Heathrow Expansion

[Joseph_Pestell]

So here we go again. Govt has decided that there should be a third runway at Heathrow.

 

I totally understand the need for a third runway (at least) so that we have a world-class hub airport.

 

But isn't this an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and put the main London airport where it should be - i.e. north-west of London where it is easily accessible from the rest of the country.

 

That might seem like an expensive option and in gross cost terms it is. But in net costs, it could cost a lot less. Imagine how much money could be recovered once the new airport was open by selling off Heathrow for mixed-use housing and commercial development. It is ideally suited for this with all the main infrastructure in place. The existing terminal buildings would become shopping malls (which they are already in effect).

 

A quick back of an envelope calculation (fag packets no longer allowed) suggests that the land at Heathrow is worth £60bn. So, added to the £19bn cost of the third runway, there is scope to spend £79bn on an all new airport.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[Fenman]

...

I totally understand the need for a third runway (at least) so that we have a world-class hub airport.

...

 

I think air travel is a necessary evil in the modern world - both for business, and to enable all of us to explore the world we’re a part of.

 

But I discovered a few weeks ago that 25% of passengers at Heathrow are simply transferring from one international flight to another. I can see how that makes lots of profits for British Airways and the airport owner, but why should we be encouraging or facilitating that traffic? It has a marginal effect on the country as a whole, but creates chaos and capacity issues that really do have a significant effect. And that’s before the pollution, or the risks of flying ever more planes over one of the world’s mega-cities.

 

So I can see the case for Heathrow expansion if we want to help increase profits for both BA and whichever Spanish conglomerate owns the airport. But I’m genuinely struggling to see why expansion (to cater for more transfers) is in the national interest instead of, say, a more strategic approach to the allocation of scarce resources.

 

I write this as someone whose job depends on easy international air links, who uses Heathrow at least once a month, working for an organisation that could be based anywhere in the western world but which chooses to be in London. A significant number of my trips involves transfers at other airports - places like Doha, built in the middle of a desert with vast amounts of room available to it, ideally suited to this traffic.

 

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think air travel is a necessary evil in the modern world - both for business, and to enable all of us to explore the world we’re a part of.

 

But I discovered a few weeks ago that 25% of passengers at Heathrow are simply transferring from one international flight to another. I can see how that makes lots of profits for British Airways and the airport owner, but why should we be encouraging or facilitating that traffic? It has a marginal effect on the country as a whole, but creates chaos and capacity issues that really do have a significant effect. And that’s before the pollution, or the risks of flying ever more planes over one of the world’s mega-cities.

 

So I can see the case for Heathrow expansion if we want to help increase profits for both BA and whichever Spanish conglomerate owns the airport. But I’m genuinely struggling to see why expansion (to cater for more transfers) is in the national interest instead of, say, a more strategic approach to the allocation of scarce resources.

 

I write this as someone whose job depends on easy international air links, who uses Heathrow at least once a month, working for an organisation that could be based anywhere in the western world but which chooses to be in London. A significant number of my trips involves transfers at other airports - places like Doha, built in the middle of a desert with vast amounts of room available to it, ideally suited to this traffic.

 

Paul

 

The aircraft that those passengers are using to interline are also carrying passengers that will be coming to the UK. But perhaps even more significant economically is the freight that is being transported in the holds beneath their feet.

[The Stationmaster]

The aircraft that those passengers are using to interline are also carrying passengers that will be coming to the UK. But perhaps even more significant economically is the freight that is being transported in the holds beneath their feet.

 

And when it's our turn they will be coming over my head on closer headways than some mainline railways can manage and with some of them having a strong tendency to change their thrust settings as they pass.  I will admit my bias - I don't want a third runway at LHR if it will lead to an increase in aircraft movements (why else build it?).   London could build a superb world class airport down on the Thames Estuary with new transport links and it would probably be paid for by selling LHR for house building or decent commercial development, spending ever more money on LHR is really something of a dead end for a city which already had five proper airports plus numerous other hangers-on who add 'London' to their name even if they're 50 miles away from the city centre.

Edited June 6, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Purley Oaks]

And some residents west of Edinburgh had enough problems when they changed landing/take-off patterns at Edinburgh airport last summer... Heathrow 3 will run and run...

[Fenman]

The aircraft that those passengers are using to interline are also carrying passengers that will be coming to the UK. But perhaps even more significant economically is the freight that is being transported in the holds beneath their feet.

