Airports Commission Interim Report

[fowler9]

well the 37% of passengers who are in transit probably couldn't care if the airport was at Heathrow or the Thames estuary. If Heathrow is a 'Hub' airport, that is the market it is aiming at

That is still well below half of the passengers. Plus I counted as a transit passenger the 2 times I used Heathrow because I couldn't get flights to Hong Kong and Argentina from the north of the country. That 37% isn't just foreign people ploughing their money in to the UK economy. A good number of my fellow passengers were meeting connecting flights. I would much rather have got a flight to Hong Kong from Manchester for example.

 

[edwin_m]

HS2 was supposed to remove the need for the third runway by replacing most of Heathrow's domestic flights by trains. At least this was the impression the Tories were giving during the 2010 campaign when they pledged no third runway in this Parliament. Was this idea only ever vote-winning tosh or was it realistic at some point? And if it was realistic why isn't it any longer?

 

[fowler9]

HS2 was supposed to remove the need for the third runway by replacing most of Heathrow's domestic flights by trains. At least this was the impression the Tories were giving during the 2010 campaign when they pledged no third runway in this Parliament. Was this idea only ever vote-winning tosh or was it realistic at some point? And if it was realistic why isn't it any longer?

Blimey, that was already a crazy argument, any further north than Birmingham and the journey time is already ruling out getting a train instead of a plane to Heathrow for both cost and time. Even Manchester would be dubious unless you live by the new HS2 station.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why not?.

As to Ground Access, the total passenger access count for even such a titanic airport would be within the capability of a Crossrail standard metro line, let alone the concentration of resources that could be brought to bear if all the money used to maintain grouund access to all the significant airports in SE England was freed up.

the resources required to maintain ground access to the existing airports is relatively small. The resources require to build new access to a new hub will be significant. Especially if you then try to serve it with reasonable journey times from the 10,000 square miles that forms the local catchment area of the 6 London airports today.

I'm not arguing the economics for or against a new hub; I am arguing that the convenience factor of the existing airports will keep them operational.

 

[Max]

Since this thread has drifted onto largely aviation-related topics, I have moved it here.

 

[johnnychips]

the resources required to maintain ground access to the existing airports is relatively small. The resources require to build new access to a new hub will be significant. Especially if you then try to serve it with reasonable journey times from the 10,000 square miles that forms the local catchment area of the 6 London airports today.

An excellent point. Heathrow, for all its limitations, is give or take half an hour from the centre of London and is surrounded by supporting infrastructure, businesses and buildings.

And in this market-centred economy, you can not make airlines move to airports they do not want to without massive compensation. Even during the 00s boom years, long-haul flights from Stansted failed to take off (sorry) as people just did not want to fly from there with its perceived inferiority to Heathrow and its poor access.

 

[fowler9]

An excellent point. Heathrow, for all its limitations, is give or take half an hour from the centre of London and is surrounded by supporting infrastructure, businesses and buildings.

And in this market-centred economy, you can not make airlines move to airports they do not want to without massive compensation. Even during the 00s boom years, long-haul flights from Stansted failed to take off (sorry) as people just did not want to fly from there with its perceived inferiority to Heathrow and its poor access.

Absolutely. Is there anything at all designed in to Crossrail or other infrastructure plans for a possible new 4 or more runway airport in the Thames Estuary? If not then it is going to cost a hell of a lot of money and it will all be starting from scratch.

Not to turn it in to a north v south thing but people living around Heathrow are going to have to ask themselves do they like the advantages living in London brings and are they willing to accept a new runway there. Do they want the airport moving away to the Thames Estuary and loose all the business Heathrow brings or would they rather the flights went to completely different parts of the country. Sadly my last option is not even being considered.

I think some people think that a new airport in the Thames Estuary is easy to do because they did it in Hong Kong with Chek Lap Kok. Alas London is nothing like that. Chek Lap Kok serves one city and was not replacing Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stanstead, London City and even Southend.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Absolutely. Is there anything at all designed in to Crossrail or other infrastructure plans for a possible new 4 or more runway airport in the Thames Estuary? If not then it is going to cost a hell of a lot of money and it will all be starting from scratch.

Not to turn it in to a north v south thing but people living around Heathrow are going to have to ask themselves do they like the advantages living in London brings and are they willing to accept a new runway there. Do they want the airport moving away to the Thames Estuary and loose all the business Heathrow brings or would they rather the flights went to completely different parts of the country. Sadly my last option is not even being considered.

I think some people think that a new airport in the Thames Estuary is easy to do because they did it in Hong Kong with Chek Lap Kok. Alas London is nothing like that. Chek Lap Kok serves one city and was not replacing Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stanstead, London City and even Southend.

Well exactly! People seem to forget how big the London conurbation is.

I live directly underneath the Heathrow flight path in Richmond but it really doesn't bother me.

 

[Carlisle]

I also don't believe they would ever close Heathrow after all the investment that has/is taking place ,also I'm no great fan of motorways or cars but can't see any alternative to some expansion for the foreseeable future ,the recent loss of railbourne fuel traffic to cornwall proves how difficult it is for rail freight to compete right now but raising costs for lorries would just put prices up of pretty much everything everywhere, I also recall the Tories claiming that HS2 could be an alternative to the Third Runway and wonder if they honestly thought anyone ever believed those claims

 

[edwin_m]

Blimey, that was already a crazy argument, any further north than Birmingham and the journey time is already ruling out getting a train instead of a plane to Heathrow for both cost and time. Even Manchester would be dubious unless you live by the new HS2 station.

The HS2 station at Manchester is close to the airport so access times would be similar. With a journey time of just over 1hr to central London, so maybe 1.5hr to Heathrow, it probably scrapes in depending on how the minimum transit time at Heathrow (from a Manchester flight) compares with the minimum check-in time (if arriving there by train). I do agree it isn't going to work for Scotland, where the HS2 journey would be about 3hr followed by a 2hr check-in time, and this is probably the main market for domestic connecting flights.

Perhaps if HS2 was linked to Heathrow or alterative airport site the trains on this route could have remote check-in and baggage drop, so the travel time was effectively part of the check-in time? Heathrow Express did this but I think it was dropped, probably for security reasons.

 

[alwaystouchout]

Perhaps if HS2 was linked to Heathrow or alterative airport site the trains on this route could have remote check-in and baggage drop, so the travel time was effectively part of the check-in time? Heathrow Express did this but I think it was dropped, probably for security reasons.

The London Britannia scheme proposed remote check-in at St Pancras and Ebbsfleet which appeared to be one of the few positive aspects of the scheme. I can't remember if the Foster/Isle of Grain proposal did. The rail/air connection has to be as smooth and seamless as possible, otherwise it's futile.

 

[fowler9]

The HS2 station at Manchester is close to the airport so access times would be similar. With a journey time of just over 1hr to central London, so maybe 1.5hr to Heathrow, it probably scrapes in depending on how the minimum transit time at Heathrow (from a Manchester flight) compares with the minimum check-in time (if arriving there by train). I do agree it isn't going to work for Scotland, where the HS2 journey would be about 3hr followed by a 2hr check-in time, and this is probably the main market for domestic connecting flights.

Perhaps if HS2 was linked to Heathrow or alterative airport site the trains on this route could have remote check-in and baggage drop, so the travel time was effectively part of the check-in time? Heathrow Express did this but I think it was dropped, probably for security reasons.

I have transited in just over 30 minutes in Heathrow, however the flight from Manchester arrived at Terminal 5 and my flight out left from there. It would obviously be a different matter if you had to change terminals.