Airport expansions

[telstarbox]

Ministers are set to publicly signal support for a long-sought third runway at Heathrow, sign off on plans to bring the second strip at Gatwick into full-time use, and allow an increase in the capacity at Luton Airport, according to people familiar with the matter

According to Bloomberg the government will authorise the Heathrow third runway and Gatwick and Luton expansion.

This could be a bid to unlock growth.

 

[TravelDream]

Something which would actually create growth unlike most actions of this 'growth' government.

I saw on Twitter lots complaining about nothing for the north and being London focused.

I am not sure those people have engaged their brains on the matter.

Heathrow/ Gatwick/ Luton expansion would be primarily privately financed. And we're not talking loose change, but significant sums. Gatwick's owner has promised to invest £2.2 billion to move the second runway to make dual operations possible.
There's little appetite for private companies to invest significantly in Durham Tees Valley or Leeds Bradford.

Plus the north has quite a lot of capacity going spare. Manchester has two runways when it could probably get away with one with some schedule tweaking. And Leeds Bradford, EMA, Birmingham, DTV, Newcastle, Liverpool and others have pretty decent spare capacity - though summer peak periods are busy.
London is heavily constrained by capacity - to the extent it damages the UK economy.

It's not a binary choice.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And MAN is undergoing massive expansion anyway.

 

[daodao]

According to Bloomberg the government will authorise the Heathrow third runway and Gatwick and Luton expansion.

This is hardly "green", and given the government's reticence to support further high speed rail, is a snub to the north of England. It is also likely to contribute to further over-heating of the economy of SE England at the expense of the rest of the country.

 

[jojoseph72]

This is hardly "green", and given the government's reticence to support further high speed rail, is a snub to the north of England. It is also likely to contribute to further over-heating of the economy of SE England at the expense of the rest of the country.

When looking at the governments stance on high speed rail then yes many would say it is a snub to the north but when looking at airports its not really a snub to the north when either the airports aren't at capacity or the airports are expanding - looking at Manchester or Birmingham which are investing £1.3Bn and £300m respectively to expand capacity and enhance passenger experiences.

Only reason Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton expansion get such headline and news is that the expansions of these airports are controversial especially Heathrow with the scale of the project. But whether we like it or not where the largest airport capacity constraint is in the South and ignoring these constraints isn't going to make the issue go away.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Utterly stupid decision. Heathrow constantly bangs on about how making Heathrow bigger will grow the UK's economy. But given that c.35% of passengers going through Heathrow are actually connecting to somewhere else and therefore don't actually spend any money in the UK, I fail to see how the sums stack up.

Good for the Saudi and Qatari governments who own Heathrow though. So of course the useless Reeves will give it the green light.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Something which would actually create growth unlike most actions of this 'growth' government.

I saw on Twitter lots complaining about nothing for the north and being London focused.

I am not sure those people have engaged their brains on the matter.

Heathrow/ Gatwick/ Luton expansion would be primarily privately financed. And we're not talking loose change, but significant sums. Gatwick's owner has promised to invest £2.2 billion to move the second runway to make dual operations possible.
There's little appetite for private companies to invest significantly in Durham Tees Valley or Leeds Bradford.

Plus the north has quite a lot of capacity going spare. Manchester has two runways when it could probably get away with one with some schedule tweaking. And Leeds Bradford, EMA, Birmingham, DTV, Newcastle, Liverpool and others have pretty decent spare capacity - though summer peak periods are busy.
London is heavily constrained by capacity - to the extent it damages the UK economy.

It's not a binary choice.

I had a good chat with one of the Jet2 customer services managers at Liverpool back in November, and the main constraint there is on parking areas for aircraft.

 

[pug1]

Utterly stupid decision. Heathrow constantly bangs on about how making Heathrow bigger will grow the UK's economy. But given that c.35% of passengers going through Heathrow are actually connecting to somewhere else and therefore don't actually spend any money in the UK, I fail to see how the sums stack up.

Good for the Saudi and Qatari governments who own Heathrow though. So of course the useless Reeves will give it the green light.

Take your point about connecting traffic, but the hub effect creates more choice for the traveller and helps to support routes that otherwise wouldn’t be viable. The UK’s current hub - Amsterdam - is successful for that very reason. I call AMS the UK’s current hub because it has more connections to the U.K. regions than LHR by far! I seem to recall that one of the conditions of a third LHR runway was to allow slots for regional connectivity that had been priced out of the market in the 90’s.

