SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
187 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Airports to get £6.8bn investment
BBC News 28/4/05

The British Airports Authority (BAA) is to spend £6.8bn to improve capacity at London's three main airports.

Changes include allowing Heathrow to receive the new Airbus 380, the world's largest passenger aircraft.

BAA predicts a 3% a year rise in passengers using Heathrow in west London, Gatwick, West Sussex and Stansted, Essex, over the next decade.

It said its forecast did not take into account the proposed runway extensions which would increase flight numbers.

There are plans for a second runway at Stansted to be ready around 2011, and a short, third, runway at Heathrow in 2015.

Renewed confidence

The authority said it expected Heathrow's annual passenger total to increase from 67.7 million in 2004-05 to 86 million in 2014-2015.

Gatwick's numbers over the same period were likely to rise from 32 million to 41 million, while Stansted's numbers could rise from 21.2 million to 35 million.

Last year saw passenger numbers rise 6.5%, partly due to the boom in low-cost airlines, and renewed confidence in air travel after the 2003 Iraq war and the Sars crisis.

BAA is spending £2bn of the £6.8bn announced on Thursday on Heathrow's partly-constructed fifth terminal, which is due to open in 2008. The project has an overall budget of £4.2bn.

More than £680m will be spent on a glass bridge at Gatwick leading from the main terminal to where passengers board flights. The bridge will be high enough to allow a taxiing Boeing 747 underneath.

BAA chief executive Mike Clasper said: "These strong traffic growth forecasts support both BAA's view and the government's view, as outlined in the aviation White Paper, that the demand for air travel in the UK will continue to grow."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,466 Posts
why don't they instead try and encourage more people bound for Paris or Brussels to use the eurostar, and to use the railways for internal journeys, to relieve the airports a bit?
Its funny how money is always put into London, even though everywhere else sufferes similar of the same problems. Nearly every other airport in the UK could do with improvements to increase capacity- lots of airports almost choke because they can't cope, but they never get any money.
 

·
Against ID Cards
Joined
·
9,799 Posts
But it's not the government putting this money in, it's a private company BAA that owns all 3 major London airports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,335 Posts
If we're going to have privately owned airports I don't think one company should own the three key London ones. Whoever thought that one up?

I don't know the source, but I read it on here that about 15% of uk takeoff's are internal flights. I think with better intercity rail we could reduce that to 10 or even 5%.

International destinations could be added to Eurostar such as Cologne, Dusseldorf, Amsterdam, Rotterdam which could make an impact too. High speed connections are currently being upgraded to do this.
 

·
Titter ye not.
Joined
·
19,193 Posts
The Thatcher govt thought it up. Genius isn't it?

Again why is it that people outside of London are so ready to jump on 'London gets everything boo hoo' argument without having any knowledge of how things work. I think the govt announced expansion plans for pretty much nearly every major UK airport not so long ago, is that not good enough? I know we should close Heathrow and divert all flights to Leeds/Bradford making it one of the world's busiest airports. Oh wait, hold on its market forces, you can't force foreign tourists or businesses people to want to fly to East Midlands airport instead.

Thats like saying to Tesco you can't spend anymore money on new supermarkets in the south east, you have to build them up north.

Silly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
"More than £680m will be spent on a glass bridge at Gatwick leading from the main terminal to where passengers board flights. The bridge will be high enough to allow a taxiing Boeing 747 underneath. "


That's a very expensive footbridge!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
34,849 Posts
imagnie if they spent this money on londons railway stations. less than 100 million people a year use those london airports.
 

·
Salford Red
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
It must do?

Doesn't Manchester Airport PLC actually own its train station? Or is it really owned by Network Rail (Railtrack thingymabobby)?

;)
 

·
Salford Red
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
EarlyBird said:
What about a taxiing A380?
Does Gatwick intend to support it at all in the near future?

As far as I was aware only Heathrow and Manchester have firm short term plans to fully support the new aircraft.
 

·
Salford Red
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
Leeds No.1 said:
Gatwick Airport Station is owned by Network Rail, but Manchester Airport station isn't.
What about that 10 quid a go each way thingy that runs into Heathrow from, Waterloo is it?
 
G

·
WeasteDevil said:
Does Gatwick intend to support it at all in the near future?

As far as I was aware only Heathrow and Manchester have firm short term plans to fully support the new aircraft.
But even if they don't intend to support the A380 in the near future, a bridge costing that much would be a bit of a limitation if it had to be upgraded later to support the A380.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,068 Posts
gothicform said:
imagnie if they spent this money on londons railway stations. less than 100 million people a year use those london airports.
What's wrong with london's railway stations? I'd have thought the tube would need capacity upgrades before the heavy rail stations.

As far as demand and market forces goes, the 130 odd million PPA currently using london airports is probably disproportionate. Most longhaul direct flights from/to the UK go through the london hub, so a hell of a lot of these passengers are regional flights for connections. For instance, BA has no direct long haul flights from any of the regional UK airports.

To reduce the need for these connection flights, we need to develop strategic international hubs. For instance, a scottish (glasgow or Edinburgh), Northern (manchester), Midlands (Birmingham) and london hub, each with capacity for a full range service. This would
1. free up the congested southern airspace
2. Encourage more public transport commuting to the departure airport (direct flight=less perceived multi-node journeys)
3. Spread the economic benefits of airtravel
4. Stop me from experiencing the god-awful sights, smells, comfort and service of Heathrow and Gatwick. They really can't be the best first impression for visitors!
 

·
Salford Red
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
EarlyBird said:
But even if they don't intend to support the A380 in the near future, a bridge costing that much would be a bit of a limitation if it had to be upgraded later to support the A380.
Depends how the terminal buildings at Gatwick are designed, maybe the A380 would be somewhere else and not need to go under the bridge?

Sorry, I've only ever been to gatwick as a transfer when Manchester didn´t have direct Valencia flights. Never actually seen the terminal layout.

The amount of money being spent on it does seem a bit daft though. The press have probably misprinted the bloody thing though. It's probably 68m quid.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
187 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I saw the new Robin Hood International (why call it that when it's in Doncaster !!!) on the tv the other day and it looked really good. Hopefully the new investments in UK Airports will make them amongst the best on the planet :wink2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,466 Posts
Weaste, its Heathrow-Paddington.

They should have just called it Doncaster or Doncaster Finningley.
The actual airport looks good but I dont know whether Im in favour of it or not, but its built now so hmm...
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top