If there is to be a secondary hub in the UK, it would almost certainly be at MAN. Would be brilliant to see BA or any UK carrier operating a longhaul hub, but BA have ruled it out. Why? Because they reckon they can't make money. No other UK airline has filled the gap. Why? Probably the same reason. BD attempted trans-Atlantic from MAN but abandoned it fairly quickly.
What can the Commission recommend? The conditions at MAN are already favourable for longhaul, and there's plenty of capacity. How's the government going to square the circle? Axeing APD would be a start!
Maybe it could subsidise longhaul MAN operations on some PSO arrangement? That is highly unlikely given (1) the economic situation and (2) it goes against their belief in free markets.
Additionally, there would be doubtless be some unwarranted interference from Brussels.
Axing APD would not fix the problem MAN faces is that a large share of the wealth is in London and the South East, which is why BA and overseas carriers prefer to serve London over Manchester, plus having fragmented hubs would make some routes (which relay on connections) unviable from the UK
Remember LCCs have reduced yield to a extent that is its financially impossible for BA to offer anything more than to London and Medium-Long Haul is Hub-Spoke (hence done by overseas airlines), which make then viable
Most people don't know the difference between the DEFICIT and the National DEBT. Even journalists get them mixed up yet they are clearly two very different things with attributes and issues of their own.
The same error is being made here repeatedly in that two issues are being mixed together. The market already chooses MAN to a greater or lesser extent, once again people are bleating about trying to buck the market.
UK Airport Capacity and Strategic UK Hub Connectivity (LHR and nowhere else) are the two issues in question.
Building runways and terminals anywhere except LHR or closing LHR and bulding on a new site are the only two realistic options for addressing the second. However it is right that Manchester ought to fight it's own corner but I am at a loss as to what they are realistically expecting businesses to do. There is no business in the UK able to offer from MAN what is currently served by offshore ME based carriers, and rather well I might add. This all has squat to do with BA.
Great Post, bang on the point!
Good point, Skipness, everything else is irrelevant. Of the two options, only one addresses the problem now, while they both address it several years down the line. One makes good business sense, the other is a financial basket case and/or a waste of taxpayers' money.
Makes one wonder what the Commision will actually be doing for three years.
We have been debating this for at least a decade (and suggesting this for far longer), we know the pros and cons, now it is time for a decision now
I suggest Labour and Rebel Tories (with covert support from some high ranking Tories) should create a bill that would force though permission to allow a 3rd and 4th runway at LHR, they would have enough votes and the government can excuse this as a “rebellion”
I cannot see how the Anti-Expansion alliance is going to legally stop something that was done an elected parliament
I wasn't grouping them under regions as JER and IOM are not in the UK and are both offshore and NQY (with apologies to cornishsimon!) fell off my radar.
BA have now dropped ABZ, NCL, MAN, IOM and INV from LGW in recent years. There's not much domestic flying left and I can see both GLA and EDI being dropped if they continue to focus on sun routes. Indeed as LGW has pulled back, LCY has moved into these very markets as CFE move into ABZ and IOM.
I feel that BA should set a base for routes to new and current destinations (that either face no competition or no competition at LHR) at LGW until LHR is expanded and to make it work, it would be a lot more flights to regional destinations, such as Manchester and Aberdeen (the same goes for LHR)
Jersey and the Isle of Man might not be directly part of the UK, but due to the fact they are ultimately part of the UK, their proximately to the Great Britain and the face you don’t need a passport means they should be count as “Domestic”
The same goes for Ireland, although they are not if any way part of the UK, but have close historical links
No 3rd runway, no expansion at Gatwick or elsewhere. The present BA strategy is to concentrate on larger aircraft out of the two existing LHR runways.
What BA should also do is buying a lot more slots at both LHR and LGW, at LHR, they should look at Aer Lingus, TAM, Qantas, Finnair and Cathay Pacific (maybe Royal Jordan, Qatar Airways and Japan Airlines) as well for a start (along with buying Virgin Atlantic), as for LGW, they need look at Easyjet, Aer Lingus and Flybe
For LHR what BA need to do is launch more flights to the regions and Europe to allow better connections for its medium and long haul flights, they should also launch new routes (ones that either face competition from LHR or are the most profitable) towards South America, North Africa, East Asia/China, South East Asia, South Asia, East Africa, Middle East and Europe
At LGW, that is where the real change is, not only (via Easyjet, Flybe etc) would they gain routes Domestic and Europe wise, but they should launch most of the new routes (that face no competition at LHR) to the areas stated above, now remember this is only for the short and will move to LHR once it is expanded enough to fit those flights
Last edited by BALHR; 7th Dec 2012 at 12:18.