRC in September all evidence submitted to the AC will be published unless otherwise requested to be redacted as commercially confidential. And again, it is not my proposition but it is a proposition which I find interesting.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 126):
From a competitive standpoint, how does this scheme compare with existing alternatives in the market?

It would offer significantly improved regional connectivity, there really is no comparison to current alternatives with the exception of MME and HUY.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 126):
Yeah sure.

Yes... acktershually. Come on, you seem pretty tuned on, it doesn't take a genius to work it out - you literally put two and two together.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 127):
Just who on Earth do you see doing this and how do you sell this in a competitve trading environment where time is money and use of lounge facilities are part and parcel of the transfer experience?

From which I can see you have either not read or not understood my posts on this topic.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-07-21 07:58:13 and read 5756 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 96):
The context is simple, does London (LHR or Borris Island) remain a hub or not?

Sorry, no, the context is not that simple. KDIA wanted to remain a hub and already had an underutilized interstate highway going past open prarie land and it still was NOT simple. Here we're talking about knocking down hundreds if not thousands of homes, disrupting the most travelled carriageway in the country for years, potentially impacting the water supply, spending twice what the Olympics cost, shifting noise patterns etc. Not one of these is simple.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 111):
You're suggesting they can compete as a business with no prospect to grow? That's a very interesting concept, straight from local government.... That's not how a business works.

I think a better argument needs to be made than that. The average person is not going to be all warm and fuzzy about helping BA grow nor will they give a fig about the fact that other governments are willing to do such things.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 128):
They are not my schemes, they are my comment on proposals I am aware of and I repeat/post nothing which I have not seen elsewhere in the public domain.

Indeed so. I was just having a look at such a page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19570653 and it goes through pretty much every suggestion we've had here.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-21 08:17:18 and read 5726 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 129):
The average person is not going to be all warm and fuzzy about helping BA grow nor will they give a fig about the fact that other governments are willing to do such things.

They WILL BE all warm and fuzzy. The tide is turning in the U.K. People want their standards of living maintained and are realising that a healthy competitive economy is key to this.

I'm sure millions would go up to Heathrow and tarmac the damn runway themselves if it helped towards keeping their child benefit or pension credits etc etc

That is how it should be sold because it is the truth. The 3rd runway at LHR is just a part towards boosting the economy but is an important one nonetheless.

The UK is getting back on its feet which means this issue will become more pressing. One way or the other capacity will be increased.

As for BA - in the medium term they are sitting pretty as they are with the status quo and limited access for competition. The 3rd runway at LHR is by no means all about them.

[Edited 2013-07-21 08:23:04]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-21 08:35:19 and read 5689 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 129):
Sorry, no, the context is not that simple. KDIA wanted to remain a hub and already had an underutilized interstate highway going past open prarie land and it still was NOT simple.

Then London will not be a hub. From an operational point of view, it is that simple for LHR/Borris Island. The starndards expected for hubbing have grown in terms of expected frequency. I have no doubt LHR will be able to grow on O&D demand, but for hubbing, there is no reason PHL and IAD couldn't meet the near-TATL transfers with more direct flights from IAH, MCO, and the other growing hubs in the Americas.

LHR has for decades been consolidating down to more frequency to high RASM markets and dropping low RASM markets. But that means dropping connections... I've posted many a time the whole reason the mid-east hubs thrived was a lack of hubbing capacity in Europe and India. Since neither Europe nor India is significantly improving their hubbing experience, the competing hubs in the USA and Mid-East should be sending out thank you notes...

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: factsonly
Posted 2013-07-21 08:58:56 and read 5661 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 131):
I've posted many a time the whole reason the mid-east hubs thrived was a lack of hubbing capacity in Europe and India. Since neither Europe nor India is significantly improving their hubbing experience, the competing hubs in the USA and Mid-East should be sending out thank you notes...

That is one sweeping statement!

