Cut flights to combat 'Heathrow hassle'

[beamender99]

AFP: Cut flights to combat 'Heathrow hassle': business group (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZ62ocknqFsMZIJy7s12KIZNUB-g)

[tristar500]

Has someone just thought of this :ugh:

This SHOULD have been basis for any any / all future debates regarding not only LHR but the UK aviation policy in general.

Come on. You can have 5, 6,7 etc terminals at LHR and as many runways as you like, BUT - and this isnt rocket-science, the sky above and surrounding LHR will always be the same size with the same constraints, made worse by the ever increasing load being placed on LHR its self. This then spills over causing delays and congestion at other airports in the area. Worse still, when the aircraft take delays, it then has a knock-on efect and impacts on airports further afield... :mad:

Its common sense to 'spread the joy' around the country. Irrespective of the old bland and usual 'excuses' of ... LHR is where people want to fly ..., Its the capital city of the UK ..., Demand dictates LHR is used ...

Simlpy, LHR and the southeast is operating at capacity and even overcapacity.

For US bound carriers, why not use airports further north in the UK, and save a little fuel. Instead of pax having to fly south from Scotland, to fly back up over on their US flight, use a Scottish airport for the longhaul sector and let the joining pax commute up from London to join the flight. It IS feasable and there IS ample capacity on the ground, and more than enough airspace. Just because its not happening now (BA VS UA etc etc) doesnt mean it cant. People will just have to fly north if they want to fly. Do you honestly think people will stop flying just because they have to fly north to catch their flight?

[peter we]

I hate Heathrow, it subjects millions of people in South London too noise and its basically inaccessible by public transport to all of them. Shutting down Heathrow would be no loss at all to South Londoners.

[aintboeingaintgoing]

I think you forgetting about the thousands of people that live in South London that WORK at Heathrow….. Don’t recon they would appreciate it much if they closed it down!! Transport links are brilliant to Heathrow from anywhere in the south!!!

[ChristiaanJ]

I was quite impressed when I first saw Heathrow in the early '70s.

I'm even more impressed they managed to keep it looking like a '70s airport to this day....

[slip and turn]

Transport links are brilliant to Heathrow from anywhere in the south!!!I think you mean you wish they were? :p

I live within spitting distance of Canary Wharf. When I travel to Europe I check STN first, LGW second, LTN third, LCY fourth and LHR last.

Have done so for years, and if Cambridge was bigger I'd use it, and if one of the East Anglian military fields e.g. Mildenhall, Lakenheath was developed I'd probably use it. If Norwich had more route choice I'd use it too.

I might be tempted to venture out to Southend or Manston too so long as the parking wasn't a stoopid price like it is at overtrading BAA airports due to some clever continuing and ruthless exploitation of a monopoly situation - one even aided and abetted by machine gun toting Essex police at the drop off zones sometimes at Stansted :{

As for getting to and from Heathrow, I know the roads and rail routes intimately but just thinkng about it makes me wince every time.

I lived in Datchet once - might be tempted to use LHR if I still did, but I moved because I couldn't hear myself think in the garden :uhoh:

[Phil1980's]

@ Peter We but shutting down heathrow would stop all tourists which is london's main income...seriously when I landed in heathrow I thought I was in america with all the american and united airlines which I think is quite cool...Although I'm against the ignorant ones...I still know alot that are really nice...and well maybe they should have the hourly JFK BA service change from a 777 to an A380 when they get them :)

Maybe Stop business travellers even though they are the main income to the airlines...Maybe we should all slow down and start taking cruise ships to america instead of air travel...lol :p

[Out Of Trim]

tristar500


For US bound carriers, why not use airports further north in the UK, and save a little fuel. Instead of pax having to fly south from Scotland, to fly back up over on their US flight, use a Scottish airport for the longhaul sector and let the joining pax commute up from London to join the flight. It IS feasible and there IS ample capacity on the ground, and more than enough airspace. Just because its not happening now (BA VS UA etc etc) doesn't mean it cant. People will just have to fly north if they want to fly. Do you honestly think people will stop flying just because they have to fly north to catch their flight?


That's fine when the NAT Tracks are to the North - But, they aren't always - Sometimes the Jet-stream favours Southerly Nat Tracks via Lands End(Cornwall) or Via Strumble (South West Wales).

