DobboDobbo wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

Jetty wrote:

It’s not that obvious: soon there will be 5 direct trains London - Amsterdam daily with a 900 pax capacity each. That’s more capacity than to any London airport.

Replace AMS with FRA if you want, but the point is that AMS-London is still going to be almost four hours by train to St. Pancras, and then you still have to get to Heathrow from there. It's fine for O&D between the two cities, but that's never going going to be competitive with air to catch a connecting flight from Heathrow. From Manchester, especially if HS2 is built, the travel time will be well under two hours, which is quite competitive with catching a domestic connecting flight.

There is a catch 22 with rail: the better the connection (eg with HS2) the greater market share on p2p it will take from air, making the air service itself less viable.

Ultimately, if LHR, AMS, CDG, FRA offer pretty much the same connecting service, but LHR is more expensive it will attract less connecting traffic on common routes.

I think that's the idea, though. BA would code share on rail on those short domestic flights. There's really no advantage to operating them, and, unlike downgauging, that actually frees up LHR slots that could be used on much more profitable services. The problem is that unlike AF and LH's hubs, the connection between main rail routes and LHR is currently pretty poor. Old Oak Common and HS2 could potentially change that (though a direct connection would probably be better).

JibberJim wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

There is a catch 22 with rail: the better the connection (eg with HS2) the greater market share on p2p it will take from air, making the air service itself less viable.

Lots of air services to London are currently subsidised by the non London end of the route, this shows there's lots of routes where Londoners aren't actually interested enough to fly to direct to pay even the current prices, so many services may well leave London, but the local folk - who take most of the costs, aren't actually the ones clamouring for the service, the people of west London will not be significantly hurt by losing direct service to a 3rd tier China city, or that 20th daily to New York, especially with capacity still being available at other London airports it just means a switch to one of those.

That flight to a third-tier Chinese city may have no value to a Londoner unless you happen to work at the European head office of some company from that Chinese city, and they decide to close up and move to AMS because there's a non-stop flight. It's not that the effect of any single flight is going to be meaningful in an economy the size of London's, but a large number of them collectively can make a difference.

YYZLGA wrote:

JibberJim wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

There is a catch 22 with rail: the better the connection (eg with HS2) the greater market share on p2p it will take from air, making the air service itself less viable.

Lots of air services to London are currently subsidised by the non London end of the route, this shows there's lots of routes where Londoners aren't actually interested enough to fly to direct to pay even the current prices, so many services may well leave London, but the local folk - who take most of the costs, aren't actually the ones clamouring for the service, the people of west London will not be significantly hurt by losing direct service to a 3rd tier China city, or that 20th daily to New York, especially with capacity still being available at other London airports it just means a switch to one of those.

That flight to a third-tier Chinese city may have no value to a Londoner unless you happen to work at the European head office of some company from that Chinese city, and they decide to close up and move to AMS because there's a non-stop flight. It's not that the effect of any single flight is going to be meaningful in an economy the size of London's, but a large number of them collectively can make a difference.

Most of those random Chinese city flights are for tourists.

YYZLGA wrote:

JibberJim wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

There is a catch 22 with rail: the better the connection (eg with HS2) the greater market share on p2p it will take from air, making the air service itself less viable.

Lots of air services to London are currently subsidised by the non London end of the route, this shows there's lots of routes where Londoners aren't actually interested enough to fly to direct to pay even the current prices, so many services may well leave London, but the local folk - who take most of the costs, aren't actually the ones clamouring for the service, the people of west London will not be significantly hurt by losing direct service to a 3rd tier China city, or that 20th daily to New York, especially with capacity still being available at other London airports it just means a switch to one of those.

That flight to a third-tier Chinese city may have no value to a Londoner unless you happen to work at the European head office of some company from that Chinese city, and they decide to close up and move to AMS because there's a non-stop flight. It's not that the effect of any single flight is going to be meaningful in an economy the size of London's, but a large number of them collectively can make a difference.

Most of those random Chinese city flights are for tourists.

