Re: Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow

"Lansbury" <lansbury@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:8pss6453r9edn2cakn6dv963754s05n17n@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:33:27 GMT, Peter Lynch <pete@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or 
>>vice-versa
>>it makes no difference to you if you change planes at LHR or CDG. I.e. 
>>Birmingham
>>to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to Paris to Cape Town. 
>>However
>>if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies a
visitor
>>(not a transit passsenger) a flight into London.
>
>
> If you have them transit in another country they are very likely to be 
> using a
> non British airline, hence revenue lost to a British company.
>
> Like wise the passenger handling fee is lost to BAA.
>
> While I don't doubt some of those transit passengers would be replaced
by
> staying passengers it would take some considerable time to replace 22 
> million
> transit passengers a year.

The problem that I have with the Heathrow expansion plan is the
expectation 
that it is going to be funded by putting up fees to pay for it, before
(and 
whilst) it is built.

ISTM that either the expansion is a commercial venture or it is 
strategically necessity (or some combination thereof).

If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in 
the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by
borrowing 
money in the markets and repaying that money out of the extra fees that
the 
new facility gain (or not paying if that extra business doesn't 
materialise).  Tesco don't put up their prices in Little Piddleton to pay 
for the building of a new, bigger, store in Greater Piddleton, so why
should 
BAA?

OTOH, if it is claimed to be a strategic necessity then ISTM that transfer

pax are of little benefit to the bulk of GB PLC and should be disregarded 
when *****sing the strategic need.

Tim