There are roughly two dozen flights every day between JFK and LHR. If 1/4 of passengers are interlining you could drop 6 of those flights without impacting UK passengers. Most of LHR’s destinations have more than one flight a day.

 

But, speaking for my organisation, which brings international jobs to the UK and relies on good air links, if there’s only a flight every other day to a particular destination then we go a day early. It’s a cost of doing business - but a minor one in the great scheme of things.

 

While clearly freight can piggy-back on passenger flights, if individual freight flows are as significant as you suggest then the airlines should be flying cargo planes to freight-handling airports that don’t need to be within the M25 - like, say, Qatar does, flying dedicated cargo planes to and from its cargo station at Stansted (where it has no passenger flights).

 

Is this more irritating for the airlines? You bet it is. Why is that more important than, say, allowing The Stationmaster to live in peace without ever more flights over his home? Why can’t those 25% of passengers instead transfer at Schipol or Paris or Madrid or...?

 

Paul

[Titan]

I can't help feeling that an opportunity has been missed. Heathrow should get a Eurostar service, so all Heathrow-Paris/Brussels flights and transfers could go by rail, freeing up capacity. If Stansted and Heathrow express services could be combined and run through the Crossrail tunnels, then there could be better connectivity there too, although the journey times might be a bit lengthy.

 

I would think if you let the train handle the connecting flights, either as a direct replacement or as a quick transfer to a runway somewhere else, you might not need a third runway at Heathrow.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I can't help feeling that an opportunity has been missed. Heathrow should get a Eurostar service, so all Heathrow-Paris/Brussels flights and transfers could go by rail, freeing up capacity. If Stansted and Heathrow express services could be combined and run through the Crossrail tunnels, then there could be better connectivity there too, although the journey times might be a bit lengthy.

 

I would think if you let the train handle the connecting flights, either as a direct replacement or as a quick transfer to a runway somewhere else, you might not need a third runway at Heathrow.

 

I agree. That is certainly another option. A branch off HS2 to Heathrow would:

 

1) allow some slots used by internal UK flights to be freed up for international flights;

2) take some pressure off the terminal facilities at Euston;

3) be a whole lot cheaper than the 3rd runway proposal;

4) allow a station in the Chilterns that does not impact on the main line paths;

5) not lead to demolition of 100s of houses.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[Mike Buckner]

It seems to me a better decision might have been a new runway at Heathrow AND a a new runway at Gatwick - bringing more resilience and capacity to the system, avoiding years delay and expense in getting started due to an enquiry as to which, and introducing more competition domestically and making us more competitive internationally. Amsterdam Schipol has 6 runways.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Mike Buckner

[Nick C]

And when it's our turn they will be coming over my head on closer headways than some mainline railways can manage and with some of them having a strong tendency to change their thrust settings as they pass.  I will admit my bias - I don't want a third runway at LHR if it will lead to an increase in aircraft movements (why else build it?).   London could build a superb world class airport down on the Thames Estuary with new transport links and it would probably be paid for by selling LHR for house building or decent commercial development, spending ever more money on LHR is really something of a dead end for a city which already had five proper airports plus numerous other hangers-on who add 'London' to their name even if they're 50 miles away from the city centre.

Unfortunately the Thames Estuary is a really bad place to build an airport - as Joseph Pestell says, north west of London is the best option. This is simply for practical reasons - it's always best to align your airport according to the prevailing winds - which in the UK come from the south west - so your airport needs to be aligned SW-NE, and should therefore be SE or NW of the city it is serving, to avoid the aircraft having to fly over the city. Building a new airport east of London would have exactly the same problems as Heathrow, just the other way around. So really, if you're going to expand an existing airport, Luton would be most sensible.

 

Of course the better option is to invent a floating airport at 20,000ft, with a huge lift to get passengers, freight and supplies up and down - that way the aircraft don't have to descend to ground level, and fly back up gain, which is the most inefficient bit...

[Fenman]

...

A branch off HS2 to Heathrow

...

 

 

I find this idea fascinating. There are three main terminal groups at LHR - would you have an HS2 station at each of them? Or would you pick one terminal, and then make passengers for the other terminals get on a transit?

 

If the latter, that means the MAJORITY of passengrs to LHR wouldn't have a stop in their terminal, yet every single person on the train from the North to central London would be inconvenienced by routing via LHR (the Mawhinney report was particular scathing about the poor economics of that option, as I recall. Which pains me to say, since I am not at all a fan of the man).

 

If the former, I hate to think how long that would add to journey times for passengers from the North to central London - for what is predicted to be a small proportion of total ridership.

