Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Heathrow Needs A Third Runway" BAA Says  
User currently offlineTalaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

Colin Matthews, BAA's new CEO has claimed that both LHR and the UK needed both new terminals and runways, "It's not enough builiding only T5". Matthew has added that BAA compromises to invest 400 million pounds (5063 € million) over the next five years, but without a new runway passengers can only expect "nicer terminals".

The link to the news is only in Spanish, but I'm sure it's in BBC or other British agency, for sure.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/econo...elpepueco/20080625elpepueco_11/Tes


It is obvious LHR needs more capacity. I wonder what will end up happening, but one thing is for sure: If capacity is not increased, LHR will continue to have constant delays and making it's connecting passengers have a full exercise connecting experience. And having suffered such experience, it makes you not want to fly through there again.

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCityofAthens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3027 times:

To be honest I think a better idea would be to remove price caps and start charging what the airline market will bear ... only those airlines willing to pay the highest price will stay at LHR, whilst those not prepared to pay will be driven off to other airports, freeing up some badly needed capacity.

Of course a third runway would help but it will simply delay the inevitable ... it's not really a solution to the problem of congestion.

Other better solutions would have been to convert STN into the main international gateway, introducing high speed links to London (there are many such examples all over the world) thereby either demolishing LHR completely, or leaving it to those airlines who could afford the market rate for operating from there.

OR

Build a completely new airport.

Problem: The latter two solutions are very expensive , and we the public would have to pay ... but to be honest, depending on the bill, I'd be willing to consider it.

A third runway is not a solution, but it is the easiest temporary measure ....


User currently offlineDavescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2995 times:



Quoting CityofAthens (Reply 1):
asiest temporary measure ....

Therefore, you know that his is what the politicians will pick.

That said, Can you imagine the uproar if after building T5, and I believe planning to build another terminal (?), they made STN the gateway?

Dave



Can I have a mojito on this flight?
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4689 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2965 times:



Quoting CityofAthens (Reply 1):
Of course a third runway would help but it will simply delay the inevitable ... it's not really a solution to the problem of congestion.



Quoting CityofAthens (Reply 1):
A third runway is not a solution, but it is the easiest temporary measure ....

Nothing could be further from the truth

Referencing FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060 - Airport Capacity and Delay

The theoretical capacity of LHR's existing runway configuration is 370,000 annual operations (based on a heavy aircraft mix)

LHR is currently operating at 481,000 annual operations, to LHR is really pushing the limits of what they can handle.

The proposed additional runway would increase the airport capacity to 645,000 annual operations. Thus eliminating any and all delays at LHR and allowing for a safer more efficient operation.

Investing in STN makes no sense when Billions ahve bene spent on imporving the terminals at LHR. The additional runway capacity will make the airfield capacity commensurate with the terminal capacity. Good examples why this is important is JFK which has too much gate capacity and not enough runway capacity and ATL which before their new runway had the same problem and now they have excess runway capacity (not too much excess though) and the operation has been SIGNIFICANTLY improved.

A 3rd runway for LHR is in the best interest of business, tourism, passngers and safety.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineDano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2921 times:

Unfortunatly, with a General Election looming in the UK within the next 18months or so, the main political parties don't want to upset the electorate, hence why all the heavy weight politicians are coming out saying that they all oppose a 3rd runway at Heathrow.


Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight
User currently offlineRbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2917 times:

Question - if they agreed to build it today, how soon before the runway would be complete? I am not familiar with project timeframes in the UK.

User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2885 times:



Quoting Rbgso (Reply 5):
Question - if they agreed to build it today, how soon before the runway would be complete? I am not familiar with project timeframes in the UK.

In most countries they could probably do it in a few years. In the UK bank on about 10!!

The UK is just two slow with major projects!


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2881 times:

And here I thought BAA was only in charge of the kiosks and stores in Britain...you mean they actually run the airports as well?

Pardon the sarcasm - I just couldn't resist.