YYZLGA wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

Replace AMS with FRA if you want, but the point is that AMS-London is still going to be almost four hours by train to St. Pancras, and then you still have to get to Heathrow from there. It's fine for O&D between the two cities, but that's never going going to be competitive with air to catch a connecting flight from Heathrow. From Manchester, especially if HS2 is built, the travel time will be well under two hours, which is quite competitive with catching a domestic connecting flight.

There is a catch 22 with rail: the better the connection (eg with HS2) the greater market share on p2p it will take from air, making the air service itself less viable.

Ultimately, if LHR, AMS, CDG, FRA offer pretty much the same connecting service, but LHR is more expensive it will attract less connecting traffic on common routes.

I think that's the idea, though. BA would code share on rail on those short domestic flights. There's really no advantage to operating them, and, unlike downgauging, that actually frees up LHR slots that could be used on much more profitable services. The problem is that unlike AF and LH's hubs, the connection between main rail routes and LHR is currently pretty poor. Old Oak Common and HS2 could potentially change that (though a direct connection would probably be better).

I think that idea is a sensible one - but the problem of who pays for the infrastructure linking HS2 to LHR (from memory approximately £1.8bn to £3.9bn - a cost the government didn’t want to pay) remains the key stumbling block. Without the seamless link, I don’t think it is likely to catch on.

DobboDobbo wrote:

I think that idea is a sensible one - but the problem of who pays for the infrastructure linking HS2 to LHR (from memory approximately £1.8bn to £3.9bn - a cost the government didn’t want to pay) remains the key stumbling block. Without the seamless link, I don’t think it is likely to catch on.

That's a big expense, but not really that much when considering the overall costs of the HS2 and third runway schemes. I do wonder if connection to Crossrail/Heathrow Express at Old Oak Common might not be the worst, if it takes people directly to the terminal they need. CDG has direct high-speed rail access, but it can take quite a while to get from the station to the actual terminal.

YYZLGA wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

I think that idea is a sensible one - but the problem of who pays for the infrastructure linking HS2 to LHR (from memory approximately £1.8bn to £3.9bn - a cost the government didn’t want to pay) remains the key stumbling block. Without the seamless link, I don’t think it is likely to catch on.

That's a big expense, but not really that much when considering the overall costs of the HS2 and third runway schemes. I do wonder if connection to Crossrail/Heathrow Express at Old Oak Common might not be the worst, if it takes people directly to the terminal they need. CDG has direct high-speed rail access, but it can take quite a while to get from the station to the actual terminal.

All valid points, but if the UK government has rejected funding the link on the basis it offers poor value for money (considering wider benefits to society as a whole) there is essentially no chance of LHR funding it considering much narrower commercial criteria (also their low ball offers supporting the much wider up to £30bn of work which doesn’t include the HS2 link).

Revelation wrote:

Caluma350 wrote:

Very controversial in the UK, no one in the government wants to be the decision maker as to give it the go ahead as it would be very heavily scrutinized, therefore even more delays are possible.
No one wants to pay for it:

• Not the major international airline whose hub is at LHR, BA.
• Not the traveler.
• Not the people living in the area.
• Not the people living outside of the area.

Hard to see how we get a third runway when no one is willing to pay for it, and there are other easier options that can be taken.

Yes, there is a general need to increase traffic volume but the actual specific solution does not have enough support.

In particular, BA will never support it, all it serves to do is give precious slots to its competitors.

Besides, as WW pointed out if the third runway gets approved BA's headquarters will need to be knocked down.

Clearly BA will not be supporting such a plan.

The only ones supporting it are the owners of the airport (of course) and BA's competitors, but they aren't willing or able to pay for it all themselves.

Airlines are paying millions for a slot at LHR, thus it seems they are able and willing to pay. If you take the value of a slot and given how many slots can be added with a 3rd runway you likely have a good business case. Though currently new slots can't be sold, I'm not sure if that's because of EU or IATA regulations. If the former it might be an option in the future.

Raising airport taxes would make a connection at LHR even more uncompetitive than it already is. LHR is already the most expensive airport to make a transfer in Europe.



*In yellow the average aeronautical costs of a transfer passenger in euro.

Jetty wrote:

Airlines are paying millions for a slot at LHR, thus it seems they are able and willing to pay. If you take the value of a slot and given how many slots can be added with a 3rd runway you likely have a good business case. Though currently new slots can't be sold, I'm not sure if that's because of EU or IATA regulations. If the former it might be an option in the future.

