Birmingham Airport - General Thread

[Paulsstrange]

The airport have just announced investment in facilities this winter...included is rectifying issues relating to baggage handling

 

[Coathanger16]

The airport have just announced investment in facilities this winter...included is rectifying issues relating to baggage handling

Much needed and long overdue.

The BBC article states "upgrade the baggage screening systems so they can double the speed luggage can be processed" - will this improve outbound and inbound bags? From experience outbound hasn't been a problem. Inbound is where improvements are needed.

 

[Coathanger16]

I hope that I have not irritated

Not at all! Its good to have these discussions - clearly someone at BHX management has taken notice, hence the recently announced improvements.

I recall when travel was relative to the time endured before the current standard of everything upon demand that is relevant to the Digital Age

I'm still a relative young'un but I remember having to arrive at the airport 3+ hours before your flight as it would take almost that long standing in a queue to check-in - I am very glad that this has changed. It seems that no matter what you do, someone somewhere still won't be happy.

"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all of the time"​

 

[Just Birmingham]

With the Conservative party conference coming to Birmingham this weekend I hope fellow Brummies will be vociferous with PK , local MPs and media re stopping the Heathrow bandwagon.

It seem Theresa May is minded to go for Heathrow.

I think this will kill Birmingham especially when HS2 starts. Why in earth would you fly from Birmingham when you can be in London and Heathrow in less than an hour even with a change of train, lots of frequency and price dumping fares.

AND why should people North of Watford pay for this when we have our own airports here, at Manchester and even Edinburgh !

I read on another popular forum on their Heathrow thread that they are holding out the begging bowl for £12,000,000,000m from the taxpayer !

That is astonishing more than cost of the Channel Tunnel.

 

[Coathanger16]

AND why should people North of Watford pay for this when we have our own airports here, at Manchester and even Edinburgh !

When I lived in Southampton for a year, I heard the same argument about HS2 from people living there - "we won't use it or benefit from it, so why should we pay for it" - some were actually using it to justify voting for UKIP.

I read on another popular forum on their Heathrow thread that they are holding out the begging bowl for £12,000,000,000m from the taxpayer !

The cost of expansion at Heathrow is disputed by pretty much everyone involved. The cost of the airport expansion itself it widely accepted as costing £18bn-19bn - the airport has said all of this will be funded privately by their investors and payed for by passenger charges.

The dispute about cost is from the surface access side of things. Heathrow have said they'll contribute £1bn to upgrade any surface access. The commission estimated that necessary upgrades would cost £5bn. TfL (at the time working for Boris Johnson - a well known opponent of Heathrow expansion) have stated that the most optimal surface access would require £15bn-20bn worth of upgrades. Having read into TfL's estimate, I am yet to see a full breakdown of how much each upgrade will cost. I have also read that included in TfL's calculations was that they expected LHR to pay for a large portion if not all of the maintenance costs for the M25 and M4 closest to the airport and all local roads. Seeming as airport traffic is a relatively small percentage of total users on the motorways at least, is that really justified? It seems as if TfL have said if a LHR passenger uses it, Heathrow must contribute to the pot. This would include HS2 & Crossrail 2. How much of the pot of each TfL have suggested Heathrow should pay is unclear, but I suspect as they probably used a un-proportionally high percentage.

In essence, Heathrow aren't holding out the begging bowl at all because they feel it's not required.

Considering the Western Rail Link to Heathrow is being costed at £500m and already committed, the only other future rail upgrades that aren't committed yet is the Southern rail access. I can't see that costing more than £500m either. Heathrow have now proposed bridging the M25 with the runway instead of tunneling the M25 - this is likely to cut the cost by a significant amount.

A list of potential projects required for expansion to my knowledge are:

1). Southern rail link - ~£500m
2). M4 upgrades - ~£1bn (being very generous)
3). M25 upgrades - ~£1bn (being very generous)
4). Piccadilly line upgrade - ~£1bn

Just with these four projects the cost of surface access is £3.5bn. I at least find it hard to imagine what on earth would cost £20bn or even as "Just Birmingham" suggested £12bn.

