Heathrow Expansion

[2mmMark]

No. I said a branch - not a loop.

 

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

 

There is already an embryonic station underneath or near T5 built in anticipation of new rail links.  T5 has as much below ground as it has above ground.

 

The current plan is for southern rail access from the Reading/Windsor line, leaving the main line just after Feltham and travelling NW towards LHR, above ground as far as the A30 then underground to the airport. There's likely to be an intermediate station in the Bedfont Lakes area to serve businesses and new housing.

 

Free rail shuttle transits on the Heathrow Express are already available between T5, the Central Area (T2 & 3) and T4.

 

The major transport issue will be road traffic growth. I'm expecting some "brave" moves to try to control that, like turning the roads around LHR into a congestion charging zone. Not going to be popular with people like me who live in the area as it'll divert traffic onto local roads.

 

Personally, I'm split on the issue as LHR gave me a good career from 1976 to nearly 2016.  Recent history is littered with broken promises - T4 promised it was the last new terminal, T5 promised no additional runways...  The argument about jobs is debatable as many jobs have gone from LHR and those that remain are no longer as lucrative as previous. The aviation industry has enthusiastically addressed the race to the bottom as we all desire cheaper air travel.

 

If you see the original 9 runway LHR plan, you'll realise we got off lightly!

https://londonist.com/london/transport/heathrowstar

 

Expect a long slog through approval and planning.  Some land north of the airport has been parcelled up into metre squares and sold off to thousands of individuals. That'll be fun for the lawyers.

 

Much is being made of the "above market" compensation but it'll be dependent on the actual valuations, which I expect will be debated.

 

Harmondsworth Village is a nice spot, a shame to see it go.  Ironically, my former employer BA's headquarters Waterside will be demolished, having been completed 20 years ago. This might encourage IAG, BA's owner, to up sticks and move head office to Madrid.

 

Finally, I hesitate to mention the B word but if current aviation agreements get unpicked and replaced, an expanded LHR might become an expensive white elephant. BA spent a lot of time, effort and money becoming EASA compliant, as did other UK airlines.

 

Mark

[Joseph_Pestell]

There is already an embryonic station underneath or near T5 built in anticipation of new rail links.  T5 has as much below ground as it has above ground.

 

The current plan is for southern rail access from the Reading/Windsor line, leaving the main line just after Feltham and travelling NW towards LHR, above ground as far as the A30 then underground to the airport. There's likely to be an intermediate station in the Bedfont Lakes area to serve businesses and new housing.

 

Free rail shuttle transits on the Heathrow Express are already available between T5, the Central Area (T2 & 3) and T4.

 

The major transport issue will be road traffic growth. I'm expecting some "brave" moves to try to control that, like turning the roads around LHR into a congestion charging zone. Not going to be popular with people like me who live in the area as it'll divert traffic onto local roads.

 

Personally, I'm split on the issue as LHR gave me a good career from 1976 to nearly 2016.  Recent history is littered with broken promises - T4 promised it was the last new terminal, T5 promised no additional runways...  The argument about jobs is debatable as many jobs have gone from LHR and those that remain are no longer as lucrative as previous. The aviation industry has enthusiastically addressed the race to the bottom as we all desire cheaper air travel.

 

If you see the original 9 runway LHR plan, you'll realise we got off lightly!

https://londonist.com/london/transport/heathrowstar

 

Expect a long slog through approval and planning.  Some land north of the airport has been parcelled up into metre squares and sold off to thousands of individuals. That'll be fun for the lawyers.

 

Much is being made of the "above market" compensation but it'll be dependent on the actual valuations, which I expect will be debated.

 

Harmondsworth Village is a nice spot, a shame to see it go.  Ironically, my former employer BA's headquarters Waterside will be demolished, having been completed 20 years ago. This might encourage IAG, BA's owner, to up sticks and move head office to Madrid.

 

Finally, I hesitate to mention the B word but if current aviation agreements get unpicked and replaced, an expanded LHR might become an expensive white elephant. BA spent a lot of time, effort and money becoming EASA compliant, as did other UK airlines.

 

Mark

 

The empty T5 platforms are not HS2 compliant (not long enough). They are for the Southern link and/or the westward link to Slough and beyond.

 

So some extra link would be needed between an HS2 station and the five/six terminals. (Am I right in thinking that they are showing a 6th terminal on those plans?).

[Clearwater]

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

Dublin is in the same time zone as the uk and the first language is English. That’s why it’s attractive. Ireland has also been cute in how it sets its corporate tax rates to attract business.

[Clearwater]

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.