Adding more slots will drive the value of each slot down not up. That's one reason why big slot holders such as BA are lukewarm at best over the expansion plan. That, plus Wille Walsh doesn't want to see his headquarters building get knocked down.

Selling slots will raise $millions, the project needs $billions to succeed. The math doesn't work out.

Revelation wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Airlines are paying millions for a slot at LHR, thus it seems they are able and willing to pay. If you take the value of a slot and given how many slots can be added with a 3rd runway you likely have a good business case. Though currently new slots can't be sold, I'm not sure if that's because of EU or IATA regulations. If the former it might be an option in the future.

Adding more slots will drive the value of each slot down not up. That's one reason why big slot holders such as BA are lukewarm at best over the expansion plan. That, plus Wille Walsh doesn't want to see his headquarters building get knocked down.

Selling slots will raise $millions, the project needs $billions to succeed. The math doesn't work out.

A new runway would add 350 slots. Current slot price is as high as $75 millions each, that would mean ~$26 billion in total. Even if the the value will be significantly lower after adding the 3rd runway it's still $billions.

Jetty the new slots will not be “SOLD” as it were - They will enter the pool and allocation with management by the independent slot distributors - AIRPORT coordination Limited .

Slots are not OWNED per say .

There “may” be some slots ring fenced as part of the operating licenses for yes you guessed it those domestic flights another ministry of the state has been pricing out of existence as part of our environmental policies !

There are rules already that support new entrants over grand fathered operators .

So some more of those Chinese routes to no mark and never heard of cities, bringing in tonnes of tat below decks and approved tourists .
And adding even more debt to the Chinese Aviation industry !

Also a significant portion may well go the EasyJet - They are the only large player to have publicly stated an intention to apply and enter the market to date

These may or may not include partial transfers from LTN and LGW and that imho is terrible in every way.

It does however support my comments about where the service expansion is likely to come from along with ring fenced domestics and it’s NOT glamorous high yield long haul in the main.

SueD wrote:

There are rules already that support new entrants over grand fathered operators.

Yes, EU rules that is. With Brexit that might change. Not saying it will, but it isn't set in stone.

I'm not the first one suggesting this option either:

The UK's competition watchdog is calling for Heathrow to auction off additional take-off and landing slots released by the opening of the airport's proposed third runway.
https://www.travelmole.com/news_feature ... id=2038251

It is nothing to to do with the EU but everything to do with the UK DFT regulations at slot restricted and designated airports and that includes Manchester as well as the London airports.

Watchdogs are just another lobby - No legal power.

The operating licence will be drawn up by HAL DFT and ACL and none of us can accurately predict the outcome anytime soon

It may be some all or none that are commodified

It may be that some are ring fenced , however it what can be certain is there won’t be a free for all .

And whilst I suspect there may be an element of ballot for the official awards , the secondary trading for use of those peak early morning slots will probably remain but somehow I think you valuation somewhat heavy to say the least, and Frankfurt is probably the best indicator of how things are likely to play out to be honest .

ACL powers aren’t going away anytime soon

Revelation wrote:

BA will never support it, all it serves to do is give precious slots to its competitors.

Besides, as WW pointed out if the third runway gets approved BA's headquarters will need to be knocked down.

Clearly BA will not be supporting such a plan.

I was at a presentation where BA’s Director responsible for airport policy at the time explained the airline’s position on the third runway. From memory it went like this:

IAG and BA want the third runway to be built. However, IAG does not want to pay a disproportionally high share of the cost.

Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) are generating the funding for the third runway from ongoing Heathrow landing fees and passenger handling fees.

IAG has 55% of LHR slots.

IAG will contribute around 55% of the funding for the third runway (see note 1 below).

HAL does not determine LHR slot policy; responsibility for that sits with Airport Co-ordination Ltd (ACL). However, HAL has said that it wants 15% of the new slots created by the third runway to be allocated for services to airports in the UK regions that do not currently have services to LHR: LPL, NWI, HUY, MME, CWL etc. (see note 2 below).

BA does not believe that services to cities in the UK regions will be profitable and is not expecting to operate them.