- CDG has capacity available and is constantly improving its terminals & pax experience.
- FRA just opened a 4th runway and will open a huge new terminal on the former UASF air base, creating more room in all terminals.
- AMS announced a new A pier last week for regional aircraft and an improvement of the long-haul terminal experience with an upper floor. Latest statistics show transfer traffic is growing at 10% in 2013. Delta alone expanded available seats by 10% this year.
- MAD has a brand new terminal with plenty of capacity, if only...........
- etc, etc, etc.

Though LHR as a true transfer hub is certainly loosing out, the Middle East and North American hubs are not in a position to replace European traffic flows.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-07-21 10:22:35 and read 5562 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 131):
Then London will not be a hub.

Yes, that is the almost certain outcome.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 131):
for hubbing, there is no reason PHL and IAD couldn't meet the near-TATL transfers with more direct flights from IAH, MCO, and the other growing hubs in the Americas.

IAD perhaps. PHL seems to already have a large set of problems dealing with current load never mind growth.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 131):
Since neither Europe nor India is significantly improving their hubbing experience, the competing hubs in the USA and Mid-East should be sending out thank you notes...

Personally I think the TSA et al has made it so that many choose to avoid or reduce any connections in the US.

On the other hand, I think Emirates should write the thank-you card to BA for ignoring MAN all these years.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-21 10:59:03 and read 5513 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 133):
On the other hand, I think Emirates should write the thank-you card to BA for ignoring MAN all these years.

Do BA ignore MAN ?

There are 10 BA flights tomorrow linking MAN with perhaps the worlds pre-eminent airport. (Pre-eminent in great part to BA's efforts and success over the years.) Two to two of the others (JFK and ORD) provided by AA with whom BA operates a TATL J.V.

Personally (and this is just a matter of opinion) I would rather transfer through Heathrow Terminal 5 than Dubai any day of the week or year.

[Edited 2013-07-21 11:00:32]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-07-21 13:42:40 and read 5350 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 134):
There are 10 BA flights tomorrow linking MAN with perhaps the worlds pre-eminent airport.

Which is fine if your goal is to get to LON... Meanwhile the other carriers are eating BA's lunch in the country's second largest air market. Almost twice as many hop on planes to DXB, AMS and CDG as opposed to LON. It's hard to think of another developed country whose 2nd largest market is so dominated by foreign carriers.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-21 15:26:11 and read 5267 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 135):
Which is fine if your goal is to get to LON..

How does it do if you want to go West? Do BA maybe one or two US destinations from London? Emirates is the best option going East, BA one of the better ones going west if you can do one stop to where you're going over LHR.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 135):
Almost twice as many hop on planes to DXB, AMS and CDG

Where do you get twice as many using MAN-CDG or MAN-AMS as MAN-LHR? Is that really the case?

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-07-21 16:21:18 and read 5211 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 136):
or

You are using 'or' whilst I used 'and'...

Anyway this is going too far OT, let's get back to talking about LHR.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-21 16:30:17 and read 5205 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 137):
You are using 'or' whilst I used 'and'...

Yes because any combination of three major routes to connecting legacy ought to trump a local domestic where the train is the better option for P2P. Just saying....  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-22 01:07:33 and read 5074 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 135):
Which is fine if your goal is to get to LON... Meanwhile the other carriers are eating BA's lunch in the country's second largest air market. Almost twice as many hop on planes to DXB, AMS and CDG as opposed to LON. It's hard to think of another developed country whose 2nd largest market is so dominated by foreign carriers.

BA has one of the largest long-haul fleets of any airline in the world and is profitable. Nobody is eating their lunch. (luncheon by the way)

If you choose to ignore the similarity in what BA does out of the United States that is up to you. BA's dinner, dessert and supper is TATL.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-22 03:19:05 and read 4936 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 135):
. It's hard to think of another developed country whose 2nd largest market is so dominated by foreign carriers.

It's hard to think of another developed country whose 1st largest market matches that of LHR.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 135):
Which is fine if your goal is to get to LON...