The residents of southern England have spoken: there will NEVER be ANY expansion of ANY airport in the south of England. The NIMBY's have spoken - they have moved to southern England and now everyone else - especially those pesky visitors arriving in airplanes - can go away.

Reality and need are irrelevant - the neighbors have spoken. Maybe you'll have nicer terminals - but that's it.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineCityofAthens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

I have to say I find this a fascinating topic ... I hope others come in with their thoughts too.

With regards to the solution to congestion at this airport, I remain open to being convinced that a 3rd runway is the best long-term solution.

The way I see it, a 3rd runway will indeed increase capacity but not for the long-term ... I can see what will happen ... the excess capacity will likely be used up fairly quickly and LHR will find itself back to square 1 ... new and upgraded terminals are great, but they don't address the fundamental issue of traffic congestion.

It's worth adding that the proposed new runway will only cater to narrow-body aircraft, many of which shuttle transfer pax from the regions through LHR.

I still think the best solution is 1) Break-up BAA and introduce competition between STN, LGW and LHR ... all three will then have an incentive to compete for business with the world's airlines ... this should help disperse traffic that presently only uses LHR

2) Remove price-caps and charge a market-clearing rate for use of LHR ... this will drive off pax and airlines not prepared to pay the charges associated with operating from that airport.

Transfer pax will be driven away to euro-hubs (not a great loss as they don't contribute significantly to the economy), or simply fly directly from regional airports as many already do (on Emirates, for instance) as will some leisure pax. That will leave mainly higher-yielding business pax who can then enjoy a more pleasant LHR experience.

It is the obvious solution but I don't expect BAA or BA will like it very much. The truth is many services from regional airports to LHR only exist because of transfer traffic ... these are the services which help cause so much congestion at LHR ...


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3397 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2871 times:



Quoting Theginge (Reply 6):
n most countries they could probably do it in a few years. In the UK bank on about 10!!

The UK is just two slow with major projects!

If Wembley stadium is anything to go by :
They talked about it for about 10 years then
Go ahead was given (late 1998 I think)
Last game played late 2000
Stadium sat empty for 3 years with nothing happening
Building work scheduled to finish in time for 2006 FA cup final - target missed
Building work completed (just) in time for 2007 FA cup final

Nearly 7 years and that was for a football stadium - no residents to evict from their homes.

I reckon it may take 10 years from go-ahead to first plane landing at LHR R3 - they are proposing the demolition of entire towns for this!


User currently offlineCandid76 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 738 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2831 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 7):
And here I thought BAA was only in charge of the kiosks and stores in Britain...you mean they actually run the airports as well?

Pardon the sarcasm - I just couldn't resist.

As BAA aren't good at running airports maybe we shouldn't take much notice of what they think!

Quoting CityofAthens (Reply 1):
Problem: The latter two solutions are very expensive , and we the public would have to pay ... but to be honest, depending on the bill, I'd be willing to consider it.

Londoners already have to pay for the Olympics. I doubt they'd want to pay for a new airport as well.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 7):
The residents of southern England have spoken: there will NEVER be ANY expansion of ANY airport in the south of England. The NIMBY's have spoken - they have moved to southern England and now everyone else - especially those pesky visitors arriving in airplanes - can go away.

That's fine. We'd like more flights up north instead please!


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12709 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2782 times:



Quoting CityofAthens (Reply 1):
To be honest I think a better idea would be to remove price caps and start charging what the airline market will bear ... only those airlines willing to pay the highest price will stay at LHR, whilst those not prepared to pay will be driven off to other airports, freeing up some badly needed capacity.

I am in favor of that, but is BAA?

Quoting CityofAthens (Reply 8):
I remain open to being convinced that a 3rd runway is the best long-term solution.

It will never happen.

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 9):
they are proposing the demolition of entire towns for this!

 checkmark 

This is why it'll never happen - the residents of those towns vote, and these residents will get almost all the pain and almost none of the gain.

Quoting Theginge (Reply 6):
In most countries they could probably do it in a few years. In the UK bank on about 10!!

