I've always thought that LGW could be turned into a 'rival' hub to LHR, in similar fashion to JFK/Newark in NY.
It would take Govt to improve the transport links into London, but a spur to the HS1 line would be relatively simple from there and in 2019 agreement could be got for a second runway.
If I'm not mistaken there are already some Chinese airlines offering direct routes from LGW to Asia, if someone like Virgin could be convinced to become an 'anchor tenant' at a new improved LGW then it could provide proper competition to BA's transatlantic routes. It could even sell some of its highly prized LHR slots to fund the expansion (though not to BA, of course!)
NB this isnt an alternative to RW3 at LHR by the way, I still think that is a necessity that needs approval ASAP, but a genuine rival to LHR at LGW could only be a good thing for passengers?!
Last edited by Libertine Winno; 30th Aug 2012 at 15:17.
I've always thought that LGW could be turned into a 'rival' hub to LHR, in similar fashion to JFK/Newark in NY.
Ummmm, if you read the thread about the Islands New Thames Airport for London You'll find plenty of information about why NOT!
Briefly:
It's been tried and failed - and it's all in that thread.
Carriers ONLY use LGW because LHR is full.
As soon as slots become available at LHR - they move and start making some profit.
Many folks would LIKE LGW to have more point to point long hauls but the carriers know they have to be at LHR and cannot afford the costs of running a second operation in the back yard.
Quote:
... a spur to the HS1 line would be relatively simple from there ...
Eh? From where? From St. Pancras in North London or from Kent????
Quote:
... and in 2019 agreement could be got for a second runway.
Oh yes, that's going to be a shoo-in. Bear in mind that the citizens around LGW have had 20+ years to be ready with their No campaign! I'll bet they are actively monitoring every move of STN, LHR R3 and the islands!
Quote:
... if someone like Virgin could be convinced to become an 'anchor tenant' at a new improved LGW then it could provide proper competition to BA's transatlantic routes.
Sorry but it was tried in the 1980s and 90s. Again, it's all in the thread.
Sorry to be a wet blanket but the incompetence of successive UK govts in the transport field for the last 50 years mean that, we're stuffed - and that's the polite term!
The airspace around Frankfurt was full so they moved the capacity partially to where demand originated, Munich hit 37M pax last year from a standing start because there was the will to make it happen.
It's the same in the UK, 40% of LHR pax do actually originate or complete there journeys in the NWest, but historically Heathrow grew as the mega hub and now everybody is so interwinned it cannot be unravelled.
Here in the UK the two hub concept is dead simply because there are to many vested interests.
As an example BA talk about a "UK Aviation Policy" its hogwash, if they get a 3rd runway it will add more profit to the bottom line and even if the return is totally dispproportinate to the impact then so be it...
It's not even going to be a proper runway for goodness sake.
Plus as I keep saying what about the airspace capacity, NATS have indicated that they will make it work once they know what the structure on the ground will be like, but that sounds suspiciously like " we actually havnt got a clue".
What it will mean is a reduction in slots elsewhere so hands up Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, London City, Southend sorry you are going to have to give way !
One thing we can all agree in ..its an utter shambles !
The airlines dont want split cost so want LHR expanded
The proposal for RW3 is pisspoor if you are going to expand LHR at least put 3 RWs in !
Boris Island, great but who will move, nobody from LHR will unless forced and that will fall down in the courts
We built a new airport 15 years ago at Stansted, complete and utter waste of space in terms of fixing this problem
This is the link for the press release issued with 19.3.09 Competition Commission Report ordering BAA to sell Gatwick & Stansted airports and giving the reasons why:-
"For greatest benefit to the UK, we need a large UK-based airline in the mix."
Really?? Why??? The crews can come from the UK, the ground services are UK provided and the aircraft are built in bits everywhere these days...............
And if as someone else posted Middle Eastern airlines are already siphoning off long haul traffic from regional airports why isn't our large UK based airline offering competition??