As a local I support expansion at Birmingham. However I accept that Heathrow plays a role in UK aviation that no other airport in the UK can, hence why I also support expansion at Heathrow.

I don't personally think that a third runway at Heathrow will affect current long haul flights at Birmingham:

New York - Heathrow already has close to 30 daily flights to New York. It has often been claimed that London - New York has too much capacity, so I don't think it likely that United would dump its 1 flight to Birmingham in favour of a new one to Heathrow.

Indian & Pakistan destinations - these flights serve local populations of both Indians and Pakistani's and would therefore be unlikely to be affected by a third runway.

Emirates & Qatar - Emirates at least (and most likely Qatar) are both very interested in serving regional airports - these flights are also unlikely to disappear.

Short haul flights - passengers will typically fly to wherever their local airports has routes to. Your unlikely to get someone travelling from Manchester to Heathrow to fly to Brussels say.

The only impact a third runway at Heathrow would have on Birmingham would be potentially putting of airlines launching routes to Birmingham in favour of launching them from Heathrow. To me this would suggest that an airline would only launch flights to Birmingham because it couldn't get into Heathrow. This is very unlikely - Heathrow have stated on numerous occasions that they have 30 airlines wanting to launch new routes or increase frequencies on current ones. Why aren't they using Birmingham in the meantime?

Demand alone for a flight isn't sufficient to warrant an airline launching a route - there needs to be sufficient demand. For some reason legacy airlines aren't too keen on launching just 1x weekly flights - the minimum is usually 3x weekly. Therefore for a route to Hong Kong say, assuming a 250 seat aircraft, there would need to be 1,500 people wanting to fly to and from Hong Kong every week. There may be 5000 people in the Birmingham area travelling to Heathrow or Manchester for flights to Hong Kong but if each of them are only going once or twice a year say, there isn't sufficient demand to launch regular flights. I seem to recall hearing that the majority of passengers on the summer charter flights to Beijing were Chinese passengers coming here.

Even if the government does go for Heathrow, a new runway is still 10 years away. Birmingham - the city and airport - can do a lot in that time to put itself out there and market Birmingham as a destination in its own right.

Apologies for the rather long rant - I'm sure I could probably write a book on Heathrow/Airport expansion, though I don't many would read it! Haha

 

[BHXsupporter]

Over the w/e I wrote a letter trying to shame our local MP (Cotswolds) into making a statement of support for BHX while 'on duty' at the Conservative Conference in B'ham. No response as yet.

 

[Jon Dempsey]

When I lived in Southampton for a year, I heard the same argument about HS2 from people living there - "we won't use it or benefit from it, so why should we pay for it" - some were actually using it to justify voting for UKIP.



The cost of expansion at Heathrow is disputed by pretty much everyone involved. The cost of the airport expansion itself it widely accepted as costing £18bn-19bn - the airport has said all of this will be funded privately by their investors and payed for by passenger charges.

The dispute about cost is from the surface access side of things. Heathrow have said they'll contribute £1bn to upgrade any surface access. The commission estimated that necessary upgrades would cost £5bn. TfL (at the time working for Boris Johnson - a well known opponent of Heathrow expansion) have stated that the most optimal surface access would require £15bn-20bn worth of upgrades. Having read into TfL's estimate, I am yet to see a full breakdown of how much each upgrade will cost. I have also read that included in TfL's calculations was that they expected LHR to pay for a large portion if not all of the maintenance costs for the M25 and M4 closest to the airport and all local roads. Seeming as airport traffic is a relatively small percentage of total users on the motorways at least, is that really justified? It seems as if TfL have said if a LHR passenger uses it, Heathrow must contribute to the pot. This would include HS2 & Crossrail 2. How much of the pot of each TfL have suggested Heathrow should pay is unclear, but I suspect as they probably used a un-proportionally high percentage.

