Heathrow runway 3 lawful
 

The Supreme Court has given the go-ahead for LHR R3. Of course, HAL isn't
going to be in any hurry to build it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55322340

Heathrow runway 3 lawful
 

In message , at 10:02:50 on Wed, 16 Dec
2020, Recliner remarked:
The Supreme Court has given the go-ahead for LHR R3. Of course, HAL isn't
going to be in any hurry to build it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55322340

Actually, it's given the go-ahead for HAL to make a planning application
(which could still fail). According to the lunchtime news they've
largely disbanded the team working on that, so it could take a while.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow runway 3 lawful
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:02:50 on Wed, 16 Dec
2020, Recliner remarked:
The Supreme Court has given the go-ahead for LHR R3. Of course, HAL isn't
going to be in any hurry to build it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55322340

Actually, it's given the go-ahead for HAL to make a planning application
(which could still fail). According to the lunchtime news they've
largely disbanded the team working on that, so it could take a while.

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.

Heathrow runway 3 lawful
 

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.

Heathrow runway 3 lawful
 

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.

Heathrow runway 3 lawful
 

In message , at 14:28:35 on Wed, 16 Dec 2020,
Roland Perry remarked:
In message , at 10:02:50 on Wed, 16 Dec
2020, Recliner remarked:
The Supreme Court has given the go-ahead for LHR R3. Of course, HAL isn't
going to be in any hurry to build it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55322340

Actually, it's given the go-ahead for HAL to make a planning
application (which could still fail). According to the lunchtime news
they've largely disbanded the team working on that, so it could take a
while.

Today's Guardian news (appears to be a "bad loser"):

"The UK's supreme court will refer a lawyer who broke the
embargo on its ruling on Heathrow airport to the attorney
general and the Bar Standards Board for investigation.

Tim Crosland, the director of environmental charity Plan B
Earth, received the ruling in advance as one of the parties
involved in the case, and published his reaction on Tuesday, the
day before the judgment was delivered.

Crosland said he was doing so as an 'act of civil disobedience'
and in protest at the court's finding that the government's
decision to approve the development of a third runway at the
airport was made lawfully with reference to climate targets.
....
The decision means the project can seek planning permission,
however the completion of the runway remains uncertain."
--
Roland Perry

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

Heathrow runway 3 lawful
 

tim... wrote:


"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

It's not a purely commercial organisation, as its charges are regulated by
the CAA. If it was a purely commercial organisation, it would set its own,
higher, charges. I'm sure it would be delighted to be 'told to play by
normal commercial rules'.

Heathrow runway 3 lawful
 

On 25/12/2020 09:18, tim... wrote:


"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.Â* 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


The point is it is a monopoly, if you want to play you have to pay their
prices.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Heathrow runway 3 lawful
 

On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 14:09:41 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 25/12/2020 09:18, tim... wrote:


"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


The point is it is a monopoly, if you want to play you have to pay their
prices.

That's why it's treated as a regulated utility (like a water company), with the regulator controlling the prices. If it
was a purely commercial organisation, it would set its own, probably higher, prices.

IAG likes the fact that LHR is (Covid-apart) always short of capacity, as it controls so much of it. It doesn't want the
capacity to be increased, as that would devalue its own hoard of slots. And it particularly doesn't like having to pay
higher charges to allow HAL to invest in increased capacity. That's a lose-lose for IAG, so expect it to be one of the
loudest voices against the third runway. I'm sure Sean Doyle and Luis Gallego will have all sort of eloquent reasons to
oppose it.