You need to look at total tax take, not just corporate tax. If some of companies you quote domicile here and employ thousands of people, there would be a material step up in employee taxes paid. I agree that corporate tax avoidance is an issue but it’s not the full picture.

 

As a point of fact, Costa is owned by Whitbread who are London quoted. Looking at their accounts, in 2017/18, they made £548m in profit before tax and had a tax charge of £112m.

[jonny777]

My comments were not intended to attract the pedants. 

 

I just picked US companies off my head. 

 

They all have the same business model - maximise profits at the expense of the workforce/customer. 

[Clearwater]

My comments were not intended to attract the pedants.

 

I just picked US companies off my head.

 

They all have the same business model - maximise profits at the expense of the workforce/customer.

The facts contradict your argument when an entity you suggest doesn’t pay taxes does and is a UK company and not a US one! This is not pendantry.

 

All businesses seek to maximise profit. Try working for one that doesn’t. They soon won’t pay your wages. If you don’t work for a private sector entity, if private sector companies don’t make any profits, then the public sector won’t have any money to pay public sector workers or pay benefits etc etc.

[2mmMark]

The empty T5 platforms are not HS2 compliant (not long enough). They are for the Southern link and/or the westward link to Slough and beyond.

 

So some extra link would be needed between an HS2 station and the five/six terminals. (Am I right in thinking that they are showing a 6th terminal on those plans?).

 

I think there will be a 6th terminal at some point. Otherwise flights could be facing long taxy times from terminal to runway. This is quite an issue in icy weather as deicing only lasts about 20 minutes as I recall.

 

Maybe convert the BA offices into a terminal!

 

Mark.

[Mike Storey]

IIRC, the key factor about maintaining the attractiveness of the UK (or at least SE England) for locating international businesses, is the number of world destinations served directly. That issue scored highly and consistently in surveys of many businesses over many years. Currently, UK airports compare unfavourably with other European hubs on that score, due to non-availability of landing and take-off slots.

 

The ability to interchange at Heathrow (rather than at Schipol, Frankfurt or wherever), creates sufficient extra demand for those additional, direct flights.

 

Whether this is a "Good" or "Bad" thing for UK taxpayers, let alone people under the flightpaths, I leave for others to debate.

[The Stationmaster]

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.

 

Which is exactly what I did a lot of work on back in the latter half of the 1990s.  But it would be a very expensive proposition as Class 373 Eurostar sets are out of gauge in the existing tunnels and there were some very ticklish moments with a lot of the expanded polystyrene squashed or knocked off completely when the gauging tests were carried out at dead slow speed in the tunnels to/from LHR (although I don't know how the 374s would fare).  Basically it would need a completely new railway or a major rebuild of the existing one between the GWML (if they went that way) and the terminal area plus a massive rebuild of the GWML plus finding a route through to, probably CTRL, logically via the Crossrail tunnels as you say (if they are suitable gauging wise?) .

 

Another interesting area is how long a train you use as I doubt the jumbo jet size passenger capacity of a Eurostar set would be ideal - when it was looked at previously one idea which was seriously developed was to turn Eurostar half sets into independent 9 car formations and that simultaneously answered numerous questions as it gave the client a size of train which matched their needs and it gave me twice as many sets to play with when trying to construct a halfway sensible service (although SNCF possession strategy on the LGV was, as ever, a downright nuisance when trying to put together a sensible trainplan).  But the whole idea fell by the wayside on numerous grounds - gauging in the tunnels, potential availability of trains to create the fleet, total inability to produce journey times which met the client's aspirations (this was pre-CTRL of course), and numerous insoluble (except for a high cost) line capacity problems on the GWML, all comnspired to cange the original client's mind.

 

I wouldn't say that it can't be done because i still think it was, and is, a great idea but it would cost a lot of money to do it.

[jonny777]

The facts contradict your argument when an entity you suggest doesn’t pay taxes does and is a UK company and not a US one! This is not pendantry.

 

All businesses seek to maximise profit. Try working for one that doesn’t. They soon won’t pay your wages. If you don’t work for a private sector entity, if private sector companies don’t make any profits, then the public sector won’t have any money to pay public sector workers or pay benefits etc etc.

 

 

I think that what you mean is that all *current* business seek to maximise profit. 

 

 

Try researching 19th century businesses. 

 

They maximised worker contentment....

[Fenman]

IIRC, the key factor about maintaining the attractiveness of the UK (or at least SE England) for locating international businesses, is the number of world destinations served directly. That issue scored highly and consistently in surveys of many businesses over many years. Currently, UK airports compare unfavourably with other European hubs on that score, due to non-availability of landing and take-off slots.