In essence, Heathrow aren't holding out the begging bowl at all because they feel it's not required.

Considering the Western Rail Link to Heathrow is being costed at £500m and already committed, the only other future rail upgrades that aren't committed yet is the Southern rail access. I can't see that costing more than £500m either. Heathrow have now proposed bridging the M25 with the runway instead of tunneling the M25 - this is likely to cut the cost by a significant amount.

A list of potential projects required for expansion to my knowledge are:

1). Southern rail link - ~£500m
2). M4 upgrades - ~£1bn (being very generous)
3). M25 upgrades - ~£1bn (being very generous)
4). Piccadilly line upgrade - ~£1bn

Just with these four projects the cost of surface access is £3.5bn. I at least find it hard to imagine what on earth would cost £20bn or even as "Just Birmingham" suggested £12bn.

As a local I support expansion at Birmingham. However I accept that Heathrow plays a role in UK aviation that no other airport in the UK can, hence why I also support expansion at Heathrow.

I don't personally think that a third runway at Heathrow will affect current long haul flights at Birmingham:

New York - Heathrow already has close to 30 daily flights to New York. It has often been claimed that London - New York has too much capacity, so I don't think it likely that United would dump its 1 flight to Birmingham in favour of a new one to Heathrow.

Indian & Pakistan destinations - these flights serve local populations of both Indians and Pakistani's and would therefore be unlikely to be affected by a third runway.

Emirates & Qatar - Emirates at least (and most likely Qatar) are both very interested in serving regional airports - these flights are also unlikely to disappear.

Short haul flights - passengers will typically fly to wherever their local airports has routes to. Your unlikely to get someone travelling from Manchester to Heathrow to fly to Brussels say.

The only impact a third runway at Heathrow would have on Birmingham would be potentially putting of airlines launching routes to Birmingham in favour of launching them from Heathrow. To me this would suggest that an airline would only launch flights to Birmingham because it couldn't get into Heathrow. This is very unlikely - Heathrow have stated on numerous occasions that they have 30 airlines wanting to launch new routes or increase frequencies on current ones. Why aren't they using Birmingham in the meantime?

Demand alone for a flight isn't sufficient to warrant an airline launching a route - there needs to be sufficient demand. For some reason legacy airlines aren't too keen on launching just 1x weekly flights - the minimum is usually 3x weekly. Therefore for a route to Hong Kong say, assuming a 250 seat aircraft, there would need to be 1,500 people wanting to fly to and from Hong Kong every week. There may be 5000 people in the Birmingham area travelling to Heathrow or Manchester for flights to Hong Kong but if each of them are only going once or twice a year say, there isn't sufficient demand to launch regular flights. I seem to recall hearing that the majority of passengers on the summer charter flights to Beijing were Chinese passengers coming here.

Even if the government does go for Heathrow, a new runway is still 10 years away. Birmingham - the city and airport - can do a lot in that time to put itself out there and market Birmingham as a destination in its own right.

Apologies for the rather long rant - I'm sure I could probably write a book on Heathrow/Airport expansion, though I don't many would read it! Haha

Blimey, that was an essay Judge Jenny would be proud of !!


(Apologies ch & jj) ;-)

 

[IanFarquharson]

THE CEO of Birmingham Airport, Paul Kehoe, has been appointed as the new president of the Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce.

He succeeds Greg Lowson, head of Pinsent Masons, who has completed his two-year tenure in the post.

Mr Kehoe told the chamber’s AGM he had a three-point pledge for his two-year term.

“My theme is going to be geography, scale and our place in the world. I took that decision when I was interviewed for the position three years ago and it seems to have been quite prophetic given what has happened with Brexit, the Combined Authority and Midlands Engine,” he said.

“We now have a very different role in the world outside Europe. If you look on a world map you may get four UK cities – London, Edinburgh and Belfast, and possibly Birmingham.

“So we have to look at the best asset we in the Midlands have to sell to the world and that is name Birmingham.”

