Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

BA/IAG CEO Willie Walsh Describes LHR As 'rip-off'

BA/IAG CEO Willie Walsh Describes LHR As 'rip-off'

Old Nov 25, 2015, 12:37 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: OW/AA, DL, UA; Marriott Titanium
Posts: 4,934
""Mr Walsh also said that any newly enlarged Heathrow risked lying empty because airlines would refuse to pay higher charges.""

Hmmmm.....
skye1 is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 12:58 am
  #17  
V10
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Provincie Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, Belgi
Programs: MUCCI Gold
Posts: 2,511
I don't think my violin is small enough in this case. Boo hoo hoo waaaaah.

All the eggs are in the LHR basket through choice, and these fees are being passed entirely on to passengers anyway.
V10 is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 1:32 am
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,350
Originally Posted by Prospero
With the estimated costs of delivering a third runway now reportedly exceeding 18 billion, I think the CEO of the largest user of the airport is quite right to question and voice concerns over HAL's cost management given the present funding mechanism.
I'm not entirely sure that this is really what he is doing though. I think that what he is trying to change is precisely the funding mechanism and not the cost management or work efficiency. What he wants is for someone else (not least you and I through our taxes) to pay for the expansion that he has been (very rightly) saying is absolutely necessary to the London and British economies!
orbitmic is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 1:33 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
17 billion (+ another 5 billion for road improvements) is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on one runway, given the new airport in Berlin cost 3.8 billion for the entire airport.
Worcester is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 1:51 am
  #20  
formerly mattking2000
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DXB
Programs: BA|AC|AZ|SPG|H|FPC
Posts: 1,175
Originally Posted by Worcester
17 billion (+ another 5 billion for road improvements) is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on one runway, given the new airport in Berlin cost 3.8 billion for the entire airport.
HKG spent 13 billion to build a third runway by extending the island it's on (through reclamation of 650 hectares), in addition to improving its automated people mover system and increase efficiency of its baggage handling by over 300%. Different countries have different labour rates, material costs, staging/hoarding requirements, ground conditions, etc.

Berlin built a new airport on an unused piece of land in the middle of nowhere disrupting (more or less) no one and nothing, but the construction of an additional runway to complement existing infrastructure requires a more delicate approach
BA Humbug is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 2:35 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Programs: BA Gold, several other less interesting cards...
Posts: 3,710
Originally Posted by Worcester
17 billion (+ another 5 billion for road improvements) is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on one runway, given the new airport in Berlin cost 3.8 billion for the entire airport.
I wouldn't be holding Brandenburg up as a shining example of how to build an airport
srbrenna is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 2:41 am
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,351
Originally Posted by Worcester
17 billion (+ another 5 billion for road improvements) is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on one runway, given the new airport in Berlin cost 3.8 billion for the entire airport.
Yes, and look what smooth and timely delivery this has been...
NickB is online now  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 2:45 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: LHR
Programs: BA Silver/ows, CX AsiaMiles (not even GR anymore!) missing my GO days
Posts: 1,581
The thing of it is that if Heathrow and Heathrow expansion are as economically valuable as boosters claim, the market should be able to bear high landing fees and other user charges that would pay for an expansion without recourse to taxpayer funding. (And before another economist comes along mentioning externalities, I'm not convinced that's a strong argument in this case.)

Walsh I'm sure would love to have the benefits of more capacity at LHR although he probably suspects that the benefit would not be valuable enough for him to recoup the cost if that cost were 100% passed on to users. He's probably right about that, to the extent there are other underutilized airports around London that could capture even more O/D traffic than LCCs already have if LHR's fees/fares become too high. So you can't fault him for "asking" for taxpayer support as he's implicitly doing with his complaint about high user fees. That's not to say the politicians should be gullible enough to fall for it.
CrazyJ82 is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 2:46 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London UK
Programs: All Expired... :-(
Posts: 410
Originally Posted by mattking2000
HKG spent 13 billion to build a third runway by extending the island it's on (through reclamation of 650 hectares), in addition to improving its automated people mover system and increase efficiency of its baggage handling by over 300%. Different countries have different labour rates, material costs, staging/hoarding requirements, ground conditions, etc.