That makes a lot of sense.

Those wishing to get to 'LON' use in the main LCC's. Those wishing to get to LHR for onward travel use BA.

To quote you - BA is 'fine' from MAN if you want to get to 'LON' in exactly the same way as EK is fine if you want to get to Dubai or KL is fine if you want to get to Amsterdam. When the latter fly non-stop long-haul from MAN get back to me.

I'm also curious as to why VS would instead of adding to MCO and LAS (purely holiday traffic) at MAN would start a feeder service down to LHR ? Surely BD's demise would have made little difference to VS with like you seem to think so few people connecting down to LHR.

Instead VS was so desperate to keep the MAN feed they started their own service.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: r2rho
Posted 2013-07-22 05:58:41 and read 4776 times.

Quoting LGWGate49 (Reply 90):
you might find this study interesting comparing B744 / A388 / B77W noise levels taken at LHR:
http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati...-Final_ERCD_A380_Report_1106_2.pdf
There is not an enormous noise step change between B744, A380 and B77W that you seem to be implying.

Those graphs show that the A380 is indeed a step change to the 744, with the EA being quieter than the RR. And that's just in absolute terms, if you look at it per seat it becomes even more obvious. Keep in mind that dB are a logarithmic unit, a handful of dB can mean a lot.
The document also features a figure "Increase in aircraft size with constant departure noise" - implying that an A388 generates the same overall departure noise as an A343 - while carrying many more pax.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 104):
even with a 3rd runway will not match the hubs of the east. It's just daft to use projections in these areas as the benchmark. Let'em get on with it and good luck.

Agree. LHR will never compete with the East hubs, be it with 3 or 4 runways. Useless going down that route. But addtional rwy capacity is still needed for the UK, as you mention.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 105):
CDG has four runways, FRA has four runways and AMS has millions of runways and is the best thing since sliced bread. But this overlooks their physical/environmental design and movement limitations, which would see LHR surpass them all in terms of available capacity with a third runway.

A 3 rwy LHR would match these airpots in that sense, but not surpass them. With three runways (and assuming no artificial caps on movements such as FRA runway 4), LHR would enter the "120 ops/hour club" to which the airports you mention (plus MAD) belong.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-22 06:15:11 and read 4731 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 120):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 119):
Is there really that much unmet demand for the UK market?

Yes, and it is a huge issue stifling economic activity in said regions.

Then I hope the rail goes in.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 120):
Without the strong O&D contingent these flights would not work to every location. Most of those where a continental hub does work already have service by KLM.

Which is why the flights should be to a hub. If O&D will help, with connections will be even better. Frequency could be introduced.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 133):
Personally I think the TSA et al has made it so that many choose to avoid or reduce any connections in the US.

Without further expansion in Europe, there will be no choice. While we can agree the TSA has certainly set back aviation, I have no doubt on future growth. There will be significant bypass, in particular to South America. But my main point is valid. Without growth at LHR, hubbing demand for the UK will be met elsewhere.

As noted:

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 139):
BA's dinner, dessert and supper is TATL.

   And without more growth at LHR, BA will be at a disadvantage for new markets. For example, the auto companies are expanding *quickly* in Wayne Country right now which will boost TATL demand out of DTW.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 140):
It's hard to think of another developed country whose 1st largest market matches that of LHR.

Tokyo, which via split hubs has reduced its global impact.
New York City, which via split hubs has reduced its global impact.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 141):
LHR will never compete with the East hubs, be it with 3 or 4 runways.

A 4 runway LHR would certainly compete for North American to the sub-continent traffic. The growth will be impressive, I'd like to see LHR competing for that market.


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-07-22 07:05:01 and read 4652 times.

Why did the government not put in a railway station other than the one to Paddington, at LHR. I am in FRA right now and they have a train station right by the hotel that is on an intercity line and there is a stop for the German railway here at the airport. I thought it would have been a no brainer for Britrail to have a major terminal at LHR.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-07-22 10:38:36 and read 4518 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 139):
BA has one of the largest long-haul fleets of any airline in the world and is profitable.