It's not just the UK.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2771 times:

http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1129498.php?mpnlog=1

Here's a link to an article I found here on a.net. Apparently, some in the British government feel that transferring passengers at Heathrow bring no economic benefit to the country at all.

It is always disheartening and disturbing to hear those with absolutely no knowledge or insight of how something works speak as though they were experts in a blatant attempt to appeal to people's fears to curry political favor.

Quote:
Londoners already have to pay for the Olympics. I doubt they'd want to pay for a new airport as well.

As I understand it, wasn't there a sizeable portion of the London public that didn't want to pay for the Olympics either?

And speaking of the Olympics, exactly what plans does Britain have for accomodating all those foreign travellers into London? If Heathrow is operating at 99% capacity now, how will more flights be handled?



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineCandid76 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 738 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2733 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 12):
And speaking of the Olympics, exactly what plans does Britain have for accomodating all those foreign travellers into London? If Heathrow is operating at 99% capacity now, how will more flights be handled?

Do either nothing or very little and hope for the best I expect. They could all fly into MAN and drive to London! Britain's transport policy (or lack of it) is a joke. Same on the railways, they just quibble about the cost all the time, instead of doing what is obviously needed, such as electrification of main lines. I don't expect much to happen for the Olympics either.


User currently offlineTalaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2703 times:

Quoting CityofAthens (Reply 8):
Transfer pax will be driven away to euro-hubs (not a great loss as they don't contribute significantly to the economy), or simply fly directly from regional airports as many already do (on Emirates, for instance) as will some leisure pax. That will leave mainly higher-yielding business pax who can then enjoy a more pleasant LHR experience.

It is the obvious solution but I don't expect BAA or BA will like it very much. The truth is many services from regional airports to LHR only exist because of transfer traffic ... these are the services which help cause so much congestion at LHR .

I must disagree highly with you on this. An airport is a huge economic engine on itself. To give you an example, the airport in Madrid produces 12% of the region's GDP...and that's MAD with 53 million pax a year. Imagine LHR with 68 or the whole LON area with well over 100 million pax per year. Transfer traffic brings two things:

a) More frequencies with higher yields. ¿Do you think London can support on it's own the current amount of flights it has? I really doubt London, as big as it is, can bear 15 daily flights to New York (or whatever the number is). I can tell you that, as a regular passenger at Heathrow, that long haul flights (especially BA) carry a good amount of connecting passengers. I've been on flights to New York where there were more transfer passengers than O&D ones. I can tell you that what business passengers look for (apart from quality and comfort) is frequency and flexibility. A high yielding passenger will fly through Frankfurt instead of direct from London if it offers more flights and hence more flexibility on his/her planning. That's what luxury lounges are meant for: making transferring smoother and more comfortable. And you don't want to lose them don't you?

b) Attracts a bigger amount of airline companies that decide to fly into London instead of other European cities because of the connecting possibilites. Heathrow is Europe's biggest international hub by far, and the great deal of flughts and companies it has are due to it's condition as a hub. And to keep all these international carriers London needs a great deal of flights to European destinations.


London, as an international finance centre cannot live without a major international airport. Bearing in mind all the big London airports are VERY badly connected with the city centre, Heathrow offers the best of all (LCY notwithstanding) even though it's still pretty crap for European standards (at least compared to FRA, MAD, CDG or AMS) And I'm sure that if LHR doesn't get sorted out on the mid-term, airline companies will go elsewhere and not only will BA suffer greatly from it, but the whole of London too.

[Edited 2008-06-25 10:19:14]

User currently offlineLHRlocal From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2662 times:

Right, i think the case for a 3rd runway is very strong, we all know the reasons why. I also understand the reasons against it. IF the 3rd runway will be built i will be directly (And i mean DIRECTLY) underneath the flightpath (3.5 miles from touchdown point) I really honestly cant say that it would bother me or my family, i have a 747 or whatever flying past my bedroom window at full throttle every minute and never once in 27 years have i thought shutup or go away.