 

A fast transit from Old Oak Common to each terminal would surely be a better idea?

 

Paul

Edited June 6, 2018 by Fenman

[Joseph_Pestell]

Unfortunately the Thames Estuary is a really bad place to build an airport - as Joseph Pestell says, north west of London is the best option. This is simply for practical reasons - it's always best to align your airport according to the prevailing winds - which in the UK come from the south west - so your airport needs to be aligned SW-NE, and should therefore be SE or NW of the city it is serving, to avoid the aircraft having to fly over the city. Building a new airport east of London would have exactly the same problems as Heathrow, just the other way around. So really, if you're going to expand an existing airport, Luton would be most sensible.

 

Of course the better option is to invent a floating airport at 20,000ft, with a huge lift to get passengers, freight and supplies up and down - that way the aircraft don't have to descend to ground level, and fly back up gain, which is the most inefficient bit...

 

Luton is perhaps the biggest problem for building a new large airport north-west of London. Difficult to avoid conflicting movements.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I find this idea fascinating. There are three main terminal groups at LHR - would you have an HS2 station at each of them? Or would you pick one terminal, and then make passengers for the other terminals get on a transit?

 

If the latter, that means the MAJORITY of passengrs to LHR wouldn't have a stop in their terminal, yet every single person on the train from the North to central London would be inconvenienced by routing via LHR (the Mawhinney report was particular scathing about the poor economics of that option, as I recall. Which pains me to say, since I am not at all a fan of the man).

 

If the former, I hate to think how long that would add to journey times for passengers from the North to central London - for what is predicted to be a small proportion of total ridership.

 

A fast transit from Old Oak Common to each terminal would surely be a better idea?

 

Paul

 

No. I said a branch - not a loop.

 

Realistically, one would probably only build one station (near T5) with shuttles to T2,3 & T4.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[jonny777]

Hardly anyone ever seems to take into account the views of the poor folk who live under the flight paths. Apparently their daily noise pollution can be discounted because they have triple glazing and lots of job prospects. 

 

And all this so that the wealthy can increase their carbon footprint at will; when everyone is supposed to be cutting theirs by 75% in order to combat the greenhouse effect of pumping yet more carbon into the atmosphere. 

 

Why must we have a world class hub airport? National ego?

[Zomboid]

North West of London you're into the Chilterns. If you think HS2 has opposition there, then just try proposing an airport...

 

I think it's high time we just did something. Whilst we've been arguing and prevaricating the rest of the world has been building. Some people will lose out no matter what we do, and I do understand their objections (and would personally favour Gatwick expansion), if it's needed, it's needed so let's stop talking and build something.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hardly anyone ever seems to take into account the views of the poor folk who live under the flight paths. Apparently their daily noise pollution can be discounted because they have triple glazing and lots of job prospects. 

 

And all this so that the wealthy can increase their carbon footprint at will; when everyone is supposed to be cutting theirs by 75% in order to combat the greenhouse effect of pumping yet more carbon into the atmosphere. 

 

Why must we have a world class hub airport? National ego?

 

Never thought that I would find myself backing Chris Grayling! We need a world class airport so that business stays in the UK rather than relocating to Europe. Quite enough of that going on already with Brexit.

[Joseph_Pestell]

North West of London you're into the Chilterns. If you think HS2 has opposition there, then just try proposing an airport...

 

 

 

I am well aware of that. I am old enough to remember Wing/Cublington!

 

But, in reality, there are far fewer people there to be impacted by a 3 runway airport than will be impacted in West London and the Thames Valley by the 3rd runway at Heathrow. And, of course, if one closed Heathrow completely, that number becomes even greater in favour of the new airport.

[Fenman]

... We need a world class airport so that business stays in the UK rather than relocating to Europe. Quite enough of that going on already with Brexit.

 

But that's just evidence-free rhetoric.

 

Look at where all those high-paying banking jobs are likely to relocate with Brexit: some will go to Frankfurt (which has a pretty decent hub airport); but just as many are apparently going to go to Dublin, which is nobody's idea of a world-class hub airport.

 

So I'm curious: if having a "world class" airport is essential for business, why is anyone even considering Dublin as a post-Brexit headquarters?

 

Might it be that, perhaps, the importance of hyper-connectivity is a tad over-stated? After all, Turkish Airlines flies to more destinations thank any other airline in the world. Yet, somehow, Turkey never seems to be thought of as a pre-eminent location for multinationals.