More recently there has been talk of 15% of total LHR slots being allocated for services to airports in the UK regions that do not currently have services to LHR.

ACL when it allocates the new slots created by the third runway may favour new entrants.

So, IAG expects to be allocated less than 55% of the new slots.

This means IAG is faced with a situation where it pays 55% of the costs of the third runway but is likely to see significantly less than 55% of the benefits. IAG and BA are not comfortable with this.

If the policy on allocating the new slots was to be revised so that IAG carriers contribute to the cost in line with the benefits they receive, IAG will be more comfortable with the way the runway is being funded.

Also, as has been widely reported, IAG believes that the cost of the third runway is excessive. In August WW said “The regulator needs to step in. This is completely unacceptable. The costs are out of control.”

The BA headquarters at Waterside opened in 1998. IAG are located in the same building. If the third runway goes ahead, Heathrow Airport Limited will have to buy the site at market value plus 20%, and cover BA’s moving expenses (see note 3 below). BA and IAG wouldn’t choose to move to a new location, but moving is not a blocker.

So, in short, at the time I saw the presentation:
• IAG want the third runway to be built to enable growth for IAG airlines.
• However:
• IAG does not want to pay a disproportionally high share of the cost.
• IAG does not want to pay for a ‘gold-plated’ solution.
• The loss of Waterside is not a blocker


Note 1:
LHR landing fees vary by aircraft weight and passenger handling fees are per-head. Different airlines operate aircraft of different weights and uplift different numbers of passengers, and so the fees they pay as a percentage of the LHR total are not directly in line with the percentage of slots they hold. However, at the presentation the Director said that the IAG contribution to revenue is more or less in line with its 55% share of slots. The actual figures were given, but I don’t remember the detail.

Note 2:
Some might say that HAL wanting 15% of the new slots created by the third runway to be allocated for services to airports in the UK regions that do not currently have services to Heathrow (LPL, NWI, HUY, MME, CWL etc.) is a cynical attempt to gain political support for the project in the UK regions. I could not possibly comment.

Note 3:
UK compulsory purchase compensation in 1994 when HAL wanted to buy my home was, if I remember correctly, market value plus 20% plus moving expenses. There was talk of this changing to market value plus 30%, but I don’t know if it did. I tried to check the current figures on the HMG website, but there are five relevant documents running to many pages and the current figures were not obvious.

bennett123 wrote:

Looking at Note 2, I wonder what impact HS2 is going to have, or direct flights from these airports.

HS2 will have very little impact on LHR expansion, at present it will connect Birmingham by 2028 which of course has no LHR service, and then Manchester & Leeds by 2035. Anywhere else is just a thought on a map.

Bongodog49 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Looking at Note 2, I wonder what impact HS2 is going to have, or direct flights from these airports.

HS2 will have very little impact on LHR expansion, at present it will connect Birmingham by 2028 which of course has no LHR service, and then Manchester & Leeds by 2035. Anywhere else is just a thought on a map.

That’s not entirely accurate.

Services using HS2 infrastructure will also run to a variety of other destinations including East Midlands Parkway (for Derby and Nottingham), Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Of course HS2 is perhaps slightly up in the air with the current review, but given the political situation it is unlikely to change much of at all.

It will have little effect on LHR expansion other than to divert resources away from the essential surface access schemes which enable expansion to take place and which no one seems to be able or willing to pay for.

I'd be surprised if HAL are wanting the 'connections to examples of LPL, NWI, HUY, MME, CWL"

Those routes would earn them very little money and we all know they would hugely favour, along with BA, additional JFK/ORD etc services if they could get away with it.

HS2 wouldn't change much. LPL would be a good flight addition, as would NWI. GCI has a flight at the moment but JER doesn't!

Other UK LHR links I'd support would be:

LDY
IOM
LSI
WIC
JER (already said)

LX138 wrote:

I'd be surprised if HAL are wanting the 'connections to examples of LPL, NWI, HUY, MME, CWL"

Those routes would earn them very little money and we all know they would hugely favour, along with BA, additional JFK/ORD etc services if they could get away with it.

HS2 wouldn't change much. LPL would be a good flight addition, as would NWI. GCI has a flight at the moment but JER doesn't!