And EK has a larger long haul fleet and is more profitable and is growing faster.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 139):
Nobody is eating their lunch. (luncheon by the way)

Says you.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 139):
If you choose to ignore the similarity in what BA does out of the United States that is up to you. BA's dinner, dessert and supper is TATL.

Yet the US market is hugely competitive and not growing at anything like the rate of the markets of ME and Asia.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 140):
Those wishing to get to LHR for onward travel use BA.

The whole point of this thread that LHR is saturated so it can't grow, and that the situation is not going to change till someone comes up with EUR 17-20B, massive political obstacles are cleared, and then time passes till 2025-30 or so, if ever. Given this, one might think the 'send everyone to LHR' and 'put all the eggs in the TATL basket' ideas might need revising, but I guess I'm holding the minority opinion here.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-07-22 18:34:43 and read 4358 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 144):
The whole point of this thread that LHR is saturated so it can't grow, and that the situation is not going to change till someone comes up with EUR 17-20B, massive political obstacles are cleared, and then time passes till 2025-30 or so, if ever. Given this, one might think the 'send everyone to LHR' and 'put all the eggs in the TATL basket' ideas might need revising, but I guess I'm holding the minority opinion here.

What do you propose be done then if they don't put all their eggs in one basket? They need to have an international airport that you could connect through to travel to other countries. Explain to me why when Bermuda II ended that all the US based airlines moved to LHR as fast as they could. That is all the proof that I need to see that proves the fact airlines want to fly to LHR, and the connections.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-22 23:46:44 and read 4293 times.

I stand by my statement that lack of of European hub expansino enabled the mid-east hub growth. Remember the years the hubs became established was 2003 to 2007. During that time, all but MAD were constrained hubs.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 132):
- FRA just opened a 4th runway and will open a huge new terminal on the former UASF air base, creating more room in all terminals.

*After* the mid-east hubs became established. Shutting the barn door after the horse escaped. And reduced effectiveness due to the ending of late night flights at FRA.

Eventually that new terminal will help. But after new competitors were established. FRA was constrained in 2003. Still is...

But its not just enough to have capacity if its not at a good connecting hour. Look at MUC, there are slots but not at times with good connections. The curfews also artificially constrain capacity creating a need for a stop in the mid-east/India region.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 132):
- CDG has capacity available and is constantly improving its terminals & pax experience.

Look back into the time frame of interest which was 2003 though 2007. What happened at CDG at that time? They opened a beautiful new terminal to provide enough capacity opened in 2004 to meet shortfalls in termal capacity. And it collapsed in 2004... This took CDG out of the competition during the years of interest.

Please remember how much terminal capacity opened at CDG in 2007 and 2008, including the rebuilt terminal 2E. And CDG still has poor connectivity for the passenger.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 132):
- MAD has a brand new terminal with plenty of capacity, if only.........

OK, MAD had capacity. But I think we both know MAD's network toward the east... well... isn't.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 144):
Given this, one might think the 'send everyone to LHR' and 'put all the eggs in the TATL basket' ideas might need revising,

In a downturn, flights survive by being flexible which means timely connections. Everyone had to retreat back to LHR in order to have enough connections to keep flights viable. Only the TATL flights had enough demand to grow without connections and some of that growth was constrained by aircraft availability (e.g., 767s). Too many of the new routes need connections to grow. That means a concentrated airport. DXB works as each flight by EK is fed by a dozen (or more) other destinations as well as O&D traffic. Hubbing requires frequency as not all routes have the same timing. Good hubbing also needs a wide variety of connections.

LHR must invest to be competitive in the increasing standards of hubbing. Just as the new Asian hubs forced Japan to revisit their hubbing strategy, which still often requires an overnight stay or a split-hub transfer, so will the European hubs have to adapt. High frequencies and high fragmentation attract premium travelers for both O&D and connections. As the world becomes more connected, will LHR? If not, hubbing will go elsewhere.

