Jagboi

All of which has to be done at any airport new construction- so why does it cost ten times more to do it in the UK?

Be honest, London has a very mild climate, from a Civil Engineering point of view it is not difficult to design for. Unlike places like YUL that have harsh winters which makes things much more challenging.

BA Humbug

I was originally pointing out to skeptics of the price tag as a standalone, but I will try to address it from a comparative point of view as well.

I have also not had time to fully look at the 344 pages of proposal, but several things immediately come to mind:
- scope (there seems to be a lot of work being done here, not so much in other examples highlighted)
- existing works vs new builds. Remodeling/working around existing infrastructure can be a daunting task. Think submerged cables/pipes/etc. Several years ago a colleague of mine spent months (literally) figuring out how to build a building on a site in close proximity to another existing building (<1 m), because excavation works would likely destabilize the ground near the building and the existing building could potentially literally fall into the newly excavated hole. LHR is already quite developed, Brandenburg is not.
- design usage. How many heavy/super-heavys would land on this runway per day, compared to say, YUL? It's not just the load design of the runway, but more heavy/super-heavy jets usually translates to more cargo/passengers. These all take more to design for. As mentioned upthread, it's not necessarily a linear relationship between the number of users and the cost.
- weather/climate is, although a cost driver, not a significant one. Thermal expansion/freeze-thaw effects are easily accounted for. There are also other factors to consider (wind loads, seismic, I am not familiar enough with BS-EN code vs. CSA code to comment on the matter, although I am led to believe that BS-EN is much more stringent.
- size: in terms of aircraft movements, cargo moved, passengers, etc. LHR is larger than many of the other examples outlined in this board. With more usage comes naturally a higher design cost (the cost per person may remain the same or even be lower). It's that simple.

and finally (perhaps most significantly, cost-wise):
- Land and relocation cost -- as pointed out on the graph on page 2 of this thread, these constitute 50% of the price tag. As far as I know, ATL and YUL has not had this issue to this extent.

I could go on, and probably have even more examples if I actually read the proposal. These may each seem like little things, but they add up very quickly.

Crampedin13A

I can imagine land acquisition and environmental consultant fees for the 3rd runway at LHR being astronomical. I was amazed how YYZ added a 2nd N-S and 3rd E-W runway a few years ago almost in stealth mode compared to the usual NIMBY-ism that exists in the GTA. Of course there was no land acquisition involved which helped. I still remember landing at MAN years ago looking down on people sitting in holes where the 2nd runway was to be constructed

jose2000

the biggest thing is people see 'london' and know they can get away with absurd costs.

there will be big consultancy outsourcing at every level with each one taking a chunk. the actual cost of real work will be a fraction, but there will be over governance, and people creating jobs for themselves at these unnecessary levels, which needn't exist.

'public sector magic' with consultancy guidance. the final cost will of course be much higher!

1010101

Nail on the head.

As with most projects that take place in the UK there will be people waiting with their palms outstretched at every stage, fighting over who gets what budget and mandate.

In my own industry, the cost of delivery is about 2 - 3 times higher in London than it is elsewhere, the difference almost entirely made up of over-governance and red tape. I can only imagine the additional costs when you have snouts lining up at the government trough.

HIDDY

You should remember that next time you ask why BA can't be as 'great' as QR/CX/EK etc.