 

Paul

[Fenman]

No. I said a branch - not a loop.

 

Realistically, one would probably only build one station (near T5) with shuttles to T2,3 & T4.

 

 

A branch? I didn't think anyone believed there was sufficeint traffic to justify that for at least several decades.

 

Are you envisioning a self-contained shuittle (eg, from LHR to OOC or some other hub?), or trains running to the LHR branch as a terminus - in which case, from where and as opposed to terminating where?

 

I'm pretty sure I'm going to be dead long before all this is completed so it's largely an academic exercise for me, but I am intrigued by what people are thinking.

 

Paul

Edited June 6, 2018 by Fenman

[Joseph_Pestell]

But that's just evidence-free rhetoric.

 

Look at where all those high-paying banking jobs are likely to relocate with Brexit: some will go to Frankfurt (which has a pretty decent hub airport); but just as many are apparently going to go to Dublin, which is nobody's idea of a world-class hub airport.

 

So I'm curious: if having a "world class" airport is essential for business, why is anyone even considering Dublin as a post-Brexit headquarters?

 

Might it be that, perhaps, the importance of hyper-connectivity is a tad over-stated? After all, Turkish Airlines flies to more destinations thank any other airline in the world. Yet, somehow, Turkey never seems to be thought of as a pre-eminent location for multinationals.

 

Paul

 

I know people who have already been relocated - to Amsterdam.

 

I guess that any relocation to Dublin will have something to do with taxation.

[Joseph_Pestell]

A branch? I didn't think anyone believed there was sufficeint traffic to justify that for at least several decades.

 

Are you envisioning a self-contained shuittle (eg, from LHR to OOC or some other hub?), or trains running to the LHR branch as a terminus - in which case, from where and as opposed to terminating where?

 

I'm pretty sure I'm going to be dead long before all this is completed so it's largely an academic exercise for me, but I am intrigued by what people are thinking.

 

Paul

 

You are right - up to a point. That is because the figures for a branch to Heathrow have only ever taken air passengers into consideration.

 

But for vast numbers of potential HS2 users in London, Surrey, Hampshire and the Thames Valley, an HS2 station at Heathrow would be more accessible than Euston or Old Oak Common.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...And all this so that the wealthy can increase their carbon footprint at will; when everyone is supposed to be cutting theirs by 75% in order to combat the greenhouse effect of pumping yet more carbon into the atmosphere...

 There's this aspect, and then there's the capacity overshoot question. Aviation is completely dependent on cheap hydrocarbon fuel. How far off is the point where the rapidly escalating price of the stuff makes mass air travel significantly less affordable, leading to a long term decline in traffic?

 

Luton is perhaps the biggest problem...

 Thought for the day, that.

[jonny777]

 There's this aspect, and then there's the capacity overshoot question. Aviation is completely dependent on cheap hydrocarbon fuel. How far off is the point where the rapidly escalating price of the stuff makes mass air travel significantly less affordable, leading to a long term decline in traffic?

 

 Thought for the day, that.

 

 

Well yes, especially if anyone becomes brave enough to impose VAT on aviation fuel, in order to pay for the damage it does. 

 

And why should we need to attract extra business, if it is of the Amazon, McDonalds, Costa, Uber sort - who pay little or no tax in this country and so do not contribute to our welfare as much as we contribute to theirs?

 

We have a population approaching 70 million, and are considered wealthy compared with third world countries. 

 

If a country with that many people cannot attract business without extra airports, then those business models have serious flaws. 

[Legend]

I think it is necessary for the country .  Air travel is a necessary evil and is not going to go away. Truth is that no matter where you construct an airport or runways there will be a challenge . While I feel desperately sorry for those who will have their houses demolished I think we need the runway.  There may be a lot of international passengers changing planes but as someone else has pointed out that's only a proportion of the passengers on each flight and it enables a much larger range of destinations to be served for those that are departing Heathrow or connecting domestically.

 

I know people are aware of the noise , but compared to 40 years ago, when there were much less planes , really the noise has come down significantly.  I used to live close to Glasgow airport and the noise of a Trident or Comet taking off meant you couldn't have a conversation. With the new high bypass engines living next to an airport is a lot quieter.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

If a country with that many people cannot attract business without extra airports, then those business models have serious flaws. 

 

We are in danger of straying into politics here. When I was a child, there were 11DM to the pound and around 4US$. And we had a significant engineering industry. Now........

 

So yes, the business model of the UK economy may not be the best.