Quote: "1: That connecting traffic will remain, because under my plan LGW (which is the reverse of now) will receive the same amount of domestic destinations as LHR, which will also have a similar frequency, however due to the fact LGW will remain a smaller hub then BA’s hub at LHR, the planes used will be on average smaller than the ones used at LHR (maybe even E-Jets and Turboprops), that will sort out connections/transfers"
Not so, domestic feeder flights (and others) to/from LGW are being reduced, there is not enough connectivity.
Quote: "2: Doe’s it really matter if BA only operates flights to LAS from LGW, if there is no alternative from LHR? (LHR is preferred, without a doubt)
BA make good money on LAS flights from LHR as well, why should it stop?
Quote: "3: As I suggested on point 1, transfer connections would be included in this plan, also since this routes are currently only accessible though other airports, it would not matter if it comes from LHR
What!? Explain please.
Quote: "4: The trouble is that there is a lack of space at LHR for all the airlines that want to serve and if there is space, the competition is fierce, remember China Southern (which is larger than VN and a ST member as well) as only got access to LHR and if they find it hard to enter LHR, how are Vietnam Airline’s get into LHR unless they spend a lot of money (do they have that much and can they justify it to their owners) and even then it would be hard to find anyone willing to sell, also if slots do come up for sale, you can be sure BA will bid for those slots"
CZ was never at LGW, VN is at present and like many before it, will transfer to LHR in the fullness of time. Only remedy slots are "bid for". Any carrier can buy, lease or sell slots to another, so BA wouldn't neccessarily know about it. Of course all this nonsense could be reduced or eliminated with 2 more rwys.
Quote: "Look, I feel that LGW is not right for BA and all their operations should be located LHR, but the trouble (as I have stated) is that there is a lack of space at LHR and that’s not going to change for some time"
Am looking! BA are at LGW for just 2 reasons, (1) the base and its infrastructure was inherited from BCAL, and (2) insufficient capacity at the LHR hub (as you state).
Quote: "Even if BA holds 70% of the slots at LHR (which is the unofficial legal limit), it still will not be enough to provide enough routes to compete with LH/LX/OS/SN and AF/KL, because the airports they have their hubs can deal with more take-offs/landings than at LHR
Why is 70% the "unofficial legal limit"? Who says and who set it? Any evidence to back this up?
Quote: "So until R3/R4 is built, BA has to expand elsewhere in London (the regions just don’t cut it) and the second best airport that serves London is Gatwick and BA has to accept this, so a hub for existing (minor) routes and future routes where BA is either the only operator or the competition is at LGW is not a bad idea as a “stopgap” until LHR is expanded, only then will BA can finally leave Gatwick for good and consolidate at LHR and LCY
BA has no choice but to work around the current system if it wants to stay competitive in this aggressive, deregulated and fragmented market, it can demand changes to the system, but it cannot wait for it to happen"
Sorry to be a party-pooper, but it has to be said that BA probably have a good idea about how to organise their operations in an environment of scarce resources at their hub and it looks logical. It has been doing this for long enough, so why do you know better?
Quote: "There are better people for the job of Transport Secretary, but what I am saying is that I (a inexperienced college student) would do a better job than pretty much all the people who have done it in the past and who are doing it right now, unlike those people (who have used the position as a stepping stone for higher office) I want to do the job because I care and have a interest in Transportation in this country
Are you really saying that the "inexperienced college student" would make a better transport secretary?
Quote: "Yes I would face the same pressures and obstacles, but I would work round it and be aggressive enough to challenge those pressures and obstacles, as for my “support” for THA, well I have made it clear I only support the idea if LHR expansion remains politically impossible, the reason is not because I don’t want to “face down” the Anti-LHR Expansion lobby (In face I will challenge them pretty aggressively on all their points), the problem (if I was Transport Secretary) is the fact my bosses (in other worlds No 10) cannot find the will to challenge the lobby and approve it
That is why I have been suggesting THA, as a way to get round the problem, rather than do nothing…"
By even mentioning Silver Island (you call it THA) and having an elaborate (but unfortunately completely hair-brained) scheme to ensure it happens, you are demonstrating that you actually do not have the courage of your convictions (that LHR needs 2 more rwys), and would be too weak to face down the anti-LHR Expansion lobby. In that respect you would be the same as those you criticise.
Quote: "As for what I would do for the railways, I would maintain a high level of investment and bring back the railways under state control"
Well that's original! How would it be funded? higher fares, higher taxes in general, a specific rail passenger duty, more government borrowing?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 21st Dec 2012 at 18:44.