Lets face it BA have always claimed to lose money on any flight that isn't out of LHR or even on any flight anywhere period (eg London Aberdeen)
Quote: "So rather than Nick Clegg's idea of offloading some Heathrow services to other South-East airports, lets look at a bigger, UK-wide, picture and find more productive ways of servicing UK air transport demand."
Forget about Clegg, the man has no credibility and anyway won't be around much longer.
Quote: "If UK Treasury and EU rules permit, a UK hub complementing Heathrow could be established and in full operation well before the bulldozers move in on Sibson or anyone agrees on exactly where to relocate the Thames Estuary mud to form Fantasy Island."
The questions are:
(1) who pays! Obviously not the private sector, it's not a good business proposition and they have their own which is blocked by the govt. Clearly not the govt: they're scint.
(2) if the airlines won't use Fantasy Island (because of the expense and because pax don't want to), how to convince them that they should.
The development of Fantasy Island cannot start before these questions are answered.
Advocates of Fantasy Island appear to be in no hurry to answer them!
Quote: "Think UK, not just SE England!"
Quite right, but you have to persuade the airlines to "think UK, not just SE England!"
And there is your problem: airlines, apparently, can no longer make money operating from the "regions". Ridiculous? maybe, but regretably it appears to be a fact.
Even if there was a functioning Munich-style secondary hub at Ringway and more longhaul activity at BHX, GLA, etc., we would still need Heathrow expansion. It's not a case of "either/or".
Quote: "Now I've sometimes wondered, in idle moments, if we are going to rebuild all the Heathrow terminals, how much extra effort will it be to build new runways north-south as well, adequately separated for parallel operations standards, and avoiding any air traffic movements over London, which seems the nub of the argument. They do fit between the M4 and ther A30"
No, the idea is for parallel rwys so that all can be used simultaneously. A north-south rwy between the M4 and A30 would (1) prevent 09L/27R and 09R/27L being used at the same time (so completely pointless), and (2) Stanwell and/or a reservoir would have to be demolished.
Quote: "....Two hubs work in Germany"
Yes, LH have a major presence at MUC so it has become a secondary hub. The same was the case at MAN with BA back in the day. Didn't BA end this because they were losing money?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 30th Aug 2012 at 21:20.
Really?? Why??? The crews can come from the UK, the ground services are UK provided and the aircraft are built in bits everywhere these days...............
And if as someone else posted Middle Eastern airlines are already siphoning off long haul traffic from regional airports why isn't our large UK based airline offering competition??
Lets face it BA have always claimed to lose money on any flight that isn't out of LHR or even on any flight anywhere period (eg London Aberdeen)
Remember that many non UK based airlines show massive preference for their own local employees and treat the rest as second class in a wayt that is rightly illegal back home. Expat employees at Qatar and Cathay are good examples and there are examples at Singapore, Korean as well as many others. Western talent is "used" and not loved as it were. The UK airline, BA in this case is clearly offering competition in an identical way to the large middle east airlines. One stop access to the world from the UK regions via a hub. With BA it is LHR, EK use DXB, QR use DXB, EY use AUH. What you are really saying is "It's sooooo unfair that like Emirates use B777s and A380s and BA have nothing but silly wee A320s from GLA/NCL/MAN/insert airport." It's the aviation equivalent of being a size queen.....
I think the core UK domestics do well out of LHR with BA, I am not aware that any are loss making, I understand EDI does rather well and ABZ has some serious oil traffic. GLA is now a LHR monopoly with the B767 returning on some flights and MAN has lost BMI allowing BA to consolidate flights and increase yields. I suspect you are misrepresenting that BA couldn't make point to point regional flying profitable. I think that is very true alas. They couldn't swing that if the fate of creation itself depended on it.
It's not even going to be a proper runway for goodness sake.
What on earth is it going to be? Banana shaped? Cobbled?
No it will be a bog standard 2500m strip - identical to 22L at JFK which I land 747s on regularly. It will suffice for a very large proportion of LHR traffic contrary to Ms Greenings ideas of Perf A......
No it will be a bog standard 2500m strip - identical to 22L at JFK which I land 747s on regularly. It will suffice for a very large proportion of LHR traffic contrary to Ms Greenings ideas of Perf A......
