Airport expansions

[camflyer]

Naturally. But not enough to cause them to decamp to the Essex countryside. It is telling that Dubai and Amman are the longest haul flights from Stansted.

It would be good to see Qatar Airways operating a daily flight from Stansted to give a OneWorld option from the Essex Aerodrome. Emirates seems to do well enough out of STN and there should be sufficient demand from the North London/M11/Cambridge corridor.

 

[AlterEgo]

It would be good to see Qatar Airways operating a daily flight from Stansted to give a OneWorld option from the Essex Aerodrome. Emirates seems to do well enough out of STN and there should be sufficient demand from the North London/M11/Cambridge corridor.

Emirates being there and sucking up the demand is exactly why you wouldn't send flights there if you're Qatar Airways. Emirates also appeals to a different market.

 

[camflyer]

Emirates being there and sucking up the demand is exactly why you wouldn't send flights there if you're Qatar Airways. Emirates also appeals to a different market.

I'm not so sure. Both airlines operate out of Gatwick, they are unlikely to get any more slots at Heathrow and if they do serve different markets then there should be room for both of them at Stansted.

 

[TravelDream]

Emirates being there and sucking up the demand is exactly why you wouldn't send flights there if you're Qatar Airways. Emirates also appeals to a different market.

They appeal to very similar markets.
They both heavily rely on the transit market for volume. UK <-> India/ Pakistan/ Bangladesh, UK -> Thailand, and UK <-> Australia/ NZ in particular. They both also heavily sell their 'premium' experience - both being highly mixed (middle seat in business on the Emirates 777 or one of Qatar's ancient and poorly maintained A330s anyone? (both being gradually removed before anyone complains)). Obviously there are differences. Emirates having more point to point passengers vs. connecting compared to Qatar for example.

Stansted is the closest airport to a very large and relatively well off market (North/ North East London, Essex, Cambridgeshire). Plenty of reasons they might choose to operate there.
It's all about yield and whether it would provide a decent return for them. Obviously I don't have access to Qatar's numbers, but Stansted certainly seems more viable to me than, say, a return to Cardiff where they flew for a couple of years.

 

[AlterEgo]

They appeal to very similar markets.

Qatar appeals significantly more to high net worth individuals and wealthy family groups, corporate business and high yield traffic. They offer a very different - quite sedentary and conservative - experience to the more democratised Emirates. The passenger mix on both airlines is noticeably different.

Stansted is the closest airport to a very large and relatively well off market (North/ North East London, Essex, Cambridgeshire). Plenty of reasons they might choose to operate there.
It's all about yield and whether it would provide a decent return for them. Obviously I don't have access to Qatar's numbers, but Stansted certainly seems more viable to me than, say, a return to Cardiff where they flew for a couple of years.

Stansted already has Emirates. Assuming they're picking from the same pool of passengers - which they aren't in my view - do we really think the airport can support two ME3 carriers? Stansted is exactly the sort of place Qatar do *not* fly to.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Qatar appeals significantly more to high net worth individuals and wealthy family groups, corporate business and high yield traffic. They offer a very different - quite sedentary and conservative - experience to the more democratised Emirates. The passenger mix on both airlines is noticeably different.

I think it depends on the cabin. But, once you get past the marketing guff, I don't actually think there's much in it.

Emirates' fares in economy are usually cheaper than Qatar's, but that seems to be a consequence of using the A380. More seats to fill means lower fares to fill them. Qatar (and Etihad) tend to use much smaller aircraft.

In premium cabins I don't think there's much difference at all. Qatar have removed lounge access from the lowest tier Business Class fares, which doesn't exactly scream "appealing to high net worth individuals" to me.

Not that I see Qatar or Etihad going to Stansted any time soon. I also have a feeling that the self-loading freight isn't the main reason why Emirates fly to Stansted; like Newcastle, it probably has more to do with what's inside the 777's enormous belly.

 

[TravelDream]

Qatar appeals significantly more to high net worth individuals and wealthy family groups, corporate business and high yield traffic. They offer a very different - quite sedentary and conservative - experience to the more democratised Emirates. The passenger mix on both airlines is noticeably different.

Have to agree with @Tetchytyke here, sorry.

 

[sh24]

Emirates business class is a triumph of branding over substance. Most of their 777 fleet lack flat beds!

Qatar is certainly more grown up and mature in appearance e.g. lack of gold gilt and Arthur Daley style walnut panelling.

 

[Bald Rick]

Qatar appeals significantly more to high net worth individuals and wealthy family groups, corporate business and high yield traffic. They offer a very different - quite sedentary and conservative - experience to the more democratised Emirates. The passenger mix on both airlines is noticeably different.

You’ll know better than me, but I think Qatar gets a fair amount of code share transit traffic off BA / AA into Heathrow, which obviously they wouldn’t at Stansted.

 

[HSTEd]

Another announced delay on the Heathrow expansion project, to 2039.

Heathrow Airport has warned that its planned third runway might be delayed by four years due to planning and regulatory issues.