There will be backlash from the regions about this expansion, but it’s demand driven as evidenced by the private sector investment. Proponents of a reopened DSA will be up in arms about it, but again, the airlines don’t want to fly to DSA, they want to fly to LHR, LTN and LGW, so that is where the growth will come from.

 

[CdBrux]

Take your point about connecting traffic, but the hub effect creates more choice for the traveller and helps to support routes that otherwise wouldn’t be viable. The UK’s current hub - Amsterdam - is successful for that very reason.

Exactly this. Where I currently live (Munich) has an extensive route network due to it's being a hub for Lufthansa. This must hugely benefit connectivity for local companies which will work in their favour.
I fly to Gothenburg quite often, there are generally 2 flights per day and I doubt there is a case for more than one, if that, was Munich not a hub. Arriving back home last week I would estimate close to 50% of passengers from a fairly full A321 went to flight connections rather than the exit.

 

[TravelDream]

is a snub to the north of England. It is also likely to contribute to further over-heating of the economy of SE England at the expense of the rest of the country.

Jeez....

How on Earth is this a snub to the north!?!

This is PRIVATE investment. Private companies invest where they can make a profit. Building a second runway at Newcastle airport would be disastrous as an investment.

Investment is taking place at northern airports, but it tends to be much smaller scale and not come up against massive opposition like a third runway at Heathrow/ second usable one at Gatwick.

Utterly stupid decision. Heathrow constantly bangs on about how making Heathrow bigger will grow the UK's economy. But given that c.35% of passengers going through Heathrow are actually connecting to somewhere else and therefore don't actually spend any money in the UK, I fail to see how the sums stack up.

Heathrow being a global hub is good for Britain.
It means far more connectivity and more viable routes from Britain
More connectivity helps Britain be a global hub in finance, insurance, business etc. etc.
Heathrow with R3 would possibly have a higher percentage of transfer passengers and that's a *good* thing. It means more routes are viable and Britain is better connected to the world.

It also means a lot more relatively well-paid and desirable jobs in Britain. Thousands and thousands of people are directly employed at Heathrow and a third runway would add thousands more long term jobs. Plus the short-term construction ones.

Or would you rather those people transfer at Amsterdam or Paris and the Netherlands or France have those jobs?

And, again, it's private investment. Private companies have decided the sums do add up.

I had a good chat with one of the Jet2 customer services managers at Liverpool back in November, and the main constraint there is on parking areas for aircraft.

Small regional airport people always say that. The truth is, Liverpool is a relatively small and poor market with a pretty major airport on its doorstep. The time difference from the centre to LIV and MAN isn't really that different.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Take your point about connecting traffic, but the hub effect creates more choice for the traveller and helps to support routes that otherwise wouldn’t be viable.

No it doesn't. If it did, British Airways wouldn't have to offer its connecting tickets from European airports at a deep discount (hence the popularity of "ex-EU flights" to tier-point runners) to attract that custom.

I seem to recall that one of the conditions of a third LHR runway was to allow slots for regional connectivity that had been priced out of the market in the 90’s.

So we're throwing £100m up the wall on HS2 to persuade regional passengers out of aeroplanes and then we're going to expand Heathrow with the sop of creating more regional slot pairs. I know Reeves has always been in favour of Heathrow expansion but Labour need to pick a position and stick to it.

Regional flights weren't priced out of Heathrow, the problem was that not enough people wanted to use them. And the reason for that was straightforward: unless you're connecting into other flights or live in certain parts of the Home Counties, Heathrow is simply not that convenient.

There's a very good reason why Little Red sank without trace within four years.

 

[thejuggler]

I had a good chat with one of the Jet2 customer services managers at Liverpool back in November, and the main constraint there is on parking areas for aircraft.

Same at Leeds Bradford which is why there was a plan to build a new terminal. Unfortunately that plan was dropped before the planning process was concluded as redevelopment couldn't wait.

So instead of a new modern terminal which enables expansion well into the future there will be an extended period of rebuilding older parts of the building. The new arrivals building will be ready this summer which will enable the next phases of improvements to be planned and delivered.

