Make connecting customers connect elsewhere - A solution for LHR capacity?

[sidest]

We know there is a lot of O/D traffic in the UK compared to the norm, particularly London. Then we come to the hub concept. Does it matter where a hub is? Dubai certainly isn't the holiday and business destination of the world.

If the connections are convenient, the ground service is good and most importantly the flights are well priced - surely it doesn't matter? So I think I have a solution. I suppose this mainly applies to BA, although other airlines may be able to make use of it with a focus on their alliances.

The idea is not to create a secondary hub in order to work independently of LHR, but rather one that would complement it. This hub would only comprise of existing routes and would have a focus on (but not limited to) connecting traffic - essentially diverting a portion of it from LHR and routing it through STN.

Considering the London-cenric view of premium airlines, the airport would have to be near(ish) London. LGW is a little inflexible because many of the 'good' slots are taken. So take I'll take STN for example. (Remember this is only an example).

There are as many as 14 BA/AA LHR-JFK flights a day. There are many other routes with a large number of frequencies. Cut some of them. Based upon customer data, select a small number of frequencies to cut and then move them to STN. These moves could also be bulked up for growth and flexibility. For example, cut 2 JFK frequencies and add 3 to STN, cut 2 FRA frequencies and add 3 to STN and so on. Time the flights to optimise connections.

Operating costs at STN would be notably cheaper than LHR. Creating a lean structure for the new devision, rather like the Mixed Fleet initiative, will help to keep costs down even further. Utilising aircraft such as the 787 on long haul sectors will also improve financial viability. The savings (or part of them) would then be passed on to the customers, offering an incentive to travel through the new hub. Highlight the cheaper prices. Let those who regularly connect know. Market the fact that is is cheaper and drive as much connecting traffic through the new hub rather than LHR.


It creates and allows for growth on existing LHR routes.
It offers many UK residents a more convenient choice.
It offers customers both in the UK and abroad a cheaper choice.
It frees up some slots at LHR for further growth in new markets.
It builds the Stansted name internationally.


By having a comprehensive full service airline offering to key world cities, the Stansted airport name could be taken further and become more recognised in the international market. This potential could then be harnessed to initiate plans to improve links to London, particularly optimising and creating faster links with the Stansted Express. This in turn would make the airport even more marketable to non-connecting traffic. It must be noted that NRT is further away from Tokyo than Stansted is from London.

As I said this is only an example, but does the idea have weight?

[Tableview]

This is like many ideas, it's great in theory but unfortunately falls down in practice. It's something I've mulled over for a long time.

I'm not trying to pick holes in your sound and well expressed ideas, but rather playing Devil's Advocate here.

Can another London (or for that matter, PAR, FRA, AMS.......) airport survive with only connecting traffic, or with minimal O&D traffic? I fear the answer is no, because in order to achieve profitable loads, the airline(s) would need to route many flights from many destinations through it to attain the critical mass which could only be attained by serving a lot of destinations. The more limited the choice, the less likely it will be to attract premium connecting traffic. If it only served, for example, a subset of BA's destinations, it would probably fail.

DXB and other ME hubs have been successful because their creation did not divert traffic from existing airports. This is the problem with another London airport, that it will always weaken the revenue flows from the other airports. The single hub concept works, multiples won't.

[sidest]

Thanks for the reply! You make some interesting points...

Can another London (or for that matter, PAR, FRA, AMS.......) airport survive with only connecting traffic, or with minimal O&D traffic? I fear the answer is no, because in order to achieve profitable loads, the airline(s) would need to route many flights from many destinations through it to attain the critical mass which could only be attained by serving a lot of destinations. The more limited the choice, the less likely it will be to attract premium connecting traffic. If it only served, for example, a subset of BA's destinations, it would probably fail.

It would certainly have to be a robust operation for any chance of success, no doubt at all about that. However, if the second hub doesn't have all of the LHR routes, does it matter from a connections point of view? You just connect through LHR if STN doesn't offer it. It's not designed to rid LHR completely of connecting traffic, just offering flexibility where economically possible.

DXB and other ME hubs have been successful because their creation did not divert traffic from existing airports. This is the problem with another London airport, that it will always weaken the revenue flows from the other airports. The single hub concept works, multiples won't.

It may weaken the revenue flow by taking some traffic away, but surely that can be recouped by the new hub? Furthermore, if a credible hub can be built and becomes more popular with travellers, expansion is far more attainable than at LHR. Surely it doesn't matter where the money is, as long as it's still there in one way or another? The other plus is that in return they may reach out to new markets with the slots that they have 'gained'. I suppose it depends on how much the airlines will value the extra LHR slots.

[Skipness One Echo]

You have fundamentally not understood how the market behaves. You cannot make LHR better by taking what it does best elsewhere. Gatwick has been tried as a hub, understand why that, with arguably better facilities in the 90s and noughties failed, and you'll learn a lot.

You are re-regulating a market and so you will need to select winners in those who stay at LHR and losers, those whom you move to Essex. Each one would be illegal under the free market and Open Skies agreement and even if it weren't you would then have to favour one operator over another. Again, open to legal challenge. This is not the 1970s and Macavity Brown is no longer in No 10.

Take NYC-LON. Who decides who stays and goes? How do you decide?

[sidest]

You have fundamentally not understood how the market behaves. You cannot make LHR better by taking what it does best elsewhere. Gatwick has been tried as a hub, understand why that, with arguably better facilities in the 90s and noughties failed, and you'll learn a lot.

You are re-regulating a market and so you will need to select winners in those who stay at LHR and losers, those whom you move to Essex. Each one would be illegal under the free market and Open Skies agreement and even if it weren't you would then have to favour one operator over another. Again, open to legal challenge. This is not the 1970s and Macavity Brown is no longer in No 10.

Take NYC-LON. Who decides who stays and goes? How do you decide?

It's not about taking what LHR does and moving it elsewhere. LHR will still do what it does, just slightly less of it. In return it can then open up to more of what it currently does not, but arguably should do - serve more emerging and growing markets. This is not a fix of Heathrow, and maybe the title should have been better, however it is a solution to some of it's problems and the wider issue of capacity in the South East that could be in place more quickly than any runway capacity.

I'm not suggesting anyone be moved from LHR. It is just a strategy that could be utilised. Like I said, this is mainly a BA growth idea more than anything else.

[Heathrow Harry]

this is an open market at LHR where one operator will have around 50% of the slots?

Why not just hand the whole thing over to BA and tell the great unwashed to bugger off to Essex....................

[sidest]

It's not about taking what LHR does and moving it elsewhere. It's about replicating what LHR does elsewhere. Yes, there will be a small reduction of what LHR does - but in return it is designed to allow LHR to do more of what it currently doesn't and has arguably been said it should do, i.e. operate to emerging and developing markets.

Take BA and AA on JFK for example:

If BA and AA cut 2 of the 14 LHR rotations, there would still be 12. It doesn't for a second change what LHR does. Seasonal changes change frequencies all the time, and considering most of these 14 flights run within 30 minutes of each other, there would be little change. In return BA may choose to use the slots for new dailies to KIX and CTU for example

I'll admit that the title is a little off what I actually mean. Maybe I could get that changed? It's more of a short and medium term solution for capacity in the southeast, whilst allowing LHR to operate to more of the destinations that it should be able to operate. This would allow more key routes to fly into the UK's main airport, considering a 3rd runway is off the cards. Can I have that as a title? :p

Like I said, it's mainly a BA solution than anything else. I never mentioned forcibly moving anyone anywhere.

[Skipness One Echo]

Except BA make lots of money on LHR-JFK which is the point. Moving two rotations out of LHR-JFK is not sensible as Delta and United would just up frequency and steal the passengers. The traffic would remain at LHR, it would not move to STN simply because BA moved two rotations to Essex. This is what BA found when they built up LGW. For every rotation moves out of LHR, too many premium travellers elected to fly LHR-XYZ with the competition rather than jolly down Sussex way. Harsh but true.

[sidest]

Except BA make lots of money on LHR-JFK which is the point. Moving two rotations out of LHR-JFK is not sensible as Delta and United would just up frequency and steal the passengers. The traffic would remain at LHR, it would not move to STN simply because BA moved two rotations to Essex. This is what BA found when they built up LGW. For every rotation moves out of LHR, too many premium travellers elected to fly LHR-XYZ with the competition rather than jolly down Sussex way. Harsh but true.

My point is how much profit is being sacrificed due to a lack of exposure in other markets, and how much of existing revenue can still be held on to if a move to STN is made? BA do make a lot of money on LHR-JFK, but healthy chunk of that is down to connecting traffic.

STN should be a cheaper option, so flaunt that fact. Marketing has changed considerably since BA at LGW was in it's prime, as have consumer attitudes. Low price finding websites didn't exist and are far more flexible than any travel agent or phone line could ever have been. That's why many of the average fliers fly Emirates and Qatar airways, because the comparison site says they are cheaper. If a notable number of premium passengers won't budge, then operate aircraft with a higher number of premium seats. Not such a problem on short haul routes as converter seating is used.

