Fairdealfrank
Here is a tip for you, if you want to quote text on the second row when you are replaying the fifteenth icon from left to right is a quote button and just past the text in.
Many thanks for the advice,
j636, got it to work at last!!
1. If R3 was ruled out by the politicians, I should have thought some version of the 2 plus 2 plus 2 model is favourite. We shall see.
2. If R3 was ruled out, slot prices will increase exponentially at Heathrow. In that situation, carriers will reappraise the value to them relative to the value of trading. That's happened in the past, and there's further scope for it to happen in the future. Might be minnows, might be switches of long haul bucket and spade out of Heathrow by the big boys.
3. Possibly I agree that in the scenario I outlined, Gatwick is the overflow. All I'm saying is that sooner or later market processes will kick in. If capacity rationing drives ticket prices up at Heathrow, traffic will spread out more than otherwise would happen. LNIDA's comment about NAS suggests just one way the process might begin. Again we shall see.
1. The Airports Commission is supposed to be neutral and should therefore give due consideration to the best remedy to the lack of hub capacity in the UK. Time will tell, we should have some idea by the end of the year.
The "
2 plus 2 plus 2 model" would be a disaster, as would a four-rwy STN or a vanity project in the Thames. For the last two, think YMQ!
2. In the event of slot prices rising, it will effect new entrants and existing carriers who wish to increase their LHR offerings.
Those in the first category may well end up avoiding the UK if they can't get the required slots at an acceptable price. Some have tried LGW as an alternative and, in the majority of cases, it hasn't been successful.
Those in the second category will be stuck, but again, apart from the hub carriers BA and VS, it is unlikely they would want the expense of a dual operation for one city.
3. Speculation about a DY LGW-JFK service is irrelevant in this case: DY has never attempted to obtain LHR slots.
As mentioned many times before, movement tends to be from LGW to LHR, not the other way around.
If the status quo at LHR doesn't change (i.e. no third rwy and capacity rationing remaining as it is now) why would this pattern of carrier movement change?