Outside Influences

[Dobbo]

I think expecting an overnight boom in traffic to/from China and the North of England is as optimistic as the assertions of LHR cheerleaders - albeit on a smaller scale.

This report (and I have not read the full version) certainly suggests they are having a positive impact across the north, but we must ensure that they remain viable/profitable for HU otherwise they are at risk of being cut.

 

[Coathanger16]

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.

Perhaps because the likes of Xian, Xiamen, Shenzhen, or Changsha will likely currently only be served by a smaller Chinese airline that can't afford to buy slots at LHR from other airlines. That doesn't mean that those routes are not commercially viable. BA & VS are very heavily focused on N.America. Given slot restrictions, any new slot that say Air China acquire they'd likely want to use to add another frequency to Beijing.

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

Airlines that already operate at Heathrow yes. Provide new slots and new airlines will start to fly there. Perhaps not overnight, but you're living with your head in the sand if you deny Heathrow slots aren't valuable to pretty much every airline.

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.

Interesting isn't it. A report that says expanding LGW would provide a better return emerges and everyone jumps on the band wagon without questioning the validity of the report. Another report that says expanding LHR would provide a better return is published and the accuracy of the report is immediately called into question and the findings dismissed out of hand.

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?

£30 billion? The latest figures I believe for LHR 3R are £18 billion. Heathrow is investigating ways of reducing that, and the Arora group has suggested the figure could be cut by c. £6bn to around £12 billion. As for £5-20bn for surface access, it could be argued that all of those schemes would vastly improve the situation even if the third runway doesn't go ahead. And are you suggesting that expanding Heathrow would only generate one new route which you claim to be commercially un-viable? British Airways tried it and found it didn't work for them. So? BA have limited slots at Heathrow. If BA thought that the aircraft operating that route could be better used elsewhere they'd send it elsewhere.

 

[Dobbo]

Perhaps because the likes of Xian, Xiamen, Shenzhen, or Changsha will likely currently only be served by a smaller Chinese airline that can't afford to buy slots at LHR from other airlines. That doesn't mean that those routes are not commercially viable. BA & VS are very heavily focused on N.America. Given slot restrictions, any new slot that say Air China acquire they'd likely want to use to add another frequency to Beijing.

One airline one route. This ignores the fact that BA, with spare slots, the right equipment, and located in the worlds largest O&D market tried Chengdu and found it to be commercially unviable. The slot remains open to them to use at Chengdu, or any of the other cities you mention but they choose not to use them.

As much as Adonis, LHR management and the rest of the LHR cheerleaders claim it will open new markets, the evidence points squarely that it will not and they cannot force BA or any other carrier to do so.

Airlines that already operate at Heathrow yes. Provide new slots and new airlines will start to fly there. Perhaps not overnight, but you're living with your head in the sand if you deny Heathrow slots aren't valuable to pretty much every airline.

The slots are valuable because they are scarce. Flood the market with new slots at LHR, and they become less valuable.

Interesting isn't it. A report that says expanding LGW would provide a better return emerges and everyone jumps on the band wagon without questioning the validity of the report. Another report that says expanding LHR would provide a better return is published and the accuracy of the report is immediately called into question and the findings dismissed out of hand.

Heathrow has hung its hat on the connectivity and economic arguments. The latest report completely undermines Heathrow's cornerstone in favour of expansion. It's little surprise it has been seized upon by opponents who have previously thought they had to hand their hat on the environmental argument.

£30 billion? The latest figures I believe for LHR 3R are £18 billion. Heathrow is investigating ways of reducing that, and the Arora group has suggested the figure could be cut by c. £6bn to around £12 billion. As for £5-20bn for surface access, it could be argued that all of those schemes would vastly improve the situation even if the third runway doesn't go ahead. And are you suggesting that expanding Heathrow would only generate one new route which you claim to be commercially un-viable? British Airways tried it and found it didn't work for them. So? BA have limited slots at Heathrow. If BA thought that the aircraft operating that route could be better used elsewhere they'd send it elsewhere.