The end result will be what those against the new terminal wanted - expansion - but it will take longer.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It also means a lot more relatively well-paid and desirable jobs in Britain. Thousands and thousands of people are directly employed at Heathrow and a third runway would add thousands more long term jobs. Plus the short-term construction ones.

Desirable and well-paid jobs in an airport? Really?

And, again, it's private investment. Private companies have decided the sums do add up.

Well for them it will add up: they can add the cost of the investment on to the landing and handling fees they charge airlines. These fees are already some of the highest in the world.

Or would you rather those people transfer at Amsterdam or Paris and the Netherlands or France have those jobs?

Couldn't care less. Most airport jobs are badly-paid menial jobs with appalling working conditions. If they want them, let them crack on.

It means more routes are viable and Britain is better connected to the world.

Does it heck. Anywhere viable is already served by British Airways.

BA have to sell their connecting tickets at a steep discount to make them attractive- look how much you save flying ex-EU on BA. Adding more passengers flying on steeply discounted tickets doesn't make a route more viable.

Small regional airport people always say that. The truth is, Liverpool is a relatively small and poor market with a pretty major airport on its doorstep. The time difference from the centre to LIV and MAN isn't really that different.

Jet2 have recently set up a hub at Liverpool in addition to their hubs at Manchester and Leeds/Bradford. EasyJet have a hub at Liverpool in addition to their hub at Manchester. You get the idea...

The main constraint at Liverpool will be on the apron.

Liverpool isn't going to overtake Manchester for long-haul but for short-haul it has a good strong market. It's worth nothing that from west West Yorkshire the travel time by car is about the same to Manchester as it is to Liverpool.

 

[PGAT]

Utterly stupid decision. Heathrow constantly bangs on about how making Heathrow bigger will grow the UK's economy. But given that c.35% of passengers going through Heathrow are actually connecting to somewhere else and therefore don't actually spend any money in the UK, I fail to see how the sums stack up.

Good for the Saudi and Qatari governments who own Heathrow though. So of course the useless Reeves will give it the green light.

Just because their journey uses Heathrow as a connection rather than a destination doesn’t mean that there’s no economic activity from those people

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Just because their journey uses Heathrow as a connection rather than a destination doesn’t mean that there’s no economic activity from those people

Exact.y. Connection airports still produce economic activity.

 

[75A]

More Aeroplanes & Global Warming?

 

[westv]

How many of us will still be alive when these projects are completed?!

 

[HSTEd]

Heathrow is a terrible place for an airport, and that society (whoever nominally pays, society does, ultimately) is throwing good money after bad in trying to turn it into a suitable airport boggles the mind.

It was known to be a bad choice almost as soon as the decision was made.
It subjects millions of people to pollution and noise with flight paths that overfly major urban areas.

We should return to the pre oil crisis position and build a new, fit for purpose, London airport to replace all the existing ones - most of which are now increasingly hemmed in by development.

In summary, revive the Maplin Development Authority!

 

[TravelDream]

Heathrow is a terrible place for an airport, and that society (whoever nominally pays, society does, ultimately) is throwing good money after bad in trying to turn it into a suitable airport boggles the mind.

Heathrow is a brilliant place for an airport. It's why airlines will spend millions and millions of pounds on slots there.

Right on the M4 corridor. On the Underground and Liz line. Relatively close to central London.

Liverpool isn't going to overtake Manchester for long-haul but for short-haul it has a good strong market. It's worth nothing that from west West Yorkshire the travel time by car is about the same to Manchester as it is to Liverpool.

It's a significantly smaller and poorer market than Manchester.

Enough to sustain sun flights across Europe with multiple airlines? Yes.

But that doesn't distract from the facts.

Also, Manchester is more centrally located for north, Yorkshire, the north Midlands. Liverpool is next to the sea.

Well for them it will add up: they can add the cost of the investment on to the landing and handling fees they charge airlines. These fees are already some of the highest in the world.

Well, for one, they aren't.

And secondly, airlines and passengers will vote with their wallets.

Couldn't care less. Most airport jobs are badly-paid menial jobs with appalling working conditions. If they want them, let them crack on.

Airports are huge job creators. Yes, some will be cleaning bogs. But there are also lots of better paid jobs.

