Heathrow announces …. nothing much at all

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Phillip says:

  12 Feb12 February 14:48

  I wasn’t expecting to see any detail about this now because I am expecting to see the detail with the new third runway plans. Granted they are saying the terminal work is to happen ahead of the third runway but like the last attempt for expansion before Covid, the terminal changes were part of the overall design. What I’m hearing with today’s announcement is that they expect to be able to build a third runway and with that will come expanded terminal capacity. At the end of the day, without a third runway, the terminal expansion they are proposing will be more of a refurbishment and reshuffle within a similar footprint. Without more departures and arrivals facilitated by a third runway, there’s only so much extra terminal capacity that will be required. During the previous 3R proposals, one of the options explored was going for a Heathrow East/West concept with what is currently T5 and T2 on each side and toast-rack everything in between. Then the plans were being changed just as the whole thing was being paused. This feels more like promoting the benefits of expansion – the focus on using British Steel is particularly amusing!

  • JDB says:

    12 Feb12 February 15:07

    The proposed terminal expansions will go ahead to increase capacity with or without a third runway. T3 isn’t a viable long term option.

    • Phillip says:

      12 Feb12 February 15:33

      Agreed – all I’m saying is that, given the current positive trajectory for the third runway, plans/designs for the terminal expansion have to be linked to the overall designs for the airport which include the third runway. And by how much the terminals are expanded at this stage will depend on the third runway approval.

  • JDB says:

    12 Feb12 February 15:16

    @Phillip – getting the political backing for this including the support for British Steel is critical. The airport doesn’t wish to incur huge cost without the necessary support – the Lower Thames Crossing planning application cost c.£300m.

    The shareholders would like to do this and the government is desperate for it. You have airlines (essentially BA and Virgin) in the way and the regulator. The government’s public statements about regulators obstructing growth are notable (and a bit scary) and I’m sure that the CAA will have noted that the top two people at the Financial Ombudsman have been sacked as had the head of the Competition and Markets Authority (to be replaced by an ex Amazon executive). The CMA rules on disputes between the airlines/regulator and the airport and is pledging to speed up its processes and support the growth agenda.

• JDB says:

  12 Feb12 February 15:41

  The existing expansion plans will allow for maybe up to 115m pax to be used with or without a third runway and those expansion plans can’t really afford to be delayed while the third runway is debated. T4 is small but a swing factor. Clearly the airport would like to get the whole package agreed while the mood music looks good. The political support and government willingness to emasculate regulators may not last long!

• r* says:

  12 Feb12 February 16:09

  More remote stands is just what everyone was wanting! /s

  All of these new developments would surely be a good time to add in US pre-clearance too..

  • JDB says:

    12 Feb12 February 16:21

    Many of the existing remote stands adjacent to B and C will become proper stands as the satellites are extended, something planned from the outset.

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    12 Feb12 February 19:39

    I doubt LHR will ever get pre-clearance.

    Just too many parties to meet the demands of – UK Government, US Government, airlines and HAL itself.

    Any facility that isn’t avaiable to ALL airlines flying to the US will be a non starter for the airlines.

    And they have to meet the excess costs over the US fees to pay for CBP offices to be posted to the UK including paying housing and other allowances + the extra security equipment required.

• Paul says:

  12 Feb12 February 17:22

  The only thing that will expand is the shopping malls, the drop off fee, and the surcharges for using the Elizabeth line to protect the HEX.
  Expanding buses is not a sustainable option. A hub airport need high speed rail , not a service that to this day cost the equivalent of flying First class. Wrong airport, wrong place

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    12 Feb12 February 19:08

    There isn’t a ‘surcharge to protect the HEX’.

    TFL pays HAL for the use of HALs infrastructure at a cost per train that is set by the rail regulator.

    HEX has actually lost some passengers to Lizzie. HEX usage fell 8% (see article below)

    TFL wants to increase Lizzie trains to LHR (especially to T5)
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-elizabeth-line-trains-heathrow-airport-terminal-5-b1210264.html

    • Talay says:

      13 Feb13 February 05:08

      I used to live in Kensington and Angel. Not quite sure how much more central London you could get.

      HEX was a novelty, then useless, then surpassed by tube or taxi/limo etc.

      It has been that way for 20+ years

    • Clive says:

      13 Feb13 February 12:05

      BA Flyer IHG Stayer is correct in what he says. Further, HAL has disputed Elizabeth Line access on a number of occasions, see:
      https://accessdisputesrail.org/HAL/TTPDeterminations/#gsc.tab=0
      It’s hardly surprising that HEX has lost passengers, not least because it no longer serves T4.

• Gareth says:

  12 Feb12 February 19:05

  T5D was always on the cards. The underground train already goes to where it would be. They need to replace the fire station and fuel storage first. Should be the easiest part of their plan really

• Talay says:

  13 Feb13 February 05:05

  Utter shambles, as usual.

• HH says:

  13 Feb13 February 06:07

  Rob, on your final point, they already provide free travel for Team Heathrow (but not passengers) on the below routes:

  https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/team-heathrow/commuting-to-heathrow/public-transport/Free-Travel-Map.pdf

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    13 Feb13 February 08:39

    But that’s a very limited network and basically within the LHR Campus

    If you find a map of the pre Covid network you’ll see it was much wider and offered free travel on TFL (and other operators) buses.

    So if you were a local and worked at LHR you could get a TFL bus for free. If you were a passenger you could get a TFL bus to/from many hotels instead of getting a taxi.

    • jjoohhnn says:

      13 Feb13 February 14:23

      Hotels are being knocked down for new runway, so won’t need a TFL bus!

• jjoohhnn says:

  13 Feb13 February 14:56

  I don’t understand why they don’t move the 3rd runway along to the east a bit so you don;’t have to bury the M25. You can bury the M4 tunnel roads underneath it instead. You lose the A408, but it seems less disruption that way, and the land to the east of the tunnel roads looks like a quarry anyway.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.