Outside Influences

[Dobbo]

There is a lot of material. I'll have to take a look and work out how much of it is genuine policy rather than background noise to the LHR expansion.

EDIT: the Times seems to think this is bad news for LHR...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-runway-doubt-after-new-data-revealed-bmldf09mm

 

[Aceshigh]

This is clearly a "softening " up exercise for a retreat re Heathrow.

It's in The Times which is considered most influential re Government policy.
I suspect Graying who has been trumpeting Heathrow may well have been caught pants down re the eyewatering taxpayer subsidy, an amount now well outside Government spending.

The one thing which is stagerring is the fact that Manchester is finally recognised as the only show in town outside London.

It's beyond belief that the Government has taken so long to recognise this is a win win in terms of being seen to re energis the North with a mega project which unlike Heathrow, HS2, Hinckley etc is a headlone grabber which brings massive expansion of jobs but won't cost them a penny.

They can take all the credit at zero cost!

 

[Dobbo]

Trouble the government have is that they specified the need for one runway. They have hitched their waggon to LHR which their own figures now show to be the weaker case. If they press on and "decide" to approve LHR the government would be exposed to a Judicial Review which, if successful, would mean they have to start the process again from scratch.

It is interesting that the forecasts for MAN's passenger numbers alter little whether LHR, LGW, or neither are expanded.

 

[User001]

It's also interesting to see that the view Manchester as the one airport that will have capacity slack in the system by 2050

 

[Dobbo]

There is a comment in some of the forecasting documents stating that it is assumed MAN would increase runway capacity in the 2030s and the increase in available capacity is a result of this increased supply rather than a decrease in demand.

Does this mean a more comprehensive taxiway system, better control of airspace, or a third runway?

 

[Coathanger16]

Does this mean a more comprehensive taxiway system, better control of airspace, or a third runway?

How many movements can the current two runways take assuming that both were to be used all day? I suspect that would allow for a large increase over current passenger numbers.

I doubt a third runway would be involved - where would it be located? If placed further to the south that would mean aircraft taxing passed/across two live runways - not a very efficient system.

The aviation industry is a very difficult one to predict. At the turn of the century did anyone predict Dubai to be the busiest international airport in the world? Or that low cost carriers would expand successfully into long haul? The benefits stated in these consultation documents will likely be based on an extrapolation of the current trend in aviation. Whose to say that's what will happen?

As @Dobbo pointed out, the government have shot themselves in the foot by sticking to the "only one new runway is needed" idea. Whilst yes we do need a national aviation policy, shouldn't the expansion of individual airports be considered on a case by case basis?

 

[Land23R]

Isn't there a quote somewhere in that article which suggests that Grayling is still gung-ho about Heathrow and R3?
It will be interesting to see in the final outcome whether he, R3, or both are sacrificed, or indeed neither. That's assuming Grayling hasn't gone well before that.

I've been of the view that a R3 at LHR would impact on MAN to a degree. Not necessarily losing some of our own long haul services but rather not securing routes that we might otherwise have done. Possible domestic feeder flights to LHR from LPL, Teesside, Doncaster & Humberside for example could also affect MAN at the margins. Maybe a second runway at LWG would have less impact on MAN, although some might argue that extra aircraft based at an expanded LGW by the likes of Easyjet or Ryanair could mean that aircraft were not available for expansion elsewhere. It would depend on where airlines could achieve the better yields and profits.

 

[Land23R]

This is clearly a "softening " up exercise for a retreat re Heathrow.

It's in The Times which is considered most influential re Government policy.

Interesting point. I tend to think it's the Telegraph that is regarded as the voice of the Tory Party, or at least it was.
Of the 2 papers, my impression is the Times was always against LHR expansion whereas the DT in its Editorials was more in favour. Whether either actually influences Government policy is a moot point.

 

[Aceshigh]

Rather than watch Alan Sugar demolish the contestants on The Apprenice why not watch Ruth Cadbury MP demolish the case for Heathrow


http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c25a1c18-297e-4fbd-b0bc-e4be1eacbcac

 

[Aceshigh]

Have just seen a post on the "other" forum referencing Lillian Greenwood and her support for Heathrow. She is Chairperson of the Transport Committee and is supposed to be impartial but reading the various pronouncements on her ordenation she seems to be full throttle for Heathrow and damn the sentiment re cost.