...

But that’s a matter of choice: airlines and the airport have decided it’s better to have two dozen flights a day to New York using 777s, rather than half that number using A380s. Same passenger numbers, but half the take off slots.

 

But no, they make more profit from more flights. It’s in (most of) their interests to increase landing capacity, and sod the externalities.

 

BA might be exempt from this: they have such a vast share of slots that they may have an interest in preventing more being made available (Air France sold a single pair of slots to Oman Air last year ... for $75m. BA has hundreds and hundreds of slots...).

 

And for most international businesses the current range of destinations offered is fine. In the last couple of years I’ve only had to interchange elsewhere when the flight itself was impossible in one leg (eg, London to Auckland), and only once when a reachable destination wasn’t served direct (Montevideo) - and I suspect my organisation is involved in more countries than the vast majority of international businesses (over 80). That vast majority will want lots of seats but to a relatively small number of key destinations - New York, Chicago, LA, Toronto, Tokyo, Delhi, Mumbai, Joburg, etc.

 

Your point about transfers at big airports is well made. I have no idea why it’s in our national interest to fly people from, say, LA to Delhi via LHR. Those passengers don’t even pay UK air duty on their tickets, unlike British businesses flying out people to generate income, so we are positively incentivising them to transfer here. Mystifying.

 

Paul

[Fenman]

Dublin is in the same time zone as the uk and the first language is English. That’s why it’s attractive. Ireland has also been cute in how it sets its corporate tax rates to attract business.

I agree with you.

 

Which suggests there are other factors that may be more important to most international businesses than the size of the local hub airport?

 

Paul

[Mike Storey]

But that’s a matter of choice: airlines and the airport have decided it’s better to have two dozen flights a day to New York using 777s, rather than half that number using A380s. Same passenger numbers, but half the take off slots.

 

But no, they make more profit from more flights. It’s in (most of) their interests to increase landing capacity, and sod the externalities.

 

BA might be exempt from this: they have such a vast share of slots that they may have an interest in preventing more being made available (Air France sold a single pair of slots to Oman Air last year ... for $75m. BA has hundreds and hundreds of slots...).

 

And for most international businesses the current range of destinations offered is fine. In the last couple of years I’ve only had to interchange elsewhere when the flight itself was impossible in one leg (eg, London to Auckland), and only once when a reachable destination wasn’t served direct (Montevideo) - and I suspect my organisation is involved in more countries than the vast majority of international businesses (over 80). That vast majority will want lots of seats but to a relatively small number of key destinations - New York, Chicago, LA, Toronto, Tokyo, Delhi, Mumbai, Joburg, etc.

 

Your point about transfers at big airports is well made. I have no idea why it’s in our national interest to fly people from, say, LA to Delhi via LHR. Those passengers don’t even pay UK air duty on their tickets, unlike British businesses flying out people to generate income, so we are positively incentivising them to transfer here. Mystifying.

 

Paul

 

All true, but I believe the deficiency out of Heathrow is to the number of different destinations in Asia, particularly China, direct.

[jjb1970]

They all have the same business model - maximise profits at the expense of the workforce/customer. 

 

This is often said, in fact it is said more and more but it is predicated on an assumption that maximising profit is incompatible with providing good service and/or a product which gives the customer the value/satisfaction they want and that a profitable company is incompatible with treating (which most see as meaning pay) their staff well.

 

Clearly there are companies out there which justify some of the stereotypes of corporate greed and questionable ethics but are they typical? Many of the most profitable companies attract the highest customer loyalty, that may be down to PR spin and clever marketing, or maybe it is also because companies like Apple have consistently supplied products that their customers want and are happy to pay for. I bought a Microsoft Surface Pro a few months ago as a lap top replacement, it was expensive and I could have spent an awful lot less but I like it and don't regret what I paid for it, whatever profit MS made out of me is their business as they've kept me a happy customer (sorry MS haters.....  ). I could go on, the world hates McDonalds and for some reason they are seen as the personification of corporate evil yet when I look at how busy their shops are they're obviously doing something right to retain a loyal customer base as cheap they aren't.

 

Equally with workers, I spent seven years working for a company which is famous in its industry for being a ruthless and very driven operator yet they treated me well and paid me well and they had a first class reputation for customer service. Again, yes they made a profit but they had a loyal staff who were paid well and were trusted by their customers, so why shouldn't they make a profit?

[Pacific231G]

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...