IE. Not all Traffic to the USA goes via Scotland everyday! :confused:

[VAFFPAX]

LHR can be good when the traffic allows. I usually opt for LGW though because as much as LHR gets three times the bus runs that LGW gets, LGW is less... crowded.

S.

[slip and turn]

That's fine when the NAT Tracks are to the North - But, they aren't always - Sometimes the Jet-stream favours Southerly Nat Tracks via Lands End(Cornwall) or Via Strumble (South West Wales).

IE. Not all Traffic to the USA goes via Scotland everyday!Oh, so not quite as we know it, Jim? No matter. Spread the joy as someone said in 2008! London to NAT Enterprise, your UK-US passengers have all reported ready using the red button on their home/office remotes. Transporter room are you there? Beam 'em up, Scottie!

Hey Scottie, ("yes Captain?"), Is that right you were a NATS radar engineer in the old days?

I do so hope I get to use one of those transporter things before I die. Don't you just hate traffic jams and sweaty trains and buses? :p

[Dairyground]

As fairly frequent SLF over the past 50 years, I recall many more Stornoway than Strumble, and only a very few Lands End, all eastbound.

Central London to Brum international by rail takes only a little longer than the underground to LHR, so why not designate BHX as the third LHR runway and move a few flights there?

The City types might even find that route to New York faster than taking the mini-320 from LCY, when you count in the refreshment stop at Shannon. That reminds me of my first transatlantic trip, from the North Side Heathrow to Idlewild in a Super Constellation, with refuelling stops at Shannon and Gander.

[Haven't a clue]

My understanding was that BAA were seeking consent for mixed mode operation coupled with an increase in total permitted movements. Perhaps consent for the former should be given, but not the latter, thus creating a surplus in capacity which would be available to shorten delays caused by weather, blown tyres or even self important visiting heads of state?

There may well be extra costs involved - ATC manning for example - but they are miniscule compared to the costs incurred by airlines and pax from disruption.

Hey BAA - make a big contribution to customer service!

[tristar500]

Out of Trim

Point taken, but the bigger picture - of my point - is that its about time that the British Government stand up and do something soon, and make use of the whole country in general - there are options. We are 'The United Kingdom' N,S,E and W...

All this should be done now, befoe the railways jump in on the act and start building 'super fast' lines un and down the country, denting the image of domestic and possibly even European flights (if you include the 'tunnel')

[HZ123]

As someone who has worked at LHR since 1970 with spells at STN and LGW I agree with Tristar. Why the government persist with patching up as a way of life I do not know. LHR has been a s---hole since the day I started there-a tunnel of only 2 kanes in and out. BAA no monies to invest - they have never invested in anything properly. Even STN the lanes adjoing the terminal are total crap as are the transport connections. LHR needs to be capped and it is only right and proper that the midlands and the north should see some expansion.

That said the fuel costs I believe will actually cause the industry to rapidly reduce and we will soon see a thinning out of services and reductions in airline fleet numbers. It is not as though we did not know that fuel was going to run out or that one day our Arab cousins were going to charge what they like for fuel.

[slip and turn]

Two lanes in and out of LHR? Oh yes:p ... but three if you count the cycle lanes up in the wings that the kamikaze cyclists get to share with any low height motor cars that know about it :\


But at STN the lanes adjoining the terminal are at least a bit different know that the big yellow crane boom type nearside barrier is in place, and now that through traffic is invited round the east side of the extortionate car park.

And I just love it when they close all access to the terminal at 2330 when every man and his dog want to use it for pick ups, not drop offs of course.

That causes people like me to do my pick ups in the road on the east side of Zone D.

[Michael SWS]

Central London to Brum international by rail takes only a little longer than the underground to LHR, so why not designate BHX as the third LHR runway and move a few flights there?One reason might be that it costs ten times as much to get to BHX from central London as it does to get to LHR.

But I agree that Heathrow needs to be scaled back, focussing on quality of customer experience rather than size, and that more airlines - particularly BA - need to be persuaded to use the UK's regional airports.

[ConstantFlyer]

Working in North East England, we advise our overseas colleagues to travel to NCL via DXB on EK when coming from the East, and to MME or NCL via AMS on KL if coming from the West. Travellers from eastern Europe often route via PRG to NCL on EZY. If they want to visit London during their stay, fine - but we advise they avoid Heathrow.