As Ruth Cadbury MP said in her address last night, it's another slug of money for London which will diminish regional infastructure spend.

Given Latest Dft figures now suggest Gatwick would provide a better ROI I wander how the Transport Committee will handle this ?

Incidentally given there is no public money for Manchester it's ROI for the nation must be pretty damn good!

 

[Aceshigh]

Excellent analysis by Micheal Buerk on CH4 dispatches this evening comparing ;

An overheating capital
Net migration from The North > South
Transportation investment imbalance
Internal Party Politics

Its available on ALL4 as a download.
Highly recommended for scholars interested in geo political / economic factors in the North which ultimately effect Manchester Airport.

Main focus was comparisons of Liverpool and London although Manchester did get swept up in the general malaise.

Generally well balanced although why we have to show London with a breezy buzz whilst a shot of Manchester was preceeded by a low level shot of a puddle is beyond me.

I can understand the prgramme makers wanting to give the inference of under investment but Manchester is very much the exception with billions of foriegn investment pouring in , it is the exception to the rule.

That should have been recognised and was the only black mark. 9/10.

Somehow there has to be the political will from all parties to stop the focus on London and roll that out across the North (and indeed the Midlands NE and SW).

Ps you were. One of the main planks of the programme was the net migration to London from the North.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

The City which is the most popular for graduates in the UK and the one which most graduates polarise to is Manchester.
Not London.

 

[Aceshigh]

I wonder what the betting is on moving Grayling to Defence?

With seemingly most of the cabinet unable to keep their collective pants on , Grayling appears to be a beacon of probity.

That of course means a new incumbent at Transport re Heathrow /Crossrail North etc.

PS ah well it's the Chief Whip to Defence.
So close but so far.

 

[Aceshigh]

Rumours of Hurn sale.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...one_Britain_s_richest_men_seen_visiting_site/

 

[Aceshigh]

So pleased that at least Yorkshire is leading the charge on chronic transport underspend!

Pity the Manchester Evening News didn't even report the story.

It's not just Grayling who should be called to account where the hell are our local MPs?


http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...e-is-insult-to-all-of-yorkshire-1-8843833/amp

 

[Dobbo]

To illustrate his point he talked about LHR having something like 4 routes to china, whereas AMS (8) and FRA (5) have more. This was portrayed as a travesty because of the number of international airlines queuing up to get access to LHR.

This ignores the reality of the situation:

1. Chengdu was tried by BA and failed.
2. Airlines seem to get slots when they want them. For example Jet got new slots recently, as did JAL.

This apparent willfull deception, from a generally reputable politician, goes to show the absurdity of the LHR "debate". Crazy.

 

[Coathanger16]

This ignores the reality of the situation:

1. Chengdu was tried by BA and failed.
2. Airlines seem to get slots when they want them. For example Jet got new slots recently, as did JAL.

1. So because BA "failed", more flights to Heathrow from China aren't important? Chengdu is one city - there are plenty more in China, many of which have links to other European Capitals but not London. The only other European airline to fly to Chengdu is KLM which had already long been established when BA arrived. Paris and Frankfurt are both served by Air China - I'd wager if Air China had flown the route it would have been more successful as it was already a well known brand in Chengdu as well as in London from its flights to Beijing.

2. Airlines sell and trade Heathrow slots between each other, often between close partners or other airlines within their alliance, and often to airlines that already have slots at Heathrow. For airlines new to Heathrow it is all but impossible for them to get slots. I seem to recall Vietnam Airlines was the first airline to gain slots at Heathrow in something like 10 years.

Whilst congratulations are due to Manchester for achieving a very successful route to Beijing, and whilst other routes to China (e.g. Shanghai & Guangzhou) should be encouraged, it is highly unlikely that Manchester will be able to get links to new Chinese markets. By that I mean markets such as Beijing, Shanghai & Guangzhou are already well established in Europe.

How many passengers from MAN's catchment use LHR to travel to China (& Asia in general)? With the MEB3, Singapore, Cathay and Hainan operating direct from MAN I'd guess relatively few. As such any new route from MAN to China will a). likely be successful and b). not greatly affect the demand for routes to China/Asia from Heathrow.