£18bn is the cost of runway 3. Add in terminal 6 and associated support facilities and you are at £30bn. All of which Mr and Mrs UK taxpayer are to underwrite.

BA are not slot restricted in the same way as other airlines because they sit on slot pairs using the various shuttles. The commercial reality is that BA would rather sit on the slot pair by sending an A319 to Inverness (for example) than use it to Chengdu.

I'm sure a spend of £5-20bn would be very nice for west London in any circumstance. For any other part of the country it would be transformational. Arguing in favour of this level of spend in any event is a terrible argument!

I'm sure a new runway would generate a handful of new routes. But is it worth the financial cost? Obviously not - particularly where there is an alternative scheme at LGW which has a better economic and environmental case.

Throw in the governments hopelessly weak position - and runway 3 is a dead duck.

 

[Dobbo]

Heathrow are clutching at straws now.

Having been torpedoed by MAG's report in the impact of HU, their latest argument is that the use of "regional construction hubs" which could "radically change the way the country's construction industry operates".

LHR runway 3 remains a dead duck.

 

[Coathanger16]

One airline one route. This ignores the fact that BA, with spare slots, the right equipment, and located in the worlds largest O&D market tried Chengdu and found it to be commercially unviable. The slot remains open to them to use at Chengdu, or any of the other cities you mention but they choose not to use them.

Again, BA couldn't make it work. That doesn't mean another airline couldn't. How many times have say Flybe tried a route and cut it stating commercial viability, then easyJet say has launched that route and found it worked perfectly fine - or any other airlines for that matter. Equally down at BHX United recently cancelled their New York service stating commercial viability, yet Primera are launching that route again next year. Why would they if it wasn't commercially viable?

As much as Adonis, LHR management and the rest of the LHR cheerleaders claim it will open new markets, the evidence points squarely that it will not and they cannot force BA or any other carrier to do so.

Are we to believe that you are an insider to every airline in the world and their route planning teams? How ever did you get such a position?

Heathrow has hung its hat on the connectivity and economic arguments. The latest report completely undermines Heathrow's cornerstone in favour of expansion. It's little surprise it has been seized upon by opponents who have previously thought they had to hand their hat on the environmental argument.

So the latest report undermines their claims and nobody thinks to question how valid that report is? Where did they get their information? On what basis/conditions did they do their sums?

£18bn is the cost of runway 3. Add in terminal 6 and associated support facilities and you are at £30bn. All of which Mr and Mrs UK taxpayer are to underwrite.

£18bn is for the whole thing. Runway and terminals, hence one of the ways LHR are examining reducing that cost is by postponing the terminal expansion.

BA are not slot restricted in the same way as other airlines because they sit on slot pairs using the various shuttles. The commercial reality is that BA would rather sit on the slot pair by sending an A319 to Inverness (for example) than use it to Chengdu.

Yes because it works better for them. BA have a whole network to consider when planning their routes from Heathrow, and if one particular route didn't perform as hoped and they felt they could make better use of the aircraft or slot for another route of course they'd cut Chengdu. A few years ago Virgin Atlantic cut their flights to Tokyo essentially because they felt the slot/aircraft could be better used elsewhere. Are we to be led to believe that because Virgin no longer wants to serve LHR to Tokyo that it is commercially un-viable and that no airline will be able to serve it?

I'm sure a spend of £5-20bn would be very nice for west London in any circumstance. For any other part of the country it would be transformational. Arguing in favour of this level of spend in any event is a terrible argument!

Yes I'm sure it would. So arguing for that level of spending in the SE is a terrible argument, but arguing for it instead to be spent in the North isn't? I sense some bias here - underspending in the regions isn't an argument to cut spending in London.

I'm sure a new runway would generate a handful of new routes. But is it worth the financial cost? Obviously not - particularly where there is an alternative scheme at LGW which has a better economic and environmental case.

