View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
Old December 25th 20, 09:18 AM posted to uk.transport.london
tim...[_2_] tim...[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2020
Posts: 34
Default Heathrow runway 3 lawful



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
Recliner wrote:

Oh, I don't think HAL will be in any hurry to pursue this opportunity.
It
currently has much more pressing concerns. It's much more likely to
prioritise the re-development of the central terminals, given the
current
low demand. With T3 temporarily closed, there may be an opportunity to
close a wing of it permanently, and accelerate the expansion of T2.


This is so true. The costs and impact of trying to change a tyre whilst
moving
vs. being able to take a more optimun approach must be significant. The
question
will be how to finance this when revenues are down from landing fees and
retail
sales.


They want to be able to raise their fees to fund the investment, in the
way
that other regulated utilities do. Needless to say, HAL's biggest
customer,
IAG, which already has plenty of slots, is furious at the idea.


Because it's fundamentally the wrong way to do it

Sainsbury's doesn't put up its prices because it wants to increase the size
of it shops to expand into selling more type of goods

It raises the capital to do that, in the markets, based upon a prospectus
that "promises" the extra income from these new sales will pay back the
loans (with benefits).

Whether those promises are likely to, or not, come to fruition, is for the
banks to evaluate when deciding whether to lend the money, and if they get
it wrong, its the banks shareholders that lose, not the Airport's current
customers.

That way a strictly financial appraisal of the benefits of a scheme are
properly assessed, by the people *qualified* to do it. It isn't just done
because some big-wig head of a corporate happens to be chums with some
politician in an influential position and persuades them to champion it to
Government, over a game of golf.

The argument that LHR is a utility that has to be allowed to expand for the
good of the overall economy is just stuff and nonsense, that shouldn't
enable it to ride roughshod over standard corporate accounting methodology.

It's a purely commercial organisation - it should be told to play by normal
commercial rules

tim