LHR is a bit of a pain in the butt - especially T3-T5 connections. Heck, even T5 connections are more troublesome than they should be and regulars know this. I'm sure there would be an incentive to cater to BA's wishes for a brilliant connections facility when STN is sold, as the new operator would be hungry for more flights.

How would Delta and United up the frequency if there are no slots for them to do so? Other than cutting into their own slots on other routes, which I don't think they'd want to do.

Maybe I am living in an idealised world. But I can't help but think what if? I realise things have happened in the past, but situations change and there there is more than one way of going about something. For it to have any chance of success it would take a hefty investment, which I suppose counts against the idea.

[ConstantFlyer]

The market will dictate. It always does.

A few months ago, most passengers flying to the UK just booked to Heathrow because they didn't know otherwise. Now this publicity about terminal inertia has made people think - Is there an alternative? Once people realise that there may be a better/quicker/cheaper/more convenient way to get to their destination, they are empowered.

Some people will therefore change their behaviour. That affects demand. Airlines respond to passenger demand. Sometimes. It'll take a lot to prise some airlines out of Heathrow, but if enough passengers vote with their feet, it might work.

I live in hope.

[JSCL]

I think it can be evidenced in EI over the other side of the river, they have the feed to 'some' of Europe similar to BA (albeit not on the same scale), yet they don't see too many flights to the East Coast. The NYC commuter has gotten used to LHR being part of the travel plans for most of it. But I have made preference to using EI where possible, always found it a nicer travel experience.

[Dairyground]

The multi-hub concept seems to work reasonably well at the other end of the London-New York route, with several flights per day into Newark. Something similar might be made to work in the UK.

There was once an operation like that from Manchester, and several foreign airlines appear to get reasonable O/D loads from there now. Perhaps BA should try again, possibly diagramming a 777 or 767 to operate LHR-JFK(or EWR)-MAN-JFK-LHR. That would avoid the expense of basing an aircraft at MAN, and something similar could work for cabin and flight crews.

[AdamFrisch]

Hub thinking is a remnant from the 70's. It's on its way out. Today, people want to travel direct - and they're willing to pay extra to do so. I'm one of those - I fly intercontinental more than once a month, and I always go direct If I can. If that means less air points, so be it. Whatever it takes.

With travel as it's become with security, overcrowded, TSA, immigration etc, there's no way anyone would accept a new hub out of the way, add hours to their travel, just to stay loyal to an airline.

[Skipness One Echo]

My point is how much profit is being sacrificed due to a lack of exposure in other markets, and how much of existing revenue can still be held on to if a move to STN is made? BA do make a lot of money on LHR-JFK, but healthy chunk of that is down to connecting traffic.
Of course it is, that's why it makes money. It would be inept to take an existing money making route that depends on frequency and connectivity to remain profitable and competitive, and move a part of it to Stansted. No one does this for the main reason, that it would be commercially dumb. If BA drop frequency, the other ALLIANCES would make the strategic decision to poach the traffic that BA could no longer carry as they've just dropped capacity. Hence some short haul STAR would be rejiggged to allow UNITED to up frequency to Newark and poach some of BA's high yield passengers. Delta do the same with KLM and Air France and BA's yields on LHR-JFK, probably it's most important route, collapse.

Meanwhile BA, having walked away from a strong, profitable and dominant position on the North Atlantic now has the added costs of a fourth London airport and maintenance operation serving the same market from an airport known for Essex girls, Polish cabin crew and locos only. How many Gold Card holders do you seriously expect to see in with the Ryanair mob? Not much Exclusivity in there, so what the Hell, we need to duplicate all the lounge facilities that are already in place at LHR.

My point is how much profit is being sacrificed due to a lack of exposure in other markets, and how much of existing revenue can still be held on to if a move to STN is made?
A move to Stansted as you suggest would bankrupt BA in under two years. I am in no way overstating that for comic effect. LHR is intensely competitive as it can be very worthwhile. The market cares not one whit for Stansted, it has less chance than the existing BA base at LGW in Stockbroker-land Surrey/Sussex which has no BA long haul strategic business heavy routes.

New markets take 1-4 years to make a profit sometimes, your strategy not only sees the cost of opening up new routes but a policy of self harming existing revenue drivers to do so.

[sidest]

It is NOT a move to Stansted - it is a UK capacity expansion from Stansted. BA would still retain the same number of LHR slots and therefore number of flights as before.The operation model is not designed for fun, but rather to allow growth to emerging markets. This is to allow for overall BA growth. Yes, new lounges and facilities would be needed, but this is for growth.


You will NOT get growth of any real size at LHR without a new runway.
A new runway isn't going to happen.
Nor will BA leave Heathrow for any new hub - as they have stated. (By this they mean move main operations from LHR - something this idea does not advocate in any way.)


Where does this leave them then? After BMI growth, is that about it for the rest of time? They will have to grow BA outside LHR.

Cutting frequency from LHR to JFK is exactly and only that. What is lost at LHR, will be replaced and added to at STN. Furthermore, capacity at LHR is seeing a very modest reduction, but as I say - the overall BA flying out of JFK capacity is still there. It's not about a flight to London, but a link to another destination through BA - that's all that really matters for connecting traffic. You need to encourage a portion of connecting passengers to use that capacity. It does not matter where the money is, as long as it is still there. This isn't to mention the money that isn't even being tapped into on the routes that BA can't currently serve due to a lack of slots.

As for the point about alliances rejigging to take advantaged of a drop in capacity: There is only a drop in LHR capacity on the route - not overall BA capacity. If alliances want to do this, then fine - but BA will have a cheaper option to fight them with, aside from 12 rotations from LHR. People are not going to switch alliances over this. If anything, customers would move to OW because of the extra flexability. Corporate customers are also more likely to favour a cheaper option. Connections at LHR are a pain anyway - any regular traveller knows this.

STN is only an example, although the cynical link to Essex is something only those in the domestic market - and not an important one at that. If the airport is near, then they will go to it. This is obviously the case for LTN, but for STN I do not see the problem. It isn't called Essex Airport. As with the Ryanair thinking, I don't suppose BA passengers would touch LGW with a bargepole if U2 has such a large presence there, then? Unnecessarily cynical thinking on this point.

[speed13ird]

Anyone remember the Eurohub?

At BHX?

Thought not....

[Skipness One Echo]

Cutting frequency from LHR to JFK is exactly and only that. What is lost at LHR, will be replaced and added to at STN
This is distorting the market, only in the ideal world would this happen. You put capacity where the market demands, the market demands LHR. Anyone moving capacity to Stansted in this example is a commercial virgin.
A new runway isn't going to happen.
We shall see on this one, reality is kicking in over politics, slowly but surely.
the overall BA flying out of JFK capacity is still there
Yes, except now it's losing money as you just moved it to Stansted. The laughing you hear is Delta and United trying not to pee their pants as they sign up the former BA Gold Card holders.

Your argument does not stand up to any commercial scrutiny and I assure you would not work. BA do not fight on "cheaper", they fight on "better" in premium cabins. This would again not fly from Essex.

As with the Ryanair thinking, I don't suppose BA passengers would touch LGW with a bargepole if U2 has such a large presence there, then? Unnecessarily cynical thinking on this point.
BA are withdrawing year on year from short haul at LGW as easyJet have won the battle for Gatwick. They have a much larger operation built from scratch in a decade that overtook BA as LGW's No 1. BA long haul leisure is at LGW mainly because there's no room at LHR.

Where does this leave them then? After BMI growth, is that about it for the rest of time?
IAG have stated that BA have no interest at STN or LTN and any future growth will be at Madrid Barajas. Remember KLM have a mature market at AMS and life still goes on, BA in LHR will be similar for the medium term.

This isn't to mention the money that isn't even being tapped into on the routes that BA can't currently serve due to a lack of slots.
Once you start listing them, there's not all that many. You are mixing up network size and equating it to profitability. They are not the same thing at all. Even the current BA wish list on the BMI takeover are pretty much kind of borderline. Seoul is not likely to be a profit maker for a few years I suspect even if it does come on line soon.

You need to encourage a portion of connecting passengers to use that capacity. It does not matter where the money is, as long as it is still there.
Given the market wouldn't use Gatwick, and hasn't done every time someone has tried since BUA / Caledonian / BCAL to Laker and latterly Virgin, what is your mechanism for getting people to use Stansted or Luton? I mean it's been tried and failed so many times, what's new now? I assure you that it DOES matter where the money is as time and time again, it stays at LHR and won't budge. No matter how good your product is, outside of LHR on scheduled business premium long haul, you're screwed.

People are not going to switch alliances over this. If anything, customers would move to OW because of the extra flexability. Corporate customers are also more likely to favour a cheaper option. Connections at LHR are a pain anyway - any regular traveller knows this.