Even 'menial' jobs like security start at £14.21 at Heathrow. Not a bad wage for a job with no qualification requirements.

There are then plenty of better paid more skilled jobs.

 

[HSTEd]

Heathrow is a brilliant place for an airport. It's why airlines will spend millions and millions of pounds on slots there.

Right on the M4 corridor. On the Underground and Liz line. Relatively close to central London.

It imposes misery and substantial negative health impacts on literally millions of people.

The externalities imposed on the population by Heathrow far exceed any benefits from its location.

Even 'menial' jobs like security start at £14.21 at Heathrow. Not a bad wage for a job with no qualification requirements.

Essentially every job in the UK starts at £11.44, £12.21 from April.
Airports are hardly unusually well paying in that regard.

 

[TravelDream]

It imposes misery and substantial negative health impacts on literally millions of people.

Heathrow has been used commercially since 1946.
Gatwick since 1933.
It's a fundamental issue. Why buy a house/ move near an airport and then complain about the noise?

No different to my grandparents who moved to a totally different area near a nuclear power station and started campaigning against a new reactor being built there. Plane stupid and morally wrong.

Plus modern jets are significantly quieter and more efficient than the planes of the 70s. The 737 Max or A350 are incomparable in their noise profile to equivalent sized 727 or 747-200.
No doubt the next gen will be better again.

Essentially every job in the UK starts at £11.44, £12.21 from April.

That salary has been in a place for a while. So just under £3 higher than minimum wage. Not bad for a starting salary in a job which requires no qualifications or prior experience.

 

[camflyer]

Heathrow is a terrible place for an airport, and that society (whoever nominally pays, society does, ultimately) is throwing good money after bad in trying to turn it into a suitable airport boggles the mind.

It was known to be a bad choice almost as soon as the decision was made.
It subjects millions of people to pollution and noise with flight paths that overfly major urban areas.

We should return to the pre oil crisis position and build a new, fit for purpose, London airport to replace all the existing ones - most of which are now increasingly hemmed in by development.

In summary, revive the Maplin Development Authority!

If had a time machine and could go back 30 years then I would agree that a new airport for London would be the best idea but I think we are too far gone and a totally new one now would be prohibitively expensive and take far too long.

The Gatwick second runway is a no-brainer. It's a relatively cheap and simple project which would add a lot of capacity and redundancy to the operations there. I will need some thought on how rail capacity is increased on the already busy BML.

Heathrow is more complex. It is at capacity now expanding to give to more headroom to cope when things go wrong but whatever option is chosen will be a huge project with a lot of local impact. Rail can help here by doing the Western and Southern rail approach projects to increase the percentage of people using public transport.

So I would approve both but make Gatwick the priority for a relatively quick completion.

 

[HSTEd]

Heathrow has been used commercially since 1946.
Gatwick since 1933.
It's a fundamental issue. Why buy a house/ move near an airport and then complain about the noise?

Because a crippling shortage of housing and steadily increasing costs for housing services make it very difficult to afford to live other places?
Nevermind that the impacts extend over a significant portion of the entire London area.

Plus modern jets are significantly quieter and more efficient than the planes of the 70s. The 737 Max or A350 are incomparable in their noise profile to equivalent sized 727 or 747-200.
No doubt the next gen will be better again.

And this is made up for with ever increasing flight numbers.

 

[SynthD]

Will the profit from this go overseas, such as to the Spanish owners of Heathrow?

I don’t want this to happen for green reasons, it was rightly blocked before. But this news seems to be lumping all three together. Wouldn’t you want them separately to better judge the influence of each expansion?

HS2 and Eurostar should be cheaper than some of the short distance, single leg journeys. They might be if the external costs such as pollution were better factored in. Are airports the opposite of nuclear power stations, in that individually they are too big to say no to. They can’t be reined in because they’re such a powerful image of private enterprise.

 

[HSTEd]

If had a time machine and could go back 30 years then I would agree that a new airport for London would be the best idea but I think we are too far gone and a totally new one now would be prohibitively expensive and take far too long.

The best time to do this was 30 years ago, the second best time is today.

The Heathrow expansion, even if Reeves forces it through, will take a very long time to build. The projections from last time people tried to force this were 20-30 years.
It requires massively disruptive work on the motorway system near Heathrow that will itself generate major externalities.