Better economic case? According to who? How valid is this latest report? Who wrote it & do they have a bias against LHR or in favor of LGW? What assumptions did they use? All questions that were asked about LHR when the Davies report was published yet aren't being asked about these new findings about LGW. WHY?

Better environment case? Each of LHR and LGW plans would supposedly add the same number of flights, so impact on Climate Change is the same. Air quality, some reports say that both schemes will breach air quality limits, some reports state they won't. Noise, yes more people will be affected by LHR, but more people than present will be affected by LGW expansion - crucially LGW plan on operating both runways in mixed mode 24 hours a day (i.e. no respite). Add in the fact that ambient noise levels for people under the LGW flight paths are lower than under the LHR flight paths and the "LHR noise situation is worse than LGW" isn't quite so black & white.

My apologies to other forum members as this thread has drifted quite some way off topic. I attempted to steer things back to Hainan but failed quite spectacularly. If the moderators feel these latest posts would be better suited to the "Outside Influences" thread (or any other more relevant one) then please move them over. I shall leave things there as I suspect other members are getting bored of this discussion by now.

 

[Aceshigh]

Lord Adonis talks the talk when he is in the North but promptly forgets common sense when he is back snuffling at the leather in The House Of Lords.

He is a windbag Westminster politician who ebbs and flos with the breeze.

Comparing Manchester with Edinburgh and Birmingham is akin to comparing Heathrow with Exeter and Southampton.

One only hopes that Manchester Airport Press at @manairportpress have the balls to launch a ferocious exocet.

Sadly I think they will sit on their hands.

"Best not upset Whitehall in case they throw us a few crumbs..."

 

[Dobbo]

Again, BA couldn't make it work. That doesn't mean another airline couldn't. How many times have say Flybe tried a route and cut it stating commercial viability, then easyJet say has launched that route and found it worked perfectly fine - or any other airlines for that matter. Equally down at BHX United recently cancelled their New York service stating commercial viability, yet Primera are launching that route again next year. Why would they if it wasn't commercially viable?

Is, a price tag of several tens of billions - the difference between LHR and LGW schemes - a price worth paying for these marginal routes (and only a chance at that)? I'd say the overwhelming majority of people would reject that argument.

Are we to believe that you are an insider to every airline in the world and their route planning teams? How ever did you get such a position?

We all know Adonis and LHR management are not on route planning teams just as much as I'm not. The difference is that I'm not in a high profile public position making promises I cannot keep.

You know it, I know it, everyone on the forum knows it. Also, when you play the man not the ball it shows you are losing the argument because you have nothing constructive to say.

So the latest report undermines their claims and nobody thinks to question how valid that report is? Where did they get their information? On what basis/conditions did they do their sums?

The latest report uses the same methodology as the previous report.

The difference is they've updated the data, the outcome of which is that LGW now has the stronger economic case (albeit by 2060 if I remember correctly).

It's difficult for LHR or the government to dispute this because they based the intention (nb - not currently "decision")to proceed with LHR substantially on the strength of this argument.

£18bn is for the whole thing. Runway and terminals, hence one of the ways LHR are examining reducing that cost is by postponing the terminal expansion.

I'm happy to stand corrected on this.

For completeness, The £30 (actually £31bn figure) comes from adding in the other asset replacements the airport commission thinks LHR will have to finance over the period (I think this relates to expansions to T2 and T5 including new satellites). However, the accepted price for R3 and T6 is £18bn as Coathanger stated.

Yes because it works better for them. BA have a whole network to consider when planning their routes from Heathrow, and if one particular route didn't perform as hoped and they felt they could make better use of the aircraft or slot for another route of course they'd cut Chengdu. A few years ago Virgin Atlantic cut their flights to Tokyo essentially because they felt the slot/aircraft could be better used elsewhere. Are we to be led to believe that because Virgin no longer wants to serve LHR to Tokyo that it is commercially un-viable and that no airline will be able to serve it?

Tokyo is not a marginal route to an emerging market.

The original point was that BA find better use for their aircraft on other, less exotic routes. That pattern is likely to be repeated across any new carrier.