Connections at STN are what exactly? When BA flew LGW-JFK, it was the weakest of all the London JFK flights and customers most certainly did not flock to it citing flexibility. Indeed Delta have just dropped LGW-ATL to build up LHR-ATL by one flight per day. Continental, US Airways and NWA all intended to maintain LGW ops when they got into LHR, within a year, all LGW ops were closed. Did customers want flexibility? Not enough to cover the extra costs and on any given asset / aircaft, it was more proftable at LHR. In this market, it's not about choice of London airport. Short haul is different where BA fly LHR/LGW/LCY-EDI, long haul is hub and spoke. Complimentary hubs do not work, I am struggling to think of one. Paris has two hubs but in different markets.

Just so we are clear, to feed the complimentary hub, you would need to feed it with short haul? Given that BA's short haul at LHR is borderline loss making anyway, the additional costs in BA competing with itself with a duplicated network from STN would be suicidal. You have to duplicate as exisiting capacity is needed at LHR to maintain frequency in the short haul market for the business traveller.

[willy wombat]

I'm not sure whether I detect some politics here, but I'm afraid, Sidest, majoring on LHR/JFK shows a distinct lack of commercial knowledge. LHR/JFK is almost unique in that it is a long haul route that has the characteristics of a short haul route. That is why frequency between the same airport pair (not city pair) is vital. I myself was, in the past, typical of many business pax on that route in that I would turn up in the evening at JFK with an open ticket and look for the next flight to LHR (where my car was parked) in the same way that you might turn up with an open ticket at a well served European point. I also detect a distinct lack of understanding of the balance required between connecting and point to point pax to manage yield and of how connecting pax can be vital to start and to maintain a thinnish long haul route e.g. to some of the currently unserved (from the UK) emerging markets.

[GayFriendly]

I think BHX management need to read some of the very valid and reasoned points made on this thread maybe then they will move on from their deluded ideas that capacity constraints at LHR will automatically mean huge, instant and magical long haul growth at BHX in the future.

I cannot see any airline at LHR giving up their slots to move to STN, BHX or indeed anywhere just to offer 'better' pax connections, LHR appears to be the holy grail for airlines operaating to/from the UK (rightly or wrongly, well that is another point) and they continue to pay millions for slots to fly there. I just can't see that changing in the short or even medium term, look at the way IAG snapped up BMI, it wasn't for the brand or the airframes, it was for the LHR slots.

[Groundloop]

Sidest is missing one massive point in his suggestion. In his exampe, if BA were to switch two JFK flights to STN purely for connecting traffic - just how many other routes would have to be operated from STN for these people to connect on to? Dozens and dozens probably - how would you fill them with only dribs and drabs on each one from the JFK connections. In order to operate a hub that provided enough in and out connections to be a profitable operation it would be approaching the size of Emirates at Dubai!

[umberto65]

Nice ideas...

However, from a purely business perspective the only thing that matters here is the gravitational pull of LHR.

Hub Airports must be monopolistic in order to succeed, and that usually happens because:

- Customers decide so: They all want to fly to LHR
- Airlines decide so: LH hubs at FRA (and not Berlin as the German Government wanted them to do so sometime ago')
- Government decides so: The MXP example

So as long as customers want to fly to LHR - and Airlines want to meet that demand - there is no chance of a P2P vs Connecting split. It wouldn't make a iota of business sense.

[JSCL]

I actually disagree with the 'LHR is more expensive' argument. I've flown with BA via LHR and via LGW on many an occasion - every time, LGW was more expensive. BAA being the current owner/operator of STN (for how long is anyones guess) - are they really going to support such transition? No. They want LHR expansion. The idea is flawed in every way.

Maybe it's time for Scotland to find itself an airline after Globespans unfortunate collapse (which of course wasn't their own doing). There are potential UK-based opportunities, but not in London.

[The SSK]

BA could do what you propose, any time that it likes. I would bet my life savings that it has been thoroughly studied and researched within BA, probably more than once. And rejected.

Not many years ago BA came very close indeed to buying KLM, and their strategy was exactly as you suggest - shift the connecting traffic to Schiphol and keep the O&D at LHR.

As mentioned by Skipness One Echo there is an echo of that strategy in the Iberia tie-up, Madrid will act at least possibly as a safety-valve for Heathrow.

[FQTLSteve]

Very inetresting points being made, I have to say BA would be mad to move LHR-JFK flights, and as someone has pointed out you'd need a large connecting route structure....wouldn't be enough pax connecting onward for them.

Someone mentioned the BA Eurohub at BHX. This was different, it did remove some connecting pax from BA at LHR. But mainly UK to Continental city traffic, although BA did fly to JFK and AA to ORD. At the time I was a frequent weekly user of Eurohub. It had an excellent Terraces Lounge, stupidly easy connection from gate to gate, and not being slot restrained I was on many flights where we were held for a few minutes to allow connecting passengers to board (i.e BHX-NCL held for MXP/BCN-NCL via BHX). It worked well and must have eased some capacity on BA's short haul routes. It also permitted more services from BHX than may have been operated. Today in BHX (and MAN) LH/AF/KL/SK/LX etc take large pax feed to their hubs, which no longer is provided by BA.

But what happened, it's all history now.......BA walked away from a purpose built hub terminal. BTW I'm not suggesting that this would help long haul traffic if it was still operating, so despite the easing of short haul connecting travel from UK regions on LHR, BA still didn't want it.

[rn750]

The extension of the point is that the UK's National Carrier should serve more than 1 UK city..:ugh::ugh::ugh:
If BA had scheduled long and short haul flights from the regions Birmingham, Leeds, Edinburgh, Manchester. this would free up slots at Heathrow..
Thus resolving the capacity issue..

Easy..

Adie

[PAXboy]

American Airlines started a 767 service from STN to NYC (can't recall which airport but probably JFK) Is that service still running? No.

The UK govt have signalled failed to create a workable alternative to LHR and now it cannot be changed. The 3rd might happen but no grat move. Afterall, for the last 60 years, every aspect of commercial development in the South East of the UK has had LHR as it's touchstone. Whether it is the houseing of North and West London or the 'M4 Corridor' which ONLY exists because of EGLL. No one is going to attempt to fiddle with that market.

[Skipness One Echo]

The extension of the point is that the UK's National Carrier should serve more than 1 UK city..
If BA had scheduled long and short haul flights from the regions Birmingham, Leeds, Edinburgh, Manchester. this would free up slots at Heathrow..
Thus resolving the capacity issue..

Easy..

Adie

Where to start with this nonsense? They clearly serve more than one city, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Heathrow, Gatwick and Jersey (non UK but you get the idea), are all BA mainline destinations. That's seven which is more than one where I went to school. In fact you can throw Belfast into the mix once BMI is integrated, so that takes it to eight, and mad it sounds, there are mutterings of Leeds-Bradford!

BA operated hubs from MAN and BHX for decades which due to their cost base lost money for just as long in an era of less competition. In todays much more competitve environment, they have no chance as the public chooses to fly with the locos or a foreign carrier who has a hub at the destination.

The extension of the point is that the UK's National Carrier
They're a PLC not a branch of the state, you want BA to lose money flying routes for social reasons, subsidise them. Oh wait, we can't, we're bust.

Not that easy then.

[Suzeman]

Passengers from MAN and 'oop North are freeing up LHR capacity by using other hubs in Europe, Middle East and N America. :cool:

Never say we doing nothing to help :ok:

Suzeman

[Fairdealfrank]

We've been round this many times:

(1) BA no longer operate longhaul from the regions because they can't make money. It's too late to go back, unless they want a fight with EK and KL.

(2) The dual hub was tried with LHR/LGW for years when airlines could be told where to be based. All the LGW-based carriers failed except VS who were able to move accross to LHR. So why would STN work where LGW failed? We are now in a deregulated open skies environment and airlines and airports are commercial outfits, not government departments.

(3) Are we seriously suggesting that BA should have 4 bases and 2 hubs: LHR, LGW, LCY and STN?

(4) Dual hubs at JFK/EWR and DME/SVO work because of the availability of domestic connections because both are in huge countries. Are there any others? In both cases no single airline is present at both hubs as would be the case for BA at LHR/STN.

(5) This has all the wishful thinking of the Silver Island estuary airport. No one has come up with a workable alternative to LHR expansion because there isn't one. Political reality will need to set in quickly, and as mentioned in a previous post on another thread, Justine and Teresa are best off being sent to cut the grass.

[The SSK]

The flaw in the argument was in the first word of the title: Make

Passengers don't take kindly to being 'made' to use an airport that they would not otherwise choose to use. The world is littered with failed artificial hubs.

[Tableview]

I congratulate sidest for having put up a valiant fight in the face of informed opposition, stated facts, past history, and conventional wisdom.

Might I suggest a career in politics?