It would have to be a jolly big floating airport; at 20 000 ft the landing and take off ground speeds would be enormous. In fact I doubt if you'd be able to even get to take-off speed. (ground speed and air speed are very different and even in still air get a lot more different as altitude increases) Edited June 6, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Fenman]

All true, but I believe the deficiency out of Heathrow is to the number of different destinations in Asia, particularly China, direct.

Which is intriguing, because BA is currently *cutting* China destinations. They said that they’d rather work through code shares with Chinese airlines. Which suggests to me either it’s not foreseeably profitable (BA never having knowingly given up profit), or the bureaucratic hurdles are unbearable (which I would also believe).

 

I suppose there could be more long and thin routes to other Asian destinations, but I’m struggling to think of anywhere economically significant (or that could be) that isn’t already connected. And most of the secondary destinations are easily reached via the Middle East 3, who have earned a vast amount of that traffic (I often connect through Qatar or UAE).

 

Paul

[Clearwater]

I agree with you.

Which suggests there are other factors that may be more important to most international businesses than the size of the local hub airport?

Paul

Yes. It’s facile to suggest major business decisions are made on single factors. Ability to physically reach global locations is important - even in this day and age of teleconferences, video conferences etc, nothing quite replaces travelling to see somebody. Other factors include political stability, predictability of regulation, jurisdiction of courts/rule of law etc etc.

[Clearwater]

I think that what you mean is that all *current* business seek to maximise profit. 

 

 

Try researching 19th century businesses. 

 

They maximised worker contentment....

I just checked my calendar and it’s now the 21st century.

 

I have researched 19th century businesses. I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that they maximised worker contentment. Given working conditions were, by any definition harsh, and the condition and maltreatment of workers, including the use of child labour, led directly to the creation of organised labour (trade unions and ultimately the Labour Party, there is no way you can plausibly argue that 19th century businesses were better for workers than today. Check the 1847 factories act that limited child working hours to 63h per week for example to get an idea of working conditions. Look at the industrial accident statistics. On just about any measure, 19th century businesses were not subject to a fraction of the scrutiny of the 21st century. For every person who moans about their bad working conditions today, they should be grateful to live in today’s world: that’s not to say that bad conditions don’t exist today, in the uk and elesewhere, and that abuses of labour should be ignored and legislation further tighteneed but I’ve never heard anyone argue that going back to 19th century business practices would be an improvement.

[brianusa]

Of third runways! SeaTac recently went through this exercise with the same issues as quoted herein. Perhaps slightly different is that SeaTac is built in a location with householders mainly of modest means and the majority being in flats and main approaches can be flown over Puget Sound. But what of Heathrow? A lot of thirties semis built in better times have probably lost money over the years with each change of owners as sadly airports are not considered desirable neighbours. A relative living in Egham recently sold the house for a considerable sum even with planes landing more or less over the property.

In a similar vein, we have a smallish controlled airport mostly general aviation but even this generates the usual complaints even though the airport preceded the housing by many years. The main runway was recently lengthened for safety reasons and the ensuing howls would have done credit to the potential of flocks of 747s!

 

Brian.

[Ron Ron Ron]

...........(Am I right in thinking that they are showing a 6th terminal on those plans?).

 

 

I think there will be a 6th terminal at some point......

 

 

There are currently only 4 terminals at Heathrow. T2, 3, 4 & 5

The old Terminal 1 shut a few years ago and is slowly being emptied and demolished in sections.

 

Terminal 2 is a large brand new terminal (the much smaller old T2 was demolished to make way for it).

However, the new T2 is to be extended to almost double its current size, once the old T1 is finally cleared away.

This will pave the way for T3 to be eventually demolished, leaving the much enlarged T2 as the only terminal in the central area.

 

This will leave 3 terminals, currently named T2, 4 & 5.

For a time the proposed final T2 arrangement was named Heathrow East, with T5 re-named Heathrow West.

 

 

HAL's current proposal for R3 includes a new large terminal facility, which at times has been given the working title, Terminal 6.

This terminal will be built back-to-back with T5, between that terminal and the M25 motorway.

The proposal is that T5 & 6 will be connected together to form a large terminal hub.

 

Some aircraft parking stands will be co-located with T6, but the bulk of them are to be located on a terminal satellite complex, between the new runway and the current northern runway (09L/27R); connected to T6 by high speed transit link.

 

If all these plans come to fruition, then there will be 2 large terminal complexes (west and east), which leaves the question of whether there will be any future for T4.

 

 

.

[adb968008]

But that’s a matter of choice: airlines and the airport have decided it’s better to have two dozen flights a day to New York using 777s, rather than half that number using A380s. Same passenger numbers, but half the take off slots.

 

Wont work.