Other UK LHR links I'd support would be:

LDY
IOM
LSI
WIC
JER (already said)

The Isle of Man and Jersey are not in the United Kingdom. Both have their own governments and do not send MPs to Westminster. The same is true for Guernsey. So, none of these places have any political say in the development of Heathrow.
HAL published a list of cities in the UK that they'd like to see have services from LHR when the third runway opens. I'll do a search for that list.

LX138 wrote:

I'd be surprised if HAL are wanting the 'connections to examples of LPL, NWI, HUY, MME, CWL"

Those routes would earn them very little money and we all know they would hugely favour, along with BA, additional JFK/ORD etc services if they could get away with it.

HS2 wouldn't change much. LPL would be a good flight addition, as would NWI. GCI has a flight at the moment but JER doesn't!

Other UK LHR links I'd support would be:

LDY
IOM
LSI
WIC
JER (already said)

Trouble is that the net benefits of the third runway to the U.K. as a whole are roughly level pegging with a second runway at Gatwick (in the long run LGW delivers greater net benefits).

Heathrow “won” the LHR v LGW debate largely by promising UK regional connectivity, and whilst that is a promise they cannot fulfil (they are not an airline) they are now bound to try, otherwise 15% of the new slots will remain unused and this may further prejudice their ability to fund the scheme.

Of course, this is all predicated on the government paying anything from £10bn to £30bn for surface access schemes which now feels extremely unlikely.

edealinfo wrote:

It has been a couple of years since London approved a 3rd runway for Heathrow. So, whats's the status?

1) Has land acquisition been completed?

2) Have existing structures on the acquired land been flattened?

3) Has construction of the 3rd runway commenced?

4) When could we reasonably expect the 3rd runway to be operational?

5) Have the price for LHR slots decreased now that LHR will have a 3rd runway? if so, by how much has the price declined?

6) Have the UK authorities decided on an allocation strategy for the new slots that will open up for the 3rd runway?

7) Has Gatwick's proposal for a 2nd runway been cleared as yet?

I never know when I'll be back, and what will have changed, so it's dinner at the Three Magpies tonight!

filbrkz wrote:

I never know when I'll be back, and what will have changed, so it's dinner at the Three Magpies tonight!

I prefer The Pheasant in Harlington myself. Other pubs are available, including The White Hart (Harlington), The King William (Sipson) and The Five Bells (Harmondsworth). I think only the first will survive the third runway bulldozers. Alas the Air Hostess and Peggy Bedford are long gone.

DobboDobbo wrote:

LX138 wrote:

I'd be surprised if HAL are wanting the 'connections to examples of LPL, NWI, HUY, MME, CWL"

Those routes would earn them very little money and we all know they would hugely favour, along with BA, additional JFK/ORD etc services if they could get away with it.

HS2 wouldn't change much. LPL would be a good flight addition, as would NWI. GCI has a flight at the moment but JER doesn't!

Other UK LHR links I'd support would be:

LDY
IOM
LSI
WIC
JER (already said)

Trouble is that the net benefits of the third runway to the U.K. as a whole are roughly level pegging with a second runway at Gatwick (in the long run LGW delivers greater net benefits).

Heathrow “won” the LHR v LGW debate largely by promising UK regional connectivity, and whilst that is a promise they cannot fulfil (they are not an airline) they are now bound to try, otherwise 15% of the new slots will remain unused and this may further prejudice their ability to fund the scheme.

Of course, this is all predicated on the government paying anything from £10bn to £30bn for surface access schemes which now feels extremely unlikely.

Yes you are right on these counts. On the LHR winning the runway debate - nobody said that IAG were necessarily going to use or even expected to take up the 15% of routes for UK/Crown dependency territory service slots. Flybe/Virgin, Loganair or others I assumed would do that.

LX138 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

LX138 wrote:

I'd be surprised if HAL are wanting the 'connections to examples of LPL, NWI, HUY, MME, CWL"

Those routes would earn them very little money and we all know they would hugely favour, along with BA, additional JFK/ORD etc services if they could get away with it.

HS2 wouldn't change much. LPL would be a good flight addition, as would NWI. GCI has a flight at the moment but JER doesn't!