[puntopower]

We know there is a lot of O/D traffic in the UK compared to the norm, particularly London. Then we come to the hub concept. Does it matter where a hub is? Dubai certainly isn't the holiday and business destination of the world.The UK mentality seems to be fly direct, however, this is not a global mentality and LHR operates on a global stage. Figures from 2007, not exactly up to date, but representative, show O/D at LHR was 65% of pax, compared to 46% at FRA, 58% at AMS and 68% at CDG. In terms of actual numbers, LHR was only 5m pax below FRA in relation to connecting pax. In my view, part of this is to do with the size of the UK in comparison to Germany for example. Journey times to LHR are much shorter for a larger percentage of the country, whereas Germany, which is much larger than the UK, it is easier and more able to connect from BER-FRA-Long Haul for example.

If the connections are convenient, the ground service is good and most importantly the flights are well priced - surely it doesn't matter?This is a rational arguement. A field in the middle of nowhere is surely acceptable for a transit pax as long as flight A connects to flight B and they arrive in C. The problem is that in order to maintain a service, you have to ensure that there is enough of a balance of O/D and connecting pax to ensure the flight is economically viable. If you are not flying to an area with an active local population, it becomes unviable. Passengers transit through LHR because of the level of choice in destinations served. Curiously, I am not sure why they choose it out of choice over other more efficient airfields, surely if you are connecting, the less congested the better. I flew LHR-CDG once on a redemption ticket, it took as long to taxi from T5 to the end of the runway as it did to fly the flight time to Paris. Why then would you choose to actively waste so much time if you want to fly MAN-LHR-JFK for example.

The idea is not to create a secondary hub in order to work independently of LHR, but rather one that would complement it. This hub would only comprise of existing routes and would have a focus on (but not limited to) connecting traffic - essentially diverting a portion of it from LHR and routing it through STN.I can see where this thought is coming from. Lufthansa make it work operating between Frankfurt and Munich, but each hub is sufficiently apart from each other to sustain the services. They also have a huge bank of feed respectively and therein lies the answer. In order to make a hub work, it has to have a sufficient volume otherwise it is dead in the water. You have to have the short, mid and long haul all in place to ensure that the choice is there and connections are possible across the network to appeal to passengers and develop brand loyalty. Too many ideas are fly by night and short term orientated and that is why they fail. Of course two LON hubs are always going to draw comparisons between one another and that is the reason BA retrenched to LHR from LGW and likewise the American carriers. If you make £X operating from LGW and £X+1 operating from LHR for each seat you sell, it is very hard to justify LGW when LHR makes more money. For example, DL recently departed from LGW after 33 years, moving the final flight to LHR. On the last day of the DL11 LGW-ATL on the 17th and the first day DL39 LHR-ATL aswell as DL9 LHR-ATL operating across both days, whilst load factor for the two days was fairly similar, LHR had a 30% increase in bookings in C. That is where the airline makes it's money, so why would you happily accommodate non-revs and IVC's at LGW because Y is oversold but C isn't, when from LHR, C sells itself.

Considering the London-cenric view of premium airlines, the airport would have to be near(ish) London. LGW is a little inflexible because many of the 'good' slots are taken. So take I'll take STN for example. (Remember this is only an example).It is London centric for a reason. It is an extremely affluent area, with a high population density. It is also extremely multi cultural and has a lot of historic connections across the world. Because of all this, there is a huge demand not only to come to London, but because of the established infrastructure, there is the easy ability to transit through. LGW is not only inflexible because of the lack of premium slots, it is also a rubbish airport for feed and this is one of the reasons for some many departures of scheduled carriers. A huge bulk of the passengers are travelling on LCC or charter airlines who do not interline or connect through ticketing, therefore for a foreign scheduled carrier, where do you get your feed from. Easyjet is the golden carrier at LGW and GAL favour them enormously, despite the attempts to divest by attracting Asian carriers.

There are as many as 14 BA/AA LHR-JFK flights a day. There are many other routes with a large number of frequencies. Cut some of them. Based upon customer data, select a small number of frequencies to cut and then move them to STN. These moves could also be bulked up for growth and flexibility. For example, cut 2 JFK frequencies and add 3 to STN, cut 2 FRA frequencies and add 3 to STN and so on. Time the flights to optimise connections.There are 14 frequencies for a reason. Yes, BA might be able to use these slots to serve another route elsewhere, but would they make as much money doing so? LON-NYC serves 250,000 people a month in both directions, one of the largest single markets from LHR and because of the length of the sector, premium cabins are attractive and yeild results. Therefore, cater well to a market like this, or do you send the aircraft to some where else, where F and C yeilds are lower. This not only loses you money, it loses you passengers. As I said previously, STN will yield £X and LHR will yield £X+1 but the aircraft will burn the same amount of fuel on both routes, so what makes the most financial sense?

Operating costs at STN would be notably cheaper than LHR. Creating a lean structure for the new devision, rather like the Mixed Fleet initiative, will help to keep costs down even further. Utilising aircraft such as the 787 on long haul sectors will also improve financial viability. The savings (or part of them) would then be passed on to the customers, offering an incentive to travel through the new hub. Highlight the cheaper prices. Let those who regularly connect know. Market the fact that is is cheaper and drive as much connecting traffic through the new hub rather than LHR.But you end up duplicating roles. Not only does this cost money, it adds to complexity in the corporate structure.

Utilising aircraft such as the 787 will also imrpove financial viability, but it will further improve profit margins at LHR on existing routes.

What are you acheiving in making the prices cheaper. That is only damaging yeild. Yield is an ever chainging and fluctuating number, so any erosion of such is a negative. It means you are giving away something. It like when you downsize a route from a 744 to an A333. Not only do you improve costs, you also lose the need to sell the deep discounted tickets that you once had to sell in Y to fill the aircraft. Thus you increase the yield on the seats you sell.



It creates and allows for growth on existing LHR routes.
It offers many UK residents a more convenient choice.
It offers customers both in the UK and abroad a cheaper choice.
It frees up some slots at LHR for further growth in new markets.
It builds the Stansted name internationally.

Freeing up slots at LHR is about the only benefit here. But at what cost? It would be more beneficial taking one of those free slots at a unfavoured time than more a route from LHR.

By having a comprehensive full service airline offering to key world cities, the Stansted airport name could be taken further and become more recognised in the international market. This potential could then be harnessed to initiate plans to improve links to London, particularly optimising and creating faster links with the Stansted Express. This in turn would make the airport even more marketable to non-connecting traffic. It must be noted that NRT is further away from Tokyo than Stansted is from London.The only way this would work would be to start a new airline, with a huge capital reserve to acheive critical mass quickly. The reason Easyjet works on short haul is because of it's cost structure, modern employment contracts, no incumbent costs from decades of trading etc. I am not even sure you would have to even destroy the onboard service in order to acheive this. Look at Jetblue for example, only around 130 seats on a A320, comfortable onboard service. Match this with a market leading long haul product and offer people what they want and I am sure that you would be able to generate a market. The problem is O/D pax are unlikely to travel north to use you, as are the businesses from LON. Connecting pax might be persuaded to though. But O/D is going to make up at least 50% of the load factor in all likelyhood, more if you are a new business. So the answer is that you would have to move sufficiently away from LON to ensure that you can generate a yeild for the local market and comparisons are not always made back to LHR. So where would you go? In the UK, the likelyhood would be MAN as it has a good local population, but then do MAN business want a large scope of destinations? If not, then how do you sustain a route with just connecting pax.

DXB and other ME hubs have been successful because their creation did not divert traffic from existing airports. This is the problem with another London airport, that it will always weaken the revenue flows from the other airports. The single hub concept works, multiples won't. They have been sucessful because they have effectively re-routed existing pax. Where they used to fly UK-AUS by going LHR-HKG-SYD for example, pax now go via DXB. It breaks the flights into two more balanced segments flight time wise and many perceive thier onboard product and service to be of a greater quality. Look now at how Qantas, Air NZ etc are, down to a small number of flights on what once used to be a major revenue generator for them.

It would certainly have to be a robust operation for any chance of success, no doubt at all about that. However, if the second hub doesn't have all of the LHR routes, does it matter from a connections point of view? You just connect through LHR if STN doesn't offer it. It's not designed to rid LHR completely of connecting traffic, just offering flexibility where economically possible.Theory over practice. You would just be damaging yields. Earlier you spoke about moving over some of the flights, lessening the frequency at LHR and taking up the slack at STN. So for example,

FRA-STN-JFK
FRA-LHR-JFK

If connecting through LHR generates an extra £50 per Y seat for BA, why would they actively route pax through STN? That damages the bottom line.

It may weaken the revenue flow by taking some traffic away, but surely that can be recouped by the new hub? Furthermore, if a credible hub can be built and becomes more popular with travellers, expansion is far more attainable than at LHR. Surely it doesn't matter where the money is, as long as it's still there in one way or another? The other plus is that in return they may reach out to new markets with the slots that they have 'gained'. I suppose it depends on how much the airlines will value the extra LHR slots. £1 does not become another £1 moving between hubs, especially across LON and that is the problem. More over C and F pax do not move. LHR is where they travel from in the greatest numbers.