That's the first time I've seen that suggested, where are you getting your information from ?
AFAIK, as per my previous post, the strip would indeed be 2500m, but the declared distances will be 2200m (similar to the LCY arrangement).
Thanks for the links, though I'm not entirely sure whether you agree with me or disagree?!
It is clear that BAA were forced to sell LGW in order to promote competition between it and LHR, which it implies had been stifled due to the interests of having the same owner.
Therefore, it would surely make sense that the new onwers of LGW turn it into a genuine rival hub? It can't be any coincidence that a nice big Emirates A380 is on the front cover, along with a BA aircraft in the background?!
Also I realise that the owners will not build a new rwy before 2019, but my point was that I would be amazed if they do not try once that deadline is up. It would also surely be far easier to get agreement for one at LGW than LHR seeing as local villages wouldnt be bulldozed, the noise footprint is far smaller and IF there is a RW3 agreed at LHR by then, surely any arguments on environmental grounds would have been blown out of the water?
@PAXboy
I am aware that alternative hubs were tried, in MAN and at LGW, but that was 20 or 30 years ago when the economic situation and world air travel were far different than what they are now. With the benefit of hindsight, I am fairly certain that one of those would have been persisted with if they had known that a third runway at LHR would STILL not be in place in 2012!
I guess my point is that the airlines are all waiting around for the Government to do something, when in reality we know how (un)likely that is to happen, so why dont they use some initiative and apply the economics of 2012 to plans that were written off 30 years ago? After all, isn't the plan for an eastuary-style airport just a re-writing of the Maplin Sands one of all those years ago?!
Last edited by Libertine Winno; 31st Aug 2012 at 09:14.
If BAA and BA can't make LGW a commercially viable hub, by what mechanism can GIP? BA aren't making that mistake again, EZY are already dominant, nobody has ever willingly left LHR for LGW and made it a success.
With regards the climate change obligations, it hasnt seemed to rear its head as a problem with people proposing the new 4-runway estuary airport, so one extra at LHR and LGW instead of the alternative of 4 extra and closing 2 (i.e. LHR) shouldnt be a problem.
In addition to that, we know that aircraft are far cleaner, quieter and more efficient than they were 10 years ago, with the 787, A380, A320neo, 737 Max and probably A350 all being either re-engined or carbon fibre construction (or both). Airlines are also seriously experimenting now with biofuels, I know Virgin and Lufthansa are but two, so that could show fruition in the next decade. This is all in addition to the constant little amendments being mooted such as electric motors on the landing gear to negate the need to the main engines to push aircraft round the taxiways.
Obviosuly I'm not an authority on the issue, but it seems the airline industry is seriously trying to reduce its carbon emissions...whether you think that is for environmental reasons or simply to become more fuel (and cash!) efficient is neither here nor there in terms of the outcome I suppose.
With regards the layout of LHR we all know it needs rationalising, and work is underway in order to progress that, though will of course take time.
With regards Brum, I think they need to concentrate on fully utilising their current runway capacity before making serious arguments for a second. Manchester seems the more obvious location for a hub of sorts, but would again require a large airline tenant. No signs of that being BA, so the alternative would be either Virgin or even one of the Middle Eastern airlines...Emirates already have a large presence there, so why not I guess?! My only suggestion would be that it would only work if LGW (or even STN) was not to be used as a secondary hub i.e. with 2 runways, as to have three 'hubs' (or one, and two smaller ones) would seem overkill. The closest comparison would be Germany (Frankfurt, Munich and what they are trying to do with Berlin), but I think we need to wait for the economy to sort itself out before justifying that!
And Skipness, I know nobody has ever made the transition before, but the requirement has never been as urgent as it is now. EZY have no intention of doing anything other than point to point, so can continue as they are, but I think to rule it out simply on the basis that "well, it didnt work in the 80's" seems like it should be better qualified to me.
Firstly, for all those advocating Birmingham or Manchester as an alternative hub (generally the inhabitants of those two areas), past history has shown that the demand just isn't there. You may feel it suiits you, but there are key differences.