It’s the same effect as reducing the hourly class 153 on some branchline into 1 x 12 coach train twice a day..

It’s impractical.

 

As for moving hubs to other countries in Europe.. that’s the same argument as what benefit Clapham Junction is to Clapham.

It might not be a big place but people who live in Clapham have a wide variety of direct services, which they otherwise would not have.

 

Now it’s ok saying property prices are high in Clapham, so close the station, relocate it and sell the land... but why is the land value so high in the first place....perhaps it’s due to the station ?

 

Now if you were proposing a new tube line to increase access to London would you put it at Clapham Junction or Battersea Park ?

Edited June 6, 2018 by adb968008

[Mike Storey]

I think that what you mean is that all *current* business seek to maximise profit. 

 

 

Try researching 19th century businesses. 

 

They maximised worker contentment....

 

I regret Charles Dickens and several thousand others would completely disagree with you Jonny. For every Joseph Roundtree, or Bourneville (and they were very The Maids Tale in their approach to moral rectitude of their workers, and consistently used trucking as much as the next capitalist)  there were 10,000 others determined to sweat their assets to the final child or cripple. I do not understand how you reach your conclusion?

[jjb1970]

I just checked my calendar and it’s now the 21st century.

 

I have researched 19th century businesses. I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that they maximised worker contentment. Given working conditions were, by any definition harsh, and the condition and maltreatment of workers, including the use of child labour, led directly to the creation of organised labour (trade unions and ultimately the Labour Party, there is no way you can plausibly argue that 19th century businesses were better for workers than today. Check the 1847 factories act that limited child working hours to 63h per week for example to get an idea of working conditions. Look at the industrial accident statistics. On just about any measure, 19th century businesses were not subject to a fraction of the scrutiny of the 21st century. For every person who moans about their bad working conditions today, they should be grateful to live in today’s world: that’s not to say that bad conditions don’t exist today, in the uk and elesewhere, and that abuses of labour should be ignored and legislation further tighteneed but I’ve never heard anyone argue that going back to 19th century business practices would be an improvement.

 

 

For entirely selfish reasons I have a particular affection for Samuel Plimsoll and his work to improve safety at sea and the lot of seafarers in the 19th century. Anybody with an interest in 19th century working conditions and attitudes to safety could do a lot worse than read about Plimsoll and his work.

[Legend]

I think there will be a 6th terminal at some point. Otherwise flights could be facing long taxy times from terminal to runway. This is quite an issue in icy weather as deicing only lasts about 20 minutes as I recall.

 

Maybe convert the BA offices into a terminal!

 

Mark.

The BA offices will go. As I understand it there will be a new Terminal . Ultimately a remodelling of airport where Terminal 3 currently is to take form of the Terminal 5 satellites , presumably fed from the new terminal 2 building.

[Legend]

But that’s a matter of choice: airlines and the airport have decided it’s better to have two dozen flights a day to New York using 777s, rather than half that number using A380s. Same passenger numbers, but half the take off slots.

But no, they make more profit from more flights. It’s in (most of) their interests to increase landing capacity, and sod the externalities.

BA might be exempt from this: they have such a vast share of slots that they may have an interest in preventing more being made available (Air France sold a single pair of slots to Oman Air last year ... for $75m. BA has hundreds and hundreds of slots...).

And for most international businesses the current range of destinations offered is fine. In the last couple of years I’ve only had to interchange elsewhere when the flight itself was impossible in one leg (eg, London to Auckland), and only once when a reachable destination wasn’t served direct (Montevideo) - and I suspect my organisation is involved in more countries than the vast majority of international businesses (over 80). That vast majority will want lots of seats but to a relatively small number of key destinations - New York, Chicago, LA, Toronto, Tokyo, Delhi, Mumbai, Joburg, etc.

Your point about transfers at big airports is well made. I have no idea why it’s in our national interest to fly people from, say, LA to Delhi via LHR. Those passengers don’t even pay UK air duty on their tickets, unlike British businesses flying out people to generate income, so we are positively incentivising them to transfer here. Mystifying.

Paul

Re your point on frequencies , I don’t think you are correct. In fact it costs more in landing charges, crew fuel etc to fly 2 777s instead of one A380. The point is that the customer requires high frequency during the day and not to be herded on a few large capacity flights at a time suitable to the airline. And if Heathrow can’t provide it, Schipol ,Frankfurt and Paris certainly can . This is why A380s are struggling to get more orders in comparison to Boeing 787, 777, Airbus A330neo and Airbus A350 . The customer wants high frequencies and to go when suits him or her Edited June 6, 2018 by Legend