Q. I say, I say, I say, why did the Americans beat the Russians to the Moon?
A. Because America's Germans were better than Russia's Germans.
Or to be more accurate:
Q. I say, I say, I say, why did the Americans beat the Russians to "Area 51" Nevada?
A. Because America's Germans were better than Russia's Germans.
On a more serious note, the USA probably had plenty of architects, but not so many rocket scientists.
Fly through, Frank, fly through.
Through, to or from....it makes no difference.
Actually, at LHR, only about 30% are connecting pax flying through.
I keep telling you that the heart of these large national airports is the ability to interline from regional airports (and train stations), through the national hub, and on to locations all around the world. So the actual location of the new Silver-Boris hub-airport is not as critical as you think. A TGV line to London is the only real essential, although TGV lines to the north and west would be handy.
A TGV line isn't going to happen, the government does not have the cash. The government have made it clear that even a short spur from the Ruislip/Northolt section of HS2 to LHR is not going to happen.
LHR expansion, on the other hand, is a good business case and would be privately financed.
The best place for the "new Silver-Boris hub-airport" is (obviously) at LHR.
Why do you think that AMS is so large, when the Netherlands is so small?
Because of KL's policy of handling large numbers of transfer pax (over 70%) at AMS. A policy followed by SQ, FI, EK, etc., on various scales. It's the only way a small country can have a large carrier.
Every time i pass through there, the majority appear to be Brits interlining through from Bristol, Glasgow and Newcastle, because it is easier to go to AMS than trying to crawl your way down to LHR. And that is all revenue that is lost to UK carriers, lost to the City of London, and lost to UK PLC.
Thank you, Silver, for making my point for me, it's much appreciated!
This situation exists precisely because of the failure to expand LHR, a policy which, directly or indirectly, has seen the demise of many UK carriers.
Because LHR did not expand when it should have (1970s onwards) the number of domestic connections declined, and because of an open skies policy between the UK and the Netherlands since 1984, KL was able to fill the gap.
It saw an opportunity and took advantage. In 2014, LHR is connected to just 7 UK airports; AMS (and DUB) to well over 20.
As you say, this was and is revenue lost to UK carriers, to the City of London, to UK PLC as well as the wider UK economy.
It's also a way of avoiding the punitive UK Airline Passenger Duty on the long haul part of the journey.
Only if the journey is broken for at least 24 hours, and who wouldn't want 24 hours in Amsrerdam?, or separate bookings are made (with the consequent loss of checked through luggage and missed connection protection).
Someone does need to get a grip and with T2 at LHR open and runway 3 going to be approved whether you like it or not, progress is being made. Crossrail is also added into the mix as well, none of this coming cheaply.
With all the new infrastructure built or under construction, it would be crazy
not to approve LHR expansion, but don't hold your breath.
The flock of pigs is still flying overhead......