The government had hoped the new runway at the UK's busiest airport, estimated to cost £33bn, would open by 2035.

But Heathrow sees this deadline as increasingly difficult to deliver without further steps to simplify the planning process. It said on Saturday that it hoped to secure planning permission by 2029 and then open the runway "within a decade".

The Department for Transport (DfT) said the project's timeline had "always been ambitious" and that it would continue to work with stakeholders "at pace" on the matter.

The airport said its "core scenario" had always been to open a new runway within a decade of securing planning permission.

It said it was encouraged by the chancellor's efforts to streamline infrastructure and remove regulatory bottlenecks, and promised to continue to work with ministers, airlines and stakeholders to "progress the planning application with pace".

Even if the project can maintain political support long enough to actually get somewhere, I am becoming sceptical that such a complex programme in such a cramped area is actually deliverable.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Another announced delay on the Heathrow expansion project, to 2039.


Even if the project can maintain political support long enough to actually get somewhere, I am becoming sceptical that such a complex programme in such a cramped area is actually deliverable.

Its hardly compatible with reducing emissions anyhow so I dont know how any politician that supports Net Zero can endorse it.

 

[HSTEd]

Its hardly compatible with reducing emissions anyhow so I dont know how any politician that supports Net Zero can endorse it.

Well one could make an argument that consolidating airports onto a single site to maximise hub opportunities would be good.
But Heathrow would be a terrible site for that.

More realistically, politicians and people in similar socioeconomic categories like flying and are willing to go along with the idea of magical Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) appearing to save them.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well one could make an argument that consolidating airports onto a single site to maximise hub opportunities would be good.
But Heathrow would be a terrible site for that.

More realistically, politicians and people in similar socioeconomic categories like flying and are willing to go along with the idea of magical Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) appearing to save them.

Ah yes. Bit like bionic dick weed or more like Hydrogen Fuel.....

I think this Heathrow expansion bears all the hall marks of heading the same way as HS2. Overspend by enough and take long enough and the politicians will lose interest.

It is the way with large construction projects in the UK. Is it a UK malaise ?.

 

[dorsetmagpie]

The Government's own assessment released a couple of months ago, found that the benefits of the third runway amounted to a GDP impact of just 0.03%-0.05% by 2056, most of which would be concentrated in London and the south-east. https://assets.publishing.service.g.../heathrow-expansion-appraisal-report-hear.pdf

I can imagine why any government would rather kick the can down the road, rather than be the ones to make the decision; but at the same time I can't help but feel that Burnham - more than anyone in the past - now has the political capital right now to point out that it barely delivers for growth - certainly not nationally.

 

[camflyer]

Its hardly compatible with reducing emissions anyhow so I dont know how any politician that supports Net Zero can endorse it.

Airports all over the world are expanding and don't seem to have the same political problems with net zero.

 

[pug1]

Ah yes. Bit like bionic dick weed or more like Hydrogen Fuel.....

I think this Heathrow expansion bears all the hall marks of heading the same way as HS2. Overspend by enough and take long enough and the politicians will lose interest.

It is the way with large construction projects in the UK. Is it a UK malaise ?.

Dunno on that, this is private sector driven isn’t it? The Government just have to decide whether to sign off on it or not AFAIK.

I’m not sure whether the economic argument is compelling or not, but it does seem a bit strange that the capacity of the UKs hub airport is throttled. I know London has a number of airports but it could really do with some consolidation. Burnham probably subscribes to the view that the regions should have better connectivity, something I can get on board with, but the market doesn’t work that way unfortunately.

 

[Metrider]

Dunno on that, this is private sector driven isn’t it? The Government just have to decide whether to sign off on it or not AFAIK.

I’m not sure whether the economic argument is compelling or not, but it does seem a bit strange that the capacity of the UKs hub airport is throttled. I know London has a number of airports but it could really do with some consolidation. Burnham probably subscribes to the view that the regions should have better connectivity, something I can get on board with, but the market doesn’t work that way unfortunately.

A Government of a serious country would look at something like having the busiest airport in Europe as an asset that should be invested in and protected. Sadly the ragtag band of clowns running the show here (and I'm talking from both major parties here) think a reasonable course of action is to dither and delay until the top spot is usurped by Istanbul, Charles de Gaulle or Schiphol. And once it's gone, believe me, it's never coming back. Country in decline.

 

[camflyer]

Dunno on that, this is private sector driven isn’t it? The Government just have to decide whether to sign off on it or not AFAIK.

I’m not sure whether the economic argument is compelling or not, but it does seem a bit strange that the capacity of the UKs hub airport is throttled. I know London has a number of airports but it could really do with some consolidation. Burnham probably subscribes to the view that the regions should have better connectivity, something I can get on board with, but the market doesn’t work that way unfortunately.

It may be private sector driven but they still have to deal with the antiquated UK public planning system. There are lots of jobs supported and money to be made by slowing things down with bureaucracy, consultations, appeals and redesigns.