 

[David_itl]

How many passengers from MAN's catchment use LHR to travel to China (& Asia in general)? With the MEB3, Singapore, Cathay and Hainan operating direct from MAN I'd guess relatively few. As such any new route from MAN to China will a). likely be successful and b). not greatly affect the demand for routes to China/Asia from Heathrow.

Err... we are being sold the idea the WITHOUT a new runway, there will be no new Chinese routes. That clown stated airlines are going to other European hubs and not alternative UK airports. If that is the case, why is Tianjin connected to just Gatwick and Moscow in Europe. If he cannot get that basic fact find right, it is best to ignore all that he says. It also implies that LHR access is NOT the be all and end all for London access if we are to disregard passengers connecting over LHR to new routes.

 

[Coathanger16]

Err... we are being sold the idea the WITHOUT a new runway, there will be no new Chinese routes. That clown stated airlines are going to other European hubs and not alternative UK airports. If that is the case, why is Tianjin connected to just Gatwick and Moscow in Europe. If he cannot get that basic fact find right, it is best to ignore all that he says. It also implies that LHR access is NOT the be all and end all for London access if we are to disregard passengers connecting over LHR to new routes.

Hangzhou
Xi'an
Chengdu
Kunming
Xiamen
Shenzhen
Changsha

6 destinations in China that Chinese carriers serve from the continent but not from the UK. How likely is it that any of these routes will be served from Manchester in the near future? Yes Tianjin fly to Gatwick - twice weekly. If Heathrow gets a new runway what are the odds that that route will move to Heathrow and increase in frequency? I think the point that Lord Adonis is trying to make is Heathrow is the airport that has the best chance of securing those routes, and as I say how likely is it that those routes or other as yet unserved Chinese routes will be launched from another UK airport, especially as Gatwick too is practically full.

Yes if UK businesses want to do business with companies in those cities they will find a way to get there and make it work. But if a Chinese company based in Changsha is weighing up doing business with a firm in London or one in Frankfurt, having a direct route will very much play into Frankfurt's advantage.

I am aware that this is the Hianan thread so perhaps we should switch the focus back to there - is the rule that only one Chinese carrier can operate a route still in effect? If I recall Air China still hold the rights for Shanghai to Manchester thereby preventing Hainan from operating it, but does any airline hold the rights for Guangzhou to Manchester?

 

[Dobbo]

Hangzhou
Xi'an
Chengdu
Kunming
Xiamen
Shenzhen
Changsha

6 destinations in China that Chinese carriers serve from the continent but not from the UK.

We already know that Chengdu is not served because it is not commercially viable.

Are you really advocating that the UK taxpayer justify underwriting £30 odd billion of private investment, on top of spending anywhere between £5 - £20 billion (depending on who you believe) on surface access schemes based on a route we know is not commercially viable?

We also know that slots have become available for Mumbai and Tokyo recently, two very large markets. Why do you suppose they became available for those routes and not somewhere like Xian, Xiamen, Shenzhen, or Changsha? It's because they are commercially viable.

The "emerging markets" argument will be discarded as soon as convenient to do so because airlines will make more money on established routes.

 

[Land23R]

Excellent points Dobbo. I agree.

I think the idea that we would see a boom in new destinations and increased frequencies to China from London if only R3 is built at LHR is as disingenious as the claim that airports such as Teesside, Carlisle and Dundee would get frequent daily flights to Heathrow. Even Davies seemed to suggest such expansion to emerging markets would be limited as I recall.

I suspect the latest report indicating that LGW would show a better return at lower cost has stung the LHR propagandist machine into action. Mind you, I still feel R3 would get the nod in Parliament because MPs in certain regions of the UK have been conned, sorry, persuaded by the connectivity argument to all and everywhere.

Back to Hainan. I must admit I am more cautious than some on how flights to China from MAN might develop.
The linked report indicated that the MAN-PEK flights are being used by pax to access other regions of mainland China. That's fine in many respects but it would be more encouraging if the existing flights were regularly full or over-booked and while the LFs have been good overall and well above budget, there appears to be significant seasonal variations and an acknowledgement that Business traffic needs to grow, suggesting yields may not be great. We just don't know.

Meanwhile, does anyone know the current status re Shanghai?