Berlin built a new airport on an unused piece of land in the middle of nowhere disrupting (more or less) no one and nothing, but the construction of an additional runway to complement existing infrastructure requires a more delicate approach
Maybe Borris Island wasn't such a bad idea then....
Cerebrito is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 3:00 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Berkhamsted, UK
Programs: EasyJet Flight Club
Posts: 127
It might have been cheap but Berlin's new airport isn't open, and doesn't look like it will be open for a while yet.
luxurytravelled is online now  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 3:07 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
Originally Posted by srbrenna
I wouldn't be holding Brandenburg up as a shining example of how to build an airport
True it was well over budget, but still even after the budget overruns it was a 5th of the cost of the projected cost of 1 runway. I know it is a different location an everything but that is more the the Gross National Product of Iceland!!! On one runway. I can not see how your mind can not be blown away by this.

It is very nearly the entire output of Estonia for one year. Can you image if the whole of Estonian works for the whole year 1.32 million of them beavering away every day and all they managed to produce in that year was one runway?

The cost of this is more than the economic output of 88 of the worlds countries.

And I don't get where the money is going, concrete costs around 120 per cubic meter, if we assume the new runway is the same area as the existing Northern runway at 3,902m x 50m and add 50% extra for the taxi ways etc, that comes out at an area of nearly 300,000 square meters. To cover that in concrete to a depth of 1 meter would cost somewhere in the region of 35 million. I know there is a lot more to the runway and they need to buy an entire village to demolish it but 17 Billion, well that's not all being spent on concrete.

Am I the only one shocked by this number? Or actually shocked that we are willing to pay this amount? Don't get me wrong I think we desperately need a new runway (or two ideally)
Worcester is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 3:10 am
  #27  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,141
Where are these chandeliers he mentions?
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 3:20 am
  #28  
formerly mattking2000
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DXB
Programs: BA|AC|AZ|SPG|H|FPC
Posts: 1,175
Originally Posted by Worcester
True it was well over budget, but still even after the budget overruns it was a 5th of the cost of the projected cost of 1 runway. I know it is a different location an everything but that is more the the Gross National Product of Iceland!!! On one runway. I can not see how your mind can not be blown away by this.

It is very nearly the entire output of Estonia for one year. Can you image if the whole of Estonian works for the whole year 1.32 million of them beavering away every day and all they managed to produce in that year was one runway?

The cost of this is more than the economic output of 88 of the worlds countries.

And I don't get where the money is going, concrete costs around 120 per cubic meter, if we assume the new runway is the same area as the existing Northern runway at 3,902m x 50m and add 50% extra for the taxi ways etc, that comes out at an area of nearly 300,000 square meters. To cover that in concrete to a depth of 1 meter would cost somewhere in the region of 35 million. I know there is a lot more to the runway and they need to buy an entire village to demolish it but 17 Billion, well that's not all being spent on concrete.

Am I the only one shocked by this number? Or actually shocked that we are willing to pay this amount? Don't get me wrong I think we desperately need a new runway (or two ideally)
I haven't looked at the full proposal, but doesn't the third runway project also include a sixth terminal...?
BA Humbug is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 3:26 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Programs: BA Gold, several other less interesting cards...
Posts: 3,710
BA/IAG CEO Willie Walsh Describes LHR As 'rip-off'

And building the runway over the M25
srbrenna is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2015, 3:26 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by CrazyJ82
The thing of it is that if Heathrow and Heathrow expansion are as economically valuable as boosters claim, the market should be able to bear high landing fees and other user charges that would pay for an expansion without recourse to taxpayer funding. (And before another economist comes along mentioning externalities, I'm not convinced that's a strong argument in this case.)

Walsh I'm sure would love to have the benefits of more capacity at LHR although he probably suspects that the benefit would not be valuable enough for him to recoup the cost if that cost were 100% passed on to users. He's probably right about that, to the extent there are other underutilized airports around London that could capture even more O/D traffic than LCCs already have if LHR's fees/fares become too high. So you can't fault him for "asking" for taxpayer support as he's implicitly doing with his complaint about high user fees. That's not to say the politicians should be gullible enough to fall for it.
Walsh only wants more capacity if it is reserved for BA. The last thing he wants is a risk of having a lot more competition in his own back yard.
winchpete is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.