At least the European hubs will get quite the reprieve when DXB is crippled next year for the runway work. I'll be curious to see how that impacts global air travel.


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-23 00:23:09 and read 4257 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 144):
And EK has a larger long haul fleet and is more profitable and is growing faster.

Oh for....

So what ?

You don't honestly think all the worlds airlines should be using EK as the benchmark do you ?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 144):
Yet the US market is hugely competitive and not growing at anything like the rate of the markets of ME and Asia.

I think LHR bound TATL traffic is sufficient for those servicing it. Where is it written that European airlines have to try and grab Mideast traffic ? Europe does generate its own traffic you know. BA, LH, AF may never have triple digit A380 fleets but they certainly won't go bust or be unprofitable long-term.

BA for example can sufficiently feed enough traffic into its east bound ops on top of O&D to the region to keep it happy along with its TATL ops. BA will soon be the only carrier operating A380 service to the U.S.A (double daily LAX) from LHR and to HKG. For starters.

The last 10 or so years have been seismic in the airline industry. The LCC's and ME3 caught the legacies with their knickers around their ankles. One shouldn't base one's judgements on that always being the case.

To use an analogy - it takes times to slow down an oil tanker and turn it in another direction.

I think European airlines realised a while back that the deck had been restacked in another's favour regarding transfer opportunities.

However, as a side note I am still unconvinced that Dubai will remain a 'comfortable' experience when it reaches projected maturity.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: factsonly
Posted 2013-07-23 01:21:05 and read 4197 times.

Perhaps time to consider some facts:

Number of seats between Western Europe - Southeast Asia:

1. Thai Airways = 62,798 seats 25% of market
2. Singapore Airlines = 62,384 = 25%
3. Air France-KLM = 27,780 = 11%
4. Malaysia Airlines = 27,516 = 11%
5. Lufthansa Group = 22,736 = 9%
6. Vietnam Airlines = 13,201= 5%
7. IAG = 11,922 = 5%
8. Finnair = 9,464 = 4%
9. EVA Air = 7,832 = 3%
10. China Airlines= 3,864 = 1%
11. Norwegian = 3,204 = 1%

BA / LHR seems to be somewhat squeezed by the competition, but they are strong on TATL.

Let's look at the position of the UK regions versus LHR in May 2013, plus the growth trend:

- MAN - LHR 64.129 pax -1%
versus:
- MAN - AMS 59.431 pax +11%
- MAN - DXB 55.186 pax +27%
- MAN - CDG 40.111 pax +5%
- MAN - FRA 25.585 pax +1%
- MAN - AUH 23.358 pax +9%
TOP 5 hubs leakage from MAN: 200.000 +14% versus -1% for LHR.

other UK airports:
- GLA - LHR 69.133 pax = +0%
- GLA - AMS 37.420 pax = +16% on 2012
- GLA - DXB 26.370 pax = +32% on 2012

- BHX - LHR 0 pax
- BHX - AMS 39.496 pax = +16%
- BHX - DXB 34.925 pax = +14%

- NCL - LHR 36.760 pax = -11%
- NCL - AMS 31.709 pax = +32%
- NCL - DXB 12.718 pax = +23%

- LGW - LHR 0 pax
- LGW - AMS 64.457 pax = + 11%
- LGW - DXB 58.785 pax = +37%

All double digit growth to the main transfer hubs of these UK airports, but no growth to LHR.

The picture may be a little clearer for everyone!

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-23 02:52:50 and read 4082 times.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 148):

And yet IAG group traffic measured in Revenue Passenger Kilometres an increase of 8.2% year on year.

Considering IB suffered a double digit contraction I would not say BA is squeezed at all. In fact quite the opposite.

Group premium traffic again considering IB's big contraction also increased by 1.9% year on year.