The 'extra' LHR slots would have a use, but would they generate the same revenue as the lost flights? If BA moved a JFK and used it for a Manila, or a Jakata, would this generate the same RASM? In all likelyhood, no. Nothing pays quite like JFK.

It's not about taking what LHR does and moving it elsewhere. LHR will still do what it does, just slightly less of it. In return it can then open up to more of what it currently does not, but arguably should do - serve more emerging and growing markets. This is not a fix of Heathrow, and maybe the title should have been better, however it is a solution to some of it's problems and the wider issue of capacity in the South East that could be in place more quickly than any runway capacity.

I'm not suggesting anyone be moved from LHR. It is just a strategy that could be utilised. Like I said, this is mainly a BA growth idea more than anything else. Do emerging markets make money? Whilst China is a booming economy, UK airlines only fly to the most major of cities and even with LH and AF flying to secondry cities, the number of withdrawls suggests this is not the gold mine that some expect. It might be growning on Asia to Asia routes, but Europe to Asia are different cultures and serve different markets. Same with Brazil, whilst it might be booming within S. American and Brazilian carriers are opening up new routes across the country, does a LHR-Brasilia route for example, make sense?

It's not about taking what LHR does and moving it elsewhere. It's about replicating what LHR does elsewhere. Yes, there will be a small reduction of what LHR does - but in return it is designed to allow LHR to do more of what it currently doesn't and has arguably been said it should do, i.e. operate to emerging and developing markets. We have that, ultimately. LHR/CDG/AMS/FRA/MAD is the answer. This is a European day and age.

If BA and AA cut 2 of the 14 LHR rotations, there would still be 12. It doesn't for a second change what LHR does. Seasonal changes change frequencies all the time, and considering most of these 14 flights run within 30 minutes of each other, there would be little change. In return BA may choose to use the slots for new dailies to KIX and CTU for exampleThe 30 minute intervals is because that is what the market dictates. Because of the flexibility, you can sell your most expernsive flexible tickets to those who pay the most, business. That is worth a lot of revenue annually. Whilst Delta and United might not take the business with an extra one or two flights each, is it worth upsetting your best clients for one or two flights from STN?

This is what BA found when they built up LGW. For every rotation moves out of LHR, too many premium travellers elected to fly LHR-XYZ with the competition rather than jolly down Sussex way. Harsh but true. Harsh but true is an excellent sentiment. If you have the two to compare, rightly or wrongly, LHR wins every time. I wonder though, if a new entrant operates solely from LGW and therefore does have the data to analyse against LHR, would it be happy and build a sufficient business with those that are flexible to move between the two airports.


My point is how much profit is being sacrificed due to a lack of exposure in other markets, and how much of existing revenue can still be held on to if a move to STN is made? BA do make a lot of money on LHR-JFK, but healthy chunk of that is down to connecting traffic.But the healthy profit is established because O/D also pay the fares ex LHR along with connecting passengers. Therefore, without this demand essentially pegging the fare, the margin is lost. I don't know what you work as, but when you get into the office of an airline and start to see what a route costs to operate and translate that into passengers onboard, you begin to see every single one counts. On a £400 transatlantic flight, £100/£150 of that is the fare, the rest is taxes and charges. Then take out one crew members hotel cost for one night, then the charge for a departing passenger at LHR, an arriving passenger at JFK, ground handlers cost, etc and not much of that fare is less. If STN generates £1 less than LHR, that could be the difference between profit and loss.

How would Delta and United up the frequency if there are no slots for them to do so? Other than cutting into their own slots on other routes, which I don't think they'd want to do.The most recent DL slot was a KLM slot previously that now operates the DL38/9 ATL flight. Joint ventures and alliances have opened up a new world to slot movements.

Maybe I am living in an idealised world. But I can't help but think what if? I realise things have happened in the past, but situations change and there there is more than one way of going about something. For it to have any chance of success it would take a hefty investment, which I suppose counts against the idea. Absolutely no harm in thinking. It is those that think and then those that do which put man on the moon. The problem with the aviation industry is that it is so capital intensive, that mistakes can be costly. Therefore, airlines focus on what will make them the most money and stick to it. That is why BA entrenched into LHR.

A few months ago, most passengers flying to the UK just booked to Heathrow because they didn't know otherwise. Now this publicity about terminal inertia has made people think - Is there an alternative? Once people realise that there may be a better/quicker/cheaper/more convenient way to get to their destination, they are empowered.

Some people will therefore change their behaviour. That affects demand. Airlines respond to passenger demand. Sometimes. It'll take a lot to prise some airlines out of Heathrow, but if enough passengers vote with their feet, it might work.Again, the alternative is FRA/CDG/AMS/MAD. When they choose with their feet, they take a connecting flight as out of the UK long haul, there isn't much else especially across the pond. What are they going to do otherwise, take TS from LGW and connect? LHR for all its faults, remains the choice of travellers for whatever reason.

Hub thinking is a remnant from the 70's. It's on its way out. Today, people want to travel direct - and they're willing to pay extra to do so. I'm one of those - I fly intercontinental more than once a month, and I always go direct If I can. If that means less air points, so be it. Whatever it takes.Flying direct isn't always a possibility and many people are quite happy to. I have noticed that in particular there is a UK cultural aversion to connecting. Hubs and in particular mega hubs are a way of consolidating your airline and its the trending theme amongst carriers these days.

How many Gold Card holders do you seriously expect to see in with the Ryanair mob? Not much Exclusivity in there, so what the Hell, we need to duplicate all the lounge facilities that are already in place at LHR.
This is part of the problem with LGW also. No offence but business people do not want to sit amongst those on their annual holiday to CUN or a stag weekend to IBZ. The actual working mentality of the airport and its employees is completely different between LGW and LHR.


Where does this leave them then? After BMI growth, is that about it for the rest of time? They will have to grow BA outside LHR.
Whilst short haul still departs on A319's and long haul on 772ER's, there is always space for growth, through aircraft capacity rises. This further availability, where applicable, further entrenches the airlines position on a route.

BA are withdrawing year on year from short haul at LGW as easyJet have won the battle for Gatwick. They have a much larger operation built from scratch in a decade that overtook BA as LGW's No 1. BA long haul leisure is at LGW mainly because there's no room at LHR.The BA LGW long haul leisure is also partly there because the pax are there at LGW as well. Its job is holidaymakers. Lets be honest and not pretend LGW is something it isn't. The only LGW route that might make sense out of LHR is BGI. Afterall, it used to be sufficient enough of a route to be served by Concorde.

Once you start listing them, there's not all that many. You are mixing up network size and equating it to profitability. They are not the same thing at all. Even the current BA wish list on the BMI takeover are pretty much kind of borderline. Seoul is not likely to be a profit maker for a few years I suspect even if it does come on line soon.
Some of the routes being mentioned seem to be "large" routes because they have enormous VFR demand. That however, does not fill the front cabins which is where the money is made.

Given the market wouldn't use Gatwick, and hasn't done every time someone has tried since BUA / Caledonian / BCAL to Laker and latterly Virgin, what is your mechanism for getting people to use Stansted or Luton? I mean it's been tried and failed so many times, what's new now? I assure you that it DOES matter where the money is as time and time again, it stays at LHR and won't budge. No matter how good your product is, outside of LHR on scheduled business premium long haul, you're screwed.Excellent point which essentially sums up the UK market. It is LHR or nowhere.

Curiously, no one can ever put their finger on why this market situation occurs. There is no disputing it though.

Connections at STN are what exactly? When BA flew LGW-JFK, it was the weakest of all the London JFK flights and customers most certainly did not flock to it citing flexibility. Indeed Delta have just dropped LGW-ATL to build up LHR-ATL by one flight per day. Continental, US Airways and NWA all intended to maintain LGW ops when they got into LHR, within a year, all LGW ops were closed. Did customers want flexibility? Not enough to cover the extra costs and on any given asset / aircaft, it was more proftable at LHR. In this market, it's not about choice of London airport. Short haul is different where BA fly LHR/LGW/LCY-EDI, long haul is hub and spoke. Complimentary hubs do not work, I am struggling to think of one. Paris has two hubs but in different markets.DL's load factor in C for LHR against LGW is incomparable. C is where they make their money, it is a no brainer, as much as it is disappointing to see LGW lose another carrier. It was only a matter of time as soon as they got the 09:00 slot.


With a bit of expansion, MAN could offer similar infrastructure to LHR. Then at least LHR could face some domestic Hub competition. Then let the market decide which is best. A MAN hub could work with a new entrant. Would they be happy with less yeild and premium passengers than their European incumbents, I doubt it.



Thank you for the interesting topic and thoughts.