Other UK LHR links I'd support would be:

LDY
IOM
LSI
WIC
JER (already said)

Trouble is that the net benefits of the third runway to the U.K. as a whole are roughly level pegging with a second runway at Gatwick (in the long run LGW delivers greater net benefits).

Heathrow “won” the LHR v LGW debate largely by promising UK regional connectivity, and whilst that is a promise they cannot fulfil (they are not an airline) they are now bound to try, otherwise 15% of the new slots will remain unused and this may further prejudice their ability to fund the scheme.

Of course, this is all predicated on the government paying anything from £10bn to £30bn for surface access schemes which now feels extremely unlikely.

Yes you are right on these counts. On the LHR winning the runway debate - nobody said that IAG were necessarily going to use or even expected to take up the 15% of routes for UK/Crown dependency territory service slots. Flybe/Virgin, Loganair or others I assumed would do that.

Agreed - the only airline who has expressed an interest in using runway three for more regional flying is Virgin Atlantic (or Virgin Connect - that isn’t clear).

However, if IAG can’t make the likes of LPL, NQY profitable, I doubt anyone can. If theSe routes are operated as a PSO, that is a cost to the taxpayer and not a benefit (I.e. it is a negative cost to the third runway).

DobboDobbo wrote:

Bongodog49 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Looking at Note 2, I wonder what impact HS2 is going to have, or direct flights from these airports.

HS2 will have very little impact on LHR expansion, at present it will connect Birmingham by 2028 which of course has no LHR service, and then Manchester & Leeds by 2035. Anywhere else is just a thought on a map.

That’s not entirely accurate.

Services using HS2 infrastructure will also run to a variety of other destinations including East Midlands Parkway (for Derby and Nottingham), Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Of course HS2 is perhaps slightly up in the air with the current review, but given the political situation it is unlikely to change much of at all.

It will have little effect on LHR expansion other than to divert resources away from the essential surface access schemes which enable expansion to take place and which no one seems to be able or willing to pay for.

The dates I quoted are accurate (unless the whole project is axed) Birmingham by 2028, Manchester & Leeds by 2035. At that rate of progress expect Newcastle by around 2045 and Edinburgh around 2060 !!!!

Bongodog49 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

Bongodog49 wrote:

HS2 will have very little impact on LHR expansion, at present it will connect Birmingham by 2028 which of course has no LHR service, and then Manchester & Leeds by 2035. Anywhere else is just a thought on a map.

That’s not entirely accurate.

Services using HS2 infrastructure will also run to a variety of other destinations including East Midlands Parkway (for Derby and Nottingham), Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Of course HS2 is perhaps slightly up in the air with the current review, but given the political situation it is unlikely to change much of at all.

It will have little effect on LHR expansion other than to divert resources away from the essential surface access schemes which enable expansion to take place and which no one seems to be able or willing to pay for.

The dates I quoted are accurate (unless the whole project is axed) Birmingham by 2028, Manchester & Leeds by 2035. At that rate of progress expect Newcastle by around 2045 and Edinburgh around 2060 !!!!

No issues with the dates - the point was the implication that HS2 would only link London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds when it is much wider than that.

BealineV953 wrote:

LX138 wrote:

I'd be surprised if HAL are wanting the 'connections to examples of LPL, NWI, HUY, MME, CWL"

Those routes would earn them very little money and we all know they would hugely favour, along with BA, additional JFK/ORD etc services if they could get away with it.

HS2 wouldn't change much. LPL would be a good flight addition, as would NWI. GCI has a flight at the moment but JER doesn't!

Other UK LHR links I'd support would be:

LDY
IOM
LSI
WIC
JER (already said)

The Isle of Man and Jersey are not in the United Kingdom. Both have their own governments and do not send MPs to Westminster. The same is true for Guernsey. So, none of these places have any political say in the development of Heathrow.
HAL published a list of cities in the UK that they'd like to see have services from LHR when the third runway opens. I'll do a search for that list.

I can't find that list of UK airports that HAL published.
However, here are the relevant sections of the '2016 Secretary of State for Transport and Heathrow Airport Limited Statement of Principles relating to Airport Capacity Programme'.