He said this did not denigrate anywhere else in the region, but what people bought into on a world stage is a place.

“What would be really good would be to get people from around the world saying how good we are and stating the Birmingham city region is the place to do business. And getting the city’s name out there is even more important post-Brexit.

“It’s increasingly important connecting ourselves to the world. For me, it’s not just about the airport, it’s about connectivity and promoting Birmingham as the great place to do business,” he added.

With an eye to the combined presence of the region and its new constitution post-Brexit, he added that there was now a great opportunity for Birmingham, Coventry & Warwickshire and the Black Country chambers to all work together.

He also paid tribute to his predecessor.

“Greg’s two years have been full of achievement and enthusiasm for the chamber and one of his outstanding successes has been the creation of CSRCity (Corporate Social Responsibility City), which has forged closer links between business and the education sector to work towards ensuring we are training people with the right skills,” he said.

Paul Faulkner, GBCC chief executive, said: “Paul is already an important figure in the fortunes of the Midlands.

“Paul is a regional business leader with a global perspective, and as such is perfectly positioned to take on the president’s role at the chamber at this moment in time.”

 

[Butty]

Quite a swipe at the WMCA or whatever it is called. I am not even sure about Greater Birmingham. You don't, after all hear about Greater Barcelona or Greater New York. The brand is one word: Birmingham.

Hope PKs tenure is a successful one. Busy man.

 

[Just Birmingham]

Coathanger

If PK thinks Heathrow is an utter waste of money well sorry he is wiser than both of us so I'm sorry but I tend to agree.
Nearly every Birmingham based business leader also agrees.

The £12bn figure came from the Airport Commission.

Only 65% of Heathrow passengers are actually flying to London 23m fly in and tjen well out , sum investment in UK

"a burger if we are lucky" !

At least Birmingham is UK owned. ....as well!

 

[JENNYJET]

49% UK ownership and 48.25% AGIL ( combined Australian and Canadian pension funds and investment funds ).

Information courtesy of Airportwatch.org.UK.

 

[JENNYJET]

.....the remaining shares presumably held by airport staff.

 

[richard winterbourn]

Of course Butty is right, you never hear of greater Barcelona et al; and PK is right to focus on the name of Birmingham and not the West Midlands or any other regional configuration. Over a century ago it was the name of Birmingham that was known world-wide - 'Made in Birmingham' was stamped on thousands of individual items and it was a mark of quality.

This region's future must surely be sought and achieved under the title of Birmingham, still the second most populated city in the whole of the UK - and still a city respected across the globe.

 

[nancledre]

Interesting postings above, but the biggest problem this region has is the petty-fogging attitudes of the surrounding areas and particularly their politicians. If you don't believe that, suggest to someone from Smethwick they come from near Birmingham and you will get a tirade that amongst other words will include Black Country not Birmingham. Me, I am a firm believer that the brand is Birmingham - but will the Peoples Republics of Walsall and Sandwell ever buy into that? Probably not. I wish PK every success and for the futures of my children and grandchildren I hope he continues to bang the Birmingham drum.

 

[JENNYJET]

Having digested some of the above, I offer my take upon Mr. Kehoe, the West Midlands Combined Authority and the City of Birmingham UK.

Mr Kehoe is a businessman, he runs a successful Airport with major challenges and is doing his level best in dealing with historical malaise and a changing aviation theatre.

He is NOT a political punching ball!

He has taken the Chambers of Commerce position with good intentions but why not when the position was available previously...he was interviewed!!! Why the need to 'interview'?

Reference was made as to 'Greater Birmingham' in similar references to Gtr. London and Gtr. Manchester because these are large cities with numerous other smaller cities and towns in close proximity. In my case, I live in Worcestershire, close to a medium sized Redditch close to a major city. I have a B96 postcode and my local borough council has agreed to be associate members of the WMCA for the purposes of the elected Mayor. This would make me a resident of 'Greater Birmingham', similar to a resident of the city of Salford belonging to Greater Manchester or a resident of Hammersmith and Fulham, distinct communities being within Greater London. I personally do not give a hoot as long as my bins are emptied regularly and the police attend to a disturbance or road traffic accident.