[oceancrosser]

I thought the UK government was doing its utmost to turn people away from connecting in the UK (read LHR) with the APD and the unique security charade. I for one will go to great lengths to use another Euro hub both on duty travels (crew member) and private travel.

[AdamFrisch]

Flying direct isn't always a possibility and many people are quite happy to. I have noticed that in particular there is a UK cultural aversion to connecting. Hubs and in particular mega hubs are a way of consolidating your airline and its the trending theme amongst carriers these days.


As TSA/Security nonsense and congestion increases every year at most of the hubs, direct flights will only increase in popularity. It's the future. Also, aircraft design is changing and we're already seeing a move towards very long range but able to support thin lines (ie 787). I certainly try to avoid hubs if I can, especially US ones (as it adds a minimum of 3-4hrs to your flight with immigration, re-checking you luggage as they won't allow checking through etc). Most of the Euro hubs aren't much better due to poor infrastructure. Dubai is better organised, but just a depressing place best avoided.

[Skipness One Echo]

That's exactly what American's Bob Crandall said in 1990 about the B767. Then Boeing built the B747-400.

[rutankrd]

The tenant of this thread is is so weak.

Many thousands of UK travels already make the choice NOT to connect over LHR every day, flying from regional airports via AMS/FRA/CDG and even further affield from Man/BHX/NCL/GLA via Dubai going East or with the exception of NCL (Insert EDI instead) going west via EWK.

These are at the expense of BA/VS and the UK economy however they are convenient and in the main competitive.

In the case of Manchester there is an extensive network of routes connecting the city globally WITHOUT transiting ANY London airport. Even Oneworld frequent flyers can avoid London to get to Asia (Finnair), South America and Miami (IBERIA) and the whole of the USA (American daily to JFK and Chicago)
Did you know you can buy a BA codeshare for Manchester to Milan/Dusseldorf/Hanover direct to this day (On FLYBE !) .

Add Qatar / Etihad /Turkish/Singapore/US Airways/Delta Virgin Atlantic - You get the picture. Transfer over LHR is an option NOT an obligation.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "I have noticed that in particular there is a UK cultural aversion to connecting."

Quote: "The UK mentality seems to be fly direct"

Maybe, maybe not. It's not that cut and dried. The success of EK, EY and QR in particular (even out of LHR) suggest not.....

Quote: "As TSA/Security nonsense and congestion increases every year at most of the hubs, direct flights will only increase in popularity. It's the future."

.....On the other hand, this is clearly making direct flights increasingly attractive, but some pax are price sensitive and connecting is often cheaper.



Quote: "A MAN hub could work with a new entrant. Would they be happy with less yeild and premium passengers than their European incumbents, I doubt it."

BE appear to be making a success of a MAN hub, albeit on a small scale.

Quote: "Many thousands of UK travels already make the choice NOT to connect over LHR every day, flying from regional airports via AMS/FRA/CDG and even further affield from Man/BHX/NCL/GLA via Dubai going East or with the exception of NCL (Insert EDI instead) going west via EWK."

Exactly, longhaul options can exist without the need for a particular carrier to have a hub at Ringway.

[Suzeman]

I remember reading that Branson gave evidence many years ago to a House of Commons Committee that the yields on his VS LHR - JFK flights were 20% higher than the ones on his LGW - JFK.

If the same sort of figure is applicable today, you can see why everyone wants to go to LHR.

Suzeman

[The SSK]

oceancrosser: I thought the UK government was doing its utmost to turn people away from connecting in the UK (read LHR) with the APD ...

No APD on (international:international) transfers in the UK

The APD policy may be stupid, but it's not that stupid (yet)

[PAXboy]

To save starting another thread ... If you think there are problems about siting an airfield, try this idea for size.

BBC News - Report recommends that Britain should build a spaceport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18114439)

and the size includes a runway twice that of LHR. :}

[Heathrow Harry]

when we talk of connecting at LHR we REALLY mean connecting between BA flights - for anything else it's an absolute sod conencting at LHR between 4 terminals spread out over half the home counties - compared with Schipol or Atlanta for example

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "when we talk of connecting at LHR we REALLY mean connecting between BA flights - for anything else it's an absolute sod conencting at LHR between 4 terminals spread out over half the home counties - compared with Schipol or Atlanta for example "


....and VS (in LHR-3 only) albeit on a smaller scale.

Grouping carriers of the same alliance in the same terminal has made connections easier at LHR, although can still be a pain in some cases.

BA needs to be sorted, it is now split accross three Heathrow terminals!

LHR-5D, LHR-5E and LHR-5F are needed, but the fire station and LHR-3 are in the way! Oneworld would benefit if the terminal transit that links the LHR-5 satelites was extended to LHR-3.

Extension of it to the rebuilt LHR-1/2 as well would be ideal, as would a parallel landslide version: LHR-5, LHR-3, central bus station, LHR-1/2.

Flying pigs?

[jabird]

OK, I thought this was a daft thread when I first read it, but sooner or later you have to give your tuppence:

LH hubs at FRA (and not Berlin as the German Government wanted them to do so sometime ago')

Germany has a completely different political and geographical situation to the UK, so you can't just compare LH's use of multiple hubs or the Berlin issue. Having historically been a divided city with two airports, BER is now a united city which will soon have just one airport, and LH will be there with a mini hub.

The real difference between Germany and the UK though is not the fact Germany is a bit bigger - so what, the Netherlands is a lot smaller and they also have just one hub airport. It is a question of agglomeration and distance - the next biggest airport outside London is Manchester, which is a far smaller market than London. Germany has many major cities, and in some respects is like a mini USA. Compare the UK with France - one dominant city, one dominant airport, but CDG has acres of room and LHR doesn't.

American Airlines started a 767 service from STN to NYC (can't recall which airport but probably JFK) Is that service still running? No.

IIRC it lasted one season and yes it was JFK. You also had EOS and Maxjet, the former with a massive publicity drive all over Canary Wharf. I flew out MJ, back EOS in 07 - great service from both airlines, but I was paying for tickets through my own company. Did the Canary Wharf banker care about their cheaper business class service? No, not one jot. Both long gone.

No one has come up with a workable alternative to LHR expansion because there isn't one

I can give you two alternatives, both for other threads but they are the best we have:

1) Do nothing, and let all LON area airports expand within the sites they have (ie add terminal capacity but no runway) - I have yet to see a well reasoned argument as to why we are likely to see a continuation of the growth of the last 30 years in the next 30. I can see reasons for some growth, but nothing like the 400m pax per year for London that the LCC like to use.

2) Build 2nd, plan 3rd runway at LGW, run a dual hub and eventually let LGW become the main airport. Has a n umber of downsides we've discussed at length elsewhere but there is room and there isn't the same noise problem.

but in return it is designed to allow LHR to do more of what it currently doesn't and has arguably been said it should do, i.e. operate to emerging and developing markets.

Well that argument is ultimately self defeating - if the market is emerging, then by definition it has not emerged yet, and therefore demand and yields are not the same as they are to the well established places like NYC.

Outside PEK & PVG, most of China is emerging - and many cities have a direct service to one European airport - not always CDG, FRA or AMS, sometimes it is HEL. That is all the market can take right now, all these flights will be heavy on conx traffic.

If there is an area for growth that is overlooked, it is Eastern Europe. We have already established a massive VFR market, and even if some workers have gone back, others have grown families. The average Brit flies 4 sectors per year, afaik the average Pole still only flies one sector every four years - so there is plenty of room for growth here, but it is almost all served by the ptp loco sector.

Brazil, India and so on - all in many ways over-rated as already mentioned.


The only LGW route that might make sense out of LHR is BGI. Afterall, it used to be sufficient enough of a route to be served by Concorde.

I recently flew SXM-CDG and saw the manifest. I was amazed at the volume of connecting traffic - I'd have expected about 20% conx 80% O&D but it was more like the other way round.

Where you have a long haul route, there is an inherent market for connections - whether as part of the same ticket or DIY loco feeders to leisure airlines.

I have no doubt that if BA could have all the slots at LHR, they would take them. Likewise, if LHR could build a 3rd runway, the extra capacity would be taken almost as soon as it opened.

We shall see on this one, reality is kicking in over politics, slowly but surely.

And that is the problem we have in London - a shortage of slots at LHR, which is already bursting out of its compact site. If I was in #10, I wouldn't have a problem letting BAA compulsory purchase the land it needs, but there is no way round the huge noise problem created by the east-west alignment of its two runways.

If Boris Island is a smokescreen for LHR's 3rd runway, then I won't be surprised, but there would have to be some serious resignations and/or re-shuffles in order for it to be built.

As I've said before, LGW is surrounded by staunch Tories who would still vote Tory if a new runway was built, whereas LHR is surrounded by a patchwork quilt of all 3 major colours, and building a third runway would mean a huge gamble with these seats.

There is no reason why the best yields have to be welded to LHR - but they always will be unless a bigger and better connected hub is built and a mechanism is brought in to force airlines to move into it.