Domestic connectivity

4.1 HAL has stated publicly that if it were to expand the Airport it believes that the benefits of expansion would extend to the whole of the UK. The Secretary of State and HAL both acknowledge the importance of fostering good domestic connectivity for the UK through the establishment of a more extensive and competitive route network of domestic connections once new capacity becomes available, whilst also recognising that HAL has limited influence over the introduction of new domestic routes. HAL also re-confirms its own commitments made during the Airports Commission process on domestic connectivity which are set out in Appendix 4 (HAL's Public Commitments on Mitigation and Compensation Measures).

4.2 HAL is confident that as a result of the measures described in paragraph 4.1 of this Part 6 there will be increased domestic connectivity at the Airport, the number of domestic routes at the Airport are likely to increase from 8 to 16 (including crown dependencies) and 8 to 14 (excluding crown dependencies).


Appendix 4

C. Domestic Connectivity

In its response to the report produced by the National Connectivity Task Force, HAL undertook to pursue a number of steps to ensure the benefits of Airport expansion are felt throughout the UK. In particular, Heathrow made the following commitments:

“From 1 January 2017, HAL intends to introduce a £10 reduction on all domestic passenger charges, which is equivalent to greater than one third of the current charge levied against domestic passengers. HAL will use this new structure of charges as the basis for negotiations going forward and will seek to retain charges for domestic services for the longer term.”

"We will review our charging structure to play our part in improving the commercial viability of existing domestic routes and implement any changes in January 2016."

"We will work with any organization that proposes to operate RAF Northolt as a satellite aerodrome for new regional routes in the interim."

“We will offer to enter into a partnership with airport operators and the relevant local authority, devolved administration, chamber of commerce or LEP of each airport that currently has a service to Amsterdam Schiphol (but not to Heathrow) to collaboratively approach airlines with a view of securing a route to Heathrow once a new runway has opened. We will also extend this offer to those airports that are currently connected to Heathrow but desire more frequent and better-timed connections.”

“We will commit £10m to a Heathrow Route Development Fund to provide a start-up financial package for new domestic routes that remain unconnected after new capacity has become available to give them the chance to establish themselves and develop. The total fund could support up to 5 new domestic routes over three years”

“We will ask the Government to secure a new approach to Public Service Obligation routes that recognises the importance of global aviation connectivity and re-designate PSOs to an expanded Heathrow.”
is this:

Also, the document states that HAL are buying the property needed at market value plus 25%, not 20% as I said in an earlier post.

eurotrader85 wrote:

My two cents, they should move the 'main runway' further across south, far enough to comply and be used for normal operations. The North Runway can be used during this time as it does now when maintenance is being applied to the main runway. Once built Gatwick will have two fully functioning runways while technically no 'new' runway has been built in the South East, by-passing the usual NIMBY nonsense.

The area immediately to the south of Gatwick has been left pretty much undeveloped, just like the area to the immediate north of Heathrow, and I can't help thinking that both of these areas have been left like this just for the purpose of future airport expansion. Otherwise they would have been built on years back. A proper second runway at Gatwick a few hundred yards to the south of the existing one would be a better idea than a bodge-job on the long taxiway.

Well...the government has officially approved HS2 will go ahead at a cost of £106Billion!

When asked if LHR's 3rd runway will go ahead, Boris replied " Not anytime soon" !

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... built-soon

Boris’s full quote when questioned about cancelling runway 3 was:

"I see no bulldozers at present, nor any immediate prospect of them arriving."

My reading of this is that it is unlikely that any progress will be made on runway 3 whilst he remains in office (the next 5 years at least). Whether that is kicking it into the long grass and preventing / frustrating progress or cancelling it outright, I think is the most likely outcome.

Tellingly, he referred to BHX being within a similar time distance of central London via HS2 than a taxi or the Piccadilly line to LHR.

Worth keeping an eye on but a slow burner I think.

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnso ... n-11931612

Glad to hear HS2 is moving forward but disappointing on the LHR news

DobboDobbo wrote:

Tellingly, he referred to BHX being within a similar time distance of central London via HS2 than a taxi or the Piccadilly line to LHR.

Is he referring to the airport with a whopping one runway? Does he think BHX will become London's 7th airport?