Heathrow has provided my dad with a job and a good standard of living for over 30 years, it enabled my parents to provide me and my sister with everything we needed, it is their livelyhood. This situation must be repeated all over the South East, the airport was here before most people living in the South East were. If you dont like aircraft noise, why choose to move where your going to hear it everyday?

Build it, build it now!


User currently offlineCityofAthens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

Talaier thanks for providing those interesting facts about MAD.

I agree with you, airports and the traffic they generate can have a positive impact on the local and national economy ... it's not hard to understand why.

LHR contributes to the UK economy, but which pax are really contributing? According to some articles, transfer pax don't actually contribute in a significant way.

In an ideal world, an airport would of course like to attract as many pax as possible - without discriminating between those simply transferring and those on point-to-point intineraries.

The problem is LHR is congested and capacity growth is a contentious political/social issue, if not a physical problem too.

Hence the need to start charging market prices in order to help disperse traffic.

I could be wrong, but that's my current position ....

If you go on to economist.com and do a search under "heathrow" you should find some excellent articles on the subject of LHR expansion (as well as T5 ... Big grin)


User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2616 times:



Quoting CityofAthens (Reply 16):
LHR contributes to the UK economy, but which pax are really contributing? According to some articles, transfer pax don't actually contribute in a significant way.

They do, by flying airlines such as BA / BMI and Virgin. If they didn't exist then there would be fewer flights to some destinations as they couldn;t be filled with direct passengers alone.


User currently offlineCityofAthens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2601 times:



Quoting Theginge (Reply 17):
If they didn't exist then there would be fewer flights to some destinations as they couldn;t be filled with direct passengers alone

Absolutely true, but that is partly my point ... some routes only supported by transfer traffic would disappear .... thus freeing up capacity.

It's not a perfect solution, and certainly not one BA likes.


User currently offlinePylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1603 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

10 years to build the 3rd runway?
Something is wrong in the kingdom  Smile

I was travelling India.
And I saw amazing railroad constructions made by British engineers a century and more ago: graceful bridges, fascinating tunnels.

What British did there was a piece of engineer and esthetic art!!!

I understand social and political specifics of British politics, at least to some extend.

But example of Wembley reconstruction is quite depressive.


User currently offlineRbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2545 times:



Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 19):
And I saw amazing railroad constructions made by British engineers a century and more ago: graceful bridges, fascinating tunnels.

Agreed. Not to hijack the thread, but the UK in the past has been known for outstanding construction/infrastructure projects around the world. I wonder what has happened, because certainly the talent and ability are still there. Is it purely govt red tape, restrictions, rules, or is there another reason?


User currently offlinePylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1603 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2468 times:

Not to change the stream of the topic - but still can't keep my mouth shut.

As a historian by education - but not by occupation - I have my opinion.

Empires did a lot of bad things. But they definitely had something what died while they disappeared from the map. Empires had some "geist".

Not to talk about British Empire - in order not to hurt feelings/attitudes of many a.netters - but let's take Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) Empire that was eliminated after WW1.

If we take treasures of culture and science, education and experience of harmonization of different ethnic groups into something bigger - the Habsburg Empire contributed to the modern civilization a lot. Much more than a dozen of states appeared from its ruins did within a century after 1918.

I know it's quite disputable opinion. And it is not quite politically correct.
But that's what I think.


User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7392 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 12):
And speaking of the Olympics, exactly what plans does Britain have for accomodating all those foreign travellers into London? If Heathrow is operating at 99% capacity now, how will more flights be handled?

I would anticipate that LTN, LGW and STN would get the lions share. THere is also the spectre of both BOH and SOU cashing in, with a remote possibility of SEN being used? The existing LHR services may see airlines boost capacity by putting on larger aircraft on selected routes (I recollect that LH did exactly that on their MAN services when Euro 96 took place)

Quoting Theginge (Reply 6):
The UK is just two slow with major projects!