These significant gains at BA all set against a back drop of underlying market conditions remaining unchanged.

One must also ask oneself given your figures why the market cap of IAG is almost treble that of Air France-KLM ?

Could it be because LHR is the jewel in the crown of European airports and IAG has a >50% slot holding.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 148):
but they are strong on TATL.

'Strong' rather underplays their performance on what are some of the worlds most lucrative airways.

(nice of you to pop it in as an afterthought though)

Quoting factsonly (Reply 148):
The picture may be a little clearer for everyone!

Or not anything we didn't know already ?

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-07-23 13:24:43 and read 3818 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 147):
Oh for....

Dramatics is not adding anything to the discussion, IMHO.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 147):
So what ?

It is you who introduced the airline's stature into the discussion.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 147):
You don't honestly think all the worlds airlines should be using EK as the benchmark do you ?

Didn't BA used to call itself "the world's favourite airline"?

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 147):
Where is it written that European airlines have to try and grab Mideast traffic ?

It isn't, but the context of this thread is that LHR needs to grow so that BA can grow, and to me it seems (a) growing LHR isn't going to happen for another 10-15 years or more, if ever, and (b) BA should consider other paths to growth. As you mentioned in passing, IB was one such path but that's more of a lodestone around the neck at this point.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 147):
The last 10 or so years have been seismic in the airline industry. The LCC's and ME3 caught the legacies with their knickers around their ankles. One shouldn't base one's judgements on that always being the case.

Indeed not, so one really has to wonder how the UK air traffic will grow if the main plan is to grow at LHR, which can't / won't happen for at least 10-15 years. Seems those knickers are still on the ground, no?

Quoting factsonly (Reply 148):
All double digit growth to the main transfer hubs of these UK airports, but no growth to LHR.

        

Seems whilst BA is obsessed with Fortress LHR, others are just getting on with it.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-23 23:56:21 and read 3683 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 150):
It isn't, but the context of this thread is that LHR needs to grow so that BA can grow,

At present LHR needs to grow so that BA's competition can grow. The situation is actually rather favourable for IAG in the medium term.

BA received '42' daily slots from BD of which 14 are to be used for new long-haul ops. ICN and thrice weekly CTU already announced plus many more to come as the A380's and 787's start arriving in earnest. ( A380 deployment will incidentally free up more slots.)

Quoting Revelation (Reply 150):
Seems whilst BA is obsessed with Fortress LHR

Oh yes !

Quoting Revelation (Reply 150):
Indeed not, so one really has to wonder how the UK air traffic will grow if the main plan is to grow at LHR, which can't / won't happen for at least 10-15 years. Seems those knickers are still on the ground, no?

I think you need to remember that LHR is 'still' the worlds 3rd busiest airport overall and the worlds busiest international airport by a margin of some 6%. I think this year it posted its busiest month ever.

No need to panic just yet.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: r2rho
Posted 2013-07-24 05:03:42 and read 3566 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 146):
I stand by my statement that lack of of European hub expansino enabled the mid-east hub growth. Remember the years the hubs became established was 2003 to 2007.
*After* the mid-east hubs became established. Shutting the barn door after the horse escaped. And reduced effectiveness due to the ending of late night flights at FRA.

Agree - the recent new expansions have just been (late) reactions once the market had already started to be taken away. (MAD had capacity at time but has never been a big East-West market). And FRA is only a half-runway, as you say, due to restrictions.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 146):
remember how much terminal capacity opened at CDG in 2007 and 2008, including the rebuilt terminal 2E. And CDG still has poor connectivity for the passenger

It's really frustrating that, despite being very recent constructions, the new CDG terminals provide such a poor transfer experience; even if it is now being improved with patchwork measures such as connecting walkways etc, the overall terminal layout was flawed.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 150):
one really has to wonder how the UK air traffic will grow if the main plan is to grow at LHR, which can't / won't happen for at least 10-15 years. Seems those knickers are still on the ground, no?

