[SimonS1]

No my argument is that politicians spend so long worrying about their own popularity and spin that nothing ever happens.

Re a new London runway the facts or circumstances have not changed materially.

However to deviate from a position you actually have to have a policy in the first place and when it comes to additional airport capacity there isn’t one. Unless you count holding different enquiries as a policy (I don’t).

Then again when you think that LHR Terminal 5 took 19 years from the appointment of Richard Rogers through to its botched opening nothing would surprise me.

[Charles-P]

“You do not need to put my moniker in speech marks, I use my actual name”
My apologies

As a long time supplier to the MoD’s of not just the UK but many other nations I am sorry to say that is a situation I recognise all too well. Not many happy faces at Abbey Wood.

I share your annoyance and frustration at the conduct of the FSI and having recently read an article which illustrated just how close we had all come to a return to barter and oxen trading I fail to understand how no criminal cases have ever resulted. Only this morning on Bloomberg TV a banker from Barclays was saying how basic salaries in the industry will have to be raised “substantially” because of the restrictions on bonuses, everybody present simply nodded along as though this was the most natural thing in the world.

[canucklad]

Hi Charles-P
I also rolled my eyes at the banker. But I’m going to defend Bankers here. A good friend is a highly respected banker and is high up his company’s management hierarchy. The difference is , he actually banks, he manages normal everyday tangible business …….he’s well paid, but not overpaid.
On the other hand…….Once you get into the square mile, I’d rather refer to them as “gamblers” not bankers . High risk speculators that use computers , in the same way that people in housing estates use online roulette and bingo sites . only when a city gents numbers don’t roll in, we’re all *****
Now back to the topic , transtraxman’s post opens up the hypothesis that if LHR is granted the extra runway, will LGW claim a foul, stating that they are now disadvantaged , and vice versa. IMO, I can see, whatever decision wrapped up in legal pound notes for years to come.

[AnthonyDunn]

It’s good to see that there is clearly a united front and serious long-term vision on the part of the UK civil aviation directocracy regarding future runway provision across London and the south-east.

From the FT 18 November 2014

READS EasyJet questions case for new runway at Gatwick airport

Britain’s second-biggest budget airline, on Tuesday fired a warning shot over the predicted sharp rise in charges at Gatwick should the airport win its campaign for a new runway. Carolyn McCall, easyJet chief executive, also called into question Gatwick’s push for expansion by saying that customers wanted extra capacity at Heathrow, Britain’s largest airport.

Ms McCall, speaking as the group announced a 22 per cent jump in annual pre-tax profits to £581m in 2013-14, said easyJet was “quite concerned” at the prospect that airport landing charges could rise at Gatwick to cover the costs of a second runway. “We make £8 profit per seat and our average price is just £60,” she said. If Gatwick’s charges doubled to an average of £15 to £18 as predicted by an independent commission examining the case for expansion, “that is quite worrying in terms of our economic case.”

EasyJet is the biggest airline operating from Gatwick, the UK’s second-largest airport, but does not currently fly to Heathrow. Asked whether easyJet was seeking to cut a deal on landing charges with both airports ahead of a government decision next year on expansion, Ms McCall replied: “We work out of hubs all over the place?.?.?.?We are in confidential discussions with Gatwick and Heathrow.”

Passengers seemed to favour Heathrow, Ms McCall added. “This whole issue should be [decided] where the demand is,” she said. “The congestion we have does predominantly appear to be around Heathrow.”

Heathrow’s landing charges could rise from £20 to a range of £28 to £29 if it adds a third runway, according to the Davies commission that is examining where to build new runways. As one of the UK’s fastest-growing airlines, easyJet’s views on airport expansion will be closely heeded by the commission, which is due to make its recommendation after next year’s general election. ENDS

[Edski777]

An increase in charges of around 30% to fund a new runway is unheard of. Especially if LHR is already generating a profit, which ends up in the pockets of shareholders. Airports should be part of the public infrastructure, not a tool to generate cash and turn travellers into cashcows. Additional profits, thanks to the increased capacity, will inevitably end up at the shareholders as well.

[SimonS1]

Of course everyone wants the capacity but no one wants to pay for it.

For Carolyn McCall an increase of £8 in LGW charges is unacceptable but an increase of £8 at LHR is OK. Bless.

That’s why you need the govt to provide leadership though…..

[BigDog.]

Heathrow expansion is the logical one from a demand and accessibility stand-point. However from a cost and pragmatic/political (far less opponents) perspective then Gatwick will get it.

Gatwick’s owners have stated that as LGW R2 was betting the company it would not proceed if expansion at LHR was also approved.

Further to AD’s point, easyjet have frequently demonstrated they are prepared to up (a percentage of their) sticks when an airport operator ups the charges. With easyjet being the largest LGW operator and LGW being easyjet’s largest base, Carolyn McCall’s warning should be headed.

Personally LHR should be allowed to up its charges as it owns a scarce resource where there are alternatives if the price is deemed excessive and would help distribute traffic away from LHR.

For those interested in the LGW perspective and discussion – early start 15/12 Sofitel North Terminal.

http://www.sussexenterprise.co.uk/events/networking-events/the-future-of-aviation-connecting-britain-faster_604/

[MrMichael]

If the choice is LGW, then investment needs to be made in a High speed, reliable link between LHR and LGW. It is only circa 25 miles as the crow flies, so a “brave” high speed rail link could do the journey in 15 minutes or less. We would then have the capacity and the infrastructure to make London a global hub once again.