Considering the nature of our airport ownership system, that is never going to happen, so we either stay as we are, or we move towards the two hub model that works fine for New York and is our best bet for London, even if it is far from perfect.

[nigel osborne]

Sidest.

You seem to forget that trying to transfer airlines from LHR-STN has been tried, time after time and mostly failed.The Govt some years ago wanted to move a raft of airlines including Air Canada from LHR to STN..

Caused a storm of protest with AC and others who refused to move.Haven't airlines like American SAS already tried and failed miserably.

It is possible that in the new aviation paper out soon the Govt might try to force airlines back to STN from LHR but I doubt it.

STN is in a difficult position now.Before when part of BAA, money was used from the profits of LHR flts to help fund STN. With BAA having to let go of STN (unless the new appeal is succesful)..there will be no such funds available.

I personally think STNs future will remain mostly low cost.It is vulnerable just like LTN, as the LCC model if slowly having to turn away from low prices, making the margins between passengers choosing full fare or LC smaller.

Therefore airports in big conurbations which can support business passengers and currently have a good number of full fare airlines (MAN,LHR,LGW,BHX) would appear to be in a better position to take advantage.


Nigel

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “1) Do nothing, and let all LON area airports expand within the sites they have (ie add terminal capacity but no runway) - I have yet to see a well reasoned argument as to why we are likely to see a continuation of the growth of the last 30 years in the next 30. I can see reasons for some growth, but nothing like the 400m pax per year for London that the LCC like to use.“

In a word: globalisation.

Reasons for growth:
1. Increasing trade with the rest of the world, urgently required as the eurozone appears to be going belly-up. This requires connectivity.
2. Increasing trade requires increased cargo capacity as well as increased pax capacity.
3. Increasing prosperity will mean increases in overseas leisure travel and an increase in those travelling in private and business jets.
4. Increased road congestion will require people and freight/cargo to take to the air.
5. Capacity constraints on the railways and the high cost of rail travel will also require people to take to the air.

So both shorthaul and longhaul capacity will be required.

Quote: “2) Build 2nd, plan 3rd runway at LGW, run a dual hub and eventually let LGW become the main airport. Has a n umber of downsides we've discussed at length elsewhere but there is room and there isn't the same noise problem.”

There could be with three runways! LGW expansion is prohibited until 2019. It would be relatively difficult to build a second (forget about a third!) runway and the required terminals and associated infrastructure.
There would far more opposition at LGW than at LHR. Yes there are fewer residents but they tend to be wealthy, vocal and influential, how do you think they managed to get a 40 year ban on a new runway! They are also less dependant on the airport’s presence to earn a living either directly or indirectly. They are likely to object to the increasing urbanisation that will eventually follow if LGW is doubled or trebled in size. To a large extent, this degree of urbanisation already exists around LHR.

Quote: “As I've said before, LGW is surrounded by staunch Tories who would still vote Tory if a new runway was built, whereas LHR is surrounded by a patchwork quilt of all 3 major colours, and building a third runway would mean a huge gamble with these seats.”

It’s not that clearcut, most of the constituencies around LHR are safe seats, some Conservative, some Labour and one is Lib-dem. Yes, there are a handful of marginals around there (Brentford and Isleworth, Richmond Park, etc.) but, trust me, those seats do not change party on the third runway issue.

Third runway or not, people pay over-inflated house prices to live under the flight path for good reason. The airport has brought prosperity to the area and the possibility of losing that will eventually concentrate minds. It is no coincidence that multi-national companies, businesses and industries are based around LHR.

The lack of Heathrow expansion is already seeing moves towards mixed mode operations with ever longer “pilot schemes“ (excuse the pun). This will squeeze in more movements but not address the issue of congestion, both on the airport and in the air. If/when implemented fully, it will also see an end to the daily half-day free of aircraft noise that alternation provides. That is likely to concentrate minds as well.

Quote: “There is no reason why the best yields have to be welded to LHR - but they always will be unless a bigger and better connected hub is built and a mechanism is brought in to force airlines to move into it.”

Yes, there is. The airlines want to be at LHR, because it’s where pax want to be. Hard to accept perhaps, but a fact of life anyway. A bigger, better connected hub cannot and will not be provided. It’s the same old estuary airport argument.
　
Quote: “Considering the nature of our airport ownership system, that is never going to happen, so we either stay as we are, or we move towards the two hub model that works fine for New York and is our best bet for London, even if it is far from perfect.

It's far from "the best bet for London". The two hub model was tried before in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s when they should have been expanding LHR. The “second force” policy, as it was called, forced some airlines and routes to be LGW-based. The policy failed, taking down several airlines. At that time the government still owned the largest airlines and airports and regulated aviation but still could not make the “second force” policy work. It’s fantasy to imagine that similar arrangements could work at a time of deregulation, private ownership and open skies.

Comparing the New York (and Moscow) situation is misleading as they are quite different to London. Both are in huge countries with massive domestic networks to back up each hub.

One has to conclude, once again, that there is no practical and workable alternative to a third runway at LHR, and let's get NHT up and running as a small SEN-type operation as well!

[Bagso]

Sorry to the STN poster but that option is a busted flush !

Not one legacy airline has moved to Stansted and made a go of the place.

Its opening coincided with the Lo-Cost boom sad fact but the reality is if that had not occured it would be an empty ghost airport !

It may be worth taking that into acount when talking about new airport capacity in the South East.

I'm am bored of suggesting the major problem is limited airspace not runways on the gound but that is another story !:ugh:

Also there are two many vested interests at Heathrow, why on earth if you are sat on a major cash cow are you going to think about trebling costs by splitting the operation at another airport 20 miles away ?

Aint going to happen !

[jabird]

FDF,

In a word: globalisation.

Which has been going on since people learnt how to walk and then how to row and sail boats. I know Gordon Brown discovered a "new globalised world" in 2009, but this is an ongoing development, not something new.

1. Increasing trade with the rest of the world, urgently required as the eurozone appears to be going belly-up. This requires connectivity.

As mentioned above, not all it is hyped up to be. The goods are still largely sent by sea, and they can even take the scenic route by land within a couple of weeks.

That leaves the airlines to carry the deal brokers and the contractors - who can also communicate over the internet.

Growth - maybe, rampant growth - I just don't see it.

2. Increasing trade requires increased cargo capacity as well as increased pax capacity.

Good for EMA, STN etc, less interest to LHR, except for what foes in the belly of the passenger flights, but the routes are surely driven by the passengers and supported by the freight.

3. Increasing prosperity will mean increases in overseas leisure travel and an increase in those travelling in private and business jets.

I agree on the first part, but that can be dealt with by locos, or if on legacy carriers, it is still price sensitive.

How many Bizjets are there at LHR?

4. Increased road congestion will require people and freight/cargo to take to the air.

Much more of an opportunity for rail, the longer the journey, the lower the proportion that is likely to be spent stuck in traffic.

The cost of air freight relative to road is prohibitive, unless the freight is perishable.

Neither particularly relevant to LHR.

5. Capacity constraints on the railways and the high cost of rail travel will also require people to take to the air.

The trend there is clearly going in the other direction and has been for many years - with or without HS2.

[jabird]

LGW expansion is prohibited until 2019

Only the building of a second runway is prohibited, and as we both know there is zero chance that a runway could be planned built and opened by this date even if they didn't have this agreement.

Yes there are fewer residents but they tend to be wealthy, vocal and influential

You have a fair point there. Our little portakabin airport had a similar problem - at the 05 end you find dense, relatively low income Willenhall, grateful for the chance of more jobs. At the other, you have wealthy Stoneleigh, desperate to protect the value of their houses.

However, there clearly is still widespread opposition to expansion at LHR, and that can't be brushed under the carpet, there just isn't an airport anywhere in the world with two heavily utilised runways pointing directly towards the city centre.


how do you think they managed to get a 40 year ban on a new runway

The same way that any planning agreement works. You want permission, you offer something into the bargain - so at DSA they could get away with a few noise insulation grants, MAN had to accept limited usage on its 2nd runway, and you have already mentioned the constraints at LHR.

I really don't think there is anything special about the agreement, but the anti Gatwick runway group GACC clearly do - what a great name for a group that is supposed to be against speed!

They are likely to object to the increasing urbanisation that will eventually follow if LGW is doubled or trebled in size

Fair point, but a similar issue at STN, and if Boris' crazy idea ever did take off, that would also create huge development pressue all over Essex and Kent.

It is no coincidence that multi-national companies, businesses and industries are based around LHR.

Very true, but they are also spread around Surrey, and of course plenty of them inside Zone 1 or at Canary Wharf.

Any expansion at LGW would be a process of evolution over decades, not the kind of dramatic shift that would be needed to move to BI.

The airlines want to be at LHR, because it’s where pax want to be. Hard to accept perhaps, but a fact of life anyway. A bigger, better connected hub cannot and will not be provided. It’s the same old estuary airport argument.

