Heathrow Express can be terminated if the Government choose it to be so. The government is accountable to many of the people posting in this thread.
As
daikilo wrote, HAL is a private company. If the Government wanted to terminate its contract early, that is before the 25 year contract ends in 2023, it will have to pay for the privilege. HAL has not been responsible for the general growth in rail travel which is causing the capacity issues on the GWML which so concern people here. Adding additional capacity to cope with this growth is the responsibility of those that use it and their representatives - trying to push an existing operator off the line is morally, and probably legally, wrong. An organisation such as BAA/Heathrow which has invested heavily in rail should not be disadvantaged - it sends all the wrong messages to others who have invested or are considering investing in rail transport. (Unless of course you are one of the group which thinks that all funding should be made by the state...)
So you say there would be no rail link to heathrow airport without the heathrow express but then highlight another example of a rail link to heathrow airport in the thread you wrote. Most infrastructure projects like the heathrow tunnel are join ventures. Eurostar was a join venture. The picadilly line to terminal 5 was a joint venture Crossrail had several partners including BAA.
Some history. Way back in the 1960s there was a plan to run trains to Heathrow from Victoria station. In fact when I was at uni there Grosvenor Bridge over the Thames was being rebuilt and while doing so it was widened with an additional span for the Heathrow trains. I know this - I watched it happen. For one reason or another these trains never came to be and eventually the Piccadilly line was extended to Heathrow as a cheaper option.
In the intervening years air traffic continued to grow and road congestion got worse which increased the transit time to central London - having spent an hour flying from, say, Munich to London, a distance of nearly 600 miles, and then spend more than the flight time on the last 15 was becoming unacceptable. For this reason the Piccadilly line never made a significant penetration into the air market - it was slow, bouncy and uncomfortable and had little room for luggage - it was mostly used by workers at the airport.
BAA needed to improve its offer. As experience with the MoT/DfT showed that Government support and funding for an express service was unlikely to come about - other proposals had been made after the Victoria one - BAA took matters into its own hands and came to a deal with BR. This wasn't a 'joint venture' in the sense now understood but two organisations working for a common goal - BR was responsible for everything out to the junction with BAA's rails - it having received the MoT's approval to spend a not huge amount of money on electrifying some platforms at Paddington, the route to Airport Junction at Stockley Bridge and building a flyover junction. BAA was responsible for funding
and building the tunnels and the stations.
So, without BAA pushing for an improved service to London the Heathrow link would not have been built - the Government had already faffed around for 30 years and achieved nothing.
If the tunnels to Heathrow had not been there, Crossrail would not have built them.
And for these companies you quote.the heathrow express is more convienant for them over Crossrail because...
Try reading back up the thread. I was simply responding to
SNIP
... IIRC BA’s New York service, the airport’s only intercontinental flight, is one flight daily in an A318 with around 40 seats - hardly significant compared to the mass business class influx to Heathrow every morning.
by pointing out that not all of the mass business class influx goes to Liverpool Street or Canary Wharf.