I wouldn't mind but I think it's more specific to that to London rather than the nation as a whole (excepting the Scottish Parliament I beleive). Manchester had the slight problem that it put it's plans for a national stadium on time, waited patiently for the goalposts to be moved so that Wobbly could put in a bid and be selected come what may, redesigned it's stadium, got planning permission for it, built it, hosted the Commonwealth Games and then converted it to football use in the space of 4 years or so. Oh, and then on the back of the successful hosting of the Games, London decides to bid for the Olympics and with the attendant funding problems that have hit it!

Quoting CityofAthens (Reply 8):
That will leave mainly higher-yielding business pax who can then enjoy a more pleasant LHR experience

But these passengers would also be choosing to fly ex-the regions with the economy transfer passengers rather than through LHR? Those passengers may well be paying less on the J class fares than flying ex-LHR but it does tend to suggest that at least 1 airline based in the UK has missed the boat by not pricing correctly for a regional market; LH appear to appreciate the volume of these J class passengers flying long-haul out of their home airports.

Quoting CityofAthens (Reply 8):
The truth is many services from regional airports to LHR only exist because of transfer traffic ... these are the services which help cause so much congestion at LHR ...

And, of course, it helps when the sole flight on a British airline to New York from an airport not associated with London is withdrawn under the alleged pretense of "unprofitabilty" (but given the nature of that airline, it is questionable if that is an accurate reason).


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

Just a thoughtt, but how does the current oil price hike affect things? If Oil stays well above $100 a barrel permanently, this will squeeze airlines, who will have to put prices up, which may reduce demand? If people reduce their weekend breaks in Spain or shopping trips to NY, while businesses rely more on e conferencing etc, will demand for slots stay at it's current level? In this scenario, would ANY politician authorise a 3rd runway?


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineWunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2338 times:



Quoting Talaier (Thread starter):
"Heathrow Needs A Third Runway" BAA Says

Here we go again.

LHR needs less traffic. Not more.

It is a large-scale transportation issue, not just a question of airport congestion.

BAA should do away with its Heathrow-centrism and work with transport authorities to develop alternatives to many short-haul flights, and re-develop other London airports.


25 JoeCanuck : If LHR charges more to use their runways, airlines will have to raise their prices and pass those costs on to customers. This means flights into LHR w
26 WunalaYann : And this is great news. LHR likes to paint itself as the hub of world aviation - then it comes at a premium. If people want to fly to an airport in h
27 Ramzi : I don't see Runway 3 before 2020. This sounds ignorant, but look at T3, how long did that take? Right. Look at London, it really is a lot harder than
28 Post contains links GCT64 : There were a lot of good comments as recently as a month ago in: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/3967957/ Including B
29 LHRBlueSkies : Ooh, a dangerous statement to make! In this industry, you should know, never say NEVER!!!! H&S rules; planning regulations; environmental issues; pol
30 Talaier : That's the mistake. It won't. Stansted is a airport with point to point flights. Heathrow is a hub and spoke airport. And besides, from Heathrow to c
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BAA To Seek 500m Extension Of Third Runway? posted Tue Aug 14 2007 19:37:10 by Kaitak
Third "Close Call" Investigation At ORD posted Wed Mar 29 2006 22:37:12 by Airwave
CEO Says NWA "on The Verge" Of Joining Sky Team posted Wed Sep 10 2003 15:03:12 by Beefer
"Too Bad So Sad" For AirCanada Says Collenette posted Sun Nov 4 2001 04:18:43 by Player4keeps
HA CEO On "The Hot Seat" Blog posted Tue Jun 24 2008 16:01:52 by Aloha73G
Have "Letter Writing Campaigns" Ever Worked? posted Tue Jun 24 2008 10:10:32 by PanAm747
"Good Old Days" Air Travel Still Possible posted Thu Jun 5 2008 22:10:04 by Farzan
Airbus SAS Valued At "less Than Zero" posted Fri May 23 2008 07:55:14 by BA380841
SQ And IAH "Seeing Great Results"!? posted Thu May 15 2008 23:10:05 by Thomasphoto60
Third Runway At SEA Nears Completion posted Thu Jul 19 2007 18:30:53 by Gunsontheroof