I once lived within Smethwick and worked in Blackheath and thought it invigorating to be amongt the fiercest proponents of their independence of Birmingham.

The current political priority appears to be the 'Midlands Engine', not the Birmingham Engine as it has been assumed by some commentators, what about Stoke, Worcester, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester? Much has been the political waffle, little has been substantive thus far however Mr Kehoe may wish he stuck with the airport job!!

 

[nwoody2001]

We are going off topic here, apologies Ray but a few facts to consider ....

- The Chamber or Commerce is not a political body and is an organisation set to represent private organisations within a region. There is no political role within the chamber

- the post of president is a fixed-term position, and like any president, has to be elected by members. He may have been interviewed, but that will have simply influenced whether he is a suitable candidate

- there are 2 chamber being confused here. There is a 'Birmingham Chamber or Commerce' which represents businesses only based in Birmingham, there is also the 'Greater Birmingham Chamber of Commerce' which PK is now president of which represents larger companies with a more strategic cover in the region!

...that is all!

 

[JENNYJET]

.....er...?

 

[Coathanger16]

If PK thinks Heathrow is an utter waste of money well sorry he is wiser than both of us

Whilst I admit he has far more experience than I do, remember his views and what he wants will reflect what is best for his company, not necessarily what is best for the country.

The £12bn figure came from the Airport Commission.

The airports commission estimated that the third runway would cost £17.6bn (privately financed) and that surface access would cost £5bn - Heathrow have said they'd contribute £1bn, which would leave £4bn to be paid for by government.

Page 224, Tables 11.1 & 11.2:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf

sum investment in UK

"a burger if we are lucky" !

Ahh, yet another person that doesn't understand the concept of a hub. Whilst yes, a passenger just changing planes at Heathrow will spend little on "a burger", the true benefit of these passengers to UK PLC is that they make many more routes viable that otherwise wouldn't be. Before you spout anything about that being rubbish, just look at the facts. Heathrow has been full for a decade whilst Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Birmingham & Manchester airports have all had spare capacity. Whilst some airlines have set up long haul routes to these airports in that time, none have attracted numbers of long haul flights anywhere near to the levels seen at Heathrow; and most if not all of these routes have been to destinations already served by Heathrow.

At least Birmingham is UK owned. ....as well!

May I direct you to:

49% UK ownership and 48.25% AGIL ( combined Australian and Canadian pension funds and investment funds )

 

[Kevin Farnell]

Ahh, yet another person that doesn't understand the concept of a hub. Whilst yes, a passenger just changing planes at Heathrow will spend little on "a burger", the true benefit of these passengers to UK PLC is that they make many more routes viable that otherwise wouldn't be.

I'm sure that we all understand the theory of LHR as a hub. It must however be remembered that other hubs are also available. Amsterdam, Doha, Dubai, Frankfurt, Keflavik, Lisbon, Madrid and Paris spring to mind. All of these are available from BHX, serving Birmingham and the West Midlands (and even further afield), without the horrendous land journey to LHR (not to mention the return if feeling jet lagged).
By flying from BHX via any of the previously mentioned hubs, I am still contributing to UK PLC and more importantly, local jobs.
The last thing that I want to do, is have to travel to LHR or MAN to get a flight.
I support BHX.

Kevin

 

[Coathanger16]

Kevin - of course what you said is true. I myself get frustrated by people when they complain that when they live in Manchester its unfair to "force" them to fly from Heathrow. In reality they aren't forced to - as you said they can fly from Manchester to any other hubs.

My comment was in response to the previous poster who claimed that there were effectively no benefits to having a hub.

I support BHX

As do I. Furthermore I support a system whereby no airport is prioritized over others. Equally I don't support constraining one airport in order to encourage airlines to use others.