Firstly the premium class high-margin demand from those points just isn't there, in comparison to London. Any mainstream operator will tell you that of the premium demand from the UK, the vast majority is from London. People just don't book F or J from Manchester or Glasgow in anything like the proportions that they do from London, Paris or Frankfurt, which is a sure way of demonstrating they are very secondary business destinations. The relative demand at different places is just a fact of life - even in London, LCY and LHR are good for premium traffic, LGW and STN (especially) have shown that, even where it is provided, there just isn't the demand for it.
Secondly we hear all the stuff about the population of the UK that is closer to those points. Well, not only are they not travelling nearly as much (or in premium - see above), but for INBOUND passengers from overseas coming to the UK, the vast majority (I would guess 80% plus) are headed for London, and inbound pax are probably half or more the total load at Heathrow. You notice this with, say, American's flights from Chicago, 4 daily to London and one to Manchester. To London, US passengers predominate, to Manchester they are very much the minority, it's just Brits from the north.
to rule it out simply on the basis that "well, it didnt work in the 80's" seems like it should be better qualified to me.
Lack of access to LHR and being stuck at LGW helped to kill off Laker, prevented BCal from challenging BA and allowed BA to swallow them up and nearly killed off VS. Read a couple of the biographies of SRB and this point is crystal clear, if they'd remained at LGW, they would not have survived. As to working in the 80s, it didn't work under a decade ago when BA last tried it. Indeed Delta hung on at LGW until very recently but even they quit in April of this year. The only US long haul at LGW is US on LGW-CLT which I understand is mainly LGW-CLT-MCO leisure focussed so is a good fit for the LGW demographic. Indeed BA are adding LGW-LAS this year in addition to LHR. Some things so work and work well at LGW, the trick is knowing what they are and sticking to them. You cannot lead a market to where it won't go. I have seen nothing to change my opinion of this, recent long haul has seen Air Hong Kong come and go in six months and Korean and Air China play the waiting game until a suitable LHR slot opens up.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 31st Aug 2012 at 13:47.
I'm not suggesting trying to force the market, which I agree is completely impractical (and impossible!) but it just surprises me that, with the unprecedented capacity constraints at LHR as they currently are, that there has not been some sort of 'coalition of the willing' (apologies for the wording!) seriously proposing LGW as an alternative, or even LGW themselves doing more to lobby for it. I will admit, however, that my knowledge of previous experiments is far from exhaustive and I am certainly no expert on the matter!
Could be that they are all holding out and waiting for runway 3 to be agreed I suppose?!
@WHBM
I agree with you, and whilst it would be nice for Manchester or Brum to become a 'secondary hub' in a similar vein to Munich, there just isnt the demand there currently.
Perhaps if the Government were serious about closing this north/south divide or realigning the economy then one of those airports could eventually benefit from the situation, but that would require joined up thinking across Government departments which, when they can't even join up transport policy in one department, seems like wishful thinking to me!
I agree with you, and whilst it would be nice for Manchester or Brum to become a 'secondary hub' in a similar vein to Munich, there just isnt the demand there currently.
The most significant part of why Munich works as a hub whereas Manchester doesn't is that Munich is in the centre of Europe, with many routes south and east of there into Italy, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, etc, as well as north and west of there, for whom Munich is just as convenient as Frankfurt, and for many transits can be more convenient.
Manchester is, alas, on the periphery of Europe, with virtually no significant destinations in an arc from North to South-West. This is just how the geography is, and the demand isn't there.
The open consultation "Draft Aviation Policy Framework, July 2012" asks about extending Fifth Freedom Rights to Gatwick, Stansted and Luton. (pages 23/24 Sections 2.45 - 2.48).
To my mind it begs the question if UK airlines are unprepared to develop hubs anywhere other than LHR, whether reciprocal 5th Freedoms would achieve the same purpose / be a stepping stone towards developing a range of London hubs ???
Last edited by Windsorian; 31st Aug 2012 at 17:07.