We are arguing over very marginal gains at vast expense to the taxpayer.

Yes I'm sure it would. So arguing for that level of spending in the SE is a terrible argument, but arguing for it instead to be spent in the North isn't? I sense some bias here - underspending in the regions isn't an argument to cut spending in London.

Yes, I am biased and yes it is a terrible argument.

In the past 10 years or so we have seen tens of billions spent on London projects such as Olympic Games, HS1, Crossrail, Thames Tideway. In the pipeline is Crossrail 2, Heathrow, a two new Tames crossings.

It is accepted that the discrepancy in public speending between the north and London is £1,500 per person per year. I dare say the disparity is similar elsewhere. That is absurd.

I don't begrudge supporting London, but the spending disparity clearly shows underspending in the regions is supporting overspending in London. This does not create a "united" kingdom.

Arguing for a massive public transport spend in one of the wealthiest regions on the planet, when the rest of the country is so underfunded is a terrible argument.

Better economic case? According to who? How valid is this latest report? Who wrote it & do they have a bias against LHR or in favor of LGW? What assumptions did they use? All questions that were asked about LHR when the Davies report was published yet aren't being asked about these new findings about LGW. WHY?

As noted above, it's the same methodology using updated figures. LHR and the government cannot dispute them too much because it undermines the case they used before. That's why they've gone back to consultation.

Better environment case? Each of LHR and LGW plans would supposedly add the same number of flights, so impact on Climate Change is the same. Air quality, some reports say that both schemes will breach air quality limits, some reports state they won't. Noise, yes more people will be affected by LHR, but more people than present will be affected by LGW expansion - crucially LGW plan on operating both runways in mixed mode 24 hours a day (i.e. no respite). Add in the fact that ambient noise levels for people under the LGW flight paths are lower than under the LHR flight paths and the "LHR noise situation is worse than LGW" isn't quite so black & white.

It's accepted by all parties that the LGW scheme is better for the environment and better for noise pollution than the LGW scheme. Not even LHR try to argue to the contrary because they know it would undermine their credibility.

My apologies to other forum members as this thread has drifted quite some way off topic. I attempted to steer things back to Hainan but failed quite spectacularly. If the moderators feel these latest posts would be better suited to the "Outside Influences" thread (or any other more relevant one) then please move them over. I shall leave things there as I suspect other members are getting bored of this discussion by now.

Agreed! Let's get this shifted across!

 

[Dobbo]

Here is LHR's latest attempt to justify concentrating yet more economic activity in the south east and London by spending an obscene amount on a new runway.

------------------


“The third runway is not a London centric project – it is one we are opening up to the whole of the UK, asking for its skills and expertise to help build".

Find out how construction of the Heathrow expansion project is set to boost areas across the UK: heathrowexpansion.com/press/heathrow…

 

[Aceshigh]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...t-for-the-north-to-become-statutory-body.html

Every LITTLE helps. ......

 

[Aceshigh]

I'm not going to repeat the posting as it's quite lengthy but full marks to Birmingham for enticing Visit London sorry Visit Britain into promoting Birmingham as a gateway to Shakespeare country and wait for it The Peak District.

I say full marks because I'm scratching my head about this given the latter area must be nearly 90 minutes from Birmingham and yet I can actually see a great swathe of the High peak from the Manchester T3 car park.

I may be wrong but it almost smacks of a London based marketeer coming up with a plan, any plan.

 

[ethanegcc]

Birmingham Airport; the peak district?! Are you joking? Shakespeare's county yes, but the peak district is only 10 minutes from Manchester Airport at its closest, and much of Derbyshire's/Staffordshire's peak district is less than 50mins away. Take Ashbourne - arguably the most southern town of the Peak District, even this can be reached as quickly from MAN than from BHX, never mind the main bulk of the national park.

 

[Jerry]

Well I'm sure it can be considered in both airports catchment areas if it's within a 90 mins drive. Most airports catchment areas tend to overlap in the UK.