Starting with a clean sheet at a greenfield site will not be that much slower.

Gatwick suffers in comparison to Heathrow by not being Heathrow - spreading out airport capacity over multiple airports has been a major reason that London's position as an aviation travel hub is fading away.

 

[TravelDream]

Will the profit from this go overseas, such as to the Spanish owners of Heathrow?

The investment will be funded by the owners/ investors who believe they can get a profit out of the investment.

Profits, if there are any, will go to said investors/ owners.

That's how capitalism works.

I don’t want this to happen for green reasons, it was rightly blocked before. But this news seems to be lumping all three together. Wouldn’t you want them separately to better judge the influence of each expansion?

Exactly why this needs to be under some sort of national infrastructure act to nullify the risk of long drawn out judicial review.

There's a reason the UK economy is doing very poorly while peers like the US and Australia and places like Singapore and China are booming.
They like investment, they like development, they like infrastructure - and they reap the rewards whilst out economy languishes in the doldrums.

It should be a national disgrace that Britain is poorer than any US state (no hillbilly/ Mississippi jokes possible now) and Singapore (which didn't have two pennies to rub together at independence, no natural resources and a lot of ethnic tensions). And that Poland's GDP per capita is projected to be higher than ours in 2030. You know, Eastern block Poland where people queued for hours for bread just a few decades ago.
But some people seem to want that. Less Britannia ruling the waves, more sinking like a rock.

HS2 and Eurostar should be cheaper than some of the short distance, single leg journeys.

Can't disagree there.

Starting with a clean sheet at a greenfield site will not be that much slower.

Where is there a greenfield site large enough in S.E. England and caters well to the whole M25 and the M4 corridor at Heathrow does?

Gatwick suffers in comparison to Heathrow by not being Heathrow - spreading out airport capacity over multiple airports has been a major reason that London's position as an aviation travel hub is fading away.

Not an unfair comment. R3 at Heathrow is obviously better than R2 at Gatwick, but the latter is far cheaper and more attainable.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Just because their journey uses Heathrow as a connection rather than a destination doesn’t mean that there’s no economic activity from those people

The economic activity will be limited to a pint and a bowl of chips in the T5 Wetherspoon. Not quite the key to an economic boom time.

 

[aaronspence]

The economic activity will be limited to a pint and a bowl of chips in the T5 Wetherspoon. Not quite the key to an economic boom time.

What about the landing and processing fees the Airline has paid Heathrow?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Airports are huge job creators. Yes, some will be cleaning bogs. But there are also lots of better paid jobs.

Even 'menial' jobs like security start at £14.21 at Heathrow. Not a bad wage for a job with no qualification requirements.

Toilet cleaners, security agents, baggage handlers, baristas, fast food chefs, the lady who brings you the champagne in Galleries North.

Truly the key to an economic golden age

The well paying jobs are in operations and in engineering. Neither of which will be affected in the slightest by an additional runway at Heathrow; overseas airlines will continue to conduct those activities in their home countries.

What about the landing and processing fees the Airline has paid Heathrow?

Heathrow’s main owners are the Qatari, Singapore, and Saudi governments and a French private equity fund.

Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited is in turn owned by FGP Topco Limited, a consortium owned and led by Ardian (22.61%), Qatar Investment Authority (20.00%), Public Investment Fund (15.01%), GIC (11.20%), Australian Retirement Trust (11.18%), China Investment Corporation (10.00%), Ferrovial S.A. (5.25%), Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) (2.65%), and Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) (2.10%).

About Heathrow

Find out more about our company, Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited including our history, who runs the airport and facts and figures

www.heathrow.com

 

[HSTEd]

Where is there a greenfield site large enough in S.E. England and caters well to the whole M25 and the M4 corridor at Heathrow does?

Well the previous choice was Maplin Sands, which is only 25 miles from the M25, and whilst not close to the M4 is near other motorways, especially once the Lower Thames Crossing eventually proceeds. The crossing would make the site more accessible from much of the south East than Heathrow. A clean sheet will let us design a transport infrastructure suitable for an airport of this scale rather than the patched together mess that Heathrow has.

It has the huge advantage that its approach and takeoffs can be entirely over water and will thus avoid the vast majority of the externalities concerned with existing airports.