I agree - they want to be at LHR, but they will take slots at LGW as a second choice. They don't want LTN or STN and the only airline that has publicly backed BI is Flybe - and they should stick to buzzing around the regions!

Sooner or later someone needs to make a decision. First - does the SE need a new runway (s), and second - where should it or they go.

If we agree that London does (and as above, jury still out on that one - remember rising fuel, biofuels even more costly, APD, pollution concerns etc) - then we have to accept the pros and cons of each site.

So I still think LHR has too big a noise problem, not to mention surface access, as yet another new terminal would mean yet another set of stations. We've both agreed BI is not the way. Like LHR, LGW can squeeze more traffic through its existing runway, and it could build a second runway with less displacement of local villages compared to LHR.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “However, there clearly is still widespread opposition to expansion at LHR, and that can't be brushed under the carpet, there just isn't an airport anywhere in the world with two heavily utilised runways pointing directly towards the city centre.“

Not so, there are several, GRU, HND, LAX, LIS, MEX, SGN, SYD and TXL come to mind, at least on some arrivals/departures. Moreover there are several airports with flight paths over densly populated conurbations even if they are not exactly the city centre.

Quote: “The same way that any planning agreement works. You want permission, you offer something into the bargain - so at DSA they could get away with a few noise insulation grants, MAN had to accept limited usage on its 2nd runway, and you have already mentioned the constraints at LHR.“

Good examples of planning “quid pro quo” arrangements, and in the case of LHR, there were/are restrictions placed on the third runway. There were no “quid pro quo” arrangements in the case of LGW. It is not an arrangement that after 40 years there can be a runway, so don‘t see the relevance.

Quote: “Very true, but they are also spread around Surrey, and of course plenty of them inside Zone 1 or at Canary Wharf.“

One would expect it in the Square Mile, West End and Canary Wharf. London is, after all, one of the world’s largest commercial/financial centres. But why out in the Thames Valley? because of LHR of course.

　
Quote: “I agree - they want to be at LHR, but they will take slots at LGW as a second choice. They don't want LTN or STN and the only airline that has publicly backed BI is Flybe - and they should stick to buzzing around the regions!”

Exactly, second choice. They take slots at LGW as a stepping stone to LHR, there are many examples: CO (now part of UA), DL, NW (now part of DL), US, VS (the first to do it in 1984), and WY.

Suspect that VN and KE will be joining their Skyteam “colleagues” at LHR-4 as soon as possible.

BA and VS would probably have left LGW altogether had LHR been adequately expanded back in the day.

Am surprised that BE would be in favour of the estuary airport (“Silver island“). It offers them nothing. Would be surprised if it could afford the airport charges.

Quote: “So I still think LHR has too big a noise problem, not to mention surface access, as yet another new terminal would mean yet another set of stations. We've both agreed BI is not the way. Like LHR, LGW can squeeze more traffic through its existing runway, and it could build a second runway with less displacement of local villages compared to LHR“.

Newer aircraft are getting quieter and cleaner all the time and will be considerably so before any runways are built.

Of course you are right that “Silver Island” is a non-starter. The concept will be endlessly recycled but nothing will happen.

LGW is more hemmed in by nearby urbanisation than you admit, expansion would have to be to the west only and there are villages in the way. It is not clearcut exactly where a second runway would go.

The villages north of LHR are already blighted, regrettably, because of the on-off nature of the LHR expansion issue. This is grossly unfair on the remaining residents who obviously cannot sell their houses on the open market if they want to leave. Many long time residents are gone and the villages' populations are becoming increasingly transient.

The decision to expand LHR needs to be made and made fast. Accept no substitutes.

[jabird]

Not so, there are several, GRU, HND, LAX, LIS, MEX, SGN, SYD and TXL come to mind, at least on some arrivals/departures. Moreover there are several airports with flight paths over densly populated conurbations even if they are not exactly the city centre.

Without going into a detailed debate about each one, most of those on your list are either considerably smaller than LHR, or they have alternative runways available, or the surroundings are less dense.

Newer aircraft are getting quieter and cleaner all the time and will be considerably so before any runways are built.

Agreed, but are they doing so quickly enough?

There were no “quid pro quo” arrangements in the case of LGW. It is not an arrangement that after 40 years there can be a runway, so don‘t see the relevance.

By definition, it is, as the status goes from outright ban to apply through the usual channels, 10 year public inquiry and hope that you might have a sympathetic government in power at the time a decision is made.

Let's put the ball on the other foot - the coalition can have another consultation, but the fundamentals haven't changed since 2003, except that demand is looking a lot softer.

A Labour government wouldn't give a damn about either losing votes around LGW or upsetting big home owners. I think they've gone cold on LHR too, maybe they will be warmer to a second runway at LGW.

[Skipness One Echo]

The Heathrow noise problem? What all the One Elevens and Tridents you mean? I live under the flight path, it's decreasing year on year, but lets not allow details and facts to get in the way. To those who don't like fully loaded BA B744s leaving late or early morning transatlantic arrivals, then why did you move to live under a flight path? I did by my own choice but I am mature enough not to expect the world to revolve right around me.

Have you been under an A380 on departure? You barely need to raise your voice to be heard.

Anyone keen to expand Gatwick as a hub needs to chat with BA and find out what went wrong last time.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "By definition, it is, as the status goes from outright ban to apply through the usual channels, 10 year public inquiry and hope that you might have a sympathetic government in power at the time a decision is made."

Quote: "A Labour government wouldn't give a damn about either losing votes around LGW or upsetting big home owners. I think they've gone cold on LHR too, maybe they will be warmer to a second runway at LGW."

Sorry, got it wrong, apparently there was a "quid pro quo": a 40 year ban on a new runway in exchange for a second terminal.

Suspect that the LGW owners at the time, BAA, agreed because they knew that the airport is small and that there is inadequate space for major expansion and another rwy. Moreover it is preferable to have an extra rwy at LHR where the economic benefits are greater.

Labour approved the extra rwy at LHR, eventually! and for good economic reasons. Any U-turns at present on their part has more to with political posturing. The way things are going, they will have to address the issue again when they return to power, whenever that may be.

Quote: "The Heathrow noise problem? What all the One Elevens and Tridents you mean? I live under the flight path, it's decreasing year on year, but lets not allow details and facts to get in the way. To those who don't like fully loaded BA B744s leaving late or early morning transatlantic arrivals, then why did you move to live under a flight path? I did by my own choice but I am mature enough not to expect the world to revolve right around me.

Have you been under an A380 on departure? You barely need to raise your voice to be heard."

Me too, born under the flightpath as well, and old enough to remember the noisier jets of the 1960s, so can endorse the above comments.

The truth about the majority of residents around LHR is that they chose to move there knowing about the airport and in many cases because of the airport not despite it.

Funny isn't it that the more vocal the complaints about aircraft noise, the further they tend to be from LHR, in Clapham for example, rather than Cranford. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Forget about LGW expansion, or of it replacing LHR as the major hub, it's fantasy.

[jabird]

Funny isn't it that the more vocal the complaints about aircraft noise, the further they tend to be from LHR, in Clapham for example, rather than Cranford. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I'm really not bothered about the local politics, that isn't my problem.

However, looking at it from a simple perspective of # of daily movements x noise generated by movement (largely heavies) x number of people under flight paths, LHR has a far bigger impact than any other alternative.

Forget about LGW expansion, or of it replacing LHR as the major hub, it's fantasy.

Well in the current political climate, so is a 3rd runway at LHR. You have to look at all the options and weigh up their pros and cons. I don't doubt the pros of expanding LHR in terms of an increased hub, although the terminals would become a complete mess (where would T6 and 7 go?).

I just think the noise footprint is too large. I totally agree that technology is improving all the time, but you have to go on the oldest, noisiest wide bodies using the airport, not the 380 or the Dreamliner.

[Skipness One Echo]

Have a look at the proposals. Any new Terminals are propsed between the exisiting site and the new runway. I live under the flightpath to both City and Heathrow and neither bothers me.
The noise footpint will decrease as the B747-400 disappears. Already Korean and Malaysian are retiring them from LHR this year, leaving only El Al, Cathay Pacific and the frieghters alongside BA and Virgin. Much of the long haul fleet is already the B777 with the B787 about to arrive in numbers. It's not that noisy and no one moving here since 1947 really has a right to moan too loudly.

We're bankrupt as a nation, need every job we can get and to regain a competitive edge.
Government adviser suggests radical Heathrow Airport plan: (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/transport/government-adviser-suggests-radical-heathrow-airport-plan-forget-a-third-runway-turn-it-into-a-garden-city-7793397.html)

So let's forget a third runway and build a ****ing garden. Before you ask, it's not costed. And all the LHR jobs, well who knows where they went, but see the pretty flowers? Politicians need to take some tough and very necessary decisions today and stop putting them off. We've already mortagegd our kids futures, can we at least not dump on our grand kids?