 

[Aviador]

Birmingham Airport; the peak district?! Are you joking? Shakespeare's county yes, but the peak district is only 10 minutes from Manchester Airport at its closest, and much of Derbyshire's/Staffordshire's peak district is less than 50mins away. Take Ashbourne - arguably the most southern town of the Peak District, even this can be reached as quickly from MAN than from BHX, never mind the main bulk of the national park.

If airports could claim to be the airport for the Peak District, Manchester, East Midlands, Doncaster Sheffield and Leeds Bradford could all claim the title. Similar could be said for the Lake District with Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Newcastle airports. I'd say fair play to Birmingham airport for marketing their airport as the airport for the Peak District. Manchester does exactly the same and at the moment I'd say it's doing it far better than all it's competing airports.

 

[Aceshigh]

I'm not doubting the creativity, just the execution.

Any airport that can manage to extract a semblance of recognition from Visit Britain (who are obsessed with London ) deserves wholesome credit.

But, and it's a big but , cherry picking a destination which by any measure is arguably in the back yard of a competitor and then including that location in your headline PR puff piece appears somewhat bizarre!

Surely if you are going to market The Midlands there must be a series of cultural, retail, and rural destinations that better meet the needs of the target audience?

 

[Aviador]

I'm not doubting the creativity, just the execution.

Any airport that can manage to extract a semblance of recognition from Visit Britain (who are obsessed with London ) deserves wholesome credit.

But, and it's a big but , cherry picking a destination which by any measure is arguably in the back yard of a competitor and then including that location in your headline PR puff piece appears somewhat bizarre!

Surely if you are going to market The Midlands there must be a series of cultural, retail, and rural destinations that better meet the needs of the target audience?

Manchester airport marketing frequently visit the "back yard" of competing airports and quite rightly so. Any effective marketing campaign will go outside it's usual territory if it is to gain new custom. I would fully expect Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds Bradford airports to market in the Manchester region. A catchment area is as big as the journey time passengers are prepared to travel. For example the time from Birmingham to Manchester is the same in reverse.

Manchester Airport is opening a pop-up shop in Birmingham city centre
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/manchester-airport-opening-pop-up-13173142

 

[Jerry]

But, and it's a big but , cherry picking a destination which by any measure is arguably in the back yard of a competitor and then including that location in your headline PR puff piece appears somewhat bizarre!

Why is it bizarre? They obviously feel they can serve the area just as well as other airports and that it can attract tourists to the area heading through BHX, it's no different from MAN promoting itself as a gateway to Yorkshire or Bristol as a gateway to South Wales and if BHX is going to continue to expand it has t promote itself as an airport for wider area like MAN and LHR do.

 

[David_itl]

Referenced the passenger numbers expected on the Beijing/Hong Kong services elsewhere. But this is the refreshing part of the article

"Graham Brady, MP, said: “This route has stimulated huge demand for travel between China and the UK and in doing so has delivered a wide range of benefits to the Northern economy, including significantly increasing exports, inward investment and tourism.

“The scale of impact clearly illustrates just how beneficial having strong links with high growth markets can be and why Government should be doing everything it can to further improve connectivity between the North and the world.”"

As the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, perhaps he can bend a few MPs ears regarding APD/bilaterals

https://businessmanchester.co.uk/20...ajor-boost-regions-retailers-build-christmas/

 

[Aceshigh]

Hallaluah!

Mr Brady has been wholesome in support of Heathrow expansion which is of course fine but not a word until now about Manchester, adjacent to his OWN constituency!

In more Chinese news MAG press are gushing re this article.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e2ecdd20-cc81-11e7-9a00-85fec3384ef3

As a poster suggested this should have been in place BEFORE the service started not 18 months after.

 

[Aceshigh]

The amount of build in Manchester is astonishing.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...tre-13926805#ICID=Android_MENNewsApp_AppShare

 

[David_itl]

Announced in the Budget:

"short-haul Air Passenger Duty rates will be frozen, but there will be an increase on premium class tickets - and on private jets"