With Brexit now a reality, expect LHR growth prospects to be a lot more conservative, as Europe's business and travel epicentre is moved to somewhere between Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt.

The problem is they let thousands of people build and move in around the airport at LHR, effectively locking out future expansion. London should have done what Kansas City and Denver did: build further out from the city with plenty of room to grow and expand. The NIMBYs should have never been allowed to move around LHR. If you don't like the noise of airplanes, then don't move next to an airport!

United787 wrote:

Glad to hear HS2 is moving forward but disappointing on the LHR news

DobboDobbo wrote:

Tellingly, he referred to BHX being within a similar time distance of central London via HS2 than a taxi or the Piccadilly line to LHR.

Is he referring to the airport with a whopping one runway? Does he think BHX will become London's 7th airport?

I suppose you can see how BHX will take on more traffic as LHR, LGW, STN, LTN etc become “full”. There is an argument that a reasonable amount of traffic at LHR is ground leakage from BHX but that is a complex issue.

The problem with LHR expansion is that whilst there is a clear demand for more capacity, LHR is hemmed in with relatively dense developments around it, and the land prices are such that development is economically unviable unless supply is limited elsewhere (so LHR can continue to charge monopoly prices).

This doesn’t even scratch the surface of the other political, environmental, Planning, financial and regulatory issues around expansion - but it hopefully gives a feel for one of the fundamental challenges.

edealinfo wrote:

It has been a couple of years since London approved a 3rd runway for Heathrow. So, whats's the status?

1) Has land acquisition been completed?

2) Have existing structures on the acquired land been flattened?

3) Has construction of the 3rd runway commenced?

4) When could we reasonably expect the 3rd runway to be operational?

5) Have the price for LHR slots decreased now that LHR will have a 3rd runway? if so, by how much has the price declined?

6) Have the UK authorities decided on an allocation strategy for the new slots that will open up for the 3rd runway?

7) Has Gatwick's proposal for a 2nd runway been cleared as yet?

I think they decided to appoint a committee to decide on the recommendations of the last 5 committees. When it reports back, they'll make a recommendation to the government about whether to hold another public consultation or appoint another committee.

Iloveboeing wrote:

The problem is they let thousands of people build and move in around the airport at LHR, effectively locking out future expansion. London should have done what Kansas City and Denver did: build further out from the city with plenty of room to grow and expand. The NIMBYs should have never been allowed to move around LHR. If you don't like the noise of airplanes, then don't move next to an airport!

That’s the problem though. London had expanded outwards so much even 50 years ago they’d of had trouble building without destroying a village or town.

This is why i’m glad HS2 is being built, before we regret it like with Heathrow.

XaraB wrote:

With Brexit now a reality, expect LHR growth prospects to be a lot more conservative, as Europe's business and travel epicentre is moved to somewhere between Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt.

Or the UK becomes the singapore of europe and economic growth explodes.

I believe it is time for all to recognize that LHR R3 is unachievable, and to plan for a future where LHR is not the default option and look at expansion elsewhere. To keep going with groundhog day is to just delay other options. It is time to move on now.

I think even Heathrow PLC now know its never going to happen. Plan B could be Heathrow 2, standing for 2 runways.

Increase movements to 650k, by introducing a 1500m displaced threshold for the NB’s. This could add 20-30% capacity and reduce delays/emissions/noise.

Then build a new terminal and 100 stands, and complete the toast rack from T5, all the way to a demolished Beeline base and T4.

To get it past planning, plant 10m trees, make the new terminal public transport only and ban cars altogether unless electric.

Heathrow could also impose a ban within 5 years, any a/c that is non-NEO/MAX/220, A350/787/777-X

They could even introduce a frequent flyer levy. Basically agree with the climate change people and actually do something about it.

First of all BA will bitterly oppose it, the last thing they want is extra capacity to allow easyJet, Air Asia X, Air Transat, Norwegian et al to show up.

Secondly, post Brexit, if every single widget made in the U.K. needs five pieces of paper to cross the channel, and the EU’s financial hub moves back inside the EU, the role of the U.K. in international trade will diminish, with less air traffic as a result.

And thirdly, most importantly, if climate science is real (which it is), surely we all need to fly less, not more?