[BigDog.]

I agree Mr Michael, if there was a choice between a HS link LHR-LGW or a HS Link City/Farringdon-LGW, I would also plumb for the LHR-LGW one.

Though fully understand that LGW-LHR would be at least 10 times the cost as the current infra-structure is non-existent whereas LGW- Farringdon for a Crossrail connection to Paddington (or direct to LHR with 4 express trains per hour at peak times planned), would be merely be an expansion.

[AnthonyDunn]

Interesting to see LGW’s management hit back at both Carolyn McCall and Willie Walsh. BTW, Nick Dunn (LGW’s CFO) is no relation! From the FT 20 November 2014:

READS: Gatwick hits back at easyJet and BA over second runway plans

Gatwick has hit back at easyJet and British Airways after both airlines questioned the case for the UK’s second largest airport having a new runway. Nick Dunn, Gatwick’s chief financial officer, on Thursday suggested the two airlines, the largest and second largest operators at the airport, were concerned about the prospect of increased competition from rival carriers if a second runway was built at the West Sussex facility.

He was responding to easyJet’s chief executive, Carolyn McCall, who said on Tuesday that a sharp rise in landing charges at Gatwick to pay for a second runway would be “quite worrying in terms of our economic case”. He was also tackling comments last month by Willie Walsh, chief executive of International Airlines Group, parent of British Airways, that there is no business case to expand Gatwick. Mr Dunn said: “For either one of those parties [easyJet and British Airways] increased capacity into the system will create increased competition for passengers, so I understand why airlines would reflect on that?.?.?.?[it] will of course mean more competition for them.” He added easyJet’s criticism was based on estimates made by the Airports Commission, the independent body studying whether to build a new runway at Gatwick or London’s Heathrow, the UK’s largest airport.

The commission, which is due to make recommendations after next year’s general election, has estimated Gatwick’s landing charges would rise from £9 per passenger today to an average of £15 to £19. Gatwick disputes the commission’s calculation, claiming charges would rise to no more than £12-£15 per passenger if a second runway costing about £7bn was built. Mr Dunn said that increased competition between airlines at Gatwick would benefit travellers who could enjoy cheaper flights and more destinations.

David Bentley, analyst at the CAPA centre for aviation, said Gatwick would be concerned that easyJet, its biggest customer, had responded so negatively to the company’s expansion plans. “They’re a very powerful airline to be challenging Gatwick. Occasionally airlines will throw airports out of kilter with their thinking”, he added.

The dispute came as Gatwick reported the busiest six months in the airport’s history, with passenger numbers up 8 per cent to 22.5m in the six months to September 30 compared to the same period last year. Chief executive Stewart Wingate said: “The capacity crunch facing Gatwick underlines the urgent need for a new runway”.

Turnover grew 8.6 per cent to £391.6m in the company’s first half, driven by the rise in passenger numbers. ENDS

[transtraxman]

This article appears today on the BBC website.
“Heathrow and Gatwick report record passenger numbers in 2014”

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30775021

Heathrow achieving a flow of 73.4 million passengers while Gatwick achieves 38 million.
The trend is upwards and shows no sign of abating. Is that not reason enough to suggest that new runways are needed at both airports?

[BA744fan]

Transtraxman – to any normal person the answer is yes, but the NIMBYs will ensure that neither is ever built.

Heathrow and Gatwick will become an irrelevance in the long run and our European cousins will benefit even more from our failure to act.

It takes less time for China to go from an idea for a new airport to the first plane landing than it does for the UK Government to make a decision on when to schedule the next meeting to kick airport expension even further in to the long grass.

We are the laughing stock of the world when it comes to indecision and inability to react to a changing aviation environment.

[Charles-P]

I will state from the beginning I have a financial interest in the expansion of both Heathrow and Gatwick.

That being said I can tell BT forum readers that from the industry point of view expansion of both airports is a no brainer. We all know it needs to happen, we all know it will happen but we are dealing with politics, with civil servants who think doing nothing is a choice and with the disproportionate influence of the ‘Green’ lobby who seriously think that restricting UK airport development will lead to less global air travel.

We need politicians with guts.

[transtraxman]

I read with gloom the arguments made against expansion at both airports.

“Increase in CO2 levels…” – cars produce 100 times more Co2 but no mention them.
“Increase in noise levels…” – rubbish, because the level of noise has been reducing gradually since the 1970s. Now, the newer and newer generations are producing less and less noise.
“Other airports can absorb any increases in traffic…” – that is precisely why Vietnam Airlines is transfering from Gatwick to Heathrow. Distance from the final destination is vitally important. Anywhere more than 50kms from London is a non-starter. Anywhere east of London is too far away for the vast majority. The only remaining alternative is Luton which is possible but only with massive investment and only when targeted as an, eventual, four runway option.

With your permission, some more of my thoughts on the matter.

http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/heathrows-3rd-runway-how-to-focus.html

http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/luton-viable-alternative-hub-to-heathrow.html

[LuganoPirate]

I agree with you BA744fan, but unlike the UK China does not have to worry about NIMBY’S, pressure groups, Greens and worst of all, voters!

[Author]

Posts