 

[Shrop]

I think this Heathrow expansion bears all the hall marks of heading the same way as HS2. Overspend by enough and take long enough and the politicians will lose interest.

It is the way with large construction projects in the UK. Is it a UK malaise ?.

Talk about full circle! I've always believed (and still do) that one of the main motivators for HS2 to go through the Chilterns was to run close to (or originally via) Heathrow, which would avoid the need for a third runway. (Yes, it was always convoluted reasoning but nevertheless carried weight).

And yet here we are talking about one project debacle taking for ever and a day (yes HS2 which is the laughing stock of many foreign rail engineers) cow-towing to Heathrow and yet that too, looks like becoming another laughing stock.

Now tell me this is anything other than UK malaise!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Airports all over the world are expanding and don't seem to have the same political problems with net zero.

France has taken a different view in restrictioning short haul internal flights and going for airport modernisations within existing land footprints.

UK also has the highest airport passenger duty in the world which is there to dissuade useage and Labour want to increase it further so that is surely incompatible with expansion.

 

[dorsetmagpie]

France has taken a different view in restrictioning short haul internal flights and going for airport modernisations within existing land footprints.

It would be interesting to know to what extent that is a viable option with HS2 and Heathrow? @H F Stephens states in a previous post that Heathrow is not running at capacity, but has capacity issues at certain peak times. Are those peak's impacted by a number of regional flights, which could have been replaced by HS2? (I think I read recently that there are 150 flights a week between Edinburgh and Heathrow for example)

EDIT: This post by HFS on the HEX thread was interesting, but my assumption is that whilst it will optimise Heathrow's capacity, it wouldn't address the peak time runway capacity issue?

"Any properly strategic review (short of closure and relocation, but not East, South or West) would almost certainly prioritise the relocation of the fuel farm, full development and completion of the ’Toast Rack’; abandonment of the third runway proposal, along with closure and demolition of Terminal 4."

 

[camflyer]

It would be interesting to know to what extent that is a viable option with HS2 and Heathrow? @H F Stephens states in a previous post that Heathrow is not running at capacity, but has capacity issues at certain peak times. Are those peak's impacted by a number of regional flights, which could have been replaced by HS2? (I think I read recently that there are 150 flights a week between Edinburgh and Heathrow for example)

EDIT: This post by HFS on the HEX thread was interesting, but my assumption is that whilst it will optimise Heathrow's capacity, it wouldn't address the peak time runway capacity issue?

"Any properly strategic review (short of closure and relocation, but not East, South or West) would almost certainly prioritise the relocation of the fuel farm, full development and completion of the ’Toast Rack’; abandonment of the third runway proposal, along with closure and demolition of Terminal 4."

Well, maybe HS2 could have been part of the solution if built as originally planned but an express line between London and Birmingham isn't going to make much difference.

Plus, I suspect resurrecting the original HS2 plan to Manchester and Leeds in the next 20 years is even less likely than a Heathrow third runway.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Talk about full circle! I've always believed (and still do) that one of the main motivators for HS2 to go through the Chilterns was to run close to (or originally via) Heathrow, which would avoid the need for a third runway. (Yes, it was always convoluted reasoning but nevertheless carried weight).

And yet here we are talking about one project debacle taking for ever and a day (yes HS2 which is the laughing stock of many foreign rail engineers) cow-towing to Heathrow and yet that too, looks like becoming another laughing stock.

Now tell me this is anything other than UK malaise!

+

France has taken a different view in restrictioning short haul internal flights and going for airport modernisations within existing land footprints.

UK also has the highest airport passenger duty in the world which is there to dissuade useage and Labour want to increase it further so that is surely incompatible with expansion.

Yes. I hoped HS2 would help reduce domestic flights but dropping HS2 has increased the need for Heathrow expansion.

Really if HS2 and/or Heathrow Expansion happens at the pace that is likely then it will be too late. Once the international business has gone elsewhere in Europe then it will be very very hard to get it back. After all the places international business are going to will benefit because we have driven away such business not necessarily because the new location had to compete with a plentiful supply of capacity at Heathrow.

Well, maybe HS2 could have been part of the solution if built as originally planned but an express line between London and Birmingham isn't going to make much difference.

Plus, I suspect resurrecting the original HS2 plan to Manchester and Leeds in the next 20 years is even less likely than a Heathrow third runway.

I really believe we in the UK are heading for :- If we do nothing then the problem will go away. Oh and the business that goes with it, the business for the UK.

 

[pug1]

It may be private sector driven but they still have to deal with the antiquated UK public planning system. There are lots of jobs supported and money to be made by slowing things down with bureaucracy, consultations, appeals and redesigns.

Yes an industry in its own right. With that said though if it was a choice between a third runway at LHR and, say, a tunnel between Sheffield and Manchester, I’d be pushing for the tunnel. Same problems, same lengthy delays due to impact assessments, appeals etc to tbd point where a project that could be completed in 5 years would never actually get off the drawing board.

I support the protection of our natural sites of course, but there are ways and means of doing that without throwing baby out with the bathwater.