IAN-UK

That was over three years' ago! (Are policemen beginning to look young ?)

And it is a much missed facility. Gatwick is a pig to get to from the north.


not while there's a significant Heathrow yield premium. And that will take years to be whittled away ..... after the years 'n years to improve ground transport.

Skiddie

Much less than it used to be. The Kings Cross-St Pancras transfer means that Gatwick is nearly as close by train to Cambridge as is Heathrow, and actually easier (fewer transfers/less walking) to get to.

(yes, I know Cambridge is not The North, although it is north of London, but between Kings Cross and St Pancras, a significant portion of the north has access to the direct Thameslink Gatwick connection)

IAN-UK

Yes, though Euston is not quite so convenient, it's probably better than the transfer to/through Victoria. There was once a connection at MK to a service that trundled along some secret route round west london: but that seems to have disappeared - or perhaps only available with a second change at Watford.

But still, MAN LGW was way easier!

stut

The connection at MK is still there, but it only goes as far as South Croydon, so you'd have to change at MK and East Croydon to get to Gatwick. And in a couple of years, there will be direct services from Cambridge, Peterborough and Stevenage to Gatwick.

I suppose that, while London has high O&D traffic, the shorter domestic connections are more about connecting traffic, the bulk of which is still at LHR.

Worcester

I just can not get over the cost of the new runway. Berlin could have built 6 complete airports for the same price. How much are we going to have to pay as passengers for this, plus the profit HAL want to make.

Willie Walsh suggested that they simply extend the existing runways to allow simultaneous take off and landings on the same runway.

Worcester

Just done a quick calculation and the cost to build a runway using gold plate

100cm x 100cm x 0.0125cm = 125cm3

1cm3 weighs 19.28 grams so 2.41kg of gold/sq meter

x 182,500 sq m = 438,000 KG
Gold at $41,080 works out the runway cost would be $18 billion or around £12.5 billion) £5.5 billion less than the estimated cost.

Calchas

Agreed, the cost is ridiculous. Also not sure why it has to be only one runway at one airport, but I'm not going to look at that

The double-ended operations idea was examined but as I remember it was found technically unfeasible.

AlienInTheFatherland

But we would need a couple of centuries or so to achieve this feat...

ajeleonard

Most of the cost is land, London is expensive.....

London_traveller

And the re-routing of the M25 - that's a massive project in itself.

UKtravelbear

The costs of the 'thing' are usually exceeded by the the things needed to enable the 'thing' itself to be built.

For example a huge chunk of the costs of the Olympic Stadium and the Millennium Dome weren't actually for the construction of those but for e.g. remediation of the land (cleaning up of industrial waste including a huge mountain of fridges on the Olympic Site); the installation (or diversion) of utilities and other infra structure such as roads and sewers, demolition of any buildings on the site and leveling it.

The same applied to the T5 site as well and will apply to the new runway and T6 too.

Worcester

Which is all true, but it's £18 billion without the roadworks (which will be tax payer funded). Don't get me wrong I think we desperately need a new runway. I just don't see how it can cost more than the Olympics? 6 times the cost on an entire airport in Berlin.

Imaging a pile of £20 notes 59 high value of £1,180. Now image the entire runway filled with £20 notes stacked 59 high. That is more or less £18 billion. 3.65km by 50 meters wide of £20 notes. Blows my mind.

I just can not see that at that price it is economically viable, as HAL will raise fees while simultaneously increasing capacity.

London_traveller

As said above, the costs will cover massive, massive undertakings well before the tarmac is laid for the runway. The costs of uprooting the people in/around Sipson who'd be impacted, all the services such as water and sewage that need to be put in place and/or diverted, and so on.

I don't know the details about Berlin's new airport but guess they weren't starting at the same point?

This is where I think it becomes obvious: the estimations for Gatwick (also from the commission) were £9.3bn. Half the cost. Given Gatwick won't face the same level of legal challenge, the ability to deliver it really will make a difference. I'd rather have the option that might involve a degree of compromise, to actually get it delivered, and at half the cost.

BTW I have no ulterior motives for LGW here

Interesting the new London Mayor has paved the way for easier expansion at City airport. If that's a sign of anything it's a more level playing field across London's airports, or maybe I'm reading too much into that.

Interesting though I recall Sadiq Khan saying at a hustings, when asked about LHR expansion, that he didn't support it, but did support a combination of LCY and LGW expansion.

Calchas

Mr Khan has already changed his mind on LHR once. I don't think he really cares. The decision will be made by central government anyway.

My suspicion is that it has already been decided that Heathrow will get the runway, but it wasn't announced because it would scupper Mr Goldsmith's chance of winning the mayoral election and trash his reputation which is built partially on opposing the runway. A respectful period will be left before the government whips through a bill directly authorising planning consent without permitting too much local interference. We may also have to wait until post-EU referendum so the announcement does not engender further stress on the Conservative party unity.

oscietra

Willie (and by extension, us through our BA fares increasing) won't pay for any new runway at LHR:

http://www.flyertalk.com/articles/co...-iag-boss.html