Agree - there is an inherent risk in the BA business strategy, betting everything on an airport where nothing will happen in 10-15 years, if at all. That's why MAD will become important in the longer term, particularly once IB is eventually turned around.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-07-24 08:41:35 and read 3448 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 151):
At present LHR needs to grow so that BA's competition can grow. The situation is actually rather favourable for IAG in the medium term.

If IAG is such a fan of Fortress LHR, perhaps then their strategy should be to favor expansion at LGW so their competition's only avenue for growth in LON is at the "second-tier" airport? They can then use their alleged clout to force the competition out of LHR and get even more slots for themselves. Even better for them if the LGW solution is the least effective of the three proposals, so they get the competition to spend the most money for the least effect. Also doing the work at LGW will mean landing fees at LHR won't be going up to cover the huge number of GBPs spent reworking LGW. Seems like a grand strategy for IAG, no?

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: gingersnap
Posted 2013-07-24 10:22:07 and read 3400 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 151):
I think you need to remember that LHR is 'still' the worlds 3rd busiest airport overall and the worlds busiest international airport by a margin of some 6%. I think this year it posted its busiest month ever.

Whilst that is true, I read somewhere that competing airports on the continent are simply growing at a faster rate. LHR may be larger for now, but at the current rate it won't hold onto that for much longer.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 747megatop
Posted 2013-07-24 10:53:57 and read 3363 times.

I have an alternative take on this additional runway issue that many other airports also face. Pls read my post on the LGW runway thread - Gatwick Publish Plans For A Second Runway (by PlymSpotter Jul 23 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-07-24 12:41:36 and read 3324 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 153):

LHR recently entered the worlds top 10 customer rated airports for the first time.

LHR Terminal 5 was recently voted the worlds best airport terminal.

IAG aint going anywhere.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 144):
'put all the eggs in the TATL basket' ideas might need revising, but I guess I'm holding the minority opinion here.

Revelation you do know that BA fly jumbo jets (a lot of them) daily to South Africa, the Middle East and the Far East. They will soon start A380 service to HKG. They have recently re-launched ICN and have announced CTU.

Just because BA has a huge and very successful TATL ops it does not mean they put their eggs in one basket. What would you have them do ? Ignore that market ?

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: jporterfi
Posted 2013-07-24 13:32:10 and read 3273 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 62):
No, no they most certainly would not. The overland contingent of these journeys would be so long that it would significantly limit the available connections. Even with HSR the journey times to locations like EDI and GLA would not be remotely attractive.

   I just flew LHR-EDI-LHR last weekend on VS to spend the weekend in EDI. HSR fares were slightly more expensive than the flight (but we're talking 5 pounds). However, even if they had been slightly cheaper, I would have taken the flight, just because the flight was 1 hour, 15 minutes, whereas the train took 4 hours, 45 minutes. Even with HSR,, trains still cannot compete with planes to some destinations in terms of travel time.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 63):
The C-series, MAX, NEO, 787, and A350 will change the market dramatically. To participate LHR needs another two runways minimum. Or... Let US based or Mid-East based hubs do the job for them. Game on.

   My home airport is ATL. Ever since I saw this thread, I started thinking about the busiest U.S. airports (ATL, ORD, JFK, LAX) and wondered how on earth they would be able to do what they do with only 2 runways. If LHR wants to become a major European hub and continue adding flights, it needs another 2 runways ASAP.


Personally, I think that a 12,000+' northern runway (IMO, if you're building a runway, you might s well make it able to handle all aircraft that serve LHR) located between 9L-27R and the M4 makes the most sense. That way, not too many homes/businesses need to be relocated.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-25 23:23:10 and read 3100 times.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 157):
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 62):
No, no they most certainly would not. The overland contingent of these journeys would be so long that it would significantly limit the available connections. Even with HSR the journey times to locations like EDI and GLA would not be remotely attractive.