The LCCs have led the way in making the UK's regional airports international gateways. Look at the range of destinations available from BRS or EMA, for example. But long-distance flights will continue to focus on Heathrow until passenger numbers reach a certain critical mass able to support multi-UK destination services. Emirates has clearly got there already, and is reaping the benefits of hoovering up thousands of eastbound and southbound travellers from the regions; others, such as EY, SQ, SA, PK, AI, CX, VS, BD, etc. are either dipping their toes in, or could usefully consider doing so.

[Donkey497]

If, as suggested on the Flight Deck Runours and News Forum, EasyJet will come out in favour of the proposed changes to Air Passenger Duty, Heathrow may well be hit significantly. The proposal on the table is that instead of the individual passenger being hit for a charge on each flight, the aircraft would be charged a flat fee per flight based on ..... something.

BA are apparently already protesting that 34% of their LHR passengers are transfer from other UK airports and if the change came into force they would be at a competitive disadvantage as their transfer passengers would be hit twice for the new APD. Being honest about it, I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for BA on this. Their continual management desire, aided & abetted by BAA, to drive everything & everyone through Heathrow & Gatwick has been hugely detrimental to everyone outside the extreme South East corner of the country. This might be enough of a kick in the fundamentals to get their attention and get them to restore the services that would legitimise the name as British Airways, rather than South East Airways, as it might be more appropriately described at present.

It's also more than a little unclear how scheduled (passenger) flights would handle passing this tax onto the self loading freight. [Lack of Government instructions as usual]

I've regularly flown on some flights which have been at the same times, dates, durations, aircraft etc. yet these have had loads ranging between 25% to 100%. Low Cost Carriers like EasyJet & Ryanair would probably have an easier time of it due to their flights having regular load factors over 75%. The big problem is that the charge will now apply to purely freight flights as well, so I guess that will result in increased costs to import and export goods, but will also effectively kill off Tech/Fuel stops for long haul freight - who wants to land where you will have to pay extra tax on top of your landing fees and fuel costs.

One thing I'd hate to see is a flight costing £200 to book online being hit with £1000 new APD tax just because the flight is quiet, but yet again, I somehow doubt that the much, if any of the tax raised by Air Passenger Duty has been spent by the Treasury on mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions.

However, if the LCC's do back the Government's latest plans, it will be difficukt for the legacy carriers to resist. So watch this space.

[tristar500]

Donkey497

Your BA comments are spot on boss :ok: :D :E

The UK aviation industry from a commercial flights point of view, is being held to ramsome by BA, the BAA (LHR) and the UK Government.

These 'educated and business-minded' wasters, should hang their heads in shame. Its all about London. Greed doesnt even begin to go there... Sooner or later there will be trouble as capacity, delays and safety are all bursting at the seems.

[Bagso]

If they didn't keep ramming total UK air demand into LHR we would all be better off.....

But The BAA and the Airlines all have a vested interests, ie money so who can blame them.

That said when the airfare to catch a plane from Manchester to Heathrow and then fly onto Singapore is cheaper than Manchester - Singapore non-stop, something is severley screwed up.....!!:ugh:

...and as somebody has already said, you can build 6 runways and 6 terminals at Heathrow, BUT there is no airspace left in the South East...

They just don't get it do they ?

[upnorth east]

What the government and major british airlines have failed to recognise is the need for a northern hub for international flights to take some pressure away from the SE. Because of BA and Virgin's tunnel vision for the SE they are currently losing valuable revenue regionallyto EK eastbound and CO westbound.

I would seriously suggest Newcastle for the northern hub for the following reasons -
Equidistant between all of the northern towns within a 150 mile radius and Edinburgh / Glasgow.
Regular air links to Belfast, Aberdeen and Bristol, Birmingham and Cardiff (if they want to avoid LHR/LGW and the hassle involved).
Excellent rail links to all northern towns with a spur from the East Coast mainline being on the NCL masterplan
Plenty of room for expansion runway wise, terminal buildings, stands, car parking etc.
Plenty of holding space over the nearby north sea (if required).
EK have proved the value of regional links with a second daily flight due from NCL in 12 months - who would have believed one flight would be viable? - don't underestimate the regions !

Obviously a lot of investment would be required, but probably only a fraction of that spent in the SE.

As BA quoted 34% of passengers come from outside SE, then why not fly these from the north. I personally do not see where BA's future revenue growth will come from with LHR full and LGW almost full. Open Skies is typical of them when they can't see where their own market is.

This could also be another small step to bridge the north - south divide, but I'm not holding my breath.