-
Reducing the frequency of flights to popular destinations fundamentally breaks the hub and spoke model. Heathrow is a hub airport.
In a rational world, the regulator and government would require the monopoly provider of critical transport infrastructure to invest in a way that ensures supply keeps pace with demand. Instead, government needs to be cajoled into reluctantly and unreliable allowing investment. It’s no surprise that our infrastructure is so poor.
I assume you mean a new runway as the new infrastructure.
There is still a problem getting all the extra aircraft to the approach of the runways and dealing with all extra outbound.
Don’t forget there are alot of airfields around London with outbounds and inbounds coming from all points of the compass. There is no certainty that a new runway could be fully utilised.
Uk atc is understaffed and will take until at least 2030 before the controller numbers increase. Even then it’ll be a slow process.
No quick fix is possible on this issue. There is a world wide shortage of controllers and atc Provider companies are only just realising their problem.Runway would not be ready by 2030 in any case.
And the 3rd runway being limited in its capacity will be a good thing for the overall reliability of the airport.
Just build the damn thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS4Air . Note this was much greater than just a LHR/LGW route. Whilst it might not be cheap, a 15 min transfer (especially if kept airside) would create a “super-hub”. It would take longer to taxi to a 3rd runway at LHR 😉
Runway would not be ready by 2030 in any case.
And the 3rd runway being limited in its capacity will be a good thing for the overall reliability of the airport.
Just build the damn thing.Controller numbers only increasing from 2030. They’ll still be way below the actual number required.
This is not just controllers at Heathrow. The London area (TMA) is short now, as is the enroute portion at the Swanwick control centre. Lots of training happening. But lots of retirements too.
Management don’t seem to realise that not all trainees actually make it when projecting their staff numbers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS4Air . Note this was much greater than just a LHR/LGW route. Whilst it might not be cheap, a 15 min transfer (especially if kept airside) would create a “super-hub”. It would take longer to taxi to a 3rd runway at LHR 😉
85km of new high speed rail, 65km of upgraded track all for £10bn. In the UK. Somebody’s having a laugh.
I read someone’s QR review in Doha recently whose bus was going round and round for 20mins plus. I’ve never flown with them but hope that’s not what’s to come at LHR.
That’s what happened to me last month on a trip there. Bus was going for 20 mins before we reached the terminal. I thought we were heading for Bahrain at one stage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS4Air . Note this was much greater than just a LHR/LGW route. Whilst it might not be cheap, a 15 min transfer (especially if kept airside) would create a “super-hub”. It would take longer to taxi to a 3rd runway at LHR 😉
That would require ruining green belt land and going through the middle of some very pro Tory areas.
Also the costings are done by a consultancy that has an agenda. They’re completely unworkable
It’s a tragedy this won’t be built, it would absolutely transform transport in and around London. Can’t the UK harness a bit of the visionary zeal of Brunel instead of just sweating his infrastructure legacy? There seems to be zero appetite to think big and believe it can be accomplished (which, from an engineering and financing perspective, it easily could).
@Londonsteve – exactly right. Why can’t it be built by the side/above/below the M25. Take the hard shoulder out in places if need be (we’re already getting rid of them for more cars….). If you can build the Eliz line and HS2, a LHR/LGW shuttle should be like building a LEGO set.
Yes, HS2 is roaring success story…
Fast LHR to LGW (plus another runway or two at Gatwick) connection might make sense if both airports wanted it; as they are not under common ownership they don’t.
@memesweeper : my thought also, but with a bit of Govt will it could happen. Both airports need it, and it will cool the political hot potatoes of new runways. It also has so many greater benefits.
Go to Boston and look at the BIG DIG. Transformed the city. Stupid cost, but in 20/30/50 years they will be celebrating bigger than a tea party!
Fast LHR to LGW (plus another runway or two at Gatwick) connection might make sense if both airports wanted it; as they are not under common ownership they don’t.
These things shouldn’t be about what the airports want, it’s about what’s in the national interests and a government that makes it happen even if a commercial organisation doesn’t want it because it may be contrary to their interests (e.g. it damages their monopoly position). It was not right, for example, that the rail tunnelling work for Heathrow Central was paid for by HAL who can now act like Dick Turpin with Elizabeth Line passengers because it’s ‘their’ tunnel.
Fast LHR to LGW (plus another runway or two at Gatwick) connection might make sense if both airports wanted it; as they are not under common ownership they don’t.
These things shouldn’t be about what the airports want, it’s about what’s in the national interests and a government that makes it happen even if a commercial organisation doesn’t want it because it may be contrary to their interests (e.g. it damages their monopoly position). It was not right, for example, that the rail tunnelling work for Heathrow Central was paid for by HAL who can now act like Dick Turpin with Elizabeth Line passengers because it’s ‘their’ tunnel.
Nobody else was willing to pay the huge cost of the tunnel, so it’s only fair that the party that did pay should be allowed a return on that investment.
Nobody else was willing to pay the huge cost of the tunnel, so it’s only fair that the party that did pay should be allowed a return on that investment.
Well, yes, since they paid, they now call the shots. It should have been central government funding it, like any other piece of rail infrastructure. There’s no use crying over spilled milk but it still grates that HAL cream off a fiver from each passenger, even if they’re only travelling from Hayes & Harlington.
That fiver is an access charge for using the tunnels and maintaining the track, signals, platforms and to staff them etc.
It was set by the ORR and then approved by a court after HAL appealed.
HAL actually wanted a contribution to the capital cost of building tunnels etc but they were told to jog on.
The original proposal did come from BR and BAA when they were both publicly owned.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