I just flew LHR-EDI-LHR last weekend on VS to spend the weekend in EDI. HSR fares were slightly more expensive than the flight (but we're talking 5 pounds). However, even if they had been slightly cheaper, I would have taken the flight, just because the flight was 1 hour, 15 minutes, whereas the train took 4 hours, 45 minutes. Even with HSR,, trains still cannot compete with planes to some destinations in terms of travel time.

That comparison is flawed because it only considers travel time on the actual means of travel and nothing around it. Let's compare apples to apples. The flight is 1h15m block time. To that you must add at least 1h30m to get from the airport entrance to your seat with the airplane doors closed. You also have to add 15-30 minutes at arrival depending on if you check lugage. So you're up to 3h total just there. With a train, you can get to the station 10 minutes before you depart, and it takes 5 minutes or less to leave the station.

If your journey is anywhere near the city centers, the total travel time for the train really starts shining.

And all this is not even counting the fact that HSR in the UK... isn't really. Compared to Japan, France, Germany, UK "high-speed" trains are rather slow... If you could crank that train up to a 250km/h+ average speed, not even close to the maximum in service today, it would blow the airplane out of the air. At 250km/h, the train travel time would be around 2h30m.

French high speed rail routes, many of which are comparable in distance to LON-EDI,show that actual high speed rail can easily compete with, and win, over aviation.

[Edited 2013-07-25 23:27:01]

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-26 05:04:23 and read 3012 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 158):
That comparison is flawed because it only considers travel time on the actual means of travel and nothing around it.

I disagree in terms of the point I was making. If you are originating at a Northern UK airport for a connection/departure out of LHR you still have to complete the check in process somewhere, whether it takes place in EDI/GLA etc... or at LHR when you have arrived by ground transport. The time that takes cannot simply be erased.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: jporterfi
Posted 2013-07-26 05:19:40 and read 2999 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 158):

That is correct; I was referring to U.K. HSR, which I recognize is not as fast as European HSR in general. As far as my flight, transport time to Heathrow and to King's Cross (for HSR) are roughly the same, so I was looking at 1.5 hours extra for check-in/security leading ot a total time of almost 3 hours (1.25 of which are spent on a plane) versus about 6 hours total for the train (including travel to the station). However I can see how if you lived right in central London they would be more competitive. If U.K. HSR speeds were increased and the price was competitive, I think they could certainly compete with aviation.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-26 06:57:11 and read 2942 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 153):
perhaps then their strategy should be to favor expansion at LGW so their competition's only avenue for growth in LON is at the "second-tier" airport?

As far as BA is concerned :
OK has this been tried? Recently?
Did it work? How much money was lost? What was the result and how many job were lost?

Yes.
Yes.
No.
Millions.
Far too many.

The hub without the hubbub concept bombed financially as it ended up eroding margins badly when flights moved across to LGW. Why would they do that again?

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-07-26 09:24:07 and read 2898 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 161):
The hub without the hubbub concept bombed financially as it ended up eroding margins badly when flights moved across to LGW. Why would they do that again?

Right, but my hypothetical scenario was different: BA stays put at Fortress LHR and uses its clout to push competitors to LGW and then snaps up their LHR slots.

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-07-26 09:32:14 and read 2891 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 162):
BA stays put at Fortress LHR and uses its clout to push competitors to LGW and then snaps up their LHR slots.

There will be cases where this will work, but it is limited and not just BA doing the pushing - others have deeper pockets too. Heathrow themselves have made it very clear that there are airlines currently operating at LHR which they want to see move.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Heathrow Makes 3rd Runway Proposal
Username: shuttle9juliet
Posted 2013-07-26 10:06:09 and read 2859 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 82):

Yip all true, SIN is parked up on a very quick turnaround, sometimes it doesn't make sense?
I think BA engineering, as it comes out their budget are not that much cheaper than BAA parking tariffs,
Hence CX, QF parking outside the EAA ect.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/